/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200730.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, July 30, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 152

                            Headlines

ADAMS CONSTRUCTORS: Herrera Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ALLERGAN PLC: Anderson Sues Over Defective Breast Implants
ALPARSLAN LLC: Jairam Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iTunes Gift Card Scam
BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Kahn Swick Reminds of Sept. 14 Deadline

BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Schall Law Announces Class Action Filing
BEAUMONT ETIQUETTE: Winegard Files Suit in New York
BLUE CROSS: Davenport Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT for Consultants
BLUE II ENTERTAINMENT: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid OT & Tip Skimming
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Rosen Law Reminds of Aug. 24 Deadline

BUMBLE TRADING: Reaches Class Action Settlement With Subscribers
CAL WESTERN: Faces Two Class Actions Amid COVID-19 Pandemic
CALIFORNIA INALLIANCE: Court OKs $225K Settlement in Osegueda Suit
CASPER SLEEP: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 18 Deadline
CDM FEDERAL: Gwyan Seeks OT Pay for Staff Under Federal Contract

CHEETAH MOBILE: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Aug. 25 Deadline
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
CHESAPEAKE & DELAWARE: Servers Class Cond. Certified in Reynolds
COMMERCIAL FINANCE: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Calls
COOL CLOUDS: Faces Class Actions Over Puff Bar Products

CREDIT BUREAU: Objections to Discovery Order in Kang Suit Denied
CROSSROADS HOSPICE: Freeman Seeks Proper OT Pay for Hospice Aides
CU FOUNDATION: Faces Class Action Over Investment Returns
DMO AUTO: Sends Unsolicited Robocalls, Demars Claims
EDDIE BAUER: Offers False Discounts to Consumers, Clark Alleges

EL GUACAMOLE: Faces Rojas Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
ELANCO ANIMAL: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Investors of Lawsuit
ENPHASE ENERGY: Claimsfiler Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
ENPHASE ENERGY: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
ESTEE LAUDER: Mismanaged 401(K) Savings Plan, Gandy Claims

FELIX ENERGY: Holbrook Sues Over Unpaid OT, Misclassification
FIRST NATIONS: Class Action Launched Over Safe Drinking Water
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Claimsfiler Reminds of Aug. 10 Deadline
FRANCHISE GROUP: Labrado vs JTH Tax Underway
GENERAL MOTORS: Holguin Suit Transferred to Michigan

GOOGLE INC: Faces Privacy Class Action Over Android Apps
GREENVILLE, NC: Summary Judgment in Favor of Greenville Reversed
GROCERY DELIVERY: Can't Compel Arbitration in Murray TCPA Suit
GROLAWN INC: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Wilson Claims
H F DOLLAR: Faces Lopez et al. Suit Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime

HAMILTON BEACH: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Securities Lawsuit
HEALTH EXPRESS: Ogletree Attorneys Discuss FAA Court Ruling
HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law Reminds of Aug. 10 Motion Deadline
HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Schall Law Investigates Securities Claims
HOLYOKE SOLDIERS' HOME: Faces Civil Rights Class Action Lawsuit

HOT POT: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid OT, Rest Break & Shift Premium
HV OCCUPATIONAL: Misclassifies Paramedics, Rapp Claims
IDEANOMICS INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Aug. 27 Deadline
J2 GLOBAL: Hagens Berman Reminds of Sept. 18 Plaintiff Deadline
JENNER'S POND: Macloud Suit Transferred to Pa. Dist. Ct.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Narrows Claims in Hernandez Class Suit
KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY: KC Law Firm Seeks Tuition Reimbursement
KANSAS: Implements Changes Following 2018 Foster Care Settlement
KINGOLD JEWELRY: Rosen Law Reminds of Aug. 31 Plaintiff Deadline
KIRKLAND LAKE: Dean Paul Alleges Misleading Securities Statements

KIRKLAND LAKE: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 28 Deadline
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Sosa Alleges
LENNAR INC: Judge Yet to Decide on Bayview Hunters Residents Suit
LENNY JOHNS PIZZERIA: Quizhpi Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
LONGVIEW ER: Misclassifies Massage Therapists, Davis et al Claim

MICHIGAN STATE POLICE: Ruling Lets Class-Action Bias Suits Proceed
MIDWEST MEDICAL: Underpays Employees, Reust Claims
MODANI DALLAS: Underpays Inside Sale Employees, Juarez Claims
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Gets Subpoena as Part of Federal Class Action
MOTION PICTURE HEALTH: IATSE Members File ERISA Class Action

MYLAN N.V.: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of August 25 Filing Deadline
NANUSHKA US: Guglielmo Seeks Website Access for Blind Buyers
NEW YORK: Class of Inmates With Disabilities in Johnson Certified
NEW YORK: Gallagher et al. Sue Over Voter Disenfranchisement
NINE POINT ENERGY: Lewis Files Suit in North Dakota

NO TAX 4 NASH: Elrod et al. Sue Over Recall Petition Robocalls
NORITAKE CO: Blind Can't Fully Use & Enjoy Website, Guglielmo Says
OKLAHOMA: Indian Tribe Members Sue over Traffic Fines
ONEIDA GROUP: Blind Buyers Can't Use Website, Guglielmo Alleges
ORLANS PC: Court Dismisses Garland Class Suit

PACHA SOAP: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Guglielmo Says
PEMBER COMPANIES: O'Bryan Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Laborers
PHOENIX, AZ: COVID19 Relief Bias vs Immigrants, Poder et al. Say
PINPOINT PAINTING: Fails to Pay Overtime, Harrison et al Claim
PLAID INC: Illegally Collects Bank Data,  Evans et al. Allege

PLAID: Denies Privacy Class Action Allegations
PLAID: Faces Another Class Action Over Privacy Violation
PRO WELD: Ozuna Seeks Proper OT Pay for Assembly Workers
PROASSURANCE CORP: Scott+Scott Attorneys Announces Class Action
PROASSURANCE CORPORATION: Scott+Scott Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline

PROTECH SOLUTIONS: Faces Class Action Over PUA Claims Handling
RUBIN AND ROTHMAN: Goldklang Asserts Breach of FDCPA
SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CA: Court Dismisses Freeman with Leave to Amend
SANTA BARBARA, CA: Settles Class Action Over Jail Conditions
SELECT HOTELS: Mirabueno Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Meal & Rest Breaks

SURFSIDE COFFEE: Duffey Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation
TACOS EL PAISA: Basurto Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT for Restaurant Staff
TORO FOODS: Leon Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TWITTER: Faces Suit on Cryptocurrency Advertising Ban in Australia
U.S. OIL FUND: Pomerantz Investigates Securities Claims

UNITED STATES OIL: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 18 Deadline
UNITED STATES: Firm Releases Full Report in Class-Action v. DETR
UNITED STATES: Kirkland & Ellis Helps Secure ICE Class Suit Win
UNITED STATES: Settlement Fund to Bolster Tribal Agriculture Cos.
UNITED STATES: Two Immigrants Sue Over Citizenship, Right to Vote

WALGREEN CO: Eidmann Sues Over False Infants' Acetaminophen Label
WELLS FARGO: Claimsfiler Reminds of Aug. 14 Deadline
WELLS FARGO: Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Announces Class Action
WESTPAC: Maurice Blackburn Launches Class Action
WWE: Labaton Says Argument for Dismissal of Class Action Fails

XTO ENERGY: Lewis Files Suit in North Dakota
[*] Class Action Crackdown May Hit Farmers' Fight for Justice
[*] Court Dismisses Class Action Against 16 Auto Insurers
[*] Litigation Financing Can Provide Benefits to Minn. Businesses
[*] New Consumer Rights Law May Bring Little Change

[*] Spilman Thomas Attorneys Discuss COVID-19 Class Action Trend

                            *********

ADAMS CONSTRUCTORS: Herrera Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
NELSON HERRERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ADAMS CONSTRUCTORS, INC. and JOHN ADAMS,
Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-02497 (S.D. Tex., July 15, 2020)
brings this complaint against Defendants for their alleged willful
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a construction worker from
November 2012 until June 22, 2020.

Plaintiff claims that instead of paying him overtime pay for all
the hours he worked in excess of 40 per workweek, Defendant paid
him straight time. Allegedly, Defendants applied the same unlawful
policy to their other construction workers regardless of the
overtime hours they worked.

John Adams owns and operates Adams Constructors, Inc.

Adams Constructors, Inc. provides asphalt paving services. [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
          Tel: 713-868-3388
          Fax: 713-683-9940
          Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
                 vijay@buenkerlaw.com


ALLERGAN PLC: Anderson Sues Over Defective Breast Implants
----------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALLERGAN PLC, now known as ABBVIE, INC.;
ALLERGAN, INC.; ALLERGAN USA, INC.; and DOES 1-100, Defendants,
Case No. 2:20-cv-09000 (D.N.J., July 16, 2020) alleges that the
Defendants are engaged in unlawful practices of advertising,
labeling, and marketing of Allergan's BIOCELL breast implants.

The Defendants' wrongful conducts include: (a) failure to
manufacture the BIOCELL line in accordance with intended and
approved design specifications and processes, thereby rendering the
product defective; (b) failure to warn physicians, and as a result
patients, about serious health risks; (c) deliberate concealment,
misrepresentation and obstruction of public and regulatory
awareness of serious health risks; (d) failure to complete
mandatory studies necessary to determine the safety, reliability
and effectiveness of its products and to otherwise comply with
current good manufacturing practices and qualify system regulation;
and (f) failure to utilize reasonable care, all in violation of
state law, which imposed no requirements different from or in
addition to the parallel federal requirements which were similarly
violated.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful conduct, the Plaintiff has
been severely harmed, and has endured pain, suffering, disability,
impairment, disfigurement, increased risk of developing cancer,
loss of enjoyment of life, aggravation or activation of preexisting
conditions, scarring, inconvenience, and incurred costs for medical
care and treatment, loss of wages and wage earning capacity and
other economic and non-economic damages.

Allergan PLC, now known as AbbVie, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical
company, with its principal executive offices in Illinois.

Allergan, Inc. was a U.S. subsidiary of Allergan PLC, a global
pharmaceutical company headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.

Allergan USA, Inc. was a U.S. subsidiary of Allergan PLC, a global
pharmaceutical company headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Dominick R. Smith, Esq.
         David Randolph Smith, Esq.
         DAVID RANDOLPH SMITH & ASSOCIATES
         1913 21st Ave South,
         Nashville, TN 37205
         Telephone: (615) 742-1775
         Facsimile: (615) 742-1223
         E-mail: dom@drslawfirm.com
                 drs@drslawfirm.com

ALPARSLAN LLC: Jairam Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------
ANITA JAIRAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALPARSLAN, LLC d/b/a UPTOWN CHEAPSKATE
OAKLAND PARK, a Limited Liability Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-20-011336 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. Ct., July 14, 2020) is a class
action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff received unsolicited text
messages to his cellular telephone number from Defendant on or
about May 27, 2020, May 30, 2020, and July 1, 2020. Allegedly,
Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging by using an
automatic telephone dialing system to promote its clothing sales
company with no regards for consumers' privacy rights and no prior
express consent from consumers, including Plaintiff, to receive
such texts.

Alparslan, LLC d/b/a Uptown Cheapskate Oakland Park operates a
clothing company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
          IJH LAW
          1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950
          Miami, FL 33131
          Tel: 786-496-4469
          Email: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com

                - and –

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Tel: 954-400-4713
          Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iTunes Gift Card Scam
--------------------------------------------------------
Patently Apple reports that an 11-count Class Action has been filed
against Apple and Apple Value Services by seven Apple customers.
The group claims that Apple knowingly or recklessly enabled an
iTunes gift card scam. All those listed as bringing the Class
Action forward were victims of the iTunes gift card scam. The
Plaintiffs state that Apple falsely tells victims that 100% of
their money lost in the scam is irretrievable and this isn't true.
Further, the lawsuit claims that Apple has retained hundreds of
millions of dollars in commissions in this scam that should be paid
back to those who were victims in this highly sophisticated iTunes
Gift Card Scam.

"This case arises from Apple's knowing or reckless enabling of the
'iTunes gift card scam.' Scammers have found a uniform way of
tricking victims into paying them large sums of money via iTunes
gift cards. Apple is incentivized to allow the scam to continue
because it reaps a 30% commission on all scammed proceeds, and
knowingly or recklessly, Apple plays a vital role in the scheme by
failing to prevent payouts to the scammers.

The iTunes gift card scam preys upon many, including the elderly
and vulnerable. It is prevalent. Apple dedicates a webpage to it,
but apparently does little more. Perhaps most alarming, Apple
describes the scam as "formulaic," yet does little to stop it or to
return its 30% commission to scammed victims (much less other
moneys that Apple can recover from the scammers).

Despite the fact that Apple retains the funds from purchases made
using iTunes gift cards for four to six weeks before paying App and
iTunes store vendors and keeps a 30% commission on scammed
proceeds, Apple's webpage and other communications falsely inform
the public that all scammed proceeds are irretrievable:

A string of scams are taking place asking people to make payments
over the phone for things such as taxes, hospital bills, bail
money, debt collection, and utility bills.

Regardless of the reason for payment, the scam follows a certain
formulaic: The victim receives a call instilling panic and urgency
to make a payment by purchasing App Store& iTunes Gift Cards or
Apple Store Gift Cards from the nearest retailer (convenience
store, electronics retailer, etc.). After the cards have been
purchased, the victim is asked to pay by sharing the code(s) on the
back of the card with the caller over the phone.

Never provide the numbers on the back of a Gift Card to someone you
do not know. Once those numbers are provided to the scammers, the
funds on the card will likely be spent before you are able to
contact Apple or law enforcement.

The last sentence is highly misleading, and falsely suggests that
there is nothing Apple can do for consumers who report the scam to
it. Apple retains 30% of the spent funds for itself. At all times,
this amount remains retrievable to the consumer. Apple holds the
remaining spent funds for four to six weeks before paying the
third-party vendors on the App and iTunes stores on which the
stored value was spent, meaning the remainder is also retrievable
to the consumer.

The iTunes gift card scam deprives consumers of hundreds of
millions of dollars or more. The overwhelming majority of victims
do not report the scam to the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"). Yet
even the limited iTunes gift card scams reported to the FTC during
2015-2019 exceed $93.5 million, with the dollar amounts increasing
significantly each year. These publicly reported dollar amounts
include the losses of only the subset of victims who fill out a
detailed online FTC form asking for their personal information. As
a result, this $93.5 million figure appears to be only the tip of
the iceberg. Even if only 10% of scam victims report to the FTC
(versus local police, attorney general offices, Apple, or nobody at
all), the iTunes gift card scam would approach $1 billion, with
Apple retaining $300 million in commissions.

As set forth in detail below, scammers monetize scammed gift card
values in one of two ways. First, they can use the stored value on
the iTunes gift cards they obtain through scams to purchase App and
iTunes store content for apps that they control. Using this method,
scammers receive payment from Apple (less Apple's 30% commission)
four to six weeks after spending the stored value from the
wrongfully obtained iTunes gift cards. Apple has shut down apps for
violating its fraud policies, begging the question of what happened
to the fraudulently obtained proceeds. Second, scammers can sell
the gift card numbers to third parties who then use them to
purchase App store or iTunes products, but this latter method
involves significant counterparty risk and steep discounts.
Regardless of which method the scammers use, Apple keeps 30% of the
scammed proceeds.

Not only does Apple keep 30% of the scammed proceeds, it is able to
track all key points in the scheme. Apple has long bragged about
its App Store "ecosystem." The App Store is a marketplace created
by Apple, over which it has full control, and into which it has
full visibility. There are four key steps in the iTunes gift card
scam:

Step One: The Point of Sale. Apple knows when, where, and in what
amount the victim purchases the gift card. At the point of sale,
the retailer must communicate with Apple to "activate" the gift
card and record the stored value.

Step Two: The Apple ID Upload. Apple knows the Apple ID onto which
the gift card number is uploaded. An Apple ID is a unique Apple
"account" identifier through which customers on the App and iTunes
stores transact. Apple iTunes gift card numbers must be uploaded to
an Apple ID before being used in the App and iTunes stores. The
amounts associated with these gift card numbers are referred to as
"stored value" or "stored credit." Apple reserves the right to void
the stored value if it merely "suspects" that the store credit was
obtained fraudulently.

Step Three: Spending Stored Value on an App. Apple also knows where
the Apple ID spends stored value in the App store ecosystem because
each purchase must be made from an Apple ID.

Step Four: Payment of U.S. Dollars (Less Commission). Apple knows
the identity and financial account information of the App and
iTunes store proprietors who receive U.S. dollars from the gift
card purchases because, four to six weeks after the purchase, Apple
sends them the U.S. dollars (minus Apple's commission).

