/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200708.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, July 8, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 136

                            Headlines

24 CAPITAL: Peters Broadcast Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
A-S MEDICATION: Seeks 7th Cir. Review of Ruling in PHI TCPA Suit
A10 CAPITAL LLC: Fruci & Associates Seeks to Recover Agent Fees
ACCORDIA LIFE: Settles Class Action Over Insurance Policies
ADVANTIS MEDICAL: Ashlock Seeks Unpaid Wages, Overtime for Staff

AEROCARE HOME: Hopkins Settlement Approved, Class Certified
AFFILION LLC: Armijo Appeals D.N.M. Ruling to Tenth Circuit
AIR METHODS: Faces Dearborn Suit in Middle District of Georgia
ALL IN CREDIT UNION: Watford Files Suit in Alabama
AMBULNZ HEALTH: Fails to Pay EMTs' Full Wages, Richard Suit Says

ANNE PRECYTHE: Asks Court to Decertify Class
AUBURN UNIVERSITY: Bailey Files Suit in Alabama
BAGDAD MINI WAREHOUSES: Gilkerson Sues for Misclassification
BAIT AND HOOK: Cooks File Suit Over Denied OT Pay, Minimum Wages
BANKAMERICA CORP: 8th Cir. Upheld Denial of Settlement Fund Payment

BAYER: Settles Roundup Cancer Claims for AUD15.9 Billion
BC PARTNERS: Faces FNY Suit Over Alleged Insider Trading
BEVMO! INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Brooks Suit Claims
BOMBAS LLC: Faces Pygin Breach Suit Over Failure to Protect PII
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Sacro Appeals Callahan Suit Ruling to 9th Cir.

CABOT OIL: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Violations
CAMPOS GROUP: Denied Construction Workers Overtime Pay, Says Suit
CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY: Desai Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
CELLULAR SALES: Holick Appeals Order in FLSA Suit to 2nd Circuit
CHART INDUSTRIES: Women's Bid for Class Certification Rejected

CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Automatic Seafood Files Class Action
CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of August 17 Deadline
CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action
CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Suit
CO-DIAGNOSTICS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Aug. 17 Motion Deadline

COGNIZANT: Judge to Seek Hiatus in Foreign Bribery Class Action
CREDIT CORP: Mikhael Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York
CURA CS: Blackford Suit Moved From Cir. Ct. to District of Oregon
CYTOMX THERAPEUTICS: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of July 20 Deadline
DEFALCO CONSTRUCTION: Faces Matute Suit in New York Supreme Court

DELTA DENTAL: Premiere Dental Sues Over Anticompetitive Conduct
EASYJET: Data Breach Class Action Damages Valued Up to GBP18BB
ELLEVEN45 LOUNGE: Williams Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
ENDO INT'L: Schall Law Files Securities Class Action Suit
ENGELHARDT & CO : Faces Colceriu Fraud Suit in M.D. Florida

ENPHASE ENERGY: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action
ENPHASE ENERGY: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Aug. 17 Motion Deadline
ENPHASE ENERGY: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Class Action Lawsuit
ERIE INSURANCE: Pleasant Food Sues Over Denial of All Claims
ESTATES LLC: Averts Foreclosure Auction Rigging Class Action

FINANCIAL ASSET: Johnson Alleges Violation under FDCPA
FLORIDA SOUTHERN COLLEGE: Salerno Suit Transferred to M. D. Fla.
FRANCESCA'S: Court Directs 151 Plaintiffs to Arbitrate Wage Claims
GLEN MILLS: Faces Class Action Over Children Abuse
GLENS FALLS: Richard Sues Over Wrongfully Charged Overdraft Fees

GLOBAL TELLINK: Conspired to Fix ICS Prices, Albert et al. Claim
GOOGLE INC: Sued for Inflating Prices for Digital Ads
GRAND CANYON: ClaimsFiler Reminds of July 13 Motion Deadline
GRAND CANYON: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 13 Motion Deadline
HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over Online Classes

HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Aug. 10 Deadline
HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of Class Action
HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Aug. 7 Motion Deadline
HIGHLAND CAPITAL: Lanotte Appeals N.D. Texas Decision to 5th Cir.
HOLLAND AMERICA: Lieff Cabraser Et Al. File Class Action

I AND D: Erazo Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under NYLL and FLSA
INDONESIA: Workers File Class Action Over Covid-19 Crisis
JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: Facing Xyrem(R) Related Class Suits
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Yadgar Asserts Breach of FDCPA
KELLOGG SALES: Judge Dismisses Vanilla Labeling Class Action

KIRKLAND LAKE: Brahms Sues Over Misleading Securities Statements
LOS ANGELES, CA: Protesters' Class Action Against LAPD Expanded
LUCKIN COFFEE: Bergenholtz Sues Over False IPO and SPO Statements
MAPFRE INSURANCE: Picot Files Class Suit in Mass.
MARKEL INSURANCE: Grant & Eisenhofer Files Class Action

MEDICAL DATA: Herringshaw Files FDCPA Suit in Nevada
MEDTRONIC PLC: Class Certification Bid in Covidien Suit Denied
MERCEDES-BENZ: Faces Class Action Over Sunroof Breakage
MERCY HEALTH: 8th Cir. Reverses in Part Dismissal of Sanzone Suit
MIDLAND CREDIT: Galea Asserts Breach of FDCPA in Michigan

MIDLAND CREDIT: Shulman Alleges Violation under FDCPA
MONSANTO CO: Settlement Includes Money for Cleanup of PCBs
MONSANTO CO: Settles PCB Water Contamination Claims
MYLAN NV: Defending Suits Over Misleading Proxy Statement
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Grant House Files Antitrust Suit in Calif.

NEVADA: Class Action Over Coronavirus Unemployment Claims Pending
NORTHSTAR REALTY: Intervention Motion Denial in Boothe Suit Upheld
NORTHWOOD MANOR: Nova Scotia Added as Class Action Defendant
OHIO UNIVERSITY: Class Action Seeks Refund on Tuition, Fees
OKLAHOMA: OMMA Sued Over Medical Marijuana License Changes

OLYMPUS CORP: Mismanaged Pension Plan, Leone et al. Say
ORACLE CORP: Hearing on Dismissal Bids Set for September 24
PARAGON COIN: Court Accepts Petition for Securities Class Action
PELICAN WASTE: Verrett Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action
PLAID INC: Curtis et al. Sue Over Collection of Banking Data

PORTLAND, OR: Protesters Slam Use of Tear Gas on Protests
PRINCESS CRUISE: Passengers Slam Mismanaged COVID-19 Outbreak
PROPETRO HOLDING: Continues to Defend Logan Class Suit
QUALITY CUSTOM: Fails to Pay Truck Drivers' OT Wages, Fetch Says
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Mismanaged Pension Plan, Johnson Claims

ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Seeks Dismissal of Molchun Covid-19 Class Action
RYDER SYSTEM: Bragar Eagel Reminds of July 20 Motion Deadline
RYDER SYSTEM: Vincent Wong Reminds of July 20 Motion Deadline
SA POWER: Bushfire Victims File Class Action in SA Supreme Court
SACRAMENTO, CA: Violates Constitutional Rights, Ruiz Suit Says

SANIMAX USA: Settles Class Action Over Noxious Plant Odors
SANTAM: Claimants to Head to Court as Part of Class Action
SEATTLESAYING, WA: "Autonomous Zone" Businesses File Class Action
SEE'S CANDIES: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Brooks Claims
SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of July 27 Deadline

STATE STREET: Judge to Defend Decision to Deduct Attorney Fees
STEPHEN EINSTEIN & ASSOCIATES: Sabel Files FDCPA Suit in New York
STONEY CLOVER LANE: Bunting Alleges Violation under ADA
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Anderson Seeks Recall of All Defective Vehicles
SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: Adams Asserts Breach of FDCPA

TARO PHARMA: Facing Opioid Related Suit in Israel
TARO PHARMA: Putative Class Action Suit in Israel Ongoing
TARO PHARMA: Subsidiaries Facing Putative Class Suit in Canada
TRAVELPORT LP: 11th Cir. Reverses in Part Williamson Suit Dismissal
UNION PACIFIC: 8th Cir. Reverse Class Certification in Harris

UNITED STATES OIL: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Suit
UNITED STATES: Fails to Protect Small Biz From COVID, NOLC Claims
UNITED STATES: HHS Opposes Class Treatment in Abortion Billing Suit
UNITED STATES: Prelim Injunction in Padilla Suit Partly Upheld
UNITED STATES: Wolf Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Roman Suit

UNUM GROUP: Taylor PFRS Appeals Order in Pittman Suit to 6th Cir.
VITOL INC: Gennaro Sues Over Rigged Gas Prices
VOX MEDIA: Reddington Seeks Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
WELLS FARGO: Guofeng Ma Hits Share Price Drop
WILLIS TOWERS: Halper Sadeh Reminds of Aug. 3 Motion Deadline

YOUNG LIVING ESSENTIAL: O'Shaughnessy Files RICO Class Suit in Utah
ZANKOU ENTERPRISES: Brooks Voluntarily Tossed Individual Claims
[*] Gross Law Firm Announces Shareholder Class Actions
[*] K&L Gates Attorneys Discuss Issues in Mass Arbitrations
[*] Privacy Class-Action Lawsuits to Increase by 300% in 2020

[*] Workers' Compensation to Insulate Employers From Virus Suits

                            *********

24 CAPITAL: Peters Broadcast Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as PETERS BROADCAST ENGINEERING
v. 24 CAPITAL FUNDING, LLC; JASON SANKOV; and JOHN DOES, Case No.
2:20-cv-03135-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order:

   1. certifying that this action may be maintained and proceed
      as a class action against the Defendants on behalf of;

      "all persons who were told by 24 Capital, LLC their
      merchant cash advance was against receivables and that
      borrowers had New York contacts";

   2. appointing the proposed class representative as class
      representative; and

   3. appointing Percy Squire as Counsel for the class.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Percy Squire, Esq.
          PERCY SQUIRE CO., LLC
          341 S. Third Street, Suite 10
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: 614 224-6528
          E-mail: psquire@sp-lawfirm.com

A-S MEDICATION: Seeks 7th Cir. Review of Ruling in PHI TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants A-S Medication Solutions, LLC, and Walter Hoff filed an
appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Physicians
Healthsource, Inc. v. A-S Medication Solutions, LLC, et al., Case
No. 1:12-cv-05105, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this Telephone
Consumer Protection Act case involves unsolicited advertisements
sent by fax. Physicians Healthsource filed the case in state court
in May 2012, and the Defendants removed it to federal court in June
2012. On Sept. 27, 2016, the judge to whom the case was previously
assigned certified a Plaintiff class consisting of those who were
successfully sent the advertisement between Feb. 10 and Feb. 28,
2010. In mid-October 2017, the case was transferred to Judge
Kennelly.

The appellate case is captioned as Physicians Healthsource, Inc. v.
A-S Medication Solutions, LLC, et al., Case No. 20-2096, in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript information sheet is due by July 9, 2020; and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before August 4, 2020 for
      A-S Medication Solutions, LLC and Walter Hoff.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee PHYSICIANS HEALTHSOURCE, INC., individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, is
represented by:

          Glenn L. Hara, Esq.
          Wallace C. Solberg, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008-0000
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          E-mail: ghara@andersonwanca.com
                  wsolberg@andersonwanca.com

Defendants-Appellants A-S MEDICATION SOLUTIONS, LLC, and WALTER
HOFF are represented by:

          Michael F. Coyle, Esq.
          FRASER STRYKER PC LLC
          409 S. Seventeenth Street
          500 Energy Plaza
          Omaha, NE 68102-2663
          Telephone: (402) 341-6000
          E-mail: mcoyle@fraserstryker.com


A10 CAPITAL LLC: Fruci & Associates Seeks to Recover Agent Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fruci & Associates, PS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. A10 Capital LLC, First Interstate
BancSystem, KeyBank N.A., Mountain West Bank, Numerica Credit
Union, Sound Community Bank, State Bank Northwest, U.S. Bank, NA,
Washington Trust Bank, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wheatland Bank,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00864 (W.D. Wash., June 6, 2020),
seeks compensation for PPP loan processing, for services rendered
on behalf of recipients of Small Business Administration.  The
lawsuit asserts violation of the CARES Act, breach of contract,
unjust enrichment and conversion.

On March 25, 2020, in response to the economic damage caused by the
COVID-19 crisis, the United States Senate passed the Coronavirus
Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act. This legislation
included $377 billion in federally-funded loans to small businesses
and a $500 billion governmental lending program, administered by
the United States Department of Treasury to provide support to
entrepreneurs and small businesses. Part of the CARES Act is the
"Paycheck Protection Program" (PPP) that provides small businesses
with loans to provide small businesses with eight weeks of
cash-flow assistance to fund payrolls. Said loans are administered
by Treasury, backed by the Federal Government, but funded by
private lenders, including the Defendants.

Fruci & Associates, PS, is a professional service corporation and
CPA firm. It sought to obtain PPP loans through the Defendants on
behalf of its clients and expected to be paid agent fees from the
Defendants upon funding of its clients' loans under the PPP.
However, it was denied these fees after the loans were released,
says the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Angus F. Ni, Esq.
      AFN LAW PLLC
      506 2nd Ave, Suite 1400
      Seattle, WA 98104
      Tel: (646) 453-7294
      Email: angus@afnlegal.com

ACCORDIA LIFE: Settles Class Action Over Insurance Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------
Holly Barker, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Accordia Life
and Annuity Co. has resolved a lawsuit alleging that it mismanaged
insurance policies when it transitioned to an electronic
documentation system administered by Alliance-One Services, Inc.,
after winning approval from the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of Illinois.

The settlement, approved on June 23 by Judge Colin S. Bruce,
provides for an uncapped fund, requiring the defendants to pay all
valid claims, regardless of cost. It also provides comprehensive
injunctive relief to remedy non-monetary harm related to the
botched conversion, including for policyholders who were
misinformed about their policy values. [GN]


ADVANTIS MEDICAL: Ashlock Seeks Unpaid Wages, Overtime for Staff
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL ASHLOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ADVANTIS MEDICAL STAFFING, LLC and DOES 1
through 50, Defendants, Case No. 37-2020-00022305-CU-OE-CTL (Cal.
Super., San Diego Cty., June 29, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code,
California Business and Professions Code, and the Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Order by failing to compensate the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees required
minimum wages and overtime pay, failing to provide required meal
and rest periods, failing to provide accurate itemized statements,
failing to reimburse employees for required expenses, and failing
to release wages when due.

The Plaintiff was employed by Advantis Medical Staffing in
California as a non-exempt employee from March 27, 2020 to April
23, 2020.

Advantis Medical Staffing, LLC is a staffing company based in
Dallas, Texas that recruits and places traveling nurses in medical
facilities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                 
         
         Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
         Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
         Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
         Nicholas J. De Blouw, Esq.
         BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
         2255 Calle Clara
         La Jolla, CA 92037
         Telephone: (858) 551-1223
         Facsimile: (858) 551-1232

AEROCARE HOME: Hopkins Settlement Approved, Class Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as LORI HOPKINS, et al. v.
AEROCARE HOME MEDICAL EQUIPMENT, INC., et. al., Case No.
2:19-CV-04054-NKL (Filed W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Nanette K.
Laughrey entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for class
      certification, in all respects;

   2. granting the Parties' joint motion for approval of Fair
      Labor Standards Act collective action settlement;

   3. approving the formula and method for distribution of
      notice to Class Members and disbursement of settlement
      payments;

   4. appointing CAC Services Group, LLC as the Claims
      Administrator;

   5. approving the Notice of Collective Action Settlement and
      Consent to Join Form; and

   6. approving unopposed requested service award of $5,000
      paid to each Representative Plaintiff (paid by the
      Defendants to each of the Plaintiff Lori Hopkins and Kila
      Hagler).

Aerocare is a medical retail store.[CC]

AFFILION LLC: Armijo Appeals D.N.M. Ruling to Tenth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Benjamin Armijo and Ofelia Ronquillo filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Armijo, et al. v.
Affilion, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-CV-00750-KG-GJF, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Mexico, Las Cruces.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Kevin R. Sweazea.

Affilion LLC is a Medical Group that has only one practice medical
office located in Las Cruces, New Mexico. There are 2 health care
providers, specializing in Emergency Medicine, Family Practice,
Internal Medicine, Physician Assistant, being reported as members
of the medical group.

The appellate case is captioned as Armijo, et al. v. Affilion, LLC,
et al., Case No. 20-2086, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Fee, docketing statement, and transcript order form is due
      by July 9, 2020, for Benjamin Armijo and Ofelia Ronquillo;
      and

   -- Notice of appearance is due on July 9, 2020, for Affilion,
      LLC, Benjamin Armijo, EmCare Holdings, Inc., EmCare, Inc.,
      Envision Healthcare Corporation, Envision Healthcare
      Holdings, Inc., and Ofelia Ronquillo.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants BENJAMIN ARMIJO and OFELIA RONQUILLO, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          H.C. Chang, Esq.
          Benjamin C. Feiler, Esq.
          Benjamin T. Landgraf, Esq.
          Jack E. McGehee, Esq.
          MCGEHEE CHANG LANDGRAF
          10370 Richmond Avenue, Suite 1300
          Houston, TX 77042
          Telephone: (713) 864-4000
          E-mail: hcchang@lawtx.com
                  bfeiler@lawtx.com
                  blandgraf@lawtx.com
                  jmcgehee@lawtx.com

Defendants-Appellees AFFILION, LLC, EMCARE, INC., EMCARE HOLDINGS,
INC., ENVISION HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, and ENVISION HEALTHCARE
HOLDINGS, INC. are represented by:

          Stefan R. Chacon, Esq.
          Jesse D. Hale, Esq.
          SUTIN THAYER & BROWNE
          6100 Uptown Boulevard NE, Suite 400
          Albuquerque, NM 87110
          Telephone: (505) 883-2500
          E-mail: SRC@sutinfirm.com
                  JEH@sutinfirm.com

               - and -

          David Jacobs, Esq.
          Brock Seraphin, Esq.
          EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-8861
          E-mail: djacobs@ebglaw.com
                  bseraphin@ebglaw.com

               - and -

          Jonah Retzinger, Esq.
          EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN
          1227 25th Street, NW, Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 861-0900
          E-mail: jretzinger@ebglaw.com


AIR METHODS: Faces Dearborn Suit in Middle District of Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Air Methods
Corporation, et al. The case is captioned as MATTHEW DEARBORN,
GEORGE CAPPADONNA, and all others similarly situated v. AIR METHODS
CORPORATION and ROCKY MOUNTAIN HOLDINGS LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-00114-LAG (M.D. Ga., June 18, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner.

Air Methods is an American privately owned helicopter operator. The
air medical division provides emergency medical services to
70,000-100,000 patients every year, and operates in 48 states and
Haiti, and air medical continues to be its primary business focus.
Rocky Mountain provides air medical transportation services
utilizing a fleet of helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edward L. White, Esq.
          WHITE LAW
          829 E 33rd St.
          Edmond, OK 73013
          Telephone: (405) 810-8188
          E-mail: ed@edwhitelaw.com

               - and -

          Richard Joseph Burke, Esq.
          Zachary Allen Jacobs, Esq.
          QUANTAM LEGAL LLC
          513 Central Ave., Ste. 300
          Highland Park, IL 60035
          Telephone: (847) 433-4500
          E-mail: richard@qulegal.com
                  zachary@qulegal.com

               - and -

          Mario Anthony Pacella, Esq.
          STROM LAW
          P.O. Box 1635
          Brunswick, GA 31521
          Telephone: (912) 264-6465
          E-mail: mpacella@stromlaw.com


ALL IN CREDIT UNION: Watford Files Suit in Alabama
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against All In Credit Union.
The case is styled as Teresa Watford, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. All In Credit Union,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00461-RAH-SMD (M.D. Ala., June 30,
2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Banks and
Banking filed over Diversity-Breach of Contract.

All In Credit Union is a banking institution.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Frank Jerome Tapley, Esq.
   Cory Watson PC
   2131 Magnolia Avenue South; Suite 200
   Birmingham, AL 35205
   Tel: (205) 328-2200
   Fax: (205) 324-7896
   Email: jtapley@corywatson.com

      - and -

   Hirlye Ray Lutz , III, Esq.
   Cory Watson PC
   2131 Magnolia Avenue South
   Birmingham, AL 35205
   Tel: (205) 328-2200
   Fax: (205) 324-7896
   Email: rlutz@corywatson.com




AMBULNZ HEALTH: Fails to Pay EMTs' Full Wages, Richard Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES RICHARD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. AMBULNZ HEALTH, LLC and AMBULNZ TN, LLC, Case No.
510337/2020 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., June 17, 2020), alleges that
the Defendants systematically failed to pay the Plaintiff and
similarly-situated Emergency Medical Technicians and paramedics
their full wages for all hours worked while deployed in New York
City, as well as all hours spent traveling to and from New York
City.

During the most serious pandemic in a century, the Plaintiff and
his coworkers--EMTs and paramedics--answered the call of duty by
putting their lives at risk and traveling from their homes in
Tennessee, Arizona, Colorado, and California, among other states
around the country, to provide desperately needed life-saving
support to the residents of New York City, according to the
complaint. The work was so dangerous that at least one paramedic
died after contracting COVID-19 during his deployment to New York
City.

The Plaintiff has been employed by Ambulnz as an EMT from February
27, 2020, through the present. The Plaintiff was deployed to New
York City by Ambulnz from April 2, 2020, through April 30, 2020, as
part of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. While deployed in
New York, he says he regularly worked, and was required to work by
Ambulnz, 168 hours per workweek--or 24 hours per day for every day
of his deployment.

In recognition of its unlawful and unjust failure to pay him and
similarly-situated EMTs and paramedics their full wages, the
Plaintiff alleges that Ambulnz has taken the extraordinary step of
coercing all of its employees to sign general release agreements,
which purportedly give up the right to seek recovery of unpaid
wages. Any release agreements signed by Ambulnz employees are the
result of duress, contravene the New York Labor Law's prohibition
on workers waiving their entitlements to be paid for hours worked,
and are invalid, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of himself and all
similarly-situated individuals to seek recovery for violations of
New York Labor Law.

Ambulnz is ambulance services provider.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq.
          Michael C. DannaMichael C. Danna
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          601 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Ste. 200W
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: 202-847-4400
          E-mail: sabrahamson@outtengolden.com
                  mdanna@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Jonathan A. Street, Esq.
          Curt Masker, Esq.
          EMPLOYMENT & CONSUMER LAW GROUP
          1720 West End Avenue, Suite 402
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: 615-850-0632
          E-mail: street@eclaw.com
                  curt@eclaw.com


ANNE PRECYTHE: Asks Court to Decertify Class
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as STEPHANIE GASCA, et al. v.
ANNE PRECYTHE, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-04149-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the
Defendants ask the Court for an order decertifying class.

In a June 18 order, District Judge Stephen R. Bough granted
Plaintiffs' oral motion to extend the deadline to respond to
Defendants' Motion to Decertify the Class.  Plaintiffs are directed
to file their response to Defendants' Motion to Decertify the Class
on or before July 10. Defendants are directed to file their reply
on or before July 24.

The case alleges violation of Prisoners' Civil Rights.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeremiah J. Morgan, Esq.
          Michael Pritchett, Esq.
          Matthew Kimminau, Esq.
          P.O. Box 899 Jefferson City, MO
          Telephone: (573) 751-8864
          Facsimile: (573) 751-9546
          E-mail: Jeremiah.Morgan@ago.mo.gov
                  Michael.Pritchett@ago.mo.gov
                  Matthew.Kimminau@ago.mo.gov

AUBURN UNIVERSITY: Bailey Files Suit in Alabama
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Auburn University.
The case is styled as Steven Bailey, on behalf of himself and other
individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Auburn University and
other affiliated entitles and individuals, Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-00457-ECM-WC (M.D. Ala., June 30, 2020).

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

Auburn University (AU or Auburn) is a public research and
land-grant university in Auburn, Alabama.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
   Leeds Brown Law PC
   One Old Country Road; Suite 347
   Carle Place, NY 11514
   Tel: (516) 873-9550

     - and -

   Jeffery K. Brown, Esq.
   Leeds Brown Law PC
   One Old Country Road; Suite 347
   Carle Place, NY 11514
   Tel: (516) 873-9550

     - and -

   Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
   Leeds Brown Law PC
   One Old Country Road; Suite 347
   Carle Place, NY 11514
   Tel: (516) 873-9550

     - and -

   Oscar M Price, IV, Esq.
   Price Armstrong
   2226 1st Avenue South, Suite 105
   Birmingham, AL 35213
   Tel: (205) 208-9588
   Fax: (205) 208-9598
   Email: oscar@pricearmstrong.com



BAGDAD MINI WAREHOUSES: Gilkerson Sues for Misclassification
------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Gilkerson, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bagdad Mini Warehouses and RV Storage,
Inc., Bobby O'Neil, individually and Debbie O'Neil, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-05522 (N.D. Fla., June 5, 2020), seeks
actual and/or compensatory damages, civil penalties, restitution,
equitable relief, costs and expenses of litigation, including
attorneys' fees, and all additional and further relief for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, including declaratory
relief, damages, penalties, equitable relief, costs and attorneys'
fees.

Bagdad offers services such as climate controlled storage,
non-climate controlled storage, moving supplies and truck and
trailer U-Haul rentals where Gilkerson was required to transport
Defendants' minor children to various locations throughout Santa
Rosa County. She claims to be improperly classified as an
independent contractor and denied overtime pay for hours in excess
of 40 hours per work week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jordan Richards, Esq.
      USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS - JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
      805 E. Broward Blvd. Suite 301
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Tel: (954) 871-0050
      Email: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
             Melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com
             Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com


BAIT AND HOOK: Cooks File Suit Over Denied OT Pay, Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis A. Gonzalez and Julio Sanchez Espinoza, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. H.K. Second Ave.
Restaurant Inc., Shaheen Khan and Maha Khondoker, Defendants, Case
No. 20-cv-04271 (S.D. N.Y., June 4, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum and overtime wages and redress for failure to provide
itemized wage statements pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a seafood restaurant,
located at 231 2nd Ave., New York, NY 10003 under the name "Bait &
Hook" where Gonzalez and Espinoza where employed as cooks. They
claim to be paid below the mandatory minimum wage rate and
regularly worked excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
overtime compensation for the hours that he worked in excess of 40
per workweek. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BANKAMERICA CORP: 8th Cir. Upheld Denial of Settlement Fund Payment
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned In re: BankAmerica Corporation Michael B.
Minton, Movant Appellant, Case No. 19-2968 (8th Cir.), the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district
court's denial of the 2018 motion of Michael Minton, the trustee of
the Jack W. Minton Living Trust, seeking payment from a 2002 class
action settlement fund.  It concluded that the district court did
not abuse its discretion by denying the motion and declining to
reopen litigation in the case.

A full-text copy of the Eight Circuit's March 27, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/ihguxU from Leagle.com.


BAYER: Settles Roundup Cancer Claims for AUD15.9 Billion
--------------------------------------------------------
Lucy Barbour and Kath Sullivan, writing for ABC Rural, report that
global pharmaceutical giant Bayer will spend up to US$10.9 billion
(AU$15.87 billion) to settle thousands of lawsuits alleging the
company's weedkiller, Roundup, causes cancer.

The Germany-based company, which bought Roundup maker Monsanto two
years ago, said the settlement would cover about 95,000 cases.

Many of the claims were filed by homeowners and groundskeepers, but
the company still faces thousands more claims from people who have
not agreed to settle.

The overall sum includes US$1.25b (AU$1.82 billion) to settle
potential future litigation, which the company has proposed would
be covered by a class agreement.

"First and foremost, the Roundup settlement is the right action at
the right time for Bayer to bring a long period of uncertainty to
an end," chief executive Werner Baumann said.

"It is financially reasonable when viewed against the significant
financial risks of continued, multi-year litigation and the related
impacts to our reputation and to our business."

Bayer will also pay US$800 million (AU$1.16 billion) to settle
claims involving the highly carcinogenic substance polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), which have been found in US waterways and which
Monsanto used to make.

Another US$400 million (AU$582 million) will go towards settling
cases relating to damage caused to crops after the weedkiller
Dicamba drifted onto nearby farms, killing plants not resistant to
the herbicide.

Only in the US: Lawyer

Kenneth Feinberg, the US court-appointed mediator working to settle
current and future claims, told the ABC it was "quite a challenging
day".

"Despite the pandemic, despite the fact the courts are closed, we
managed and secured a very exciting and challenging settlement for
95,000 current individuals claiming cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
(NHL), due to Roundup exposure," he said.

"At the same time, Bayer filed a class action in San Francisco that
would resolve all future claims of individuals who use Roundup but
have not yet manifested NHL, and created a special science panel
which, over the next four years, will study Roundup and render a
decision on whether or not the herbicide really does cause NHL."

Mr. Feinberg said the settlement was unlikely to influence other
actions.

"I would be dubious about any presumptions that this is a precedent
for settling in other locations around the world," he said.

"I think the Roundup litigation in the US was so problematic to the
company, to Bayer, that it decided it was in its business interests
to settle here.

"In my experience over the last 40 years, companies that settle in
the United States, they settle because the alternative is American
trials, American juries -- years of protracted, uncertain
litigation.

'No direct impact on Australian case'

The settlement will be of interest to claimants behind an
Australian class action, which alleges Monsanto knew or should have
known that Roundup was inherently unsafe and that the company
failed to provide suitable directions for use.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn has launched a class action against
Monsanto on behalf of people diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
in Australia.

Following the US decision, its head of class actions, Andrew
Watson, said he hoped Bayer would take a similar approach to the
litigation in Australia.

"It is obviously very welcome news for those US victims who have
developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma through their exposure to
Roundup," Mr. Watson said.

"But as with most settlements, it's a settlement made without
admission of liability and so it has no direct impact on our
Australian case."

Roundup 'perfectly safe': Littleproud

Bayer has consistently denied allegations of the link between
Roundup and cancer.

Earlier this year, the US Environmental Protection Agency found
glyphosate was "unlikely to be a human carcinogen".

The EPA said it "did not identify any human health risks from
exposure".

Bayer, which bought Monsanto in 2018 for US$63 billion (AU$91.7
billion), said the settlement did not apply to three cases which it
lost in US courts and said it would continue to appeal those
verdicts.

US courts ruled against Monsanto in large part because they did not
properly warn people to wear protective clothing when they applied
the weedkiller.

This morning Agriculture Minister David Littleproud assured
Australians that glyphosate that was a safe product.

"The standards and the labelling in the United States is different
to Australia," Mr Littleproud said.

"The APVMA as the regulator makes sure the directions and the
labelling on glyphosate products is quite clear.

"I say to all Australians, it is quite safe if you follow the
directions.

"Our regulations, and our regulatory reform, is as robust as anyone
in the world.

"I am confident the APVMA has provided the right directions, I am
confident if Australians use it as per the label it is perfectly
safe." [GN]


BC PARTNERS: Faces FNY Suit Over Alleged Insider Trading
---------------------------------------------------------
FNY Partners Fund LP, FNY Managed Accounts LLC and Infinity Capital
Markets Limited, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. BC Partners LLP, Silver Lake Group,
L.L.C., Raymond Svider and Justin Bateman, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-03741 (N.D. Cal., June 5, 2020), seeks damages for violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

FNY Partners Fund LP, FNY Managed Accounts LLC and Infinity Capital
Markets Limited purchased Intelsat S.A. common stock. Intelsat is a
satellite operator and diversified communication services firm
developed for the purpose of operating and providing access to
international telecommunications satellites on a commercial basis.
Defendants were accused of insider trading when BC Partners and
Silver Lake Partners purchased approximately 10 million shares of
Intelsat stock at a price of $24.60 per share or $246 million in
total, which represented a 6% discount off of the closing price
that day, and instructed their broker Morgan Stanley to announce
that buyers only had one hour to decide to make the purchase.

Earlier, Intelsat and other fixed satellite operators engaged in an
administrative proceeding with the FCC to determine whether a
portion of the spectrum in the 3.7 to 4.2 gigahertz band should be
unlocked for use by carriers for 5G broadband purposes. They
proposed a private sale process that would place Intelsat in a
prime position to capitalize on this spectrum and raised its target
price for Intelsat stock from $5 to $30 per share. Said shares were
sold the next day to investors who had no idea what had
transpired.

On November 18, 2019, the FCC announced that the private sale was
off and that a public auction would be held instead, which meant
that Intelsat would get far less than the billions of dollars
expected for its share of the spectrum.

Over the course of just two days following the announcement, the
price of Intelsat common stock plunged by nearly 80%, erasing more
than $700 million in market capitalization. By offloading
significant holdings of Intelsat common stock ahead of the FCC's
announcement, BC Partners and Silver Lake, who were also parties to
joint shareholding agreements, avoided approximately $185 million
in losses. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
      ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
      299 Park Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 894-7200
      Facsimile: (212) 894-7272
      Email: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com

             - and -

      Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
      Krysta Kauble Pachman, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
      1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
      Los Angeles, CA 90067-4405
      Telephone: (310) 789-3100
      Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
      Email: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
             kpachman@susmangodfrey.com


BEVMO! INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Brooks Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BEVMO! INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01216-MCE-DB (E.D. Cal., June 17,
2020), asserts claims against Bevmo! for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its Web site,
https://www.bevmo.com/, to be fully and equally accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' denial of full and
equal access to its Web site, and therefore denial of its products
and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of her rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Because the Defendants' Web site is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the ADA,
the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendants' corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendants' Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments,
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people, who meet this definition, have limited vision.
Others have no vision.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the County of Sacramento. She is a
legally blind, visually-impaired handicapped person.

BevMo! is a privately held corporation based in Concord,
California, selling mainly alcoholic beverages. The Company was
founded in January 1994 as Beverages & More! in the San Francisco
Bay Area, and re-branded as "BevMo!" in January 2001. By October
2009, the Company had 100 stores in Arizona and California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          Thiago Coelho, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: classaction@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com


BOMBAS LLC: Faces Pygin Breach Suit Over Failure to Protect PII
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Pygin, an individual and California resident, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. BOMBAS, LLC, SHOPIFY
(USA) INC. and SHOPIFY, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-04412 (N.D. Cal.,
July 1, 2020), is brought on behalf of all persons whose personally
identifiable information was compromised as a result of the
Defendants' failure to adequately protect users' PII.

The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants failed to warn users
of their inadequate information security practices, and to
effectively monitor Bombas' Web site and Shopify ecommerce platform
for security vulnerabilities and incidents.

On June 3, 2020, Bombas notified customers and state Attorneys
General about a widespread data breach that occurred over four
years earlier, from November 11, 2016, to February 16, 2017 (the
"Data Breach"). Hackers not only "scraped" many of Bombas'
customers' names from the Web site by infecting it with a
"malicious code," hackers also stole customers' addresses and
payment card information, which likely included payment card
numbers, CVV security codes, and payment card expiration dates. The
hackers got everything they needed to illegally use Bombas'
customers' payment cards to make fraudulent purchases, and to steal
the customers' identities.

