/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200729.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, July 29, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 151

                            Headlines

240 BBJ PUB: Faces Guarquex et al. Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
32 DEGREES: Cruz Suit Alleges Violation under ADA
753 WASHINGTON: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Rodriguez Alleges
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Sanchez Labor Suit Moved to E.D. California
AIMBRIDGE HOSPITALITY: Migyanko Alleges Violation under ADA

ALLERGAN INC: Faces Grier Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants
ALLERGAN INC: Faces Lawrence Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants
ALLERGAN INC: Faces Messick Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants
ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI: Sheridan Sues Over Denied Insurance Claim
AUTO CLUB INSURANCE: Pappas Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois

BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Hagens Berman Files Class Action
BOEING COMPANY: Bylaw's Forum Selection Violates DGCL, SPP Claims
BOILING CRAB: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Brooks Suit Says
CALIFORNIA CAPITAL: Faces Boxed Foods Suit Over Insurance Claims
CENTRELINK ONLINE: Robo-Debt Class Action on Track for Sept. 21

CENTURY BANK: Williams Seeks to Recover Unpaid PPP Agent Fees
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Scott+Scott Reminds of Aug. 17 Motion Deadline
CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Cordua Sues Over Unsolicited Calls & Text
CRAFT BREW: Malloy Sues Over Unfair Buyout by Anheuser-Busch
D & A SERVICES: Weiss Alleges Violation under FDCPA

DETROIT, MI: Taylor Sues Over Water Service Shutoffs and Bills
DEUTSCHE BANK: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Sept. 14 Deadline
DEUTSCHE BANK: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action
DIRECT BUILDING: Smith Files TCPA Suit in Pennsylvania
ELANCO ANIMAL: Schall Law Files Securities Class Action

ELEMENTS PLASTICS: Ung Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ENDO INT'L: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action
ENDO INT'L: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Aug. 18 Deadline
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Clarke Sues in New Jersey Over FDCPA Breach
FIRSTSERVICE RESIDENTIAL: Underpays Caretakers, Borowske Claims

FROM YOU FLOWERS: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in New York
FRONTLINE ASSET: Weber Asserts Breach of FDCPA
GEICO CASUALTY: Siegal Files Suit in Illinois
GEO GROUP: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 8 Motion Deadline
GOLDLYN LLC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Leal-Florez et al. Claim

HK HOLDINGS: Moskowitz Files Civil Rights Suit in Hawaii
HOME OWNERS MGMT: Robinson Appeals Ruling to Texas App. Court
HOMEGOODS INC: Cota Suit Asserts Breach of ADA
HOOTERS OF AMERICA: Kuznik Class Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois
HOSPITALITY INVESTORS: Wollman Appeals Order/Judgment to 2nd Cir.

I.C. SYSTEM: Teitelbaum Files FDCPA Suit in NY
IDEANOMICS INC: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action
J & A GLATT MEATS: Quim Asserts Breach of FLSA
J2 GLOBAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action Suit
JERSEY FORESTOP: Covachuela Sues Over Unpaid OT & Retaliation

KIRKLAND LAKE: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action
KLEINS CABINET: Perkins Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA and Labor Code
KMP RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Munive et al. Claim
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Jimenez MFWA Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
KRISPY KREME: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Young Suit Claims

L & S TOV DRUGS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Delgado Claims
LIDS INC: Cota Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act
MAC ACQUISITION: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Neeser Claims
MANHEIM TOWNSHIP, PA: Still Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MAPLEBEAR INC: Moore Suit Removed From Supreme Court to E.D.N.Y.

MASTERCORP INC: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Hernandez Says
MATCO TOOLS: Court Denies Bid to Compel Arbitration in Aguilera
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Fitzgerald Suit Removed to C.D. California
MISTRAS GROUP: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Labor Class Action
MOE & JOE CORP: Ramos Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA and NYLL

MOTION PICTURE: IATSE Members File Class Suit on Health Insurance
MUNROE & ASSOCIATES: Katt Alleges Violation under ADA
NANOVIRICIDES INC: Glancy Prongay Probes Securities Laws Violations
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Marmorstein Files FDCPA  Suit
NCAA: Must Pay Athletes for Use of Likeness, Oliver Says

NEW RUE21 INC: Cota Asserts Breach of ADA in California
NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed v. Regis in Gulino Bias Suit
O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Katt Alleges Violation under ADA
OFFICE DEPOT: Hawa Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to N.D. California
P.F. CHANG'S: Appeals E.D. Pa. Ruling in Belt Suit to Third Cir.

PHILLIPS & COHEN: Haston FDCPA Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 4 Bid Deadline
PLAYAGS INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Aug. 24 Deadline
PMC SOUTHWEST: Johnson Files Employment Class Suit in California
PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES: Corona Suit Transferred to Calif. Dist. Ct.

PORTA DEL SOL: Faces Getz TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Marketing Texts
PURCHASE RUNG: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Acosta Alleges
RE/MAX LLC: DeClements TCPA Suit Moved From Arizona to Colorado
RELIANT IMMEDIATE: Jarquin FACTA Suit Removed to C.D. California
REPAIRSMITH INC: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Falcon Claims

SARBANAND FARMS: Sanchez Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
SCOREDRIVEN.COM INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Alleges
SECURITY BENEFIT LIFE: Clinton Suit Transferred to Kansas Dist. Ct.
SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU: Smith Appeals E.D. Ark. Ruling to 8th Cir.
SPRINGS WINDOW: Poland Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA

STUBHUB INC: Faces Dobner Suit in Northern Dist. of California
TEMPLE UNIVERSITY: Files Motion to Dismiss Student's Class Action
TEPACHE MEXICAN: Santiago Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA and NYLL
TOSCANOVA LP: Fails to Reimburse Costs & Pay Wages, Glassel Claims
TRADESMEN INTERNATIONAL: Ellis Files Suit Pennsylvania

TRUSTEDID INC: O'Leary PI Suit Transferred to South Carolina
U.S. XPRESS: Ayala Appeals C.D. California Ruling to 9th Circuit
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Violates Lanham Act, Doe Says
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: Daleiden Appeals Ruling to Ninth Cir.
US FDA: Court Loosens Policy for Dispensing Abortion Drugs

VALLOUREC STAR: Fails to Pay for All Hours Worked, Viconovic Says
VERRICA PHARMA: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action Complaints
VILLAGE IN TIMES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Soto Suit Alleges
WALGREEN CO: Le Appeals C.D. Cal. Order in Labor Suit to 9th Cir.
WESTON TERRACE: Thomas Rogers Files Class Action Complaint

WIRECARD AG: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 8 Motion Deadline

                            *********

240 BBJ PUB: Faces Guarquex et al. Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL PAJOJ GUARQUEX, JOSE ALFREDO BEATRIZ MENDEZ, and GUILLERMO
RODRIGUEZ PORTILLO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, -against- 240 BBJ PUB INC. (D/B/A JACK
DOYLE'S IRISH PUB), LAML LLC (D/B/A JOHN SULLIVAN'S BAR & GRILL),
505 HP LLC (D/B/A THE TAILOR PUBLIC HOUSE), JOHN CREEGAN, BRENDAN
CREEGAN , FERNANDO DOE , JOHN DOE , and GLORIA DOE , Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-05533 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2020) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves, and other
similarly situated individuals, for unpaid minimum and overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.
Section 201 et seq. ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor
Law Sections 190 et seq. and 650 et seq. (the "NYLL"), and the
"spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York
Commissioner of Labor codified at N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS. tit.
12, Section 146-1.6, including applicable liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,
overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they
worked. Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the
hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any
hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium.

Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours"
pay for any day in which they had to work over 10 hours a day while
repeatedly failing to pay Plaintiffs wages on a timely basis.

Further, Defendants employed the policy and practice of disguising
Plaintiff Rodriguez's actual duties in payroll records by
designating him as a barback instead of as a non-tipped employee.
This allowed Defendants to avoid paying Plaintiff Rodriguez at the
minimum wage rate and enabled them to pay him at the tip-credit
rate (which they still failed to do).

Plaintiffs were employed as a salad maker, a busser, a barback, a
food runner, a porter and dishwashers at the bars located in New
York.

240 BBJ Pub Inc. (d/b/a Jack Doyle's Irish Pub), LAML LLC (d/b/a
John Sullivan's Bar & Grill), and 505 HP LLC (d/b/a The Tailor
Public House) are Irish bars and restaurants located in New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

32 DEGREES: Cruz Suit Alleges Violation under ADA
-------------------------------------------------
32 Degrees Below LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 32 Degrees Below LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-05653 (S.D. N.Y., July 22, 2020).

32 Degrees Below LLC is engaged in the apparels business.[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



753 WASHINGTON: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Rodriguez Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE CRUZ ARROYO RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 753 WASHINGTON TRATTORIA INC.
(D/B/A MALAPARTE); SEBASTIAN WIDMANN; EMANUELE ATTALA (A.K.A.
EMANUEL); FRANCISCO VARGAS; and JACKA PO, Defendants, 1:20-cv-05265
(S.D.N.Y., July 9, 2020) is an action against the Defendant's
failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Rodriguez was employed as a dishwasher, pizza maker,
and a salad/pasta maker.

753 Washington Trattoria Inc. owns, operates, or controls an
Italian restaurant, located at New York, NY under the name
Malaparte. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Sanchez Labor Suit Moved to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as GRACIELA SANCHEZ,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, an Illinois corporation;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. FCS054734 (Filed May 4,
2020), was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of
Solano, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California (Sacramento) on July 16, 2020.

The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-at-00705 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges claims against Abbott for unpaid overtime
under, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums,
unpaid minimum wages, and timely pay wages upon termination under
the Labor Code.

Abbott Laboratories is an American multinational medical devices
and health care company with headquarters in Abbott Park,
Illinois.[BN]

Defendant Abott is represented by:

          Michele J. Beilke, Esq.
          Julia Trankiem, Esq.
          Gabriel M. Huey, Esq.
          Ryan J. Evans, Esq.
          HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
          550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627
          Telephone: 213 532 2000
          Facsimile: 213 532 2020
          E-mail: mbeilke@HuntonAK.com
                  jtrankiem@HuntonAK.com
                  ghuey@HuntonAK.com
                  revans@HuntonAK.com


AIMBRIDGE HOSPITALITY: Migyanko Alleges Violation under ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aimbridge Hospitality, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Ronald Migyanko, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Aimbridge Hospitality, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01095-NR (W.D. Penn., July 22, 2020).

Aimbridge Hospitality, LLC operates as a property management
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
   Carlson Lynch, LLP
   1133 Penn Avenue
   5th Floor
   Pittsburgh, PA 15222
   Tel: (412) 322-9243
   Email: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com



ALLERGAN INC: Faces Grier Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants
--------------------------------------------------------------
DEANNA GRIER v. ALLERGAN PLC, now known as ABBVIE, INC.; ALLERGAN,
INC., ALLERGAN USA, INC., and DOES 1-100, Case No.
2:20-cv-08943-BRM-JAD (D.N.J., July 15, 2020), is brought on behalf
of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated alleging that
the Defendants' BIOCELL textured implants are defective.

The lawsuit arises from Allergan's July 24, 2019 announcement of a
worldwide recall of BIOCELL after the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) called for the action following new
information that Allergan's BIOCELL implants were tied to cases of
breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma
("BIA-ALCL") not seen with other textured implants.

Breast implants are medical devices that are implanted under the
breast tissue to increase breast size or replace breast tissue that
has been removed. Tissue expanders are a type of inflatable breast
implant which stretches skin and muscle to make room for a
permanent implant in the future. Tissue expanders are often used in
breast reconstruction surgeries. BIA-ALCL is a serious cancer and
can be fatal, especially if not diagnosed early or promptly
treated.

The FDA determined the risk of developing BIA-ALCL was six times
higher with Allergan's BIOCELL textured implants when compared with
textured implants from other manufacturers, the lawsuit says.

In Allergan's recall statement, the FDA stated there are 573 cases
of BIA- ALCL worldwide. Of those 573 cases, 33 people have died as
a result of BIA-ALCL. The products affected by the FDA's recall are
as follows: Style Allergan Natrelle Saline-Filled Breast Implants;
Allergan Natrelle Silicone-Filled Textured Breast Implants;
Natrelle 410 Highly Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Silicone Filled
Breast Implants; and Allergan tissue expanders that have BIOCELL
texturing originally cleared as: Natrelle 133 Plus Tissue Expander
(K143354) and Natrelle 133 Tissue Expander with Suture Tabs
(K102806).

On July 30, 2019, Allergan announced it has created a BIOCELL
Replacement Warranty for all customers that currently have BIOCELL
textured implants ("the Warranty"). The Warranty provides that
Allergan will provide Allergan smooth implants to replace the
BIOCELL textured implants, the lawsuit says. However, Allergan will
not provide any surgical fee assistance or reimbursement for the
surgery to remove the BIOCELL textured implants and replace them
with Allergan smooth implants. The Warranty will run for 24 months,
until July 24, 2021, and will apply only to revision surgeries on
or after the date of the FDA's recall, July 24, 2019.

As a result of Allergan's conduct, including refusal to pay for the
removal of the recalled BIOCELL implants and the increased risk of
developing BIA-ALCL, the Plaintiff contends that she will be forced
to expend substantial amounts of money for surgical costs
associated with removal of the BIOCELL Recalled Implants and lost
opportunity costs associated with post-surgery recovery time.

The Grier case has been consolidated in MDL 2921, IN RE: ALLERGAN
BIOCELL TEXTURED BREAST IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.

On July 15, 2013, the Plaintiff was implanted with Natrelle 410
Highly Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Silicone Filled Breast
Implants, Style MF a model of the Recalled BIOCELL Implants, in
Tennessee.

Allergan manufactures and sells BIOCELL saline-filled and
silicone-filled breast implants and tissue expanders "BIOCELL" or
"BIOCELL textured implants").[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          J. Quinn Kerrigan, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Osterwise, Esq.
          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          John Albanese, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 215 875-3000
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  jkerrigan@bm.net
                  josterwise@bm.net
                  emdrake@bm.net
                  jalbanese@bm.net


ALLERGAN INC: Faces Lawrence Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANN LAWRENCE v. ALLERGAN PLC, now known as ABBVIE, INC.; ALLERGAN,
INC., ALLERGAN USA, INC., and DOES 1-100, Case No.
2:20-cv-08956-BRM-JAD (D.N.J., July 15, 2020), is brought on behalf
of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated alleging that
the Defendants' BIOCELL textured implants are defective.

The lawsuit arises from Allergan's July 24, 2019 announcement of a
worldwide recall of BIOCELL after the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) called for the action following new
information that Allergan's BIOCELL implants were tied to cases of
breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma
("BIA-ALCL") not seen with other textured implants.

Breast implants are medical devices that are implanted under the
breast tissue to increase breast size or replace breast tissue that
has been removed. Tissue expanders are a type of inflatable breast
implant which stretches skin and muscle to make room for a
permanent implant in the future. Tissue expanders are often used in
breast reconstruction surgeries. BIA-ALCL is a serious cancer and
can be fatal, especially if not diagnosed early or promptly
treated.

The FDA determined the risk of developing BIA-ALCL was six times
higher with Allergan's BIOCELL textured implants when compared with
textured implants from other manufacturers, the lawsuit says.

In Allergan's recall statement, the FDA stated there are 573 cases
of BIA- ALCL worldwide. Of those 573 cases, 33 people have died as
a result of BIA-ALCL. The products affected by the FDA's recall are
as follows: Style Allergan Natrelle Saline-Filled Breast Implants;
Allergan Natrelle Silicone-Filled Textured Breast Implants;
Natrelle 410 Highly Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Silicone Filled
Breast Implants; and Allergan tissue expanders that have BIOCELL
texturing originally cleared as: Natrelle 133 Plus Tissue Expander
(K143354) and Natrelle 133 Tissue Expander with Suture Tabs
(K102806).

On July 30, 2019, Allergan announced it has created a BIOCELL
Replacement Warranty for all customers that currently have BIOCELL
textured implants ("the Warranty"). The Warranty provides that
Allergan will provide Allergan smooth implants to replace the
BIOCELL textured implants, the lawsuit says. However, Allergan will
not provide any surgical fee assistance or reimbursement for the
surgery to remove the BIOCELL textured implants and replace them
with Allergan smooth implants. The Warranty will run for 24 months,
until July 24, 2021, and will apply only to revision surgeries on
or after the date of the FDA's recall, July 24, 2019.

As a result of Allergan's conduct, including refusal to pay for the
removal of the recalled BIOCELL implants and the increased risk of
developing BIA-ALCL, the Plaintiff contends that she will be forced
to expend substantial amounts of money for surgical costs
associated with removal of the BIOCELL Recalled Implants and lost
opportunity costs associated with post-surgery recovery time.

The Lawrence case has been consolidated in MDL 2921, IN RE:
ALLERGAN BIOCELL TEXTURED BREAST IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION.

On April 29, 2015, the Plaintiff was implanted with BIOCELL
Textured Round Midrange Projection Gel Filled Breast Implants,
Style 115, a model of the Recalled BIOCELL Implants, in Tennessee.

Allergan manufactures and sells BIOCELL saline-filled and
silicone-filled breast implants and tissue expanders "BIOCELL" or
"BIOCELL textured implants").[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          J. Quinn Kerrigan, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Osterwise, Esq.
          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          John Albanese, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 215 875-3000
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  jkerrigan@bm.net
                  josterwise@bm.net
                  emdrake@bm.net
                  jalbanese@bm.net


ALLERGAN INC: Faces Messick Suit Over Defective BIOCELL Implants
----------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA MESSICK v. ALLERGAN PLC, now known as ABBVIE, INC.;
ALLERGAN, INC., ALLERGAN USA, INC., and DOES 1-100, Case No.
2:20-cv-08952-BRM-JAD (D.N.J., July 15, 2020), is brought on behalf
of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated alleging that
the Defendants' BIOCELL textured implants are defective.

The lawsuit arises from Allergan's July 24, 2019 announcement of a
worldwide recall of BIOCELL after the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) called for the action following new
information that Allergan's BIOCELL implants were tied to cases of
breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma
("BIA-ALCL") not seen with other textured implants.

Breast implants are medical devices that are implanted under the
breast tissue to increase breast size or replace breast tissue that
has been removed. Tissue expanders are a type of inflatable breast
implant which stretches skin and muscle to make room for a
permanent implant in the future. Tissue expanders are often used in
breast reconstruction surgeries. BIA-ALCL is a serious cancer and
can be fatal, especially if not diagnosed early or promptly
treated.

The FDA determined the risk of developing BIA-ALCL was six times
higher with Allergan's BIOCELL textured implants when compared with
textured implants from other manufacturers, the lawsuit says.

In Allergan's recall statement, the FDA stated there are 573 cases
of BIA- ALCL worldwide. Of those 573 cases, 33 people have died as
a result of BIA-ALCL. The products affected by the FDA's recall are
as follows: Style Allergan Natrelle Saline-Filled Breast Implants;
Allergan Natrelle Silicone-Filled Textured Breast Implants;
Natrelle 410 Highly Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Silicone Filled
Breast Implants; and Allergan tissue expanders that have BIOCELL
texturing originally cleared as: Natrelle 133 Plus Tissue Expander
(K143354) and Natrelle 133 Tissue Expander with Suture Tabs
(K102806).

On July 30, 2019, Allergan announced it has created a BIOCELL
Replacement Warranty for all customers that currently have BIOCELL
textured implants ("the Warranty"). The Warranty provides that
Allergan will provide Allergan smooth implants to replace the
BIOCELL textured implants, the lawsuit says. However, Allergan will
not provide any surgical fee assistance or reimbursement for the
surgery to remove the BIOCELL textured implants and replace them
with Allergan smooth implants. The Warranty will run for 24 months,
until July 24, 2021, and will apply only to revision surgeries on
or after the date of the FDA's recall, July 24, 2019.

As a result of Allergan's conduct, including refusal to pay for the
removal of the recalled BIOCELL implants and the increased risk of
developing BIA-ALCL, the Plaintiff contends that she will be forced
to expend substantial amounts of money for surgical costs
associated with removal of the BIOCELL Recalled Implants and lost
opportunity costs associated with post-surgery recovery time.

The Messick case has been consolidated in MDL 2921, IN RE: ALLERGAN
BIOCELL TEXTURED BREAST IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.

On April 4, 2017, the Plaintiff was implanted with BIOCELL Textured
Shaped Full Height, Full Projection Saline Breast Implants, Style
163, a model of the Recalled BIOCELL Implants, in Tennessee.