Reverse Mapping. If a victim calls Apple and provides the gift card
number that was scammed, Apple can use the gift card number to find
out which Apple ID(s) and which App or iTunes products were
involved in converting the scammed gift card number into U.S.
dollars.

Apple can also interrogate the Apple ID and the App and iTunes
transactional data to determine if there were other suspect
transactions and, if so, suspend the Apple ID and the App. At
minimum, Apple knows that it has kept 30% of the scammed gift card
value.

Rather than publicizing its omniscience in this Apple "ecosystem"
and its 30% take, Apple, as noted above, falsely tells victims that
100% of their money is irretrievable.

Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves and an
objectively identifiable class consisting of all victims of scams
involving Apple iTunes gift cards.

Class Action Causes

Count 1: Violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act

Count 2: Violation of the California Unfair Competition Law

Count 3: Violation of the California False Advertising Law

Count 4: Breach of Contract

Count 5: Money Had and Received/Unjust Enrichment/Restitution

Count 6: Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair
Dealing

Count 7: Aiding and Abetting Intentional Torts

Count 8: Violation of the California Elder Abuse Law

Count 9: Violation of the Elder Abuse Laws of Other States

Count 10: Violation of the Oregon Elder and Disability Abuse
Prevention Act

Count 11: Declaratory Judgment [GN]


BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Kahn Swick Reminds of Sept. 14 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until September 14, 2020 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Bayer
Aktiengesellschaft - (OTC: BAYRY), if they purchased the Company's
American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") between May 23, 2016 and
March 19, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").  This action is
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

What You May Do

If you purchased ADRs of Bayer and would like to discuss your legal
rights and how this case might affect you and your right to recover
for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you,
contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850
or via email lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com, or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/otc-bayry/ to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by September 14, 2020.

                       About the Lawsuit

Bayer and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On June 7, 2018, the Company completed its acquisition of Monsanto,
known for its flagship weed killer product, Roundup, despite broad
and protracted litigation pending against it in state and federal
courts alleging cancerous conditions caused by exposure to the
product and its failure to warn of the toxic effects. On March 19,
2019, in the first federal case filed against Monsanto to proceed
to trial, the jury found that the plaintiff's "exposure to Roundup
was a substantial factor in causing his non-Hodgkin's lymphoma."

On this news, the price of Bayer's shares declined.

The case is City of Grand Rapids General Retirement System and City
of Grand Rapids Police & Fire Retirement System v. Bayer
Aktiengesellschaft, 20-cv-04737.

                 About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, whose partners include former Louisiana
Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's
premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a
variety of clients – including public institutional investors,
hedge funds, money managers and retail investors – in seeking to
recover investment losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California
and Louisiana. [GN]

BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Schall Law Announces Class Action Filing
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Bayer
Aktiengesellschaft ("Bayer" or "the Company") (OTC: BAYRY, BAYZF)
for violations of Sec. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between May 23,
2016 and March 19, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 14, 2020.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Bayer failed to disclose that the
acquisition of Monsanto would cause the Company to suffer from
exposure to massive judgements and reputational damage if lawsuits
related to Monsanto's Roundup product were successful. The
Company's positive statements about the prospects of the Monsanto
acquisition and the benefits it would create were false. Based on
these facts, the Company's public statements throughout the class
period were false and materially misleading. When the market
learned the truth about Bayer, investors suffered damages. [GN]

BEAUMONT ETIQUETTE: Winegard Files Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beaumont Etiquette,
LLC. The case is styled as Jay Winegard, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Beaumont Etiquette,
Llc, doing business as: Beaumont Etiquette, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-03146-RPK-PK (E.D. N.Y., July 15, 2020).

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

Beaumont Etiquette, LLC is a distinguished, modern consultancy,
offering inspiring courses in British, Continental European and
American etiquette.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mitchell Segal, Esq.
   Law Offices of Mitchell Segal P.C.
   1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 208
   Great Neck, NY 11021
   Tel: (516) 415-0100
   Fax: (516) 706-6631
   Email: msegal@segallegal.com


BLUE CROSS: Davenport Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT for Consultants
------------------------------------------------------------
KARA R. DAVENPORT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD
ASSOCIATION and SCOTT SEROTA, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04223
(N.D. Ill., July 17, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law, the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, and
the City of Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated consultants straight
time for hours worked between 37.5 and 40 hours and also failed to
pay them overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an associate
consultant at the association's office in Chicago, Illinois since
2013.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association is a national association of
approximately 36 independent, community-based and locally operated
BlueCross BlueShield companies, with its principal place of
business located at 225 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Margherita M. Albarello, Esq.
         DI MONTE & LIZAK, LLC
         216 W. Higgins Road
         Park Ridge, IL 60068
         Telephone: (847) 698-9600
         Facsimile: (847) 698-9624
         E-mail: malbarello@dimontelaw.com

BLUE II ENTERTAINMENT: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid OT & Tip Skimming
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, BONNIE GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BLUE II ENTERTAINMENT, INC. D/B/A MAXIMUS;
ARTHUR GAONA; and LEO BAZAN, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-00101-O
(N.D. Tex., July 24, 2020), arises from the Defendants' violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act including failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated dancers and
entertainers the required minimum wage and overtime pay for all
hours worked; failure to notify them about the tip credit
allowance, including the amount to be credited, before the credit
was utilized; and failure to maintain their employees' records of
wages, fines, fees, tips and gratuities and/or service charges paid
or received.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a dancer at Maximus
facility in Wichita Falls, Texas from January 2017 to April 2020.

Blue II Entertainment, Inc., d/b/a Maximus, is an operator of an
adult-oriented entertainment facility located at 2410 Seymour
Highway, Wichita Falls, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
         W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
         Leigh Montgomery, Esq.
         HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
         1105 Milford Street
         Houston, TX 77006
         Telephone: (713) 554-2377
         Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
         E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com
                 craft@hughesellzey.com
                 leigh@hughesellzey.com

BROOKDALE SENIOR: Rosen Law Reminds of Aug. 24 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Brookdale Senior Living, Inc.
(NYSE: BKD) between August 10, 2016 and April 29, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), of the important August 24, 2020 lead
plaintiff deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Brookdale investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Brookdale class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1864.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) Brookdale's financial performance was sustained by, among
other things, the Company's purposeful understaffing of its senior
living communities; (2) the foregoing conduct subjected Brookdale
to an increased risk of litigation and, once revealed, was
foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on
Brookdale's financial results and reputation; (3) Brookdale's
financial results were unsustainable; and (4) as a result,
defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market,
the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 24,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1864.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         e-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 cases@rosenlegal.com [GN]

BUMBLE TRADING: Reaches Class Action Settlement With Subscribers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bumble Trading Inc. and Bumble Holding Ltd. and proposed classes of
Bumble Boost purchasers said that they have reached a proposed
settlement to resolve a consumer class action.

The lawsuit claims that Bumble's Terms & Conditions, which state
that New York law applies to all Bumble users nationwide, violated
a New York law that provides consumers who purchase "social
referral services" with a three-day "cooling-off period," during
which a user has a right to a refund upon cancellation. The lawsuit
also alleges that Bumble's auto-renewal practices violated
California law.  Bumble denies that it is a "social referral
service" under the New York law, denies that it violated
California's auto-renewal law, and denies all other allegations
against it.

On July 15, 2020, U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Nathanael
Cousins granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and
preliminarily certified two classes for settlement purposes only: a
Nationwide Class of all persons who purchased a subscription to
Bumble Boost in the United States between November 13, 2014 and
July 15, 2020 and a California Class of all persons who purchased
Bumble Boost in California and were charged auto-renewal fees
during this same time period.

If the settlement is finally approved by the Court, Bumble will
make a payment into a settlement fund and will make certain changes
in its purchase process and refund policy. [GN]

CAL WESTERN: Faces Two Class Actions Amid COVID-19 Pandemic
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mari Payton, writing for NBC San Diego, reports that in the wake of
the COVID-19 pandemic, students are having to adjust to a new
normal, but some law students at Cal Western School of Law are now
suing their school.

After learning about rising tuition costs, Cal Western Law student
Emily Casillas started a petition.

"We felt like our education is diminishing," she said.

She said the quality of her now-distance learning education varies
from professor to professor, but she doesn't think pre-recorded
lectures are effective.

"It's wild to think that a year from now, I am supposed to be
taking the bar exam and I am teaching myself the law," she said.

Two class-action lawsuits were recently filed against Cal Western
by its own students. They are suing for breach of contract and
unjust enrichment, among other things.

While students acknowledge the effects of the pandemic on their
education, they are upset about paying full tuition and fees, and
the rise in tuition this upcoming fall.

"We spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on student loans to go
to school, so we want to know what we are paying for," Casillas
said. "We pay for access to facilities and resources on campus and
we are not allowed in any of these buildings."

But Dean Niels Schaumann said they are doing everything they can to
provide the best possible services to students under severe
pandemic restrictions.

In a statement to NBC 7, the Dean said, "Due to the State and
County closure mandates, we are currently not permitted to open our
campus facilities and library to anyone, with the exception of
those individuals designated as essential personnel," continued
Schaumann. "As soon as the State and County health departments
allow, we will reopen our facilities for individual and small group
study, and we have a plan in place for the safe reopening of our
campus -- once we are legally permitted to do so."

The statement also tells NBC 7 the school is investing heavily in
technology and training, and have hired new faculty members.

"Like almost all California law schools, California Western did
post a tuition increase for fall 2020 but the percent increase this
year is the same as it has been for the last few years and is less
than many other California schools," said Schaumann.

"Even after the increase, Cal Western's tuition remains below the
median for California ABA-approved law schools."

"California Western's commitment to the education and welfare of
our students always has been, and will remain, our top priority.
This unprecedented pandemic will not shake our resolve to keep
delivering on that promise," stated Schaumann. [GN]


CALIFORNIA INALLIANCE: Court OKs $225K Settlement in Osegueda Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued a Memorandum and Order granting Plaintiff's
Unopposed Motions for Final Approval of the Parties' Class Action
Settlement in the case captioned JOSEPH OSEGUEDA, individually and
on behalf of all similarly situated and/or aggrieved employees of
Defendants in the State of California, Plaintiff, v. NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA INALLIANCE; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants. No. 18-cv-00835 WBS EFB. (E.D. Cal.).

The parties agree to a gross settlement fund of $225,000. The total
net settlement fund is estimated to be $116,043.42, following
distribution of the gross amount as follows:

     (1) $75,000 for class counsel fees;

     (2) $8,869.33 for litigation costs;

     (3) $5,000 for plaintiff as an incentive award;

     (4) $8,801.25 for ILYM's administration fees;

     (5) $8,473.50 for California Labor & Workforce Development
Agency payments; and

     (6) $2,812.50 in allocations under the Private Attorneys
General Act.

Osegueda alleges that the Defendant Northern California InAlliance
violated state and federal wage and hour laws.

To determine the fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the
agreement, the court must consider a number of factors, including:
Strength of the plaintiff's case; the risk, expense, complexity,
and likely duration of further litigation; the risk of maintaining
class action status throughout the trial; the amount offered in
settlement; the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the
proceedings; the experience and views of counsel; the presence of a
governmental participant; and the reaction of the class members to
the proposed settlement.

Strength of the Plaintiff's Case

One particularly important consideration is the strength of
plaintiff's case on the merits compared to the settlement amount
offered. The court, however, is not required to resolve the
underlying merits, for it is the very uncertainty of outcome in
litigation and avoidance of wastefulness and expensive litigation
that induce consensual settlements.

Although plaintiff maintains his claims are meritorious and he
would have prevailed at trial, he acknowledges that defendant
possesses legitimate defenses to both liability and class
certification.  For example, plaintiff's main claim for failure to
pay overtime wages for hours worked during sleep time and the ninth
hour of the workday would be precluded if InAlliance is exempt from
California's Domestic Worker Bill of Rights, as defendant contends.


The court finds the proposed settlement is a fair resolution of the
issues in this case and will prevent potential uncertainty. This
factor weighs in favor of settlement.

Risk, Expense, Complexity, and Further Litigation

Formal discovery in this case is still in its early stages. Absent
settlement, the parties most likely would have had to litigate
class certification and summary judgment, both of which would cause
additional expense and substantially reduce, delay, or eliminate
class members' recovery. Furthermore, defendant would have been
likely to appeal a favorable judgment for plaintiff, resulting in
further expense and exacerbating defendant's potential bankruptcy.
This factor also weighs in favor of settlement.

Risk of Maintaining Class Action Status

If this case had proceeded to trial, plaintiff admittedly would
have faced several risks regarding the maintenance of class status,
mostly in regard to his off-the-clock claims. Plaintiff also
acknowledges that, if the parties had continued to litigate this
matter, defendant could have moved to decertify the FLSA collective
action at any time prior to trial.  This factor also weighs in
favor of settlement.

Amount Offered in the Settlement

In assessing the amount offered in settlement, it is the complete
package taken as a whole, rather than the individual component
parts, that must be examined for overall fairness.  The settlement
avoids the potential to incur great litigation expenses for both
parties and provides a non-insignificant benefit to class members.
In light of the risks and expense of further litigation, the court
finds the settlement amount to be fair and adequate.

Extent of Discovery Completed

While formal discovery in this action had only begun, settlement
discussions between the two parties occurred after exchanging
substantial relevant information and engaging in extensive
arms-length negotiations under the supervision of David L.
Perrault, a mediator well-versed in wage and hour class action
matters.  

Given the plaintiff's sophisticated representation and the parties'
joint agreement that the settlement reached was the product of
arms-length bargaining, the court finds the discovery conducted
adequately informed the settlement negotiation.  

Experience and Views of Counsel

When approving class action settlements, the court must give
considerable weight to class counsel's opinions due to counsel's
familiarity with the litigation and its previous experience with
class action lawsuits.

Plaintiff has provided evidence that class counsel has substantial
experience in prosecuting class actions, including employment
actions and wage-and-hour matters. Based on his experience,
plaintiff's counsel believes the proposed settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate to the class under the circumstances, as
it reflects a reasoned compromise which not only takes into
consideration the inherent risks in wage and hour class litigation,
but the various issues in this case which had the potential to
substantially reduce or completely eliminate recovery by class
members.

This factor supports approval of the settlement agreement.

Presence of Government Participant

No governmental entity participated in this matter. Accordingly,
this factor is irrelevant to the court's analysis.

Reaction of the Class Members to the Settlement

Not a single class member submitted requests for exclusion prior to
the June 16, 2020 deadline. No class members have objected to the
settlement. This factor weighs in favor of the court's approval of
the settlement.

The court finds that the settlement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

A full-text copy of the District Court’s July 20, 2020 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://is.gd/KPbzwB from Leagle.com


CASPER SLEEP: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 18 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Casper Sleep Inc. (NYSE: CSPR)
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering
conducted on or about February 7, 2020 (the "IPO" or "Offering") of
the important August 18, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the
federal securities class action first filed by the firm. The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Casper investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Casper class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1871.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, the Offering Documents contained false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Casper's profit margins were actually declining, rather than
growing; (2) Casper was changing an important distribution partner,
costing it 130 basis points of gross margin in the first quarter of
2020 alone; (3) Casper was holding a glut of old and outdated
mattress inventory that it was selling at steeply discounted
clearance prices, further impairing the Company's profitability;
(4) Casper was suffering accelerating losses, further placing its
ability to achieve positive cash flows and profitability out of
reach; (5) Casper's core operations were not profitable, but were
causing the Company to suffer over $40 million in negative cash
flows during the first quarter of 2020 alone and doubling its
quarterly net loss year over year; (6) as a result of the
foregoing, Casper's ability to achieve profitability, implement its
growth initiatives, and expand internationally had been
misrepresented in the Offering Documents, as the Company needed to
shutter its European operations, halt all international expansion,
jettison over one fifth of its global corporate workforce, and
significantly curtail new store openings in order to avoid an
imminent cash and liquidity crisis, let alone achieve positive
operating cash flows; and (7) as a result of the foregoing,
Casper's revenue growth rate was not sustainable and had not
positioned the Company to achieve profitability. 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 August 18,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1871.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee a similar outcome.


         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 cases@rosenlegal.com [GN]

CDM FEDERAL: Gwyan Seeks OT Pay for Staff Under Federal Contract
----------------------------------------------------------------
MUNAH GWYAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CDM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 4:20-cv-02613 (S.D. Tex., July 24, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for paying the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated hourly-paid employees straight time for the
recorded overtime hours they worked each week instead of paying
them time-and-a-half for all overtime hours they worked in a
workweek as mandated in the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
employee under federal contracts known as the Public Assistance
Technical Assistance Contract III (PA TAC III) and Public Technical
Assistance Contract IV (PA TAC IV) since 2017.