All of this PII was compromised due to Bombas' and Shopify's
negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and the failure to
protect customers' data, the Plaintiff contends. He avers that in
addition to their failure to prevent the breach, the Defendants
failed to detect and report the breach for almost four years.

According to the complaint, Bombas did not tell customers or the
Attorneys General about this March 2020 discovery until almost
three months later, on June 3, 2020. To this day, Shopify has not
released a vulnerabilities and exposures report, nor has Shopify
made any notifications of the breach. The stolen PII has great
value to hackers due to the numbers involved: It is likely that
this breach affected over a hundred thousand customers. For
example, the Washington State Attorney General reports that 2,313
Washingtonians were affected, the Indiana Attorney General reports
that 1,728, and the Iowa Attorney General reports 965 affected
citizens.

The Plaintiff says he has suffered injury as a result of the
Defendants' conduct. These injuries may include: lost or diminished
value of PII; out-of-pocket expenses associated with the
prevention, detection, and recovery from identity theft, tax fraud,
and/or unauthorized use of their PII; lost opportunity costs
associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of
the Data Breach, including lost time, deprivation of rights they
possess under the California Unfair Competition Law and the
California Consumer Privacy Act; the continued and certainly an
increased risk to their PII, which (a) may remain available on the
dark web for individuals to access and abuse, and (b) remains in
Defendants' possession and is subject to further unauthorized
disclosures so long as the Defendants fail to undertake appropriate
and adequate measures to protect the PII.

Plaintiff Pygin purchased items from Bombas' Web site between
November 11, 2016, and February 16, 2017.

Bombas specializes in selling socks through its popular Web
site.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
          Leslie Guillon, Esq.
          CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Phone: (916) 777-7777
          Fax: (916) 924-1829
          Email: aberry@justice4you.com

               - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 223-5505
          Fax: (813) 223-5402
          Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com


BROOKDALE SENIOR: Sacro Appeals Callahan Suit Ruling to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Intervenor Geneflor Sacro filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Carolyn Callahan v. Brookdale Senior
Living Commun, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-10726-VAP-SS, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought over alleged employment discriminatory practices.

The appellate case is captioned as Carolyn Callahan v. Brookdale
Senior Living Communities, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-55657, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appellant Geneflor Sacro's opening brief is due on
      August 24, 2020;

   -- Appellees BKD Personal Assistance Services, LLC, BKD
      Twenty-One Management Company, Inc., Brookdale Employee
      Services Corporate, LLC, Brookdale Employee Services, LLC,
      Brookdale Living Communities, Inc., Brookdale Senior Living
      Communities, Inc., Brookdale Senior Living, Inc., Brookdale
      Vehicle Holding, LLC, Carolyn D. Callahan, Does, Emeritus
      Corporation and Summerville at Atherton Court, LLC's
      answering brief is due on September 24, 2020; and

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

Movant-Appellant GENEFLOR SACRO, Proposed Intervenor, is
represented by:

          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

Plaintiff-Appellee CAROLYN D. CALLAHAN, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Andranik Tsarukyan, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 689-0404
          Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
          E-mail: andy.tsarukyan@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          Armen Zenjiryan, Esq.
          REMEDY LAW GROUP LLP
          610 East Providencia Avenue
          Burbank, CA 91501-2495
          Telephone: (818) 422-5941
          E-mail: armen@remedylawgroup.com

Defendants-Appellees BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITIES, INC., a
Delaware corporation, BROOKDALE EMPLOYEE SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware
corporation, BROOKDALE EMPLOYEE SERVICES CORPORATE, LLC, a Delaware
corporation, SUMMERVILLE AT ATHERTON COURT, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, BROOKDALE VEHICLE HOLDING, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, BKD PERSONAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, EMERITUS CORPORATION, a
Washington corporation, BROOKDALE LIVING COMMUNITIES, INC., a
Delaware corporation, BKD TWENTY-ONE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., a
Delaware corporation, and BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING, INC., a Delaware
corporation, are represented by:

          Shannon Rea Boyce, Esq.
          John Kevin Lilly, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          2049 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 712-7304
          E-mail: sboyce@littler.com
                  klilly@littler.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Joseph Mann, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600
          Walnut Creek, CA 94597
          Telephone: (925) 932-2468
          E-mail: jmann@littler.com


CABOT OIL: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investor rights law
firm, on June 23 disclosed that it has commenced an investigation
on behalf of Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation ("Cabot Oil" or "the
Company") (NYSE: COG) investors concerning the Company and its
officers' possible violations of the federal securities laws.

If you suffered a loss on your Cabot Oil investments or would like
to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/cabot-oil-gas-corporation/. You can
also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to
learn more about your rights.

On June 15, 2020, following a grand jury investigation, the
Pennsylvania attorney general's office charged Cabot Oil with 15
criminal counts due to its failure to fix faulty gas wells, which
polluted Pennsylvania's water supplies through stray gas
migration.

On this news, Cabot Oil's stock price fell $0.67 per share, or
3.34%, to close at $19.40 per share on June 15, 2020.

Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding
Cabot Oil should consider their options to aid the investigation or
take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC. For more information, call Charles H. Linehan at 310-201-9150
or 888-773-9224 or email shareholders@glancylaw.com.

                            About GPM

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is a premier law firm representing
investors and consumers in securities litigation and other complex
class action litigation. ISS Securities Class Action Services has
consistently ranked GPM in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report. In 2018,
GPM was ranked a top five law firm in number of securities class
action settlements, and a top six law firm for total dollar size of
settlements. With four offices across the country, GPM's nearly 40
attorneys have won groundbreaking rulings and recovered billions of
dollars for investors and consumers in securities, antitrust,
consumer, and employment class actions. GPM's lawyers have handled
cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including
cases involving financial restatements, internal control
weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and
forward looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading,
violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ
investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM's
attorneys have worked on securities cases relating to nearly all
industries and sectors in the financial markets, including, energy,
consumer discretionary, consumer staples, real estate and REITs,
financial, insurance, information technology, health care, biotech,
cryptocurrency, medical devices, and many more. GPM's past
successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry
publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times,
Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron's,
Investor's Business Daily, Forbes, and Money.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Contacts:

  Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
  Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
  www.glancylaw.com
  shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]


CAMPOS GROUP: Denied Construction Workers Overtime Pay, Says Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Canute Flo and Kla Thompson, on behalf of themselves and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Campos Group, Inc.,
Limiona, Inc., Kamari Group Inc., Chris Tsambouniaris and John Does
#1-10, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02506 (E.D. N.Y., June 4, 2020),
seeks compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory
minimum wage, unpaid wages from defendants for overtime work for
which they did not receive overtime premium pay as required by law
and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
New York Labor Law, "spread of hours" requirements of New York
Labor Law and statutory damages for violation of the Wage Theft
Prevention Act.

Defendants owned and operated construction companies with offices
in New York City where Plaintiffs worked as construction workers.
They regularly worked seven days per week typically working roughly
twelve-hour days, all without overtime pay. Defendants did not
provide a time clock, computer punch, timesheets, or any other
method for workers to track time worked. Defendants also failed to
provide written wage notices providing contact information, regular
and overtime rates and intended allowances claimed, says the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Stein, Esq.
      SAMUEL & STEIN
      38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
      New York, NY 10001
      Tel: (212) 563-9884
      Email: dstein@samuelandstein.com


CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY: Desai Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anokhy Desai, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Carnegie Mellon University, Defendant, Case
No. 20-cv-00844 (W.D. Pa., June 5, 2020), seeks disgorgement of all
amounts wrongfully obtained for tuition, fees, on-campus housing,
and meals, injunctive relief including enjoining Carnegie Mellon
from retaining the pro-rated, unused monies paid for tuition, fees,
on-campus housing and meals, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and
expenses, prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any amounts
awarded and such other and further relief as may be just and
proper, refunds of all tuition fees paid on a pro-rata basis,
together with other damages resulting from breach of contract and
unjust enrichment.

Carnegie Mellon University, is a private research university
located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania where Desai is enrolled for the
Spring 2020 semester at the University as a full-time Master of
Science in Information Security Policy graduate student. Carnegie
Mellon decided to close campus, constructively evict students, and
transition all classes to an online/remote format as a result of
the Novel Coronavirus Disease. Desai claims to be deprived the
benefits of in-person instruction, access to campus facilities,
student activities and other benefits and services in exchange for
which they had already paid fees and tuition. Carnegie Mellon
refused to provide reimbursement for the tuition, fees and other
costs. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
      Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
      Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
      James P. McGraw, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
      1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Tel: (412) 322-9243
      Fax: (412) 231-0246
      Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
             eciolko@carlsonlynch.com
             kiverson@carlsonlynch.com
             jmcgraw@carlsonlynch.com


CELLULAR SALES: Holick Appeals Order in FLSA Suit to 2nd Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jan P. Holick, Jr., Steven Moffitt, Jr., Justin Moffitt,
Gurwinder Singh, Jason Mack, Timothy M. Pratt, and William Burrell,
filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum-Decision and
Order dated April 26, 2019, and July 19, 2019, issued in their
lawsuit styled Holick v. Cellular Sales of New York, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 12-cv-584, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York (Albany).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 10,
2019, Judge Norman A. Mordue (i) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, and (ii) granted the Defendants' motion to
decertify the conditional Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
collective action.

The named Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, bring this action under the FLSA, and New York
State Labor Law ("NYLL"), against Cellular Sales of New York, LLC
("CSNY") and Cellular Sales of Knoxville, Inc. ("CSK"), asserting
claims for alleged violations of minimum wage and overtime
requirements. The Plaintiffs further allege NYLL violations related
to the Defendants': (1) failure to pay for compensable work; (2)
unlawful wage deductions; and (3) failure to timely pay wages.

The Plaintiffs' claims stem from their alleged employment
relationship with the Defendants prior to January 2012.
Essentially, they claim that the Defendants misclassified them as
"independent contractors" instead of "employees" as defined by the
FLSA and NYLL, thus depriving them of employee benefits required by
law.

On Feb. 14, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation for conditional
certification pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA, and the
collective was later expanded by stipulation and order dated
October 21, 2015, to include members of the following group: All
individuals who, during any workweek between June 24, 2010 up to
and through Dec. 31, 2011, who (a) performed sales services for
Cellular Sales of New York, LLC or Cellular Sales of Knoxville,
Inc. in New York; (b) were classified as non-employee contractors;
and (c) were paid, in whole or in part, on a commission basis.

The appellate case is captioned as Holick v. Cellular Sales of New
York, LLC, et al., Case No. 20-2037, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners Jan P. Holick, Jr., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated; Steven Moffitt, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; Justin Moffitt, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Gurwinder
Singh, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated;
Jason Mack, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated; Timothy M. Pratt, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated; and William Burrell, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Ronald G. Dunn, Esq.
          GLEASON, DUNN, WALSH & O'SHEA
          40 Beaver Street
          Albany, NY 12207
          Telephone: (518) 432-7511
          E-mail: rdunn@gdwo.net

Defendants-Respondents Cellular Sales of New York, LLC, and
Cellular Sales of Knoxville, Inc., are represented by:

          Charles Larry Carbo, III, Esq.
          CHAMBERLAIN, HRDLICKA, WHITE, WILLIAMS & AUGHTRY
          1200 Smith Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 658-1818
          E-mail: Larry.carbo@chamberlainlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph Matthew Dougherty, Esq.
          JOSEPH M. DOUGHERTY, ESQ.
          1900 E Ocean Boulevard
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (518) 253-3156

               - and -

          Benjamin M. Wilkinson, Esq.
          BARCLAY DAMON, LLP
          80 State Street
          Albany, NY 12207
          Telephone: (518) 429-4264
          E-mail: bwilkinson@barclaydamon.com


CHART INDUSTRIES: Women's Bid for Class Certification Rejected
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge has
rejected a bid for class certification brought by women whose
frozen eggs and embryos were destroyed during the failure of a
cryopreservation tank at a San Francisco fertility clinic in 2018.

In the case against tank manufacturer Chart Industries Inc, U.S.
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on June 23 said certifying
a class of 600 women whose eggs and embryos were stored at Pacific
Fertility Center would not result in significant efficiencies given
the need for individual trials. [GN]


CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Automatic Seafood Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Shauna Stuart, writing for Al.com, reports that Automatic Seafood
and Oysters will temporarily close its doors after learning that a
staff member tested positive for COVID-19.

The critically acclaimed eatery, and one of this year's James Beard
award nominees for Best New Restaurant, posted the announcement on
its Instagram account on June 20 about 8 p.m.:

Under the announcement, the majority of the comments offered
outpourings of support for Automatic, commending the Lakeview
restaurant for its transparency and decision to close its doors
again.

"Total respect for Chef Adam and Suzanne. You have been responsible
throughout this entire pandemic, trying to provide a service and
keep employees safe. Automatic seafood will be back! And we will be
there.!!" wrote sandimcmc.

However, there was one commenter who asked if the restaurant would
make the same decision if more staff members tested positive for
COVID-19 cases in the future.

"So are you going to close every single time you have a positive
case?" asked maerose_parker.

"That's a good question to which we don't know yet know the
answer," the restaurant replied. "But we will keep doing what we
must to take care of the people that take care of and support our
restaurant. "

Automatic Seafood was one of many restaurants around Alabama that
pivoted to takeout service when state and county health orders
directed restaurants to shutter their dining areas as an effort to
stop the spread of COVID-19. Two months later, when Governor Ivey's
amended Safer at Home order allowed restaurants to resume
on-premise consumption effective May 11, Automatic Seafood decided
to keep its dining room closed, continuing to offer takeout and
delivery service.

On May 21, the restaurant reopened its patio for limited outdoor
seating by reservation. Since reopening its patio, Automatic has
continued it takeout service and collaborations with local farmers
and bakers to serve as a pickup location for local produce and bake
sales, including the "Bakers Against Racism" bake sale on June 20.

In May, Automatic Seafood and Oysters filed a federal class action
lawsuit against its insurance company, Cincinnati Insurance
Company, alleging several counts of breach of contract after the
company did not pay the establishment on its loss of business
income policy. [GN]


CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of August 17 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm,
reminds investors in Co-Diagnostics, Inc. ('Co-Diagnostics' or the
'Company') (NASDAQ: CODX ) of the August 17, 2020 deadline to seek
the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action
that has been filed against the Company.

If you invested in Co-Diagnostics stock or options between February
25, 2020 and May 15, 2020 and would like to discuss your legal
rights, click here: [To enable links contact MENAFN]. There is no
cost or obligation to you.

You can also contact us by calling Richard Gonnello toll free at
877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail to:

CONTACT:
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Attn: Richard Gonnello, Esq.
Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330

The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Utah on behalf of all those who purchased
Co-Diagnostics securities between February 25, 2020 and May 15,
2020 (the 'Class Period'). The case, Gelt Trading v. Co-Diagnostics
et al., No. 2:20-cv-00368 was filed on June 15, 2020, and has been
assigned to Judge Cecilia M. Romero.

The lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives
violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading
statements about the accuracy of the Company's Covid-19 tests.

On May 14, 2020, public reports casting doubt of the Company's
claims of Covid-19 100% test accuracy began to emerge.

In response to this news, the Company's stock price fell from
$22.13 per share on May 14, 2020 to $17.07 per share on May 15,
2020: a $5.06 or 22.84% drop.

The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Co-Diagnostics' conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN]


CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, calls all persons or entities who purchased
or otherwise acquired securities of Co-Diagnostics, Inc.
("Co-Diagnostics") (NASDAQ: CODX) between February 25, 2020 and May
15, 2020 that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced
in the the United States District Court for the District of Utah.
To get more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/co-diagnostics-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7728&wire=5

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.

According to the filed complaint, Co-Diagnostics and its directors
and officers (including PhD-level scientists who should know
better) made continual, knowing, and willful misstatements about
the Company's main product, a Covid-19 diagnostic test. These
misstatements had the effect of pumping up the price of
Co-Diagnostics' stock while Company officers and directors
exercised low-priced options and dumped their stock into the
market. Co-Diagnostics' fraudulent misstatements displayed a
disregard for basic scientific principles and caused investors to
lose millions of dollars.

If you suffered a loss in Co-Diagnostics you have until August 17,
2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders.

Contact:

         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         E-mail: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
         Tel: (212) 363-7500
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Web site: http://www.zlk.com/[GN]


CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Co-Diagnostics, Inc. (NASDAQ: CODX) and certain of its
officers.   The class action, filed in United States District Court
for the District of Utah, Central Division, and indexed under
20-cv-00481, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired
Co-Diagnostics securities between February 25, 2020, and May 15,
2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Co-Diagnostics securities
during the class period, you have until August 17, 2020, to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.

Co-Diagnostics, Inc., a molecular diagnostics company, intends to
manufacture and sell reagents used for diagnostic tests that
function via the detection and/or analysis of nucleic acid
molecules. It also intends to sell diagnostic equipment from other
manufacturers as self-contained lab systems.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made continual, knowing and
willful misstatements about their main product, a COVID-19
diagnostic test, to pump of the price of Co-Diagnostics' stock
while the officers and directors exercised low priced options and
dumped their stock into the market. Their fraudulent misstatements,
and disregard for the basic scientific principles that make the
falsity of their statements clear in retrospect, cost investors to
lose millions of dollars.

In the late morning and early afternoon of May 14, 2020, third
parties revealed startling information about Co-Diagnostics'
allegedly 100% accurate test.

The Salt Lake Tribune ("Tribune") reported that TestUtah.com, which
used tests developed by Co-Diagnostics, "declined to join other
major Utah labs in a joint experiment to confirm one another's
quality."  Moreover, the Tribune revealed that TestUtah's tests (by
Co-Diagnostics) "have a higher 'limit of detection' — that is,
they require more of the virus to trigger a positive result —
than most other coronavirus tests approved for sale in the U.S.,
according to an analysis by the life sciences publication
BioCentury."  This meant that Co-Diagnostics' tests were likely to
have a much higher false-negative reporting rate, meaning that
potentially thousands of infected people were inaccurately told
that they did not have the disease, an observation that was
consistent with earlier concerns about TestUtah's lower rate of
positive test results.

The Tribune article also expressed concern relating to
TestNebraska.com and TestIowa.com testing services that also used
Co-Diagnostics' tests.

Also on May 14, 2020, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds issued a public
statement, stating, "I'm pleased to announce that the State
Hygienic Lab completed the Test Iowa validation process yesterday,
achieving high ratings of 95 percent accuracy for determining
positives and 99.7 percent accuracy for determining negatives."
These results did not comport with statements previously made by
Co-Diagnostics on May 1, 2020.

In fact, Defendant Brent Satterfield ("Satterfield"), Ph. D.,
Co-Diagnostics' Chief Science Officer, himself has recently
confessed that the lower positive rates for Co-Diagnostics' tests
"has certainly got all of us scratching our heads a bit," and that
the tests will correctly identify 95% of true positive results—a
massive discrepancy from Co-Diagnostics' representations of 100%
accuracy given that the tests are intended to be administered among
hundreds of thousands or even millions of people.

Based on the release of third-party information casting serious
doubt as to Co-Diagnostics' bold claims of 100% accuracy, the stock
price began to fall, closing the day at $22.13 per share on May 14,
2020, after hitting an intra-day low of $18.35 per share, a greater
than 38% decrease in price within hours.

At that point, Co-Diagnostics could have, but did not, revise its
claims of 100% test accuracy, given that Co-Diagnostics released
earnings and first-quarter 2020 financials to the public
after-hours and had a scheduled investor call for the same evening.


Co-Diagnostics reported that it achieved record sales and that the
start-up had finally, after nearly seven years, reached
profitability.  However, it did not address the testing accuracy or
sensitivity allegations or correct Defendant Satterfield's prior
statements about tests being 100% accurate.

Rather, the call was described by The Gazette, a Cedar Rapids, Iowa
publication covering TestIowa.com, as sounding "more like
Thanksgiving with drunk uncles — dogs were barking, people were
swearing, and someone was moaning."  The Gazette also noted that
"[n]one of Co-Diagnostics or Nomi Health's news releases about the
Logix Smart tests have revealed how many tests have been sold, for
how much, and so far all three testing initiatives in Iowa,
Nebraska and Utah have been secretive about the tests and the
results."

That same day, the FDA issued a press release about testing
accuracy.  Another, much larger drug company had created a
diagnostic test for COVID-19 that was under increasing public
scrutiny for apparent inaccuracy.  The FDA announced to the public
that "[t]he FDA looks at a variety of sources to identify and
understand potential patterns or significant issues with the use of
the Abbott test.  No diagnostic test will be 100% accurate due to
performance characteristics, specimen handling, or user error,
which is why it is important to study patterns and identify the
cause of suspected false results so any significant issues can be
addressed quickly." (Emphasis added).

Based on the multiple third-party sources revealing serious
problems that were known, or should have been known, in advance of
May 14, 2020, the stock price further fell to close at $17.07 per
share on May 15, 2020, or a decrease of 22.86% from the prior day's
closing price.

By May 20, 2020, a statistician, Zhiyuan Sun, wrote an article
specifically about Co-Diagnostics' allegedly 100% accurate COVID-19
test.  Sun explained:

"In May, Co-Diagnostics announced its COVID-19 in vitro test had
been found to have 100% accuracy, 100% specificity (likelihood of
preventing a false-negative error), and 100% sensitivity
(likelihood of preventing a false-positive error), as per
independent verification in laboratories across the world.

To start off, Co-Diagnostics came to the conclusion that its test
was 100% effective on all three diagnostic dimensions (specificity,
accuracy, and sensitivity) based on studies with small sample
sizes. For example, laboratory testing of the Logix test kit
conducted in Australia involved about 100 COVID-19-positive
patients and 100 COVID-19-negative patients. With a sample size
that small, a low error rate, say 1% to 2%, could be really hard to
detect. In fact, the study itself explicitly stated that the test
could in fact be between 96% to 98% effective, rather than 100%.

In addition, the testing environment is by no means indicative of
the actual prevalence of COVID-19 in the population at this point
in the pandemic. Among the test samples, 50% contained SARS-CoV-2,
and obviously, at this point, nowhere near half the people in the
world have been exposed to the coronavirus. "But wait a minute!"
the intelligent reader might say. "Nothing in the world is perfect,
so who cares if a test's results are off by 1% or 3%? Effectiveness
of 97% is still nothing short of an A-plus. You're just being a
devil's advocate, Zhiyuan!" Unfortunately, this is one of the cases
where it is critical to pay attention to the devil in the details.
In fact, a 1% or 3% error rate can render a in vitro test almost
useless. Here's why.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, the true sensitivity of
Logix is 98%, and its true specificity is also 98%. In other words,
the probability of the test delivering a false positive is 2%, and
the probability of the test returning a false negative is also 2%.
Both of these values are directly stated as being probable in
studies citing Logix's range of effectiveness, and they are valid
assumptions given that the test has not been fully vetted by the
FDA or other regulators. It is also common knowledge that because
there are not enough viral tests for the COVID-19, the number of
people who have the virus is likely to be significantly higher than
official figures. For example, it is estimated that up to 4.1% of
the residents of Los Angeles County have COVID-19 antibodies. Let's
use that 4.1% figure in our calculations as a measure of prevalence
of COVID-19 (a lower prevalence would hurt the test even more).
Assuming 1 million people are given the Logix test, 41,000 should
test positive for an ongoing SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, if the
test provides a false negative 2% of the time, only 98% of those
41,000 -- 40,180 -- would show up as positives.

On the other hand, out of the 959,000 people who were actually
negative for the virus, a 2% error rate would yield 19,180 cases of
false positives -- individuals who don't have the disease despite
the test saying they do. All told, that makes 59,360 people getting
positive results, but only 40,180 of them would actually be
positive. That yields a predictive value of 67.7%.

In other words, if the Logix test only works as well as it does in
this scenario -- and it's right 98% of the time -- there's still a
1-in-3 chance that the test will indicate you have COVID-19 even
though you don't! As one can see, a 32.3% false-positive error rate
isn't very good at all. This problem gets worse if we assume the
same prevalence, but lower Logix's potential sensitivity and
specificity estimates to 95% for both. In this scenario, the
probability of getting a false positive increases to 55.2%! While
the results are surprising, they nonetheless use the basics of
conditional probability; here is a calculator in case you want to
try it out for yourself. Furthermore, a recent New York University
study on COVID-19 in vitro tests developed by Abbott Laboratories
(NYSE:ABT) found them to be widely inaccurate and unacceptable for
use in patients. Keep in mind, those tests were also promoted as
having 100% sensitivity and 99.9% specificity in earlier
investigations. Unfortunately, this just serves to highlight how
difficult it is to develop an accurate test for diseases with a low
rate of prevalence like COVID-19."

Co-Diagnostics knew that even a highly accurate test—such as 96%,
98%, or even 99%—was not the same, and not remotely as valuable,
as a 100% accurate test.  That is because having a 100% accurate
test would have significantly distinguished Co-Diagnostics from
other, larger, more reputable competitors introducing COVID-19
tests into the marketplace.  Additionally, the widespread
administration of a COVID-19 test that is even minimally inaccurate
can have highly adverse public health consequences.  Co-Diagnostics
knew this, and so it intentionally issued statements to the public
to fend off truthful analysis and scientific skepticism about its
supposed miracle test.

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

Contact:

         Robert S. Willoughby
         Pomerantz LLP
         E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
         Web site: http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/[GN]


CO-DIAGNOSTICS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Aug. 17 Motion Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming August 17, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of Co-Diagnostics, Inc.
("Co-Diagnostics" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CODX) investors who
purchased securities between February 25, 2020 and May 15, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you suffered a loss on your Co-Diagnostics investments or would
like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your
loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/co-diagnostics-inc/.
You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

On February 24, 2020, Co-Diagnostics announced that it had received
regulatory clearance to sell its COVID-19 tests in the European
Community.

Then on April 6, 2020, the Company announced that it had received
emergency use authorization for its tests from the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration ("FDA").

Finally, on May 14, 2020, after the Company continued to uphold its
statements about the success of its test in its first quarter
results, public reports began to circulate, questioning the
Company's claims of 100% accuracy because the Company was hesitant
to participate in U.S.-based testing. Later in the day, the U.S.
FDA stated publicly that no COVID-19 test is 100% accurate.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $5.06, or over 22%, to
close at $17.07 per share on May 15, 2020, thereby injuring
investors.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Co-Diagnostics securities
during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than
August 17, 2020 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this
putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to the pending class action
lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at
310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Contacts:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]


COGNIZANT: Judge to Seek Hiatus in Foreign Bribery Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clara Hudson, writing for Global Investigations Review, reports
that the Justice Department told a New Jersey federal judge that it
intends to seek a hiatus in a foreign bribery-related class action
lawsuit against Cognizant. [GN]


CREDIT CORP: Mikhael Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Corp Solutions
Inc. The case is styled as Stacie A. Mikhael, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Credit Corp
Solutions Inc. doing business as: Tasman Credit, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-02908 (E.D. N.Y., June 30, 2020).

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

Credit Corp Solutions Inc. is a "junk debt buyer" and debt
collector based in Utah.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David M. Barshay, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com

     - and -

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com






CURA CS: Blackford Suit Moved From Cir. Ct. to District of Oregon
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Brian Blackford and William
Stahr, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Cura CS LLC, Case No. 20CV18270, was removed from the Oregon
Circuit Court, Multnomah County, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon (Portland) on June 18, 2020.

The District of Oregon Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-00982-MO to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Michael W. Mosman. The suit demands $10 million in
damages.

Cura CS is doing business in retail delivery.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brittany Scott, Esq.
          Frederick John Klorczyk, III, Esq.
          Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4460
          E-mail: bscott@bursor.com
                  fklorczyk@bursor.com
                  ndeckant@bursor.com

               - and -

          Cody B. Hoesly, Esq.
          LARKINS VACURA, LLP
          121 SW Morrison St., Suite 700
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 222-4424
          Facsimile: (503) 827-7600
          E-mail: choesly@lvklaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          William F. Gary, Esq.
          C. Robert Steringer, Esq.
          Graham M. Sweitzer, Esq.
          HARRANG LONG GARY RUDNICK, PC (EUGENE)
          497 Oakway Road, Suite 380
          Eugene, OR 97401-3273
          Telephone: (541) 485-0220
          Facsimile: (541) 686-6564
          E-mail: william.f.gary@harrang.com
                  bob.steringer@harrang.com
                  graham.sweitzer@harrang.com


CYTOMX THERAPEUTICS: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of July 20 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jakubowitz Law on June 21 disclosed that securities fraud class
action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of CytomX
Therapeutics, Inc. who purchased shares within the class periods
listed below. Shareholders interested in representing the class of
wronged shareholders have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
petition the court. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

CytomX Therapeutics, Inc. (CTMX)

CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT CTMX:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/cytomx-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=7444&from=1

Class Period: May 17, 2018 - May 13, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 20, 2020

The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
CytomX had downplayed issues with CX-072's efficacy observed in the
PROCLAIM-CX-072 clinical program; (ii) CytomX had similarly
downplayed issues with CX-2009's efficacy and safety observed in
the PROCLAIM-CX-2009 clinical program; and (iii) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

Jakubowitz Law is vigorous in pursuit of justice for shareholders
who have been the victim of securities fraud. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
JAKUBOWITZ LAW
1140 Avenue of the Americas
9th Floor
New York, New York 10036
T: (212) 867-4490
F: (212) 537-5887 [GN]


DEFALCO CONSTRUCTION: Faces Matute Suit in New York Supreme Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DeFalco Construction
Inc., et al. The case is captioned as GUSTAVO MATUTE, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED WHO WERE
EMPLOYED BY DEFALCO CONSTRUCTION INC., X-TREME CONCRETE INC.,
LIBERTY READY MIX, INC., MICHAEL FALCO AND GIACOMO v. GISONDA AND
ANY OTHER and DEFALCO CONSTRUCTION INC., ET AL., Case No.
154387/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., June 17, 2020).

DeFalco is construction company and excavator providing civil
construction services.[BN]


DELTA DENTAL: Premiere Dental Sues Over Anticompetitive Conduct
---------------------------------------------------------------
Premiere Dental d/b/a Premiere Dental Spa, Dr. Teneshia Daniels,
DMD, and Dr. Roosevelt A. Daniel, DDS, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Delta Dental Insurance Company,
et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03880 (N.D. Ill., July 1, 2020), arises
from a contract, combination, or conspiracy among the Delta Dental
Plans Association and its members and affiliates of members to
allocate territories of operation within the United States and its
territories in violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act.

The Defendants are independent companies, who have agreed with each
other to allocate markets into geographic areas in which they agree
not to compete, according to the complaint. This contract,
combination, or conspiracy is a per se violation of the Sherman
Act, and its harm is reflected in suppression of compensation below
levels that would prevail in a competitive marketplace to dentists,
who are members of the Delta Dental provider network, as well as in
the value and choices of dental care available to patients, who are
subscribers to the dental insurance provided by Delta Dental.

The existence of the per se illegal restraints on competition is
documented, the Plaintiffs say. They allege that the market
allocation agreements at issue are reached and implemented through
the DDPA license agreements with member Plans, which set forth
limitations on their ability to compete. "Each Delta Dental plan's
operations are restricted to the state of domicile." No Plan
competes on a "Delta Dental" branded basis with any other Plan in
another state.

This effect of the contract, combination, or conspiracy to allocate
territories has been, and was intended to, fix levels of
compensation paid to dentists who are members of the Delta Dental
provider network at levels below those that would have existed had
the Plans been allowed to compete for provider services within each
other's respective territories, the Plaintiffs assert. As a result
of the anticompetitive conduct alleged herein, the Plaintiffs say
they were deprived of the choice of accepting dental patients under
the greater number of insurance plans that they would have been
able to choose from in a competitive market and was reimbursed less
for providing dental goods and services than they would have been
but for that anticompetitive conduct.

The Plaintiffs are dental services providers in the state of
Alabama.

Delta Dental is the "nation's leading provider of dental
insurance," serving over 80 million Americans in all 50 states and
in United States territories.

The Defendants are Delta Dental Insurance Company; DeltaCare USA;
Delta USA Inc.; Delta Dental Plans Association; Delta Dental
Insurance Company Alabama; Delta Dental of Alaska; Delta Dental of
Arizona; Delta Dental of Arkansas; Delta Dental of California;
Delta Dental of Colorado; Delta Dental of Connecticut; Delta Dental
of Delaware; Delta Dental of the District of Columbia; Delta Dental
of Florida; Delta Dental Insurance Company– Georgia; Hawaii
Dental Service; Delta Dental of Idaho; Delta Dental of Illinois;
Delta Dental of Indiana; Delta Dental of Iowa; Delta Dental of
Kansas; Delta Dental of Kentucky; Delta Dental Insurance
Company–Louisiana; Delta Dental of Maryland; Delta Dental of
Massachusetts; Delta Dental of Michigan; Delta Dental of Minnesota;
Delta Dental Insurance Company–Mississippi; Delta Dental of
Missouri; Delta Dental Insurance Company–Montana; Delta Dental of
Nebraska; Delta Dental Insurance Company–Nevada; Delta Dental of
New Jersey; Delta Dental of New Mexico; Delta Dental of New York;
Delta Dental of North Carolina; Delta Dental of North Dakota;
Northeast Delta Dental (of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont); Delta
Dental of Ohio; Delta Dental of Oklahoma; Delta Dental of Oregon;
Delta Dental of Pennsylvania; Delta Dental of Puerto Rico; Delta
Dental of Rhode.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert M. Foote, Esq.
          Kathleen C. Chavez, Esq.
          Elizabeth C. Chavez, Esq.
          FOOTE, MEILKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL, LLC
          10 West State Street, Suite 200
          Geneva, IL 60134
          Phone: (630) 232-7450
          Email: rmf@fmcolaw.com
                 kcc@fmcolaw.com
                 mjh@fmcolaw.com

               - and -

          Gregory Davis, Esq.
          GREG DAVIS LAW
          7475 Halcyon Pointe Drive
          Montgomery, AL 36117
          Phone: (334) 832-9080
          Email: gldavis@knology.net

               - and -

          H. Lewis Gillis, Esq.
          Kristen J. Gillis, Esq.
          MEANS GILLIS LAW, P.C.
          60 Commerce St., Suite 200
          P.O. Box 5058
          Montgomery, AL 36103-5058
          Phone: (334) 270 1033
          Fax: (334) 260-9396


EASYJET: Data Breach Class Action Damages Valued Up to GBP18BB
--------------------------------------------------------------
PaddleYourOwnKanoo reports that EasyJet is facing a class-action
lawsuit valued at up to GBP18 billion for a massive data breach
involving the personal travel details of nine million customers
which were illegally accessed by hackers. The Information
Commissioners Office is already investigating the breach which was
made public in May. Around 2,208 customers also had their credit
card details stolen in what was described as a "highly
sophisticated" cyber attack.

More than 10,000 affected customers have so far joined the
class-action suit brought by the law firm PGMBM. The firm, which
has even set up a dedicated website called 'the easyJet claim',
believes victims might be entitled to up to GBP2,000 compensation
if their claims succeed.

If the maximum amount of possible compensation is awarded, easyJet
could face a bill of as much as GBP18 billion.