Allergan manufactures and sells BIOCELL saline-filled and
silicone-filled breast implants and tissue expanders "BIOCELL" or
"BIOCELL textured implants").[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          J. Quinn Kerrigan, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Osterwise, Esq.
          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          John Albanese, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 215 875-3000
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  jkerrigan@bm.net
                  josterwise@bm.net
                  emdrake@bm.net
                  jalbanese@bm.net


ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI: Sheridan Sues Over Denied Insurance Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tralisa Sheridan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI GROUP, S.p.A; GENERALI
U.S. BRANCH; AND GENERALI GLOBAL ASSISTANCE, INC. D/B/A CSA TRAVEL
PROTECTION AND INSURANCE SERVICES; and CUSTOMIZED SERVICES
ADMINISTRATORS, INC.; Case No. 2:20-cv-00244-JRG (E.D. Tex., July
20, 2020), arises out of the Defendants' refusal to issue
reimbursement for COVID-19-related trip cancellations.

The Defendants contracted to indemnify the Plaintiff for pecuniary
and other losses and damages incurred as a result of covered events
that prevented insureds from taking their planned trip. The
Plaintiff's claims, as well as the claims of each proposed class
member, are supported by the written provisions of the Master
Policy for travel protection insurance underwritten and
administered to them by Defendants, Master Policy No. TMP10010 (the
"Policy"), the Plaintiff says.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have caused substantial
harm to the Plaintiff and the proposed class by improperly refusing
to issue reimbursement for trip cancellations explicitly covered by
the Policy. The Plaintiff has been completely denied reimbursement
for her Trip Cancellation Claim ("Claim"). The Defendants have
effectively adopted an approach to categorically issue denials to
every Claim arising during the natural disaster that was brought on
by COVID-19.

The Defendants refused to pay COVID-19-related trip cancellations
by others insured under the Policy, whether said claimants
submitted claims requesting indemnity for: (a) the Maximum Limit(s)
Per Person or Plan for Trip Cancellation as listed on their
respective Schedules of Benefits; (b) actual damages incurred due
to trip cancellations; or (c) the price of the premiums initially
paid by the insureds for Policies, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States residing in the
City of White Oak in Gregg County, Texas.

Assicurazioni Generali Group, S.p.A., is an Italian corporation
that regularly conducts business in Texas, and is engaged in the
business of issuing insurance policies that are underwritten by
Generali Group.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Ryan Fowler, Esq.
          THE POTTS LAW FIRM, LLP
          3737 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 1900
          Houston, TX 77098
          Phone: (713) 936.8881
          Fax: (713) 583.5388
          Email: rfowler@potts-law.com

               - and -

          R. Brent Cooper, Esq.
          COOPER & SCULLY, P.C
          900 Jackson Street, Suite 100
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Phone: (214) 712.9500
          Fax: (214) 712.9540
          Email: brent.cooper@cooperscully.com


AUTO CLUB INSURANCE: Pappas Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as GEORGE PAPPAS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AUTO CLUB
INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, Case No. 2020-CH-00180 (Filed January 7,
2020), was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
July 16, 2020.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-04205 to the proceeding.

On February 11, 2020, ACIA removed the case to the District Court
under the Class Action Fairness Act. The District Court assigned
the matter Case Number 1:20-cv-00983.

On February 18, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand. After
briefing by the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding Plaintiff's
Motion to Remand, on March 27, 2020, the District Court denied the
Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, finding that the Defendant had
satisfied all the requirements for removal to the District Court
under the CAFA.

In an Order dated June 18, 2020, the District Court dismissed the
Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint, without prejudice. On July 1,
2020, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint in
the same Illinois state court action from which the original Class
Action Complaint had been removed.

Auto Club operates as an insurance firm. The Company offers
property and casualty insurance services.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Roger D. Higgins, Esq.
          THOMPSON COE COUSINS & IRONS, LLC
          700 North Pearl Street, 25th Floor
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 871-8200
          E-mail: rhiggins@thompsoncoe.com

               - and -

          Nick Papastratakos, Esq.
          HILBERT & POWER, LTD.
          77 West Washington Street, Suite 1217
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 424-2777
          E-mail: npapastratakos@hlplaw.com


BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Hagens Berman Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges investors in Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (BAYRY)
who suffered $1 million or more in losses to submit their losses
now for evaluation by the legal team. A securities fraud class
action is pending, and certain investors may have valuable claims
that would make them eligible to be a lead plaintiff. If you
purchased BAYRY after May 23, 2016 and suffered significant losses,
contact us.

Class Period: May 23, 2016 - March 19, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 14, 2020

Sign Up: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/BAYRY

Contact An Attorney Now: BAYRY@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (BAYRY) Securities Fraud Class Action:

This litigation is focused on whether Bayer misled investors about
its due diligence performed when the company completed its
acquisition of Roundup manufacturer Monsanto for approximately $63
billion in June 2018.

According to the complaint, Bayer repeatedly touted the acquisition
as "a compelling growth transaction for shareholders" that would
create "significant value" by generating "stronger growth, better
profitability, and a more resilient business profile."

Moreover, according to the complaint, in the face of the
International Agency for Research on Cancer's and the California
EPA's findings that glyphosate (a Roundup ingredient) was probably
carcinogenic to humans, defendants downplayed those Roundup
carcinogenic liability risks and supported the Monsanto acquisition
based on Bayer's "thorough analysis" during the due diligence
process and because it "undertook appropriate due diligence of
litigation and regulatory issues throughout the process."

Investors began to learn the truth, according to the complaint on
August 10, 2018, when a California jury unanimously found that
Roundup was a "substantial factor" in causing the plaintiff to
develop non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and that Monsanto knew or should
have known about this severe health hazard.  Subsequently, the
court denied Monsanto's motion for a new trial finding no legal
basis to disturb the jury's determination.

Then, on March 19, 2019, a federal jury found "exposure to Roundup
was a substantial factor in causing [plaintiff's] non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma."

In response to these revelations, the price of Bayer ADRs traded
sharply lower.

Documents revealed in trial show that if Bayer had indeed performed
due diligence, it would have known of the great risk acquiring
Monsanto truly threatened. "We're focused on investors' losses and
proving Bayer knowingly misled investors about its knowledge or
Roundup risks or claimed due diligence," said Reed Kathrein, the
Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Bayer
Aktiengesellschaft should consider their options to help in the
investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.
Under the new 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
Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email BAYRY@hbsslaw.com.

                    About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation. [GN]


BOEING COMPANY: Bylaw's Forum Selection Violates DGCL, SPP Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SEAFARERS PENSION PLAN, on behalf of itself and all other similarly
situated stockholders of THE BOEING COMPANY v. ROBERT A. BRADWAY,
DAVID L. CALHOUN, ARTHUR D. COLLINS, EDMUND P. GIAMBASTIANI JR.,
LYNN J. GOOD, AKHIL JOHRI, LAWRENCE W. KELLNER, CAROLINE B.
KENNEDY, STEVEN M. MOLLENKOPF, JOHN M. RICHARDSON, SUSAN C. SCHWAB,
RONALD A. WILLIAMS, and THE BOEING COMPANY, Case No. 2020-0556
(Del. Ch., July 8, 2020), challenges a forum selection clause in
Boeing's bylaws that violates the Delaware General Corporation
Law.

According to the complaint, the Bylaw illegally regulates and, in
fact, eliminates the substantive right of Boeing's stockholders to
file an action asserting derivative claims under the Exchange Act
or any other exclusively federal law claim.

The Plaintiff contends that Boeing and its self-interested Board,
however, have taken no steps to amend its Forum Selection Bylaw to
comply with Section 115's requirements to allow its stockholders to
file derivative actions in federal court, which is jurisdictionally
required for certain federal claims including those under the
Exchange Act. Instead, Boeing's Board has maintained Boeing's
illegal Bylaw for years, presumably viewing it as a device for its
directors and officers to escape personal liability for derivative
claims over which the federal courts maintain exclusive
jurisdiction, thereby sacrificing its stockholders' substantive
rights to assert those claims.

Boeing's Bylaw at issue was adopted in 2011, and it designated the
Delaware Court of Chancery as the sole forum for its stockholders
to assert all derivative claims.

Seafarers Pension Plan is a pension fund located in Camp Springs,
Maryland. The Seafarers owns Boeing common stock and has been a
stockholder at all times relevant to the asserted claims.

Boeing is an international aerospace company that manufactures
commercial jetliners and other products for the airline, aerospace
and defense industries. The Individual Defendants are officers and
directors of the company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Kass, Esq.
          Frank E. Noyes, II, Esq.
          Jonathan Kass, Esq.
          OFFIT KURMAN, P.A.
          222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1105
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (267) 338-1381
          Facsimile: (302)351-0919
          E-mail: fnoyes@offitkurman.com
                  Jonathan.Kass@offitkurman.com

               - and -

          Carol V. Gilden, Esq.
          Richard A. Speirs, Esq.
          Amy Miller, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1705
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 357-0370
          E-mail: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com
                  stoll@cohenmilstein.com


BOILING CRAB: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Brooks Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BOILING CRAB FRANCHISE CO., LLC, a California limited
liability company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:20-cv-01390-JAM-CKD (E.D. Cal., July 9, 2020), seeks redress
against the Defendants for their failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate their Web site 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 Company's 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 Company's Web site, https://theboilingcrab.com/, 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
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Company's 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 Boiling Crab is a casual dining restaurant.[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


CALIFORNIA CAPITAL: Faces Boxed Foods Suit Over Insurance Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
BOXED FOODS COMPANY, LLC and GOURMET PROVISIONS, LLC, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. CALIFORNIA CAPITAL
INSURANCE COMPANY and CAPITAL INSURANCE GROUP, Case No.
3:20-cv-04571-CRB (N.D. Cal., July 9, 2020), seeks declaratory
relief arising from the Plaintiffs and Class members' contracts of
insurance with the Defendants.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and Class members
faithfully paid policy premiums to the Defendants, specifically to
provide additional coverages in the event of business interruption
or closures by order of Civil Authority and for business loss for
property damage.

The Policy is an all-risk policy, insofar as it provides that
covered causes of loss under the policy provides coverage for all
covered losses, including direct physical loss and/or direct
physical damage, unless a loss is specifically excluded or limited
in the Policy. The Policy also provides coverage for damages
resulting from business interruption when there is property
damage.

On March 19, 2020, the State of California issued a stay-at-home
order that all non-essential workers must stay at home as a result
of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiffs' restaurants were unable
to operate as a direct consequence of the Civil
Authority stay-at-home orders for public safety issued by the
Governor of California and the State of California generally.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs submitted a claim to their insurance
carrier related to such losses.

The Plaintiffs operate, manage, and/or control two restaurants, B
Restaurant and Bar and The Pin Up All-Star Diner, which are located
at 720 Howard Street, and 750 Folsom Street, in San Francisco,
California. The Plaintiffs are owned by Kevin Best, Misty Rasche,
and Don Harbison who are citizens of California.

Capital Insurance is an insurance carrier headquartered at 2300
Garden Road, Monterey, California, which provides business
interruption insurance to Plaintiffs and Class members.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David M. Birka-White, Esq.
          BIRKA-WHITE LAW OFFICES
          178 E. Prospect Avenue
          Danville, CA 94526
          Telephone: (925) 362-9999
          Facsimile: (925) 362-9970
          E-mail: dbw@birka-white.com

               - and -

          Arnold Levin, Esq.
          Laurence Berman, Esq.
          Frederick Longer, Esq.,
          Daniel Levin, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
          E-mail: alevin@lfsblaw.com
                  lberman@lfsblaw.com
                  flonger@lfsblaw. com
                  dlevin@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
          1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 985-9177
          Facsimile: (215) 985-4169
          E-mail: rgolomb@golombhonik.com
          kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com

               - and -

          Aaron Rihn, Esq.
          ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES
          707 Grant Street, Suite 125
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-7229
          Facsimile: (412) 281-4229
          E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com

               - and -

          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          Rachel N. Boyd, Esq.
          Paul W. Evans, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN,
          PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          P.O. Box 4160
          Montgomery, AL 36103
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Rachel.Boyd@BeasleyAllen.com
                  PaulEvans@BeasleyAllen.com


CENTRELINK ONLINE: Robo-Debt Class Action on Track for Sept. 21
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Court of Australia held an interlocutory hearing in a
case brought on by Gordon Legal against the Commonwealth of
Australia, relating to the Centrelink Online Compliance
Intervention (OCI) scheme, colloquially known as robo-debt.

In November, Gordon Legal launched the robo-debt class action on
behalf of five representative applicants and hundreds of thousands
of people who are included in the case as group members.

The essence of the applicants' case is that debts raised by
robo-debt are unlawful, and all recipients should be compensated by
the federal government.

During the hearing, access to around 83 documents covered by either
public interest immunity (PII) or legal professional privilege
(LPP) were discussed, with Justice Michael Lee hearing that those
documents would fill "about two lever arch folders".

Senior counsel for the applicant, Georgina Costello, argued that
the content of certain documents would determine whether they
should be considered privileged.

"We don't know how independent the lawyer who provided the relevant
legal advice, if there is legal advice, was. That's another issue
that's for resolution in principle where you've got in-house
lawyers in a government department; that's an issue your honour
will be familiar with," she said.

Prior to the hearing, the Commonwealth provided the applicants with
a revised position, in which two of the documents over which PII
had been claimed will now be produced, and three documents over
which PIII had also been claimed were also agreed to now be
produced in part. And on the LPP side, both parties have agreed
that nine such documents will be produced.

"That's not unusual in this sort of case where the Commonwealth is
put to proof on the privilege claims that, having thought about it
a little more, they've produced some more. But the fact that we
have 11 more documents produced in whole over which seemingly
experts the Commonwealth had given their opinion that it would be
against the national interest to produce these documents -- and yet
they're produced -- shows that there has been -- at least in the
past from the Commonwealth -- overreach," Costello said.

"One man's overreach is another person's faithful application of
the overarching purpose to narrow issues . . . it may be different
people, more senior people, come into things shortly before a
hearing," Justice Lee said in response.

Costello said it was important for it to be known whether the
Commonwealth had "knowledge of the unreliability of averaging" and
"knowledge of the harm that may be caused to a vulnerable cohort in
carrying out process that may result in the wrong answer" for the
class action.

Costello added that it may also be necessary to return for "another
bite of the cherry" as there could be more documents to which
privilege is likely to be claimed that haven't yet been made.

Justice Lee was hesitant to "go back for a second bite of the
cherry" to determine whether the documents would be subject to a
valid claim for privilege, but agreed to a second round of
interlocutory hearings to be held soon.

He said the parties needed to be practical in having the matter
resolved.

The department kicked off the data-matching program of work in
2016, which saw the automatic issuing of debt notices to those in
receipt of welfare payments through the Centrelink scheme.
Centrelink's OCI program, from 1 July 2016 through 31 August 2019,
saw 1,159,662 assessments be initiated using the automated
data-matching technique.

The class action trial is scheduled to commence on September 21,
2020 and is expected to run for approximately three weeks. [GN]


CENTURY BANK: Williams Seeks to Recover Unpaid PPP Agent Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Williams & Haupt, P.C., individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated businesses and individuals v. CENTURY BANK,
CENTURY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, COLONY BANK, COLONY BANKCORP, INC.,
FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANK OF SOUTH CAROLINA, FIRST CHATHAM BANK,
OPTUS BANK, SOUTH ATLANTIC BANK, SYNOVUS BANK, TRUIST FINANCIAL
CORP., TRUIST BANK, UNITED COMMUNITY BANK, INC., AND UNITED
COMMUNITY BANK (GEORGIA), Case No. 4:20-cv-00160-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga.,
July 20, 2020), is brought to obtain fees owed to the Plaintiff as
a result of its work as an agent to assist small business borrowers
in getting federally guaranteed loans through the Paycheck
Protection Program.

The PPP is a federal program implemented to provide small
businesses with loans to combat the economic impact of COVID-19
crisis.

Federal regulations require the Defendants to pay the Plaintiff for
their work as agents, who facilitated loans between the Defendants
and small businesses. Despite precise regulatory requirements
stating that agent fees are owed to the Plaintiff, the Defendants
have failed to pay the Plaintiff; and instead, the Defendants have
kept the agent fees for themselves, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff, Williams & Haupt, P.C., is a professional
corporation, organized and authorized to do business, and doing
business, in the state of Georgia since June 1976.

Century Bank is a Massachusetts chartered bank and is headquartered
in Medford, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Travis E. Lynch, Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
          3621 Vinings Slope, Suite 4320
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Phone: 404-996-0867
          Facsimile: 205-326-3332
          Email: tlynch@hgdlawfirm.com

               - and -

          James F. McDonough, III, Esq.
          Jonathan R. Miller, Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
          3621 Vinings Slope, Suite 4320
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Phone: 404-996-0869; -0863
          Facsimile: 205-380-8076, 205-547-5506
          Email: jmcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com
                 jmiller@hgdlawfirm.com

               - and -

          W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
          2224 1st Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: (205) 326-3336
          Facsimile: (205) 380-8085
          Email: lewis@hgdlawfirm.com

               - and –

          Mark J. Geragos, Esq.
          Ben J. Meiselas, Esq.
          Matthew M. Hoesly, Esq.
          GERAGOS & GERAGOS, APC
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (213) 625-3900
          Facsimile: (213) 232-3255

               - and -

          Michael E. Adler, Esq.
          GRAYLAW GROUP, INC.
          26500 Agoura Road, #102-127
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Phone: (818) 532-2833
          Facsimile: (818) 532-2834

               - and -

          Harmeet K. Dhillon, Esq.
          Nitoj P. Singh, Esq.
          DHILLON LAW GROUP INC.
          177 Post St., Suite 700
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: (415) 433-1700
          Facsimile: (415) 520-6593


CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Scott+Scott Reminds of Aug. 17 Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, an international shareholder and
consumer rights litigation firm, is reminding investors that class
action lawsuits are pending against Chembio Diagnostics, Inc.
("Chembio" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CEMI) and certain of its
officers and directors alleging violations of federal securities
laws. If you purchased Chembio securities between April 1, 2020 and
June 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), you are encouraged
to contact a Scott+Scott attorney for additional information at
(844) 818-6980 or rswartz@scott-scott.com.

Chembio purports to be a leading point-of-care ("POC") diagnostics
company focused on detecting and diagnosing infectious diseases.
The Company claims its patented Dual Path Platform ("DPP")
technology platform, which uses a small drop of blood from the
fingertip, provides high-quality, cost-effective results in
approximately 15 minutes.

The lawsuits allege that the Company represented that its DPP
COVID-19 serological POC test for the detection of IgM and IgG
antibodies aided in determining current or past exposure to the
COVID-19 virus, that its test provides high sensitivity and
specificity, and was 100% accurate.

Based on these representations, during the Class Period Chembio's
stock increased from a closing price of $5.12 per share on March
31, 2020, to a Class Period high of $15.54 per share on April 24,
2020.

Then, on June 16, 2020, after the market closed, the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration ("FDA") issued a press release disclosing that
it had revoked Chembio's Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA") for
the Company's DPP COVID-19 Igm/IgG System.

On this news, the price of Chembio shares declined from a closing
price of $9.93 on June 16, 2020, per share, to $3.89 per share at
market close on June 17, 2020, a drop of over 60%.

                           What You Can Do

If you purchased Chembio securities between April 1, 2020 and June
16, 2020, or if you have questions about this notice or your legal
rights, you are encouraged to contact Rhiana Swartz at (844)
818-6980 or rswartz@scott-scott.com. The lead plaintiff deadline is
August 17, 2020.

                 About Scott+Scott Attorneys

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

         Rhiana Swartz
         Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
         230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
         New York, NY 10169-1820
         Tel No.: (844) 818-6980
         E-mail: rswartz@scott-scott.com [GN]


CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Cordua Sues Over Unsolicited Calls & Text
-------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC CORDUA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CONSUMER PORTFOLIO SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-04672 (N.D. Cal., July 13, 2020) is a
class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the lawsuit, Defendant negligently and/or willfully
contacted Plaintiff on his brother's cellular telephone ending in
-2951 on or about October 2018 at his brother's workplace more than
seven times via an "automatic telephone dialing system".

Plaintiff asserts that he never provided Defendant with his
brother's cellular telephone number and never gave Defendant
permission to contact his brothers. Thus, Plaintiff was harmed and
damaged by the acts of Defendant.

Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc. is a specialty finance company
that provides indirect automobile financing to vehicle purchasers
with past credit problems, low incomes or limited credit histories.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364
          Tel: (323) 306-4234
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          Emails: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com


CRAFT BREW: Malloy Sues Over Unfair Buyout by Anheuser-Busch
------------------------------------------------------------
TIM MALLOY, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated
v. CRAFT BREW ALLIANCE, INC., DAVID R. LORD, TIMOTHY P. BOYLE, MARC
J. CRAMER, PAUL D. DAVIS, MATTHEW GILBERTSON, KEVIN R. KELLY,
NICKOLAS A. MILLS, JACQUELINE S. WOODWARD, ANDREW J. THOMAS, and
ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES, LLC, Case No. 20CV23549 (Ore. Cir.,
Multnomah Cty., July 9, 2020), is a stockholder class action
brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and CBA stockholders
against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duty and/or other
violations of state law arising out of their efforts to effectuate
the Buyout of CBA by Anheuser-Busch pursuant to an unfair process
and for an unfair price.

On November 11, 2019, CBA and Anheuser-Busch announced that they
had reached an Agreement and Plan of Merger, pursuant to which
Anheuser-Busch, through its direct wholly owned subsidiary Barrel
Subsidiary, Inc., will acquire CBA for $16.50 per share in cash, in
a transaction valued at approximately $321 million.

On February 25, 2020, the Company's shareholders approved the
proposed transaction, which is expected to close this year.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will
merge with and into CBA, with CBA continuing as the surviving
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Anheuser-Busch.

Specifically, at the time that the Merger Agreement was announced,
Anheuser-Busch and its affiliates held approximately 31.2% of the
Company's outstanding stock and had the right to designate two
nominees to the Board. What is more, during the process that
resulted in the Merger Agreement, Anheuser-Busch was (and remains)
CBA's most critical partner, as the vast majority of CBA's products
are sold and distributed through Anheuser-Busch's distribution
network, according to the complaint. In short, and as outlined
below in greater depth, Anheuser-Busch exercised control over CBA
through both its significant stock holdings and Board positions and
its control over the vast majority of CBA's distribution and sales
processes, and Anheuser-Busch leveraged this control to force the
Company into the Proposed Buyout on unfair terms.

The Plaintiff is and has been a shareholder of CBA.

CBA is a Washington corporation headquartered in Portland, Oregon
that brews and sells 25 craft beers and ciders in the United States
and internationally. Anheuser-Busch, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Anheuser Busch InBev SA/NV, is one of the world's largest beer
brewers and distributors. Anheuser-Busch is also CBA's single
largest, controlling shareholder and its most
important distribution partner.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander C. Trauman, Esq.
          MOTSCHENBACHER & B LATTNER LLP
          117 SW Taylor St., Ste. 300
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: 503-417-0500
          E-mail: atrauman@portlaw.com


D & A SERVICES: Weiss Alleges Violation under FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against D & A Services, LLC.
The case is styled as Salomon Weiss, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. D & A Services,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03288 (E.D. N.Y., July 22, 2020).

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

D & A Services is a collection agency that services to the consumer
bankcard/retail industry and auto deficiency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
   Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
   735 Central Avenue
   Woodmere, NY 11598
   Tel: (516) 668-6945
   Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com



DETROIT, MI: Taylor Sues Over Water Service Shutoffs and Bills
--------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE TAYLOR, LISA BROOKS, MICHELE COWAN, TUANA HENRY, MATTIE
MCCORKLE, RENEE WILSON, and PEOPLE'S WATER BOARD COALITION, on
behalf of CLASS themselves and all others similarly situated v.
CITY OF DETROIT, a Municipal Corporation, through the Detroit Water
and Sewerage Department,its Agent; GOVERNOR GRETCHEN WHITMER, in
her official capacity; MAYOR MICHAEL DUGGAN, in his official
capacity; and GARY BROWN, in his official capacity, Case No.
4:20-cv-11860-SDD-APP (E.D. Mich., July 9, 2020), is a civil rights
class action against the Defendants for practices related to water
service shutoffs and water bill affordability.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have violated their
bodily integrity in violation of the Due Process Clause of the 14th
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by exhibiting deliberate
indifference to the known risks of living without water service
that could, did, and will cause harm to the Plaintiffs. The
Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants have violated the
Michigan Constitution of 1963 through these actions.

Despite repeated, consistent demands for remedial action by
affected communities and their advocates, including People's Water
Board Coalition, the Defendants' response to this public health
emergency has been woefully inadequate and appallingly weak. The
Defendants have failed to implement a program to ensure that
Detroit's water insecure population has long-term access to
affordable water and Defendant Detroit has continued to employ
water shutoffs as a collection method despite the known risks of
living without water.

Plaintiff People's Water Board Coalition is a Michigan-based
nonprofit organization with a mission of advocating for water
access, affordability, and sanitation for all state residents. The
Individual Defendants are resident of Detroit, Michigan.

City of Detroit is a Michigan municipal corporation located in
Wayne County, Michigan. Defendant Governor Gretchen Whitmer, in her
official capacity as Governor of the State of Michigan, is charged
with ensuring the health and safety of the people of Michigan by
effectively addressing public emergencies and ensuring compliance
with her executive orders.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark P. Fancher, Esq.
          Daniel S. Korobkin, Esq.
          Bonsitu Kitaba-Gaviglio, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FUND OF MICHIGAN
          2966 Woodward Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: (313) 578-6800
          E-mail: mfancher@aclumich.org
                  dkorobkin@aclumich.org
                  bkitaba@aclumich.org

               - and -

          Coty Montag, Esq.
          Jason Bailey, Esq.
          Monique Lin-Luse, Esq.
          NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE
          AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
          700 14th Street NW, Suite 600
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 682-1300
          E-mail: cmontag@naacpldf.org
                  jbailey@naacpldf.org
                  mlinluse@naacpldf.org

               - and -

          Alice B. Jennings, Esq.
          EDWARDS & JENNINGS, P.C.
          Cadillac Tower Building
          65 Cadillac Square, Suite 2710
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 961-5000
          E-mail: ajennings@edwardsjennings.com

               - and -

          Lorray S. C. Brown, Esq.
          MICHIGAN POVERTY LAW PROGRAM
          15 South Washington Street, Suite 202
          Ypsilanti, MI 48197
          Telephone: (734) 998-6100 ext. 613
          Facsimile: (734) 998-9125
          E-mail: lorrayb@mplp.org

               - and -

          Kurt Thornbladh, Esq.
          THORNBLADH LEGAL GROUP PLLC
          7301 Schaefer
          Dearborn, MI 48126
          Telephone: (313) 943 2678
          E-mail: kthornbladh@gmail.com

               - and -

          Melissa Z. El Johnson, Esq.
          MELISSA Z. EL, P.C.
          500 Griswold Suite 2410
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 963-1049
          Facsimile: (313) 963-3342
          E-mail: eljohnsonlaw@gmail.com


DEUTSCHE BANK: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Sept. 14 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on July 15 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft ("Deutsche
Bank" or the "Bank") (NYSE: DB) and certain of its officers.   The
class action, filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, and indexed under 20-cv-08978, is on behalf
of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Deutsche Bank
securities between November 7, 2017, and July 6, 2020, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused
by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Bank and certain of its top
officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Deutsche Bank securities
during the Class Period, you have until September 14, 2020, to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy
of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To
discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free,
Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares
purchased.

Deutsche Bank was founded in 1870 and is headquartered in Frankfurt
am Main, Germany.  The Bank provides investment, financial, and
related products and services to private individuals, corporate
entities, and institutional clients worldwide.

Deutsche Bank has been the subject of scandal, investigation and
regulatory enforcement for years because of anti-money laundering
("AML") compliance failures and deficiencies in its disclosure
controls and procedures and internal control over financial
reporting, causing it to have one of the lowest gradings offered by
the U.S. Federal Reserve ("Federal Reserve").

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business.  Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Deutsche
Bank had failed to remediate deficiencies related to AML, its
disclosure controls, procedures, and internal control over
financial reporting, and its U.S. operations' troubled condition;
(ii) as a result, the Bank failed to properly monitor customers
that the Bank itself deemed to be high risk, including, among
others, the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and
two correspondent banks, Danske Estonia and FBME Bank, which were
both the subjects of prior scandals involving financial misconduct;
(iii) the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have
a material negative impact on the Bank's financial results and
reputation; and (iv) as a result, the Bank's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On May 13, 2020, media outlets reported that the Federal Reserve
had sharply criticized Deutsche Bank's U.S. operations in an
internal audit.  The audit reportedly found that Deutsche Bank had
failed to address multiple concerns identified years earlier,
including concerns related to the Bank's AML and other control
procedures.

On this news, the value of Deutsche Bank's ordinary shares fell
$0.31 per share, or 4.49%, to close at $6.60 per share on May 13,
2020.

Then, on July 7, 2020, the Federal Reserve's criticism of Deutsche
Bank's failure to address its AML and other issues was reaffirmed
when the New York State Department of Financial Services fined the
Bank $150 million for neglecting to flag numerous questionable
transactions from accounts associated with Epstein and with two
correspondent banks, Danske Estonia and FBME Bank, both of which
were the subjects of prior scandals involving financial
misconduct.

On this news, the value of Deutsche Bank's ordinary shares fell
$0.13 per share, or 1.31%, to close at $9.82 per share on July 7,
2020.

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]


DEUTSCHE BANK: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft (NYSE: DB) between
November 7, 2017 and July 6, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Deutsche Bank investors
under the federal securities laws.

To join the Deutsche Bank class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1898.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email -- pkim@rosenlegal.com
-- or -- cases@rosenlegal.com -- for information on the class
action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Deutsche Bank had failed to remediate deficiencies
related to its anti-money laundering (AML) compliance, its
disclosure controls, procedures, and internal control over
financial reporting, and its U.S. operations' troubled condition;
(2) as a result, the Bank failed to properly monitor customers that
the Bank itself deemed to be high risk, including, among others,
the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and two correspondent
banks, Danske Estonia and FBME Bank, which were both the subjects
of prior scandals involving financial misconduct; (3) the
foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material
negative impact on the Bank's financial results and reputation; and
(4) as a result, the Bank's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered
the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
14, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.

If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1898.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 --

         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
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 cases@rosenlegal.com [GN]


DIRECT BUILDING: Smith Files TCPA Suit in Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Direct Building
Supplies LLC. The case is styled as Stewart Smith, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Direct
Building Supplies LLC and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of
them, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03583 (E.D. Penn., July 22,
2020).

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

Direct Building Supplies LLC offers construction and home
contractor services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Cynthia Z. Levin, Esq.
   Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC
   1150 First Avenue Ste 501
   King of Prussia, PA 19406
   Tel: (888) 595-9111
   Email: czlevin@comcast.net



ELANCO ANIMAL: Schall Law Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Elanco
Animal Health Incorporated (NYSE: ELAN) ("Elanco" or "the Company")
for violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between January
10, 2020 and May 06, 2020, inclusive (the ''Class Period''), are
encouraged to contact the firm before July 20, 2020.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.

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. Elanco consolidated its distributors from
eight different organizations to four, and then increased the
amount of inventory held by each distributor. These distributors
did not demonstrate a sufficient level of demand to sell through
the increased inventory, leading to both a decline in inventory and
the Company reducing its channel inventory. 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 Elanco, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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


ELEMENTS PLASTICS: Ung Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Ram Ung, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly Situated
Persons v. ELEMENTS PLASTICS MFG, INC., f/k/a ELEMENTS PLASTICS
MFG, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-02549 (S.D. Tex., July 20, 2020), is
brought to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Throughout the time the Plaintiff worked for the Defendant, he
regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week, according to the
complaint. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff on a salary basis. The
Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff an overtime premium for any of
the hours he worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Instead, the
Plaintiff alleges, he was paid the same salary no matter how many
hours he worked in a workweek.

The Plaintiff worked for Elements as a machinery installer and
maintenance man from June 2015 until April 3, 2020.

The Defendant operates a plastics manufacturing business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          Vijay Pattisapu, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
          Houston, TX 77018
          Phone: 713-868-3388
          Facsimile: 713-683-9940
          Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
                 vijay@buenkerlaw.com


ENDO INT'L: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Endo International plc
("Endo" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ENDP) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired Endo securities between August 8, 2017, and June 10, 2020,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/endp.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) the full scope of Endo's and/or its subsidiaries' contributions
to the opioid crisis, including, but not limited to, their opioid
products' disproportionately negative impact on New York, one of
the most populous states in the U.S., as well as the fraud that
Defendants perpetrated on the New York insurance market; (2) part
of that contribution to the crisis included Endo publishing and
disseminating false information to health care providers regarding
the risks and benefits of opioids; (3) that the foregoing, once
revealed, was foreseeably likely to subject Endo and/or its
subsidiaries to increased regulatory scrutiny and enforcement, as
well as significant financial and/or reputational harm,
particularly with respect to New York; and (4) that, as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/endp or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Endo you
have until August 18, 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.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes. [GN]


ENDO INT'L: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Aug. 18 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP issued a statement on Endo International:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Endo International Plc ("Endo") (NASDAQ: ENDP)
between August 8, 2017 and June 10, 2020. You are hereby notified
that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. To
get more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/endo-international-plc-loss-submission-form?prid=7980&wire=5

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) Endo's and/or its subsidiaries' contributions
to the opioid crisis (including, but not limited to, their opioid
products' disproportionately negative impact on New York and the
fraud that Defendants perpetrated on the New York insurance market)
were larger in scope than the Company had represented; (ii) part of
that contribution to the crisis included Endo publishing and
disseminating false information to health care providers regarding
the risks and benefits of opioids; (iii) the foregoing, once
revealed, was foreseeably likely to subject Endo and/or its
subsidiaries to increased regulatory scrutiny and enforcement, as
well as significant financial and/or reputational harm,
particularly with respect to New York; and (iv) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

If you suffered a loss in Endo you have until August 18, 2020 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

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

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


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Clarke Sues in New Jersey Over FDCPA Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Recovery
Services, Inc. The case is captioned as NICOLA CLARKE, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. FINANCIAL RECOVERY
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-08539-MCA-LDW (D.N.J., July 9,
2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Madeline Cox Arleo.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act regarding consumer credit.

Financial Recovery provides debt collection services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan Leyland Gentile, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GUS MICHAEL FARINELLA PC
          110 Jericho Turnpike, Suite 100
          Floral Park, NY 11001
          Telephone: (201) 873-7675
          E-mail: rlg@lawgmf.com


FIRSTSERVICE RESIDENTIAL: Underpays Caretakers, Borowske Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN BOROWSKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and the proposed classes, Plaintiff v. FIRSTSERVICE
RESIDENTIAL, INC. and FIRSTSERVICE RESIDENTIAL MINNESOTA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 0:20-cv-01564-NEB-ECW (D. Minn., July 13,
2020) is a collective and class action complaint brought against
Defendants for their alleged intentional and illegal pay practices
in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Minnesota Fair Labor
Standards Act, and the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a caretaker in October
2014.

According to the complaint, Defendants classified their caretakers
as non-exempt employees and pay them on an hourly basis. Also,
caretakers were provided by Defendants with a housing credit as a
part of their compensation. However, Defendants failed to include
housing credits in calculating the regular rate of pay used to pay
overtime compensation. As a result, Plaintiff and other similarly
situated caretakers were not paid overtime pursuant to FLSA despite
working more than 40 hours per week.

Moreover, Plaintiff alleges breach of contract against Defendants
for failing to compensate him the overtime pay Defendants promised
him and other caretakers pursuant to contract.

FirstService Residential Minnesota, Inc. is a subsidiary of
FirstService Residential, Inc.

FirstService Residential, Inc. manages private residential
communities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Tel: (612) 256-3200
          Fax: (612) 215-6870
          Email: fisher@nka.com


FROM YOU FLOWERS: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
From You Flowers LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Lynnette Tatum-Rios, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. From You Flowers LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05674 (S.D. N.Y., July 22, 2020).

From You Flowers(R) is owned and operated by partners with more
than 35 years of combined experience in the floral industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
   New York, NY 10170
   Tel: (212) 764-7171
   Email: chris@lipskylowe.com



FRONTLINE ASSET: Weber Asserts Breach of FDCPA
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frontline Asset
Strategies, LLC. The case is styled as Joseph Weber, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC, LVNV Funding, LLC and John Does
1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-09164 (D. N.J., July 21, 2020).

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

FrontLine Asset Strategies LLC or FAS is a debt collection agency,
which receives a lot of consumer complaints to our law firm for
debt harassment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Raphael Y. Deutsch, Esq.
   Stein Saks PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500
   Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com



GEICO CASUALTY: Siegal Files Suit in Illinois
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GEICO Casualty
Company. The case is styled as Briana Siegal, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GEICO
Casualty Company, GEICO Indemnity Company and GEICO General
Insurance Company, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04306 (N.D. Ill.,
July 22, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other
filed over Diversity-Breach of Contract.

GEICO Casualty Company operates as an insurance company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Ryan F Stephan, Esq.
   Stephan, Zouras, LLP
   100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
   Chicago, IL 60606
   Tel: (312) 233-1550
   Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com

     - and -

   James B. Zouras, Esq.
   Stephan Zouras, LLP
   100 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
   Chicago, IL 60606
   Tel: (312) 233-1550
   Email: jzouras@stephanzouras.com

     - and -

   Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
   Stephan Zouras, Llp
   100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
   Chicago, IL 60606
   Tel: (312) 233-1550
   Email: tbecvar@stephanzouras.com


GEO GROUP: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 8 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 The GEO Group, Inc.

Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about the case
can be found at the link provided.

The GEO Group, Inc. (NYSE: GEO)

Class Period: February 27, 2020 to June 16, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 8, 2020

On June 17, 2020, The Intercept published an article entitled "GEO
Group's Blundering Response to the Pandemic Helped Spread
Coronavirus in Halfway Houses." The article reported details of a
significant COVID-19 outbreak at the Grossman Center, a halfway
house in Leavenworth, Kansas, operated by GEO Group—which "was
for weeks the hardest hit federal halfway house in the country" in
terms of confirmed cases of COVID-19. Citing interviews with
residents of the Grossman Center, The Intercept characterized GEO
Group's response as "blundering" and reported "that the virus
spread not in spite of the facility's efforts to contain it, but
because of it." According to the article, the Grossman Center
continued to keep its residents in overcrowded conditions without
enforcing personal protective measures even as COVID-19 diagnoses
at the facility increased.

On this news, GEO Group's stock price fell $1.03 per share, or
7.8%, to close at $12.17 per share on June 17, 2020.

The complaint, filed on July 7, 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) GEO Group
maintained woefully ineffective COVID-19 response procedures; (ii)
those inadequate procedures subjected residents of the Company's
halfway houses to significant health risks; (iii) accordingly, the
Company was vulnerable to significant financial and/or reputational
harm; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the GEO Group class action go to:
https://bespc.com/GEO [GN]


GOLDLYN LLC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Leal-Florez et al. Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALBERT LEAL-FLOREZ; JAIME VAZQUEZ CRUZ (A.K.A. JAVIER); and NIKKI G
ALLEYNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. GOLDLYN LLC (D/B/A CERTE CATERING COMPANY);
PIZZA BY CERTE, LLC (D/B/A PIZZA BY CERTE); EDWARD SYLVIA; HARVEY
SIEGEL; CARLOS SYLVIA; PATTY JOE; and CARLOS RAMIREZ, Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-05243 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2020) is an action
against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide
accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.

The Plaintiff Leal-Florez was employed by the Defendants as cook
and assistant manager. The Plaintiff Vazquez was employed as
expediter and supervisor. The Plaintiff Alleyne was employed as
customer service representative.

Goldlyn LLC owns, operates, or controls restaurants, located at New
York, New York name "Certe Catering Company" and "Pizza by Certe".
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HK HOLDINGS: Moskowitz Files Civil Rights Suit in Hawaii
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HK Holdings, LLC. The
case is styled as David Moskowitz and Michele Long, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated,  Plaintiffs v. Alan
H. Ho, HK Holdings, LLC dba Jade Dynasty Seafood Restaurant, Abe
Investment Group Inc dba Seafood Village Chinese Cuisine, Kirin
Restaurant LLC dba Kirin Restaurant and HFY Investment, Inc. dba
Atlantis Seafood & Steak, Defendants, Case No. 1CCV-20-0001040 (D.
Haw., July 21, 2020).

The case type of the lawsuit is stated as Civil Rights.