CDM Federal Programs Corporation is a company that offers
environmental consulting, engineering, construction, and operations
services. It is part of an organization that secured contracts with
the Federal Emergency Management Agency. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
         Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
         SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
         11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 621-2277
         Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
         E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net
                 marbuckle@eeoc.net

CHEETAH MOBILE: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Aug. 25 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP reminds investors of the upcoming
August 25, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
class action filed on behalf of Cheetah Mobile, Inc. ("Cheetah
Mobile" or the "Company") (NYSE: CMCM) investors who purchased
securities between March 25, 2019 and February 20, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

If you suffered a loss on your Cheetah Mobile 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/cheetah-mobile-inc/.
You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

On February 21, 2020, before the market opened, Cheetah Mobile
disclosed that its Google Play Store, Google AdMob, and Google
AdManager accounts were disabled on February 20, 2020 "because some
of the Company's apps had not been compliant with Google policies,
resulting in certain invalid traffic."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.61, or nearly 17%,
to close at $2.99 per share on February 21, 2020, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that certain of Cheetah Mobile's apps were not
compliant with the terms of its agreements with Google; (2) that,
as a result there was a reasonable likelihood that Google would
terminate its advertising contracts with the Company; (3) that, as
a result of the foregoing, the Company's ability to attract new
users would be adversely impacted; (4) that, as a result, the
Company's revenue was reasonably likely to decline; and (5) that 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. [GN]

CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Chembio Diagnostics, Inc. (NASDAQ:
CEMI) between March 12, 2020 and June 16, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), of the important August 17, 2020 lead plaintiff
deadline in the case. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Chembio investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Chembio class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1883.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) Chembio's Dual Path Platform ("DPP") COVID-19 serological
point-of-care test did not provide high-quality results and there
were material performance concerns with the accuracy of the
Company's DPP COVID-19 test; (2) the Company's DPP COVID-19 test
generates a higher than expected rate of false results and higher
than that reflected in the authorized labeling for the device, and
was not effective in detecting antibodies against COVID-19; (3)
accordingly, it was not reasonable to believe that the test may be
effective in detecting antibodies against COVID-19 and, as a
result, there was a material risk to public health from the false
test results; (4) all the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably
likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's
financial results; and (5) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 17,
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-1883.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

         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
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 cases@rosenlegal.com [GN]

CHESAPEAKE & DELAWARE: Servers Class Cond. Certified in Reynolds
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTINA MARY REYNOLDS, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. CHESAPEAKE & DELAWARE BREWING
HOLDINGS, LLC, et al, Civil Action No. 19-2184 (E.D. Pa.), Judge
Juan R. Sanchez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania (i) granted Reynolds' motion for conditional
collective certification pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), and (ii) denied her motion for class certification
pursuant to Rule 23.

Plaintiff Reynolds, a former server at Iron Hill Brewery and
Restaurant, alleges her former employers failed to pay her (and
other servers) the minimum wage because they improperly calculated
her pay using a tip credit for time she spent performing untipped
side work.  Reynolds brings the putative collective and class
action against her former employers, alleging violations of the
FLSA and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA").

Defendants Chesapeake and Iron Hill Brewery, LLC own 16 restaurants
doing business as Iron Hill Brewery & Restaurant.  There are 10
restaurants located in Pennsylvania and the rest are located in New
Jersey, Delaware, and South Carolina.  At each restaurant, the
Defendants employ servers to wait on customers, take orders,
deliver food, and ensure customers enjoy their dining experience.
The Defendants consider servers to be front of house employees who
receive tips directly from customers.

On May 20, 2019, Reynolds filed the class action Complaint against
the Defendants alleging violations of the FLSA because the
Defendants paid her and other servers less than minimum wage for
hours in which she spent performing untipped side work.  She
asserts an identical claim under the PMWA.

On Feb. 5, 2020, Reynolds moved to conditionally certify a
collective "FLSA Class" pursuant to the FLSA.  Her proposed
collective FLSA Class is defined as: All servers who have worked
for Chesapeake & Delaware Brewing Holdings, LLC and Iron Hill
Brewery, LLC at any one or more of their Iron Hill Brewery &
Restaurant locations at any point from May 20, 2016 through the
present.

Reynolds also asks the Court to approve dissemination of notice to
class members and direct the Defendants to produce a list of
contact information for servers employed within the class
definition and paid using a tip credit.

Reynolds also moves for class certification of a "PMWA Class"
pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b).  The proposed PMWA Class is defined
as: All current and former servers who have worked for Iron Hill
Brewery & Restaurants in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania during
the statutory period covered by the Amended Complaint and who do
not opt-out of the action.

The Defendants oppose both motions.

Judge Sanchez holds that Reynolds has made a modest factual showing
that she is similarly situated to other Iron Hill servers to
conditionally certify the FLSA Class as a collective action.
Reynolds has not, however, established predominance as required
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) to certify the PMWA Class.  Accordingly,
the Judge granted Reynolds' motion for conditional collective
certification pursuant to the FLSA but denied her motion for class
certification pursuant to Rule 23.  

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


COMMERCIAL FINANCE: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. COMMERCIAL FINANCE & LEASING BANK OF
CARDIFF, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-06374 (C.D. Cal., July 17, 2020) is an
action brought by the Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated seeking damages and any other available
legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendant in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting
Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and related regulations,
thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number ending in -1083 using automatic telephone dialing system, in
an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's services,
beginning in or around March 2018. Defendant's calls constituted
calls that were not for emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C.
Section 227(b)(1)(A).

Plaintiff's cellular telephone number was added to the National
Do-Not-Call Registry on or about June 4, 2008. Thus, Defendant's
conduct is in violation of the National Do-Not-Call provisions of
the TCPA.

Commercial Finance & Leasing Bank of Cardiff, Inc. is a
California-based business lending company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by;

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com

COOL CLOUDS: Faces Class Actions Over Puff Bar Products
-------------------------------------------------------
Eli Wolfe, writing for Salon, reports that a shadowy e-cigarette
company that has reaped millions of dollars by exploiting a
loophole to sell kid-friendly, flavored nicotine products says it
is suspending sales in the U.S following revelations about its
owners.

Puff Bar, a California-based marketer of disposable e-cigarettes,
announced the sales suspension on July 13 on its website. In a
phone call with FairWarning, the company's Chief Financial Officer
Patrick Beltran confirmed that U.S. sales were being halted until
further notice, but said that international sales would continue
for the time being. Beltran would not give a reason for the move.
Despite the announcement, as of late July 13 the company website
still listed other outlets that sell Puff Bar products.

For months, Puff Bar had cultivated a sense of mystery about its
ownership and operations. But as FairWarning reported on July 9, a
new document filed with the California Secretary of State named
Beltran and Nick Minas, both in their twenties, as CFO and CEO,
respectively.

The document was filed shortly after FairWarning began an
investigation of the company, which was originally registered to a
house owned by Minas' mother in the North Hollywood area of Los
Angeles. FairWarning's story documented Minas' and Beltran's
history of bending rules on e-commerce websites to sell e-cigarette
products.

Even with the disclosure, it's uncertain who really is in control
of Puff Bar, which appears to be connected with other companies in
the U.S. and China. In an interview, Minas and Beltran said that
despite their titles, their job was running the Puff Bar website.
They refused to say who hired them, and claimed not to know
anything about another company that owns trademarks for some of the
Puff Bar products.

Beginning in 2019, Puff Bar rapidly gained popularity with its wide
variety of fruity flavors and sleek design. The company got a giant
boost in January, when the Food and Drug Administration banned most
flavored e-cigarettes but carved out an exemption for disposable
vape devices. Puff Bar, along with a handful of other brands,
quickly capitalized. By April, the company was reportedly making
millions of dollars in sales each week.

Public health advocates, upset by the regulatory loophole, have
asked lawmakers to take action against Puff Bar and other
disposable e-cigarette makers. In June, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi,
an Illinois Democrat, demanded that the FDA ban sales of Puff Bar
products because the company has allegedly targeted children.

Puff Bar is currently the target of at least two lawsuits. On July
1, the Boston-based Public Health Advocacy Institute sued Puff Bar
and its distributor, Cool Clouds Distribution Inc., for allegedly
promoting and selling e-cigarettes to children in Massachusetts. On
the same day, a Florida law firm filed a class action against Cool
Clouds in New Jersey. The complaint alleged that a 17-year-old
became addicted to nicotine by using Puff Bar products. A few days
after FairWarning's story was published, the New Jersey lawsuit was
amended to add Puff Bar, Minas and Beltran as individual
defendants. Beltran said he hadn't seen the latest lawsuit against
his company.

While the Puff Bar website is suspending U.S. sales, Puff Bar
products are still for sale on various e-commerce websites. One of
those is eliquidstop.com, a site owned by Minas and Beltran. On
Reddit, a user who claims to represent the Puff Bar company has
directed confused customers to make purchases at eliquidstop.

Mark Gottlieb, executive director of the Public Health Advocacy
Institute, said he was pleased to learn of the sales suspension,
but worried that "those same highly addictive products will soon be
available under another brand name and the public health community
will be forced into a game of Whack-A-Mole. Ideally, the FDA's
loophole for disposable flavored e-cigarettes should be closed and
closed now, before another disposable brand gains the traction that
Puff Bar managed to do in less six months."

Minas and Beltran appear to have done well for themselves in recent
months. According to public records, they purchased a home in Los
Angeles in early June, and took out a nearly $927,000 mortgage on
the property. [GN]


CREDIT BUREAU: Objections to Discovery Order in Kang Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SUNG GON KANG, Plaintiff, v. CREDIT BUREAU CONNECTION,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-CV-01359-AWI-SKO (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Anthony W. Ishii of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California denied the Defendant's objections to the
Magistrate Judge's order concerning a discovery dispute between the
Defendant and the Plaintiff.

The lawsuit is about a company that allegedly prepared and
distributed a false consumer report about a consumer.  The consumer
is Plaintiff Sung Gon Kang, and the company that prepared and
distributed the consumer report is Defendant Credit Bureau.

According to the Plaintiff's complaint, he went to a car dealership
in Huntington Beach, California to buy a car.  After he selected
the car that he wanted to buy, he applied for a car loan from the
dealership.  The dealership, in deciding whether to extend credit
to him, ordered from the Defendant at least two consumer reports
about him.  The Defendant then prepared the consumer reports and
sold them to the dealership.  It included false information on the
consumer reports that suggested that the Plaintiff was designated
by the Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") as a "Specially
Designated National and Blocked Person" associated with North
Korea.

OFAC is an executive agency of the United States Department of the
Treasury that administers and enforces economic trade sanctions
based on United States foreign policy and national security goals
against threats to national security, foreign policy, and the
national economy.

Because the consumer reports sold by the Defendant to the
dealership falsely suggested that the Plaintiff was on the SDN
List, the dealership refused to extend credit to him absent a
co-signer.  The Plaintiff was "horrified and embarrassed" to be
identified as an SDN associated with North Korea.

The Plaintiff then contacted the Defendant about the false
information on the consumer reports, asking it to completely remove
any misleading OFAC information from the reports, and also asking
Defendant to provide him with a complete copy of the Defendant's
file about him.  In response, a representative of the Defendant
called him, telling him that there was no OFAC information
associated with him.  The Plaintiff then received in the mail from
Defendant a single sheet of paper that appeared to be a printout of
the Defendant's "Free OFAC Search" from its website, indicating
that there was "no hit" for OFAC information associated with the
Plaintiff.  The Plaintiff never received any other information from
the Defendant.

The Plaintiff is not the only victim of the Defendant's business
practice of preparing and selling consumer reports to third parties
with false OFAC information about consumers, according to the
Plaintiff's complaint.  Rather, there is a class of consumers that
have been similarly victimized by the Defendant's practice of
including false OFAC information on consumer reports requested by
third parties and then failing to provide requesting consumers with
complete copies of their consumer files.

Based on these facts, Plaintiff filed the lawsuit against the
Defendant on behalf of himself and a class of similarly-situated
consumers.  He pleaded five causes of action against the Defendant,
some under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and some
under California's Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act
("CCRAA").  

The causes of action are as follows: (1) violation of Section
1681g(a) of the FCRA, which requires consumer reporting agencies to
provide consumers, upon request, with all information in the
consumer's file at the time of the request; (2) violation of
Sections 1785.10 and 1785.15 of the CCRAA, which require consumer
credit reporting agencies to allow consumers, upon request, to
visually inspect and receive a disclosure of all files maintained
regarding the consumer at the time of the request; (3) violation of
Section 1681e(b) of the FCRA, which requires consumer reporting
agencies to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible
accuracy of information when preparing consumer reports; (4)
violation of Section 1785.14(b) of the CCRAA, which requires
consumer credit reporting agencies to follow reasonable procedures
to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning
the individual about whom the consumer report relates; and (5)
violation of Section 1681i of the FCRA, which requires consumer
reporting agencies to conduct a reasonable investigation into
information in a consumer's file that is disputed by the consumer.

During discovery in the lawsuit, the parties quarreled about
whether and to what extent the Defendant is required to respond to
certain document requests and interrogatories propounded by the
Plaintiff.  The document requests and interrogatories at the center
of the quarrel essentially ask the Defendant to identify all
instances since Oct. 2, 2011, that the Defendant reported to a
third-party, such as a car dealership client, an "OFAC hit" for a
consumer:

  a. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 3: All documents and electronically
     stored information in Your possession, custody, or control
     concerning individuals about whom You reported an OFAC Hit to
     a third party from Oct. 2, 2011 to the present.

  b. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 7: All documents and electronically
     stored information in Your possession, custody, or control
     concerning pertaining to Your policies and procedures
     concerning the accuracy of Your OFAC Hits in effect from
     Oct. 2, 2011 to the present.

  c. INTERROGATORY 5: Identify all natural persons about whom
     You provided an OFAC Hit to a third party from Oct. 2,
     2011 to the present.

  d. INTERROGATORY 6: Identify the entity to which You
     provided each OFAC Hit you identified in Your response
     to Interrogatory 5 and the date of each.

According to the Defendant, the Plaintiff's foregoing discovery
requests are overly burdensome and costly; and on that basis, the
Defendant moved the Magistrate Judge for a protective order under
Rule 26(b)(2)(B).  It argued that a protective order is warranted
because the information sought in the Plaintiff's discovery
requests is not reasonably accessible to it.  The Defendant
explained that it has an electronically stored database of consumer
reports and OFAC hits that it provided to third-party clients, such
as car dealerships.  The database is comprised of approximately
12.5 million records, but some of those records do not relate to
OFAC hits.  The database is currently encrypted, meaning there is
no searchable capability of the database currently in place.
Therefore, in order for it to respond to Plaintiff's discovery
requests, the Defendant will have to undergo the following process,
which, according to it, is unduly burdensome and costly.

The Plaintiff opposed Defendant's motion for a protective order,
arguing that the requested discovery is accessible to Defendant
without undue burden or expense.

The Magistrate Judge reviewed the parties' briefing and evidence,
and based on that review, the Magistrate Judge denied the
Defendant's motion for a protective order.  The Defendant then
objected to the Magistrate Judge's order, asking the District Court
Judge to issue a protective order for it against the Plaintiff's
discovery requests.

Judge Ishii holds that while the Magistrate Judge may have
misunderstood Darin Larsen's or Frank Larsen's references to
"files" and "records," that misunderstanding was the fault of the
Defendant, not the Magistrate Judge.  The Defendant failed to
clearly explain to the Magistrate Judge the distinction between
"files" and "records" -- terms that were repeatedly used but not
defined by the Defendant.  Thus, by attacking the Magistrate
Judge's factual misunderstandings about the Defendant's database,
the Defendant is only shining a mirror on the vagueness and
obscurity in its briefing.

The Defendant argues that the Magistrate Judge erred by overruling
its foundation objection to Jaffe's testimony.  The District Judge
disagrees.  Because Jaffe is familiar with Frank Larsen's
deposition testimony and declaration, wherein Frank Larsen
discussed the Defendant's database and the processes and
capabilities for decrypting and searching the database, the
Magistrate Judge did not err in concluding that Jaffe possessed
sufficient foundation to testify about the Defendant's database.

Judge Ishii holds that whether evidence proves that the Plaintiff
suffered alleged damages is a merits question that should be
decided by summary judgment or trial, but it is not a consideration
that impacts the scope of discovery under Rule 26(b)(1).  The
requested discovery is relevant to determining issues of class
certification, such as the size and members of the putative class.
Even if the District Judge were to consider the potential merits of
the Plaintiff's claims as a limitation on their scope of discovery,
the Defendant has failed to persuade the Court that the Plaintiff
has not suffered damages.