EasyJet is facing a class-action lawsuit valued at up to GBP18
billion for a massive data breach involving the personal travel
details of nine million customers which were illegally accessed by
hackers. The Information Commissioners Office is already
investigating the breach which was made public in May. Around 2,208
customers also had their credit card details stolen in what was
described as a "highly sophisticated" cyber attack.

More than 10,000 affected customers have so far joined the
class-action suit brought by the law firm PGMBM. The firm, which
has even set up a dedicated website called 'the easyJet claim',
believes victims might be entitled to up to GBP2,000 compensation
if their claims succeed.

If the maximum amount of possible compensation is awarded, easyJet
could face a bill of as much as GBP18 billion.

"This is a monumental data breach and a monumental failure that has
a serious impact on EasyJet's customers," explained Tom Goodhead, a
PGMBM managing partner. Goodhead said lawyers would be seeking
compensation under Article 82 of the European Union's General Data
Protection Regulations that allows for damages from "inconvenience,
distress, annoyance, and loss of control" of personal data.

"This is personal information that we trust companies with, and
customers should rightly expect that every effort is made to
protect that," Goodhead continued. "Unfortunately, EasyJet has
spilled the sensitive personal information of nine million
customers from all corners of the world."

easyJet acknowledged that a lawsuit had been filed in London's High
Court but explained that such claims are "not uncommon" and that
other law firms were already chasing possible claimants.

"Just because these firms are advertising does not mean they have a
strong claim," a spokesperson for the British low-cost airline
commented.

easyJet remains in talks with the ICO over the data breach. The
airline said it believed that none of the stolen credit card
details are believed to have been used improperly. In 2018, British
Airways was slapped with a record GBP183 million fine by the ICO
over an even bigger data breach. BA continues to fight the
judgement. [GN]


ELLEVEN45 LOUNGE: Williams Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Janee Williams, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons v. ELLEVEN45 LOUNGE LLC and DJIBRIL DAFE, Case No.
1:20-cv-02780-LMM (N.D. Ga., July 1, 2020), is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to recover unpaid minimum wages
from the Defendants for work for which the Plaintiff did not
receive proper minimum wage.

In violation of the FLSA, and as a regular and routine practice,
the Defendants willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff minimum wage
for all hours worked, instead failing to pay them any base rate
wage at all, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff and other
Waitresses did not receive any base wages whatsoever for their work
with Defendants. The Plaintiff did not receive base wages of $2.13
per hour for all hours worked. The only form of compensation the
Plaintiff received for their time worked was tips from customers.
Each and every week that the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants,
she did not receive any base wages, and did not receive base wages
of $2.13 per hour.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a Cocktail Waitress and
Bottle Waitress on and off from May 2017 to June 2020.

Elleven45 Lounge LLC is a club that serves food and alcohol to
patrons.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin M. Scott, Esq.
          SCOTT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C.
          246 Sycamore Street, Suite 150
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Phone: 678.780.4880
          Facsimile: 478.575.2590
          Email: jscott@scottemploymentlaw.com


ENDO INT'L: Schall Law Files Securities Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on June 24 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Endo International plc ("Endo" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: ENDP) for
violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between August 8,
2017 and June 10, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before August 18, 2020.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Endo and its subsidiaries played a far
larger role in the opioid crisis than it represented to the market.
The Company published false information directed towards healthcare
providers about the risks and benefits of its opioid drugs. The
facts opened the Company to significant regulatory scrutiny,
particularly by the state of New York. Based on these facts, the
Company's public statements were false and materially misleading
throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth
about Endo, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

Contacts:

  The Schall Law Firm
  Brian Schall, Esq.
  www.schallfirm.com
  Office: 310-301-3335
  info@schallfirm.com [GN]


ENGELHARDT & CO : Faces Colceriu Fraud Suit in M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Engelhardt & Co. LLC,
et al. The case is captioned as Ligia Colceriu and those similarly
situated v. Engelhardt & Co. LLC; and Jamie Barbary also known as:
Jamie Engelhardt, Case No. 8:20-cv-01425-MSS-AAS (M.D. Fla., June
20, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Mary S. Scriven. The suit
demands $2 million in damages alleging violation of fraud-related
laws.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bogdan Enica, Esq.
          66 W. Flagler St., Ste. 900
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (786) 588-4758
          E-mail: b.enica@fashion.law


ENPHASE ENERGY: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on June 17, 2020, a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against Enphase ENERGY, Inc.
(NASDAQ: ENPH). The complaint alleges violations of federal
securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of
issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the
market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price during the Class Period, which is February 26, 2019 through
June 17, 2020.

To learn how to participate in this action, please visit
https://www.federmanlaw.com/blog/federman-sherwood-announces-the-filing-of-a-securities-class-action-lawsuit-against-enphase-energy-inc/.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Enphase Energy,
Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class
Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described above.
You may move the Court no later than Monday, August 17, 2020 to
serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order
to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:

          Robin Hester
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          E-mail: rkh@federmanlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com/
[GN]


ENPHASE ENERGY: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Aug. 17 Motion Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds that an
investor securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed
against Enphase Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ: ENPH) ("Enphase") on behalf
of those who purchased or otherwise acquired Enphase common stock
between February 26, 2019 and June 17, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Enphase investors who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock
during the Class Period may, no later than August 17, 2020, seek to
be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class.

Investors who wish to discuss this securities fraud class action
lawsuit or request additional information about this litigation are
encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check attorneys James
Maro, Jr. or Adrienne Bell at (844) 877-9500 (toll free) or online,
click
https://www.ktmc.com/enphase-energy-inc-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=enphase.

According to the complaint, Enphase is a global energy technology
company that delivers smart, easy-to-use solutions that manage
solar generation, storage and communication on one intelligent
platform. Enphase asserts that it revolutionized the solar industry
with its microinverter technology, and that it produces a fully
integrated solar-plus-storage solution.

The Class Period commences on February 26, 2019, when Enphase
issued a press release on a Form 8-K with the SEC in which it
announced Enphase's financial results for the fourth quarter and
year-ended 2018. In the press release, Enphase stated that for the
fourth quarter of 2018 it had revenue of $92.3 million, an increase
of 18% sequentially and an increase of 16% year-over-year. The
press release further stated that Enphase's non-GAAP gross margin
was 30.7%, a decrease of 210 basis points from 32.8% in the third
quarter. For the full year ended December 31, 2018, Enphase
reported revenue of $316.159 million, with gross margins of 29.9%,
up from $286.166 million and 19.6% for the year ended December 31,
2017.

The complaint alleges that, on June 17, 2020, analyst Prescience
Point Capital Management ("Prescience Point") published a report in
which it wrote that "[a]t least $205.3m of ENPH's reported FY19 US
revenue is fabricated, and a significant portion of its
international revenue is fabricated as well." The report continued:
"[m]ost, if not all, of the 2,080 Bps expansion in ENPH's gross
margin since Q2'17 is also fabricated," and called on Enphase's
accountant, Deloitte, to "launch an in-depth investigation of
EPNH's accounting practices." Prescience Point further called on
"[r]egulatory and law enforcement agencies with subpoena power [to]
launch a full investigation of the Company, its accounting, its
disclosures and trading by insiders."

Following this news, Enphase's stock price fell by approximately
26% in one day, from its June 16, 2020 close of $52.76 per share to
a June 17, 2020 close of $39.04 per share.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) its revenues, both U.S. and international, were
inflated; (2) Enphase engaged in improper deferred revenue
accounting practices; (3) Enphase's reported basis point expansion
in gross margins was overstated; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, the defendants' public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

Enphase investors may, no later than August 17, 2020, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and
federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and
federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force
behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of
dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from
the United States and around the world. The firm represents
investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who
report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the
recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was
not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. For more information
about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, please visit www.ktmc.com.

Contacts

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 877-9500 (toll free)
(610) 667-7706
info@ktmc.com [GN]


ENPHASE ENERGY: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of those who acquired
Enphase Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ: ENPH) securities during the period
from February 26, 2019 through June 17, 2020. Investors have until
August 17, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that Enphase failed to disclose that: (i) its
U.S. and international revenues were inflated; (ii) the Company
engaged in improper deferred revenue accounting practices; and
(iii) the Company's reported base points expansion in gross margins
were overstated.

On June 17, 2020, Prescience Point Capital Management published a
report alleging that "[a]t least $205.3m of ENPH's reported FY19 US
revenue is fabricated, and a significant portion of its
international revenue is fabricated as well." Prescience Point
further wrote that "Deloitte should launch an in-depth
investigation of ENPH's accounting practices," and set a target
price of "Delisted" for ENPH. On this news, the price of Enphase
shares fell $13.72, or 26.0%, to close at $39.04 on June 17, 2020.

If you acquired Enphase securities, have information, or would like
to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of
Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by email at
investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to
discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters
without any cost to you.

Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney LLP's website: www.kmllp.com.

Contact:

         Kirby McInerney LLP
         Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
         Tel: (212) 371-6600
         E-mail: investigations@kmllp.com
         Web site: http://www.kmllp.com/[GN]


ERIE INSURANCE: Pleasant Food Sues Over Denial of All Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Pleasant Food, Inc. dba Sidelines Grill Pleasant View, C & G, Inc.
dba Sidelines Grill Ashland City, Plantation Pub, Inc., Annex Road
Group, Inc. dba Hillwood Pub, DTAG, Inc. dba Crow's Nest, JDA Pub,
Inc. dba Joe's Place, on behalf themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Erie Insurance Exchange, Case No. 3:20-cv-00570 (W.D.
Tenn., July 1, 2020), is brought against the Defendant seeking
damages and relief as a result of its denial of all of the
Plaintiffs' claims.

The Plaintiffs are six local restaurants and bars in the Nashville
area.

In March 2020, the Plaintiffs were forced to shut down. This
closure was ordered by the state and local governments, who
required the Restaurants, their workers, and their customers to
"shelter in place" and abide by strict "social distancing"
guidelines. These compulsory shutdowns forced the
Plaintiffs/Restaurants to lay off employees and forgo income for
several months while continuing to pay many regular expenses,
according to the complaint. This caused severe financial losses,
which the Plaintiffs were unable to recoup even after they were
permitted to re-open with limitations.

To protect their business from catastrophic situations like this
one, the Restaurants purchased insurance from the Defendant that
included coverage for business interruption. The Restaurants'
policies expressly provide coverage for "Lost Income" and the
consequences of actions by "Civil Authority." Accordingly, the
Restaurants reasonably expected that their policies would help
protect their businesses in the event that the government ordered
them to stop or severely restrict operations in connection with a
pandemic or any other Covered Cause of Loss.

Notwithstanding, and contrary to, the coverage provisions in their
policies with the Defendant, and the obligations the Defendant
undertook in exchange for the Restaurants' insurance premium
payments, when the Plaintiffs submitted claims with the Defendant
for coverage, the Defendant summarily denied the Restaurants'
claims. The Plaintiffs contend that these denials were part of a
premeditated strategy by the Defendant to deny all claims related
to the "shelter in place" orders and COVID-19. They were untethered
to the facts of the claims, which the Defendant did not adequately
investigate, or the specific coverage provided by the Restaurants'
policies and were, therefore, illegal, says the complaint.

The Defendant sells insurance in Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          222 2nd Avenue South, Suite 1640
          Nashville, TN 37201-2379
          Phone: 615.313.9000
          Facsimile: 615.313.9965

               - and -

          Robert J. Nelson, Esq.
          Fabrice N. Vincent, Esq.
          Jacob H. Polin, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Phone: 415.956.1000
          Facsimile: 415.956.1008

               - and -

          Jim Higgins, Esq.
          THE HIGGINS FIRM
          525 4th Avenue S
          Nashville, TN 37210
          Phone: 615.353.0930
          Facsimile: 888.210.5883

               - and -

          Alexandra L. Foote, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALEXANDRA L. FOOTE, P.C.
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Phone: 786.408.8083
          Facsimile: 415.956.0561


ESTATES LLC: Averts Foreclosure Auction Rigging Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Leonard, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that The Estates
LLC, which runs a database of North Carolina properties in
foreclosure, tentatively fought off a bid for class action status
by homeowners claiming it rigged residential real estate auctions,
but a federal judge signaled she'll probably certify two classes
when the pretrial record fills out.

"There are likely to be a sufficient number of class members,"
Judge Catherine C. Eagles wrote on June 23. "The plaintiffs
correctly note that the defendants here control the information
that will allow them to begin identifying class members." [GN]


FINANCIAL ASSET: Johnson Alleges Violation under FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Asset
Management Systems Inc. The case is styled as Michelle D Johnson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Financial Asset Management Systems Inc and John Does
1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-02495-JFA (D. S.C., June 30,
2020).

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

Financial Asset Management Systems, Inc. (FAMS) is an Account
Recovery Solutions provider that offers multi-tiered approach to
loss prevention, account rehabilitation, and revenue recovery.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Kenneth Edward Norsworthy, Jr., Esq.
   Norsworthy Law LTD Co
   218 Trade Street, Suite D
   Greer, SC 29651
   Tel: (864) 804-0581
   Fax: (864) 670-5009
   Email: kenorsworthy@me.com



FLORIDA SOUTHERN COLLEGE: Salerno Suit Transferred to M. D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Sara Salerno, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Florida Southern College,
Defendant, was transferred from the New York Southern District with
the assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-04314 to the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida (Tampa) on June 30, 2020, and
assigned Case No. 8:20-cv-01494-JSM-SPF.

Florida Southern is a college located in central Florida offering a
liberal arts core and professional programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Max Stuart Roberts, Esq.
   Bursor & Fisher, P.A.
   888 Seventh Avenue
   New York, NY 10019
   Tel: (646) 837-7408
   Fax: (212) 989-9163
   Email: mroberts@bursor.com

The Defendant is represented by:

   Elizabeth Anne Morris, Esq.
   Latham & Watkins LLP (NY)
   885 Third Ave
   New York, NY 10022
   Tel: (212) 906-2976
   Email: elizabeth.morris@lw.com

     - and -

   Robert Eugene Puterbaugh, Esq.
   Peterson & Myers, PA
   PO Box 24628
   Lakeland, FL 33802-4628
   Tel: (863) 683-6511
   Fax: (863) 682-8031
   Email: rputerbaugh@petersonmyers.com

     - and -

   Stephen R. Senn, Esq.
   Peterson & Myers, PA
   225 E Lemon St Ste 300
   PO Box 24628
   Lakeland, FL 33802-4628
   Tel: (863) 683-6511
   Fax: (863) 682-8031
   Email: agriffin@petersonmyers.com



FRANCESCA'S: Court Directs 151 Plaintiffs to Arbitrate Wage Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
James Sukharev, Esq. -- jsukharev@genovaburns.com -- of Genova
Burns LLC, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on June 22, a
New Jersey federal judge ruled that 151 plaintiffs in a FLSA
collective action against Francesca's must arbitrate its wage and
hour claims. Notably, the arbitration agreements were signed at
varying points in time. While some of the agreements were signed by
plaintiffs before the litigation began, other putative plaintiffs
were presented with and signed the agreements during the pendency
of the litigation. Moreover, after the litigation was commenced,
Francesca's presented all new hires with an arbitration agreement
that included the arbitrability of wage and hour claims.

The court ruled that the arbitration agreements were enforceable in
all three circumstances. The court easily dispensed of the
plaintiffs' argument that arbitration agreements signed by new
hires should be unenforceable, noting that the new hires had not
yet worked for Francesca's at the time the agreements were signed,
and therefore could not be considered class members or putative
class members. With respect to arbitration agreements that were
presented to Francesca's existing employees after the litigation
began, the court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments that they
constituted improper contact with putative class members. The court
concluded that employers may present existing employees with
arbitration agreements, even if a wage and hour litigation has
commenced, as long as the communications are not "abusive" or
"undermines or contradicts the court's own notice to prospective
plaintiffs." Here, because the arbitration agreements were
presented to existing employees before conditional certification of
a class was granted, the court found the communications to be
permissible.

Moreover, although Francesca's filed its motion to compel
arbitration in October 2019, approximately six months after the
close of the notice period for putative plaintiffs to opt into the
action, the court held that the passage of time, standing alone,
did not waive Francesca's right to arbitrate the wage and hour
claims. Next, the court rejected the plaintiff's arguments that,
because they had no memory of signing the arbitration agreements,
there was a factual dispute as to whether they assented to the
agreements. Because discovery revealed "that each employee logged
in using their personal account -- or, for new employees, using a
unique identifier sent to their email -- to execute the arbitration
agreement," the court concluded that "parties are presumed to have
knowledge of contracts they have signed." Finally, because the
arbitration agreements clearly waived any right to proceed on a
class-wide basis, the court rejected the plaintiffs' claim that
they should be permitted to arbitrate their claims as a class, and
ordered the arbitrations to proceed on an individual basis.

This decision is an important lesson to employers that responsibly
rolled out arbitration agreements will be enforceable, assuming
employers did not engage in inappropriate communications, both
before and after a wage and hour litigation is commenced. [GN]


GLEN MILLS: Faces Class Action Over Children Abuse
--------------------------------------------------
Sam Strangeways, writing for The Royal Gazette, reports that almost
800 men and boys who claimed they were abused at a harsh US reform
school where the Bermuda Government sent vulnerable children for
more than 30 years are to take legal action.

The Legal Intelligencer reported that two Philadelphia law firms
were representing a total of 785 people who planned to sue Glen
Mills Schools, which was shut down last year after an inquiry found
evidence of the mistreatment and abuse of children.

The report said a judge at the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas
agreed on June 15 to consider the claims in a single action.

The motion to consolidate the claims was filed by lawyers for the
former inmates and supported by the school, which agreed that was
the best way to deal with the number of plaintiffs.

The school, however, disputes the allegations.

Bermudian children were sent to Glen Mills from at least as far
back as the 1980s until 2017.

The Government refused to disclose earlier this year after a public
access to information request how many boys from the island had
been sent to the Pennsylvania borstal or if any had complained of
mistreatment.

The decision not to release the information is under review by the
Information Commissioner's Office.

Two men, now in their early thirties, who were sent to Glen Mills
as teenagers, told The Royal Gazette last year that they were
beaten and humiliated by teachers.

They alleged that government officials in Bermuda knew about the
brutal regime at the institution but continued to send boys there.

Information released in response to the Pati request revealed that
Glen Mills received almost $1.6 million from Bermuda's taxpayers
between 2001 and 2019, including one year when it was paid about
$306,000. [GN]


GLENS FALLS: Richard Sues Over Wrongfully Charged Overdraft Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daphne Richard, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. GLENS FALLS NATIONAL BANK and DOES 1 through 100, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00734-BKS-DJS (N.D.N.Y., July 1, 2020), is brought
against the Defendants, who wrongfully charged the Plaintiff
overdraft fees and Non-Sufficient Funds Fees.

The lawsuit also seeks monetary damages, restitution and injunctive
relief due to, inter alia, the Defendants' policy and practice of
assessing an overdraft fee or NSF fee on transactions when there
was enough money in the checking account to cover (pay for) the
transactions presented for payment.

The Bank offers its consumer banking customers a checking account.
In connection with its processing of debit transactions (debit
card, ATM, check, ACH, and other similar transactions), the Bank
assesses overdraft fees and NSF fees to customer accounts when it
claims to have determined that a customer's account has been
overdrawn. Unfortunately, the Plaintiff asserts, the customers, who
are assessed these fees are the most vulnerable customers. Young,
lower-income, and non-white account holders are among those who
were more likely to be assessed overdraft fees, the Plaintiff
alleges.

As a result of bank taking advantage of millions of customers
through the unfair practice of charging overdraft and NSF fees
thought methodologies that maximize the possible number of
expensive overdraft fees to be charged, there has been a
substantial amount of litigation over the past few years.

The Defendants entered into a written contract with the Plaintiff
titled "Deposit Account Agreement," according to the complaint.
Nowhere does the Deposit Account Agreement state that for
determining whether to impose an NSF Fee or overdraft fee the bank
will make deductions from a customer's balance for pending debit
card transactions or holds on deposits. The Defendant also has an
improper practice of charging multiple NSF fees for the same
electronic item.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was harmed by the
Defendant's police and practice of charging multiple fees on the
same item. The Defendant breached its contracts with the Plaintiff
by charging multiple NSF or overdraft fees on the same item, and by
charging NSF or Overdraft fees when there was enough money in the
account to cover the transaction.

The Plaintiff was a member of Glens Falls National Bank.

The Defendants operate over 30 branches of bank locations in New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John C. Cherundolo, Esq.
          J. Patrick Lannon, Esq.
          CHERUNDOLO LAW FIRM, PLLC
          AXA Tower I, 15th Floor
          100 Madison Street
          Syracuse, NY 13202
          Phone: (315) 449-9500
          Fax: (315) 449-9804
          Email: jcherundolo@cheurndololawfirm.com

               - and -

          Taras Kick, Esq.
          THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
          815 Moraga Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90049
          Phone: (310) 395-2988
          Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
          Email: Taras@Kicklawfirm.com

               - and -

          Kevin P. Roddy, Esq.
          WILMENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, P.A.
          90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900
          Woodbridge, NJ 07095
          Phone: (732) 636-8000
          Facsimile: (732) 726-6686
          Email: kroddy@wilentz.com


GLOBAL TELLINK: Conspired to Fix ICS Prices, Albert et al. Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY ALBERT, ASHLEY BAXTER, KARINA JAKEWAY, and MELINDA JABBIE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORP.; SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC; and
3CINTERACTIVE CORP., Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-01936-PWG (D.
Md., June 29, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of Section 1 of Sherman Act and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, beginning on or about January 1, 2013,
and continuing through the present, the Defendants and their
co-conspirators entered into a continuing agreement, understanding,
and conspiracy to do the following acts: (1) restrain trade in
inmate calling services (ICS) market to prevent and eliminate price
competition over single calls between Securus and Global Tel*Link
(GTL); (2) fix, inflate, maintain, and stabilize the prices of
single call options for inmates such as PayNow, Text2Connect,
Collect2Card and Collect2Phone calls charged to consumers by the
Defendants in the United States; and (3) delay, diminish and
deprioritize the introduction of a lower-priced alternative to
3CI-operated single calls that had been developed by GTL. As a
result of the Defendants' anticompetitive scheme, the Plaintiffs
and Class members have been injured and will continue to be injured
in their businesses and property by paying more for PayNow,
Text2Connect, Collect2Card and/or Collect2Phone calls than they
would have paid and will pay in the absence of the illegal
agreements and conspiracy.

Global Tel*Link Corp. (GTL) is an Idaho corporation that offers
communication, intelligence, education, enterprise management,
payment and deposit solutions, with its principal place of business
in Falls Church, Virginia.

Securus Technologies, LLC is a provider of civil and criminal
justice technology solutions with its principal place of business
in Carrollton, Texas.

3CInteractive Corp. is a mobile marketing company and payment
processor with its principal place of business in Boca Raton,
Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
         
         Matthew K. Handley, Esq.
         Rachel E. Nadas, Esq.
         HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
         777 6th Street, NW, Eleventh Floor
         Washington, DC 20001
         Telephone: (202) 559-2433
         E-mail: mhandley@hfajustice.com
                 rnadas@hfajustice.com

                  - and –
         
         George F. Farah, Esq.
         Rebecca P. Chang, Esq.
         HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
         81 Prospect Street
         Brooklyn, NY 11201
         Telephone: (212) 477-8090
         E-mail: gfarah@hfajustice.com
                 rchang@hfajustice.com

                  - and –
         
         William A. Anderson, Esq.
         HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
         4730 Table Mesa Drive, Suite G-200
         Boulder, CO 80305
         Telephone: (202) 559-2433
         E-mail: wanderson@hfajustice.com

                  - and –      
         
         Benjamin D. Brown, Esq.
         Brent W. Johnson, Esq.
         Robert A. Braun, Esq.
         COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
         1100 New York Ave., Suite 500
         Washington, DC 20005
         Telephone: (202) 408-4600
         E-mail: bbrown@cohenmilstein.com
                 bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com
                 rbraun@cohenmilstein.com

                  - and –      
         
         Christopher J. Bateman, Esq.
         COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
         88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
         New York, NY 10005
         Telephone: (212) 838-7797
         E-mail: cbateman@cohenmilstein.com

                  - and –      
         
         Benjamin D. Elga, Esq.
         Kelly Jo Popkin, Esq.
         JUSTICE CATALYST LAW, INC.
         81 Prospect Street
         Brooklyn, NY 11201
         Telephone: (518) 732-6703
         E-mail: belga@justicecatalyst.org
                 kpopkin@justicecatalyst.org

                  - and –      
         
         Brian J. Shearer, Esq.
         Craig L. Briskin, Esq.
         JUSTICE CATALYST LAW, INC.
         718 7th St. NW
         Washington, DC 20001
         Telephone: (518) 732-6703
         E-mail: brianshearer@justicecatalyst.org
                 cbriskin@justicecatalyst.org

                  - and –      
         
         Daniel Marshall, Esq.
         HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER
         P.O. Box 1151
         Lake Worth, FL 33460
         Telephone: (561) 360-2523
         E-mail: dmarshall@hrdc-law.org

                  - and –      
         
         Hannah E.M. Lieberman (D. Md. Bar #05456)
         WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN
AFFAIRS
         700 14th St. NW, Ste. 400
         Washington, DC 20005
         Telephone: (202) 319-1040
         E-mail: Hannah_Lieberman@washlaw.org

GOOGLE INC: Sued for Inflating Prices for Digital Ads
-----------------------------------------------------
Ethan Wu, writing for AdWeek, reports that a suit filed in a San
Jose district court
alleges Google violated the Clayton Act by leveraging its market
power to charge inflated prices for digital ads. [GN]

GRAND CANYON: ClaimsFiler Reminds of July 13 Motion Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

Grand Canyon Education, Inc. (LOPE)
Class Period: 1/5/2018 - 1/27/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: July 13, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-grand-canyon-education-inc-securities-litigation

Enphase Energy, Inc. (ENPH)
Class Period: 2/26/2019 - 6/17/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: August 17, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-enphase-energy-inc-securities-litigation


ProAssurance Corporation (PRA)
Class Period: 4/26/2019 - 5/7/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: August 17, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-proassurance-corporation-securities-litigation


Groupon, Inc. (GRPN)
Class Period: 11/4/2019 - 2/18/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: June 29, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-groupon-inc-securities-litigation-3

If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.

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

                        About ClaimsFiler

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


GRAND CANYON: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 13 Motion Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on June 29 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Grand Canyon Education, Inc. (LOPE)

LOPE Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased January 5, 2018
- January 27, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 13, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/grand-canyon-education-inc-loss-form?prid=7608&wire=1

According to a filed complaint, statements made by Defendants were
false and/or misleading because, following Grand Canyon's spin-off
of its educational assets as Grand Canyon University ("GCU"): (i)
GCU would not be a proper non-profit organization as it would
remain under the control of Grand Canyon, and (ii) Grand Canyon
would not be a third-party service provider to GCU but rather would
continue to effectively operate the entity, and (iii) Grand Canyon
employees served as executives of GCU and (iv) GCU functioned as an
off-balance-sheet entity to which Grand Canyon would be able to
funnel expenses and costs in exchange for a disproportionate amount
of revenue, thereby inflating Grand Canyon's financial results.

Forescout Technologies, Inc. (FSCT)

FSCT Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 6, 2020
- May 15, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 10, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/forescout-technologies-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7608&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Forescout Technologies, Inc. made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Forescout
was experiencing a significant and disproportionate decline in its
financial performance; (2) the foregoing was reasonably likely to
have a material negative impact on Forescout's planned acquisition
by Advent International Corp.; and (3) as a result of the
foregoing, defendants' statements about its business and operations
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky -- http://www.zlk.com-- is a nationally
recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut,
and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise
and experience representing investors in securities litigation and
have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved
shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171 [GN]


HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over Online Classes
----------------------------------------------------------
Karen Sloan, writing for Law.com, reports that a Harvard Law
student has filed a class action against the university, arguing
that students should be charged a lower tuition for online classes
on the grounds that they are inferior to in-person instruction.

Harvard Law School should not charge $65,875 for remote classes, an
incoming 2L argues in a new lawsuit against the university. [GN]


HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Aug. 10 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm,
reminds investors in Hebron Technology Co., Ltd. ("Hebron" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: HEBT) of the August 10, 2020 deadline to seek
the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action
that has been filed against the Company.

If you invested in Hebron stock or options between April 24, 2020
and June 3, 2020 and would like to discuss your legal rights, click
here: www.faruqilaw.com/HEBT. There is no cost or obligation to
you.

You can also contact us by calling Richard Gonnello toll free at
877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail to
rgonnello@faruqilaw.com.

CONTACT:
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Attn: Richard Gonnello, Esq.
rgonnello@faruqilaw.com
Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330

The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all those who purchased
Hebron securities between April 24, 2020 and June 3, 2020 (the
"Class Period"). The case, Clynes v. Hebron Technology Co., Ltd. et
al., No. 1:20-cv-04420 was filed on June 9, 2020 and has been
assigned to Judge Paul A. Engelmayer.

The lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives
violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading
statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1) that many of
Hebron's acquisitions, including Beijing Hengpu and Nami Holding
(Cayman) Co., Ltd., involved undisclosed related parties; (2) that
the Company's disclosure controls regarding related party
transactions was ineffective; and (3) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On June 3, 2020, Siegfried Eggert, CEO of Grizzly Research,
presented a report alleging that Hebron is an "insider enrichment
scheme without economic basis," citing questionable transactions
including an undisclosed related party transaction for nearly $26
million.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell from $22.55 per share
on June 2, 2020 to $14.29 per share on June 3, 2020: a $8.26 or
36.63% drop. The stock declined a further $2.51 the following day,
closing at $11.78 per share on June 4, 2020.

The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Hebron's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.

Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this
advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your
particular case. All communications will be treated in a
confidential manner.

To view the source version of this press release, please visit
https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/58704 [GN]


HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that class
action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the
following publicly-traded companies.  Investors have until the
deadlines listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz to discuss their legal
rights in these class actions at 310-914-5007 or by email to
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com.

Hebron Technology Co., Ltd. (NASDAQ: HEBT)
Class Period:  April 24, 2020 - June 3, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 10, 2020

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that many of Hebron's acquisitions, including
Beijing Hengpu and Nami Holding (Cayman) Co., Ltd., involved
undisclosed related parties; (2) that the Company's disclosure
controls regarding related party transactions was ineffective; and
(3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/FRC_LAW.

To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action.  If you
wish to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact:

          The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
          Frank R. Cruz
          Tel: 310-914-5007
          E-mail: fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.frankcruzlaw.com/
[GN]


HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Aug. 7 Motion Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on June 24 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Hebron Technology Co., Ltd. ("Hebron" or the
"Company")(NASDAQ: HEBT) and certain of its officers.  The class
action, filed in United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, and indexed under 20-cv-04746, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Hebron securities
between April 24, 2020, and June 3, 2020, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period").  Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Hebron securities during the
class period, you have until August 7, 2020, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Hebron conducts equipment and engineering service operations
focusing on the research, development and manufacture of fluid
equipment including valves, pipe fittings and others.  Since July
2019, the Company has also provided financial advisory service
operations.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors that: (i) many of Hebron's
acquisitions, including Beijing Hengpu and Nami Holding (Cayman)
Co., Ltd., involved undisclosed related parties; (ii) the Company's
disclosure controls regarding related party transactions was
ineffective; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

On June 3, 2020, Grizzly Research presented a report alleging that
Hebron is an "insider enrichment scheme without economic basis,"
citing questionable transactions including an undisclosed related
party transaction for nearly $26 million.

On this news, the Company' s share price fell $8.26, or nearly 37%,
to close at $14.29 per share on June 3, 2020, on unusually heavy
trading volume.  The stock continued to decline the next trading
session by $2.51, or nearly 18%, to close at $11.78 per share on
June 4, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume.

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


HIGHLAND CAPITAL: Lanotte Appeals N.D. Texas Decision to 5th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Susan Lanotte filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Susan Lanotte v. Highland Capital Mgmt. Fund, et
al., Case No. 3:18-CV-2360, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover damages against the Defendants for breach of
fiduciary duty to the Plaintiffs and the class, and for the
Defendants' breach of the advisory agreement to properly manage the
Highland Global Allocation Fund.

According to the complaint, Defendant Highland Capital manages the
investments of a series of mutual funds of the Trust, including the
Global Allocation Fund and the Highland Energy MLP Fund, and the
trustees of the Trust owe fiduciary obligations to the Global
Allocation Fund and the MLP Fund. The trustees allowed Highland
Capital to use the Global Allocation Fund to buy shares in the MLP
Fund to save the MLP Fund from collapsing and stem the losses
incurred by Highland Capital when oil prices dropped and the MLP
Fund plummeted in value.

The appellate case is captioned as Susan Lanotte v. Highland
Capital Mgmt. Fund, et al., Case No. 20-10649, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant SUSAN LANOTTE, derivatively on behalf of
Highland Global Allocation Fund, and on behalf of herself and all
ohers similarly situated, is represented by:

          Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
          STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN, P.L.L.C.
          12720 Hillcrest Road
          Dallas, TX 75230
          E-mail: bruce@stecklerlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees HIGHLAND CAPITAL MANAGEMENT FUND ADVISORS,
L.P., BRYAN WARD, BOB FROEHLICH, JOHN HONIS, ETHAN POWELL, and
HIGHLAND GLOBAL ALLOCATION FUND, Nominal Defendant, are represented
by:

          Philip Griffin, Esq.
          K & L GATES, L.L.P.
          1601 K Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 778-9416

               - and -

          Artoush Varshosaz, Esq.
          K & L GATES, L.L.P.
          1717 Main Street
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 939-5659
          E-mail: artoush.varshosaz@klgates.com

               - and -

          Bradley Joseph Andreozzi, Esq.
          DRINKER, BIDDLE & REATH, L.L.P.
          191 N. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601-0000
          Telephone: (312) 569-3000
          E-mail: bradley.andreozzi@faegredrinker.com

               - and -

          Edwin Paul Cauley, Jr., Esq.
          FAEGRE, DRINKER, BIDDLE & REATH, L.L.P.
          1717 Main Street
          Dallas, TX 75201-7367
          Telephone: (469) 357-2500
          E-mail: paul.cauley@faegredrinker.com


HOLLAND AMERICA: Lieff Cabraser Et Al. File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC
and Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC on June 24 announced
the filing of a federal class action injury lawsuit against Holland
America and Carnival Corporation on behalf of cruise ship
passengers who traveled on the MS Zaandam in March 2020 and were
negligently exposed to Covid-19. The lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington.

"This cruise was a life-threatening nightmare," notes Lieff
Cabraser partner Kenny Byrd, who represents the plaintiffs in the
lawsuit. "Despite knowing of the risk and dangers of Covid-19
exposure on its ships, Holland America and Carnival put no
meaningful screening or preventative measures in place on the
cruises prior to departure and negligently continued to encourage
guests to gather and mingle even as the virus spread through the
passengers and crew."