Hk Holdings LLC was founded in 2001. The company's line of business
includes holding or owning securities of companies other than
banks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   James J. Bickerton, Esq.
   Morgan-Bickerton, Bridget Gallagher
   745 Fort St #801
   Honolulu, HI 96813
   Tel: (808) 599-3811
   Fax: (808) 694-3090
   Email: bickerton@bsds.com




HOME OWNERS MGMT: Robinson Appeals Ruling to Texas App. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Nathan Robinson and Misti Robinson filed an appeal from
a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Nathan Robinson and Misti
Robinson, Individually and as Representatives of All Persons
Similarly Situated v. Home Owners Management Enterprises, Inc.
d/b/a Home of Texas and Warranty Underwriters Insurance Company.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 20,
2020, Judge Eva M. Guzman of the Supreme Court of Texas affirmed
the court of appeal's denial of motion to compel arbitration of
class claims under the parties' arbitration agreement.

The arbitration dispute between homeowners and their home-warranty
company began as an individual action for construction-defect
damages and evolved into a putative class action complaining about
"deliberately overbroad" releases the warranty company allegedly
"demanded" before making covered repairs. Only the class claims are
at issue in the appeal.

The homeowners, Nathan and Misti Robinson, purchased a newly
constructed residential home that was enrolled in a limited
warranty program operated by Home Owners Management Enterprises,
Inc. and Warranty Underwriters Insurance ("HOME"). When
construction-related defects were discovered, the Robinsons sued
HOME and other Defendants alleging the defects were not promptly or
properly resolved. Over the Robinsons' vigorous opposition, the
trial court abated the case and compelled arbitration in accordance
with the terms of the limited warranty and its addendum.

Yet, with less than a month before the scheduled arbitration, the
Robinsons filed an amended statement of claims seeking to add
class-action claims against HOME to the arbitration proceeding. The
new--and entirely independent--claims alleged that HOME routinely
demanded overbroad releases as a precondition to fulfilling its
warranty obligations.

HOME promptly filed written objections to the amended statement and
moved to strike the class claims from the arbitration proceeding.
The following week, mere days before the arbitration began, the
arbitrator denied HOME's objections and motion to strike "in its
entirety," but bifurcated the class claims from the Robinsons'
construction-defect claims.

After arbitration on the Robinsons' individual claims had
concluded, but before the arbitrator had issued a decision, HOME
asked the trial court to clarify the "scope of the issues" referred
to the arbitrator and, in the alternative, to strike the Robinsons'
class claims. While HOME's motion was pending in the trial court,
the arbitrator ruled against HOME on the warranty claims and
awarded the Robinsons substantial damages, costs, and fees.
Furthermore, and in accordance with the arbitration agreement's
terms, the arbitrator awarded HOME the costs and fees it had
incurred compelling arbitration over the Robinsons' resistance.

The appellate case is captioned as Nathan Robinson and Misti
Robinson, Individually and as Representatives of All Persons
Similarly Situated v. Home Owners Management Enterprises, Inc.
d/b/a Home of Texas and Warranty Underwriters Insurance Company,
Case No. 02-20-00215-CV, in the Texas Court of Appeals, Second
Court of Appeals.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the record
is due to be filed on August 10, 2020.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Nathan Robinson and Misti Robinson are
represented by:

          Mark A. Ticer, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARK A. TICER
          10440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 600
          Dallas, TX 75231
          Telephone: (214) 219-4220
          Facsimile: (214) 219-4218
       
               - and -

          Evan Lane Shaw, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF VAN SHAW
          2723 Fairmount
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 754-7110
          Facsimile: (214) 754-7115

Defendants-Appellees Home Owners Management Enterprises, Inc. and
Warranty Underwriters Insurance Company are represented by:

          Curt M. Covington, Esq.
          LAMBERTH RATCLIFFE COVINGTON PLLC
          1010 W Ralph Hall Pkwy. #100
          Rockwall, TX 75032
          Telephone: (469) 698-4300
          E-mail: curt@lrclegal.com


HOMEGOODS INC: Cota Suit Asserts Breach of ADA
----------------------------------------------
Homegoods, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Julissa
Cota, individually and on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Homegoods, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and Does 1 to 10, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-01407-MMA-AGS (S.D. Cal., July 22, 2020).

HomeGoods is an American chain of discount home furnishing stores
founded in 1992. Though it began as a small chain, hundreds of
locations are now scattered throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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




HOOTERS OF AMERICA: Kuznik Class Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Austin Kuznik, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hooters of
America, LLC and HOA Restaurant Holder, LLC, Case No. 2020CH000059,
was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court, Eleventh Judicial
Circuit, McLean County, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of Illinois (Peoria) on July 8, 2020.

The Central District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-01255-JBM-JEH to the proceeding.

The lawsuit demands $5 billion in damages. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Joe Billy McDade.

Hooters of America, LLC, owns and operates a chain of
restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James X. Bormes, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X BORMES PC
          8 S Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 201-0575
          Facsimile: (312) 332-0600
          E-mail: bormeslaw@sbcglobal.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Amy Yongmee Cho, Esq.
          Erin Bolan Hines, Esq.
          SHOOK HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          111 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 704-7700
          Facsimile: (312) 558-1195
          E-mail: acho@shb.com
                  ehines@shb.com


HOSPITALITY INVESTORS: Wollman Appeals Order/Judgment to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Stuart Wollman filed an appeal from the District Court's
Opinion and Order dated June 18, 2020, and Judgment dated June 19,
2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled Wollman v. Hospitality
Investors Trust, Inc., Case No. 20-cv-798, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City).

The lawsuit is a direct shareholder action against Hospitality
Investors Trust, Inc. ("HIT"), HIT's external managers, and several
officers and directors.

The appellate case is captioned as Wollman v. Hospitality Investors
Trust, Inc., Case No. 20-2286, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Stuart Wollman, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated stockholders of Hospitality Investors
Trust, Inc., is represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
          ABRAHAM FRUCHTER & TWERSKY LLP
          1 Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 279-5050
          E-mail: jabraham@aftlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees AR Global Investments, LLC, American Realty
Capital Hospitality Properties, LLC, American Realty Capital
Hospitality Advisors, LLC, Nicholas S. Schorsch, William M. Kahane,
Edward M. Weil, Jr., Peter M. Budko, and Brian S. Block are
represented by:

          Daniel Mason, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          500 Delaware Avenue
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: (302) 655-4425
          E-mail: dmason@paulweiss.com

               - and -

          Audra J. Soloway, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 373-3289
          Facsimile: (212) 492-0289
          E-mail: asoloway@paulweiss.com

               - and -

          Michael C. Miller, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
          1114 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 506-3955
          E-mail: mmiller@steptoe.com


I.C. SYSTEM: Teitelbaum Files FDCPA Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against I.C. System, Inc. The
case is styled as Boruch Teitelbaum, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. I.C. System, Inc. and
John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03272 (E.D. N.Y., July
21, 2020).

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

I. C. System, Inc. was founded in 1941. The company's line of
business includes collection and adjustment services on claims and
other insurance related issues.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David Paul Force, Esq.
   Stein Saks, PLLC
   285 Passaic St.
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500
   Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com




IDEANOMICS INC: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP alerts investors
that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against
Ideanomics, Inc. ("Ideanomics") on behalf of those who purchased or
otherwise acquired Ideanomics common stock between March 20, 2020
and June 25, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Ideanomics common
stock during the Class Period may, no later than August 27, 2020,
seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the
class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in
this litigation please click
https://www.ktmc.com/ideanomics-inc-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=ideanomics.

According to the complaint, Ideanomics is a global company focused
on facilitating the adoption of commercial electric vehicles ("EV")
and developing next generation financial services and Fintech
products.

The Class Period commences on March 20, 2020, when Ideanomics
issued a press release in which it announced "that the Qingdao-MEG
Sales Center, branded as Mobile Energy Group Center, is scheduled
to start sales operations by May 1."  Throughout the Class Period,
Ideanomics continued to laud its EV expo center, claiming the MEG
Center is "the largest auto trading market in Qingdao," China.
However, the truth was eventually revealed.

According to the complaint, on June 25, 2020, analyst Hindenburg
Research issued a series of tweets in which it called Ideanomics
"an egregious & obvious fraud." Hindenburg asserted that it found
evidence that Ideanomics had doctored photos for use in its press
releases to suggest that it owns or operates a vehicle sales center
in Qingdao, China, when it in fact does not.  Hindenburg further
asserted that it had an investigator go to Ideanomics' purported
MEG Center in Qingdao, China, where the investigator was unable to
find any trace of Ideanomics or its purported MEG Center.  Also, on
June 25, 2020, analyst J Capital Research issued a report on
Ideanomics entitled "Champion of Promotes". J Capital Research
wrote, in part, that "Ideanomics . . . is a zero. The company
changes its name and promotional story so frequently that it's hard
to keep up. One thing remains a constant, despite all the press
releases, buzzwords and hype: shareholders get wiped out". J
Capital Research continued, in a tweet, that "[w]e called all the
'buyers' named in [Ideanomics'] press releases this month. Not a
single one had made a purchase. One of them thanked us for alerting
them to 'fake news.'"  Following this news, Ideanomics' stock price
fell from its June 24, 2020 close of $3.09 to a June 25, 2020 close
of $2.44 per share, a one day drop of $0.65 or approximately 21%.

Then, on June 26, 2020, Ideanomics issued a press release in which
it sought to "clarify the status" of its purported EV hub in
Qingdao, China. In this release, Ideanomics walked back certain of
its prior statements regarding the MEG Center in Qingdao, stating
that it was launching three phases of its MEG Center that will
eventually total one million square feet. The first phase,
according to Ideanomics, occupies only 215,000 square feet.
Following this news, the stock price continued to fall on June 26,
2020, dropping to a close of $1.46 per share. This represents a two
day drop of approximately 53%. [GN]


J & A GLATT MEATS: Quim Asserts Breach of FLSA
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against J & A Glatt Meats
Inc. The case is styled as Oscar Quim and Jhovani Luna Luna, on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. J & A Glatt
Meats Inc. doing business as: The Prime Cut, Albir Allahham and
Albert Alham, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05632 (S.D. N.Y., July
21, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Labor: Fair
Standards filed over Denial of Overtime Compensation.

J & A Glatt Meats Inc is in the Meat and Fish (Seafood) Markets,
Including Freezer Provisioners industry in Brooklyn, NY.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



J2 GLOBAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------
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 J2 Global, Inc.

Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about the case
can be found at the link provided.

J2 Global, Inc. (NADSAQ: JCOM)

Class Period: October 5, 2015 to June 29, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 8, 2020

On June 30, 2020, before the market opened, Hindenburg Research
published a report (the "Report") explaining that J2 Global had,
among other issues: (i) failed to disclose questionable
transactions with related parties; (ii) utilized misleading
accounting to hide underperformance and impending impairments; and
(iii) failed to disclose a lack of board independence.

On this news, shares of J2 Global fell $6.29 per share, or over 9%,
to close at $63.21 per share on June 30, 2020.

The complaint, filed on July 8, 2020, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) J2 Global engaged in
undisclosed related party transactions; (2) J2 Global used
misleading accounting to hide requisite impairments and
underperformance in acquisitions; (3) several so-called independent
members of the Company' board of directors and audit committee were
not disinterested; and (4) as a result, defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

For more information on the J2 Global class action go to:
https://bespc.com/JCOM [GN]


JERSEY FORESTOP: Covachuela Sues Over Unpaid OT & Retaliation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ORBIN COVACHUELA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JERSEY FIRESTOP, LLC,
DANIEL HINOJOSA, and DAVID HINOJOSA, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-08806 (D.N.J., July 13, 2020) arises from Defendants'
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey
Wage & Hour Law, the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, and the New
Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from in or around April 2018
until on or around October 23, 2019 as a non-exempt laborer.

Plaintiff claims that Defendants failed to compensate him for the
hours driving the company vehicle to and from Worksites and
rejected his request of payment. Consequently, he was terminated
approximately 2 weeks later when Plaintiff refused to drive the
company vehicle and rode in the company vehicle as a passenger to
and from the Worksites.

Moreover, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the similarly
situated laborers overtime compensation at one and one-half times
their regular hourly rate or the applicable minimum wage despite
routinely working in excess of 40 hours per week. Also, Defendants
failed to track and record the hours that Plaintiff and other
laborers worked.

Daniel Hinojosa and David Hinojosa are officers, directors,
shareholders and/or persons in control of Jersey Firestop.

Jersey Firestop is a mechanical insulation company and certified
firestop contractor. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicole Grunfeld, Esq.
          KATZ MELINGER PLLC
          280 Madison Ave., Suite 600
          New York, NY 10016
          Tel: (212) 460-0047
          Email: ndgrunfeld@katzmelinger.com


KIRKLAND LAKE: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Kirkland Lake Gold Ltd.
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.

                 * Additional Information Below *

KL Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased January 8, 2018 -
November 25, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 28, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/kirkland-lake-gold-ltd-information-request-form?prid=7988&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Kirkland
Lake Gold Ltd. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Kirkland lacked adequate
internal controls over financial reporting, especially as it
relates to its projections of risks, reserve grade, and all-in
sustaining costs; (ii) as a result of the known, but undisclosed,
impending acquisition of Detour, the Company's projections relating
to its risks, reserve grade, and all-in sustaining costs were false
and misleading; (iii) the Company's financial statements and
projections were not fairly presented in conformity with
International Financial Reporting Standards; (iv) based on the
foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
and/or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted material facts.

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. [GN]


KLEINS CABINET: Perkins Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA and Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA PERKINS v. KLEINS CABINET AND COUNTERTOPS, and SCOTT
SNYDER, Case No. 2:20-cv-01427-WBS-DMC (E.D. Cal., July 15, 2020),
is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ms. Perkins was a non-exempt employee of KCC. The Plaintiff
contends that she was not paid for all hours she worked, and was
not paid overtime that was due to her, triggering a violation of
FLSA. She also suffered violations of the California Labor Code
related to nonpayment of wages and overtime, meal/rest period
violations, and paystub/recording-keeping violations.

KCC is a cabinet maker and countertop contractor. Mr. Snyder is
KCC's managing agent, and was Perkins' immediate supervisor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
          Joshua H. Watson, Esq.
          CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, APC
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 777-7777
          Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
          E-mail: jwatson@justice4you.com


KMP RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Munive et al. Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ANGEL MUNIVE; and RUBICEL GUZMAN TOLENTINO, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KMP
RESTAURANT CORP. D/B/A LOUKOUMI RESTAURANT; and COSTAS AVLONITIS,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03028 (E.D.N.Y., July 8, 2020) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Munive was employed by the Defendants as food
preparer. The Plaintiff Tolentino was employed as cook.

KMP Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Loukoumi Restaurant is engaged in the
restaurant business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591


KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Jimenez MFWA Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as TONY JIMENEZ, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. KOHL'S DEPARTMENT
STORES, INC. and KOHL'S CORPORATION, Case No. 2081CV01337 (Filed
June 10, 2020), was removed from the Massachusetts Superior Court,
Middlesex County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on July 16, 2020.

The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-11346-TSH to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the
Massachusetts Fair Wages Act by misclassifying him as exempt from
overtime pay and failing to pay him overtime premiums for hours
beyond 40 in a workweek.

Kohl's is an American department store retail chain.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          William T. Harrington, Esq
          HARRINGTON LAW, P.C.
          738 Main Street
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (781) 385-7230
          E-mail: wharringtonlaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          Joel Griswold, Esq.
          Bonnie Keane DelGobbo, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2300
          Orlando, FL 32801-3432
          Telephone: (407) 649-4088
          E-mail: jcgriswold@bakerlaw.com
                  bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com


KRISPY KREME: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Young Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE YOUNG, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. KRISPY KREME DOUGHNUT CORPORATION, Case No.
1:20-cv-05479-MKV (S.D.N.Y., July 16, 2020), asserts claims against
Krispy Kreme for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
people.

The Defendants denial of full and equal access to its Web site,
https://www.krispykreme.com/, and, therefore, denial of its
products and services offered thereby, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
according to the complaint. Because the Defendant's Web site is not
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA, the Plaintiff contends.

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million, who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's 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 his
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet their definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.

Krispy Kreme is an American doughnut company and coffeehouse chain
owned by JAB Holding Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: 212 228 9795
          Facsimile: 212 982 6284
          E-mail: Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


L & S TOV DRUGS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Delgado Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
YERY JIMENEZ DELGADO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. L & S TOV DRUGS LLC d/b/a
SUPERSCRIPTS PHARMACY; and LEV ZAVLYANOV, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-03054 (E.D.N.Y., July 8, 2020) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Delgado was employed by the Defendants as pharmacy
staff.

L & S Tov Drugs LLC d/b/a Superscripts Pharmacy is a community and
retail pharmacy in Richmond Hill, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591


LIDS INC: Cota Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
LIDS, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Julissa
Cota, individually and on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIDS, Inc., a Tennessee
corporation and Does 1 to 10, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-01408-MMA-BLM (S.D. Cal., July 22, 2020).

Lids Inc. is an American retailer specializing in athletic
headwear. It primarily operates under the LIDS brand with stores in
the U.S., Puerto Rico and Canada. The majority of the stores
operate in shopping malls and factory outlet centers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAC ACQUISITION: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Neeser Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTIN NEESER v. MAC ACQUISITION LLC, SULLIVAN'S HOLDING LLC d/b/a
SULLIVAN'S STEAKHOUSE, Case No. 3:20-cv-00389 (W.D.N.C., July 16,
2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated asserting claims against the Defendants for
unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, and all related penalties and damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants had a systemic
company-wide policy, pattern, or practice of failing to pay their
employees at the appropriate statutory rate for hourly work, or for
hours worked in excess of 40 each week at a rate of one and
one-half their regular rate of pay

The Plaintiff is a resident of North Carolina. She worked as an
hourly server for the Defendants from May 1, 2013, until October 9,
2019.

The Defendants operate a restaurant business. Sullivan's Holding
LLC, doing business as Sullivan's Steakhouse, is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Defendant MAC Acquisition LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
          Charlotte Smith, Esq.
          Robert W. T. Tucci, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC
          1020 Southhill Drive, Ste. 130
          Cary, NC 27513
          Telephone: (919) 741-8693
          Facsimile: (919) 869-1853
          E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
                  csmith@gildahernandezlaw.com
                  rtucci@gildahernandezlaw.com


MANHEIM TOWNSHIP, PA: Still Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
KEITH STILL, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MANHEIM TOWNSHIP, Defendant, Case No.
5:20-cv-03411 (E.D. Pa., July 13, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged willful
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was hired by Defendant as a Full-Time Firefighter on or
about November 2017.

The complaint asserts that Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff
and all persons similarly situated at Overtime Rate for all hours
worked in excess of 224 during a 28-day work period. Moreover,
Defendant failed to make, keep, and preserve records to determine
wages, hours, and other conditions of employment of Plaintiff and
the FLSA Class.

Manheim Township is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania located within Lancaster County. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Goodley, Esq.
          Marc L. Gelman, Esq.
          Ryan McCarthy, Esq.
          JENNINGS SIGMOND, P.C.
          1835 Market St., Suite 2800
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Tel: (215) 351-0613
          Fax: (215) 922-3524
          Email: jgoodley@jslex.com


MAPLEBEAR INC: Moore Suit Removed From Supreme Court to E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as SARIAH MOORE, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MAPLEBEAR, INC.,
Case No. 508554/20 (Filed May 29, 2020), was removed from the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings, to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on July
16, 2020.

The Eastern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-03196 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff's class action complaint asserts damages resulting
from the Defendant's alleged violation of the New York City Fair
Chance Act, New York City Human Rights Law.

Maplebear Inc. operates as an investment company.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mercedes Colwin, Esq.
          Ryan Sestack, Esq.
          Francis J. Giambalvo, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP
          One Battery Park Plaza, 28th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 269-5500
          Facsimile: (212) 269-5505
          E-mail: mcolwin@grsm.com
                  rsestack@grsm.com
                  fgiambalvo@grsm.com


MASTERCORP INC: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Hernandez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN HERNANDEZ, an
individual, similarly situated v. MASTERCORP, INC., a Tennessee
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV05457
(Filed Feb. 11, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on July 15,
2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-06284 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff purports to assert claims for relief against the
Defendants stemming from his employment as a carpet technician for
MasterCorp in Los Angeles County, California, from June 2018 until
July 2019. The Plaintiff alleges that MasterCorp failed to pay
minimum and regular rate wages; failed to pay overtime
compensation; and failed to provide meal periods and rest breaks in
violation of the Labor Code.