Accordingly, Judge Ishii denied the Defendant's objections to the
Magistrate Judge's discovery order.

A full-text copy of Judge Ishii's May 19, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/RhToWT from Leagle.com.


CROSSROADS HOSPICE: Freeman Seeks Proper OT Pay for Hospice Aides
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TRISTA L. FREEMAN, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. CROSSROADS HOSPICE OF NORTHEAST
OHIO LLC, – and – CROSSROADS HOSPICE OF CINCINNATI LLC, – and
– CROSSROADS HOSPICE OF CLEVELAND LLC, – and – CROSSROADS
HOSPICE OF DAYTON LLC, – and – CARREFOUR ASSOCIATES LLC, –
and – PERRY FARMER, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-01579-BYP (N.D.
Ohio, July 17, 2020) alleges that Defendants fail to pay Plaintiff
and other similarly situated persons overtime in pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq.,
the Ohio Revised Code Section 4111.03(D) and Section 4113.15 of the
Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and those similarly situated
regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek, entitling them to
overtime compensation under the FLSA and the Ohio Overtime Law. In
addition to their hourly wages, Plaintiff and others similarly
situated were paid non-discretionary "Oncall" pay and "Emergency
Incentive Pay" that was not calculated into their regular rates for
the purposes of calculating overtime compensation.

Plaintiff worked at Defendants' Uniontown, Ohio location as a
hospice aide from approximately April 2, 2019 until May 15, 2020.

Defendants jointly provide health care in the home and in
facilities throughout the Midwest, Northeast and South regions of
the United States including Georgia, Kansas, Missouri, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          34 N. High St., Ste. 502
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 824-5770
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

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

CU FOUNDATION: Faces Class Action Over Investment Returns
---------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Gounley, writing for BusinessDen, reports that a former
chairman of the University of Colorado Foundation who has donated
millions has sued the organization, alleging what he sees as an
underwhelming investment strategy is costing students.

Clarence Herbst, who was chairman from 1992 to 1994 and also has
served the organization in other roles, filed the lawsuit on July
15 in Denver District Court, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and
violation of state law.

In addition to the foundation, the lawsuit also names as defendants
foundation CEO Jack Finlaw, UC President Mark Kennedy and others.
Three recent graduates of the system's Boulder and Colorado Springs
campus are also plaintiffs.

Finlaw, who assumed the CEO role in 2004, said he wasn't surprised
by the lawsuit -- "He's been threatening to sue us on this for
longer than I've been here" -- and disputed the notion the
foundation's recent returns have been underwhelming.

"Our performance is in the top quartile," compared to other
university endowments, Finlaw said.

In the lawsuit, Herbst -- who said he has donated about $5 million
to the foundation or CU itself -- alleges that the foundation's
recent strategy of active investing is producing less returns, and
costing more in fees, than if the organization had just dumped all
its funds into an index fund.

He said the foundation has underperformed the S&P 500 Fund by
approximately 5.49 percent annually from 2010 to 2019.

Herbst's lawsuit then notes that the cost of attending CU is
rising, and suggests underperforming investments are part of the
reason, along with cuts in state funding. The lawsuit seeks
class-action status on behalf of all students who have attended the
CU system since 2009.

"No ordinarily prudent person would have wasted tens of millions of
dollars per year on investment advisory fees with PWP and dozens of
other active management and hedge fund advisors when the CU
Foundation could have invested in low cost index funds and saved CU
tens of millions of dollars," the lawsuit reads.

Herbst claims that the foundation did invest most of its assets in
index funds until about 2003. In 2004, however, it named Chris
Bittman its chief investment officer, "and at that point, the CU
Foundation began its downfall by active investing," the lawsuit
reads.

Bittman left the role in 2009 to become a partner at Perella
Weinberg Partners, and the foundation then contracted the firm to
manage its investments.

"Following the initial contract with PWP, the CU Foundation did not
negotiate the percentage fees and costs it would pay PWP and other
active manager firms engaged by PWP to ‘manage' the CU
Foundation's assets, and it has not done so in the last ten years,"
the lawsuit states. "The CU Foundation did an insider transaction
with Mr. Bittman and PWP."

Bittman and PWP are not named as defendants in the lawsuit.

Finlaw said that as of June 30, 2019 -- results for the fiscal year
that just ended haven't been tabulated yet -- the foundation had an
annualized return of 9.2 percent in the last 10 years.

Average return for all university endowments over that same time
was 8.4 percent, Finlaw said. Restrict that to endowments, like
CU's, that are greater than $1 billion and the average return was 9
percent annually.

Finlaw said the foundation has a "very diversified portfolio," that
includes private equity and real estate investments, along with
publicly traded stocks and some index funds. He said the foundation
believes such diversification is required by state law.

Of the impressive returns for S&P 500 funds in recent years, "my
view is hindsight is 2020," Finlaw said, adding that returns
wouldn't have been so impressive in the 2000s.

"It might work for people like you and me who have much smaller
portfolios," he said.

Finlaw also said the foundation regularly reviews the performance
of Perella Weinberg Partners and has had outside consultants do so
as well.

"We believe their fees are very reasonable," he said.

Herbst is the retired chairman and CEO of Resinoid Engineering,
which has facilities in Ohio and Illinois, and was founded by
Herbst's father. According to its website, the company makes
products for the automotive industry, among others.

Herbst graduated from CU and currently lives in Colorado, according
to the lawsuit. He has received numerous awards from the school
system. The Herbst Academic Center at CU Boulder and McCord-Herbst
Student Veterans Center at UCCS are named after him.

Herbst has been disappointed in his alma mater's actions before.
Crain's Chicago Business reported in 2015 that Herbst, disappointed
by the school's decision to pour tens of millions into athletics,
had "dropped his stadium seats, took the school out of his will and
pulled three paintings he had lent the Boulder school from his
private collection of Western art."

Attorneys Matthew Johnson and Kimberly Berve of Dowd Bennett are
representing Herbst in the lawsuit. [GN]


DMO AUTO: Sends Unsolicited Robocalls, Demars Claims
----------------------------------------------------
WANDA DEMARS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DMO AUTO ACQUISITIONS LLC D/B/A DAN O'BRIEN
KIA, Defendant, (D.N.H., July 17, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in an unlawful
practice of calling consumers, including the Plaintiff, on their
landline and cellular telephones using an artificial or
pre-recorded voice in an attempt to promote and market its products
and services. The Defendant placed the robocalls without obtaining
prior express consent from consumers. The practice caused actual
harm to the Plaintiff and Class members which includes aggravation,
nuisance, and invasions of privacy.

DMO Auto Acquisitions LLC, d/b/a Dan O'Brien Kia, is an automotive
dealership, with its corporate headquarters located at 158
Manchester St., Concord, New Hampshire. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Christopher M. Sacht, Esq.
         Jonathan M. Hixon, Esq.
         HACKETT FEINBERG P.C.
         155 Federal Street, 9th Floor
         Boston, MA 02110
         Telephone: (617) 422-0200
         E-mail: cms@bostonbusinesslaw.com
                 jmh@bostonbusinesslaw.com

                 - and -

         Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
         SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
         14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205
         Miami, FL 33132
         Telephone: (305) 479-2299
         E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

                 - and -

         Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
         EDELSBERG LAW, PA
         20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417
         Aventura, FL 33180
         Telephone: (305) 975-3320
         E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

EDDIE BAUER: Offers False Discounts to Consumers, Clark Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EDDIE BAUER LLC and EDDIE BAUER PARENT LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01106 (W.D. Wash., July 16, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendants for violation of the Oregon
Unlawful Trade Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in a false
discount advertising scheme at its Outlet Stores in order to induce
consumers, including the Plaintiff, to purchase its products. Eddie
Bauer's marketing plan is to trick its customers into believing
that its products are worth, and have a value equal to, the
inflated list price, and that the lower advertised sale price
represents a special bargain. In fact, not only are the advertising
savings always false; in many cases the sale price is actually
higher than Eddie Bauer's true regular selling price for the
product. The Defendants' fraudulent practice harms the Plaintiff
and Class members as they pay more than they otherwise would have
paid and buy products that they otherwise would not have bought.

Eddie Bauer LLC is a clothing and accessories retail company. It is
a wholly-owned subsidiary of Eddie Bauer Parent LLC, with its
principal place of business in Bellevue, Washington.

Eddie Bauer Parent LLC is an operator of a clothing store chain,
with principal place of business in Bellevue, Washington. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Daniel M. Hattis, Esq.
         Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq.
         Che Corrington, Esq.
         400 108th Avenue NE, Suite 500
         Bellevue, WA 98004
         Telephone: (425) 233-8650
         Facsimile: (425) 412-7171
         E-mail: dan@hattislaw.com
                 pkl@hattislaw.com
                 che@hattislaw.com

EL GUACAMOLE: Faces Rojas Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
LAURA PEREZ ROJAS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, -against- EL GUACAMOLE TEX-MEX CORP. (D/B/A EL
GUACAMOLE TEX-MEX) and JORGE LUIS CASTANEDA, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-03277 (E.D.N.Y., July 21, 2020) is an action brought by the
Plaintiff on behalf of herself, 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.,
and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law Sections 190 et seq. and
650 et seq., 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.

Plaintiff Perez was employed as a cook, cashier, juice and smoothie
preparer, and packager at the Defendants' restaurant located in New
York.

According to the complaint, Defendants failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Perez
appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of
pay or for any additional overtime premium. Defendants failed to
pay Plaintiff Perez the required "spread of hours" pay for any day
in which she had to work over 10 hours a day.

Further, Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring
Plaintiff Perez and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours
per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime
compensation required by federal and state law and regulations.

El Guacamole Tex-Mex Corp. is a Tex-Mex restaurant based in New
York.[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

ELANCO ANIMAL: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Investors of Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors of the upcoming
July 20, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class
action filed on behalf of investors who acquired Elanco Animal
Health Incorporated ("Elanco" or the "Company") (NYSE: ELAN)
securities between January 10, 2020 and May 6, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

On May 7, 2020, before the market opened, Elanco announced its
first quarter 2020 financial results, reporting revenue of $657.7
million and earnings per share of -$0.12, reflecting "a reduction
of approximately $60 million in channel inventory." The Company's
Chief Executive Officer attributed the disappointing results to
"distributor performance," among other things, and stated that
Elanco planned "to tighten [its] approach across many facets of
[its] distributor relationships."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.05, or over 13%, to
close at $19.88 per share on May 7, 2020, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that, after consolidating its distributors from
eight to four, the Company increased the amount of inventory,
including companion animal products, held by each distributor; (2)
that Elanco's distributors were not experiencing sufficient demand
to sell through the inventory; (3) that, as a result, the Company's
revenue was reasonably likely to decline; (4) that, as a result of
the foregoing, Elanco would reduce its channel inventory with
respect to companion animal products; and (5) that, as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Elanco securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than July 20, 2020 to
request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action
lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you
wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact
Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of
the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at
310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our
website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

         Frank R. Cruz
         The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz
         Los Angeles
         Tel No: 310-914-5007
         E-mail: fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com [GN]

ENPHASE ENERGY: Claimsfiler Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuit:

Enphase Energy, Inc. (ENPH)
Class Period: 2/26/2019 - 6/17/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: August 17, 2020

According to the Complaint, Enphase Energy, Inc. is a global energy
technology company that "deliver[s] smart, easy-touse solutions
that manage solar generation, storage and communication on one
intelligent platform." The Company asserts that it "revolutionized
the solar industry with [its] microinverter technology" and that it
"produce[s] a fully integrated solar-plus-storage solution."

The Complaint alleges that Enphase misrepresented and/or failed to
disclose to investors that: (1) its revenues, both U.S. and
international, were inflated; (2) the Company engaged in improper
deferred revenue accounting practices; (3) the Company's reported
base points expansion in gross margins were overstated; and that
(4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. [GN]

ENPHASE ENERGY: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that class action
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of Enphase
Energy, Inc.  Investors have until the deadline listed below to
file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal
rights in these class actions at 888-638-4847 or by email to
--howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com --

Enphase Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ: ENPH)
Class Period: February 26, 2019 - June 17, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 17, 2020

Shareholders with $100,000 in losses or more are encouraged to
contact the firm

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

ESTEE LAUDER: Mismanaged 401(K) Savings Plan, Gandy Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
KATHY L. GANDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ESTEE LAUDER, INC.; THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF ESTEE LAUDER INC.; ESTEE LAUDER INC. FIDUCIARY INVESTMENT
COMMITTEE; and JOHN DOES 1-30, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05779
(S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants
for breach of fiduciary duties pursuant to the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of The Estee
Lauder Companies 401(K) Savings Plan, alleges that the Defendants
breached the duties they owed to the Plan, the Plaintiff, and the
Plan's other participants by: (1) failing to objectively and
adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to
ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost
and performance; and (2) maintaining certain funds in the Plan
despite the availability of identical or similar investment options
with lower costs and/or better performance histories. In addition,
the Defendants breached their fiduciary monitoring duties by: (1)
failing to monitor and evaluate the performance of the Committee
Defendants or have a system in place for doing so; (2) failing to
monitor the processes by which Plan investments were evaluated,
their failure to investigate the availability of lower-cost share
classes, and their failure to investigate the availability of
lower-cost separate account and collective trust vehicles; and (3)
failing to remove Committee members whose performance was
inadequate in that they continued to maintain imprudent,
excessively costly, and poorly performing investments within the
Plan.

As a result of the Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties, the
Plan suffered millions of dollars of losses due to excessive costs
and lower net investment returns. Had the Defendants complied with
their fiduciary obligations, the Plan would not have suffered these
losses, and Plan participants would have had more money available
to them for their retirement.

Estee Lauder, Inc. is a manufacturer of beauty care products with
its principal place of business at 28 W. 23rd Street, 8th Floor,
New York, New York. [BN]

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

FELIX ENERGY: Holbrook Sues Over Unpaid OT, Misclassification
-------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD HOLBROOK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FELIX ENERGY HOLDINGS II, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-00180 (W.D. Tex., July 24, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act including paying the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated workers a flat amount for each day worked,
failing to compensate them the proper overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, and misclassifying them
as independent contractors.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a drilling
consultant from approximately July 2018 until June 2019.

Felix Energy Holdings II, LLC is an oil and natural gas exploration
and production company operating worldwide and throughout the
United States, with its principal place of business located in
Denver, Colorado. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
         Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
         JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
         11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 352-1100
         Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
         E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 adunlap@mybackwages.com

                - and –

         Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
         BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
         8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 877-8788
         Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
         E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

FIRST NATIONS: Class Action Launched Over Safe Drinking Water
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench ruling has opened the door for a
class-action lawsuit over a lack of safe drinking water on First
Nations.

Chief Justice Glenn Joyal ruled that a lawsuit filed by a First
Nation in 2019 is now certified as a class action, which means any
First Nation that is impacted by drinking water advisories may join
the lawsuit.

Chief Doreen Spence of the Tataskweyak Cree Nation, which is 700
kilometres north of Winnipeg, said the community hasn't been able
to trust the tap water for years.

"These inequalities of not having clean drinking water is
unacceptable and basically I hope that moving forward with this
action we hope that this will be rectified because I believe we are
all Canadian and we deserve clean drinking water like everybody
else," said Spence.

Michael Rosenberg, who is the lead counsel on the lawsuit, is
seeking compensation from the federal government regarding drinking
water advisories of more than $2 billion.

"This is an important day for class members, who will now have a
chance to seek justice on the merits of their claims. Access to
clean drinking water is a fundamental right, and all Canadians can
understand the urgency of this case," said Rosenberg.

"I am aware that past members are now counting on the federal
government to follow through on this commitment by ensuring that
all reserves have access to clean drinking water."

According to the government's website, there are currently 61 long
term water advisories in effect across the country.

Spence said having clean drinking water is a basic human right.

"We couldn't sit back and wait because we know it's never going to
happen if we don't take a step forward," said Spence.

Spence added that the community would need updated infrastructure
to provide clean drinking water and while it would take some time,
she said they are in it for the long haul.

Currently, there are four First Nations in Alberta and one in B.C.
that have proceedings before the federal court regarding clean
drinking water.