On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization declared
Covid-19 a global health emergency. As noted in the complaint, in
or before early February 2020, Holland America and Carnival became
aware of an outbreak of Covid-19 aboard the cruise ship the Diamond
Princess, which is operated by Carnival and its subsidiary Princess
Cruise Lines, Ltd. Ten cases were originally diagnosed, and that
number rapidly escalated to over 700 cases -- over one-fifth of the
passengers onboard. Cruises run by Carnival have been identified as
responsible for more than 1,500 positive Covid-19 infections, and
almost 40 deaths. Carnival, which wholly owns Holland America Line,
also had outbreaks aboard its ships the Ruby Princess and the Grand
Princess, which was prevented from docking in San Francisco in
early March.

The complaint details that plaintiffs and the class boarded the MS
Zaandam in Buenos Aires on March 7, 2020, after Carnival and
Holland knew about the spread of Covid-19 onboard other ships.
Passengers on the MS Zaandam had traveled from all over the world
to meet the ship in Buenos Aires, and some of these passengers
traveled from regions of the world -- like Europe -- that were
experiencing high rates of coronavirus infection. Holland America
assured Plaintiffs that they were instituting additional screening
and on-board health protocols. But as the complaint outlines, when
plaintiffs boarded the ship they were not subject to any additional
preventative measures, or implement any other reasonable
precautions at this stage of the cruise. As plaintiffs understand
the facts, Holland America and Carnival did not take any measures
different from their typical preparations for a voyage, and made no
Covid-19-specific efforts to prevent or contain contagion at the
time of initial embarkation.

"After ports in Chile and Argentina refused to allow the ship to
dock, plaintiffs were forced to remain onboard the ship, with crew
members and other passengers reporting Covid-19 symptoms," notes
Tousley Brain partner Jason Dennett, who co-represents the
plaintiffs in the lawsuit. "Holland and Carnival had no plan, and
provided passengers with no information, about when or where the
ship would dock and Plaintiffs would be allowed to disembark."

The lawsuit states claims for negligence, gross negligence,
negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional
infliction of emotional distress, and seeks compensatory damages as
well as medical monitoring and injunctive relief.

In the days following Holland America's notice to passengers about
the itinerary cancellation, the MS Zaandam continued its voyage,
but with no set destination. During this time, Holland America and
Carnival became aware that multiple crew members and passengers
were exhibiting symptoms of Covid-19. But rather than instituting
protective measures at that time, Holland America and Carnival
scheduled additional group activities, like trivia nights and dance
parties, to entertain passengers while they were stuck at sea.

Holland America and Carnival only began to take any action to
address potential Covid-19 exposure among passengers and crew
approximately one week after the ship was denied entry to South
American ports. Beginning on or around March 22, 2020, guests were
asked to isolate themselves in their staterooms, with meals and
laundry handled and delivered by crew members. Prior to that date,
Holland America and Carnival provided passengers on the ship with
no fore-warning that passengers and crew members were experiencing
flu-like symptoms, although Holland America and Carnival were aware
of the growing population of ill passengers for many days.

On or about March 27, 2020, while still onboard the MS Zaandam,
Plaintiff Carl Zehner of Davidson County, Tennessee, began
experiencing symptoms resembling Covid-19. A subsequent Covid-19
test showed that he was positive for the virus, and Zehner was
re-located to a different area of the ship. After finally arriving
on April 1st in Port Everglades, Florida, some passengers
disembarked, where they were taken, when possible, to hospitals or
provided with means of traveling to their homes, where they then
remained in self-quarantine. Plaintiff Zehner and plaintiff Leonard
Lindsay, who are married, both remained on the MS Zaandam, because
no local hospital would accept Zehner, whose condition had
worsened.

On April 5, 2020, an Orlando hospital agreed to accept Zehner as a
patient and he was transported by helicopter to Advent Health
Orlando Hospital where he was placed on a ventilator shortly after
arriving. He remained on the ventilator for approximately three
weeks, then was transported to Select Specialty Longterm Acute Care
Hospital in South Orlando, and on June 2, 2020, he was transported
to Vanderbilt Stallworth Rehabilitation Hospital in Nashville,
Tennessee. As of this filing, Plaintiff Zehner has been released to
his home, but has not yet made a full recovery. Plaintiff Lindsay
was forced to remain onboard the ship until April 9, 2020. He was
not tested for the virus at any time while onboard. After
disembarking, he returned to Nashville after Zehner was taken to
the hospital, and, at that point, began a new period of
quarantine.

The complaint notes that at the time of this filing, Carnival has
suspended its cruise services for the time being, but that
Carnival's website indicates that it intends to begin operating
certain cruise ships as early as September 1, 2020, potentially
posing grave threats to their passengers, crew members, and the
public health.

CONTACT:

   Elizabeth J. Cabraser
   Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
   275 Battery Street, Suite 2900
   San Francisco, CA 94111
   ecabraser@lchb.com
   415 956-1000

   Jason Dennett
   Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC
   1700 Seventh Avenue, Ste 2200
   Seattle, WA 98101
   jdennett@tousley.com
   206 682-5600

   David W. Garrison
   Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC
   Philips Plaza
   414 Union Street, Suite 900
   Nashville, TN 37219
   dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
   615 244-2202 [GN]


I AND D: Erazo Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under NYLL and FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
VICENTE ERAZO and JOSE NERY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. I AND D GLATT 2 INC. (D/B/A I AND D GLATT)
DAVID YIZHAKY, Case No. 2:20-cv-02748-WFK-SIL (E.D.N.Y., June 20,
2020), seeks to recover overtime compensation, spread-of-hours pay,
unlawful deductions for the Plaintiffs and similarly situated
co-workers pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that throughout their employment with the
Defendants, they regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week
but were never paid overtime wages. The Plaintiffs contend that the
Defendants do utilize a punch in, and out system called
"Fingercheck." However, the Plaintiffs allege, this system is
manipulated weekly in order to show less hours every week. A
manager named "Carolina" manipulates the hours and hands with about
20-30 less hours per week, the Plaintiffs assert.

The Plaintiffs are employees of the Defendants in the produce and
meat section of their Supermarket at 327 Hampstead Avenue, in West
Hampstead, New York. Mr. Erazo was employed starting January 2019
until April 2020. Mr. Nery was employed for about 12 years ending
in April 2020.

The Defendants operate a kosher catering company where the
Plaintiffs worked.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lina Stillman, Esq.
          STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
          www.FightForUrRights.com
          42 Broadway, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 203-2417


INDONESIA: Workers File Class Action Over Covid-19 Crisis
---------------------------------------------------------
NZHerald.co.nz reports that a group of workers filed a class-action
lawsuit against Widodo in Jakarta in April, claiming 10 billion
rupiah ($109,000) in damages.

The group argues for two and a half months after the virus was
reported in Wuhan, the government did nothing to prepare for it
spreading to Indonesia, and even joked that it wouldn't be able
to.

"The plaintiffs certainly have a lot of examples of the
government's disappointing response to the disaster," Gadjah Mada
University law lecturer Laras Susanti wrote recently.

"These responses led to public frustration exploding on social
media. The Indonesian Doctors' Association [IDI] sent letters
begging the government to provide proper personal protective
equipment and implement rapid public testing."

But it wasn't until the end of February that the country declared a
state of emergency.

The government responded to the lawsuit saying it wasn't liable
because the Covid-19 crisis was historically unprecedented and its
scale unpredictable, and told the public it had managed the crisis
relatively well when compared to some other countries.

Susanti said the lawsuit had a "quite high" chance of success, but
that a recently issued presidential regulation in response to a
previous successful lawsuit against the government could mean it
wasn't held liable if it implemented policies in good faith.

She said accountability was akin to good faith, and unfortunately
on that count the president's "leadership in the Covid-19 crisis
has left much to be desired".

She added regardless of the outcome, the lawsuit delivered a clear
message to the government that the public was watching their poor
handling of the crisis and were willing to hold them accountable
for it.

People aren't waiting for the lawsuit to end to form an opinion
though.

"The government's narrative from the beginning has been one that
denied the science and denied the need for early action,"
communications specialist Elina Ciptadi said during a webinar on
the politics and economics of Indonesia's response.

Cipatdi co-founded a website that aimed to provide Indonesians
accurate information on how to deal with the pandemic.

According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies
(which organised the webinar), the website is considered one of the
most reliable sources of news on the virus in Indonesia, with think
tanks and even government officials relying on their data.

An article posted on the website notes the country has been
impacted differently than others, documenting an "interesting
trend" in Indonesian Covid-19 victims: they were younger than in
other countries and higher in the productive age group.

It's theorised Indonesia's high rates of heart disease risk could
be a factor.

Two-thirds of Indonesians over the age of 40 are at risk of dying
of heart disease, and those vulnerable might not realise it.

People with other health conditions were at an elevated risk from
Covid-19.

"Seeing the high rate of death due to comorbidities in other
countries, combined with findings about the high prevalence of
heart disease among productive age, these two things are consistent
to explain the trend of high mortality due to Covid-19 in the
productive age group in Indonesia," the article reads, warning the
trend "has the potential to exacerbate the economic impact caused
by this health crisis in the long run, because the productive age
group is the motor of the family economy and the motor of state
productivity".

The economy has been a common focus for hard-hit countries as they
seek to reopen even while cases continue climbing.

The so-called "new normal" in Widodo's country advises Indonesians
will simply have to learn to "coexist" with the virus, but people
will still be required to wear masks and observe physical
distancing.

As restrictions begin lifting, Indonesia recorded its highest
single day of new infections, with 1031 new cases, overtaking
Singapore as the country with the most infections in Southeast
Asia. [GN]


JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: Facing Xyrem(R) Related Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on June 22, 2020, that the
company is a defendant in several class action suit related to
Xyrem(R).

On June 17, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court in the Northern District of Illinois by Blue
Cross and Blue Shield Association, in its capacity as the carrier
for the service benefit plan, a/k/a the "Federal Employee Program,"
a Federal Employee Health Benefits Act Plan ("BCBSA"), against Jazz
Pharmaceuticals plc, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Jazz
Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited (collectively, the "Company") and
certain other defendant companies, Roxane Laboratories, Inc., Hikma
Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Eurohealth (USA), Inc., Hikma
Pharmaceuticals plc, Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Par
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc., and
Lupin Inc. (collectively, the “BCBSA Related Defendants”) (the
"BCBSA Lawsuit").

On June 18, 2020, two additional lawsuits were filed in the
Northern District of California by (i) the New York State Teamsters
Council Health and Hospital Fund against the BCBSA Related
Defendants (the "New York State Teamsters Lawsuit") and (ii) The
City of Providence, Rhode Island, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, against Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc, and
certain other defendant companies, Roxane Laboratories, Inc.,
West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp., Hikma Labs Inc., Hikma
Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., and Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc (the "City
of Providence Related Defendants") (the "City of Providence
Lawsuit").

The plaintiffs in the BCBSA Lawsuit and New York State Teamsters
Lawsuit are seeking to represent a class of direct purchasers, and
the plaintiffs in the City of Providence Lawsuit are seeking to
represent a class of indirect purchasers.

The lawsuits generally allege violations of U.S. federal and state
antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair competition laws in
connection with the Company's conduct related to its product,
Xyrem(R) (sodium oxybate) oral solution, including actions leading
up to, and entering into, patent litigation settlements with the
BCBSA Related Defendants and the City of Providence Related
Defendants, seeking monetary damages, declaratory and injunctive
relief against the alleged unlawful conduct, disgorgement of
profits and restitution.

Jazz said, "It is possible that additional lawsuits will be filed
against the Company making similar or related allegations. While
the Company believes the allegations to be meritless and intends to
defend these lawsuits vigorously, there can be no assurance as to
the ultimate outcome of these and any other related lawsuits, which
in any event may be costly and time-consuming to defend."

Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc is a biopharmaceutical company based in
Ireland. It was founded in 2003. One of the company's most
significant products is the United States Food and Drug
Administration approved drug Xyrem, the sodium salt of the
naturally occurring neurotransmitter γ-Hydroxybutyric acid.


JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Yadgar Asserts Breach of FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jefferson Capital
Systems, LLC. The case is styled as Moshe Yadgar, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jefferson
Capital Systems, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02887 (E.D. N.Y.,
June 30, 2020).

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

Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC is a debt collector.[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



KELLOGG SALES: Judge Dismisses Vanilla Labeling Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Keller and Heckman LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that on June 22, a California federal judge dismissed a
proposed class action against Kellogg Sales Company for their Bear
Naked Granola V'nilla Almond product. In the complaint, plaintiff
Harlan Zaback alleged that Kellogg falsely and misleadingly labeled
and advertised the granola as being flavored "with vanilla
flavoring derived exclusively from vanilla beans when the
ingredient list reveals otherwise." Zaback claims he would not have
purchased the product or would have paid significantly less had he
known it was not flavored with vanilla flavoring derived
exclusively from vanilla beans.

U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez dismissed Zaback's claims
because he did not allege what might be in the product, if not
vanilla flavoring from vanilla beans. Instead, Zaback concluded
that Kellogg's listing of "natural flavors" in the ingredient list,
as opposed to "vanilla flavor" or "vanilla extract," is
acknowledgement that vanilla flavor or extract is not an ingredient
in the product. Zaback provided no other factual basis that the
product was mislabeled.

Judge Benitez agreed with Kellogg that Zaback was "merely
speculating" and did not allege sufficient facts to "nudge [his]
claims . . . across the line from conceivable to plausible."
Rather, Judge Benitez held that Zaback's logic boiled down to "the
omission is the admission." Zaback may file an amended complaint
within 14 days of the order. [GN]


KIRKLAND LAKE: Brahms Sues Over Misleading Securities Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, STEPHEN BRAHMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. KIRKLAND LAKE GOLD LTD. and ANTHONY P.
MAKUCH, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04953 (S.D.N.Y., June 29,
2020), arises from the Defendants' violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated individuals who purchased Kirkland stock between January
8, 2018 and November 25, 2019, alleges that the Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements about Kirkland's
business, operational, and compliance policies in order to lure
investors to acquire Kirkland shares at artificially inflated
prices during the Class period. The Defendants concealed to
investors that the company lacked adequate internal controls over
financial reporting, especially as it relates to its projections of
risks, reserve grade, and all-in sustaining costs.

The truth about Kirkland's business condition emerged following the
announcement of its acquisition of Detour Gold Corporation, a
Canadian exploration and mining company, on November 25, 2019.
Investors learned that Kirkland's rosy projections, guidance, and
plans, promising to deliver low-cost, high-grade mining were false
and unsustainable in the light of the impending acquisition of
Detour.

Prior to the deal, Kirkland's all-in sustaining costs for the first
nine months was $584 per ounce, while Detour's all-in sustaining
costs was nearly twice that amount, $1,121 per ounce. Thus, the
acquisition of Detour represented a 30% jump in Kirkland's
consolidated all-in sustaining costs.

On this news, Kirkland's shares declined 17%, to close at $39.44 on
November 25, 2019. As a result of Kirkland's wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of
Kirkland's common shares, the Plaintiff and Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages.

Kirkland Lake Gold Ltd. is a Canadian company that engages in gold
production and exploration activities, with a principal place of
business at 200 Bay Street #1320, Toronto, Ontario. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Christian Levis, Esq.
         Andrea Farah, Esq.
         LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
         44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
         White Plains, NY 10601
         Telephone: (914) 997-0500
         E-mail: clevis@lowey.com
                afarah@lowey.com

LOS ANGELES, CA: Protesters' Class Action Against LAPD Expanded
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan J. Farrick, writing for Legal Reader, reports that a class
action accusing the Los Angeles Police Department of brutality
against Black Lives Matter protesters has been greatly expanded.

According to The L.A. Times, the expanded lawsuit details
protesters' alleged injuries and stories of mistreatment. It also
relays accusations of inadequate leadership amongst the police
department's upper echelons.

The complaint, notes the Times, was filed at the beginning of June
by the Los Angeles chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, in tandem
with Black Lives Matter and the Los Angeles Community Action
Network.

In total, the groups say that more than 3,000 people were arrested
in anti-police brutality protests. Most of those arrests occurred
in the span of just several days, with activists claiming the LAPD
misapplied and manipulated legal protocol to clear protesters off
the streets.

Many protesters who were taken into custody by the LAPD claim to
have physically mistreated. The lawsuit also calls attention to the
potential misuse of non-lethal projectiles—including rubber
bullets, sponge bullets, and foam–which appear to have been fired
directly at protesters.

And in some cases, the police were so capricious in their use of
non-lethal projectiles that they hit bystanders, too. One homeless
man, who's participating in the lawsuit, claims to have been shot
by police for no apparent reason.

"Cincinnati is disabled and in a wheelchair," the lawsuit states.
"He pleaded with the police not to use force on him before being
shot in the face."

Another man, Linus Shentu, says he was sitting in a parked car near
an ongoing protest. An LAPD van pulled up alongside the vehicle;
officers disembarked, arresting Shentu and the vehicle's other
occupants.

Shentu and his friends say they "experienced numbness, bruising and
soreness from the handcuffing and the forced removal from their
vehicle."

Attorneys have pointed to such numerous instances of misconduct as
indicative of widespread failure.

"We want to show the scope of what happened over all of these days
and the range of injuries," said civil rights attorney Carol Sobel.
"What's extraordinary about this is how many people got show in the
upper torso or the head, because those are potentially deadly
strikes."

Rubber bullets, while commonly used in riot control, are supposed
to be fired at people's legs or on the ground immediately in front
of them—headshots can and sometimes have been lethal.

Sobel told The Los Angeles Times that officers' face-to-face
interactions with protesters were also often unwarranted. For
instance, many people were arrested for offenses which would
ordinarily merit nothing than more a curbside citation.

The lawsuit accuses Los Angeles Police Department Chief Michel
Moore of facilitating the arrest of low-risk protesters, even as
coronavirus remains a large-scale public safety threat in most of
the United States.

"These were not just poorly trained officers," Sobel told the
Times. "These were mis-trained officers being directed by the
chief." [GN]


LUCKIN COFFEE: Bergenholtz Sues Over False IPO and SPO Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL BERGENHOLTZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LUCKIN COFFEE INC., JENNY ZHIYA QIAN, REINOUT
HENDRIK SCHAKEL, CHARLES ZHENGYAO LU, JIAN LIU, JINYI GUO, HUI LI,
ERHAI LIU, SEAN SHAO, THOMAS P. MEIER, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES
(USA) LLC, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, CHINA INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL
CORPORATION HONG KONG SECURITIES LIMITED, HAITONG INTERNATIONAL
SECURITIES COMPANY LIMITED, KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS INC., and
NEEDHAM & COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 652576/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New York
Cty., June 18, 2020), alleges that Luckin disseminated statements
alleged to be false and misleading in connection with the initial
public offering and secondary public offering of American
Depositary Shares.

The lawsuit is a securities class action on behalf of all
purchasers of Luckin ADS pursuant to or traceable to the
registration statements and prospectuses issued in connection with:
(1) the Company's initial public offering on May 17, 2019; and (2)
a secondary offering effective on January 10, 2020. The action
asserts strict liability claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 against Luckin, certain of the
Company's officers and directors, and the underwriters of the
Offerings.

On January 7, 2020, Luckin filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission a registration statement on Form F-1 for the SPO, which
was declared effective on January 9, 2020. On January 10, 2020, the
Company filed a prospectus for the SPO on Form 424B4, which
incorporated and formed part of the SPO Registration Statement. By
means of the IPO Registration Statement, Luckin issued
approximately 9 million ADSs at $42.00 per ADS. The SPO generated
gross proceeds of $385 million. At the time of the Offerings, the
Defendants represented that Luckin was achieving record setting
revenue growth, that the Company stores were operating profitably
after quarters of reported losses, and that such growth would
continue in the near-term so as to allow Luckin to achieve its
guidance and forecasts.

The Plaintiff contends that the Registration Statements failed to
disclose that as Luckin would later admit the Company's financial
results were artificially inflated due to fabricated transactions
by members of Luckin's senior management, including its Chief
Operating Officer Jian Liu, and other employees such that revenues
2019 had been inflated by as much as $310 million.

On May 28, 2020, The Wall Street Journal published an article
reporting that Luckin had significantly inflated its sales and
revenues by selling vouchers redeemable for "tens of millions of
cups of coffee" to businesses linked to its chairman and largest
shareholder Defendant Lu. On this news, the Company's ADSs
plummeted more than 20 percent, from a closing price of $2.59 on
May 27, 2020, to a closing price of $2.06 on May 28, 2020.

The Plaintiff purchased Luckin ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to
the IPO Registration Statement and Prospectus and the SPO
Registration Statement and Prospectus, and has been damaged
thereby.

Luckin is engaged in the retail sale of freshly brewed drinks,
including coffee, and light meals. The Company operates stores
under the Luckin brand and sells its products through a mobile app
throughout the People's Republic of China. The Individual
Defendants are officers and directors of the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C. Harrison, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          E-mail: dharrison@lowey.com

               - and -

          Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
          Barbara A. Podell, Esq.
          Andrew Abramowitz, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: mdellangelo@bm.net
                  bpodell@bm.net
                  aabramowitz@bm.net

               - and -

          Justin M. Alaburda, Esq.
          Victoria L. Ferrise, Esq.
          Justin M. Lovdahl, Esq.
          BRENNAN, MANNA & DIAMOND, LLC
          200 Public Square, Suite 3270
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (330) 253-5060
          E-mail: jmalaburda@bmdllc.com
                  vlferrise@bmdllc.com
                  jmlovdahl@bmdllc.com


MAPFRE INSURANCE: Picot Files Class Suit in Mass.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mapfre Insurance
Company. The case is styled as Albertina Guzman Picot, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mapfre
Insurance Company and College Highway Insurance Agency, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-11261 (D. Mass., June 30, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Insurance.

Mapfre Insurance Company is a non-life insurance company offering
general insurance for optimum financial protection and risk
management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Anthony Tarricone, Esq.
   Kreindler & Kreindler
   855 Boylston Street
   Boston, MA 02116
   Tel: (617) 424-9100
   Email: atarricone@kreindler.com



MARKEL INSURANCE: Grant & Eisenhofer Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Leading plaintiffs' law firm Grant & Eisenhofer has filed suit on
June 24 against Deerfield, Ill.-based Markel Insurance Co. for
failing to accept claims from franchisees of national fitness chain
Anytime Fitness that were shuttered and lost business due to
state-imposed COVID-19 restrictions.

The four Anytime Fitness outlets named in the complaint are
operated by Fountain Enterprises, of West Point, Miss., and located
in Mississippi and Alabama. They represent a tiny fraction of the
4,500 Anytime Fitness gyms nationwide, all of which are insured by
Markel. The lawsuit, alleging breach of contract and violations of
the duty of good faith and fair dealing, seeks to represent all
Anytime Fitness locations who duly paid premiums to Markel and were
denied compensation for losses suffered due to shutdowns ordered by
state authorities to fight coronavirus.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois. The Anytime Fitness policyholders seek a declaratory
judgment from the court that their losses should be covered by the
Markel Insurance contract, as well as compensatory, punitive, and
other damages.

Diandra Debrosse Zimmermann, a Grant & Eisenhofer director who
heads the firm's office in Birmingham, AL, said, "Markel issued
commercial policies and collected regular premiums from Anytime
Fitness and thousands of other similar businesses for years. These
policies specifically provide for coverage in the event of a
crisis, for business interruption and for acts of a civil authority
that impedes business operations. Now, while our clients are
fighting to stay afloat in a crippling pandemic with state-imposed
restrictions on operations, Markel refuses to honor the terms of
the policies it issued. Anytime Fitness franchisees have been
forced to bring suit to assert their rights as commercial
policyholders."

Grant & Eisenhofer is joined by co-counsel Rogers Law Group, of New
Albany, Miss., and The Collier Firm, of Oxford, Miss.

In keeping with much of the country, Alabama and Mississippi
gradually shut down non-essential businesses, including fitness
centers, and prohibited large gatherings of people, starting in the
second half of March and beginning of April. The Anytime Fitness
location in Fulton, Miss., was the first Fountain outlet to suspend
operations, on March 23; its other Mississippi location, in West
Point, shut down on April 3. The Alabama locations, in Brewton and
Monroeville, closed on March 27. The day before, according to the
complaint, the United States had registered the largest number of
COVID-19 cases in the world.

The gyms' closures triggered a pause in billing for prepaid
memberships, adding the lost time to the end of those memberships.
The closures also forced a halt to signing up new members and an
end to in-house sales of fitness-related items that were part of
the operations. Cumulatively, these represented a significant loss
to franchisees' revenues.

Since mid-May Mississippi and Alabama have allowed fitness centers
to reopen, but under vastly restricted circumstances. Mississippi
Anytime Fitness locations are no longer 24-hour, and must close by
10 p.m. They are restricted to no more than 30% of maximum
capacity, and disinfecting and deep cleaning by staff is constant.

Workout equipment has been moved around to effectuate a six-foot
distance between users. Employees are screened for coronavirus. In
Alabama, capacity is limited to no more than 50% of the maximum,
and showers, locker rooms, and spa facilities remain closed.
Fitness classes that were popular at all four Fountain franchisees
are canceled for the foreseeable future.

According to the compliant, Fountain Enterprises and Markel agreed
to an all-risk coverage policy, meaning that all risks are covered
unless specifically excluded or limited by the policy. It protects
Fountain against loss of business income due to a suspension of
operations, and also covers expenses incurred in maintaining the
business while it is closed, or in restarting it.

The complaint notes that the "civil authority" portion of the
policy protects the insured in the event that there is no lawful
way to reach the premises, i.e., when civil authorities prevent
access to the business – which is the exact circumstance of the
COVID pandemic. In short, Markel promised, "We will pay for the
actual loss of Business income you sustain due to the necessary
suspension of your operations during the period of restoration."

Markel not only reneged on its contract to compensate Fountain
Enterprises for business losses, allege the Anytime Fitness
franchisees, but it did so with implausible swiftness. According to
the complaint, Fountain made the insurer aware of its losses on
April 18; Markel notified Fountain of its intention to deny payment
less than one week later on April 23 -- "showing Markel engaged in
no meaningful investigation of the claims or review of the Policy,"
says the complaint.

The suit goes on to state, "The actions of Markel in improperly
denying Fountain's claim were a blatant disregard for the
contractual rights of Fountain resulting in a material breach of
Markel's duties and obligation owed under the Policy and deprived
Fountain of the benefit of its bargain, causing serious financial
damages to Fountain."

Grant & Eisenhofer attorney Adam Gomez added, "Insurance exists to
protect people and their property, including businesses. For this
safety net and peace of mind a fair premium is paid. No one expects
or wants to turn to insurance payouts, but when extreme
circumstances demand it we must be able to count on the agreements
we've signed. For Markel to turn from its contractual obligations
in the face of the terrible toll this virus has exacted is
inexcusable. We intend to hold them to account, and to their word,
to Anytime Fitness."

                   About Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.

Grant & Eisenhofer -- https://www.gelaw.com -- is one of the U.S.'s
leading litigation firms, with a highly successful track record
representing plaintiffs in complex litigation and arbitration
matters. The firm has offices in Wilmington (Delaware), New York,
Chicago, Birmingham, and San Francisco, and an international docket
of high-profile cases. G&E's clients include institutional
investors and other plaintiffs in U.S. and international securities
matters, derivative and corporate governance lawsuits, shareholder
activism matters, bankruptcy litigation, antitrust actions,
consumer class actions, whistleblower cases involving the False
Claims Act, mass tort and environmental suits, birth injury
litigation, intellectual property disputes, and civil rights suits.
The firm has recovered over $27 billion for clients in the last ten
years, and has twice been cited by RiskMetrics for securing the
highest average investor recovery in securities class actions. G&E
has been named one of the country's top plaintiffs' law firms by
The National Law Journal for more than a decade, and was named one
of the U.S.'s "Most Feared Plaintiffs Firms" as well as one of
Delaware's "Regional Powerhouses for 2018" by Law360. For more
information, visit www.gelaw.com.

From:

James Bourne 914-318-2427 jimbournenyc@aol.com
Allan Ripp 646-285-1779 arippyc@aol.com
Elise Martin 302-622-7004 emartin@gelaw.com [GN]


MEDICAL DATA: Herringshaw Files FDCPA Suit in Nevada
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medical Data Systems,
Inc. The case is styled as Misty Herringshaw, individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Medical Data
Systems, Inc. aka Medical Revenue Service and John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229 (D. Nev., June 30, 2020).

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

Medical Revenue Service offers medical billing, coding, and bill
collection services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Robert M Tzall, Esq.
   Law Offices of Robert M. Tzall
   1481 Warm Springs Rd, Suite 135
   Henderson, NV 89014
   Tel: (702) 666-0233
   Email: office@tzalllegal.com


MEDTRONIC PLC: Class Certification Bid in Covidien Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 19, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended April 24, 2020, that the Hennepin County, Minnesota,
District Court has issued an order and opinion denying the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the consolidated suit
involving the acquisition of Covidien PLC.

On July 2, 2014, Lewis Merenstein filed a putative shareholder
class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court seeking
to enjoin the then-potential acquisition of Covidien.

The lawsuit named Medtronic, Inc., Covidien, and each member of the
Medtronic, Inc. Board of Directors at the time as defendants, and
alleged that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to
shareholders with regard to the then-potential acquisition.

On August 21, 2014, Kenneth Steiner filed a putative shareholder
class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court, also
seeking an injunction to prevent the potential Covidien
acquisition.

In September 2014, the Merenstein and Steiner matters were
consolidated and in December 2014, the plaintiffs filed a
preliminary injunction motion seeking to enjoin the Covidien
transaction.

On March 20, 2015, the District Court issued an order and opinion
granting Medtronic's motion to dismiss the case. In May of 2015,
the plaintiffs filed an appeal, and, in January of 2016, the
Minnesota State Court of Appeals affirmed in part, and reversed in
part. On April 19, 2016, the Minnesota Supreme Court granted the
Company's petition to review the issue of whether most of the
original claims are properly characterized as direct or derivative
under Minnesota law.

In August of 2017, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the
decision of the Minnesota State Court of Appeals, sending the
matter back to the trial court for further proceedings, which are
ongoing.

In April of 2020, the District Court issued an order and opinion
denying the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Company has not recognized an expense related to damages in
connection with this matter, because any potential loss is not
currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP.
Additionally, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the
range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters.

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

Medtronic plc develops, manufactures, distributes, and sells
device-based medical therapies to hospitals, physicians,
clinicians, and patients worldwide. It operates through four
segments: Cardiac and Vascular Group, Minimally Invasive Therapies
Group, Restorative Therapies Group, and Diabetes Group. The company
was founded in 1949 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


MERCEDES-BENZ: Faces Class Action Over Sunroof Breakage
-------------------------------------------------------
Emmariah Holcomb, writing for glassBYTEs.com, reports that Bruce
Pickens has become the lead plaintiff in a class action complaint
filed in Illinois against Mercedes-Benz, Daimler AG, Saint-Gobain
Sekurit (Saint Gobain) and Napleton Autowerks of Indiana, Inc.
(Napleton Autowerks.)

In the class action complaint, Pickens alleges the German luxury
auto manufacturer is at fault for misrepresenting the safety of its
vehicles. He is seeking a trial by jury and legal fee compensation,
along with additional financial compensation and injunctive
relief.

Pickens alleges Mercedes-Benz engaged in "the practice of
misrepresenting the safety of the vehicles," which resulted in harm
to vehicle owners and passengers. The harm, according to the class
action complaint, is alleged to have been caused by spontaneous
breakage of the sunroof.

"Plaintiff is among the millions of consumers who purchased one or
more of Mercedes-Benz vehicles during the 10 years preceding the
filing of this complaint. Plaintiff and other similarly situated
purchasers of the vehicles relied on Mercedes-Benz's
misrepresentations in purchasing the vehicles, and would not have
purchased the vehicles, had facts regarding the true safety of the
vehicles were disclosed," a portion of the class action complaint
reads.

The complaint alleges the defendants failed to adequately warn
against the negative effects and risks associated with
Mercedes-Benz's vehicles.

According to Pickens, the defendants failed to provide any warnings
regarding the potential sunroof breakage.

"Defendants omitted, concealed and inadequately provided critical
safety information regarding the use of Mercedes-Benz in order to
induce its purchase and use. Defendants engaged in and continued to
engage in conduct likely to mislead consumers including the
plaintiff. The conduct was fraudulent, unfair and unlawful," a
portion of the class action complaint reads.

According to the class action complaint, Pickens owns a 2015
Mercedes-Benz ML350, which was being driven by his sister, Jawanna
Tallie, on March 3, 2020, when the sunroof suddenly exploded.

He states the spontaneous breakage occurred while his sister was
driving 55 mph on a highway on a sunny day. According to the class
action complaint, Pickens' sister heard something like a shotgun
blast, which caused her to pull over to check the outside of the
vehicle. Tallie was unable to find any external damage, but when
she reentered the vehicle, glass allegedly fell onto her as the
sunroof caved in.

The class action complaint alleges large panoramic sunroofs require
exact engineering, as well as precise strengthening and attachment
of the glass. Mercedes allegedly failed to meet the required
standards, according to owners who claim the sunroofs cracked,
shattered or exploded, according to the class action complaint.
[GN]


MERCY HEALTH: 8th Cir. Reverses in Part Dismissal of Sanzone Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Sally Sanzone, individually and behalf of all others
similarly situated; Gene Grasle Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Mercy
Health; Mercy Health Benefits Committee Defendants-Appellees. John
Does, 1-10, Members of the Mercy Health Benefits Committee; Jane
Does, 1-10, Members of the Mercy Health Benefits Committee
Defendants. Mercy Health Stewardship Committee Defendant-Appellee.
John Does, 11-20, Members of the Mercy Health Stewardship
Committee; Jane Does, 11-20, Members of the Mercy Health
Stewardship Committee; John Does, 21-40; Jane Does, 21-40
Defendants, Case No. 18-3574 (8th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in
part the district court's order granting Mercy's motion to
dismiss.

The Congress placed a religious exemption within the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.  The exemption covers
retirement and pension plans of some religiously affiliated
nonprofits.  The central issue in the case is whether a
multibillion dollar, religiously affiliated hospital's plan falls
within that exemption.

Sanzone worked as a registered nurse for Mercy Health for more than
25 years.  During that time, she participated in the Retirement
Plan for Employees of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, St.
Louis, which is now known as the Mercy Health MyRetirement Personal
Pension Account Plan.  Sanzone claims that Mercy sponsors the Plan
and that the Mercy Health Benefits Committee administers the Plan.

Mercy is a nonprofit corporation organized under Missouri law.  It
was founded in 1986 by the Sisters of Mercy, a religious order
established by the Catholic Church.  It has grown substantially
since its founding; at the time Sanzone filed her complaint, Mercy
and its subsidiaries operated hospitals in four states, employed
more than 40,000 people, possessed $6.4 billion in assets, and
earned operating revenues of about $5.3 billion.  Given that
growth, the Order transferred sponsorship of Mercy to Mercy Health
Ministry, which is a public juridic person recognized by the
Catholic Church.  Mercy is governed by its board of directors,
which consists of 5 to 17 members, at least 4 of whom must be
Catholic.