MasterCorp provides cleaning and maintenance services. The Company
offers departure cleaning, laundry management, assessment, traffic
area carpet cleaning, inventory control, and maintenance reporting
services.[BN]

The Defendant MasterCorp. is represented by:

          William DeClercq, Esq.
          TAYLOR ENGLISH DUMA LLP
          445 S. Figueroa St., Suite 3100
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (404) 640-5924
          Facsimile: (415) 851-8868
          E-mail: wdeclercq@taylorenglish.com


MATCO TOOLS: Court Denies Bid to Compel Arbitration in Aguilera
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Matco Tools Corporation, Petitioner, v. Emanuel
Aguilera, et al., Respondents, Case No. 5:19cv641 (N.D. Ohio),
Judge Pamela A. Barker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio denied Petitioner Matco's Petition to Compel
Arbitration pursuant to Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act
(FAA).

Matco markets mechanic repair tools, diagnostic equipment, and
toolboxes.  Matco is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Stow, Ohio.  Matco's corporate headquarters
and executive offices are located in Ohio, and its administrative
functions (e.g., finance, human resources, payroll) are performed
from its Ohio headquarters.

Matco contracts with franchisees who sell Matco's products through
"mobile stores."  Its franchisees must agree to the terms of the
Matco Distributorship Agreement, which gives individual business
owners the right to display the Matco brand on a 'mobile store,' to
purchase from Matco and sell Matco branded products, and to
otherwise take advantage of the reputation for quality and
innovation that Matco has worked to create over the past sixty
years.

On June 25, 2018, Respondent Simon Goro entered into a
Distributorship Agreement with Matco.  Respondents Emanuel and
Rocio Aguilera (who are husband and wife) executed a
Distributorship Agreement with Matco on that same date.  Mr. Goro
and the Aguileras aver that they are long-time residents of the
State of California.  In addition, Mr. Goro and Mr. Aguilera each
aver that, with the exception of a 10-day training period in Ohio,
all of their work as a Matco distributor was performed within the
state of California.

The Distributorship Agreements contain the provisions relevant to
the instant dispute.  The first is an arbitration provision,
located at Section 12.1 of the parties' Agreements.  In a separate
provision (Section 12.7), the Distributor expressly waives any
right to arbitrate or litigate as a class action or in a private
attorney general capacity.  In addition, the Agreements contain the
provision regarding venue and jurisdiction.  Finally, Section 13.3
provides that subject to the parties' rights under the Federal
Arbitration Act under Section 12, the Agreement will be governed by
and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Ohio, and
the substantive law of Ohio will govern the rights and obligations
of and the relationship between the parties.

Mr. Goro and Mr. Aguilera operated Matco distributorships in
California until their Agreements were terminated in November 2018.
During their distributorships, Mr. Goro and Mr. Aguilera purchased
tools by placing orders with Matco's corporate offices in Ohio,
which they then sold to customers in California.

On Dec. 7, 2018, the Respondents, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, filed a Complaint against Matco in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda.
Therein, they alleged that they (and other putative class members)
were misclassified as independent contractors and should have been
treated as Matco employees.  The Respondents alleged claims under
California state law for (1) failure to reimburse expenses; (2)
unlawful deductions from wages; (3) failure to provide accurate
wage statements; (4) failure to pay overtime; (5) failure to
provide meal periods; (6) failure to provide rest breaks; (7)
failure to pay wages when due; (8) unfair business practices; and
(9) usury.  Among other things, they sought treble damages for
alleged violations of California's usury law and attorney's fees.

Matco removed the Respondents' lawsuit to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California on Jan. 18, 2019.  On March
11, 2019, Matco filed a Motion to Dismiss or Transfer Venue.  On
March 22, 2019, Goro and the Aguileras filed a Stipulated Request
for Dismissal without Prejudice, which was signed by the counsel
for both parties.  The Stipulation was entered, and the case was
dismissed, on March 26, 2019.

On March 25, 2019 (three days after the filing of the Stipulated
Request for Dismissal but one day before the court entered the
Stipulation and dismissed the case), Matco filed, in the Court, a
Petition to Compel Arbitration Pursuant to Section 4 of the Federal
Arbitration Act, against Goro and the Aguileras.  It requested that
the Court issue an Order compelling the arbitration of any and all
claims by Respondents that are within the scope of the arbitration
provisions in the Distributorship Agreements in Summit County or
Cuyahoga County in the State of Ohio.

Matco filed a Brief in support of its Petition on Sept. 9, 2019, in
response to which Respondents filed a Brief in Opposition on Oct.
9, 2019.  Matco then filed a Reply Brief on Oct. 23, 2019, and
supplemental authority and briefing was submitted in November 2019.
Meanwhile, in June 2019, before Matco's Petition in the instant
case was fully briefed, Matco submitted arbitration demands before
the American Arbitration Association ("AAA") in Ohio against the
Respondents herein, i.e., Mr. Goro and the Aguileras.  In these
arbitration proceedings, Matco sought the recovery of amounts
relating to the Respondents' alleged failure to pay on their
respective promissory notes.  In response, the Respondents
contested the validity of the Distributorship Agreement arbitration
provision.

On Aug. 21, 2019 (while both the instant action and the AAA
proceedings were ongoing), Goro and the Aguileras filed a Complaint
against Matco in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California.  On Oct. 10, 2019, Matco filed a motion to dismiss
for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim in the
Respondents' California federal district court action.  Goro and
the Aguileras then filed a motion for preliminary injunction on
Dec. 27, 2019, which Matco opposed.  Subsequently, on Jan. 13,
2020, Goro and the Aguileras filed an ex parte application for a
temporary restraining order, or in the alternative, for an order
shortening time on their motion for preliminary injunction.  Matco
opposed the ex parte application.

On Jan. 31, 2020, Southern District of California District Judge
Anthony Battaglia granted Goro and the Aguileras' Motion for TRO
and temporarily enjoined Matco from arbitrating its claims against
Goro and the Aguileras in the AAA proceedings in Ohio.  In his
Order, Judge Battaglia noted that the TRO does not affect the
parties' proceeding before the Northern District of Ohio.

Six weeks later, on March 12, 2020, Judge Battaglia issued an Order
(1) granting in part and denying in part Matco's motion to dismiss;
and (2) granting Goro and the Aguileras' motion for preliminary
injunction.  The court declined to address Matco's alternative
argument that the forum non conveniens doctrine warranted dismissal
or transfer.  Accordingly, the court granted Goro and the
Aguileras' motion for preliminary injunction and enjoined Matco
from arbitrating any claims against them under the 'Distribution
Agreement' including in any arbitration proceeding in the State of
Ohio.  The docket indicates that the action currently remains
pending before Judge Battaglia.

Matco argues that the arbitration provision in the parties'
Distributorship Agreement is valid and enforceable.  It asserts
that the Respondents were offered and accepted the Agreement and
that they received valuable consideration in the form of a license
and operations plans which they could use to open their own
businesses.  Matco next maintains that the Respondents have no
basis on which to invalidate the arbitration clause.

In response, the Respondents argue, first, that the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over the instant dispute because Matco
has failed to demonstrate Article III standing.  They next assert
that, in light of the California district court's holding in
Fleming, supra, Matco is collaterally estopped from enforcing the
Agreements' arbitration and forum selection clauses in the instant
case.

Judge Barker finds that at the time the Petition was filed, it is
undisputed that Goro and the Aguileras had dismissed their state
law claims against Matco, and Matco had stipulated their agreement
to that dismissal.  In light of the foregoing, Judge Barker finds
that Matco has failed to demonstrate a "concrete and
particularized," as well as "actual and imminent," injury or
threatened injury.  Matco has failed to demonstrate that it faced a
concrete and particularized injury at the time it filed the instant
Petition.  Moreover, Matco has not cited any evidence that
Respondents have since refiled their claims against Matco or
threatened to do so.  Matco cites no authority for the position
that it would be appropriate to compel arbitration of claims that
are neither threatened or asserted.

Accordingly, and for all the reasons she set forth, Judge Barker
finds that Matco has failed to demonstrate an injury in fact
sufficient to confer Article III standing in the present dispute.
Therefore, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and Matco's
Petition to Compel Arbitration is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 19, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/33rHAV from
Leagle.com.


MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Fitzgerald Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID FITZGERALD v.
MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY;
MERCEDES BENZ LEARNING AND PERFORMANCE; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50,
INCLUSIVE, Case No. 20LBCV00048 (Filed January 21, 2020), was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on July 16, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-06349 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff's complaint asserts claims for disability
discrimination, failure to engage in the interactive process, and
harassment in violation of California Government Code; and
violation of California Labor Code.

Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC is responsible for ensuring Mercedes-Benz
vehicles are ready to deliver once they arrive in the United
States.[BN]

Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA is represented by:

          Antoinette R. Tutt, Esq.
          ARMIJO & GARCIA
          555 S. Flower Street, Suite 600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 612-5335
          Facsimile: (213) 612-5712


MISTRAS GROUP: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Labor Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP filed a class action complaint alleging that
MISTRAS Group, Inc., failed to provide their California employees
with meal and rest periods as required by California law. The
MISTRAS Group, Inc. class action lawsuit, Case No. 20STCV22485, is
currently pending in the Los Angeles Superior Court of the State of
California.

According to the lawsuit filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court,
MISTRAS Group, Inc. allegedly (a) failed to provide PLAINTIFF
accurate itemized wage statements, (b) failed to properly record
and provide legally required meal and rest periods, (c) failed to
pay overtime wages, (d) failed to pay minimum wages, (e) failed to
reimburse employees for required expenses, and (f) failure to
provide wages when due, all in violation of the applicable Labor
Code sections listed in Labor Code Sections Sec. 201, 202, 203,
226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable
Wage Order(s), and thereby gives rise to civil penalties as a
result of such alleged conduct.

Additionally, the complaint further alleges MISTRAS Group, Inc.,
committed acts of unfair competition in violation of the California
Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200, et seq.
(the "UCL"), by engaging in a company-wide policy and procedure
which failed to accurately calculate and record the correct
overtime rate for the overtime worked by PLAINTIFFS and other
CALIFORNIA CLASS Members. As a result of DEFENDANT's intentional
disregard of the obligation to meet this burden, DEFENDANT
allegedly failed to properly calculate and/or pay all required
compensation for work performed by the members of the CALIFORNIA
CLASS and violated the California Labor Code.

If you would like to know more about the MISTRAS Group, Inc.
lawsuit, please contact Attorney Nicholas J. De Blouw by calling
(800) 568-8020.

Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is an employment law
firm with offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento,
Los Angeles, Riverside and Chicago that dedicates its practice to
helping employees, investors and consumers fight back against
unfair business practices, including violations of the California
Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. If you need help in
collecting unpaid overtime wages, unpaid commissions, being
wrongfully terminated from work, and other employment law claims,
contact one of their attorneys. [GN]


MOE & JOE CORP: Ramos Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA and NYLL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Ramos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MOE & JOE CORP. d/b/a SAL'Z PIZZERIA, and GEORGE
TAGARIS, as an individual, Case No. 2:20-cv-03243 (S.D.N.Y., July
20, 2020), is brought against the Defendants to recover damages for
egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws
arising out of the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants.

Although the Plaintiff worked for 60 hours or more per week during
his employment by the Defendants, the Defendants did not pay the
Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant
violation of the overtime provisions contained in the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a counter person,
pizza maker and cleaner.

MOE & JOE CORP., doing business as SAL'Z PIZZERIA, is a corporation
organized under the laws of New York with a principal executive
office located in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Phone: 718-263-9591


MOTION PICTURE: IATSE Members File Class Suit on Health Insurance
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gene Maddaus at Variety reports that two members of the
International Cinematographers Guild have filed a class action suit
alleging they were wrongfully dropped from their health insurance
due to the coronavirus pandemic.

Greg Endries and Dee Nichols brought the federal suit against the
Motion Picture Industry Pension and Health Plans, which provide
no-cost health coverage to below-the-line workers who qualify.

In order to maintain coverage, participants must work 400 hours
over a six-month period. Endries and Nichols contend that they —
and many others — would have met that threshold had production
not shut down entirely in mid-March.

The board of the health plan extended a 300-hour credit to workers
whose eligibility deadline fell in April and May, and is providing
no-cost COBRA after that. But Endries and Nichols' eligibility
deadline fell on March 21.

The suit contends that the board "left participants like Mr.
Endries and Mr. Nichols out in the cold."

According to the suit, Endries, a still photographer, has had to go
without insurance because he cannot afford COBRA, and Nichols, a
camera operator, has had to pay for private insurance with worse
coverage.

"The loss of both income and affordable health insurance coverage
during this worldwide health crisis is devastating to the Plan
participants and their family members who were arbitrarily excluded
by Defendants despite the fact that they, like the other
participants who were extended the 300 hours, premium waiver for
dependents, and/or COBRA subsidies, lost their needed work hours
due to the crisis," the lawsuit states.

The class action was filed on behalf of all plan participants who
did not receive the 300-hour credit or the COBRA subsidies. In
addition to the cinematographers guild - otherwise known as IATSE
Local 600 - the MPIPHP covers editors, costumers, makeup artists
and hair stylists, and many other below-the-line crafts.

After workers initially complained about the lack of support for
those whose eligibility deadline was March 21, the health plan did
offer a 25-hour credit so that those with 375 hours or more could
reach 400 hours. Those with 300 hours or more were also given the
chance to prove that they had enough work lined up to reach the
400-hour threshold when the COVID-19 shutdown hit.

The lawsuit contends that the board's decision violates the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act by favoring one group of
plan participants over another.

Lori Brogin, the MPIPHP communications director, declined to
comment, citing a policy against discussing pending litigation.
[GN]


MUNROE & ASSOCIATES: Katt Alleges Violation under ADA
-----------------------------------------------------
Munroe & Associates, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as David Katt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v Munroe & Associates, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-02139-NYW (D. Colo., July 21, 2020).

Munroe & Associates, Inc. offers insurance services in Denver and
all of Colorado.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
   Marcus & Zelman, LLC
   701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
   Asbury Park, NJ 07712
   Tel: (732) 695-3282
   Email: ari@marcuszelman.com



NANOVIRICIDES INC: Glancy Prongay Probes Securities Laws Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, a national investor rights law firm,
has commenced an investigation on behalf of NanoViricides, Inc.
investors concerning the Company and its officers' possible
violations of the federal securities laws.

If you suffered a loss on your NanoViricides 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/nanoviricides-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.

The securities investigation concerns whether NanoViricides
provided false or misleading information to investors about its
activities related to drug development, including a potential
treatment for COVID-19.

Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding
NanoViricides 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. [GN]


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Marmorstein Files FDCPA  Suit
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit,
Inc. The case is styled as Abraham Marmorstein, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nationwide
Credit, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-05622 (S.D. N.Y., July
21, 2020).

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

Nationwide Credit (NCI) collects delinquent and defaulted
accounts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   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



NCAA: Must Pay Athletes for Use of Likeness, Oliver Says
--------------------------------------------------------
TYMIR OLIVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION;
PAC-12 CONFERENCE; THE BIG TEN CONFERENCE INC.; THE BIG TWELVE
CONFERENCE; and ATLANTIC COAST CONFERENCE, Defendants, Case No.
4:20-cv-04527 (N.D. Cal., July 8, 2020) alleges that the Defendants
prohibits all football Division I athletes from being compensated
for the commercial use of their names, images, and likenesses
("NILs").

According to the complaint, notwithstanding the existence of the
Plaintiff's right, the Defendants have committed violations of the
federal antitrust laws and common law by engaging in an overarching
conspiracy to: (a) fix the amount that student-athletes may be paid
for the licensing, use, and sale of their names, images, and
likenesses—at zero; and (b) foreclose student-athletes from the
market for licensing, use, and sale of their names, images, and
likenesses entirely.

Absent the challenged restraints, Division I student-athletes would
receive compensation for the use of their NILs in an open market.
Division I athletes have created tremendous value in their NILs
through their participation in both athletic and non-athletic
activities.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal place of
business located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis,
Indiana 46206. NCAA is not organized under the laws of any State,
but is registered as a tax-exempt organization with the Internal
Revenue Service. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin J. Siegel, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          E-mail: bens@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
          Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLS, PC
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
          E-mail: jkodroff@srkattorneys.com
                  espector@srkattorneys.com


NEW RUE21 INC: Cota Asserts Breach of ADA in California
-------------------------------------------------------
New rue21, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Julissa
Cota, individually and on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. New rue21, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and Does 1 to 10, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-01404-BEN-WVG (S.D. Cal., July 22, 2020).

Rue21, inc. (rue21) is a specialty apparel retailer offering the
newest fashion trends for girls and guys.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed v. Regis in Gulino Bias Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment
dated May 29, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET AL. v.
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF
NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the
New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New
York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain
racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a
license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance
Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified
the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).

On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to
the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief
in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to
the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule
23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and
class-wide injunctive relief.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board of
Education, Case No. 20-2208, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Theodore Regis is represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District
of the City of New York is represented by:

          James Edward Johnson, Esq.
          CORPORATION COUNSEL
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-2500


O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Katt Alleges Violation under ADA
-----------------------------------------------------
O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as David Katt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-02138-NRN (D. Colo., July 21, 2020).

O'Reilly Automotive Stores Inc. supplies automobile equipment. The
Company offers replacements parts, fluids and chemicals,
performance, accessories, and tools. O'Reilly Automotive Stores
serves customers in the State of Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
   Marcus & Zelman, LLC
   701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
   Asbury Park, NJ 07712
   Tel: (732) 695-3282
   Email: ari@marcuszelman.com




OFFICE DEPOT: Hawa Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Gloria Hawa, on behalf of
herself, the General Public, and all others similarly situated v.
Office Depot, Inc., Case No. SCV-266420, was removed from the
California Superior Court, Sonoma County, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (Oakland) on July 9,
2020.

The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-04589-DMR to the proceeding.

Office Depot is an American office supply retailing company
headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida, United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neil Burnstein Fineman, Esq.
          FINEMAN POLINER LLP
          155 N Riverview Dr.
          Anaheim Hills, CA 92808
          Telephone: (714) 620-1125
          Facsimile: (714) 701-0155
          E-mail: neil@finemanpoliner.com

               - and -

          Phillip R. Poliner, Esq.
          WESTRUP KLICK & ASSOCIATES
          444 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1615
          Long Beach, CA 90802-4524
          Telephone: (562) 432-2551
          E-mail: ppoliner@aol.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel Scott Kubasak, Esq.
          GORDON & REES
          275 Battery Ave., Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 986-5900
          Facsimile: (415) 986-8054
          E-maildkubasak@gordonrees.com

               - and -

          Kevin Liu, Esq.
          Fletcher C. Alford, Esq.
          GORDON & REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP
          275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 986-5900
          Facsimile: (415) 986-8054
          E-mail: kliu@grsm.com
                  falford@grsm.com


P.F. CHANG'S: Appeals E.D. Pa. Ruling in Belt Suit to Third Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant PF CHANGS CHINA BISTRO INC. filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled In re: PF Changs China Bistro
Inc., et al., Case No. 2-18-cv-03831, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The ruling is a Stay of Order to produce nationwide class list
pending disposition of the petition for a Writ of Mandamus.

Response is due on August 3, 2020.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to grant their motion for conditional class
certification and approve a court-authorized Notice under the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

P. F. Chang's China Bistro is an American-based, Asian-themed,
casual dining restaurant chain founded in 1993 by Paul Fleming and
Philip Chiang.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: PF Changs China Bistro
Inc., et al., Case No. 20-2496, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents STEVEN BELT, LAURA COUNCIL, JAMES HARRIS,
Reena I. Desai, and GRACE CASTRO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED AND THE PUNTATIVE CLASSES, are
represented by:

          Patricia A. Barasch, Esq.
          SCHALL & BARASCH
          110 Marter Avenue, Suite 105
          Moorestown, NJ 08057
          Telephone: (856) 914-9200
          E-mail: pbarasch@schallandbarasch.com

               - and -

          Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
          Charles Center South
          36 South Charles Street
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 244-7005
          E-mail: bdavis@nichollaw.com

               - and -

          Reena I. Desai, Esq.
          HALUNEN & ASSOCIATES
          1650 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          E-mail: rdesai@nka.com

               - and -

          Dana L. Scott, Esq.
          TROUTMAN PEPPER
          3000 Two Logan Square
          18th and Arch Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103

Defendant-Petitioner PF CHANGS CHINA BISTRO INC. is represented
by:

          Maxine Adams, Esq.
          Paul DeCamp, Esq.
          EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN
          1227 25th Street, N.W., Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 861-1840
          E-mail: MAdams@ebglaw.com
                  PDeCamp@ebglaw.com
               
               - and -

          Sheila A. Woolson, Esq.
          EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN
          One Gateway Center, 13th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 639-8268
          E-mail: swoolson@ebglaw.com


PHILLIPS & COHEN: Haston FDCPA Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY HASTON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PHILLIPS & COHEN
ASSOCIATES, LTD. AND JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. GD-20-006460 (Filed
June 3, 2020), was removed from the Pennsylvania Court of Common
Pleas, Allegheny County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on July 16, 2020.