Those are active cases and because of that, they are not allowed to
be part of the class-action lawsuit. [GN]

FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Claimsfiler Reminds of Aug. 10 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuit:

Forescout Technologies, Inc. (FSCT)
Class Period: 2/6/2020 - 5/15/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: August 10, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD


Lawsuit Overview
According to the Complaint, Forescout Technologies, Inc. provides
"security at first sight" by delivering software that enables
device visibility and control that enables enterprises and
government agencies to gain improved situational awareness of their
environment (devices on their networks) and orchestrate actions to
reduce cyber and operational risk.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and omissions of material facts regarding the
significant and disproportionate decline in Forescout's financial
performance and the related risk Forescout's planned acquisition by
Advent International Corp. would not close. As a result, Class
members that purchased Forescout common stock during the Class
Period did so at artificially inflated prices.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that by the start of the Class
Period on February 6, 2020 -- when Forescout announced the Merger
Agreement with Advent and positive fourth quarter 2019 earnings --
Forescout knew that its business had begun to suffer a dramatic and
undisclosed downturn, including it its fast-growing Asia Pacific
and Japan ("APJ") region that was impacted by COVID19 starting in
January. In addition, Forescout was aware that its fourth quarter
2019 revenues were inflated through an abnormal transaction with
one of its largest resale customers, Merlin International Inc.,
which a whistleblower has alleged to Advent was the result of a
"channel stuffing scheme" in the fourth quarter of 2019. Because of
these factors, Forescout knew that the consummation of the
Transaction was exceptionally risky at the time it announced the
Merger Agreement.

Forescout neither disclosed these facts to investors nor Advent at
the time it signed the Merger Agreement. Nor did Forescout disclose
that its financial collapse would preclude the availability of the
debt financing needed to close the transaction. In fact, while
Forescout provided certain revised projections during the sales
process to bidders, it did not disclose the true known extent of
its financial downturn, including the early impacts of COVID-19 on
the APJ region, nor the abnormal transaction with Merlin. [GN]

FRANCHISE GROUP: Labrado vs JTH Tax Underway
--------------------------------------------
The class action suit entitled, Rene Labrado v. JTH Tax, Inc., is
underway and the case parties were scheduled to hold a status
conference earlier this month, Franchise Group, Inc. said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on June 18, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2020.

On July 3, 2018, a class action complaint was filed in the Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles by a former employee for
herself and on behalf of all other "similarly situated" persons.

The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company
allegedly violated various provisions of the California Labor Code,
including: unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid
rest premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely paid,
wages not timely paid, non-compliant wage statements, failure to
keep pay records, unreimbursed business expenses and violation of
California Business and Profession Code Section 17200.

The Complaint seeks actual, consequential and incidental losses and
damages, injunctive relief and other damages.

The Company highly disputes the allegations set forth in the
Complaint and filed a motion to dismiss.

On May 29, 2019, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss,
but granted the Company leave to file a motion to strike. The
Company filed a motion to strike and on August 20, 2019, the Court
granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion.

The Court provided the Company with twenty days to file its answer
to the Complaint and lifted the discovery stay.  

A status conference was held on March 3, 2020 where the Court set a
hearing on the class certification for December 18, 2020. A further
status conference was set for July 20, 2020.

Franchise Group, Inc. is a franchisor operator and acquirer of
franchised and franchisable businesses that can be scaled using the
company's operating expertise. The company currently operates three
reportable segments: Liberty Tax, Buddy's and Sears Outlet. The
company is based in Virginia Beach, Virginia.


GENERAL MOTORS: Holguin Suit Transferred to Michigan
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Ernest Holguin, David Goldberg, James
Kalkstein, Robert Smith, Carole Smith, Dennis Glazer, Marianne
Glazer and Michael Roth, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. General Motors LLC, Defendant,
was transferred from the District of Delaware with the assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-00615 to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan (Detroit) on July 15, 2020, and assigned Case
No. 2:20-cv-11955-GAD-EAS.

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

General Motors Company, commonly referred to as General Motors, is
an American multinational corporation headquartered in Detroit that
designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and
vehicle parts, and sells financial services, with global
headquarters in Detroit's Renaissance Center.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Russell D. Paul, Esq.
   Berger Montague PC
   1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
   Philadelphia, PA 19103
   Tel: (215) 875-3000
   Fax: (215) 875-4604
   Email: rpaul@bm.net

     - and -

   Abigail Gertner, Esq.
   Berger Montague PC
   1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
   Philadelphia, PA 19103
   Tel: (215) 875-5702
   Fax: (215) 875-4604
   Email: agertner@bm.net



GOOGLE INC: Faces Privacy Class Action Over Android Apps
--------------------------------------------------------
Roger Montti, writing for Search Engine Journal, reports that
Google was hit with a class action lawsuit claiming privacy
violations via Android apps. The plaintiffs allege that Google
misleads users with false impressions of control over their data.

The lawsuit alleges that Google's privacy controls are fake and
that Google is illegally intercepting and selling private
information.

The plaintiffs also claim that Google's privacy controls do not
stop Google from harvesting and selling sensitive online activity
information.

The lawsuit presents what it describes as evidence that Google
continues to access private information regardless of privacy
settings.

The full description of the lawsuit is:

CLASS ACTION FOR

  (1) FEDERAL WIRETAP VIOLATIONS, 18 U.S.C. Secs. 2510, ET. SEQ.;

  (2) INVASION OF PRIVACY ACT VIOLATIONS, CAL. PENAL CODE
      Secs. 631 & 632;

  (3) INVASION OF PRIVACY;

  (4) COMPREHENSIVE COMPUTER DATA ACCESS AND FRAUD ACT, CAL.
      PENAL CODE Sec. 502.

Google's Privacy Controls Alleged to be Lies

The lawsuit claims that the privacy controls that Google provides
are a deceit. It claims that Google's privacy controls do not stop
Google from collecting data, regardless of what choices consumers
make.

How Google Leverages Apps to Violate User Privacy

The plaintiffs state in their complaint that third party Android
apps are required to use Google's Firebase SDK (software
development kit) in order to participate in Google's other services
like their advertising platform, promotion on Google Play and
Google Analytics.

They claim that the Firebase SDK allows Google to "intercept" the
app activity. They say that this app activity data can reveal who
you date, where you eat, what sites you have visited, what your
hobbies are, and where you vacationed.

The lawsuit says that this trove of information about a person not
only is a privacy violation but poses a danger to individual
personal security because a bad actor such as a criminal or rogue
government entity could access that information.

The lawsuit claims that the level of surveillance is beyond
anything George Orwell ever imagined: "Google has made itself an
unaccountable trove of information so detailed and expansive that
George Orwell himself could not have imagined it."

Does Google Not Honor their Privacy Policy?

The lawsuit cites Google's global Privacy Policy as an example of
how Google says one thing but does another.

This is the part of Google's privacy policy they quote: "When you
use our services, you're trusting us with your information. We
understand this is a big responsibility and work hard to protect
your information and put you in control. . . . [A]cross our
services, you can adjust your privacy settings to control what we
collect and how your information is used."

The lawsuit alleges that the above promise to allow consumers to
control their promise is not truthful.

"Google in fact intercepts, tracks, collects and sells consumer
mobile app browsing history and activity data regardless of what
safeguards or "privacy settings" consumers undertake to protect
their privacy."

Google Violates Privacy Via Third Party Apps?

The complaint alleges that an Android user cannot avoid being spied
on by Google. It states that third party apps enable Google to pry
into a users most private and intimate information.

Lawsuit Compares Google to a Voyeur

The lawsuit uses the word Voyeur to describe Google.

Voyeur is a strong word to use.

A voyeur is a person who derives illicit pleasure from violating
the privacy of others.

The lawsuit alleges that Google derives illicit treasure from
violating the privacy of others.

It claims that Google enriches itself by collecting and selling the
private and sensitive information of everyone who uses an Android
app while presenting a facade of privacy to users.

Lawsuit Presents Evidence

The plaintiffs say that even though Google promises to not harvest
information, they present what they believe is evidence that Google
still collects and warehouses that information.

They say present that Google's DV360 service is proof that Google
is harvesting and commodifying hyper-personalized information for
the benefit of marketers.

Google DV360 is a reference to Google Display & Video 360. Google
states that the program grants access to user information that was
harvested by Google and third parties.

This is how Google describes the reach and scale of user
information Google is selling:  "The audience profile analysis lets
you understand the composition of your selected audience based on
its overlap with all other audiences in Display & Video 360 (e.g.
Google data, Partner data, and other datasets you have access to).
. . .Use the Geographic distribution analysis tool to quickly
assess where your most qualified users are (within a specific
country, region, DMA, or postal code), then optimize targeting
settings for your campaign accordingly."

Google's Privacy Issue

Google's business model has been under attack for privacy violation
issues for years, primarily in Europe. This is in addition to
investigations related to abuse of monopolistic advantages.

It's clear that privacy is an important concern around the world.
How browsers handle third party cookies is already undermining
Google's ability to track users around the web.

This is an important lawsuit. How it plays out may have an effect
on Google's reach into the private corners of Internet users.

The case is ANIBAL RODRIGUEZ and JULIEANNA MUNIZ individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE
LLC and ALPHABET INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-4688 (N.D.
Cal.). [GN]


GREENVILLE, NC: Summary Judgment in Favor of Greenville Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KIDD CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC, ROCKY RUSSELL BUILDERS,
INC., and TOMMY WILLIAMS BUILDERS, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. GREENVILLE
UTILITIES COMMISSION, Defendant, Case No. COA19-910 (N.C. App.),
the Court of Appeals of North Carolina reversed the trial court's
order entering summary judgment in favor of GUC.

The North Carolina General Assembly created GUC, a local government
entity ("LGE") in 1991 by passing Session Law 1991-861, "An Act to
Amend and Restate the Charter of the Greenville Utilities
Commission of the City of Greenville."  The bill delegated power to
GUC for the proper management of the public utilities of the City
of Greenville, including electric, natural gas, water, and sewer
services.  GUC provides water and sewer services to all of Pitt
County.

Starting in 2008, at the time of a developer's application for
water and sewer service, GUC began requiring contractors and
developers of new construction and new developments to pay service
connection fees, which consist of two components: a tapping fee and
a capacity fee.  The tapping fee recovers the cost for physically
making a service tap.  Capacity fees, or impact fees, are collected
in an effort to recover a proportional share of the cost of capital
facilities constructed to provide service capacity for new
development or new customers connecting to the water/sewer system.
Capacity fees are imposed as a precondition to development
approval, to the issuance of building permits, and to receiving
service.

In 2016, the state Supreme Court decided Quality Built Homes v.
Town of Carthage ("Quality Built Homes I"), which examined the Town
of Carthage's authority to impose impact fees on developers as a
precondition for the issuance of building permits.  It concluded
that municipalities, including Carthage, did not have the statutory
authority to impose impact fees for future services.  Subsequent
appeals led the Supreme Court to hold that a municipality's
liability to refund unlawful impact fee revenue was subject to a
three-year statute of limitations in Quality Built Homes v. Town of
Carthage ("Quality Built Homes II").

In response to the Supreme Court's holding in Quality Built Homes
I, on July 20, 2017, the General Assembly enacted the Public Water
and Sewer System Development Fee Act to clarify a local government
utility's authority to assess upfront charges for water and sewer
services.  The law grants local government utilities specific
authority to assess one type of upfront charge -- a system
development fee -- as long as that fee is calculated in accordance
with the statute's "written analysis" process.  The Act became
effective on Oct. 1, 2017, providing, that nothing in the act
provides retroactive authority for any system development fee, or
any similar fee for water or sewer services to be furnished,
collected by a local government unit prior to Oct. 1, 2017.

After the legislature passed the System Development Fee Act, GUC
hired Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc., an independent
financial consultant, to perform the financial study required by
N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 162A-205.  GUC adopted Raftelis's new fee
calculation system, which became effective on July 1, 2018.

The Plaintiffs are North Carolina licensed general contractors who
work in and around the Greenville, North Carolina area.  They
initiated a class action suit on April 24, 2018, alleging that the
Defendant lacked the authority to collect impact fees from the
three years prior to the commencement of the action, and thus
within the three-year statute of limitations period, and sought
recovery of all impact fees paid within that time period --
totaling $1.2 million dollars.

The Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on 4 March 2019
contending that its Charter authorized GUC to collect impact fees
prior to the enactment of the System Development Act.  On 20 May
2019, Judge Lamont Wiggins heard arguments on the Defendant's
motion for summary judgment and entered an order granting summary
judgment in favor of the Defendant on June 3. 2019.  The Plaintiffs
timely noticed appeal.

On appeal, the Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred by
granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment because GUC's
Charter does not specifically authorize GUC to charge impact fees
for future water and sewer services.  They further argue that GUC's
Charter only authorizes the charging of uniform rates and charges,
not impact fees.  Finally, the Plaintiffs argue that the charging
of impact fees is outside the authority of GUC because these fees
are not reasonably necessary or expedient to carry GUC's express
powers into execution and effect.

After careful review, the Appellate Court concludes that GUC does
not possess the authority to charge impact fees and that the
charging of such fees was ultra vires.  The Appellate Court finds
that though GUC's Charter allows it to charge for "services
rendered," the language at issue here fails to authorize GUC to
charge for services to be rendered.  While the Charter "clearly and
unambiguously" empowers GUC to charge for contemporaneous use of
its water and sewer systems, it does not contemplate charges for
future services.  And, though the Charter authorizes GUC to pay out
its receipts for extending and planning for future improvements and
expansions of said utilities," that does not change the limited
sources through which those receipts can originate --
contemporaneous use.  The impact fees charged by GUC were for
future services and, therefore, not authorized by the Charter.  The
trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the
Defendant, the Appellate Court finds.

The Appellate Court did not reach the Plaintiffs' arguments in the
alternative.

The Appellate Court reversed the trial court ruling.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's May 19, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/DIO3JC from Leagle.com.

Whitfield, Bryson, and Mason, LLP, by Daniel K. Bryson --
dan@whitfieldbryson.com -- Martha A. Geer --
martha@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Scott C. Harris --
scott@whitfieldbryson.com -- and J. Hunter Bryson --
hunter@whitfieldbryson.com -- for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Hartzog Law Group, LLC, by Dan M. Hartzog, Jr. --
dhartzogjr@hartzoglawgroup.com -- and Katherine Barber-Jones --
kbarber-jones@hartzoglawgroup.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.


GROCERY DELIVERY: Can't Compel Arbitration in Murray TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GRACE MURRAY, Plaintiff, v. GROCERY DELIVERY
E-SERVICES USA INC., doing business as HELLOFRESH, Defendant, Civil
Action No. 19-12608-WGY (D. Mass.), Judge William G. Young of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied
Grocery Delivery E-Services USA, Inc. ("HelloFresh")'s motion to
compel arbitration.

The case features a time-traveling arbitration clause.  On Dec. 30,
2019, Murray filed a complaint in the Court claiming that she
received telemarketing calls from HelloFresh despite being listed
on the National Do Not Call registry, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA").  She asks the Court for
damages and injunctive relief on behalf of herself as well as a
purported class of nationwide people similarly affected. HelloFresh
filed a motion to compel arbitration and an accompanying
memorandum, which Murray opposed.  The Court heard oral argument by
videoconference on April 22, 2020 and denied the motion to compel
arbitration.

HelloFresh filed an appeal, and asked the District Court to stay
further action while the appeal is pending.  The Court denied that
motion, observing that the claim for arbitration borders on the
frivolous.

HelloFresh, a Delaware corporation based in New York, provides a
service delivering weekly meal kits to subscribers.  Murray signed
up for a trial subscription of HelloFresh on Sept. 25, 2015.  When
Murray signed up for her first and only HelloFresh delivery, there
was a digital box that she checked indicating that she agreed to
certain terms and conditions.

Murray then canceled the subscription after one delivery and
received a confirmation email of the cancelation on Jan. 5, 2016.
Murray claims that she has been listed on the Do Not Call Registry
since 2006.  Murray's phone is a personal phone, not used for
business.  Murray alleges that, since canceling her HelloFresh
subscription, she has received around 15 telemarketing calls from
HelloFresh, despite asking it to place her on their own do-not-call
list.

HelloFresh states that it contracts with vendors to place calls to
prior customers regarding the quality of services.  Based on these
facts, Murray brought an action under the TCPA for damages and
injunctive relief. HelloFresh argues that the Terms and Conditions
require Murray to arbitrate these claims.

The parties agree that the 2015 Terms and Conditions did not
include an arbitration clause.  The Terms and Conditions did
include the provisions that New York law would govern all disputes
and that HelloFresh had the right to modify the terms.  Due to
changes in the law that favored arbitration, HelloFresh modified
the terms for the 2017 year to include an arbitration provision.
The arbitration clause covers all claims between the customer and
HelloFresh and includes, among other things, a waiver of any right
to bring a class action suit or class arbitration.