The Committee includes five members, four of whom are sisters of
the Order.  According to the complaint, the Committee has all
discretionary powers and authority to carry out the Plan.  Mercy
tasked the Committee with providing fiduciary oversight and various
administrative tasks.  It also tasked the Committee with creating a
funding policy and method for the Plan, but the Committee delegated
that duty to a subcommittee of the Board. Between December 2010 and
June 2016, the Committee met seven times.

Sanzone filed suit against Mercy, alleging violations of federal
and state laws.  Key in the case, she claimed that Mercy's plan
management disregards ERISA's requirements.  For example, ERISA
requires covered plans to maintain certain funding levels and issue
reports to beneficiaries.  As of 2015, the Plan was underfunded by
29%, and in certain years, Mercy failed to make contributions to
the Plan.  Further, the Committee failed to provide summary plan
descriptions, annual reports, notifications of failure to meet
minimum funding, and other ERISA reports.  Also, the Plan is not
insured by the Pension Benefits Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC).

In response, Mercy asserted that it does not have to comply with
ERISA's requirements because the Plan falls under ERISA's
church-plan exemption.  ERISA does not apply to any employee
benefit plan if such plan is a church plan.  A church plan is a
plan established and maintained (to the extent required in clause
(ii) of subparagraph (B)) for its employees (or their
beneficiaries) by a church or by a convention or association of
churches which is exempt from tax under section 501 of Title 26.

As the Supreme Court has noted, that is a mouthful, for lawyers and
non-lawyers alike.  Put simply, a principal-purpose organization is
one that has the primary purpose or function of administering or
funding a plan for the employees of a church, and it must be
controlled by or associated with a church.

The Congress also expanded "employee of a church" to include "an
employee of an organization, whether a civil law corporation or
otherwise, which is exempt from tax under section 501 of Title 26
and which is controlled by or associated with a church or a
convention or association of churches."

Before the district court, Sanzone argued that the Plan was not a
church plan and thus its failure to comply with ERISA violated the
statute. In the alternative, Sanzone argued that the church-plan
exemption violates the Establishment Clause.  Mercy moved to
dismiss. The district court dismissed the case for lack of
jurisdiction.  It found that there was no jurisdiction under ERISA
because the Plan was a church plan and that Sanzone lacked standing
to bring suit under the Establishment Clause.  After dismissing all
the federal claims, the court dismissed the remaining state law
claims for lack of supplemental jurisdiction.

Sanzone now appeals.  Sanzone argues that the Appellate Court's
precedent is superseded by the Supreme Court's decision in Arbaugh
v. Y&H Corp.

The Eighth Circuit finds that Arbaugh controls over any of the
Court's subsequent dicta regarding jurisdiction.  Pursuant to that
precedent, the Eighth Circuit holds that whether a plan is an ERISA
plan is an element of the Plaintiff's case and not a jurisdictional
inquiry.  In Arbaugh, the Court determined that the Congress did
not deem the numerosity limitation jurisdictional and held that
courts should not either.  The church-plan exemption, like the
numerosity provision in Title VII, does not refer to jurisdiction
and is separate from any relevant jurisdictional provisions.
Because of those similarities and the "bright line" language
adopted by the Court in Arbaugh, there is merit to the Court's
sister circuits' conclusions that ERISA coverage is a merits
issue.

Next, Sanzone argues that she is entitled to remand for two
reasons.  First, she argues that the district court erred in
finding that the Plan was a church plan because it incorrectly
interpreted the principal-purpose provision.  Second, Sanzone
argues that she is entitled to further discovery.

The Eighth Circuit holds that Sanzone has failed to show that
ERISA's context requires a deviation from the ordinary meaning of
maintain.  And under that ordinary meaning, the Committee maintains
the plan.  Moreover, the statutory context does not suggest that
the Court need to depart from the plain meaning of organization, so
the Eighth Circuit declines to do so.  In consequence, the Eighth
Circuit finds that the Committee, with the powers alleged in the
complaint, maintains the Plan and is a principal-purpose
organization under the statute.  Therefore, Sanzone has failed to
plead a plan that is governed by ERISA, and thus her claims under
ERISA fail.

Next, the Eighth Circuit finds that Sanzone failed to adequately
state a claim under ERISA because the Plan, as alleged, is a church
plan.  Further, she waived any claim for additional discovery by
not requesting it.  

Finally, the district court and Mercy failed to address many of
those injuries -- most importantly, the deprivation of ERISA
protections.  Those protections include ERISA's funding
requirements, Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation insurance, and
notice requirements.  But for the church-plan exemption, Sanzone
would be able to sue under ERISA to enforce those protections.  The
inquiry, therefore, is whether the deprivation of the specified
ERISA protections constitutes a sufficient injury to confer
standing.

The Eighth Circuit finds that the district court did not consider
that specific question.  When a district court fails to address a
matter properly presented to it, the Court ordinarily remands to
give the court an opportunity to rule in the first instance.  The
Court follows that principle in the case.  Therefore, the Eighth
Circuit remands to the district court to determine whether the
deprivation of ERISA protections confers Article III standing, and
if so, whether the church-plan exemption violates the Establishment
Clause.  If there is Article III standing, the state law claims
should be reinstated pursuant to the court's supplemental
jurisdiction.

For the foregoing reasons, the Eighth Circuit affirmed in part and
reversed and remanded in part the decision of the district court.

A full-text copy of the Eighth Circuit's March 27, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/P8TzNN from Leagle.com.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Galea Asserts Breach of FDCPA in Michigan
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Shauna Galea, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-11783-GCS-APP (E.D. Mich., June 30, 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. is a specialty finance company
providing debt recovery solutions for consumers across a broad
range of assets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
   Atlas Consumer Law a division of Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
   2500 Highland Avenue, Suite 200
   Lombard, IL 60148
   Tel: (630) 581-5456
   Fax: (630) 575-8188
   Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com



MIDLAND CREDIT: Shulman Alleges Violation under FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Savannah Shulman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:20-at-00637 (E.D. Cal., June 30, 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. is a specialty finance company
providing debt recovery solutions for consumers across a broad
range of assets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Nicholas Michal Wajda, Esq.
   Wajda Law Group, APC
   6167 Bristol Parkway, Suite 200
   Culver City, CA 90230
   Tel: (310) 997-0471
   Fax: (866) 286-8433
   Email: nick@wajdalawgroup.com




MONSANTO CO: Settlement Includes Money for Cleanup of PCBs
----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Dance, writing for Baltimore Sun, reports that a $550 million
class-action settlement announced on June 24 between Monsanto Co.
and 13 governmental entities across the country includes money to
clean up chemical contamination in the Patapsco and Back rivers and
Lake Roland, in Baltimore and Baltimore County.

Lawyers for Baltimore City and Baltimore County were among those
who argued Monsanto and related companies Pharmacia LLC and Solutia
Inc. should pay for the cleanup of environmental toxins known as
PCBs, man-made carcinogens that build up in the environment and
make fish unsafe to eat.

Monsanto manufactured PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, from the
1930s until 1977.

The settlement was one of several that Monsanto's owner, German
pharmaceutical company Bayer, announced on June 24. Bayer said it's
paying up to $10.9 billion to settle current and potential future
litigation over Monsanto's weedkiller Roundup, which has faced
numerous lawsuits over claims it causes cancer, and $1.22 billion
to settle two further cases, including the class action focused on
PCBs.

The water pollution class action still requires the approval of
Judge Fernando M. Olguin in federal court in the Central District
of California. It proposes a class of 2,528 governmental entities
nationwide that would be eligible for payouts from the settlement
fund.

In addition to $550 million in settlement funds, Bayer agreed to
pay attorneys' fees separately. The company said it would pay a
total of approximately $650 million.

Acting City Solicitor Dana Moore said it has not been determined
how much each member of the class action could receive, but she
said because the city and county governments served as lead
plaintiffs, they would be entitled to larger sums.

PCBs were long used in paints, inks, lubricants and electrical
equipment until they were banned in the United States in 1979. They
have been shown to cause a variety of health problems, according to
the Environmental Protection Agency, including cancer and disease
or dysfunction of the immune, reproductive, nervous and endocrine
systems in animals. Human studies support evidence of similar harms
in humans, EPA says.

Bayer officials said Monsanto legally manufactured PCBs until
ceasing production in 1977.

Waterways in the Baltimore area found to be impaired with PCB
contamination include Back River, Bear Creek, Curtis Creek, the
Baltimore Harbor, tidal portions of Bird River and Gunpowder River,
and the Lake Roland impoundment. Scientists are still searching for
ways to get rid of them.

Baltimore City and Baltimore County signed on to the legal action
in 2019, joining 11 West Coast governments: The cities of Spokane
and Tacoma in Washington; the city of Portland, Oregon, and the
Port of Portland; and the cities of Berkeley, Oakland, San Jose,
Long Beach, San Diego and Chula Vista and Los Angeles County in
California.

"This national resolution will empower over 2,500 cities, towns,
counties, and independent port districts to better monitor,
mitigate, and remediate these man-made carcinogens that impair the
water quality in stormwater, sewer systems, sediments, and water
bodies," Baltimore Mayor Bernard C. "Jack" Young and Baltimore
County Executive Johnny Olszewski Jr. said in a joint statement.
"We're proud to lead efforts to protect these natural resources and
to protect waters throughout the state and nation."

Among other Monsanto-related settlements Bayer announced on June 24
is a similar agreement on PCB contamination with the attorneys
general of New Mexico, Washington and the District of Columbia.
That $170 million settlement is separate from the class action that
includes Baltimore and Baltimore County. [GN]


MONSANTO CO: Settles PCB Water Contamination Claims
---------------------------------------------------
The national law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C., on June 24, 2020,
announced a proposed nationwide class action settlement with
Monsanto Company, Pharmacia, LLC, and Solutia, Inc. for $648
million, resolving national PCB water contamination claims for a
proposed class of 2,528 governmental entities, and includes
attorneys' fees and costs. Baron & Budd also announced a separate
$95 million settlement on behalf of the State of Washington for PCB
contamination in the state.

Legal motions to approve the proposed settlement class have been
filed in federal court in the Central District of California, in a
case before Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Baron & Budd's attorneys have
filed over a dozen lawsuits on behalf of governmental entities
since March 2015 seeking cost recovery for stormwater and
environmental contamination that the Plaintiffs allege to have been
caused by chemicals known as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
which Monsanto manufactured between the 1930s and 1977. The cases
were collectively litigated for over 5 years and were mediated and
resolved through JAMS Mediator Judge (Ret.) Jay Gandhi.

"PCBs make their way to precious waters and ecosystems across
America through stormwater systems," said Baron & Budd Shareholder
Scott Summy. "This national resolution will provide relief to those
public entities who operate stormwater systems and are facing
environmental regulatory orders related to PCBs, which in turn will
help protect the long-term viability of American waters."

"We are proud to represent the cities, counties, and ports that
stood up for America's waterways and for the health and safety of
communities all across America," said Baron & Budd Shareholder John
Fiske. "As proposed Lead Class Counsel, we are eager to get these
funds in the hands of local government to help protect their
community resources."

The proposed class action must be approved by Judge Olguin prior to
providing payments to the governmental entity class members. The
proposed class action will provide all class members with a
monetary benefit and will additionally provide funds for those
governmental entities that have incurred or will incur significant
expenses to protect and remediate America's waterways, sediment,
and stormwater systems.

The settling named class plaintiffs leading the nationwide
resolution include the City of Spokane, City of Tacoma, the City of
Portland, the Port of Portland, the City of Berkeley, the City of
Oakland, the City of San Jose, County of Los Angeles, City of Long
Beach, City of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, City of Baltimore,
and Baltimore County.

                  About Baron & Budd, P.C.

Baron & Budd, P.C. is among the largest and most accomplished
plaintiffs' law firms in the country. With more than 40 years of
experience, Baron & Budd has the expertise and resources to handle
complex litigation throughout the United States. As a law firm that
takes pride in remaining at the forefront of litigation, Baron &
Budd has spearheaded many significant cases for hundreds of
entities and thousands of individuals. Since the firm was founded
in 1977, Baron & Budd has achieved substantial national acclaim for
its work on cutting-edge litigation, trying hundreds of cases to
verdict and settling tens of thousands of cases in areas of
litigation as diverse and significant as dangerous and highly
addictive pharmaceuticals, defective medical devices, asbestos and
mesothelioma, California wildfires and environmental contamination,
fraudulent banking practices, e-cigarettes, motor vehicles, federal
whistleblower cases, and other consumer fraud issues. [GN]


MYLAN NV: Defending Suits Over Misleading Proxy Statement
---------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission filed on June 19, 2020, that the company is a
defendant in several suits including a putative class action suit
alleging that the company violated federal securities laws for
purportedly failing to disclose or misrepresenting material
information in its Definitive Proxy Statement.

Beginning in April 2020, Mylan, its directors and certain of its
officers were named as defendants in certain lawsuits filed in
federal court, including a putative class action, alleging certain
federal securities law violations for purportedly failing to
disclose or misrepresenting material information in the Definitive
Proxy Statement.

Four such lawsuits have been filed on behalf of purported
shareholders of Mylan: Booth Family Trust v. Mylan N.V., et al.
(1:20-cv-02885, S.D.N.Y.); Kent v. Mylan N.V., et al.
(1:20-cv-00504, D. Del.); Mandel v. Mylan N.V., et al.
(2:20-cv-05027, D. N.J.); and Duvnjak v. Mylan N.V., et al.
(1:20-cv-03522, S.D.N.Y.).

These lawsuits generally seek various relief including (i)
enjoining the defendants from proceeding with consummating or
closing the Combination and proceeding with any vote on the
Combination unless and until Mylan discloses and disseminates the
purportedly material information; (ii) in the event the Combination
is consummated, rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding
rescissory damages; and (iii) reasonable attorneys and expert fees.


Mylan believes that these lawsuits are without merit.

Mylan N.V., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, and distributes generic, branded-generic,
brand-name, and over-the-counter (OTC) pharmaceutical products in
nNorth America, Europe, and internationally. The company was
founded in 1961 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Grant House Files Antitrust Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Nugent, Esq. -- patrick.nugent@saul.com -- of Saul Ewing
Arnstein & Lehr LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that on June
15, 2020, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and
Power Five Conferences were hit with a class action complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
The complaint, filed on behalf of plaintiffs Grant House (a member
of Arizona State University's men's swimming and diving team) and
Sedona Prince (a member of the University of Oregon's women's
basketball team), seeks certification of nationwide classes of
current and former student-athletes who seek damages and equitable
relief related to the use of their names, images and likenesses
(NILs). The complaint takes aim at the NCAA's prohibition on
Division I athletes receiving compensation for the commercial use
of their NILs and asserts antitrust and unjust enrichment claims
against the NCAA and Power Five Conferences.

The complaint marks the latest development in the nationwide effort
to rethink the rules governing the commercial use of
student-athletes' NILs. More than thirty states have introduced
legislation permitting student-athletes to receive compensation for
use of their NILs, while efforts are underway to design federal
legislation that would establish national standards. The NCAA
recently changed its official policy on student-athlete NIL
compensation and endorsed an internal working group report
recommending rule changes to permit student-athletes to receive
compensation for third-party endorsements and personal appearances,
among other things. And some colleges and universities are
designing programs to help student-athletes build and promote their
personal brands in the event of a change in NCAA rules.

Draft NIL legislative proposals from the NCAA's three divisions are
not due until later this year, however, and the complaint claims
that judicial intervention is necessary to enjoin the current
restraints on NILs and provide adequate relief to thousands of
current and former student-athletes who have been damaged by them.
The complaint broadly takes aim at the restraints prohibiting
student-athletes from receiving anything of value in exchange for
the commercial use of their NILs, and identifies a series of NCAA
Bylaws that govern student-athletes' conduct with respect to
advertisements and promotions, the use of their names, pictures,
and athletics reputations, and sales of athletics equipment as
prime examples of the offending regime.

The complaint seeks relief on behalf of the plaintiffs and putative
classes in the form of: (1) a permanent injunction prohibiting
enforcement of agreements to restrict the amount of NIL
compensation available to class members; (2) a declaratory judgment
declaring void the NCAA's Bylaws that operate to impose a
restriction on the compensation student-athletes can receive in
exchange for the commercial use of their NILs; (3) social media
earnings that members of a Social Media Damages Sub-Class would
have received absent defendants' purported unlawful conduct; (4)
the share of game telecast group licensing revenue members of a
Group Licensing Damages Sub-Class would have received absent
defendants' purported unlawful conduct; and (5) treble damages for
antitrust violations. Needless to say, the financial stakes could
run well into the hundreds of millions. Dollars aside, there is
little doubt that colleges, universities, student-athletes and fans
alike will continue to pay close attention to the multi-pronged
effort to reform the rules governing use of NILs through
litigation, rule changes and legislation (state and federal). [GN]


NEVADA: Class Action Over Coronavirus Unemployment Claims Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KTNV reports that Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak acknowledged the
problems still facing the state's unemployment system during the
June 24 press conference.

However, he didn't elaborate on the answers to those problems many
have been facing getting their unemployment claims amid the
pandemic.

On June 24, a judge in a class-action lawsuit against the
department said the state of Nevada has to show cause as to why the
state isn't paying PUA claims by July 7 or the state will be
ordered to pay immediately. [GN]


NORTHSTAR REALTY: Intervention Motion Denial in Boothe Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL BUMGARDNER; WILLIAM PENNINGTON; JOHN WOOD;
MARJORIE WOOD, Intervenors-Appellants, v. JACK BOOTHE, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellee,
NORTHSTAR REALTY FINANCE CORP.; DAVID T. HAMAMOTO; JUDITH A.
HANNAWAY; WESLEY D. MINAMI; LOUIS J. PAGLIA; GREGORY RUSH; CHARLES
W. SCHOENHERR, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-1298 (4th. Cir.),
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the
district court's order denying Intervenors Bumgardner, Pennington,
John Wood, and Marjorie Wood's motion to intervene and for relief
from judgment in a closed class action lawsuit.

The Fourth Circuit reviews for abuse of discretion the district
court's denial of a motion to intervene.  The Intervenors moved for
intervention of right, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2), or, in
the alternative, permissive intervention, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 24(b)(1)(B).  For either type of intervention, the motion must
be timely.  When determining the timeliness of a motion to
intervene, a trial court in the Circuit is obliged to assess three
factors: first, how far the underlying suit has progressed; second,
the prejudice any resulting delay might cause the other parties;
and third, why the movant was tardy in filing its motion.

The Fourth Circuit concludes that the district court assessed the
relevant factors and did not abuse its discretion in denying as
untimely Intervenors' motion to intervene.  Moreover, because it
denied intervention, the court also properly denied the
Intervenors' motion for relief from judgment.

Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court ruling.
It dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

A full-text copy of the Fourth Circuit's March 24, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/e1bJvJ from Leagle.com.

Patrick C. Smith, DEHAY & ELLISTON, Baltimore, Maryland; Thomas L.
Laughlin, IV -- TLAUGHLIN@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- Rhiana L. Swartz,
Randy Moonan, SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP, New York, New York;
Stephen Oddo, ROBBINS ARROYO LLP, San Diego, California, for
Appellants. Abby F. Rudzin, New York, New York, Daniel M.
Petrocelli, Matthew W. Close -- mclose@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS
LLP, Los Angeles, California; Andrew Gendron, Elizabeth C Rinehart
-- lcrinehart@venable.com -- VENABLE LLP, Baltimore, Maryland;
James M. Wilson, Jr. -- jwilson@faruqilaw.com -- FARUQI & FARUQI,
New York, New York; Yelena Trepetin -- trepetin@bowerpiven.com --
BROWER PIVEN, Stevenson, Maryland, for Appellees.


NORTHWOOD MANOR: Nova Scotia Added as Class Action Defendant
------------------------------------------------------------
Graeme Benjamin, writing for Global News, reports that the province
of Nova Scotia has been informed that it will be added as a
defendant in the proposed class-action lawsuit against Northwood
Manor and its handling of the novel coronavirus pandemic.

In a news release on June 24, Wagners Law Firm said Erica Surette
-- the proposed class-action plaintiff -- intends to add the
province as a defendant in the lawsuit, which alleges Northwood
breached its legal obligations to its residents due to "inaction
and inadequate response to the COVID-19 pandemic."

The notice of intended action -- a document that is served to the
province in advance of adding it as a defendant in the lawsuit --
alleges the province was "negligent in various ways," which caused
or contributed to the unsafe operation of Northwood Halifax.

"The allegations relate to inadequate and negligent funding prior
to and during the COVID-19 outbreak, notwithstanding known
overcrowding issues, apparent need and the onset of the pandemic
that requires quarantine and physical distancing, and to which the
elderly are particularly vulnerable," the release from Wagners Law
Firm reads.

"It is also alleged the province carried out its oversight and
licensing duties negligently and did not enforce safety, health and
sanitation rules and regulations or appropriately act in response
to known violations."

The proposed class-action lawsuit was filed on June 1. Surette lost
her 66-year-old mother Patricia West on April 22 after she was
moved from a single to a shared room on March 26 in the midst of
the pandemic.

"There are questions as to why shared rooms were even allowed, why
there was no support or oversight ensuring that residents had
appropriate physical space and accommodations and why staff did not
have needed protective equipment during the pandemic," she said.

Northwood Halifax operates as the largest long-term care facility
in Atlantic Canada. There have been 246 confirmed cases at the
facility, with 193 people recovered and 53 deaths.

There have been 99 confirmed staff infections as well. There are
currently no active cases at Northwood or within Nova Scotia.

The suit claims the province's negligence resulted in an "ideal
environment for COVID-19 to spread throughout the facility."

"Furthermore, once the outbreak hit, it is alleged that the
province took no action to prevent, mitigate, or eliminate the
lethal spread of COVID-19 or provide resources to enable Northwood
staff to respond to the crisis conditions," the suit claims.

Global News has reached out to the province for comment and is
awaiting a response. [GN]


OHIO UNIVERSITY: Class Action Seeks Refund on Tuition, Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Abby Miller, writing for The Post, reports that an Ohio University
alumna filed a class-action lawsuit against the university in early
June that seeks a partial refund on tuition and fees following the
shift of academic instruction online during the COVID-19 pandemic.


The suit was filed in the Ohio Court of Claims on June 12 and was
initiated by Lily Zahn, a 2020 OU alumna who studied strategic
communications. The class is representative of all students who
paid tuition and fees to attend OU during Spring Semester, Summer
Semester or any additional semesters where in-person classes were
moved to online learning.

Zahn and other OU students paid tuition and fees for a "first-rate
education and an on-campus, in-person educational experience" and
were instead given a "materially deficient and insufficient
alternative" after March 10, when remote learning was instituted
due to COVID-19. This constitutes a breach of contract, according
to the lawsuit.

"In tacit acknowledgment that the online education system is
substantially different and inadequate, the University allowed
students to receive a 'Satisfactory/No Credit' grade rather than
the traditional letter grading system," according to the suit. "The
ability to change to a Satisfactory/No Credit grade after reviewing
your letter grade first provides an educational leniency that does
not require the motivation or discipline that would be otherwise
required under the usual in-person letter grading system."

The suit alleges online classes were also "sub-par in practically
every aspect" due to the inability of students to ask questions
during pre-recorded lectures and the ability for students to use
outside materials when taking exams. Those aspects did not allow
for the growth of interpersonal skills or the development of strong
studying skills, according to the suit.

Members of the class have previously taken action to receive a
tuition refund. Over 1,400 students signed a petition in May
requesting a change in Spring Semester tuition, according to a
previous Post report.

Michael Chaney, a senior studying sports management and the creator
of the petition, said OU students were not receiving the same
education they agreed to pay for in the beginning.

The suit further alleges OU breached its contract and "the covenant
of good faith and fair dealing" with students by failing to provide
the services that fees and tuition funded after March 10.

Access to libraries, labs and study rooms were no longer provided.
Additional buildings on campus are still closed or under restricted
access, according to OU's website.

"The University's retention of the portion of the tuition and
Mandatory Fees during the period of time the University has been
closed, and Plaintiff and the members of the Class have been denied
an in-person and on-campus live education and access and the
services and facilities for which the Mandatory Fees were paid, is
unjust and inequitable under the circumstances," according to the
suit. [GN]


OKLAHOMA: OMMA Sued Over Medical Marijuana License Changes
----------------------------------------------------------
KFOR-TV and K. Querry report that attorneys in Oklahoma have filed
a class-action lawsuit against the Oklahoma Medical Marijuana
Authority over new changes to that are being implemented for
medical marijuana businesses.

For almost two years, Oklahoma residents have been able to apply
for medical marijuana licenses.

However, a recent law is making things more complicated for some
residents to own medical marijuana businesses in the Sooner State.

Earlier, a class-action lawsuit was filed against the Oklahoma
Medical Marijuana Authority regarding a recent residency law.

In the summer of 2019, the OMMA began implementing laws that were
passed during the 2019 legislative session regarding medical
marijuana restrictions.

House Bill 2612 impacted businesses that were trying to obtain a
medical marijuana business license in the Sooner State by changing
the definition of an Oklahoma resident.

"In order to be considered an Oklahoma resident for purposes of a
medical marijuana business application, all applicants shall
provide proof of Oklahoma residency for at least two (2) years
immediately preceding the date of application or five (5) years of
continuous Oklahoma residency during the preceding twenty-five (25)
years immediately preceding the date of application," the bill
states.

The bill also changed the definition of schools to include
preschools and also changed the measuring points between schools
and licensed dispensaries.

As a result, several businesses filed a class-action lawsuit
regarding the new restrictions. The plaintiffs are asking a jury to
determine that business owners who became residents of Oklahoma are
not subject to a two-year residency requirement.

Also, the lawsuit "seeks judgement declaring that all dispensary
businesses which applied with the Oklahoma Medical Marijuana
Authority for licensure and received such license, shall not have
their licenses revoked and/or renewal denied on the basis that they
are located within one thousand (1,000) feet of a school and/or
preschool."

According to the lawsuit, more than 250 businesses are impacted by
the residency requirement changes and school distance changes.

"If the two (2) year residency requirement is allowed to survive,
families which uprooted their lives, moved to the state of
Oklahoma, and staked their financial future on Oklahoma risk losing
everything through absolutely no fault of their own. They were
properly granted a license, and such license renewals should not be
denied on the basis that they cannot now meet a requirement that
they have lived in Oklahoma two (2) years when such requirement did
not exist when they moved here and obtained licensure," the lawsuit
read.

The lawsuit goes on to say that business owners "could not have
anticipated that their business, which was compliant when licensed,
would become non-compliant" due to the new restrictions.

The lawsuit also involved one business that is almost 2,000 feet
from a school building, but is within 1,000 feet "of the entrance
to the dugout of a softball field," which is now considered a
school entrance.

"If the OMMA is allowed to reject business license renewals filed
by medical marijuana dispensary license holders which were properly
licensed under 788 as being more than 1,000 feet from a school
based on the change to the definitions which now makes them fall
within the 1,000 foot distance requirement, the failure to renew
the license would constitute an improper taking of property without
compensation by the State of Oklahoma in violation of both the
Constitution of the United States of America and the Oklahoma
Constitution," the lawsuit claims.

KFOR reached out to the Oklahoma Attorney General's Office for a
statement on the lawsuit. However, officials with the AG's office
say they have not seen a copy of the lawsuit and have not received
a request for representation from the OMMA, so they are not
involved. [GN]


OLYMPUS CORP: Mismanaged Pension Plan, Leone et al. Say
-------------------------------------------------------
KRISTIN LEONE, KIMBERLY MESZAROS, ANDREA CAJUSTE, CHRISTINE DUBORG,
FELICIA SCAROLA, KIRK WILLIAM MACKEY, JANINE M. COLON, SCOTT
SHELLENBARGER, BARBARA T. ROCKHOLT, DANIELLE A. LOGELFO, HIROSHI
SEKIYA, JAY S. MOSES, JENNIFER L. AEBI, MICHAEL NUETZMANN, TIMOTHY
MATTHEWS, WARREN TESTA, ROBERT BRISTEL, SHERRY NOBLE-CHYLA, PAUL
FRANCESCHINI, DEBRA J. MURRAY, LINDA ALKINS-LALLAVE, CHARLES ZERBO,
ROBERT D. MORSE, MARIA CALVIN, JEFFREY INTERMESOLI, GUSTAV
MARTINEZ, III, SUSAN A. PLATE-GRANIERI, NADINE CLARK, ROBERT E.
REED, CHRISTOPHER S. BARNES, ERIC GODDUHN, JOHN SAMUEL CHILCUTT and
DEBRA LADENHEIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. OLYMPUS CORPORATION OF THE AMERICAS, THE
BENEFITS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF OLYMPUS, and JOHN DOES 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03158 (E.D. Pa., June 26, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendants for breach of duties of loyalty
and prudence, and breach of fiduciary duty for misrepresentation
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated participants and beneficiaries of the Olympus Corporation
of the Americas Pension Plan, allege that the Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to the Plan by failing to abide by the terms
of the Plan in administering the lump sum distribution offer,
thereby causing the Plan to miscalculate lump sum distributions.

The Defendants also wrongfully pursued self-help remedies to recoup
alleged overpayments that resulted in financial harm to such
participants who had justifiably relied upon Defendants'
calculations of their lump sum distributions and took actions like
investing amounts in illiquid assets like real estate in the belief
that the amounts they received would not be subject to adverse
claims by the Plan.

The Plaintiffs and Class members incurred losses or expenses as a
result of the Defendants' negligence and misrepresentations.

Olympus Corporation of the Americas is a subsidiary of Olympus
Corporation that sells and distributes medical optics and imaging
equipment, including endoscopes, ultrasound systems, and clinical
microscopes throughout the United States. Olympus maintains its
principal place of business at 3500 Corporate Parkway, Center
Valley, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                 
         
         Joshua H. Grabar, Esq.
         GRABAR LAW OFFICE
         One Liberty Place
         1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (267) 507-6085
         Facsimile: (267) 507-6048
         E-mail: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com

                  - and –

         Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
         Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
         EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
         3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
         Newtown, PA 18940
         Telephone: (215) 867-2399
         Facsimile: (267) 685-0676
         E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com
                 medelson@edelson-law.com

                  - and –

         John J. Nestico, Esq.
         SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
         6000 Fairview Rd, Suite 1200
         Charlotte, NC 28210
         Telephone: (510) 740-2946
         Facsimile: (866) 505-8036
         E-mail: jnestico@schneiderwallace.com

ORACLE CORP: Hearing on Dismissal Bids Set for September 24
-----------------------------------------------------------
Oracle Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 22, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended May 31, 2020, that the defendants' motion to
dismiss is scheduled to be heard on September 24, 2020.

On August 10, 2018, a putative class action, brought by an alleged
stockholder of Oracle, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the company, its Chief
Technology Officer, its then-two Chief Executive Officers, two
other Oracle executives, and one former Oracle executive.

Mark Hurd, one of the company's then-two Chief Executive Officers,
passed away on October 18, 2019.

On March 8, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff
alleges that the defendants made or are responsible for false and
misleading statements regarding Oracle's cloud business. Plaintiff
further alleges that the former Oracle executive engaged in insider
trading.

Plaintiff seeks a ruling that this case may proceed as a class
action, and seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and
unspecified declaratory/injunctive relief.

On April 19, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's amended
complaint. On December 17, 2019, the court granted this motion,
giving plaintiffs an opportunity to file an amended complaint,
which plaintiff filed on February 17, 2020.

On April 23, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which is
scheduled for hearing on September 24, 2020.

Oracle said, "We believe that we have meritorious defenses against
this action, and we will continue to vigorously defend it."

Oracle Corporation develops, manufactures, markets, sells, hosts,
and supports application, platform, and infrastructure solutions
for information technology (IT) environments worldwide. The company
provides services in three layers of the cloud: Software as a
Service, Platform as a Service, and Infrastructure as a Service.
The company was founded in 1977 and is headquartered in Redwood
City, California.


PARAGON COIN: Court Accepts Petition for Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arnab Shome, writing for Finance Magnates, reports that a federal
court in California has accepted a plaintiff's petition for a
class-action lawsuit against Paragon Coin, the crypto token of a
cannabis firm, for violation of securities law

The company raised $70 million via an initial coin offering (ICO)
in 2017. It was planning to make PRG coin the crypto for the
cannabis industry.

Though the district court judge cleared the motion for federal
claims on June 24, he denied the application for claims on state
levels for the token investors based outside California.

"Plaintiffs concede there may be class members in all 50 states and
concede that laws governing the state law claims at issue differ
among jurisdictions in such a way that a true conflict exists," the
judge ruled.

Though the company is headquartered in California, the judge
highlighted the presence of diverse investors as the sale was
conducted over the internet.

Troubles with the regulator

The project was first slapped with a class-action lawsuit in
January 2018. On pressure from the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC), the company agreed to register its token as a
security. The regulator even slapped a $250,000 penalty to the
token issuer.

Despite the settlement with the regulator, the US investors were
still stressing for being duped by the company.

Paragon, notably, was another ICO to receive celebrity endorsement
-- rapper The Game vouched for this project. Later, even he was
dragged to court for promoting the cannabis ICO.

Other celebrities including boxing star Floyd Mayweather and rapper
DJ Khaled also got into trouble for ICO promotions, one of which
turned out to be a complete fraud.

Meanwhile, the US Supreme Court recently ordered that the market
regulator cannot impose financial scammers arbitrary penalties and
the fines should directly go the victims of the schemes. This
ruling will impact many ICOs upon which the SEC imposed heavy fines
and even interest. [GN]


PELICAN WASTE: Verrett Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as BRANDON VERRETT, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. PELICAN
WASTE AND DEBRIS, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01035-GGG-KWR (E.D. La.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify the case as a collective
action and to approve notice to putative class members.

Pelican offers waste collection services.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com

               - and -

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          BOHRER BRADY, LLC
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 925-5297
          Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
          E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com

PLAID INC: Curtis et al. Sue Over Collection of Banking Data
------------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL CURTIS, ALEXA GROSSMAN, MALLORY GROSSMAN, STEVEN HANNIGAN,
ALEXIS MULLEN, JORDAN SACKS, AND NICHOLAS YEOMELAKIS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PLAID
INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-04344 (N.D. Cal., June 29, 2020)
is a class action against the Defendant for invasion of privacy,
unjust enrichment, and violations of California Constitution, the
Stored Communications Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and
California Business & Professions Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant intentionally intruded
upon the Plaintiffs' and Class members' private affairs and
concerns by improperly accessing, downloading, transferring,
selling, storing and using their private banking information and
data. The Defendant violates reasonable expectations of privacy of
the Plaintiffs and Class members by: (a) obtaining login
credentials through covert means including by falsely suggesting,
through use of design, overt and implied statements, and context,
that they were communicating directly with their banks when they
entered login credentials on a web-based or mobile software
applications that enabled money transfers or payments; (b)
retaining login credentials for purposes other than verifying
information about a consumer's bank account that was required for
use of the relevant payment application; (c) using the
illicitly-obtained login credentials to access historical banking
information not required for use of the relevant payment
application; (d) retaining, analyzing, and profiting from such
information; (e) using the illicitly-obtained login credentials to
access banking information after the date on which such credentials
were initially provided; (f) retaining, analyzing, and profiting
from such information; and (g) failing to disclose such conduct,
constitute egregious violations of social norms.