The Western District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-01069-WSS to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff's complaint alleges that PCA violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act by sending letters allegedly containing
false, deceptive misleading and/or confusing notices in connection
with collection efforts. The Plaintiff contends that the
Defendants' letters provide that only disputes made in writing are
effective, which the complaint alleges is a false statement
concerning the right to contest the debt verbally, as well as in
writing.

Phillips & Cohen provides collections and financial recovery
services. The Company offers services that includes compassionate
deceased care and probate, pre and post charge-off credit and
business cards, consumer retails, debt management, and cease and
desist solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
          Kevin Tucker, Esq.
          EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC
          186 42nd Street, P.O. Box 40127
          Pittsburgh, PA 15201
          Telephone: (412) 223-5740
          Facsimile: (412) 626-7101
          E-mail: kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com
                  ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com

               - and -

          Eugene D. Frank, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE D. FRANK, P.C.
          3202 McKnight East Drive
          Pittsburgh, PA 15237
          Telephone: (412) 366-4276
          Facsimile: (412) 366-4305
          E-mail: efank@edf-law.com

Defendant Phillips & Cohen is represented by:

          Victoria D. Summerfield, Esq.
          TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
          Union Trust Building
          501 Grant St., Suite 300
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: 412 454 5033
          Facsimile: 866 541 3889
          E-mail: victoria.summerfield@troutman.com


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 4 Bid Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP diclosed that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Pilgrim's Pride Corporation.
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.

Pilgrim's Pride Corporation (PPC)

PPC Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 9, 2017
- June 3, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 4, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/pilgrims-pride-corporation-information-request-form?prid=7988&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company and its
executives had participated in an illegal antitrust conspiracy to
fix prices and rig bids from at least as early as 2012 and
continuing through at least early 2017; (2) the Company received
competitive advantages, which persisted during the Class Period,
from its anticompetitive conduct; and (3) as a result, Defendants'
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
lacked a reasonable basis. [GN]


PLAYAGS INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Aug. 24 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notified investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against PlayAGS, Inc. ("PlayAGS" or
the "Company") (NYSE: AGS) and certain of its officers, on behalf
of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired PlayAGS
securities between August 2, 2018 and August 7, 2019, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period").

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) PlayAGS was experiencing challenges in its
business in Oklahoma; (2) as a result, the Company's recurring
revenue would be negatively impacted; (3) PlayAGS was experiencing
challenges in its Interactive business segment, including delays in
securing regulatory approvals and relevant licenses; (4) as a
result of the foregoing, PlayAGS was reasonably likely to record a
goodwill impairment; and (5) as a result, defendants' statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/ags or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484.  If you suffered a loss in PlayAGS
you have until August 24, 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.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising.  Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes. [GN]


PMC SOUTHWEST: Johnson Files Employment Class Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PMC Southwest LLC, et
al. The case is captioned as Don Johnson and Patrick Lepage and all
similarly situated employees of the Defendants in the State of
California v. PMC Southwest LLC; The Arcticom Group LLC; and Does
1-50, Case No. 34-2020-00281708-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento
Cty., July 9, 2020).

The lawsuit alleges violation of the employment-related laws.

PMC is a commercial refrigeration company serving California,
Nevada and the western United States. Arcticom operates as a
maintenance and repair company. The Company offers refrigeration,
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Graham Stephen Paul Hollis, Esq.
          GRAHAMHOLLIS APC
          3555 5th Ave., Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 692-0800
          Facsimile: (619) 692-0822
          E-mail: ghollis@grahamhollis.com


PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES: Corona Suit Transferred to Calif. Dist. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Guadalupe Alvarenga Corona, individually and
on behalf of a class of other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., a Pennsylvania
corporation and DOES 1-100, Defendants, was transferred from Los
Angeles Superior Court with the assigned Case No. 20STCV24007 to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Western Division - Los Angeles) on July 22, 2020, and assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-06521.

The nature of suit is stated as Banks and Banking.

PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. is an American bank holding
company and financial services corporation based in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. Its banking subsidiary, PNC Bank, operates in 21
states and the District of Columbia with 2,459 branches and 9,051
ATMs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   John R Habashy, Esq.
   Lexicon Law PC
   633 West Fifth Street 28th Floor
   Los Angeles, CA 90071
   Tel: (213) 233-5900
   Fax: (888) 373-2107
   Email: john@lexiconlaw.com

     - and -

   Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq.
   Bradley Grombacher LLP
   31365 Oak Creek Drive Suite 240
   Westlake Village, CA 91361
   Tel: (805) 270-7100
   Fax: (805) 270-7589
   Email: kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com

     - and -

   Marcus J Bradley, Esq.
   Bradley Grombacher LLP
   31365 Oak Crest Drive Suite 240
   Westlake Village, CA 91361
   Tel: (805) 270-7100
   Fax: (805) 270-7589
   Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com

     - and -

   Robert Neil Fisher, Esq.
   Bradley Grombacher LLP
   246 5th Avenue Suite 522
   New York, NY 10001
   Tel: (646) 443-6235
   Email: rfisher@bradleygrombacher.com

     - and -

   Tiffany Noelle Buda, Esq.
   Lexicon Law PC
   633 West 5th Street 28th Floor
   Los Angeles, CA 90071
   Tel: (213) 223-5900
   Fax: (888) 373-2107
   Email: tiffany@lexiconlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

   Geoffrey L Warner, Esq.
   Buckley LLP
   100 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 100
   Santa Monica, CA 90401
   Tel: (310) 424-3900
   Fax: (310) 424-3960
   Email: gwarner@buckleyfirm.com

     - and -

   Lirit Ariella King, Esq.
   Bradley Grombacher LLP
   31365 Oak Crest Drive Suite 240
   Westlake Village, CA 91361
   Tel: (805) 270-7100
   Fax: (805) 270-7589
   Email: lking@bradleygrombacher.com

     - and -

   Fredrick S Levin, Esq.
   Buckley LLP
   100 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1000
   Santa Monica, CA 90401
   Tel: (310) 424-3900
   Fax: (310) 424-3960
   Email: flevin@buckleyfirm.com




PORTA DEL SOL: Faces Getz TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Marketing Texts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL GETZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PORTA DEL SOL SURGICAL SERVICES, INC. d/b/a DORAL FOOT
& ANKLE CONSULT ANTS, a Florida corporation, Case No. 109962022
(Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., July 8, 2020), alleges that the
Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending
unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant is medical clinic specializing in foot and ankle
surgery.

To solicit new paying patients, the Defendant engages in
unsolicited marketing with no regard for privacy rights of the
recipients of those messages, the Plaintiff contends. The Defendant
caused thousands of unsolicited text messages to be sent to his and
Class Members' cellular telephones, causing them injuries,
including invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance,
intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's
illegal conduct. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on
behalf of himself and Class Members, and any other available legal
or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          Garrett 0. Berg, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: 305-479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                  gberg@shamisgentile.com

                 and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          Aaron M. Ahlzadeh, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Office: (786) 289-9471
          Direct: (305) 975-3320
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          E-mail: escott@edelsberglaw.com
                  aaron@edelsberglaw.com


PURCHASE RUNG: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Acosta Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
HEDIBERTO ACOSTA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PURCHASE RUNG CORP. (D/B/A LITTLE THAI
KITCHEN); BBR AMERICAN CORP. (D/B/A LITTLE THAI KITCHEN); BBJ GROUP
CORP. (D/B/A LITTLE THAI KITCHEN); and BILLY PETER RUNG ,
Defendants, 1:20-cv-05258 (S.D.N.Y., July 9, 2020) is an action
against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide
accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.

The Plaintiff Acosta was employed by the Defendants as delivery
worker.

Purchase Rung Corp. (d/b/a Little Thai Kitchen) owns, operates, or
controls three Thai restaurants, at New York under the name Little
Thai Kitchen. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RE/MAX LLC: DeClements TCPA Suit Moved From Arizona to Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Daniel DeClements and Sam
Tuli, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v.
RE/MAX LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No.
2:19-cv-05476 (Filed Oct. 23, 2020), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado (Denver) on July 16, 2020.

The District of Colorado Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-02075-DDD-SKC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Daniel D. Domenico.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act of 1991. Specifically, Re/Max's realtors use third party lead
generating services to mine expired property listings from the
Multiple Listing 26 Service (MLS), according to the complaint.
These lead generators use skip-tracing to match cell phone numbers
of the owners of those expired listings to the properties to allow
realtors to cold call them without consent. These calls are often
made using an autodialer and/or to telephone numbers on the
national Do Not Call registry in violation of the TCPA.

RE/MAX, short for Real Estate Maximums, is an American
international real estate company that operates through a franchise
system. As of 2015, RE/MAX had more than 100,000 agents in 6,800
offices.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nathan Brown, Esq.
          BROWN PATENT LAW
          15100 N 78th Way, Suite 203
          Scottsdale, AZ 85260
          Telephone: 602-529-3474
          E-mail: Nathan.Brown@BrownPatentLaw.com


RELIANT IMMEDIATE: Jarquin FACTA Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as PAOLA JARQUIN, individually
and on behalf of a class of other similarly situated individuals v.
RELIANT IMMEDIATE CARE MEDICAL GROUP, INC.; DOES 1 through 10, Case
No. 20STCV17264 (Filed May 4, 2020), was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
July 16, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-06334 to the proceeding.

In her one-count complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that she and
putative class members suffered damage allegedly due to the
Defendant's violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions
Act. She alleges that when she "used her personal debit card to pay
for medical services, she was subsequently presented with an
electronically printed receipt bearing numerical information in
excess of FACTA's truncation and masking requirement."

She alleges that she received medical services from a Reliant
Urgent Care facility in Montebello, California.

Reliant is doing business in health care industry.[BN]

The Defendant Reliant is represented by:

          Todd A. Boock, Esq.
          BROWN NERI SMITH & KHAN LLP
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2080
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 593-9890
          Facsimile: (310) 593-9980
          E-mail: todd@bnsklaw.com


REPAIRSMITH INC: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Falcon Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID FALCON v. REPAIRSMITH, INC. and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case
No. 20STCV26818 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 16, 2020), is
brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
aggrieved employees alleging that RepairSmith failed to compensate
for all hours worked and to pay minimum and overtime wages, in
violation of the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff contends that RepairSmith violated the Labor Code
because it failed to pay him and other similarly situated aggrieved
employees California's statutory minimum wage for all hours worked
and for "off the clock" work, including the hours spent working at
Repairsmith's place of business, the time spent going to "Auto
Zone" "off' the clock", and the time spent dealing with customers
via his personal cell phone.

The Plaintiff started working for Repair Smith on June 2019. His
employment ended on October 16, 2019. During his employment tenure,
his job title was "Mobile Technician", and he was classified as an
exempt, salaried employee, earning $65,000 per year. He worked
either Monday through Friday, Tuesday through Saturday, or Monday
through Saturday from 8:00 a.m. until whenever the appointments
would finish.

RepairSmith provides car repair and maintenance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harout Messrelian, Esq.
          MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
          500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 484-6531
          Facsimile: (818) 956-1983


SARBANAND FARMS: Sanchez Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as EDGAR MONTES SANCHEZ, ARTURO
RAMIREZ ALVAREZ, FILIBERTO LOPEZ HERRERA, and DANIEL VARELAS
HERRERA, as individuals and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons v. SARBANAND FARMS, LLC, MUNGER BROS., LLC, CROWNE
COLD STORAGE, LLC, ROBERT HAWK, CLIFF WOOLLEY, CSI VISA PROCESSING
USA, LLC and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2020-4825
(Filed June 11, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Joaquin to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California on July 15,
2020.

The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-01428-MCE-EFB to the proceeding.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs assert that they and other
workers were H-2A workers were solicited to work for the Defendants
through misrepresentations; that the Defendants failed to meet
their obligations under the H-2A job order and contract; that the
Defendants negligently and intentionally misrepresented facts; that
the Plaintiffs and other workers were not paid for all wages
earned, including minimum and overtime wages, were not provided all
required rest breaks, were not provided with accurate itemized wage
statements, were not paid all wages at the time of separation, were
not indemnified for all business related expenses; and that the
Defendants failed to meet their obligations under the Farm Labor
Contractor Act and engaged in unfair competition.

Sarbanand Farms is a blueberry grower in Sumas, Washington. Munger
was founded in 1998. The Company's line of business includes
operating farms that produce fruits and tree nuts.[BN]

Defendants Sarbanand Farms, LLC, Munger Bros., LLC, Crowne Cold
Storage, LLC, Robert Hawk, and Cliff Woolley are represented by:

          William M. Woolman, Esq.
          Charles P. Hamamjian, Esq.
          SAGASER, WATKINS & WIELAND, PC
          5260 North Palm Avenue, Suite 400
          Fresno, CA 93704
          Telephone: (559) 421-7000
          Facsimile: (559) 473-1483

               - and -

          Theodore William Hoppe, Esq.
          HOPPE LAW GROUP
          680 West Shaw Avenue, Suite 207
          Fresno, CA 93704
          Telephone: (559) 241-7070
          Facsimile: (559) 241-7212


SCOREDRIVEN.COM INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING INC.; TERRY FABRICANT; LOUIS FLOYD; and
WILLIAM LOFTUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. SCOREDRIVEN.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-04585-TSH (C.D. Cal., July 9, 2020) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

Scoredriven.Com, Inc. is a credit information company, and provides
customers with the information about their credit rating. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (323) 306-4234
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com


SECURITY BENEFIT LIFE: Clinton Suit Transferred to Kansas Dist. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Ella Clinton, a Florida resident,
individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, William Carrick, Terri L Stauffer-Schmidt, Jean P.
Wright, Michael A. Webber, Donald P. Cox, Howard Rosen, Wai Hee
Yuen, Martha E. Miller Cox, Plaintiff v. Security Benefit Life
Insurance Company, a Kansas corporation, Defendant, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the District of Southern Florida
with the assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-24803 to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Kansas (Topeka) on July 22, 2020, and assigned
Case No. 5:20-cv-04038-EFM-KGG.

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

Security Benefit Life Insurance Company provides insurance
services. The Company offers life and health insurance, retirement
plans, annuities, mutual funds, and related services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.


SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU: Smith Appeals E.D. Ark. Ruling to 8th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Shawn Smith filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Shawn Smith v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty, Case
No. 4:20-cv-00707-BRW, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas, Central.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 10,
2020, the case was transferred from the Lonoke County Circuit Court
with the assigned Case No. 43CV-20-00346 to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas on June 3, 2020, and assigned
Case No. 4:20-cv-00707-BRW.

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

Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company provides auto,
homeowners, life, and other insurance needs in Arkansas.

The appellate case is captioned as Shawn Smith v. Southern Farm
Bureau Casualty, Case No. 20-2486, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

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

   -- Appendix is due on August 31, 2020;

   -- BRIEF OF APPELLANT Shawn Smith is due on August 31, 2020;

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant.[BN]

Plaintiff- Appellant Shawn Smith, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Joseph Henry Bates, III, Esq.
          Edwin Lee Lowther, III, Esq.
          Tiffany Oldham, Esq.
          Jake Windley, Esq.
          CARNEY & BATES
          519 W. Seventh Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500

               - and -

          John M. Rainwater, Esq.
          RAINWATER & HOLT
          801 Technology Drive
          P.O. Box 17250
          Little Rock, AR 72222-7250
          Telephone: (501) 868-2500

Defendant-Appellee Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company
is represented by:

          William Arnold Waddell, Jr., Esq.
          FRIDAY & ELDREDGE
          2000 Regions Center
          400 W. Capitol Avenue
          Little Rock, AR 72201-0000
          Telephone: (501) 376-2011


SPRINGS WINDOW: Poland Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELE POLAND, Individually, and on behalf herself and others
similarly situated v. SPRINGS WINDOW FASHIONS, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-02489-MSN-cgc (W.D.
Tenn., July 8, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, declaratory
relief, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and those similarly situated worked as Field Sales
Representatives for the Defendant. The Plaintiff and other Field
Sales Representatives were classified as "exempt" from the overtime
provisions of the FLSA. The Defendant employed the Plaintiff and
many other similarly situated employees throughout the country
whose job duties were similar to the Plaintiff and who were
compensated in a similar manner as the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant classified her and other
Field Service Representatives as salary exempt employees and based
their salary on a 40 hour work week even though they were required
to work well over 40 hours per week due to their job duties and
responsibilities.

The Defendant manufactures and distributes home furnishing
products, such as window blinds, shades, panels and drapery
hardware throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, Esq.
          B. Alan Matthews, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com
                  nbishop@jsyc.com
                  rmorelli@jsyc.com
                  amatthews@jsyc.com


STUBHUB INC: Faces Dobner Suit in Northern Dist. of California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stubhub, Inc. The
case is captioned as NINA DOBNER, as an individual, on behalf of
herself, the general public and those similarly situated
Plaintiff(s) v. STUBHUB, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-04786 (N.D. Cal.,
July 16, 2020).

StubHub is an American ticket exchange and resale company. StubHub
provides services for buyers and sellers of tickets for sports,
concerts, theater and other live entertainment events.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth Safier, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          100 Pine St., No. 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: 415-366-6545
          E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com


TEMPLE UNIVERSITY: Files Motion to Dismiss Student's Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Caffrey at Biz Journal reports that Temple University is
the first university in the region to fight back against a
student's class-action lawsuit over its shift to virtual learning,
filing a motion to dismiss the first of two similar class-action
complaints filed against it seeking refunds on tuition and fees.

The motion, filed in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court, argues
students were never promised exclusively in-person classes and had
to agree to specific terms under which refunds could be granted
before registering for classes. It also argues students are seeking
speculative damages, and cites prior cases in which courts have
ruled against students suing their schools over the perceived
quality of an education.

As the first in the region to file a motion to dismiss, Temple's
arguments could provide a blueprint for other local universities
also facing similar class-action lawsuits.

Brooke Ryan, an undergraduate student studying public health, was
the first Temple student to file suit against the school over the
move to remote courses and seeking prorated refunds on tuition and
fees. She's represented by South Carolina law firm Anastopoulo Law
Firm, which is also working with students suing Drexel University
and the University of Pennsylvania, among other schools nationwide.


(Another Temple student, Christina Fusca, filed a similar
class-action complaint.)

Ryan's complaint, filed in early May in federal court in
Philadelphia, alleged that the university breached its contract
with students by moving classes online without reducing or
refunding tuition and that it was unjustly enriched by keeping
tuition despite not providing the full services of an in-person
education.

Ryan claims that she paid "substantial tuition" for the spring
semester but her online education is "not commensurate with the
same classes being taught in person." Not all of her classes are
being taught live, the suit alleges, with some professors sending
pre-recorded lectures and others posting just self-study
assignments.  

The complaint also claims that with an online education, Ryan is
missing out on face-to-face interactions with professors and peers,
access to facilities like computer labs and libraries, extra
curricular activities, social development and independence,
hands-on learning and networking and mentorship opportunities.

By seeking class-action status, Ryan could provide an avenue for
Temple's approximately 40,000 other students to also pursue tuition
refunds through the lawsuit. Ryan's lawsuit asks for a class
certification and that Temple pay back "amounts wrongfully obtained
for tuition and fees," pre- and post-judgement interest on any
financial award and attorney's fees.

In the motion to dismiss filed by its attorney, Roberta Liebenberg
of Philadelphia law firm Fine, Kaplan and Black, Temple University
argues case law is on its side and there is "ample legal precedent
demonstrating that plaintiff's claims are deficient as a matter of
law," including case law that requires students identify specific
contractual provisions that were violated.

The university argues Ryan hasn't produced a contract that promises
the school will provide in-person classes "under any and all
circumstance," because it doesn't exist.

"Nor is there a contract stating that Temple must provide refunds
if it switches to online teaching in response to a global pandemic
to protect the safety of its students, faculty, staff, and the
public," it states.