HelloFresh states that it notified Murray of the change in the
Terms and Conditions through emails containing a hyperlink to the
new terms.  Specifically, HelloFresh claims they sent Murray
twenty-eight emails between April 2017 and January 2018 which
stated, at the bottom: "Use of the HelloFresh service and website
is subject to our Terms of Use."  The concluding phrase linked to
the new 2017 terms containing the arbitration provision.  Murray
avers that, to the best of her recollection, she never opened or
clicked on any hyperlinks contained in the promotional email.

Judge Young finds that at the time the box was clicked,
HelloFresh's terms and conditions made no mention of arbitration.
The arbitration clause was added two years later, long after
Murray's sole use of HelloFresh's service.  HelloFresh contends
that Murray is nonetheless bound by the later-added terms because,
when she clicked that box two years earlier, the terms and
conditions stated that HelloFresh could unilaterally change the
terms of the contract so long as it notified the customer and she
agreed or was silent (which would be treated as agreement).

The Judge rejected HelloFresh's effort to compel arbitration
because it is a bridge too far.  It is doubtful that such a later
unilateral modification of the contract could bind Murray to
arbitrate when there is no evidence that Murray ever agreed to
surrender her rights to litigate in Court.  Even were such a
post-agreement arbitration clause enforceable, though, HelloFresh's
modification failed to comply with its own notification
requirements that were in effect when Murray clicked the box in
2015.

The bottom line is that Murray never consented to any arbitration
agreement with HelloFresh.  Federal law may favor arbitrations, but
it does not deprive litigants of their day in court absent an
agreement to arbitrate.  HelloFresh's unilateral modification
provision, even if effective, does not salvage the belated
arbitration clause because Murray was not properly notified.

Accordingly, Judge Young denied HelloFresh's motion to compel
arbitration.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 19, 2020 Memorandum of
Decision is available at https://is.gd/BF4lT3 from Leagle.com.


GROLAWN INC: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Wilson Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, DENNIS WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROLAWN, INCORPORATED, and JOHN
ABEL, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-01559-BYP (N.D. Ohio, July 15,
2020) challenges Defendants' employment policies and practices in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a lawn tech from
approximately April 2019 to December 2019.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff regularly worked
approximately 54-56 hours per week but Defendant regularly paid
Plaintiff less than one and one-half times his regular hourly rates
for hours worked more than 40 hours per workweek.

The complaint asserts that Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and
other similarly situated lawn tech overtime as required by the
FLSA, and failed to maintain accurate and complete records of
employees' time.

John Abel is the President and owner of Defendant Grolawn.

Grolawn, Incorporated is a lawn care company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


H F DOLLAR: Faces Lopez et al. Suit Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------------
EDUARDO CANAN LOPEZ and CELSO VERA SANCHEZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. H F DOLLAR &
UP FRUIT AND VEGETABLE CORP., HUA FENG LIN, LANLAN LIN, and SU YU
LIN, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03240 (E.D.N.Y., July 20, 2020)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to
compensate the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated workers
appropriate minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 in a workweek, failing to post notices of the minimum
wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the
location of their employment, and failing to keep payrolls
records.

Plaintiff Lopez was employed by the Defendants as a stocker of
supplies from May 2013 until March 2020.

Plaintiff Sanchez was employed by the Defendants as a stocker of
vegetables and fruits from July 2014 until April 2018.

H F Dollar & Up Fruit and Vegetable Corp. is a supplier of fruits
and vegetables, with a principal place of business located at 61-27
Roosevelt Avenue, Woodside New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
         
         Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
         HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
         80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
         Kew Gardens, NY 11415
         Telephone: (718) 263-9591
         Facsimile: (718) 263-9598

HAMILTON BEACH: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Securities Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors of the upcoming
July 21, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class
action filed on behalf of investors who acquired Hamilton Beach
Brands Holding Company ("Hamilton Beach Brands" or the "Company")
(NYSE: HBB) securities between February 27, 2020 and May 8, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

On May 11, 2020, Hamilton Beach Brands disclosed that it could not
timely file its first quarter 2020 quarterly report due to "certain
accounting irregularities with respect to the timing of recognition
of selling and marketing expenses and the classification of certain
expenditures within the statement of operations at its Mexican
subsidiary." The Company also revealed that its "Audit Review
Committee has commenced an internal investigation" regarding "the
realizability of certain assets of the Mexican subsidiary."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.03, or nearly 9%,
to close at $10.43 per share on May 11, 2020, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that Hamilton had
inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal control
over financial reporting, particularly with respect to one of its
Mexican subsidiaries; (2) consequently, the Company's accounting
included certain irregularities with respect to the timing of
recognition of selling and marketing expenses and the
classification of certain expenditures within the statement of
operations at this Mexican subsidiary, as well as potential
misconduct with respect to the realizability of certain assets of
the Mexican subsidiary; (3) as a result of all the foregoing,
Hamilton could not accurately attest to its financial results,
particularly with respect to these metrics, and was consequently at
an increased risk of delaying the filing of its period reports with
the SEC; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Hamilton Beach Brands
securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later
than July 21, 2020 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this
putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to the pending class action
lawsuit, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank
R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles,
California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

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

HEALTH EXPRESS: Ogletree Attorneys Discuss FAA Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dean J. Shauger, Esq. -- dean.shauger@ogletree.com -- and Ryan T.
Warden, Esq. -- ryan.warden@ogletree.com -- of Ogletree, Deakins,
Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., in an article for The National Law
Review, report that on May 21, 2018, in Epic Systems Corporation v.
Lewis, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld class action
waivers in arbitration agreements, ruling that the Federal
Arbitration Act (FAA) instructs "federal courts to enforce
arbitration agreements according to their terms - including terms
providing for individualized proceedings." On July 14, 2020, the
Supreme Court of New Jersey handed down a landmark decision of its
own upholding the enforceability of employment arbitration
agreements with class action waivers under the New Jersey
Arbitration Act (NJAA), even if the agreements are exempted from
the coverage of the FAA, by virtue of the FAA's Section 1
"transportation worker exemption." The decision is not only a
watershed victory for businesses that employ or engage
transportation workers who fall within the Section 1 exemption, but
all businesses that employ or engage workers in New Jersey. The
decision highlights the enormous value of an effective arbitration
program and illustrates why businesses that do not already have
arbitration agreements with their workers may want to carefully
consider obtaining them.

Background

In Arafa v. Health Express Corp. (A-6-19), the Supreme Court of New
Jersey considered two related cases: Colon v. Strategic Delivery
Solutions, LLC (A-7-19) and Arafa v. Health Express Corp. (A-6-19).
In both cases, truck drivers brought suit against their putative
employers in New Jersey state court asserting claims under the New
Jersey Wage and Hour Law and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. In
both cases, the putative employers sought to dismiss the claims and
compel individual arbitrations based on their arbitration
agreements with the plaintiffs.

The question posed in both cases was whether the parties'
arbitration agreements could be enforced under the NJAA, if exempt
from FAA coverage. Section 1 of the FAA provides in relevant part:
that "[the FAA shall not] apply to contracts of employment of
seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged
in foreign or interstate commerce." In Circuit City Stores, Inc. v.
Adams, the Supreme Court of the United States narrowly interpreted
this provision -- frequently referred to as the "FAA Section 1
exemption" or "transportation worker exemption" -- to apply only to
contracts of employment of transportation workers, not to contracts
of employment in general. Therefore, for the Section 1 exemption to
apply, it needs to be determined that plaintiffs are transportation
workers engaged in interstate commerce.

In Colon, the trial court dismissed the complaint and compelled the
named plaintiffs to individual arbitrations under the NJAA. The
plaintiffs appealed, arguing that they are transportation workers
exempt from the FAA's coverage. While the Appellate Division
remanded for further proceedings the question of whether the
plaintiffs were, in fact, transportation workers, such that the FAA
should not apply, the court found the resolution of that question
immaterial to the result. Regardless of whether the FAA applied,
the court ruled, the class action waiver provision contained in the
parties' arbitration agreements must be enforced under New Jersey
law and the plaintiffs must be ordered to pursue their claims in
individual arbitrations, pursuant to the NJAA, which applies to all
arbitration agreements made since 2003, except those contained in
collective bargaining agreements.

In Arafa, the trial court also granted the putative employer's
motion to dismiss and ordered the plaintiffs to arbitrate their
claims on an individual basis. However, the Appellate Division
reversed, holding that the plaintiff was exempt from the FAA as a
transportation worker. Because the agreement only referenced the
FAA (and not the NJAA), the court further found that the
inapplicability of the FAA undermined the entire premise of the
parties' contract. That is, the court concluded the arbitration
agreement was "unenforceable for lack of mutual assent" and stated
that "all other arbitration issues [were] moot."

On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Colon and Arafa plaintiffs
asserted that they are transportation workers falling within the
FAA's Section 1 exemption, and therefore their arbitration
agreements could not be enforced pursuant to the FAA. Because the
arbitration agreements designated the FAA as the '"sole and
exclusive governing law,' plaintiffs argue[d] there was no 'meeting
of the minds," regarding arbitration. The plaintiffs further argued
that "absent express intent to apply the NJAA, the state law cannot
be applied in the FAA's place."

In response, the defendants argued that: (1) "the FAA choice of law
provision should not be interpreted as in conflict with the purpose
of the arbitration agreement"; and (2) "the FAA's inapplicability
to the parties did not destroy the intent to arbitrate in
general."

Supreme Court of New Jersey's Decision

Faced with the parties' competing positions, the Supreme Court of
New Jersey found in favor of the defendants, holding that the NJAA
may apply to the arbitration agreements even if they are exempt
under Section 1 of the FAA. In doing so, the Supreme Court observed
(as did the Appellate Division in Colon) that the NJAA governs
'"all agreements to arbitrate made on or after January 1, 2003,'
and exempts from its provisions only 'an arbitration agreement
between an employer and a duly elected representative of employees
under a collective bargaining agreement or collectively negotiated
agreement.' N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-3(a)." Accordingly, the Supreme Court
found that "since 2003, there has been no need to express an intent
that the NJAA would apply because its application has been
automatic, absent preemption." Therefore, the Supreme Court
rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the NJAA must be
specifically invoked to apply.

The Supreme Court then turned to the question of preemption. As
there is no express preemption provision in the FAA, including in
Section 1, and the "application of the NJAA" would not "frustrate
the principal purpose of the FAA by discriminating against
arbitration agreements," the Supreme Court held that the FAA does
not preempt the NJAA.

Finally, the Supreme Court considered the enforceability of the
arbitration agreements and class waivers at issue under New Jersey
law. In Colon, "plaintiffs voluntarily agree[d] to waive any right
to a trial by jury in any suit filed hereunder," and to "adjudicate
any dispute pursuant to [the arbitration agreement]." The Colon
arbitration clauses further specified that plaintiffs agreed to
arbitrate any claim "arising out of or in any way relating to the
[employment] Agreement or the transportation services provided
[t]hereunder." The Arafa arbitration clause involved similarly
broad language specifying that the plaintiff agreed to resolve "all
disputes" between the parties through binding arbitration. The
Supreme Court found the language of the arbitration clauses in both
cases sufficiently broad to conclude that the plaintiffs "knowingly
and voluntarily waived their rights to pursue their statutory wage
claims" in a judicial forum. "By the same principles of
construction applied to the jury trial waiver provision," the
Supreme Court found that "plaintiffs knowingly and voluntarily
waived their ability to proceed as a class." As such, the Supreme
Court held the Arafa plaintiffs must pursue individual arbitrations
pursuant to the NJAA, while the Colon plaintiffs must pursue
individual arbitrations pursuant to "either the FAA or the NJAA,
which will be determined by the trial court upon remand."

Takeaways

This decision provides much needed relief to New Jersey employers
at the end of a 12-month span that saw the passage of the historic
New Jersey Wage Theft Act, and various other laws passed in
furtherance of efforts to identify and severely punish wage law
violations, particularly in the independent contractor
misclassification context.

To be sure, the decision is most critical for businesses that
engage transportation workers, as it confirms their arbitration
agreements with such workers can be enforced under the NJAA even if
the FAA doesn't apply. But the decision is extremely important for
all businesses that employ or engage workers in New Jersey, insofar
as the highest court in the state has upheld the enforceability of
employment agreements to arbitrate statutory claims on an
individual basis based on a straightforward, common-sense reading
of the language of the agreements. This is significant because even
in cases in which the FAA applies, state law contract
interpretation principles apply, and arbitration agreements may be
invalidated based on generally-applicable contract defenses such as
unconscionability, fraud, and duress. The Supreme Court's ruling
provides clear guidance to lower courts that no magic language is
required for an enforceable agreement to arbitrate on an individual
basis and serves as a reminder that the Supreme Court of New Jersey
has long articulated New Jersey's strong public policy in favor of
arbitration. While many New Jersey employers will continue to
carefully craft their arbitration agreements with their workers,
the Arafa decision should provide them with a greater level of
comfort that their agreements to arbitrate disputes, including on
an individual basis, will be enforced by the courts of this state
according to their terms, in most instances, regardless of whether
the FAA applies.

One potential exception could be agreements to arbitrate claims
alleging employment discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation.
In 2019, the New Jersey state legislature amended the New Jersey
Law Against Discrimination to preclude enforcement of agreements to
arbitrate such claims and to prohibit retaliation against employees
for refusing to agree to arbitrate such claims. New Jersey
employers may want to carefully consider the impact of this
amendment when crafting their arbitration agreements, particularly
where the FAA does not apply, because in such cases, they will be
unable to avail themselves of the argument that it should be
preempted by the FAA on the grounds that it discriminates against
arbitration agreements.

Nevertheless, the Arafa decision illustrates just how valuable an
effective arbitration program can be, and why employers without one
may want to carefully consider implementing one. That said, the
Arafa decision is limited to New Jersey, and other states may have
other requirements or present other obstacles to the formation or
enforcement of arbitration agreements, particularly where the FAA
does not apply. As such, a state-by-state analysis of such issues
is required. However, given Arafa's clear pronouncements, in
instances where workers have a reasonable connection to New Jersey,
employers may want to consider drafting arbitration agreements with
a view toward maximizing the likelihood that New Jersey law
(including the NJAA) will apply to disputes regarding the
interpretation and enforceability of the agreements, particularly
in situations where employers are more concerned about ensuring the
individual arbitration of wage claims, as opposed to discrimination
and/or retaliation claims, where New Jersey law may present a
problem. Such strategies may include the insertion of a choice of
law provision selecting New Jersey law to govern such disputes, in
the alternative, should the FAA be found not to apply. [GN]


HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law Reminds of Aug. 10 Motion Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Hebron Technology Co., Ltd.
between April 24, 2020 and June 3, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important August 10, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline
in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Hebron investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Hebron class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1868.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] or
[email protected] 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:
(1) many of Hebron's acquisitions, including Beijing Hengpu and
Nami Holding (Cayman) Co., Ltd., involved undisclosed related
parties; (2) Hebron's disclosure controls regarding related party
transactions were ineffective; and (3) as a result of the
foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Hebron's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 10,
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-1868.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.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Contact Information:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]


HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Schall Law Investigates Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on July 20 disclosed that it is investigating claims on behalf of
investors of Hebron Technology Co., Ltd. ("Hebron" or "the
Company") (NASDAQ:HEBT) for violations of the securities laws.

The investigation focuses on whether the Company issued false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information
pertinent to investors. Investment analyst firm Grizzly Research
released a report on June 3, 2020, titled "We Believe Hebron
Technology Co., Ltd. (HEBT) is an Insider Enrichment Scheme without
Economic Basis." According to the report, the Company "is a stock
manipulation scheme that engaged in undisclosed related party
acquisitions and undisclosed private placement transactions that
have artificially inflated the stock price." Based on this report,
shared of Hebron fell by more than 36% on the same day.

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

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

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

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

CONTACT:

  The Schall Law Firm
  Brian Schall, Esq.,
  www.schallfirm.com
  Office: 310-301-3335
  Cell: 424-303-1964 [GN]


HOLYOKE SOLDIERS' HOME: Faces Civil Rights Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Western Mass News reports that a civil rights class action lawsuit
has been filed against 5 people formerly associated with the
Holyoke Soldiers' Home.

The lawsuit was filed by the estate of a veteran who contracted
COVID-19 in the home. The veteran died in April.

The lawsuit was filed at the United States Courthouse in
Springfield, MA.

"They defended our country, but the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
failed to keep their promise," said attorney Thomas Lesser.

The family of Joseph Sniadach, who was one of the 76 vets to die in
the home after testing positive for COVID-19--claims his civil
rights were violated by the former facility officials.

"He was ready to go out as soon as COVID-19 ended, go to the casino
again and have some fun. He never got that chance," Lesser noted.