The Defendant's conduct caused substantial harm to the Plaintiffs
and Class Members, including loss of valuable rights and
protections, heightened risk of future invasions of privacy, and
mental and emotional distress, and harm to human dignity
interests.

Plaid Inc. is a financial technology company, with its principal
place of business at 85 Second Street, Suite 400, San Francisco,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:  
                 
         James A. Quadra, Esq.
         Rebecca Coll, Esq.
         QUADRA & COLL, LLP
         649 Mission Street, 5th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Telephone: (415) 426-3502
         Facsimile: (415) 625-9936
         E-mail: jquadra@quadracoll.com
                 rcoll@quadracoll.com

                  - and –               
         
         Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
         Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
         NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
         1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
         New York, NY 10036
         Telephone: (917) 438-9102
         Facsimile: (212) 753-0396
         E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
                 bcohen@nussbaumpc.com

                  - and –                        
         
         Michael E. Criden, Esq.
         Lindsey Grossman, Esq.
         CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
         7301 SW 57th Court, Ste. 515
         South Miami, FL 33143
         Telephone: (305) 357-9000
         Facsimile: (305) 357-9050
         E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com
                 lgrossman@cridenlove.com

PORTLAND, OR: Protesters Slam Use of Tear Gas on Protests
---------------------------------------------------------
Don't Shoot Portland, Nicholas J. Roberts and Michelle Belden, in
an individual capacity and on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. City of Portland, a municipal
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00917, (D. Or., June 5,
2020) seeks a temporary restraining order prohibiting the use of
tear gas, permanent injunction and an award of attorneys' fees and
costs for violation of the First and Fourth Amendments to the
United States Constitution.

"Don't Shoot Portland" is a non-profit corporation that advocates
for social and racial justice in Portland. Roberts and Belden
participated in a protest against police brutality and the
oppression of black people when the Portland Police Bureau launched
tear gas at peaceful protesters. Don't Shoot Portland has been
participating in the local demonstrations and providing assistance
and support to protesters. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jesse Merrithew, Esq.
      Viktoria Safarian, Esq.
      LEVI MERRITHEW HORST PC
      610 SW Alder Street, Suite 415
      Portland, OR 97205
      Telephone: (971) 229-1241
      Email: jesse@lmhlegal.com
             viktoria@lmhlegal.com

             - and -

      Juan C. Chavez, Esq.
      Brittney Plesser, Esq.
      Alex Meggitt, Esq.
      Franz H. Bruggemeier, Esq.
      OREGON JUSTICE RESOURCE CENTER
      PO Box 5248
      Portland, OR 97208
      Telephone: (503) 944-2270
      Email: jchavez@ojrc.info
             bplesser@ojrc.info
             ameggitt@ojrc.info
             fbruggemeier@ojrc.info

             - and -

      J. Ashlee Albies, Esq.
      Whitney B. Stark, Esq.
      Maya Rinta, Esq.
      ALBIES & STARK LLC
      1 SW Columbia St. Suite 1850
      Portland, OR 97204
      Telephone: (503) 308-4770
      Email: ashlee@albiesstark.com
             whitney@albiesstark.com
             maya@albiesstark.com


PRINCESS CRUISE: Passengers Slam Mismanaged COVID-19 Outbreak
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Heinzer and Barbara Heinzer, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Princess Cruise Lines
Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-04959 (C.D. Cal., June 4, 2020),
seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, treble damages and all
other relief resulting from negligence and gross negligence.

Plaintiffs were passengers onboard the Ruby Princess, a 14-day
cruise that started on March 8, 2020. An outbreak of COVID-19
aboard the cruise ship originated while docked in Napier, New
Zealand. James Heinzer and Barbara Heinzer became infected, was
diagnosed and treated for COVID-19 in an intensive care unit in
Sydney, Australia. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carol Lynn Finklehoffe, Esq.
      LIPCON MARGULIES ALSINA & WINKLEMAN
      One Biscayne Tower, Suite 1776
      Miami, FL 33131
      Tel: (305) 373-3016
      Fax: (3050 373-6204
      Email: cfinklehoffe@lipcon.com


PROPETRO HOLDING: Continues to Defend Logan Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
ProPetro Holding Corp. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 22, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit initiated by Richard Logan.

In September 2019, a complaint, captioned Richard Logan,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. ProPetro Holding Corp., et al., (the "Logan
Lawsuit"), was filed against the Company and certain of its current
and former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas.
    
In April 2020, Lead Plaintiffs Nykredit Portefolje Administration
A/S, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, Oklahoma
Law Enforcement Retirement System, Oklahoma Police Pension and
Retirement System, and Oklahoma City Employee Retirement System,
and additional named plaintiff Police and Fire Retirement System of
the City of Detroit, individually and on behalf of a putative class
of shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between
March 17, 2017 and March 13, 2020, filed a second amended class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas in the Logan Lawsuit, alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as amended, and Rule
l0b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act, as amended, based on allegedly inaccurate or
misleading statements, or omissions of material facts, about the
Company's business, operations and prospects.

ProPetro Holding Corp. operates as a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, offers well drilling, stimulation,
cementing, and coiled tubing services. ProPetro Holding serves
customers in North America. The company is based in Midland, Texas.

QUALITY CUSTOM: Fails to Pay Truck Drivers' OT Wages, Fetch Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW FETCH, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. QUALITY CUSTOM DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, Case No. 20-2-10242-3 KNT (Wash. Super., King Cty.,
June 20, 2020), seeks damages and statutory penalties for the
Defendant's violations of the Washington Industrial Welfare Act,
the Washington State Minimum Wage Act, and Wage Rebate Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay the
Plaintiff and members of the putative class one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay for weekly hours worked in excess of
forty. The Plaintiff also seeks additional compensable time pay for
the Defendant's failure to provide compliant rest and meal
periods.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated are employed as
commercial truck drivers for the Defendant.

Quality Custom was founded in 2005. The Company's line of business
includes the wholesale distribution of equipment and supplies for
personal service establishments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James B. Pizl, Esq.
          ENTENTE LAW PLLC
          315 39th Ave. SW, Ste. 14
          Puyallup, WA 98373
          Telephone: 253 446-7668


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Mismanaged Pension Plan, Johnson Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
LAWANDA LASHA HOUSE JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of the
PROFIT SHARING PLAN OF QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, Plaintiff v.
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, PROFIT SHARING PLAN OF QUEST
DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE, PROFIT
SHARING PLAN OF QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED INVESTMENT
COMMITTEE, and DOES NO. 1-20, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-07936-SDW-LDW (D.N.J., June 29, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the participants and
beneficiaries of the Profit Sharing Plan of Quest Diagnostics
Incorporated, alleges that the Defendants failed to perform their
duties as fiduciaries of the Plan by failing to fully disclose to
participants the expenses and risk of the Plan's investment
options; allowing unreasonable expenses to be charged to
participants for administration of the Plan; and selecting and
retaining high-cost and poor-performing investments, instead of
offering other readily available, easily identifiable and more
prudent alternative investments.

Moreover, the Defendants breached their fiduciary monitoring duties
by failing to monitor and evaluate the performance of their
appointees or have a system in place for doing so; failing to
monitor their appointees' fiduciary processes, which would have
alerted a prudent fiduciary to the breaches of fiduciary duties;
and failing to remove appointees whose performance was inadequate
in that they continued to maintain imprudent, excessively costly,
and poorly performing investments within the Plan.

As a direct result of the Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties,
the Plan and its participants, including the Plaintiff, have lost
millions of dollars of retirement savings.

Quest Diagnostics Incorporated is an American clinical laboratory,
with its principal place of business in Secaucus, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:       
         
         James C. Shah, Esq.
         SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
         475 White Horse Pike
         Collingswood, NJ 08107
         Telephone: (856) 858-1770
         Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
         E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com

                  - and –

         Ronald S. Kravitz, Esq.
         Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
         SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
         201 Filbert Street, Suite 201
         San Francisco, CA 94133
         Telephone: (415) 429-5272
         Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
         E-mail: rkravitz@sfmslaw.com
                 ktang@sfmslaw.com

                  - and –

         James E. Miller, Esq.
         Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
         SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
         65 Main Street
         Chester, CT 06412
         Telephone: (860) 526-1100
         Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
         E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com
                 lrubinow@sfmslaw.com

                  - and –

         Sahag Majarian, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN
         18250 Ventura Blvd.
         Tarzana, CA 91356
         Telephone: (818) 609-0807
         Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
         E-mail: sahagii@aol.com

ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Seeks Dismissal of Molchun Covid-19 Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hayes, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Royal
Caribbean Cruises Ltd. asked the Southern District of Florida to
dismiss a proposed class action by crew members who allege they
were exposed to Covid-19, arguing the two named plaintiffs suffered
no serious injury.

"Claims seeking to recover money damages for having cold- and
flu-like symptoms, and for mere exposure to illness, are not
actionable," the cruise line told the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

The claims should be dismissed "because their alleged intangible
injuries are de minimis and incapable of being measured," RCCL
said.

The plaintiffs allege the cruise line was on notice that Covid-19
was likely present aboard the vessels, but failed to follow basic
safety precautions such as quarantining crew members, providing
them with masks, or requiring social distancing measures aboard the
vessels.

They also allege that RCCL held large St. Patrick's Day crew
parties with more than 1,000 crew members in attendance aboard at
least two of the ships—the Liberty of the Seas and Oasis of the
Seas—risking further exposures.

Named plaintiff Benjamin Csoka alleges he contracted Covid-19 in
mid-March 2020 while working aboard the Oasis of the Seas, while
Adrian Satterfield asserts he was "unreasonably exposed" to the
virus while working aboard the Freedom of the Seas.

Csoka suffered injuries including severe cough, shortness of
breath, chest pain, respiratory distress, chills, muscle ache,
fever, physical and emotional fatigue, anxiety, depression,
difficulty sleeping, and nightmares, according to the complaint.

Satterfield alleges emotional injuries with physical
manifestations, including anxiety, depression, nightmares, and
post-traumatic stress.

Satterfield asserts that he made repeated requests to disembark the
ship after the passengers were discharged, but was told all crew
members must remain on board, despite crew members displaying
symptoms "consistent with a positive Covid-19 diagnosis."

The suit, filed April 30, seeks to certify a class of more than
1,000 crew members who worked on dozens of ships owned and operated
by RCCL.

In a separate case, crew members filed similar claims against
Celebrity Cruises Inc. April 14.

Cruise lines have also been hit with individual and class action
suits by passengers over coronavirus exposure.

Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman PA represents the plaintiffs.
Holland & Knight and Hamilton, Miller & Birthisel LLP represent
RCCL.

The case is Molchun v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. 20-cv-21792
(S.D. Fla., S.D. Fla., No. 20-cv-21792, 6/23/20. [GN]


RYDER SYSTEM: Bragar Eagel Reminds of July 20 Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Ryder System, Inc. (NYSE:
R), CytomX Therapeutics, Inc (NASDAQ: CTMX), Hamilton Beach Brands
Holding Company (NYSE: HBB), and Colony Capital, Inc. (NYSE: CLNY).
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.

Ryder System, Inc. (NYSE: R)

Class Period: July 23, 2015 to February 13, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 20, 2020

On July 30, 2019, the Company drastically reduced its full-year
2019 earnings forecast and management indicated that the majority
of the lowered guidance reflected Ryder's weaker valuations of its
tractors.

In response to these disclosures, Ryder's stock price declined 10%,
from $59.32 per share to $53.38 per share.

On October 29, 2019, the Company revealed that "management
concluded that our residual value estimates likely exceeded the
expected future values that would be realized upon the sale of
power vehicles in our fleet." As a result, the Company
significantly lowered the residual values for all its vehicles and
incurred $177 million in additional depreciation expense in the
third quarter of 2019.

In response to these disclosures, Ryder's stock price declined more
than 12% over two trading days, from $55.12 per share to $48.44 per
share.

Then, on February 13, 2020, the Company reported that, as a result
of the significant reductions to the residual value of its fleet,
it had incurred a total of $357 million in depreciation expense for
2019 plus a loss of approximately $58 million on the sale of used
vehicles. The Company also announced that, for 2020, it expected to
incur another $275 million in depreciation expense on its fleet due
to the reductions in residual value plus an additional $20 million
estimated loss on used vehicle sales. In response to these
disclosures, Ryder's stock price declined 20% over two trading
days, from $50.19 per share to $40.12 per share.

The complaint, filed on May 20, 2020, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants misrepresented Ryder's true financial
condition by overstating the residual value of its trucking fleet,
which allowed the Company to record smaller depreciation expense on
those assets each year, and artificially inflated Ryder's earnings.
Defendants represented to investors that its financial results
"benefited from lower depreciation associated with increased
residual values" and that the Company had been "conservative" in
establishing the residual values of its vehicles. While Ryder kept
increasing the expected residual value of its trucking fleet, the
actual amount Ryder was receiving from sales of its used trucks had
started to decrease beginning in 2015. Nevertheless, when asked
about the residual values of the Company's trucks during Ryder's
July 27, 2016 earnings call, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
Defendant Robert Sanchez stated that "I wouldn't envision an
increase or decrease in residual values out over the next four,
five years." These and similar statements during the Class Period
were false and misleading because Defendants knew or recklessly
disregarded that the residual values that Ryder assigned to its
trucking fleet were grossly overstated, which had the effect of
allowing the Company to record smaller depreciation expenses and
artificially inflated Ryder's earnings. As a result of these
misrepresentations, shares of Ryder common stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

For more information on the Ryder class action go to:
https://bespc.com/R

CytomX Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: CTMX)

Class Period: May 17, 2018 to May 13, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 20, 2020

CytomX operates as an oncology-focused biopharmaceutical company in
the U.S. The Company develops a novel class of investigational
antibody therapeutics based on its Probody technology platform for
the treatment of cancer. CytomX's lead product candidates in the
clinical stage include, among others, CX-072 and CX-2009.

CytomX has been evaluating CX-072 in its "PROCLAIM" series clinical
program for several years. For example, the PROCLAIM-CX-072-001
clinical trial was designed to assess the tolerability and
preliminary antitumor activity of multiple doses of CX-072 as a
monotherapy or as a combination therapy with ipilimumab (which
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company markets under the brand name Yervoy)
or vemurafenib (which Roche markets under the brand name Zelboraf)
in patients with advanced, unresectable solid tumors or lymphoma.
The Company also began conducting a Phase 2 clinical trial called
PROCLAIM-CX-072-002, which was initiated in October 2019, and is an
open-label, multi-center clinical trial evaluating CX-072 in
combination with ipilimumab in patients with unresectable or
metastatic melanoma.

Likewise, CystomX had been evaluating CX-2009 under its own
"PROCLAIM" brand clinical program. This program includes the
PROCLAIM-CX-2009-001 clinical trial, which is a Phase 1/2 trial
evaluating the tolerability and preliminary antitumor activity of
CX-2009 as a monotherapy, which CytomX initiated in June 2017. This
clinical program also proceeded in multiple parts—Parts A and A2,
which are monotherapy dose escalation studies; and Part B, which is
a Phase 2 expansion study of CX-2009 monotherapy at 7 mg/kg
administered every three weeks in up to 40 patients with hormone
receptor (ER, PR) positive, HER2 negative breast cancer, which
defendants announced in December 2019 based on the tolerability and
activity data from Part A and A2 of the study.

On May 13, 2020, CytomX made available abstracts for the Company's
clinical presentations for CX-072 and CX-2009. Results from the
PROCLAIMCX-072 clinical program showed a response rate of 8.8%,
compared to a response rate of 18.5% in patients receiving the
combination of CX-072 and ipilimumab. Meanwhile, results from the
PROCLAIM-CX-2009 clinical program showed "evidence" of clinical
activity at doses at least 4 mg/kg 3x/week, but also suggested a
significantly higher rate of serious or greater treatment related
toxicity to the eyes at dose equivalents at least 8 mg/kg 3x/week.

Following the release of the foregoing data, CytomX's stock price
fell $5.21 per share, or 36.08%, to close at $9.23 per share on May
14, 2020.

The complaint, filed on May 21, 2020, alleges that throughout the
Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) CytomX
had downplayed issues with CX-072's efficacy observed in the
PROCLAIM-CX-072 clinical program; (ii) CytomX had similarly
downplayed issues with CX-2009's efficacy and safety observed in
the PROCLAIM-CX-2009 clinical program; and (iii) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

For more information on the CytomX class action go to:
https://bespc.com/CTMX

Hamilton Beach Brands Holding Company (NYSE: HBB)

Class Period: February 27, 2020 to May 8, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 21, 2020

On May 11, 2020, Hamilton announced that it could not timely file
its 1Q20 10-Q because of "certain accounting irregularities with
respect to the timing of recognition of selling and marketing
expenses and the classification of certain expenditures within the
statement of operations at its Mexican subsidiary."  Hamilton
further stated that its "Audit Review Committee has commenced an
internal investigation" regarding "the realizability of certain
assets of the Mexican subsidiary."

Following these disclosures, Hamilton's stock price fell $1.03 per
share, or 8.99%, to close at $10.43 per share on May 11, 2020.

The complaint, filed on May 26, 2020, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about Hamilton's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (i)
Hamilton had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and
internal control over financial reporting, particularly with
respect to one of its Mexican subsidiaries; (ii) consequently, the
Company's accounting included certain irregularities with respect
to the timing of recognition of selling and marketing expenses and
the classification of certain expenditures within the statement of
operations at this Mexican subsidiary, as well as potential
misconduct with respect to the realizability of certain assets of
the Mexican subsidiary; (iii) as a result of all the foregoing,
Hamilton could not accurately attest to its financial results,
particularly with respect to these metrics, and was consequently at
an increased risk of delaying the filing of its periodic reports
with the SEC; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the Hamilton Beach Brands class action go
to: https://bespc.com/HBB

Colony Capital, Inc. (NYSE: CLNY)

Class Period: August 9, 2019 to May 7, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 27, 2020

Colony is a leading global investment management firm with assets
under management of $55 billion.  The Company manages capital on
behalf of its stockholders, as well as institutional and retail
investors in private funds, and traded and non-traded real estate
investment trusts.

On November 8, 2019, Colony announced its financial results for the
third quarter of 2019.  Among other results, the Company reported a
GAAP net loss of $555 million, or $1.15 per share, which "notably
included reductions of goodwill, real estate and provision for loan
losses totaling $540.3 million . . . of which $387.0 million was
attributable to the reduction of goodwill primarily as a result of
the pending sale of the Company's industrial investment management
business and related real estate portfolio, and the decrease in
management fees from Colony Credit Real Estate, Inc. resulting from
impairments related to its portfolio bifurcation."

On this news, Colony's stock price fell $0.48 per share, or 8.76%,
to close at $5.00 per share on November 8, 2019.

Then, on May 8, 2020, Colony issued a press release announcing its
financial and operating results for the first quarter of 2020.  In
the press release, Colony reported that its portfolio companies had
defaulted on $3.2 billion of debt secured by hotels and
healthcare-related properties and that Colony had received a notice
of acceleration covering $780 million of the defaulted debt.

On this news, Colony's stock price fell $0.08 per share, or 3.81%,
to close at $2.02 per share on May 8, 2020.

The Complaint, filed on May 26, 2020, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational, and
compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Colony's
sale of its industrial real estate portfolio and the bifurcation of
Colony Credit Real Estate's portfolio were foreseeably likely to
negatively impact Colony's financial and operating results; (ii)
certain of Colony's remaining portfolio companies carried
unsustainable levels of debt secured by hotels and
healthcare-related properties and were thus at significant risk of
default; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the Colony Capital class action go to:
https://bespc.com/CLNY

               About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

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

Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com [GN]


RYDER SYSTEM: Vincent Wong Reminds of July 20 Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 29 disclosed that class
actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the
following companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Ryder System, Inc. (NYSE:R)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at: htt
p://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/ryder-system-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7607&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 20, 2020
Class Period: July 23, 2015 - February 13, 2020

Allegations against R include that: (1) Ryder's financial results
were inflated as a result of the Company's practice of overstating
the residual values of the vehicles in its fleet; (2) there was no
reasonable basis to believe that Ryder would sell its used vehicles
for the amounts that it had assigned to them; (3) Ryder's residual
values for its fleet of vehicles exceeded the expected future
values that would be realized upon the sale of those vehicles; and
(4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Colony Capital, Inc. (CLNY)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/colony-capital-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7607&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 27, 2020
Class Period: August 9, 2019 - May 7, 2020

Allegations against CLNY include that: (i) Colony's sale of its
industrial real estate portfolio and the bifurcation of Colony
Credit Real Estate's portfolio were foreseeably likely to
negatively impact Colony's financial and operating results; (ii)
certain of Colony's remaining portfolio companies carried
unsustainable levels of debt secured by hotels and
healthcare-related properties and were thus at a significant risk
of default; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Carnival Corporation & Plc (CCL)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/carnival-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=7607&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 27, 2020
Class Period: September 26, 2019 - May 1, 2020

Allegations against CCL include that: (1) the Company's medics were
reporting increasing events of COVID-19 illness on the Company's
ships; (2) Carnival was violating port of call regulations by
concealing the amount and severity of COVID-19 infections on board
its ships; (3) in responding to the outbreak of COVID-19, Carnival
failed to follow the Company's own health and safety protocols
developed in the wake of other communicable disease outbreaks; (4)
by continuing to operate, Carnival ships were responsible for
continuing to spread COVID-19 at various ports throughout the
world; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

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

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


SA POWER: Bushfire Victims File Class Action in SA Supreme Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Richardson, writing for InDaily, reports that victims of a
bushfire that swept through the lower Yorke Peninsula in November
leaving a trail of property damage have launched a class action
against SA Power Networks, which has conceded its infrastructure
was "the most likely source" of the blaze.

Authorities said at the time it was "remarkable" there were no
fatalities after a bushfire swept through more than 4500 hectares,
leaving 11 properties destroyed or impacted and 33 people injured
during "unprecedented" conditions.

At the time, Yorketown incident controller Richard de Groot told
media "an electrical infrastructure issue adjacent to town" was the
likely cause, saying: "It is a result of a power network fault."

InDaily can reveal Melbourne law firm Maddens Lawyers, which has
previously litigated several bushfire claims including for victims
of Victoria's 2009 Black Saturday blazes, has lodged a statement of
claim in the SA Supreme Court against the state's electricity
distributor.

The claim is lodged on behalf of Carlos Alberto Costa Cordosa,
whose Yorketown home was destroyed in the blaze.

He told NewsCorp at the time of the fire: "The house was melting,
there is no floor, big cracks in the walls… everything's gone."

But Kathryn Emeny, principal at Maddens Lawyers, told InDaily the
firm had "recently commenced a class action in relation to the
[Yorke Peninsula] fire", with the action open to "anyone that
suffered property loss and damage or personal injury as a result of
that fire".

A statement of claim lodged in the Supreme Court alleges SA Power
Networks, as owner and operator of a local distribution powerline
adjacent to a water tower located at Stansbury Road, "caused
electricity, heat or sparks to be ejected from the powerlines onto
flammable material on the ground . . . and thereby caused the
ignition of the Yorketown bushfire".

The claim states the applicant "brings this claim in a
representative capacity on behalf of all those persons who have
suffered personal injury and/or loss of or damage to property
and/or economic loss as a result of a fire which commenced on 20
November 2019 at Yorketown".

"The causes of action relied on are: Negligence; Breach of
statutory duty [and] Nuisance," the claim states.

"As at the time of the commencement of this proceeding there are
two or more group members."

In a statement, SA Power Networks said it "acknowledges the most
likely source of the fire start was a component of our electricity
Infrastructure".

"The specific cause of failure is likely to be the focus of legal
proceedings and this prevents us from making further comment," it
said. [GN]


SACRAMENTO, CA: Violates Constitutional Rights, Ruiz Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA RUIZ, THONGXY PHANSOPHA, DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH
CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly
situated persons v. CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE
DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOES 1 to 125, Case No.
2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB (E.D. Cal., June 18, 2020), seeks for
damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief enjoining and
declaring unconstitutional the deprivations of the federal and
state constitutional rights caused by the Defendants, and their
officials and personnel, who subjected the Plaintiffs and the class
to a policy or custom of unreasonable and excessive use of force by
firing rubber bullets to strike and injure non-violent
demonstrators exercising their constitutional freedom of speech.

On May 26, 2020, George Floyd, a black man, was murdered by
Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, a white man. Mr. Chauvin
knelt on Mr. Floyd's neck for almost nine minutes, as Mr. Floyd
gasped for air, begged for mercy, and told the officer he could not
breathe.

Nationwide outcry, protest, and demonstration immediately resulted
from Mr. Floyd's killing, with many around the country disgusted by
and fed-up with law enforcement's all-too-frequent resort to deadly
force without accountability, according to the complaint. Thousands
took to the streets to express their constitutional rights to
freedom of speech and petition against government officials who
either participated in police violence or idly stood-by while
fellow officers engaged in such misconduct.

The Plaintiffs note that many protests have occurred, and are
continuing to occur, in Sacramento, California. The Plaintiffs
contend that demonstrating the very same propensity for the use of
unjustified violence that gave rise to these recent nationwide
demonstrations, Defendant Sacramento Police Department's officers
took to the streets in droves, armed for war against their own
citizenry, and employed severe and unjustified excessive force
against peaceful, non-violent demonstrators.

The Plaintiffs are residents of the County of Sacramento,
California.

Sacramento, capital of the U.S. state of California, lies at the
confluence of the Sacramento River and American River. The district
of Old Sacramento harkens back to the city's Gold Rush era, with
wooden sidewalks and wagon rides.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark E. Merin, Esq.
          Paul H. Masuhara, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN
          1010 F Street, Suite 300
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 443-6911
          Facsimile: (916) 447-8336
          E-Mail: mark@markmerin.com
                  paul@markmerin.com


SANIMAX USA: Settles Class Action Over Noxious Plant Odors
----------------------------------------------------------
Erin Adler, writing for Star Tribune, reports that more than a
thousand people are expected to receive money from a settlement
with Sanimax, a South St. Paul animal rendering plant that
neighbors say smells bad enough to make them curl up their noses
and close their windows.

"The smell of dead animals is just gross," said Lois Glewwe, a
South St. Paul resident and historian. "I think the general
community is thrilled that Sanimax . . . [has] to pay damages."

The class action lawsuit, filed in March 2018 by two South St. Paul
residents, accused Sanimax USA of producing "noxious odors" that
have "physically invaded" properties near its facility at 505
Hardman Av. The emissions cause damages through "negligence, gross
negligence and nuisance," the complaint alleges.

"Sanimax is glad the litigation is behind everyone," Donn Johnson,
Sanimax's general manager, said in a statement. "We have been a
part of this wonderful community for the past half-century and we
remain open to productive community dialogue allowing us to
continue for the next half-century."

A settlement agreement reached in June will put $750,000 into a
fund to be divided among "qualifying class members," or all
households within a 2-mile radius that sent in claim forms. Forms
were sent to more than 10,300 homes and more than 1,500 returned
them, court documents show. Distributions will be capped at $1,000
per household.

Sanimax must also pay the plaintiffs' attorney costs of about
$300,000 and invest at least $450,000 in projects to reduce
emissions from the facility.

Patricia Keech and David Newfield, the plaintiffs, will each
receive up to $1,500 for their efforts. Keech and Newfield, along
with their Minneapolis-based attorney Jeff Storms and attorneys
from Detroit-based Liddle & Dubin, were unable to comment because
of a confidentiality clause, said Laura Sheets, an attorney with
Liddle & Dubin.

Glewwe, who isn't among those who will receive a payout, said the
money won't solve the problem: "What are you going to do with a
thousand dollars? You still have the smell."

She believes it's time for Sanimax to move closer to other
animal-related businesses and away from South St. Paul, but she
said the company "will not leave."

Sanimax, headquartered in Green Bay, Wis., is among the last
remnants of South St. Paul's booming stockyards, which closed in
2008. The plant collects the oily byproducts of meat processing and
turns them into pet food, soap, animal feed and chemicals.

This isn't Sanimax's first payout to settle a class-action lawsuit
-- the company has faced similar suits in Montreal and Wisconsin,
paying $915,000 to settle the Wisconsin suit in 2016.

South St. Paul regularly receives complaints about the smell via a
hotline created for that purpose. City officials contract with a
firm to verify the complaints.

Other businesses in town also may generate strong odors, including
tanning and hide businesses and a beef processing plant, City
Council members have said.

Conflict between the city and Sanimax has simmered for years. In
late May, the City Council unanimously voted to toughen its
nuisance ordinance to crack down on odor generators. Sanimax
objected to that ordinance change, calling it "unfair" and
"ambiguous."

Sanimax is also suing the city in district court, objecting to a
zoning amendment approved in November that bans several land uses,
including rendering plants, in a newly designated area. Sanimax can
operate as a "legal nonconforming use" in the zone but can't expand
or repair its facility.

In that suit, Sanimax officials say they have tried to cooperate
with South St. Paul and believe Sanimax is being targeted unfairly.
[GN]


SANTAM: Claimants to Head to Court as Part of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Georgina Crouth, writing for IOL, reports that Santam has rejected
a business interruption settlement proposal from more than 400
tourism and hospitality operators relating to the Covid-19
pandemic, forcing claimants to head to court for a declaratory
order or as part of a class action.

On June 19, Insurance Claims Africa (ICA) announced that Santam had
rejected its proposal.

A court process will benefit only the insurance industry, causing
the mass closure of tourism businesses and lead to widespread job
losses.

ICA chief executive Ryan Woolley said he was disappointed.

"Santam told us they want certainty through the legal process.
They're not willing to deal with this issue on an urgent basis,
which means they will fight a war of attrition. It's a case of
delay, deny and defend. And if your business closes, you have no
case. It's disappointing."

ICA has made the same offer to other leading insurers.

Specialist business interruption insurance for hospitality and
tourism industries includes extensions for claims arising from
infectious or contagious notifiable diseases.

Although Covid-19 was a declared notifiable disease, many insurers
are either rejecting the claims or frustrating the process.
Insurers have blamed government regulations for the losses, saying
their policies were never written to cover pandemics.

Santam denies refusing to pay these claims.

A spokesperson said: "We are processing a number of Covid-19 claims
and are committed to quickly paying all valid claims that meet the
definition of loss described in our policies. In terms of the JSE
regulations, Santam is not at liberty to disclose information that
has not been made available to shareholders."

Santam's interim results, which will be released in September, will
provide further details.

The insurer said it was aware of pending legal action but remained
confident of its position on the interpretation of what was covered
by the insurance policies.

"In the interest of all parties, we welcome a swift court process
to obtain legal certainty," Santam said,

Fighting the claims in court is likely to lead to a drawn-out
process that could spell disaster for the industry.

The tourism and hospitality sector sustains more than 740 000
direct and 1.5 million indirect jobs and contributes
8.6 percent to gross domestic product.

Professor Birgit Kuschke from the University of Pretoria said if
rejected claims were not dealt with by issuing summonses against
the insurer within the prescribed periods as agreed upon in the
policies, which might vary between 90 days and six months, the
claims would prescribe.

"If you submit an insurance claim and it's rejected, there are
contractual terms limiting your ability to sue the company. The
larger problem -- and matter of urgency -- is to get a moratorium
on time lines from the regulators, such as the Financial Sector
Conduct Authority, and relevant ministries, due to the Covid-19
lockdown."

Kuschke said she had been inundated with queries, and has advised
claimants and lawyers to consolidate their actions and form a
coalition with other law firms and advisory groups such as ICA, to
seek a moratorium on these timelines so clients do not lose their
ability to claim, as well as a declarator on whether the insurance
cover is triggered by the pandemic and subsequent lockdown.

Some global insurance companies had compromised with clients and
not all insurers were declining the claims, but they were
frustrating the process by sending clients from pillar to post to
prove causation, confirmed attorney Nicolene Schoeman-Louw.

"What the insurers should rather do is negotiate a compromise that
will ensure both businesses are not imploded."

Schoeman-Louw warned that if these matters were not expedited, "it
could crumble the legal system, with an influx of debt collections,
evictions and sequestrations applications". [GN]


SEATTLESAYING, WA: "Autonomous Zone" Businesses File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Berry, writing for KTRH, reports that a group of businesses
inside Seattle's "autonomous zone" along with residents and
property owners have filed a class action lawsuit against the City
of Seattlesaying officials have been complicit in depriving them of
their rights to their property by allowing the occupation to
continue.

They say the lawsuit: "is about the constitutional and other legal
rights of plaintiffs -- businesses, employees, and residents in and
around CHOP -- which have been overrun by the city of Seattle's
unprecedented decision to abandon and close off an entire city
neighborhood, leaving it unchecked by the police, unserved by fire
and emergency health services, and inaccessible to the public at
large."

Attorney Angelo Calfo is representing the group, he says "our
clients want public order. They want public safety. They want
access to their streets and to the properties."

The suit points out that: "the City's conduct has enabled the
widespread destruction and vandalism of private property. Graffiti
is pervasive throughout CHOP—it is not only on barriers, streets,
sidewalks, but also on nearly every private building within CHOP.
Graffiti that is painted over almost immediately returns, and
property owners have been told by CHOP participants that if they
dare to paint over graffiti, their buildings will be more severely
vandalized or even burned to the ground."

As Seattle's KIRO-TV reports:

In the class-action lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court, about a
dozen businesses, residents and property owners said they had
sometimes been threatened for photographing protesters in public
areas or for cleaning graffiti off their storefronts. The owner of
the auto shop Car Tender said a burglar broke in the night of June
14, started a fire using hand sanitizer as an accelerant, and then
attacked his son with a knife when confronted.

The owner and his son managed to put out the fire and detain the
burglar, the complaint said, but police never responded to their
911 calls. A large crowd of "CHOP participants" then came to the
scene and forced the owner to release the arsonist, it said.

Other businesses, including the family-run label manufacturing
company Richmark Label, said they had been unable to send or
receive packages because delivery companies won't go near the
protest zone or because access to their loading dock had been
blocked by barricades.

Magdalena Sky, the proprietor of Tattoos and Fortune, said in the
complaint she is a supporter of Black Lives Matter but that her
business was down severely due to the protest. A physical therapist
and wine shop also said clients or customers had been afraid to
enter the area.

The suit seeks unspecified damages that will be determined at
trial. [GN]


SEE'S CANDIES: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Brooks Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SEE'S CANDIES, INC., a California corporation; and DOES
1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01236-MCE-DB (E.D. Cal., June
18, 2020), asserts claims against See's Candies for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site,
https://www.sees.com/, to be fully and equally accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' denial of full and
equal access to its Web site and, therefore, denial of its products
and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of her rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Because the Defendants' Web site is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the ADA,
the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendants' corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendants' Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments,
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people, who meet this definition, have limited vision.
Others have no vision.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the County of Sacramento. She is a
legally blind, visually-impaired handicapped person.