The motion to dismiss focuses in part on Ryan citing the Bursar's
website in her complaint, and says it ignores the "Financial
Responsibility Agreement," "Tuition and Fees Policy," and "other
provisions on that website which govern the relationship between
Temple and its students."

Those agreements and policies, which students acknowledge when they
register for classes, outline four specific scenarios when refunds
are granted, none of which apply in Ryan's case.

(Refunds are available if a student has extenuating circumstances,
such as an illness or family emergency, that prevent them from
dropping a class by the add/drop deadline or completing the
semester. It also allows refunds if a student is forced to move
from the area for work, or if a student dies.)

Temple argues students are made aware fees are flat fees that are
non-refundable, no matter how much a student does or doesn't use
the services.

The lawsuit also cites numerous cases where courts have ruled they
are not qualified to judge the quality of an education and colleges
and universities are entrusted to make their own decisions for the
best way to educate students. The reasoning behind those rulings
are even more important when schools face emergency circumstances,
the complaint states.

It cites a case in which a law student's class-action complaint
against Loyola University in New Orleans, which was unable to hold
classes on-campus in the fall of 2005 due to Hurricane Katrina. The
student also claimed breach of contract and unjust enrichment,
which the court rejected.

Temple's lawsuit also cited case law in arguing Ryan's was seeking
speculative damages, equal to "the difference between the value of
the online learning which is being provided versus the value of the
live in-person instruction in a physical classroom." It argued that
"courts have routinely dismissed complaints on that basis,
including many cases brought by students against their
universities."

Temple also hasn't brought in any income it otherwise would not
have received by keeping classes virtual, it stated.

"Quite to the contrary, Temple has suffered significant lost
revenue due to the pandemic. "

The university is requesting the complaint be dismissed with
prejudice, and not allow Ryan to file an amended complaint. [GN]


TEPACHE MEXICAN: Santiago Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA and NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Santiago, behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
TEPACHE MEXICAN CORP., SONORA NYC LLC, MARTINEZ SOLTERO and JORGE
A. SOLTERO, Case No. 1:20-cv-03236 (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2020), is
brought against the Defendants to recover unpaid wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Mr. Santiago alleges that the unpaid wages resulted from invalid
tip credit and illegally retained gratuities. He adds that the
Defendants failed to provide valid notice of the tip credit
allowance claimed.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff suffered from the
Defendants' wrongful claim of a tip credit in excess of statutory
allowances and their illegal retention of gratuities. The
Defendants implemented a policy at their restaurant where the
Defendants collected and retained all tips and then re-distributed
the tips. However, when the Defendants distributed the tips to the
Tipped Subclass, the tips were always short. As a result, the
Defendants illegally retained tips from the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a delivery person
for their Restaurant, TEPACHE.

The Defendants own and operate two Mexican food restaurants under
the trade names of "TEPACHE" and "SONORA."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TOSCANOVA LP: Fails to Reimburse Costs & Pay Wages, Glassel Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, EMMA GLASSEL, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
other aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. TOSCANOVA, L.P., a
California Corporation; TOSCANOVA 2LP, a California Corporation;
KIMBERLYNN HOLM, an individual, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 20VECV00755 (Cal. Sup. Ct., July 13, 2020)
arises from Defendants' alleged unlawful and unfair employment
practices in violations of California Labor Code Private Attorney
General Act of 2004.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as non-exempt, hourly paid
Front of House on or about February 6, 2019 up until on or about
September 10, 2019.

According to the complaint, Defendants required Plaintiff and other
aggrieved employees to work without appropriate compensation.

The complaint asserts that Defendants failed to:

     -- provide legally required rest and meal periods;

     -- pay minimum wage;

     -- keep accurate payroll records;

     -- provide itemized wage statements; and

     -- reimburse necessary business-related expenses and costs.

Kimberlynn Holm is responsible for implementing Defendants
timekeeping policies and procedures.

Toscanova, L.P. and Toscanova 2LP operate as Italian style eating
establishment within the state of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
          Cathy Gonzales, Esq.
          Kevin Crough, Esq.
          HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
          801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Tel: 1-818-696-2306
          Fax: 1-818-696-2307
          Emails: haig@hbklawyers.com
                  cathy@hbklawyers.com
                  kevin@hbklawyers.com


TRADESMEN INTERNATIONAL: Ellis Files Suit Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tradesmen
International, LLC. The case is styled as Oscar Michael Ellis,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. Tradesmen International, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:20-cv-01251-JPW (M.D. Pa., July 21, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other
filed over Diversity-Contract Dispute.

Tradesmen International, LLC provides employment services. The
Company offers staffing, recruitment, and support services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Scott K. Johnson, Esq.
   Law Offices of Eric Shore, P.C.
   2 Penn Center, Suite 1240
   1500 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
   Philadelphia, PA 19102
   Tel: (267) 546-0124
   Email: scottj@ericshore.com



TRUSTEDID INC: O'Leary PI Suit Transferred to South Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Brady O'Leary, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TrustedID, Inc., Defendant,
was transferred from Richland County Court of Common Pleas with the
assigned Case No. 2020-CP-40-02429 to the U.S. District Court for
the District of South Carolina (Columbia) on July 22, 2020, and
assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-02702-MGL.

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury.

TrustedID Inc., founded in 2004, is an American identity protection
company. The company's suite of products include free and paid
services that help consumers detect risk of identity theft and
control the use of their personal information.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David Andrew Maxfield, Esq.
   David Maxfield Attorney LLC
   PO Box 11865
   Columbia, SC 29211
   Tel: (803) 509-6800
   Fax: (855) 299-1656
   Email: dave@consumerlawsc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

   Rita Bolt Barker, Esq.
   Wyche PA
   200 E Camperdown Way
   PO Box 728
   Greenville, SC 29601
   Tel: (864) 242-8235
   Email: rbarker@wyche.com



U.S. XPRESS: Ayala Appeals C.D. California Ruling to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Anthony Ayala filed an appeal from a court ruling issued
in his lawsuit entitled Anthony Ayala v. U.S. Xpress Enterprises,
Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-00137-GW-KK, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Riverside.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
asserts claims for violations of the California Labor Code and
California Industrial Commission Wage Orders, including failure to
provide meal and rest periods and failure to compensate for all
hours of work performed.

The appellate case is captioned as Anthony Ayala v. U.S. Xpress
Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-80108, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner ANTHONY AYALA, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          David Borgen, Esq.
          James Kan, Esq.
          Raymond A. Wendell, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO
          300 Lakeside Drive
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 763-9800
          E-mail: dborgen@gbdhlegal.com
                  jkan@gbdhlegal.com
                  rwendell@gbdhlegal.com

               - and -

          James M. Sitkin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES M. SITKIN
          1 Kaiser Plaza, Suite 505
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (415) 318-1048
          E-mail: jsitkin@sitkinlegal.com

               - and -

          Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
          Justin Lee Swidler, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1101 North Kings Highway
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          E-mail: rswartz@swartz-legal.com
                  jswidler@swartz-legal.com

Defendants-Respondents U.S. XPRESS ENTERPRISES, INC., U.S. XPRESS,
INC., are represented by:

          James Anthony Eckhart, Esq.
          James Harold Hanson, Esq.
          Elizabeth Ashley Paynter, Esq.
          R. Jay Taylor, Jr., Esq.
          SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
          10 West Market Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 637-1777
          E-mail: jeckhart@scopelitis.com
                  jhanson@scopelitis.com
                  apaynter@scopelitis.com
                  jtaylor@scopelitis.com

               - and -

          Christopher Chad McNatt, Jr., Esq.
          SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP
          2 North Lake Avenue
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 795-4700
          E-mail: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com

               - and -

          Adam Carl Smedstad, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON AND FEARY PC
          30 West Monroe Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 255-7181
          E-mail: asmedstad@scopelitis.com


UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Violates Lanham Act, Doe Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DOE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a California Not-for-Profit
Corporation; DOES 1 through 20, Case No. 2:20-cv-06098-JAK-AGR
(C.D. Cal., July 8, 2020), asserts claim against the Defendants for
Lanham Act violations.

In March 2018, USC hired the Plaintiff to be a "Senior
Investigator" in USC's newly formed Office of Conduct,
Accountability, and Professionalism. The Plaintiff continues to be
employed as an OCAP Senior Investigator.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was contacted regarding
the status of an appeal by a respondent in a Title IX investigation
wherein the Plaintiff had been the investigator, but the Summary
Administrative Report had been prepared by another. The Plaintiff
reasonably has such belief because months after the Plaintiff was
removed from an investigation, the Plaintiff's Linkedin profile was
viewed by the Responding Party's husband. The viewer had no
relationship whatsoever to the Plaintiff, and, other than the fact
that the Plaintiff investigated his partner, there is no reasonable
explanation for that review of Plaintiff's Linkedin profile.

The Plaintiff reasonably has such belief as the Plaintiff routinely
interviewed the Complaining Party and Responding Party in all
investigations she began. The Plaintiff says it is logical that the
Complaining Party and/or Responding Party, after having spent hours
in interviews by the Plaintiff, would reasonably object against a
Report of Investigation and/or attack a Report of Investigation
lacking the Plaintiff's name.

The Plaintiff is a licensed attorney. He has extensive experience
in conducting investigations, including workplace investigations.

The University of Southern California is a private research
university in Los Angeles, California. Founded in 1880 by Robert M.
Widney, it is the oldest private research university in
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Blady, Esq.
          BLADY WORKFORCE LAW GROUP LLP
          5757 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 535
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Telephone: (323) 933-1352
          E-mail: bblady@bwlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Levi Lesches, Esq.
          LESCHES LAW
          5757 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 535
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Telephone: (323) 900-0580
          E-mail: levi@lescheslaw.com


UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: Daleiden Appeals Ruling to Ninth Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant David Daleiden filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Jane Does 1-10, et al. v. David Daleiden, et al.,
Case No. 2:16-cv-01212-JLR, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge James L.
Robert of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

On Feb. 9, 2016, Defendant David Daleiden sent a written request to
Defendant UW under Washington State's Public Records Act ("PRA") to
inspect or obtain copies of all documents that relate to the
purchase, transfer, or procurement of human fetal tissues, human
fetal organs, and/or human fetal cell products at the [UW] Birth
Defects Research Laboratory from 2010 to present. On Feb. 10, 2016,
Defendant Zachary Freeman issued a similar PRA request to UW.

Among other documents, these PRA requests sought communications
between UW or its Birth Defects Research Laboratory, on the one
hand, and Cedar River Clinics, Planned Parenthood of Greater
Washington and North Idaho, or certain individuals or employees of
Cedar River and Planned Parenthood of Greater Washington and North
Idaho, on the other hand.  Mr. Daleiden's PRA request specifically
lists the names of eight such individuals.

On July 21, 2016, UW notified Doe Plaintiffs that absent a court
order issued by Aug. 4, 2016, UW would provide documents responsive
to Mr. Daleiden's PRA request without redaction at 12:00 p.m. on
Aug. 5, 2016.  On July 26, 2016, UW issued a similar notice to Doe
Plaintiffs regarding Mr. Freeman's request and indicated that,
absent a court order, UW would provide responsive documents without
redaction on Aug. 10, 2016.

On Aug. 3, 2016, Doe Plaintiffs filed a complaint on behalf of a
putative class seeking to enjoin UW from issuing unredacted
documents in response to the PRA requests.  They object to
disclosure of the requested documents in unredacted form because
the documents include personally identifying information such as
direct work phone numbers, work emails, personal cell phone
numbers, and other information.  On the same day that they filed
suit, Doe Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking both a temporary
restraining order ("TRO") and a preliminary injunction against
disclosure of the requested documents.

The appellate case is captioned as Jane Does 1-10, et al. v. David
Daleiden, et al., Case No. 20-35657, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees JANE DOES 1-10, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated; and JOHN DOES 1-10, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Jill D. Bowman, Esq.
          Jenna M. Poligo, Esq.
          Vanessa Soriano Power, Esq.
          STOEL RIVES LLP
          600 University Street, Suite 3600
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 624-0900
          E-mail: jill.bowman@stoel.com
                  jenna.poligo@stoel.com
                  vanessa.power@stoel.com  

               - and -

          Steven Walter Fogg, Esq.
          CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER & PREECE, LLP
          1001 Fourth Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98154
          Telephone: (206) 274-8669
          E-mail: sfogg@corrcronin.com

Defendants-Appellees UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, a Washington public
corporation; and PERRY TAPPER, Public Records Compliance Officer at
the University of Washington, in his official capacity, are
represented by:

          Nancy Sagor Garland, Esq.
          AGWA-OFFICE OF THE WASHINGTON ATTORNEY GENERAL
          (SEATTLE)
          UW Box 359475
          Seattle, WA 98195-9475
          E-mail: nancysg@uw.edu  

               - and -

          John Robert Nicholson, Esq.
          FREIMUND JACKSON & TARDIF, PLLC
          701 5th Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 582-6001
          E-mail: johnn@fjtlaw.com   

Defendant-Appellant DAVID DALEIDEN, an individual, is represented
by:

          Peter Breen, Esq.
          Thomas Brejcha, Esq.
          THOMAS MORE SOCIETY
          19 S. LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 782-1680
          E-mail: pbreen@thomasmoresociety.org
                  tbrejcha@thomasmoresociety.org
   
               - and -

          William John Crittenden, Esq.
          GROFF MURPHY, PLLC
          12345 Lake City Way NE 306
          Seattle, WA 98125
          Telephone: (206) 361-5972
          E-mail: wjcrittenden@groffmurphy.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Trissell, Esq.
          FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE DEFENSE FUND
          P.O. Box 9520
          Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
          Telephone: (858) 759-9948
          E-mail: jtrissell@limandri.com


US FDA: Court Loosens Policy for Dispensing Abortion Drugs
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland
issued a Memorandum Opinion granting in part and denying in part
Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction in the case captioned
AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS, on behalf of
its members and members' patients, COUNCIL OF UNIVERSITY CHAIRS OF
OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, on behalf of its members and members'
patients, NEW YORK STATE ACADEMY OF FAMILY PHYSICIANS, on behalf of
its members and members' patients, SISTERSONG WOMEN OF COLOR
REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE COLLECTIVE, on behalf of its members and
members' patients, and HONOR MacNAUGHTON, M.D., Plaintiffs, v.
UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, STEPHEN M. HAHN, M.D.,
in his official capacity as Commissioner of Food and Drugs, and his
employees, agents and successors in office, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES and ALEX AZAR, J.D., in his
official capacity as Secretary, United States Department of Health
and Human Services, and his employees, agents and successors in
office, Defendants. Civil Action No. TDC-20-1320. (D. Md.)

Plaintiffs American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
(ACOG), Council of University Chairs of Obstetrics and Gynecology
(CUCOG), New York State Academy of Family Physicians (NYSAFP),
SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective
(SisterSong), and Honor MacNaughton, M.D. filed a civil action
against the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), FDA
Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, the United States Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS), and Secretary of Health and Human
Services Alex Azar challenging the enforcement during the COVID-19
pandemic of certain FDA requirements relating to in-person
dispensing and signature requirements for an oral medication used
to induce an abortion or to manage a miscarriage.

Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction barring Defendants from
enforcing the In-Person Requirements -- in-person dispensing and
signature requirements -- for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic
based on their claim that, in the context of the pandemic, they
infringe on the constitutional rights to an abortion and to equal
protection of the law protected by the Due Process Clause of the
Fifth Amendment.

Accordingly, the District Court held that the Motion for a
Preliminary Injunction is granted, in part, and denied, in part.
The FDA is barred from enforcing the In-Person Requirements against
Plaintiffs, their members, and other similarly situated
individuals, without geographic limitation.

To obtain a preliminary injunction, moving parties must establish
that: (1) they are likely to succeed on the merits, (2) they are
likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary
relief, (3) the balance of equities tips in their favor, and (4) an
injunction is in the public interest.  

Plaintiffs first argue that they are likely to succeed on the
merits of their claim, under the substantive due process component
of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, that the In-Person
Requirements violate their patients' constitutional rights to an
abortion.

A woman's constitutional right to obtain an abortion was first
recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, 410
U.S. 113 (1973), in which the Court concluded that "the right of
personal privacy includes the abortion decision.  The Supreme Court
reaffirmed the applicability of the undue burden standard to
constitutional challenges to restrictions relating to abortion in
Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S.Ct. 2292 (2016), in
which the Court applied the standard to strike down a Texas statute
requiring doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges
at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic at which the abortion
procedure would be performed, and requiring abortion facilities to
meet state standards for surgical facilities.  

In so ruling, the Supreme Court provided clarification on how
courts should apply the undue burden standard. In rejecting the
formulation of the test crafted by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which suggested that a district
court need not consider the existence or nonexistence of a medical
benefit arising from a statutory or regulatory abortion
restriction, the Supreme Court explained that Planned Parenthood of
Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 845 (1992) requires that courts
consider the burdens a law imposes on abortion access together with
the benefits those laws confer.  On June 29, 2020, a plurality of
the Supreme Court reaffirmed this standard in June Medical Services
LLC v. Russo, ___ S. Ct. ___, No. 18-1323, 2020 WL 3492640 (U.S.
June 29, 2020).

However, Defendants assert that the Court should apply a general
test for a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute
set forth in United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987), a
pre-Casey case involving a challenge to the constitutionality of
the Bail Reform Act.

In Salerno, the Court held that the appropriate question to
consider on such a claim is whether "the challenger [can] establish
that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be
valid. In Casey, however, a facial challenge to a
spousal-notification law was reviewed under the undue burden
standard and found to be unconstitutional.  Casey adopted a
specific standard for the specialized context of a challenge based
on the constitutional right to an abortion.

Defendants argue that uncertainty remains about whether Salerno
should be applied to abortion cases. They rely on post-Casey
rulings by the Fourth Circuit that have discussed, but have not
explicitly decided, whether the Salerno rule is applicable to an
abortion case post-Casey.  Even if these equivocal discussions
could be construed as favoring the applicability of the Salerno
standard to abortion cases, the Court finds that it does not apply
here.

The District Court explains that application of Salerno is
incompatible with Supreme Court precedent. Despite the debate among
the lower courts, in the numerous abortion cases since Salerno and
Casey, the Supreme Court has never applied Salerno as the
applicable standard and instead has consistently applied the undue
burden standard, including in facial challenges.  

Second and more importantly, although the parties have given
conflicting views on the nature of this challenge, the Court finds
that it is plainly an as applied challenge to which Salerno is
inapplicable. A facial challenge is a claim that the law or policy
at issue is unconstitutional in all its applications.

The Court concludes that the appropriate standard for the challenge
in this case is the undue burden standard, as stated by the Supreme
Court in Casey and reaffirmed in Whole Woman's Health and June
Medical Services.

Undue Burden Principles

Defendants argue that June Medical Services altered the standard
because in his concurring opinion, Chief Justice Roberts criticized
Whole Woman's Health's test of balancing of benefits and burdens as
not derived from Casey and stated, "I would adhere to the holding
of Casey, requiring a substantial obstacle before striking down an
abortion regulation.”

Indeed, the Chief Justice emphasized the importance of stare
decisis in deciding to adhere to Whole Woman's Health, recognized
that Whole Woman's Health adopted a balancing test, and
specifically stated that the Supreme Court should respect the
statement in Whole Woman's Health that it was applying the undue
burden standard.

According to the District Court, June Medical Services is
appropriately considered to have been decided without the need to
apply or reaffirm the balancing test of Whole Woman's Health, not
that Whole Woman's Health and its balancing test have been
overruled.  Where Whole Woman's Health remains the most recent
majority opinion delineating the full parameters of the undue
burden test, the Court finds that its balancing test remains
binding on this Court.

Therefore, the Court may weigh the stated burdens and benefits
alleged in this case to decide if the In-Person Requirements pose a
substantial obstacle in violation of a patient's constitutional
rights.  

Burdens

Within this legal framework, the Court considers Plaintiffs' claim
that, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the In-Person Requirements
cause an undue burden in violation of the Constitution, imposing a
substantial obstacle on a large fraction of the relevant women
seeking a medication abortion.

The operative question is whether it creates such an obstacle for a
significant number of the women for whom the In-Person Requirements
are an actual rather than an irrelevant restriction, which the
Court defines to be those women seeking a medication abortion
through the Mifepristone-Misoprosto Regimen, which was approved by
the FDA in 2000, during the COVID-19 pandemic but who do not, based
on their healthcare provider's medical judgment, actually require
an in-person visit with their healthcare provider in order to be
properly assessed and counseled.  