The lawsuit has been filed against the following people, including
the former Superintendent, Bennett Walsh, former Medical Director,
David Clinton, former Chief Nursing Officer, Vanessa Lauziere,
former Assistant Director of Nursing, Celeste Surreira, and former
Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Francisco Urena.

"It details the unprofessional behavior of those five individuals
in the words of that report, there was a litany of "utterly
baffling" misjudgments mistakes, and blatant errors," Lesser
explained.

Lesser also said the findings of the independent investigation into
the outbreak, ordered by Governor Charlie Baker, show these five
people failed to create a safe and healthy environment.

He said there have been cases in the past to support his
complaint.

"There are certainly cases where failure to act in a pandemic is
actionable," Lesser said.

It alleges they acted with indifference and unethical behavior in
managing the Home's COVID-19 outbreak— thereby denying the
veterans their basic needs of living and safety.

"76 people died, and they've certainly entitled to $1 million each,
and many people contracted COVID-19, and it's a figure that takes
care of them and some number for punitive damages," Lesser
explained.

Because it was filed as a class-action lawsuit, the courts will
have to certify the veterans affected by the deadly COVID-19
outbreak at the home as a class.

The lawyers said they plan to add more plaintiffs to the case in
addition to Sniadach, and they filed the complaint with that in
mind.

"It's filed on behalf of the estates of all the veterans who died
at the Holyoke Soldiers Home. It's filed on behalf of all the
veterans who needlessly contracted COVID-19," Lesser said.

When asked if they plan to sue the state as an entity, Lesser said
they must first send a presentment letter to the commonwealth.
Lesser told Western Mass News, one person they do not plan to bring
action against is the state's Health and Human Services Secretary
Marylou Sudders.

"Came with a response team, and did the appropriate things which
were isolating people with COVID-19, sending them to the hospitals,
all things that should've happened weeks and weeks before," Lesser
noted.

The independent investigation into the home, detailed one nurse's
account of seeing social workers call families and push them into
changing their loved one's status to "do not hospitalize."

Meanwhile, Governor Charlie Baker was asked about the class action
lawsuit, and while he declined to discuss the litigation, he said
he has spoken to the families of the late vets.

"I am more than aware of the pain and the sadness and the loss that
they feel," Baker said.

Western Mass News reached out to the lawyer for Bennett Walsh, who
denied to comment at this time and also reached out to the others
for comment, who too declined to make a statement.

Tune in to Western Mass News starting at 6PM on ABC40 for the
latest developments. [GN]

HOT POT: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid OT, Rest Break & Shift Premium
------------------------------------------------------------------
VALENTIN CASTRO HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOT POT IRVINE 1 LLC d/b/a LITTLE
SHEEP MONGOLIAN HOT POT, HOT POT SACRAMENTO 1 LLC d/b/a LITTLE
SHEEP MONGOLIAN HOTPOT, JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-12 d/b/a LITTLE
SHEEP MONGOLIAN HOT POT, and MICHAEL PUI LUK, Defendants, Case No.
8:20-cv-01343 (C.D. Cal., July 24, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
including failure to compensate the Plaintiff and all other
similarly situated restaurant employees overtime wages for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failure to pay
them split shift premium, failure to provide the required rest
breaks during their daily shifts, failure to give them proper wage
statements, and failure to accurately keep track of all their
worked hours.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a food preparer at
the Little Sheep Mongolian Hot Pot restaurant located at 2575
Pacific Coast Hwy, Torrance, California from June 2013 until
October 2018.

Hot Pot Irvine 1 LLC, d/b/a Little Sheep Mongolian Hot Pot, is a
Chinese hot pot restaurant with a principal place of business
located at 15361 Culver Drive, Irvine, California.

Hot Pot Sacramento 1 LLC, d/b/a Little Sheep Mongolian Hot Pot, is
a Chinese hot pot restaurant with a principal place of business
located at 7271 Franklin Boulevard, Sacramento, California.

John Doe Corporation 1, d/b/a Little Sheep Mongolian Hot Pot is a
Chinese hot pot restaurant with a principal place of business
located at 1655 S Azusa Avenue, Suite E, Hacienda Heights,
California.

John Doe Corporation 3, d/b/a Little Sheep Mongolian Hot Pot is a
Chinese hot pot restaurant with a principal place of business
located at 2575 Pacific Coast Highway, Torrance, California.

John Doe Corporation 4, d/b/a Little Sheep Mongolian Hot Pot is a
Chinese hot pot restaurant with a principal place of business
located at Fair Oaks Avenue, Pasadena, California.

John Doe Corporation 5, d/b/a Little Sheep Mongolian Hot Pot is a
Chinese hot pot restaurant with a principal place of business
located at 4718 Clairemont Mesa Boulevard, San Diego, California.

John Doe Corporation 6, d/b/a Little Sheep Mongolian Hot Pot is a
Chinese hot pot restaurant with a principal place of business
located at 140 W Valley Boulevard, Suite 213, San Gabriel,
California.

John Doe Corporation 7, d/b/a Little Sheep Mongolian Hot Pot is a
Chinese hot pot restaurant with a principal place of business
located at 19062 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California.

John Doe Corporation 8, d/b/a Little Sheep Mongolian Hot Pot is a
Chinese hot pot restaurant with a principal place of business
located at 4068 Grafton Street, Dublin, California.

John Doe Corporation 9, d/b/a Little Sheep Mongolian Hot Pot is a
Chinese hot pot restaurant with a principal place of business
located at 34396 Alvarado Niles Road, Union City, California.

John Doe Corporation 10, d/b/a Little Sheep Mongolian Hot Pot is a
Chinese hot pot restaurant with a principal place of business
located at 215 S Ellsworth Avenue, San Mateo, California.

John Doe Corporation 11, d/b/a Little Sheep Mongolian Hot Pot is a
Chinese hot pot restaurant with a principal place of business
located at 102 Castro Street, Mountain View, California.

John Doe Corporation 12, d/b/a Little Sheep Mongolian Hot Pot is a
Chinese hot pot restaurant with a principal place of business
located at 405 Mason Street, San Francisco, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         C.K. Lee, Esq.
         LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
         148 W. 24th Street, 8th Floor
         New York, NY 10011
         Telephone: (212) 465-1188
         Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
         E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com

                - and –

         Ted. K. Lippincott, Esq.
         LEVINE & BLIT, LLP
         6300 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 1870
         Los Angeles, CA 90048
         Telephone: (310) 281-0100
         Facsimile: (310) 281-0140
         E-mail: tlippincott@levineblit.com

HV OCCUPATIONAL: Misclassifies Paramedics, Rapp Claims
------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN RAPP, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HV OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH ADVISORS OF AMERICA,
LLC, a Texas limited liability company, ROBERT MITCHELL and ADEN
SCHILLIG, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02043-KMT (D. Colo., July
14, 2020) brings this complaint against Defendants for their
alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was hired by Defendants as a Paramedic in or around
August 2019.

According to the complaint, Defendants improperly classified
Plaintiff and other Paramedics as exempt from the overtime
requirements of the FLSA. Although Plaintiff and other Paramedics
frequently work more than 50 hours per workweek and routinely more
than 65 hours per workweek, Defendants failed to pay them for all
their hours worked and/or failed to properly calculate Paramedics'
proper rates of overtime pay.

Robert Mitchell is HV's Vice President of Operations.

Aden Schillig is HV's Clinical Director.

HV Occupational Health Advisors of America, LLC provides
comprehensive on site preventative and response treatment. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul F. Lewis, Esq.
          Michael D. Kuhn, Esq.
          Andrew E. Swan, Esq.
          LEWIS KUHN SWAN PC
          620 North Tejon St., Suite 101
          Colorado Springs, CO 80903
          Tel: (719) 694-3000
          Fax: (866) 515-8628
          Emails: plewis@lks.law
                  mkuhn@lks.law
                  aswan@lks.law


IDEANOMICS INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Aug. 27 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Ideanomics, Inc. (NASDAQ: IDEX)
between March 20, 2020 and June 25, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important August 27, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline
in securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages
for Ideanomics investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Ideanomics class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1888.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) Ideanomics' Mobile Energy Global (MEG) Division (the "MEG
Center") in Qingdao was not "a one million square foot EV expo
center"; (2) the Company had been using doctored or altered
photographs of the purported MEG Center in Qingdao; (3) the
Company's electric vehicle business in China was not performing
nearly as strong as Ideanomics had represented; and (4) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. According to the suit, these true
details were disclosed by market research firms. 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 August 27,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1888.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN]

J2 GLOBAL: Hagens Berman Reminds of Sept. 18 Plaintiff Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges investors in J2 Global, Inc. (NASDAQ: JCOM) to
submit their losses now. A securities fraud lawsuit has been filed,
and certain investors may have valuable claims.

Class Period: Oct. 5, 2015 - June 29, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Sep. 8, 2020
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/JCOM
Contact An Attorney Now: JCOM@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

J2 Global (JCOM) Securities Fraud Class Action:

J2 Global is a digital media roll-up that has acquired 186
businesses since its inception. Its CEO describes the Company's
"acquisition system" as its "single great competitive advantage."

The complaint alleges that Defendants throughout the Class Period
misrepresented and concealed that: (1) J2 Global engaged in
undisclosed related party transactions; (2) J2 Global used
misleading accounting to hide requisite impairments and
underperformance in acquisitions; and (3) several so-called
independent members of the Company board of directors and audit
committee were not disinterested.

The complaint alleges that investors began to learn the truth on
June 30, 2020, when research firm Hindenburg released a scathing
report about J2 accusing the Company of engaging in undisclosed
related party transactions and accounting manipulation. Hindenburg
stated "[w]e . . . .  believe J2's opaque acquisition approach has
opened the door to egregious insider self-enrichment, which we
believe approximates $117 million to $172 million" and concluded
"We Believe J2 Global's Equity Is Uninvestable."

In response, the price of J2 Global shares traded sharply lower.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving J2 Global
intentionally misrepresented the success of its roll-up strategy,"
said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the
investigation.

If you purchased shares of J2 Global and suffered significant
losses, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens
Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding J2
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 JCOM@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. More about the firm and its successes is located at
hbsslaw.com. [GN]

JENNER'S POND: Macloud Suit Transferred to Pa. Dist. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jan Macloud, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jenner's Pond
Retirement Community, Simpson Senior Services, Simpson Senior
Housing and Community Services, LLC, Simpson Meadows, Simpson
House, Inc. and Jenner's Pond, Inc dba, AKA Jenner's Pond
Retirement, Defendants, was transferred from the Court of Common
Pleas of Philadelphia County with the assigned Case No. 20060135 to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) on July 15, 2020, and assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-03485.

Jenner's Pond, Inc is a Retirement community in Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

   Glenn R. Davis, Esq.
   Latsha, Davis, Yohe & McKenna PC
   1700 Bent Creek Blvd, Suite 140
   Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
   Tel: (717) 620-2424
   Email: gdavis@ldylaw.com




JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Narrows Claims in Hernandez Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EDUARDO HERNANDEZ, GREG HOFER, MARGARET CRINER, ROBERT
URANTIA, GLENN PARKER, and MAURO TUSO, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-15679-BRM-TJB (D. N.J.),
Judge Brian R. Martinotti of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey (i) granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' Class Action
Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); and
(ii) denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Supplemental
Authority in Support of its Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.

The matter stems from J&J's purportedly false labelling of their
Tylenol(R) Extra Strength Rapid Release Gelcaps.  The Defendant is
a New Jersey corporation in the business of manufacturing,
marketing, and distributing over-the-counter products to consumers
worldwide, including analgesic or pain-relieving medicines such as
Tylenol.

In 2005, the Defendant first introduced its Rapid Release Gelcaps
that purported to relieve pain "even faster than before."  After
first being introduced to the public in 2008, the Rapid Release
Gelcaps were recalled in 2009 until their re-release in 2017.
Following the re-release, the Defendant heavily marketed the Rapid
Release Gelcaps, emphasizing the speed at which the gels relieved
pain.  However, a 2018 study of the Rapid Release Gelcaps revealed
the products "not only fail to work faster, but they actually work
slower than their traditional acetaminophen counterparts, such as
tablets."  

Indeed, the Plaintiffs contend the findings of the study render the
Defendant's statements regarding the Rapid Release Gelcaps "false,
misleading, deceptive, and unfair."  Further, they claim the
Defendant knew or should have known that its representations about
the Rapid Release Gelcaps were false, misleading, and/or
deceptive.

The Plaintiffs are a group of consumers from California.
Additionally, they represent a proposed class of hundreds of
thousands of consumers who purchased and used the Rapid Release
Gelcaps.  Each Plaintiff purchased the Rapid Release Gelcaps
relying on marketing and labelling that described the product as
according faster relief than normal Tylenol tablets.  Due to the
purported benefit over tablets, the Defendant sold its Rapid
Release Gelcaps at a higher price than its other acetaminophen
tablets.  The Plaintiffs claim they were deceived by the
Defendant's representations regarding the Rapid Release Gelcaps and
would not have purchased them had they not been misled to believe
the Rapid Release Gelcaps would provide faster relief than other,
cheaper acetaminophen products.

On July 27, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a nine-count Complaint
against the Defendant asserting claims for violation of California
False Advertising Law ("FAL") individually and on behalf of the
California Class (Count One), violation of California Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL") individually and on behalf of the
California Class (Count Two), violation of California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") individually and on behalf of the
California Class (Count Three), violation of the Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act ("Song-Beverly Act") individually and on
behalf of the California Class (Count Four), breach of implied
warranty of merchantability individually and on behalf of the
National Class (Count Five), breach of express warranty
individually and on behalf of the National Class (Count Six),
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA") individually
and on behalf of the National Class (Count Seven), unjust
enrichment individually and on behalf of the National Class (Count
Eight), and declaratory relief individually and on behalf of the
National Class (Count Nine).

In September 2019, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Complaint.  The Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to the
Motion to Dismiss in October 2019.  And the Defendant filed a Reply
to the Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.  On Dec. 16, 2019, the
Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File Supplementary Authority
in support of its Opposition.  The Defendant filed an Opposition to
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave.

Judge Martinotti granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss.  The Judge granted the Motion with respect to
Counts Four, Five, Six, Seven, and Nine, and denied the Motion with
regards to Counts One, Two, Three, and Eight.

Regarding the Plaintiffs' claims under the UCL (Count One), FAL
(Count Two), and CLRA (Count Three) ("Consumer Protection Claims"),
taken in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, the Judge
finds that they have alleged the labeling of the Rapid Release
Gelcaps plausibly confuse or mislead the public.  First, the
Plaintiffs allege J&J sells the Rapid Release Gelcaps as an
alternative to - and at a higher price than - traditional
acetaminophen tablets.  Additionally, the Plaintiffs have alleged
the Kucera Study has demonstrated the Rapid Release Gelcaps
dissolve at a slower rate than traditional tablets and that
Defendant knew or should have known this.  Taken together, these
allegations provide sufficient basis for the Plaintiffs' Consumer
Protection Claims.

Regarding the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment (Count Eight), the
Judge finds that the Plaintiffs allege they are entitled to relief
because J&J sold the Rapid Release Gelcaps by making false,
misleading, and/or deceptive representations about the products'
speed and capabilities and unjustly charged a premium to purchase
the Gelcaps and therefore obtained monies that rightfully belong to
the Plaintiffs.  That statement is sufficient to state a
quasi-contract cause of action.

Additionally, the Jugde denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to
Submit Supplemental Authority.  The Plaintiffs request leave to
submit supplemental authority to address the purported preemption
argument in the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.  However, they
concede that J&J does not raise any arguments based on preemption.
Therefore, the Judge finds no basis to grant leave.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 19, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/ma29Ew from Leagle.com.


KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY: KC Law Firm Seeks Tuition Reimbursement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Biz Journal reports that Joseph Hollander Craft LLC in Kansas
City filed suit against Kansas State University seeking
class-action status and reimbursement of tuition for students who
couldn't use the campus because of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Chris McHugh of Joseph Hollander Craft in Kansas City is the lead
attorney. He's joined by attorneys from Sultzer Law Group PC and
Leed Brown Law PC in New York. The case was filed July 6 in the
U.S. District Court of Kansas. The plaintiffs are students Noah
Plank and John Garfolo, who live in Saline County, Kan.

The lawsuit argues that by accepting tuition payment, Kansas State
University entered into a contract with the students, agreeing to
provide educational services, experiences and opportunities that
were detailed in marketing, advertisements and other public
representations.

In Columbia, an unnamed student sued the University of Missouri
seeking class-action status in state court, calling for damages
tied to tuition costs as schools shifted to online classes as the
Covid-19 pandemic took hold.