See's Candies is an American manufacturer and distributor of candy,
particularly chocolates. The Company was founded by Charles See,
his wife Florence, and his mother Mary in Los Angeles, California,
in 1921. The Company is now headquartered in South San Francisco,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          Thiago Coelho, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: classaction@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com


SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of July 27 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jakubowitz Law on June 21 disclosed that securities fraud class
action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of
Sorrento Therapeutics Inc. who purchased shares within the class
periods listed below. Shareholders interested in representing the
class of wronged shareholders have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to petition the court. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. (SRNE)

CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT SRNE:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/sorrento-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=7444&from=1

Class Period: May 15, 2020 - May 22, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 27, 2020

The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
the Company's initial finding of "100% inhibition" in an in vitro
virus infection will not necessarily translate to to success or
safety in vivo, or in person; (ii) the Company's finding was not a
"cure" for COVID-19; and (ii) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

Jakubowitz Law is vigorous in pursuit of justice for shareholders
who have been the victim of securities fraud. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
JAKUBOWITZ LAW
1140 Avenue of the Americas
9th Floor
New York, New York 10036
T: (212) 867-4490
F: (212) 537-5887 [GN]


STATE STREET: Judge to Defend Decision to Deduct Attorney Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the judge
who cut the fees of prominent class-action firm Lieff Cabraser by
more than $1 million for alleged misconduct in a long-running
lawsuit against State Street Bank & Trust now says he needs his own
lawyer to defend that decision before the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit.

In a brief order coming after more than eight years of legal
wrangling, U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf said he will appoint an
attorney to represent his court as Lieff Cabraser appeals his
February opinion trimming the firm's fees for its involvement in a
scandal that included double-billing of attorney hours and failing
to halt a suspicious $4 million payment to an attorney who did no
work on the case.

Lieff Cabraser helped negotiate a $300 million settlement of the
securities lawsuit against State Street in and was initially
awarded $75 million in fees, along with co-counsel including
Labaton Sucharow and the Thornton Law Firm. Then the Boston Globe
published a story revealing how the law firms had miscounted an
accounting to the court for hours racked up by attorneys they
swapped among themselves. That was followed by revelations Labaton
had paid $4.1 million to Damon Chargois, a Texas lawyer whose only
role in the case was to introduce the New York-based securities
litigation firm to officials at the Arkansas Teachers Retirement
System, which served as a lead plaintiff in the State Street case.

After hearings last year at which Labaton and Lieff Cabraser
strongly objected to nearly every charge against them, Judge Wolf
in February ordered their fees cut by about 26% on top of the
millions of dollars they paid for the special master to investigate
their behavior in the case. The judge said Lieff Cabraser "was
seriously deficient in its performance as counsel" in the case for
signing off on a fee request that included a misleading analysis of
fees paid in similar class actions and for failing to catch the
payment to Chargois. The order would cut Lieff Cabraser's fees by
about $1.1 million to $15.2 million.

Only Lieff Cabraser has appealed the fee cut. In a 63-page filing
earlier this month with the First Circuit, the law firm says it
shouldn't be subject to "strict liability" for behavior by its
co-counsel. The law firm protests Judge Wolf made his findings,
including that Lieff Cabraser should have investigated the payment
to Chargois, "without having heard from Lieff on the issue."

The firm added that Chargois, whose only involvement in the case
appears to have been introducing Labaton attorneys to prominent
state officials in Arkansas, "was consistent with fees paid to
local counsel in similar class actions" and thus didn't merit
further investigation. The lead lawyer for Thornton, Garrett
Bradley, is a former Massachusetts state representative who paid
his brother, normally a $53-an-hour court-appointed criminal
defense attorney, more than $200,000 at $500 an hour in the State
Street case.

The Thornton firm billed $19 million in the State Street case even
though it has few partners and Bradley acknowledged on the stand he
couldn't recall handling any cases in Massachusetts federal court.
Most of the hours reported by the firm were actually worked by
lawyers the larger securities law firms lent to Thornton, in a
common arrangement designed to compensate local counsel with
connections with institutional plaintiffs or the court where the
case is being heard.

Judge Wolf described the fight of Lieff Cabraser's fee as
"essentially an ex parte matter" in which the usual adversarial
process is missing because there is no one involved to argue on
behalf of the investors who ultimately are paying the fees. The
Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute's Center for Class Action Fairness
has asked to be appointed as a representative for shareholders but
so far the court hasn't acted on that request or ordered any fees
for the outside group, which frequently challenges what it believes
are excessive fee awards in class actions.

The judge said he wouldn't require Lieff Cabraser to pay the cost
of the court's attorney, after charging the law firm and its
co-counsel some $5 million for the special master. Lieff Cabraser
said it spent another $1.6 million on expenses and $2.7 million in
professional time on that investigation, which it opposed
throughout the process. [GN]


STEPHEN EINSTEIN & ASSOCIATES: Sabel Files FDCPA Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stephen Einstein &
Associates P.C. The case is styled as Abraham Sabel, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Stephen Einstein & Associates P.C., Cavalry SPV I, LLC and John
Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-05004-PMH (S.D. N.Y., June
30, 2020).

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

Stephen Einstein & Associates P.C. is a law practice company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
   Stein Saks PLLC
   285 Passaic st
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (347) 668-9326
   Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com




STONEY CLOVER LANE: Bunting Alleges Violation under ADA
-------------------------------------------------------
Stoney Clover Lane, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Stoney Clover
Lane, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02882 (E.D. N.Y., June 30,
2020).

Stoney Clover Lane is a happy, customizable accessories and
lifestyle brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
   Scarsdale, NY 10583
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com



SUBARU OF AMERICA: Anderson Seeks Recall of All Defective Vehicles
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROMAN ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC.; SUBARU CORP.; DENSO
INTERNATIONAL AMERICA, INC.; and DENSO CORP., Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-00290-HG-WRP (D. Hawaii, June 26, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of Hawaii's Unfair Deceptive
Acts and Practices Statute, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, and breach of express warranty.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated vehicle owners and lessees, alleges that the Defendants
failed to recall all vehicle models that are equipped with
defective Denso low-pressure fuel pumps. These models and model
years include the 2015-2019 Subaru Impreza, Ascent, Legacy,
Outback, Forester, Crosstrek and WRX. Subaru limited its recall to
only those vehicles equipped with a low-pressure fuel pump
manufactured by Denso during the four-month period, April 2018 to
July 2018, despite that Denso recalled fuel pumps manufactured over
a thirteen-month period.

The Plaintiff and Class members bought the Class vehicles based on
the Defendants' representations that the vehicles are safe and
reliable. The Defendants did not disclose that the vehicles are
designed, manufactured, distributed and sold with a fuel pump
defect that causes the fuel pump to fail prematurely. The Plaintiff
and Class members seek to be included in the recall in order to
benefit from any corrective remedy under it.

Subaru of America, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of automobile
manufacturer Subaru Corporation, with its principal place of
business at One, Subaru Drive, Camden, New Jersey.

Subaru Corporation is a Japanese automobile manufacturer with its
principal place of business in Shibuya-ku, Tokyo, Japan.

Denso International America, Inc. is a supplier of advanced
technology and components for automobile manufacturers, with its
principal place of business at 24777 Denso Drive, Southfield,
Michigan.

Denso Corporation is a Japanese company that supplies advanced
technology and components for automobile manufacturers,
headquartered in Kariya, Japan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Steven K. S. Chung, Esq.
         Timothy E. Ho, Esq.
         IMANAKA ASATO, LLLC
         745 Fort Street Mall, 17th Floor
         Honolulu, HI 96813
         Telephone: (808) 521-9500
         Facsimile: (808) 541-9050
         E-mail: schung@imanaka-asato.com
                 tho@imanaka-asato.com

                  - and –
         
         Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
         Paula R. Brown, Esq.
         Jennifer L. MacPherson, Esq.
         BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
         501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 338-1100
         Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
         E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                 pbrown@bholaw.com
                 jmacpherson@bholaw.com

                  - and –
         
         Courtney L. Davenport, Esq.
         THE DAVENPORT LAW FIRM LLC
         18805 Porterfield Way
         Germantown, MD 20874
         Telephone: (703) 901-1660
         E-mail: courtney@thedavenportlawfirm.com

                  - and –      
         
         Michael T. Fraser, Esq.
         THE FRASER LAW FIRM, P.C.
         4120 Douglas Blvd., Suite 306-262
         Granite Bay, CA 95746
         Telephone: (888) 557-5115
         Facsimile: (866) 212-8434
         E-mail: mfraser@thefraserlawfirm.net

SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: Adams Asserts Breach of FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Synergetic
Communication Inc. The case is styled as Pearl Adams, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Synergetic Communication Inc and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case
No. 7:20-cv-02494-TMC (D. S.C., June 30, 2020).

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

Synergetic Communication, Inc. is a collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Kenneth Edward Norsworthy, Jr., Esq.
   Norsworthy Law LTD Co
   218 Trade Street, Suite D
   Greer, SC 29651
   Tel: (864) 804-0581
   Fax: (864) 670-5009
   Email: kenorsworthy@me.com



TARO PHARMA: Facing Opioid Related Suit in Israel
-------------------------------------------------
Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 19,
2020, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, that in June 2020,
the Company along with an additional pharmaceutical manufacturer
were named as part of a proceeding in Israel seeking approval for a
proposed class action relating to the alleged sale of opioid
products in Israel.

Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., a science-based pharmaceutical
company, engages in the development, manufacture, and marketing of
pharmaceutical products in the United States, Canada, Israel, and
internationally. The company was founded in 1959 and is based in
Haifa Bay, Israel. Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. is a
subsidiary of Alkaloida Chemical Company Zrt.



TARO PHARMA: Putative Class Action Suit in Israel Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 19,
2020, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit in Israel.

In July 2019, the Company received a motion to approve a class
action against 30 companies located in Haifa Bay, Israel, including
the Company.  The claimant, a civil association in Haifa Bay,
claims that the industrial activity of the 30 companies allegedly
caused higher percentages of lung cancer among Haifa Bay residents
compared to the average in Israel.  

At this stage, the claimant seeks to receive district court
approval for the motion to approve a class action.  

The 30 companies have filed a preliminary response to the court in
which they have moved the court to dismiss the motion in light of
the requirements of Israeli Class Action Law.

Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., a science-based pharmaceutical
company, engages in the development, manufacture, and marketing of
pharmaceutical products in the United States, Canada, Israel, and
internationally. The company was founded in 1959 and is based in
Haifa Bay, Israel. Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. is a
subsidiary of Alkaloida Chemical Company Zrt.


TARO PHARMA: Subsidiaries Facing Putative Class Suit in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 19,
2020, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, that the company's
subsidiaries are defendants in a putative class action suit in
Canada.

In June 2020, Taro U.S.A. and Taro Pharmaceuticals Inc. were named
as defendants in a proposed class action in Canada.  The lawsuit
alleges that the Taro entities conspired with competitors in
violation of antitrust laws with respect to the Taro entities'
products.

Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., a science-based pharmaceutical
company, engages in the development, manufacture, and marketing of
pharmaceutical products in the United States, Canada, Israel, and
internationally. The company was founded in 1959 and is based in
Haifa Bay, Israel. Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. is a
subsidiary of Alkaloida Chemical Company Zrt.


TRAVELPORT LP: 11th Cir. Reverses in Part Williamson Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANGELA HENDERSON WILLIAMSON, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRAVELPORT,
LP, GALILEO & WORLDSPAN U.S. LEGACY PENSION PLAN,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-10449 (11th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed
in part the dismissal of Ms. Williamson's claims.

Williamson worked at United Airlines and two of its successors for
nearly 30 years.  During her employment, Williamson participated in
the Galileo & Worldspan U.S. Legacy Pension Plan, which currently
governs her pension benefits, and two of its predecessor plans.  As
her retirement date approached, she contacted Travelport, the plan
administrator, and the parties began a five-year informal dispute
about her pension benefits calculation.

The dispute involved numerous communications and document requests.
At one point, Travelport corrected a mistake regarding its average
salary computation, but only after Ms. Williamson was able to
locate and send her old W-2 forms to Travelport.  Though the
parties were able to resolve that issue informally, they continued
to disagree about two other aspects of Ms. Williamson's pension.
Ms. Williamson eventually filed a formal claim for benefits, which
Travelport denied.

Ms. Williamson then brought a class action against Travelport and
the Galileo & Worldspan U.S. Legacy Pension Plan in federal court
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.  She
asserted claims for improperly withheld pension benefits,
document-disclosure penalties, and breach of fiduciary duties.

Ms. Williamson sought, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the following relief: (1) a declaratory
judgment under Section 1132(a)(1)(B) that their pension benefits
were calculated incorrectly; (2) damages under Section
1132(a)(1)(B) for pension benefits wrongly withheld based on the
allegedly improper calculations; (3) a finding that the Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA; and (4) attorney's
fees and prejudgment interest under Section 1132(g).  She also
sought, under Section 1132(c) and on her behalf only, penalties for
the Defendants' alleged failure to give her documents that ERISA
requires administrators to provide within 30 days upon written
request.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint as an
improper shotgun pleading in violation of Rules 8(a) and 10(b) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  They also moved to dismiss
Ms. Williamson's claims on the merits under Rule 12(b)(6).  The
district court dismissed all of the claims under Rule 12(b)(6).

Having rejected all of Ms. Williamson's other claims, the district
court dismissed the claim for attorney's fees.  Finally, as an
alternative basis for dismissal, the district court determined that
Ms. Williamson's amended complaint was an impermissible "shotgun
pleading" because it was nearly impossible to determine which facts
supported which claims.

Ms. Williamson argues that the district court improperly ruled on
the merits of her Section 1132(a)(1)(B) claim in granting the
Defendants' 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss because it did not have the
full administrative record upon which Travelport relied and because
the parties had only briefed matters pertinent to the motion to
dismiss, and not the ultimate factual merits of her claims.  The
Eleventh Circuit Court agrees.  

Travelport argues that de novo review could nonetheless be
performed here because Ms. Williamson's complaint effectively
placed before the district court the pertinent portions of the
administrative record.  But Ms. Williamson did not and does not
stipulate to the record's completeness.  To the contrary, she
explicitly alleged that Travelport withheld documents from her and
asserted claims under ERISA's document-disclosure provision.  The
documents that she has and was able to append to her complaint
therefore may not constitute the full administrative record.

At a later stage of the case, Travelport of course may argue that
certain documents are more relevant than others, or not relevant at
all.  But it cannot artificially limit the administrative record at
the outset based on its own assessment of relevance.  Once
Travelport properly certifies the record, or the parties stipulate
to a complete record, then the district court can entertain
dispositive motions and review Travelport's decision de novo under
the first Blankenship v. Metro. Life Ins. Co. step.

Next, the Eleventh Circuit holds that Ms. Williamson stated
plausible claims for benefits under ERISA.  There are three
interrelated pension plans, various restatements and amendments to
those plans over several years, and several concomitant plan
documents, SPDs, and claimant-specific source documents.
Travelport, moreover, admitted to miscalculating one component of
Ms. Williamson's pension benefits.  The large volume of plan
documents and the multiple changes to the interrelated plans make
it more plausible that Travelport miscalculated this component of
Ms. Williamson's benefits, and Travelport's past mistake lends even
further credibility to this allegation.  These facts, construed in
a light favorable to Ms. Williamson, help the Court draw the
reasonable inference that she has sufficiently pled a claim under
Section 1132(a)(1)(B) for an improperly offset annuity.

Ms. Williamson also alleged that Travelport incorrectly excluded 12
months of credit from her UAL employment based on an apparent
conflict between the Legacy Plan and the 2009 SPD for the Legacy
Plan.  The Eleventh Circuit reiterates that the unusual facts of
the case and the incomplete administrative record inform our
plausibility analysis.  Ms. Williamson participated in three
different plans over several decades, which were amended and
modified several times, and which came with two SPDs that have
language favoring her characterization of her benefits entitlement.
It is plausible that other SPDs included the same language and
that she relied on those SPDs, and that a certified administrative
record could help resolve the dispute.

Turning to Ms. Williamson's claims for document-disclosure
penalties, she argues that Travelport is subject to penalties based
on six written requests.  Among other things, the Eleventh Circuit
concludes that Travelport satisfied its obligation by sending her
the then-current SPD and the governing plan seven days after the
oral request.  The Eleventh Circuit also concludes that Ms.
Williamson's remaining requests did not trigger Section 1132(c) and
1024(b)(4).  And even if they had, Travelport provided the
requisite documents according to the complaint.  Regarding Ms.
Williamson's request for "all language in the Plan that Travelport
contends supports" its position on her claim, it would at most have
put Travelport on notice to provide the governing pension plan or,
arguably, the then-current SPD.  Travelport therefore satisfied all
of its disclosure obligations, and the district court correctly
dismissed Ms. Williamson's claims for penalties under Section
1132(c).

The Eleventh Circuit now turns to Ms. Williamson's argument that
Travelport should be liable under Section 1132(c) for violations of
Section 1059(a) and Department of Labor regulations.  Fatal to the
argument is that Section 1132(c) penalizes violations "under the
subchapter," and not violations of federal regulations.  Even
assuming that Section 1059(a) could serve as a basis for penalties
under Section 1132(c), there are other problems with Ms.
Williamson's argument.  Under Section 1059(a), employers are
required to maintain the type of employment documents Ms.
Williamson seeks, and then the employer will furnish to the plan
administrator the information necessary for the administrator to
make the reports required by the preceding sentence.  Like the
plaintiffs in James, Ms. Williamson alleges that Travelport, the
plan administrator, and not any of her former employers, failed to
maintain the records necessary to determine employee benefits.

The district court ruled that an alternative basis for dismissal
was that the complaint was an impermissible shotgun pleading.  The
Eleventh Circuit disagrees.  First, each claim for relief in the
complaint does not indiscriminately incorporate all of the factual
allegations set forth in the prior claims for relief.  Second,
although the complaint does include extensive details and factual
allegations regarding the five-year dispute -- and perhaps not
every detail is entirely material -- most allegations are germane.


The district court exercised its discretion not to award attorney's
fees under Section 1132(g)(1) based on its determination that all
of Ms. Williamson's claims should be dismissed.  The Eleventh
Circuit will reverse that ruling, as it is remanding for further
consideration of Ms. Williamson's claims for benefits

Based on the foregoing, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal
of Ms. Williamson's claims under Sections 1132(a)(2) and (c), but
reversed the dismissal of Ms. Williamson's claims for benefits
under Section 1132(a)(1)(B) and attorney's fees under Section
1132(g)(1).  The Eleventh Circuit remanded the case for further
proceedings consistent with its Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Eleventh Circuit's March 27, 2020 Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/Hvhq3o from Leagle.com.


UNION PACIFIC: 8th Cir. Reverse Class Certification in Harris
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Quinton Harris; Geoffrey Miller; Norman Mount; Thomas
Taylor; John Baker; Scott Zinn Plaintiffs-Appellees v. Union
Pacific Railroad Company Defendant-Appellant. AARP; American
Diabetes Association; Disability Rights Advocates; Disability
Rights Arkansas, Inc.; Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund;
Disability Rights Iowa; Disability Rights Legal Center; Disability
Rights Nebraska; Disability Rights Texas; Impact Fund; Legal Aid at
Work; Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid; Missouri Protection & Advocacy
Services; Public Justice; The Protection & Advocacy Project Amici
on Behalf of Appellee(s). Chamber of Commerce of the United States
of America; The National Association of Manufacturers; National
Retail Federation; Association of American Railroads; Center for
Workplace Compliance Amici on Behalf of Appellant(s), Case No.
19-1514 (8th cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit reversed the district court's order certifying a class
under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure

Union Pacific follows a fitness-for-duty policy to evaluate its
employees, and its Health and Medical Services department ("HMS")
is responsible for completing fitness-for-duty evaluations.  The
Company defines "Fitness for Duty" as the medical and functional
ability to safely perform a job, with or without reasonable
accommodations, and meet medical standards established by
regulatory agencies in accordance with federal and state laws."

Employees in some positions must report certain events, called
"reportable health events," to HMS so it can evaluate the
employee's fitness for duty.  Such events include heart attack,
cardiac arrest, stroke, seizure, significant vision change, and eye
surgery.  According to Union Pacific, an employee who has a
reportable health event is evaluated to determine if the employee
presents an unacceptably high risk of sudden incapacitation.  To
perform this evaluation, HMS reviews the employee's appropriate
medical records.  HMS also considers guidelines from at least one
federal agency and other relevant evidence from the scientific
literature to inform its fitness-for-duty decisions in conducting
an individualized analysis of safety risks for work that may be
posed by an employee's specific health conditions and functional
limitations.  Sometimes, HMS may refer the matter to an outside
physician specialist (such as a neurologist or cardiologist) for a
clinical evaluation or a medical file review.

Based on Union Pacific's assessment of the employee's risk for
sudden incapacitation, the Company may require "functional work
restrictions," meaning restrictions that focus on particular work
functions or tasks rather than whether a person is qualified or
disqualified for a particular job.  Union Pacific uses a level of
acceptable risk for sudden incapacitation of no greater than a 1%
annual occurrence rate.  After assessing functional work
restrictions, HMS relies on the employee's supervisors, who are
intimately familiar with the particulars of the employee's job, to
determine whether the employee can perform the job with or without
reasonable accommodation despite the restrictions.  While the
employee is being evaluated by HMS, the employee is removed from
work.

Former Union Pacific employee Harris filed a complaint against the
Company in 2015, claiming that Union Pacific violated the Americans
with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), when he was disqualified from work
because of his epilepsy.  In 2018, Harris and other current and
former employees of Union Pacific moved to certify a class action
for a claim under the ADA.  They argued that Union Pacific's
fitness-for-duty policy "has led to the systematic removal of
workers with disabilities."

The district court granted the motion, certifying a hybrid class
under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3).  It defined the class to include
all employees who have been or will be subject to a
fitness-for-duty evaluation because of a reportable health event
from September 18, 2014 until the end of the case.

The court granted Union Pacific permission to appeal the order
granting class certification.  On appeal, Union Pacific argues that
the class does not meet the Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) requirements.

The Eighth Circuit agrees with Union Pacific that the
individualized inquiries in the case cannot be addressed in a
manner consistent with Rule 23.  The ADA defines "discriminate
against a qualified individual on the basis of disability" to
include "qualification standards, employment tests or other
selection criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an
individual with a disability or a class of individuals with
disabilities."  But if the qualification standard, employment test,
or other selection criteria is shown to be job-related for the
position in question and is consistent with business necessity, it
is not unlawfully discriminatory under the ADA.

The Eighth Circuit emphasizes that it need not decide whether Union
Pacific's policy is consistent with business necessity and whether
it does, in fact, properly "validate" its policy for
job-relatedness to the specific skills and physical requirements of
the sought-after positions.  Rather, it needs only conclude that in
the case it is a highly individualized question that does not allow
class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3).

The Eighth Circuit also does not reject the possibility that a
class bringing an ADA claim through the International Bhd. of
Teamsters v. United States framework could be certified under Rule
23.  For example, had some number of employees from the same or
similar positions with the same or similar disabilities sought to
challenge Union Pacific's policy, class certification may have been
appropriate.  And were it the case, as the Plaintiffs argue, that
Union Pacific's policy applied in the same way to every Union
Pacific employee no matter their position and medical circumstance,
the district court may have been able to properly consider whether
the policy was facially discriminatory without individual
circumstances overwhelming the inquiry.  But neither of these
circumstances is the instant case, and the Teamsters framework
cannot, by its own force, cure the flaw in the class.

For the foregoing reasons, the Eighth Circuit concluded that the
district court abused its discretion in finding that the Plaintiffs
met the Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) requirements.  Accordingly, the
Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's class certification.

A full-text copy of the Eighth Circuit's March 24, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/pGvVQ3 from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES OIL: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on June 24
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of United States Oil Fund, LP
(NYSEArca: USO) between March 19, 2020 and April 28, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for USO investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the USO class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1865.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

The complaint alleges that, defendants stated that USO would
achieve its investment objective by investing substantially all of
its portfolio assets in the near month WTI futures contract.
However, unbeknownst to investors, extraordinary market conditions
in early 2020 made USO's purported investment objective and
strategy unfeasible. Rather than disclose the known impacts and
risks to the fund, USO held an offering of billions of dollars of
USO shares in March 2020. Ultimately, the fund suffered billions of
dollars in losses and was forced to abandon its investment
strategy. It was not until late April and May 2020, that defendants
acknowledged the extreme threats and adverse impacts that the fund
had been experiencing at the time of the March offering, but which
they failed to disclose to investors.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 18,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1865.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors
throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities
class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm
was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number
of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has
secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Contact Information:

      Laurence Rosen, Esq.
      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
      275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 686-1060
      Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
      Fax: (212) 202-3827
      lrosen@rosenlegal.com
      pkim@rosenlegal.com
      cases@rosenlegal.com [GN]


UNITED STATES: Fails to Protect Small Biz From COVID, NOLC Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THE NOLC, INC. and BRUCE CARTER, and other similarly situated v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; THE UNITED STATES SMALL BUSINESS
ADMINISTRATION; JOVITA CARRANZA, in her Official Capacity as
Administrator of the Small Business Administration; and STEVEN
MNUCHIN, in his Official Capacity as United States Secretary of the
Treasury, Case No. 4:20-cv-00294-GKF-JFJ (N.D. Okla.), seeks all
available relief under the equal protection of the Fifth
Amendment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the US Small Business Administration
egregiously and lawlessly failed to protect Underserved and Rural
community small businesses from financial hardships due to
COVID-19.

On March 27, 2020, President Donald J. Trump signed the CARES Act
into law. This legislation created a new PPP to permit
COVID-19-impacted small businesses (under 500 employees),
nonprofits, and individuals to obtain loans via the 7(a) Loan
Program ("PPP Loans"). The CARES Act temporarily (from February 15,
2020, through June 30, 2020) increased the total 7(a) Loan Program
amount to $349 billion.

The US federal government passed H.R. Bill 748 C.A.R.E.S. ACT with
the intent of preserving the thirty million small businesses in
America, according to SBA. The Plaintiffs allege that despite SBA's
full knowledge of America's 30 million small businesses, it failed
to provide guidelines that would ensure processing and disbursement
of Paycheck Protection Program funds and metered EIDL grants. EIDL
grants, according to the bill, were to provide emergency assistance
up to $10,000.00 to small businesses within 3 days after
application.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to appropriately
protect the interests of a large part of this country's economic
engine--sole proprietorships, self-employed individuals, or
independent contractors ("Non-employer Businesses")--by giving
preference to businesses, who maintained W-2 employees on payroll.
In fact, the Defendants knowingly, intentionally, and illegally
discriminated against minority-owned and woman-owned Non-employer
Businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert W. Haiges, Esq.
          ROBERT W. HAIGES P.C.
          P.O. 1187
          Edmond, OK 73083
          Telephone: 405 478-1188
          Facsimile: 405 478-5501
          E-mail: haigesr@yahoo.com


UNITED STATES: HHS Opposes Class Treatment in Abortion Billing Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Anne Pazanowski, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that
consumers opposed to a new Trump administration rule that requires
insurers that offer coverage for abortion to separately bill them
for that coverage shouldn't be certified as a class, the government
told a federal court in Maryland.

The consumers asked the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland to treat the lawsuit as a class action if it is inclined
to grant them summary judgment but not to vacate the rule
nationwide. That request "puts the cart before the horse" and
potentially prejudices the government, the U.S. Health and Human
Services Department told the court June 19. [GN]



UNITED STATES: Prelim Injunction in Padilla Suit Partly Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, OLANY PADILLA; IBIS GUZMAN; BLANCA ORANTES; BALTAZAR
VASQUEZ, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; U.S. CUSTOMS AND
B PROTECTION; UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES;
MATTHEW ALBENCE, Acting Director of ICE; CHAD WOLF, Acting
Secretary of DHS; MARK MORGAN, Acting Commissioner of CBP;
CUCCINELLI, Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director
of USCIS; MARC J. MOORE, Seattle Field Office Director, ICE;
EXECUTIVE OFFICE IMMIGRATION REVIEW; WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney
General, United States Attorney General; LOWELL CLARK, Warden of
the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington; CHARLES
INGRAM, Warden of the Federal Detention Center in SeaTac,
Washington; DAVID SHINN, Warden; JAMES JANECKA, Warden of the
Adelanto Detention Facility, Defendants-Appellants, and U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, FKA Department of Social
Services; OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT; ALEX M. AZAR II,
Secretary of HHS; SCOTT LLOYD, Director of ORR; MATTHEW ALBENCE,
Acting Deputy Director of ICE; JOHN P. SANDERS, Acting Commissioner
of CBP; ELIZABETH GODFREY, Acting Director of Seattle Field Office,
ICE, Defendants, Case No. 19-35565 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part the district court's
preliminary injunction order, and directed the district court to
reconsider some of the technical aspects of its order.

In the interlocutory appeal, the Ninth Circuit considers whether
the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary
injunction ordering the United States to provide bond hearings to a
class of noncitizens who were detained after entering the United
States and were found by an asylum officer to have a credible fear
of persecution.

The Plaintiffs are a class of noncitizens detained pursuant to 8
U.S.C. Section 1225(b).  Section 1225(b) provides for expedited
removal of "arriving" noncitizens at ports-of-entry and
inadmissible noncitizens apprehended within the United States who
cannot prove that they have been in the United States for more than
two years.  The Plaintiffs are in the latter category.

DHS removes noncitizens eligible for expedited removal "without
further hearing or review," subject to only one exception.  If the
noncitizen indicates an intent to apply for asylum or a fear of
persecution, DHS must refer the noncitizen for an interview with an
asylum officer.  If the asylum officer determines that the
noncitizen's fear of persecution is credible, the noncitizen is
referred to full removal proceedings, in which the noncitizen may
apply for asylum or other forms of relief from removal.  Subject to
review, if the asylum officer finds no credible fear of
persecution, the noncitizen will be removed.  A supervisor reviews
the asylum officer's credible fear determination, and a noncitizen
may also request de novo review by an immigration judge.

If the asylum officer determines at the time of the credible fear
interview that the noncitizen has a credible fear of persecution,
the noncitizen must "be detained for further consideration of the
application for asylum."  If the asylum officer determines that the
noncitizen does not have a credible fear of persecution, the
statute requires that the noncitizen be detained during the review
process "pending a final determination of credible fear of
persecution and, if found not to have such a fear, until removed."


Until July 2019, noncitizens like the Plaintiffs, who were
apprehended within the United States and initially subject to
expedited removal, but who established credible fear and were
transferred to full removal proceedings, were considered to be
entitled to bond hearings before an immigration judge, as
noncitizens in full removal proceedings usually are.

In June 2018, Padilla, Guzman, and Orantes filed a class action
complaint challenging the government's alleged policy and practice
of separating families seeking asylum and delaying credible fear
interviews and bond hearings for detained asylum seekers.  They
moved for class certification and for a preliminary injunction
requiring "timely bond hearings that comport with due process."

The district court first certified a nationwide Bond Hearing Class
consisting of all detained asylum seekers who entered the United
States without inspection, were initially subject to expedited
removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. Section 1225(b), were determined
to have a credible fear of persecution, but are not provided a bond
hearing with a verbatim transcript or recording of the hearing
within seven days of requesting a bond hearing.

The district court also granted the motion for a preliminary
injunction, implementing certain procedural requirements for class
members' bond hearings.  Specifically, the preliminary injunction
required the Executive Office for Immigration Review ("EOIR") to
conduct bond hearings within seven days of a class member's request
and release any member whose detention without a hearing exceeds
that limit.  The injunction also provided that in those hearings,
the burden of proof must be placed on DHS to demonstrate why the
class member should not be released on bond, parole, or other
conditions.  It required the government to record the bond hearings
and produce the recordings or verbatim transcripts upon appeal.
Finally, the injunction required the government to produce a
written decision with particularized findings at the conclusion of
each bond hearing.

Shortly after the order, the Attorney General ("AG") overruled
Matter of X-K-, which established that noncitizens similarly
situated to the members of the bond hearing class are entitled to
bond hearings, as "wrongly decided."  The AG interpreted 8 U.S.C.
Section 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii) to require mandatory detention without
bond hearings for asylum seekers who were initially subject to
expedited removal but later transferred to full removal proceedings
after establishing a credible fear.  Under Matter of M-S-, the only
possibility for release available to noncitizens in this category
is a discretionary grant of parole by DHS for "urgent humanitarian
reasons or significant public benefit" pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section
1182(d)(5).  The AG delayed implementation of Matter of M-S- for 90
days in light of its significant impact on detention operations.

The Plaintiffs then filed a third amended complaint challenging
Matter of M-S- on due process grounds and moved to modify the
injunction.  The Defendants moved to vacate the injunction.

The district court modified the previously issued preliminary
injunction, dividing it into two parts "to facilitate appellate
review."  In Part A, the court reaffirmed its previously entered
injunctive relief.  In Part B, it essentially maintained the status
quo before Matter of M-S-.

The government timely appealed both orders, moved for an
administrative stay of the injunction, and a stay pending appeal.
A motions panel of the Court denied the government's request to
stay Part B of the injunction, in which the district court held
that the class members are constitutionally entitled to bond
hearings, but granted the request to stay Part A, which imposed
procedural requirements on those bond hearings.

The Ninth Circuit holds that a plaintiff seeking a preliminary
injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the
merits; that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence
of preliminary relief; that the balance of equities tips in his
favor; and that an injunction is in the public interest.  Where the
government is a party to a case in which a preliminary injunction
is sought, the balance of the equities and public interest factors
merge.

After consideration of the arguments presented by both parties and
several amici curiae and thorough review of the record, the Ninth
Circuit concludes that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in issuing Part B of the preliminary injunction and
ordering that the Plaintiffs receive bond hearings.  The Ninth
Circuit finds that (i) the Plaintiffs were likely to prevail on the
merits of their due process claim regarding the availability of
bond hearings, and (ii) the balance of the equities and public
interest favors the Plaintiffs with respect to Part B of the
preliminary injunction.

However, because the record is insufficient to support Part A of
the preliminary injunction, the Ninth Circuit will remand for
further findings and reconsideration with respect to the particular
process due to the Plaintiffs.  The Ninth Circuit holds that the
threat of irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs, the balancing of the
equities, and the public interest implicated by Part A of the
preliminary injunction present intensely factual questions.  The
factual landscape has shifted as the case has developed, including
the time between the district court's first preliminary injunction
order and modified preliminary injunction order, and the district
court did not consider these developments when entering the
modified preliminary injunction order. Accordingly, although it
affirms Part B of the preliminary injunction, the Ninth Circuit
will remand the case to the district court for further factual
development on the Winter factors with respect to Part A of the
preliminary injunction.  The Ninth Circuit also directs the
district court on remand to revisit the injunction's scope.

In sum, the Ninth Circuit concludes that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in concluding that the Plaintiffs are likely
to succeed on their challenge under the Due Process Clause to the
detention of class members without any opportunity for a bond
hearing.  The district court likewise did not abuse its discretion
in finding the Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm absent
preliminary relief and that the balance of the equities and public
interest favored the Plaintiffs.  Part B of the district court's
preliminary injunction is thus affirmed, except to the extent that
it requires that bond hearings be administered under the conditions
enumerated in Part A.

The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded Part A of the preliminary
injunction to the district court for further factual development
and consideration of the procedures that must be followed with
respect to the required bond hearings.  The district court must
further develop the relevant factual record and revisit the scope
of the injunction.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's March 27, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/2qLe5W from Leagle.com.