On top of this general burden arising from travel to medical
offices during the pandemic, patients who may be required to travel
to a medical facility to obtain mifepristone for a medication
abortion face additional barriers arising from the pandemic:

     (1) At various times, the pandemic has caused healthcare
facilities providing medication abortion services to close such
that there are circumstances where doctors are completely unable to
provide medication abortion care because patients cannot come in to
pick up their mifepristone prescription.

     (2) Even if an abortion patient can find a clinic that is open
and can obtain an appointment, abortion patients generally face
more significant health risks arising from traveling to a medical
facility during the pandemic.

     (3) Where approximately 60% of abortion patients seeking
abortion care already have children, many abortion patients who
would need to fulfill the In-Person Requirements must arrange for
childcare in order to pick up their prescription.

     (4) Where the pandemic has resulted in a severe economic
crisis, and where a study cited by Plaintiff SisterSong reflects
that people of color are also more likely to have suffered wage or
job loss during the pandemic, the transportation and childcare
barriers are exacerbated. In such economic times, even paying for
transportation to the clinic presents a hardship.

In light of the convergence of all of these factors stemming from
the COVID-19 pandemic, the Court finds that the In-Person
Requirements impose a substantial obstacle to abortion patients
seeking medication abortion care:

     (A) The federal government's general acknowledgment of the
difficulty of traveling to medical offices as reflected in its
waiver of several in-person requirements, the challenges caused by
medical office closures and limited capacity, the heightened health
risk that many abortion patients face due to demographic
characteristics, the particularized risk and challenges associated
with transportation to get to such offices, the greater difficulty
of securing childcare under present conditions, and the impact of
the economic downturn on the ability of patients to secure
transportation and childcare combine to render an in-person visit
to pick up medication and sign forms particularly burdensome and
dangerous during the pandemic. A combination of such barriers can
establish a substantial obstacle.

     (B) These barriers, in combination, delay abortion patients
from receiving a medication abortion, which can either increase the
health risk to them or, in light of the ten-week limit on the
Mifepristone-Misoprostol Regimen, prevent them from receiving a
medication abortion at all.  

The Court therefore finds that taken together, the burdens of the
In-Person Requirements, in the specific context of the
unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic, impose a substantial obstacle in
the path of women seeking an abortion.  

Benefits

Under Whole Woman's Health, the Court must also consider the
alleged benefits.  Plaintiffs assert that the In-Person
Requirements provide no medical benefit. Plaintiffs have offered
the declaration of Dr. Allison Bryant Mantha, a board-certified
OB/GYN and an Associate Professor at Harvard Medical School, who
has concluded that there is no clinical reason to require patients
to travel to a clinic, hospital, or medical office in person to
obtain mifepristone.

In the face of Plaintiffs' evidence that the In-Person Requirements
constitute unnecessary regulations, Defendants rely entirely on
FDA's prior determination that the requirement is necessary to
mitigate serious risk associated with the drug's use. FDA, however,
has not conducted any assessment of the benefit of the In-Person
Requirements, in the context of present-day facts and
circumstances.  

Defendants argue that the Court should give significant deference
to FDA's determination because it lies squarely within FDA's area
of special expertise and is based on dozens of clinical trials and
agency reviews. Although Defendants assert that FDA's determination
should not be subject to second-guessing by an unelected federal
judiciary, the Supreme Court in Whole Woman's Health held that
although courts are to review factfinding by a decision-making
entity with deference, they should not place dispositive weight" on
the entity's conclusions and instead retains an independent
constitutional duty to review factual findings where constitutional
rights are at stake.

Defendants contend that the In-Person Requirements provide an
opportunity for the healthcare provider to counsel the patient
about the risks of complications associated with the medication,
including serious infection, sometimes life-threatening bleeding,
or incomplete abortion.

Plaintiffs, however, have provided specific evidence from several
physicians who attest that face-to-face counseling can be
accomplished with equal effectiveness through telemedicine,
especially during the pandemic.  

Defendants' second identified benefit of the In-Person
Requirements, specifically the In-Person Dispensing Requirement, is
that it prevents any delay in filling the prescription that may
occur if mail delivery or retail pharmacies are used, which in turn
prevents delay in the initiation of the Mifepristone-Misoprostol
Regimen. Defendants argue that a later start to the process can
increase the health risks to the patient.

According to the Court, Defendants, however, offer no evidence that
removing the In-Person Dispensing Requirement will result in
delayed taking of mifepristone:

     (A) Defendants misconstrue Plaintiffs' requested relief.
Plaintiffs do not seek to bar in-person visits for examinations,
counseling, or dispensing of mifepristone relating to medication
abortion. Rather, they seek the temporary option to forgo in-person
visits if, in a healthcare provider's medical judgment, it is not
necessary to meet the patient's needs.

     (B) The In-Person Dispensing Requirement specifically does not
control when the mifepristone is actually taken. Since the 2016
elimination of the in-person administration requirement, a patient
receiving mifepristone at a medical office may take the pill at
home, at a time of her choosing, without clinical supervision. The
requirement therefore does not actually address any interest in
having the patient take the mifepristone as soon as possible.

     (C) To the extent that timing might make any difference in an
individual case, Plaintiffs have identified the option of a
healthcare provider directing the use of a courier to deliver the
medication directly from the medical office to the patient that
would get the medication to the patient the same day.  

The Court therefore finds that the evidence does not support a
finding that the In-Person Dispensing Requirement provides any
significant health-related benefit relating to an alleged
elimination of delay in the taking of mifepristone.

Undue Burden Determination

Under Whole Woman's Health, the undue burden determination is based
on whether, after consideration of both the burdens a law imposes
on abortion access together with the benefits those laws confer,
the abortion restriction imposes a substantial obstacle on a large
fraction of the women for whom it is relevant.  

The burdens of the In-Person Requirements in light of the COVID-19
pandemic are significant and likely place a substantial obstacle in
the path of a woman's choice.  Even if the burdens alone were
insufficient to support a finding of a substantial obstacle, such a
finding would necessarily follow upon consideration of the alleged
benefits of the In-Person Requirements, which the evidence shows to
likely be unnecessary health regulations under the present
circumstances.  

Finally, the Court finds a likelihood that this substantial
obstacle affects a large fraction or significant number of those
women for whom the provision is an actual rather than an irrelevant
restriction.  That universe consists of the women seeking a
medication abortion through the Mifepristone-Misoprostol Regimen
during the COVID-19 pandemic for whom an in-person visit is not
medically necessary because an assessment by a healthcare provider
of eligibility and counseling can properly occur by telemedicine.
Where the federal government has imposed nationwide waivers for
certain in-person requirements because of the COVID-19 pandemic, it
is reasonable to infer that the challenges for receiving in-person
medical care are significant, affect the population generally, and
are geographically widespread.   

The Court therefore finds that Plaintiffs have established a
likelihood of success on the merits of their due process claim.

Equal Protection

Plaintiffs assert a claim that the In-Person Requirements violate
the equal protection rights of the physicians and patients who
dispense and receive mifepristone because they unjustifiably treat
them differently from similarly situated individuals who dispense
and receive other drugs during the pandemic without such
requirements.

Because the Court has found a likelihood of success on the merits
of the due process claim, it need not address this claim as it
relates to the use of mifepristone for medication abortions. Where
the due process claim is based on the constitutional right to an
abortion, however, it does not protect the rights of physicians and
patients who dispense and receive the drug for miscarriage
treatment.

The Court will therefore consider the likelihood of success of the
equal protection claim as applied to miscarriage treatment only.

According to the Court, the Equal Protection Clause generally
requires that all persons similarly situated should be treated
alike. Thus, a plaintiff challenging a statute or regulation on
equal protection grounds must first establish that the plaintiff
has been treated differently from similarly situated individuals
and that the unequal treatment was the result of intentional or
purposeful discrimination.

Although these waivers of certain in-person requirements appear to
reflect differential treatment during the pandemic of the relevant
drugs, and by extension the individuals involved in the dispensing
of those drugs, the Court finds that the record at present is
insufficient to reach a conclusion that the treatment of any or all
of these drugs are sufficiently similarly situated, that the
treatment is actually different, and that any differential
treatment lacks a rational basis to support a finding of a
likelihood of success on the merits of an equal protection claim.
The Court explains:

     (A) As to the decision by HHS and DEA relating to controlled
substances, the regulatory scheme underlying that decision,
grounded in the Controlled Substance Act, is different from the FDA
Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy ("REMS") regime underlying
the In-Person Requirements that arise under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act.

     (B) The Court similarly lacks information necessary to assess
properly whether the so-called ETASU D and ETASU E waivers relating
to laboratory testing and imaging studies are similarly situated to
potential waivers of the ETASU C requirements. ETASU stands for
Elements to Assure Safe Use ("ETASU"), a special category of REMS.

     (C) The record relating to the waiver of enforcement actions
for two drugs subject to ETASU C requirements is too limited to
draw fair conclusions.

     (D) Although not specifically included as a similarly situated
drug underlying the equal protection argument, Plaintiffs note that
FDA permits the same chemical compound as mifepristone, marketed
under the brand name Korlym(R) for daily use by patients with
endogenous Cushing's syndrome, to be provided to patients without
any REMS requirements and to be obtained from a mail-order pharmacy
for delivery to the patient's home.

In summary, the Court finds that the present record leaves too many
gaps to establish that Plaintiffs' identified comparator drugs are
fairly deemed to be similarly situated or differentially treated,
or that any disparate treatment of mifepristone prescribers and
patients relative to those associated with the use of the other
drugs lacks any rational basis.  Accordingly, at this preliminary
stage, the Court will not find a likelihood of success on the
merits of the equal protection claim as to miscarriage treatment
and will thus deny the Motion as to the In-Person Requirements as
applied to that particular use.

Irreparable Harm

Plaintiffs argue that the In-Person Requirements cause irreparable
harm because they needlessly expose Plaintiffs' members, their
patients, and their families to increased risk of life-threatening
disease.

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs cannot show irreparable harm
because making an in-person visit solely to pick up medication does
not constitute a substantial obstacle to obtaining an abortion, and
that the risk of exposure to COVID-19 is premised largely on
speculation and insufficient to establish irreparable harm.  

Where Plaintiffs have established a likely violation of a
constitutional right, particularly one that, given the limited
timeframe for obtaining a medication abortion, would be permanently
lost absent preliminary relief, the Court finds likely irreparable
harm.

Balance of Equities and Public Interest

Defendants argue that the balance of equities should tip in their
favor because, based on FDA's scientific judgment, the In-Person
Requirements are necessary to assure safe use of mifepristone and
thus to protect patients' safety. However, the most recent judgment
on the In-Person Requirements occurred in 2013, and FDA has not
since considered whether the requirements are still warranted in
light of the 2016 changes to the mifepristone REMS and the present
widespread use of telemedicine.  

Thus, on balance, the equities weighs in Plaintiffs' favor. The
Court finds that the balance of equities and the public interest
favor the granting of a preliminary injunction.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 13, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/Kveefm from Leagle.com


VALLOUREC STAR: Fails to Pay for All Hours Worked, Viconovic Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Viconovic, and other similarly-situated employees v. VALLOUREC
STAR, LP, Case No. 4:20-cv-01591-BYP (N.D. Ohio, July 20, 2020),
arises from the Defendant's practices and policies of not paying
the Plaintiff for all hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was only paid for work
performed between their scheduled start and stop times, and were
not paid for the following work performed before and after their
scheduled start and stop times: a) changing into and out of their
uniform and personal protective equipment, including a helmet,
gloves, boots, safety glasses, and/or flame-retardant clothing; b)
getting tools, equipment and/or paperwork necessary to perform
their manufacturing work; c) walking to and from their assigned
area of the manufacturing floor; and d) performing their
manufacturing work.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an electrician from
2011 to December 2019 in Youngstown, Ohio.

The Defendant is a producer of oil country tubular goods and has
operations in Youngstown, Ohio; Muskogee, Oklahoma; and Houston,
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Heritage Building, Suite 250
          34555 Chagrin Boulevard
          Moreland Hills, OH 44022
          Phone: 216-696-5000
          Facsimile: 216-696-7005
          Email: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com


VERRICA PHARMA: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action Complaints
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 Verrica Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.

Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about the case
can be found at the link provided.

Verrica Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRCA)

Class Period: September 16, 2019 to June 29, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 14, 2020

Verrica is a dermatology therapeutics company that develops
treatments for people living with skin diseases. Its lead product
candidate, VP-102, is a drug-device combination of a topical
solution of cantharidin administered through the Company's
single-use precision applicator. The Company is initially
developing VP-102 for the treatment of molluscum contagiosum, or
molluscum, a highly contagious and primarily pediatric viral skin
disease, and common warts.

On June 29, 2020, Verrica disclosed receipt of a letter from the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") regarding the Company's
New Drug Application ("NDA") for VP-102 for the treatment of
molluscum contagiosum. The letter identified certain deficiencies
that preclude discussion of labeling and post-marketing
requirements. Moreover, according to the Company, the FDA's
information requests have included a "specific request related to a
potential safety issue with the applicator that could arise if the
instructions for use were not properly followed."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.06, or nearly 22%,
to close at $11.01 per share on June 30, 2020.

The complaint, filed on July 14, 2020, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
the Company's proprietary applicator used for VP-102 posed certain
safety risks if the instructions were not properly followed; (2)
that, as a result, Verrica would incorporate certain user features
to mitigate the safety risk; (3) that the addition of the user
feature would require additional testing for stability supportive
data; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, regulatory approval
for VP-102 was reasonably likely to be delayed; and (5) that, as a
result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

For more information on the Verrica class action go to:
https://bespc.com/VRCA [GN]


VILLAGE IN TIMES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Soto Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE MANUEL XITUMUL SOTO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. THE VILLAGE IN TIMES SQUARE LLC (D/B/A JOE'S
PIZZA), GIOVANNI CAROLLO, and ARTEMIO CIELO, Case No. 1:20-cv-05463
(S.D.N.Y., July 16, 2020), alleges that the Plaintiff worked for
the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week without appropriate
minimum wage, overtime wage, and spread of hours compensation for
the hours that he worked.

Rather, the Plaintiff alleges, the Defendants failed to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the
Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium.

The Plaintiff contends that he was ostensibly employed as a
delivery worker. However, he was required to spend a considerable
part of his work day performing non-tipped duties, including
cutting vegetables, stocking soda, cleaning the restaurant,
bathroom and basement, stocking deliveries in the basement,
bringing up items from the basement, cleaning the pizza making
area, dishwashing, taking out the garbage, and preparing sauce (the
non-tipped duties).

The Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a pizzeria, located
at 1435 Broadway, in New York City, under the name "Joe's
Pizza."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WALGREEN CO: Le Appeals C.D. Cal. Order in Labor Suit to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Marcie Le and Karen Dao filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Marcie Le, et al. v. Walgreen Co, et
al., Case No. 8:18-cv-01548-DOC-ADS, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Santa Ana.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 18,
2020, the Hon. Judge David O. Carter entered an order denying the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of:

   "all persons who are and/or were employed as non-exempt
    pharmacists by Walgreens in any Walgreens' California retail
    store or express pharmacy between July 27, 2014 and the date
    of trial."

The Court said, "Given that the Plaintiffs' rest break claim does
not survive the predominance analysis, the Plaintiffs' derivative
claims are also not appropriate for class certification. In sum,
the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have not met the burden of
demonstrating that the California Class satisfy the requirements of
[Fed.R.Civ.P.] 23(a) and 23(b)(3). The Plaintiffs' Motion is denied
as to the derivative claims."

The Plaintiffs bring class claims for the Defendants' failure to
provide rest periods, or premium pay in lieu thereof; and failure
to provide complete and accurate wage statements under California
Labor Code.

The appellate case is captioned as Marcie Le, et al. v. Walgreen
Co, et al., Case No. 20-55743, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellants Karen Dao and Marcie Le's Mediation
      Questionnaire is due on July 29, 2020;

   -- Appellants Karen Dao and Marcie Le's opening brief is due
      on September 24, 2020;

   -- Appellees Walgreen Co, Walgreen Pharmacy Services Midwest,
      LLC and Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.'s answering brief is
      due on October 26, 2020; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants MARCIE LE and KAREN DAO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Lin Yee Chan, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO
          300 Lakeside Drive
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 763-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 835-1417
          E-mail: lchan@lchb.com

               - and -

          Daniel Morris Hutchinson, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          E-mail: dhutchinson@lchb.com

Defendants-Appellees WALGREEN CO, an Illinois corporation; WALGREEN
PHARMACY SERVICES MIDWEST, LLC, an Illinois limited liability
company; and WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC., a Delaware
corporation, are represented by:

          Christopher John Archibald, Esq.
          Allison Eckstrom, Esq.
          Karina Lo, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
          3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1500
          Irvine, CA 92612-4414
          Telephone: (949) 223-7341
          E-mail: christopher.archibald@bclplaw.com
                  allison.eckstrom@bclplaw.com


WESTON TERRACE: Thomas Rogers Files Class Action Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------
Thomson Rogers has issued a class action proceeding claiming $15
million in damages on behalf of residents of Weston Terrace Care
Community and their families.

Weston Terrace is a long-term care home owned by Sienna Senior
Living Inc., located on Lawrence Avenue West in Toronto, Ontario.
Since the outbreak of COVID-19 in April, dozens of residents at
Weston Terrace have died as a result of contracting COVID-19 and
related illnesses and neglect.

Jocelyn and Tara Barrows are the representative plaintiffs.
Jocelyn's mother and Tara's grandmother, Dorritt Paul, was a
resident at Weston Terrace. Dorritt died while residing at Weston
Terrace on May 16, 2020 after contracting COVID-19. Dorritt is
survived by 7 children, 12 grandchildren and 11
great-grandchildren.

"This is the third action Thomson Rogers has advanced on behalf of
residents at a Sienna Senior Living facility. Weston Terrace is yet
another tragic example of a for-profit long-term care home failing
our vulnerable elderly population," said Stephen Birman a partner
involved in the class actions.

It is alleged that Weston Terrace failed to implement screening
measures of its staff and basic social distancing practices. It is
also alleged that since the outbreak, there was severe
under-staffing at Weston Terrace and a failure to provide basic
care to the residents, resulting in neglect, illness and death.  

Jocelyn, Tara and their family, as well as other families of the
victims and survivors of Weston Terrace, seek compensation for
their tragic losses. In addition, they support the proposed
independent commission into Ontario's long-term care system, which
they hope will result in meaningful change to ensure that a tragedy
like this is never repeated in Ontario's vulnerable long-term care
population.

For further information regarding this claim, please contact
Stephen Birman at Thomson, Rogers at -- sbirman@thomsonrogers.com
-- or Lucy Jackson at -- ljackson@thomsonrogers.com [GN]


WIRECARD AG: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 8 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 Wirecard AG.

Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about the case
can be found at the link provided.

Wirecard AG (Other OTC: WCAGY, WRCDF)

Class Period: August 17, 2015 to June 24, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 8, 2020

On June 18, 2020, Wirecard announced that it would delay
publication of its annual and consolidated financial statements for
2019 and revealed that about EUR1.9 billion ($2.1 billion) in cash
had gone missing.  The Company also warned that loans up to EUR2
billion could be terminated.  Additionally, the Company stated that
Ernst & Young, the Company's auditor, was unable to confirm the
location of the cash in certain trust accounts and there was
evidence that "spurious balance confirmations" had been provided.

Following the Company's announcement, Wirecard's American
depositary receipts ("ADRs") fell $38.30 per ADR, or 65.47%, to
close at $20.20 per ADR on June 18, 2020.

Then, on June 23, 2020, multiple news outlets reported that former
Wirecard Chief Executive Officer Markus Braun was arrested in
Germany on suspicion of having inflated the Company's balance sheet
and sales.  

Wirecard's ADR price has fallen over 75% following these
revelations.

The complaint, filed on July 7, 2020, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants, including the Company's auditor, made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) Wirecard overstated its cash balances during the Class Period,
falsely claiming EUR1.9 billion of cash in a trust account that was
missing; (2) Wirecard overstated its financial results, including
revenue and EBITDA; (3) Wirecard did not have adequate risk
management or countermeasures; (4) Wirecard's auditor failed to
audit the Company in accordance with applicable auditing
principles; and (5) as a result, defendants' statements about
Wirecard's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.

For more information on the Wirecard class action go to:
https://bespc.com/wirecard [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 ***