Yolany Padilla, Ibis Guzman, Blanca Orantes & Baltazar Vasquez,
Plaintiffs, represented by Kristin Macleod-Ball, AMERICAN
IMMIGRATION COUNCIL, pro hac vice, Leila Kang , NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT
RIGHTS PROJECT, Matt Adams, NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT,
Trina Realmuto, AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL, pro hac vice & Aaron
Korthuis, NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT.

US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also known as ICE, US
Department of Homeland Security, also known as DHS, US Customs and
Border Protection, also known as CBP, United StatesCitizenship and
Immigration Services, also known as USCIS, Thomas Homan, Acting
Director of ICE, Kirstjen M Nielsen, Secretary of DHS, Kevin K.
McAleenan, Acting Commissioner of CBP, L Francis Cissna, Director
of USCIS, Marc J Moore, Seattle Field Office Director, ICE,
Executive Office for Immigration Review, Jefferson Beauregard
Sessions, III, United States Attorney General, Lowell Clark, Warden
of the Norwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Charles Ingram, Warden
of the Federal Detention Center in SeaTac, Washington & David
Shinn, Warden of the Federal Correctional Institute in Victorville,
CA, Defendants, represented by Joseph A. Darrow , US DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Lauren C. Bingham , US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & Sarah S.
Wilson -- swilson@cov.com -- US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.


UNITED STATES: Wolf Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Roman Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants-Respondents Chad F. Wolf, et al., filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Kelvin Hernandez Roman, et al.
v. Chad Wolf, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-00768-TJH-PVC, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Riverside.

Chad F. Wolf is the acting Secretary of Homeland Security and Under
Secretary of Homeland Security for Strategy, Policy, and Plans.

The nature of suit is stated as "Habeas Corpus--Alien Detainee for
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus."

The appellate case is captioned as Kelvin Hernandez Roman, et al.
v. Chad Wolf, et al., Case No. 20-55662, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appellants Matthew T. Albence, James Janecka, David Marin
      and Chad F. Wolf's opening brief is due on August 31, 2020;

   -- Appellees Miguel Aguilar Estrada, Beatriz Andrea Forero
      Chavez and Kelvin Hernandez Roman's answering brief is due
      on October 1, 2020; and

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

Plaintiffs-Petitioners-Appellees KELVIN HERNANDEZ ROMAN, BEATRIZ
ANDREA FORERO CHAVEZ, and MIGUEL AGUILAR ESTRADA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Ahilan Thevanesan Arulanantham, Esq.
          Jessica Karp Bansal, Esq.
          Michelle Cho, Esq.
          Michael Kaufman, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
          1313 West 8th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977-9500
          Facsimile: (213) 417-2211
          Email: aarulanantham@aclusocal.org
                 jbansal@aclusocal.org
                 mcho@aclusocal.org
                 mkaufman@aclusocal.org

                     - and -

          Samir Deger-Sen, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20004-1304
          Email: samir.deger-sen@lw.com

                     - and -

          William Friedman, Esq.
          MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
          500 North Capitol Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 756-8268
          Email: william.friedman@lw.com

Defendants-Respondents-Appellants CHAD F. WOLF, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; MATTHEW T. ALBENCE, Deputy
Director and Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director,
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; DAVID MARIN, Director of
the Los Angeles Field Office, Enforcement and Removal Operations,
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and JAMES JANECKA,
Warden, Adelanto ICE Processing Center, are represented by:
  
          Daniel Beck, Esq.
          USLA-OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY
          300 North Los Angeles Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: (213) 894-2574
          Facsimile: (213) 894-7819
          Email: daniel.beck@usdoj.gov

                     - and -

          Hillary Burrelle, Esq.
          AGCA-OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL
          300 South Spring Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 894-2420

                     - and -

          Victor Manuel Mercado-Santana, Esq.
          Jeffrey S. Robins, Esq.
          DOJ-U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          P.O. Box 878, Benjamin Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044


UNUM GROUP: Taylor PFRS Appeals Order in Pittman Suit to 6th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Plaintiff CITY OF TAYLOR POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Cynthia
Pittman, et al. v. Unum Group, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00128, in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee,
Chattanooga.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Unum Group
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 5, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2020, that the motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled, In
re Unum Group Securities Litigation, is pending.

Three alleged securities class action lawsuits have been filed
against Unum Group and individual defendants. The case of City of
Taylor Police and Fire Retirement System seeks to represent
purchasers of Unum Group publicly traded securities between October
27, 2016 and May 1, 2018. The allegations and damages claimed
mirror those in the Cynthia Pittman v. Unum Group, Richard
McKenney, John McGarry, and Daniel Waxenberg matter.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: UNUM GROUP SECURITIES
LITIGATION, CYNTHIA PITTMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated Plaintiff SCOTT CUNNINGHAM Plaintiff and
CITY OF TAYLOR POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Lead
Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNUM GROUP; RICHARD P. MCKENNEY; JOHN F.
MCGARRY; DANIEL J. WAXENBERG; STEVE ZABEL, Defendants-Appellees,
Case No. 20-5710, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant CITY OF TAYLOR POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, Lead Plaintiff, is represented by:

          Christopher M. Wood, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2203
          E-mail: cwood@rgrdlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees UNUM GROUP, RICHARD P. MCKENNEY, JOHN F.
MCGARRY, DANIEL J. WAXENBERG, and STEVE ZABEL, are represented by:

          Myla G. Arumugam, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 558-4000
          E-mail: arumugamm@sullcrom.com

               - and -

          James T. Williams, Esq.
          MILLER & MARTIN
          832 Georgia Avenue, Suite 1200
          Chattanooga, TN 37402
          Telephone: (423) 756-6600
          E-mail: james.williams@millermartin.com


VITOL INC: Gennaro Sues Over Rigged Gas Prices
----------------------------------------------
Eric Gennaro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Vitol Inc., SK Energy Americas, Inc. and SK
Trading International Co., Ltd., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-03705,
(N.D. Cal., June 4, 2020), seeks relief under state antitrust and
consumer protection laws for violations of the Cartwright Act and
California's Unfair Competition Law.

In February 2015, an explosion damaged an oil refinery complex in
Torrance, California thus causing an unexpected undersupply of
refined gasoline. Vitol, SK Energy Americas and SK Trading
International negotiated large contracts to supply gasoline and
gasoline blending components for delivery in California in excess
of more than 10 million gallons.

Gennaro purchased fuel at retail in California during the said
period. He claims that Vitol and SK manipulated the spot market
price for gasoline for profit. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      K. Craig Wildfang, Esq.
      Thomas J. Undlin, Esq.
      Ryan W. Marth, Esq.
      ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
      800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Tel: (612) 349-8500
      Fax: (612) 339-4181
      Email: kcwildfang@robinskaplan.com
             tundlin@robinskaplan.com
             rmarth@robinskaplan.com

             - and -

      Hollis Salzman, Esq.
      Kellie Lerner, Esq.
      Noelle Feigenbaum, Esq.
      William V. Reiss, Esq.
      Matthew J. Geyer, Esq.
      ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
      399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 980-7400
      Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
      Email: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com
             KLerner@robinskaplan.com
             NFeigenbaum@RobinsKaplan.com
             wreiss@robinskaplan.com
             mgeyer@robinskaplan.com

             - and -

      Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq.
      ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
      2440 West El Camino Real, Suite 100
      Mountain View, CA 94040
      Telephone: (650) 784-4040
      Facsimile: (650) 784-4041
      Email: ASheanin@RobinsKaplan.com


VOX MEDIA: Reddington Seeks Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Reddington, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly
situated v. VOX MEDIA, INC., d/b/a SB NATION, Case No.
1:20-cv-01793 (D.D.C., July 1, 2020), is brought under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law seeking to
recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages.

Vox pays the Plaintiff and similarly situated class members
("Content Contributors") a small monthly stipend to create and edit
the written, video, and audio content on team sites. Content
Contributors' posts are the core of Vox's business.

The Plaintiff alleges that Vox uniformly and consistently
misclassified Content Contributors--including job titles, such as
Site Manager, Associate Editor, Managing Editor, Deputy Editor, and
Contributor--as independent contractors in order to avoid its
duties and obligations owed to employees under New Jersey law and
to gain an unfair competitive advantage over its competitors that
properly classify its workers as employees. In Addition, the
Plaintiff, for example, worked on average approximately 63 hours
per week during the baseball season. The Defendant does not pay any
Content Contributor overtime wages for the time they work beyond
eight hours per day or forty hours per week, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an adult individual, who has been employed by the
Defendant since 2007 for his work as a Site Manager for SB Nation's
team site.

Vox operates and maintains media Web sites, including over 300
sports blogs under its flagship property SB Nation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Goodley, Esq.
          Marc L. Gelman, Esq.
          Ryan McCarthy, Esq.
          JENNINGS SIGMOND, P.C.
          1835 Market Street, Suite 2800
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 351-0613
          Fax: (215) 922-3524
          Email: jgoodley@jslex.com
                 mgelman@jslex.com
                 rmccarthy@jslex.com

               - and -

          David Borgen, Esq.
          Laura L. Ho, Esq.
          Ginger Grimes, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO
          300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Phone: (510) 763-9800
          Fax: (510) 835-1417
          Email: dborgen@gbdhlegal.com
                 lho@gbdhlegal.com
                 Ggrimes@gbdhlegal.com


WELLS FARGO: Guofeng Ma Hits Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------
Guofeng Ma, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Wells Fargo & Company, Charles W. Scharf,
and John R. Shrewsberry, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-03697 (N.D.
Cal., June 4, 2020), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Wells Fargo is a diversified financial services company that
provides banking, investment, mortgage, and consumer and commercial
finance products and services to individuals, businesses, and
institutions in the U.S. and internationally.

Wells Fargo failed to disclose that it improperly allocated
government-backed loans under the Paycheck Protection Program under
the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act and was
reshuffling the loan applications it received and prioritized the
applications that would make the bank the most money. Following
this news, Wells Fargo's stock price fell more than 5% over two
trading days on May 6, 2020. Guofeng Ma owns Wells Fargo stock.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90024
      Telephone: (310) 405-7190
      E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

              - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
             ahood@pomlaw.com

             - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

             - and -

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 697-6484
      Facsimile (212) 697-7296
      Email: peretz@bgandg.com


WILLIS TOWERS: Halper Sadeh Reminds of Aug. 3 Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Halper Sadeh LLP, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
investors of the shareholder class action lawsuit against Willis
Towers Watson Public Limited Company (NASDAQ: WLTW) in connection
with the proposed merger between Willis Towers and Aon plc. The
lawsuit seeks damages and/or equitable relief on behalf of Willis
Towers shareholders under the federal securities laws.

If you are a Willis Towers shareholder and would like to join the
action or discuss your legal rights and options, please visit
Willis Towers Class Action or contact Daniel Sadeh or Zachary
Halper, free of charge, at (212) 763-0060 or sadeh@halpersadeh.com
or zhalper@halpersadeh.com.

The lawsuit alleges that Defendants issued a materially misleading
proxy statement recommending that Willis Towers shareholders vote
in favor of the proposed merger between Willis Towers and Aon.
According to the complaint, the proxy statement contains materially
incomplete and misleading information concerning, among other
things, Willis Towers', Aon's, and the combined company's financial
projections and the analyses performed by Willis Towers' financial
advisor.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 3, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you would like to join the action or discuss your
legal rights and options, please visit
https://halpersadeh.com/actions/willis-towers-watson-public-limited-company-wltw-stock-merger-aon-plc/
or contact Daniel Sadeh or Zachary Halper, free of charge, at (212)
763-0060 or sadeh@halpersadeh.com or zhalper@halpersadeh.com.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE OR YOU MAY REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT.

Halper Sadeh LLP -- https://www.halpersadeh.com -- represents
investors all over the world who have fallen victim to securities
fraud and corporate misconduct. Our attorneys have been
instrumental in implementing corporate reforms and recovering
millions of dollars on behalf of defrauded investors.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Contact Information:
Halper Sadeh LLP
Daniel Sadeh, Esq.
Zachary Halper, Esq.
(212) 763-0060
sadeh@halpersadeh.com
zhalper@halpersadeh.com [GN]


YOUNG LIVING ESSENTIAL: O'Shaughnessy Files RICO Class Suit in Utah
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Young Living
Essential Oils, LC. The case is styled as Julie O'Shaughnessy,
individually, and on bahalf of all other similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Young Living Essential Oils, LC, doing business as:
Young Living Essential Oils, The Young Living Foundation, Inc.,
Mary Young, Jared Turner and Benjamin Riley, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-00470-HCN-JCB (D. Utah, June 30, 2020).

The docket of the case states that the suit was filed pursuant to
the Racketeer/Corrupt Organization Act (RICO).

Young Living is a multi-level marketing company based in Lehi, Utah
that sells essential oils and other related products.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.



ZANKOU ENTERPRISES: Brooks Voluntarily Tossed Individual Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Valerie Brooks voluntarily dismissed with prejudice all
claims and causes of action asserted individually in the lawsuit
captioned as VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ZANKOU ENTERPRISES, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:20-cv-01228-MCE-AC (E.D. Cal., Filed June 22, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Morrison C. England.

The Parties shall bear their own fees and costs, the Court says.

Founded in 1962, Zankou is a family-owned and operated chain of
stores that specializes in Mediterranean cuisine.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          Thiago Coelho, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989


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

Hallmark Financial Services, Inc. (HALL)

Investors Affected: March 5, 2019 - March 17, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Hallmark Financial Services, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company lacked effective
internal controls over accounting and financial reporting related
to reserves for unpaid losses; (2) the Company improperly accounted
for reserve for unpaid losses and loss-adjustment expenses related
to its Binding Primary Commercial Auto business; (3) as a result,
Hallmark Financial would be forced to report a $63.8 million loss
development for prior underwriting years; (4) as a result, Hallmark
Financial would exit from its Binding Primary Commercial Auto
business; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/hallmark-financial-services-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=7496&from=1

Grand Canyon Education, Inc. (LOPE)

Investors Affected: January 5, 2018 - January 27, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Grand Canyon Education, Inc. According to a filed complaint,
statements made by Defendants were false and/or misleading because
following Grand Canyon's spin-off of its educational assets as
Grand Canyon University ("GCU"): (i) GCU would not be a proper
non-profit organization as it would remain under the control of
Grand Canyon, and (ii) Grand Canyon would not be a third-party
service provider to GCU but rather would continue to effectively
operate the entity, and (iii) Grand Canyon employees served as
executives of GCU and (iv) GCU functioned as an off-balance-sheet
entity to which Grand Canyon would be able to funnel expenses and
costs in exchange for a disproportionate amount of revenue, thereby
inflating Grand Canyon's financial results.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/grand-canyon-education-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=7496&from=1

Conn's, Inc. (CONN)

Investors Affected: September 3, 2019 - December 9, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Conn's, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Conn's was experiencing an increase in first
payment defaults and 60-plus day delinquencies; (2) as a result,
Conn's was reasonably likely to record an increase to its provision
for bad debts; (3) the Company made certain underwriting
adjustments, including tightening its standards for new customers
and online applicants; (4) as a result, the Company's same-store
sales would be adversely impacted; and (5) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/conns-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=7496&from=1

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

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


[*] K&L Gates Attorneys Discuss Issues in Mass Arbitrations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thomas E. Birsic, Esq. -- thomas.birsic@klgates.com -- Elizabeth A.
Hoadley, Esq., Max A. Gelernter, Esq. -- Max.Gelernter@klgates.com
-- and Wesley A. Prichard, Esq., of K&L Gates, in an article for
The National Law Review, report that arbitration provides a
lower-cost alternative to litigation.  Yet, a growing predicament
continues to penetrate the conversation surrounding arbitration:
mass arbitration.  On the one hand, no rational customer or
employee would spend the funds required to arbitrate claims that
are worth less than the total costs.  On the other hand, when
parties file such claims individually en masse, companies may be on
the hook to pay millions in filing fees.  As a result, the company
could pay up to 10 times the claimant's potential recovery.  In
order to address this growing concern, parties are beginning to
evaluate the benefits and burdens of their arbitration agreements.


The benefits of arbitration agreements are generally well known.
For example, unlike the random assignment of a judge, arbitration
agreements give the parties the flexibility to agree mutually on a
decision-maker or set guidelines for a prospective arbitrator's
qualifications or experience, which can avoid the unpredictability
of potential jury verdicts.  Further, arbitration agreements can
provide the parties with a higher level of privacy than is
available in court.  Unlike most court documents, arbitration
hearings and decisions are typically private due to confidentiality
agreements.  As such, arbitration allows employers to maintain
privacy regarding employment matters that may otherwise reveal
confidential business information.

In addition to these general benefits, the U.S. Supreme Court
recently held in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis that arbitration
allows employers to avoid costly collective actions.  In deciding
the validity of an arbitration agreement that limited employees
from taking collective action, the Supreme Court held that such
agreements "must be enforced as written."  Given this, employers
have used similar agreements to avoid the notice requirement to all
potentially affected individuals, thereby reducing the number of
claims filed and costs expended on a particular issue.

While arbitration is often also beneficial to employees due to the
time and cost savings, an employee may face a scenario where the
cost of bringing a claim outweighs the potential benefit.  For
employees with small claims, the potential benefit of pursuing
individual arbitration in a claim worth only hundreds of dollars is
little to none.  As one attorney stated in federal court, no
rational customer would arbitrate a US$162 claim against a company
given the costs related to arbitration.

Recently, where arbitration agreements restrict the filing of class
actions, counsel for employees have opted to file thousands of
individual arbitration claims within a short timeframe, thereby
triggering the requirement that the employer pay the filing fee for
each claim -- approximately US$1,500.  In some cases, this mass
filing of arbitration claims can commit an employer to paying more
than US$12 million in filing fees alone.  This allows employees
with the lowest-value claims to artificially inflate their claim
value by imposing filing fees on employers that are potentially
multiple times higher than the claim's worth.

For example, a transportation company recently sought to avoid the
costs associated with a collective action on behalf of thousands of
its employees.  In the end, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit held that the arbitration clause was enforceable against
the employees and that the employer must follow the arbitration
agreement and pay the filing fee for all claims.  This result would
have forced the employer to incur fees related to thousands of
individual arbitration claims, all due within the span of a few
months.  However, rather than individually arbitrating each claim
and incurring the associated fees, the employer opted to settle all
claims for US$146 million or approximately US$11,000 per claim.

According to a study of one bank's arbitration program completed by
the Economic Policy Institute, individual arbitration results in
the average employee-claimant paying the bank US$11,000.  As such,
the employees' incentive to attempt to gain an advantage on a
group-wide scale should not be underestimated.  Where the average
claimant can end up owing US$11,000 in some contexts, it is no
surprise that employees and employees' counsel are looking for ways
to harness the negotiating power of mass arbitration.

Other companies in the transportation and food industries have also
faced similar debilitating fees because of mass arbitration.  Some
employers have challenged this strategy only to be met by courts
enforcing the agreements as written and requiring full arbitration
of each individual claim.  For instance, a company in the food
industry faced 2,814 claims regarding labor standards, with each
individual claim valued "in the hundreds of dollars," and the
company's challenge to the employees' counsel was characterized by
the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado as "unseemly."
However, although the court's approach has solidified costly
results for agreements that do not contain specific procedures,
these decisions should alert the parties to the potential solution:
using the arbitration agreement itself.  Therefore, employers
should carefully consider their response to mass arbitration before
seeking to challenge an arbitration agreement in court, as the
benefit of such deference to the written agreement can be used to
alleviate mass arbitration's burden.

Some private associations, such as the American Arbitration
Association and Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (JAMS),
have similarly maintained the enforcement of the parties'
agreements regarding filing fees depending on the nature of the
arbitration agreement, even where the filing fees are financially
onerous.  For example, when faced with a request to stay all
relevant arbitration pending a decision related to mass
arbitration, JAMS stated that "[w]hile it is not our preference to
force the parties to litigate these issues seriatim, our policies
and procedures, absent party agreement otherwise, require that we
collect a filing fee in each case to be pursued."  As JAMS notes,
although current arbitration agreements are enforced as written,
that does not preclude the parties from forming agreements to
address mass arbitration.

The International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution
(the CPR) took this approach a step further by creating its own
distinct mass arbitration procedure.  On November 6, 2019, the CPR
announced the launch of its new "Mass Claims Protocol and
Procedure" (the Protocol). Claims filed under the CPR Administered
Arbitration Rules or CPR Non-Administered Arbitration Rules trigger
the Protocol "any time greater than 30 individual
employment-related arbitration claims of a nearly identical nature
are, or have been, filed with CPR against the same Respondent(s) in
close proximity to one another."  The Protocol uses examples that
have worked in other collective action areas, such as the early
implementation of "test" cases, which function much like
"bellwether" cases in class actions.

The Protocol not only alleviates the time and expense of collective
actions, it also provides more flexibility to the parties regarding
the claims chosen as "test" cases.  While the first 10 test cases
are chosen via random assignment, both parties may present five
additional cases for arbitration, along with reasoning "why the
addition of such claims would be necessary to the mediation
process."[20]
Further, the Protocol allows employers to negotiate the filing
fees, providing an opportunity to avoid potentially burdensome mass
arbitration expenses.

As such, the Protocol may provide parties with a resource for
tackling the difficulties present with mass arbitration, and it can
be an informative resource to consider. Whether a company decides
to adopt the Protocol or adjust fee-sharing provisions in
arbitration clauses, it is clear that the arbitration agreement
itself can be used to create a solution.  As the Protocol shows,
looking to class-action procedure is a useful first step for
creative changes to standard arbitration agreements.  While the
enforcement of arbitration agreements as written has placed an
enormous burden on companies in the context of mass arbitration,
the impact of such rulings on the ability to use creative solutions
for this issue should not be underestimated. [GN]


[*] Privacy Class-Action Lawsuits to Increase by 300% in 2020
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ashvin Kamaraju, writing for Security Magazine, reports that
businesses have realized the importance of data and the power of
harnessing the data to be an insights-driven enterprise. However,
there is a trade-off between technology innovation and security.

The adoption of emerging technologies like 5G will fuel the
proliferation of Internet of Things (IoT) which are often built
with basic security controls, creating a larger attack surface. At
the same time, reliance on data means that data breaches can cause
greater damage. Moreover, the post-COVID-19 way of working, means
that we will likely be more reliant on these technologies which
enable us to work and interact from a distance, albeit with less
proven security.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) can be the best weapon in a company's
cybersecurity arsenal and, thus, it is becoming increasingly
integral to information security. From the multitude of ways AI is
used in business to creating safer smart cities and safeguarding
transportation, AI impacts nearly every aspect of our lives. In
fact, in its Reinventing Cybersecurity with Artificial Intelligence
report, Capgemini found that 61 percent of respondents can no
longer detect data breach attempts without the help of AI. This
perspective informed the decision of 48 percent of the surveyed
organizations to increase their digital security spending for AI by
an average of 29 percent in 2020.

However, AI is not placed solely in the hands of the good.
Malicious actors can and will adopt technologies such as AI and
machine learning (ML) faster than the good security leaders can.
The use of malicious AI and ML will create new challenges for all
businesses wishing to safeguard their most precious asset, data.

Data security is not the only challenge businesses must face.
Privacy should also concern business leaders for a handful of
reasons, especially in the wake of cyber criminals taking advantage
of COVID-19 to hack organizations and monetize stolen identities.
Consumers are deeply concerned with how their data is collected and
used, including new COVID-19 contact tracing apps. A barrage of
news about data breaches, government surveillance, corporate
misconduct, deep fakes and biases has soured consumer sentiment on
current data practices and has diminished the level of trust people
place on new technologies.

In this rapidly changing environment, regulators and national or
transnational authorities strive to protect both consumer rights
and business innovation by framing strategies and policies towards
excellence and trust.

What is bias in AI, anyway?

The issue of bias in AI arises from the fact that software products
are human creations. The biases of its creators are getting
hard-coded into its future. As Fei-Fei Li noted, deep learning
systems are "bias in, bias out." While the algorithms that drive AI
may appear to be neutral, the data and applications that shape the
outcomes of those algorithms are not. What matters are the people
building it, the data they are using, and why they are building
it.

Needless to say, AI suffers from bias in all its many applications.
That goes for information security, as well. A recent survey from
O'Reilly found that 59 percent of respondents didn't check for
fairness, bias or ethical issues while developing their ML models.
Not only that, but nearly one in five (19 percent) of organizations
revealed that they struggled to adopt AI due to a lack of data,
data quality and/or development skills.

These inadequacies ultimately can come together and skew the
outcome of an AI-powered security solution. For example, a limited
data sample might prevent a tool from flagging certain behavior as
suspicious. This false negative could then carry on with its
malicious activity, move deeper into the organization's network and
evolve into a security incident without raising any red flags. On
the flip side, an improperly tuned algorithm could detect otherwise
benign network traffic as malicious, preventing business-critical
information from getting through and burdening security teams with
unnecessary investigations into false positives.

Excising bias from an AI-powered solution

The computer science and AI communities aren't unaware of bias. In
fact, some companies like Google and Microsoft have plans to
develop their own ethical guidelines for AI. This is all well and
good, but oftentimes these initiatives don't consider the cultural
and social nuances that shape different interpretations of "ethical
behavior."

Another issue is that companies need to follow through on
implementing those principles. Unfortunately, that's not a foregone
conclusion. Companies can often change course or sacrifice their
idealism to address financial pressures.

Governmental organizations, such as the European Union, have
launched initiatives to address the ethical challenges of
"trustworthy AI", although they are still in the consultation
stage. Until that, developers and organizations can place
themselves ahead of the competition and begin to shift towards
ethical AI by reconceiving the modelling process.

As part of this operational shift, it is important to consider
social science. This process should involve using more diverse
computer scientists, data sources and security teams to protect
organizations. Doing so will help account for contextual and
perceptual differences, thereby improving the efficiency of
algorithms and scope of input data overall. At the same time, these
new AI models should also allow for a degree of dynamism so that
they can evolve as we change culturally and socially.

Consumer Rights and Privacy Fines

AI is fed with data that is gathered from a handful of sources. A
majority of this data is personal and coupled with the inevitable
algorithmic bias we discussed earlier, it creates many
privacy-related concerns, not only to privacy groups, but to all
citizens.

2018 was a breakthrough year for consumer rights and data privacy
regulations with the introduction of GDPR. GDPR has made a global
impact since every company processing personal data of European
citizens is subject to the provisions and requirements of the
regulation.

2020 is going to be just as busy from a data protection standpoint.
The new California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) will be enforced on
July 1, 2020 and while the CCPA legislation may not be an omnibus
style law like the GDPR, it has been inspired by it, particularly
around data subject rights. More countries, like India, are
implementing regulations to help with international data exchange,
and we can expect to see additional legislation put into place.

Unfortunately, privacy compliance is still lagging. What is certain
is that we won't see all organizations becoming compliant in 2020.
It's still the case that too many companies don't want to invest in
privacy or simply don't pay enough attention to achieving
compliance. As a result, we can expect to see data protection
authorities enforcing compliance and levying fines.

Customers are more aware now than ever before of the rights
associated with data privacy regulations around the world. And as
breaches hit the headlines nearly every week, 2020 will be the year
customers start to ask more questions and demand more control over
where organizations are storing data and how they are protecting
it. Forrester predicts that privacy class-action lawsuits will
increase by 300 percent in 2020. As a result, data discovery,
classification and remediation by protecting sensitive data through
automated workflows will become an important initiative for
enterprises.

The 5G hackathon

Privacy issues will be compounded even more as a result of the
increased connectivity brought on by 5G. The fifth generation of
wireless technology is already here. Telecommunications companies
in the U.S. have begun rolling out 5G service to major cities,
while five countries in the EU have commercial 5G service. More and
more consumers are expected to have full access to the technology
by the end of next year.

5G technology will make the IoT a greater part of our everyday
lives. Growth is expected to explode particularly among outdoor
surveillance cameras, smart cities and connected cars, fueled by
the ultra-fast 5G network to allow IoT devices to transfer
exponentially more information. In fact, Gartner predicts that the
5G IoT endpoint installed base will approach 49 million units by
2023.

While 5G availability is exciting, it brings new cybersecurity
challenges that pose threats to the majority of IoT devices. In the
rush to beat the competition, security is still an afterthought as
opposed to a forethought. This makes the expanded IoT landscape a
nightmare for cybersecurity experts who must figure out how to
protect cell phones, security systems, vehicles, smart homes, and a
variety of other devices from being breached.

Hackers will try to profit from the proliferation of IoT data. In
the impending 5G enabled world, attack surfaces will be larger than
ever before, providing more opportunities for consumers and
businesses to be hacked. In addition, high bandwidth will empower
criminals to launch much larger attacks that could cripple entire
enterprise networks. Some of the most common types of attacks that
companies need to prepare for are botnets, distributed denial of
service (DDoS), RFID spoofing, Trojan viruses, malware and
malicious scripts.

On the privacy side, matters become more complex. 5G service
providers will have extensive access to large amounts of data being
sent by user devices, which could show exactly what is happening
inside a user's home. At the very least, metadata could describe
their living environment, in-house sensors and parameters, such as
temperature, pressure, humidity and so on. Such data could expose a
user's privacy or could be manipulated and misused. In addition,
service providers could decide to sell this type of data to other
service companies such as advertisers for the purposes of opening
up new revenue streams.

Security challenges ahead

The global rollout of 5G, and the increasing integration of AI in
all forms of daily activities create new security challenges for a
trustworthy technology innovation. The absence of a
security-by-design and privacy-by-design mindset will make the
2020s a record-breaking decade for cyber-attacks on connected
devices, putting consumer privacy at risk. This is especially true
given the new post-COVID-19 working environment we are entering.
The increase of breaches will result in increased fines for
organizations not complying with privacy and security regulations
at the federal level. High-tech vendors and government
organizations should join forces to develop frameworks that promote
excellence and trust, deter threat actors and preserve the features
that address what technology was developed for: technical progress
and improving the quality of living conditions. [GN]


[*] Workers' Compensation to Insulate Employers From Virus Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Raffman, Esq., and Stephen Shaw, Esq., of Goodwin Procter, in
an article for Bloomberg Law, report that as the economy reopens,
many businesses fear a deluge of employee lawsuits alleging that
unsafe workplaces led them to contract Covid-19. Goodwin Procter
attorneys explore employer liability for Covid-19 spread in the
workplace, and in what cases workers' compensation might provide
protection from employee lawsuits.

As more states relax restrictions on businesses and citizens
relating to the Covid-19 pandemic, employers are increasingly
turning an eye to potential liabilities connected to reopening.

In particular, many businesses fear a deluge of employee lawsuits
alleging that unsafe workplaces led them to contract Covid-19—to
the point that Congress is considering various proposals to provide
immunity from Covid-related lawsuits, including (in the words of
Senate Majority Leader McConnell) protections so that "employers
… know if they follow the guidelines, they will not be left to
drown in opportunistic litigation."

But in reality, most employers engaging in good-faith efforts to
follow the CDC's guidelines for safely reopening already have legal
protections available to them. The workers' compensation system,
which handles workplace-related illnesses and injuries, is already
adequate to insulate most employers from suit unless they
deliberately endanger their workers.

System Works for Both Parties

As a general rule, when an employee is injured on the job, his or
her employer's liability is limited through the workers'
compensation system. This system works for both parties: the
employee need not show that the employer breached a duty of care,
but damages are limited.

The vast majority of employers carry workers' compensation
insurance, ensuring that employees can be compensated for workplace
injuries without putting employers at undue risk of huge
liabilities or even bankruptcy arising from individual claims. This
same framework applies to work-related illnesses, though typically
diseases that are not readily traceable to specific work activities
or environmental conditions in the workplace are instead
categorized as "ordinary diseases of life" and are not
compensable.

Covid-19 does pose challenges to relying on this familiar
framework. As a highly infectious disease, once it has been
introduced to a workplace, co-workers may contract it on the job.
And unavoidably working in proximity with others may increase the
risk of transmission, both for essential workers exempted from
stay-at-home orders and for nonessential workers now returning to
the job. But unlike more common occupational diseases, there will
frequently be no specific work activity that can be shown to cause
Covid-19.

State Positions on Workers' Comp and Covid-19

Several states have staked out clear positions on the interaction
between workers' compensation regimes and work-related Covid-19
cases. In California, for instance, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) issued an
executive order creating a rebuttable presumption that any
employee's Covid-19-related illness arose out of employment for
purposes of workers' compensation so long as they were diagnosed
within fourteen days of attending their workplaces after March 19.

Many more have proposed legislation establishing similar
presumptions that Covid-19 cases were occupational for certain
classes of workers. In Massachusetts, for instance, Bill H.4749,
referred to committee, would make a Covid-19 diagnosis for medical
personnel into prima facie evidence of eligibility for workers'
compensation.

In Ohio, House Bill 573, pending in committee, goes even further by
adding Covid-19 to the state's statutory list of occupational
diseases as to cases contracted during the declared state of
emergency.

Because Covid-19 may be contracted within or outside the workplace,
the states will need to consider what proof is required to
demonstrate occupational contraction of Covid-19. Ohio's Bureau of
Workers' Compensation states that whether an employee who contracts
Covid-19 is eligible for workers' compensation "depends" on how the
disease was contracted and the nature of the employee's occupation
and that "[g]enerally" a claim arising from contracting Covid-19 is
not compensable. However, as of April 17, the Bureau had approved
several Covid-19 related claims.

State Exceptions Range Widely

Even though most states appear to consider work-related Covid-19
cases as eligible for workers' compensation, each state has its own
exceptions that authorize tort suits outside of the workers'
compensation system. These exceptions run the gamut: in New York,
for instance, an employee must show "an intentional or deliberate
act by the employer directed at causing harm to this particular
employee" in order to avoid the workers' compensation bar.

In California, an employee may sidestep workers' compensation in
favor of tort litigation where "the employee's injury is aggravated
by the employer's fraudulent concealment of the existence of the
injury and its connection with the employment." Maryland requires
"actual, specific, and deliberate intent to injure the employee"
and maintains the workers' compensation bar even for willful,
wanton, or reckless conduct. Ohio excepts torts committed with
deliberate intent.

The common thread in these exceptions is some form of intentional
or deliberate act by an employer that, in the view of the state
legislatures, should be deterred by allowing the employee to sue at
common law for occupational injuries rather than through workers'
compensation.

In the end, although many specific questions depend on an
individual state's law, it appears that state workers' compensation
laws generally acknowledge or tacitly entertain that Covid-19
illnesses contracted in the workplace may qualify for workers'
compensation under current law.

Many states are inching toward presumptions intended to save
employees the burden of proving that they encountered the virus at
work rather than somewhere else, but until these become law it will
remain incumbent on the employee to prove causation, such as
through demonstration of a cluster of workplace cases in an area
that is otherwise modestly impacted.

Though the allocation of the burden of proof may vary from state to
state, it appears that state workers' compensation laws will
generally apply to claims of employees who allege they contracted
Covid-19 in the workplace, such that tort litigation against
employers is barred even without congressional intervention, so
long as they take reasonable steps to protect their employees.
[GN]



                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***