Kansas State shut down its campus on March 12 because of the
pandemic and suspended and canceled all in-person classes. In the
process, the lawsuit argues, the university took away college
experiences and access to gyms, lab facilities, libraries, and
other services that students paid for.

Although the university provided online classes, the lawsuit argues
that the students never reached an agreement with Kansas State for
those types of services in exchange for their full tuition costs.
The students accuse the university of breach of contract,
conversion and unjust enrichment.

The lawsuit seeks a pro rata refund of tuition and fees charged to
cover in-person services and experiences, punitive and treble
damages, attorney costs and court fees.

Kansas State University has not filed an answer to the suit and
declined to comment. [GN]

KANSAS: Implements Changes Following 2018 Foster Care Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Howard, Kansas Department for Children and Families
Secretary, in an article for The Wichita Eagle, reports that Gov.
Laura Kelly's decision to issue an executive order creating an
annual Foster Care Academic Report Card was the right one for
Kansas' foster youth. "As secretary of the Kansas Department for
Children and Families, I'm proud of the progress our agency has
made throughout the Kelly administration to improve outcomes and
the life trajectory for young people who experience state
custody."

When Kelly took office, her administration inherited a foster care
system in crisis. Years of severe funding cuts to pay for failed
tax policy had undermined the state safety net and the number of
children in foster care were at record highs.

Over the last 18 months, the DCF has improved practices,
implemented new programs and made systemic changes, all with the
aim of achieving better outcomes for youths in state custody. We
affirmed our commitment to continue this work when we reached an
agreement this month to settle the class action lawsuit filed
against the state in 2018.

DCF practitioners have been trained in new practice models that
prioritize family involvement in safety and placement decisions.
This year, Kansas was one of the first states to implement the
federal Family First Prevention Services Act, providing vulnerable
families with the skills training, support and resources they need
to keep their children out of the foster care system when safely
possible.

These improvements have yielded increased stability for foster
youth. Currently, 95.9% of foster children in the state are in a
stable placement according to federal case review standards. In the
second half of fiscal year 2020, the DCF also achieved a decrease
in the number of children who had no overnight placement and stayed
in an office from an average of 16 per month to six per month.

As we have refocused our mission, we have made improving education
a key priority because we know it is vital for the long-term
success and well-being of all children. This report card, which
tracks and reports educational outcomes of Kansas foster youth on
an annual basis, will give us valuable insights into what gaps
exist and how to better meet the educational needs of these
children.

I'm proud to say Kansas will be among the first states in the
nation to produce and publish such a report. The report also
provides accountability and transparency to the public. I am
especially pleased that the report will include data by race and
ethnicity, allowing us to identify and specifically target any
disparate outcomes.

While we don't yet know exactly what this data will show, I am
eager to see where it leads us. This is an unprecedented
opportunity for the child welfare and education systems to work
together to support foster youth. I am thankful Kelly took swift
action to issue the executive order, continuing her commitment to
improve outcomes for foster youth.

While educational outcomes are a key issue for Kansas foster
children, the Foster Care Academic Report Card is only one of many
initiatives we have undertaken at the department to improve
outcomes for young people in state custody. While there remains
work to be done to relieve our state's strained child welfare
system, we have made significant progress in getting it back on the
right track.

Gov. Kelly and I are committed to continuing to improve outcomes
for foster youth in Kansas. We've made progress, but we aren't yet
where we want to be or where the children and families of Kansas
need us to be. With the support of the governor, Legislature,
engaged communities and child welfare stakeholders, I am confident
we will succeed -- together.

Laura Howard is Kansas Department for Children and Families
Secretary. [GN]


KINGOLD JEWELRY: Rosen Law Reminds of Aug. 31 Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Kingold Jewelry, Inc. (NASDAQ:
KGJI) between March 15, 2018 and June 28, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period") of the important August 31, 2020 lead plaintiff
deadline in the securities class action commenced by the firm. The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Kingold investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Kingold class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1891.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) Kingold used fake gold as collateral to fraudulently
secure loans; (2) consequently, the Company would face creditor
lawsuits and be delisted from the Shanghai Gold Exchange; and (3)
as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations,
and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. 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 August 31,
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-1891.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

         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
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 cases@rosenlegal.com [GN]

KIRKLAND LAKE: Dean Paul Alleges Misleading Securities Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DEAN PAUL MITZEL TTEE DGI HOLDINGS 401K, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KIRKLAND LAKE GOLD
LTD. and ANTHONY P. MAKUCH, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05505
(S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2020), arises from the Defendants' violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated buyers of Kirkland securities, alleges that the
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements about
Kirkland's business, operational, and compliance policies
throughout the Class period, between January 8, 2018 and November
25, 2019. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose these
material facts to investors: (i) Kirkland lacked adequate internal
controls over financial reporting, especially as it related 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 Gold Corporation, 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 (IFRS); and (iv) based
on the foregoing, the 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.

Following Kirkland's announcement of its acquisition deal with
Detour, Kirkland's shares declined and several securities analysts,
equally surprised by the deal, downgraded Kirkland's ratings and
lowered the company's price target.

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

Kirkland Lake Gold Ltd. is a limited liability company that owns
and operates gold mines in Canada and Australia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
         J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
         POMERANTZ LLP
         600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 661-1100
         Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
         E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                 ahood@pomlaw.com

                 - and -

         Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
         POMERANTZ LLP
         10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Telephone: (312) 377-1181
         Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
         E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

                 - and -

         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
         60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
         New York, NY 10165
         Telephone: (212) 697-6484
         Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
         E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com

KIRKLAND LAKE: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 28 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Kirkland Lake Gold Ltd. (NYSE: KL)
between January 8, 2018 and November 25, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), of the important August 28, 2020 lead plaintiff
deadline in  asecurities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Kirkland investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Kirkland class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1892.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) Kirkland lacked adequate internal controls over financial
reporting, especially as it relates to its projections of risks,
reserve grade, and all-in sustaining costs; (2) as a result of the
known, but undisclosed, impending acquisition of Detour Gold
Corporation, Kirkland's projections relating to its risks, reserve
grade, and all-in sustaining costs were false and misleading; (3)
Kirkland's financial statements and projections were not fairly
presented in conformity with International Financial Reporting
Standards; and (4) based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a
reasonable basis for their positive statements about Kirkland's
business, operations, and prospects and/or lacked a reasonable
basis and omitted material facts. 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 August 28,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1892.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee a similar outcome.


         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
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 cases@rosenlegal.com [GN]

LENDINGCLUB CORP: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Sosa Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
YONY SOSA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-05256 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2020) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's website
-- https://www.lendingclub.com/ -- is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers.

LendingClub Corporation provides Internet financial services. The
Company hosts an online financial community that brings together
credit worthy borrowers and independent investors for their mutual
benefits. LendingClub serves retail investors and borrowers in the
United States. [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: nyjg@aol.com
                   danalgottlieb@aol.com


LENNAR INC: Judge Yet to Decide on Bayview Hunters Residents Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charlene Muhammad, writing for The Final Call, reports that
activists are charging silent homicide rages in San Francisco's Bay
View Hunters Point neighborhood and say national housing developer
Lennar, Inc. is still digging up radioactive dirt in its plans to
build upscale housing on the site of the old Hunters Point Naval
Shipyard.

As of June 16, the Hunter's Point naval shipyard was one of
America's 10 most toxic sites and is currently on the Environmental
Protection Agency's Superfund site list, which means it is
prioritized for cleanup because of radioactive contamination.

A committee of attorneys, community leaders and doctors are angry
but not dismayed at what they called blatant defiance in the face
of a federal class-action lawsuit filed against Lennar for fraud,
wrongful death, environmental racism, and for violating federal
laws. A judge will have to decide whether the issue warrants
certification as a class action lawsuit.

Bayview Hunters Point residents suffer medically and economically,
in addition to fear, anxiety, humiliation, pain, and emotional
distress, among other things, according to the suit filed in San
Francisco.

"This is not just a silent homicide . . .  it is a screaming loud
homicide that is being ignored," said civil rights attorney Charles
Bonner, who filed the class action on behalf of some 4,000
individuals who have been living, working, attending school or had
substantial contact with the community in the Hunters Point Zip
Code 94124 from 2004 to present.

He said residents are currently being poisoned and alleged that San
Francisco Mayor London Breed gave the green light to Lennar
Corporation to start digging, but failed to notify the community.

"It is criminal for Lennar to go and dig after we have filed the
lawsuit, a $27 billion lawsuit on behalf of the 40,000 people who
live in the 94124 zip code, the Hunters Point zip code. But yet,
this is the doubling down on the fact that our lives don't matter,"
added civil rights attorney Bonner.

He, epidemiologist Dr. Mark Alexander, Student Minister Rashidullah
Muhammad of Mosque No. 26 in San Francisco, Elaine Brown, former
Black Panther leader, and others, coordinated a virtual town hall
June 24 to give residents an update on recent developments, which
include allegations of Lennar's digging and community testing.

The suit calls for an immediate halt to all development,
construction, building, digging, erecting, disturbing of soil,
dirt, earth, buildings, structures, pipes, and all activity at
Hunters Point Navy Shipyard until independent verified reports can
be obtained showing a total and complete remediation or clean up of
all toxic substances, including radiative materials.

Defendants, which include Lennar, Inc., Tetra Tech, Inc., and Five
Point Holdings, LLC., were knowingly, purposely poisoning the
predominantly Black population, the suit alleges.

"We don't need to look at the demonstrations in Korea and Japan and
London or Italy where people around the world are saying Black
Lives Matter. Just right here, it's a doubling down. They're
ignoring the whole world. Only Black bodies have mattered in this
country since the beginning of the Constitution when we were only
three fifths of a person," stated Atty. Bonner.

Dr. Raymond Tompkins, retired professor and air quality expert,
Catherine Muhammad and Danielle Carpenter, lead plaintiffs, and Dr.
Ramona Tascoe, assistant to Dr. Ahimsa Porter Sumchai, principal
investigator for the Hunters Point bio-monitoring program, were
also panelists during the virtual town hall meeting and press
conference.

Lennar's re-digging has opened up old wounds for Christopher
Carpenter's widow.  "It's kind of like watching Chris' assassins or
killers if you will walk around free while I'm still being punished
by his death and my family," said Catherine Carpenter.

Mr. Carpenter, who worked for Gordon Ball, a subcontractor with
Tetra Tech, was honored as a community hero for sounding the alarm
about radioactive saturated dust and other chemicals blowing into
nearby school playgrounds and exposing safety violations by his
employer, said advocates.

He suffered for it. He was fired, contracted cancer, and died on
March 6, 2016 at age 52.

Mrs. Carpenter remains concerned for the safety of her community,
which is more susceptible to Covid-19 because of the underlying
high rates of asthma and other lung problems that it suffers as a
result of Tetra Tech and Lennar, she stated. "My children still
suffer from bloody noses being at George Washington Carver School,"
she said.

"Them starting to rebuild is a blatant disregard to me and our
family for his life. People that live there that know the toxicity
of the land and continue to live there and know that or maybe not
know that the end result could possibly be the same way our family
is. It saddens me," said Mrs. Carpenter.  "I just want to see this
(moratorium) on the digging happen again but stop the building.
Give us some kind of justification for Chris' life, that he didn't
just once again pass away in vain," she added.

Catherine Muhammad was diagnosed with thyroid cancer, and has had
to undergo radiation treatments since, she charged, learning she
was poisoned by radioactive dust kicked up during Lennar's
excavation next to Muhammad University of Islam, a K-12 school.
She's still suffering.

"I'm constantly seeing the doctor having adjustments . . . having
to take multiple blood tests every month to make sure everything is
okay. And I'm still suffering from being poisoned up there at the
school," said the Muhammad University of Islam San Francisco
teacher.

She thanked the Hunters Point leadership committee for keeping the
community informed and the candle burning in their fight or
movement for justice. San Francisco city officials have proven time
and again they don't really care about Blacks there, she stated.

"I guess they figured, well, if the world is caught up in this
pandemic they can just slide right on in and start digging again
without anybody noticing. But how many more of us have to get sick
from cancer before they listen?  How many more of us have to die
before they take action," she asked.

"At a time when the world is demanding change, in San Francisco,
some things never change. We've got to keep fighting like our very
lives depend on it," Ms. Muhammad added.

"This is heart-wrenching stuff, and these are real testimonies of
people who have died and who are suffering from cancer because of
pre-existing conditions living in Hunters Point and now we've added
coronavirus and insult to injury," said Ms. Brown.

The first act by the leadership committee for the Hunters Point
Residents' Lawsuit after learning the digging resumed was to amend
and serve their complaint on behalf of approximately 8,000 more
plaintiffs on June 26.  They are asking the State Attorney General
and San Francisco District Attorney to file criminal charges.  They
also plan to file complaints with the San Francisco Bay Area
Quality Control Agency, asking them to levy millions of dollars in
fines against Lennar in light of the new developments.

"Mayor London Breed says that we ought to shelter in place, but yet
at the same time she gave the green light to Lennar to go out and
start digging and did not give notice to the community. That is a
contradiction. That is basically a betrayal," stated Atty. Bonner.

"Very loudly, contact Mayor London Breed, loudly, through
telephone, through emails, through smoke signals, any way you can
communicate to her that we are dying in Hunters Point, and that she
has to stop the digging."   

"There should be live demonstrations down at City Hall, with
everyone practicing social distancing.  People are in the streets
across the world about Black Lives Matters. This is the time to say
Black Lives Matters in Hunters Point, stop the digging," the
attorney said. "Go down to City Hall. Sit in City Hall. Don't leave
City Hall until they stop the digging. Engage in direct action.
That is what gets results—direct, civil, non-violent
disobedience," continued Atty. Bonner.

In addition, the committee urged residents to go to San Francisco
General Hospital and demand urine testing to determine what kinds
of toxins are in their systems. Diseases won't show up until nearly
a decade later, said Min. Muhammad. Once the Covid-19 quarantine is
lifted, he continued, the committee will begin testing poor
residents on their own with a medical van they purchased.

"History proves we can't trust the Department of Public Health to
look out for our best interest. So we need the city and county of
San Francisco to defer to the wisdom, the oversight and the
expertise of Black health care professionals that are offering
themselves to guide direct and oversee this process so that we no
longer allow Russian Roulette to be played with Black lives in
Bayview Hunters Point," said Min. Muhammad.

According to Atty. Bonner, everyone from 2004 until now, who lived,
worked or frequently visited people in that area, and therefore who
would be exposed are part of the class. A limitation on amending
the lawsuit expired in February, but he said his firm will still
accept applicants who want to join and see what happens.

"We're not going to turn anyone away, because we can see there's a
continuing violation that's a continuing criminal act, a continuing
negligence, so it's not even a matter of the statute of limitations
here. We have a continuing private and public nuisance," stated
Atty. Bonner.

The Nation of Islam and followers of the Honorable Minister Louis
Farrakhan in the San Francisco Bay Area have been fighting for what
they call environmental injustice since 2006. The Muslims learned
that Lennar Corporation, a multi-billion dollar housing developer,
had begun grading a hill directly beside the school to make way for
1,500 homes on the site of the old Hunters Point Naval Shipyard.

The company, which Min. Muhammad dubbed a "rogue corporation,"
purposely poisoned the community of Hunters Point with
toxicological dust and dirt, asbestos filth and dirt, and exposed
the Muhammad University of Islam, located right next to the
shipyard, he stated. We finally got a breakthrough in when Justin
Hubbard and Stephen Rolfe, two former Tetra Tech Inc. supervisors,
were convicted for lying and falsifying records about clean up at
the site, he noted.

"We fought that fight and the city and county of San Francisco
covered it up and protected the Lennar Corporation, and the Navy,
covered it up. The EPA covered it up. All of the health agencies
including San Francisco Health Department, under the leadership of
Mitchell Katz, who's now the director of health in New York City,
and of course, under the leadership of Governor Gavin Newsom,"
stated Min. Muhammad.

Still, about a dozen lawsuits were filed after the Muslims charged
a coverup. The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Tetra
Tech in 2018 for submitting false records. The case was referred to
Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu for settlement.  A lawsuit filed by
approximately 400 current and employer San Francisco Police
Department police officers, staff, and families who sued Tetra Tech
last November is pending. The alleged officers and their family
suffer from asthma, blood disorders, and lung cancer.

Tetra Tech fully stood by its work at Hunters Point. The Final Call
tried multiple times to reach Lennar, Inc., and they did not
respond.

"Even though there are laws on the books that there should be air
monitors, even though there should be wind protections and
screening and warnings given, yet, the other day, we discovered
that the Lennar Corporation was once again digging on the shipyard
the largest radiological testing laboratory in the world," stated
Min. Muhammad.

"And now we see earth movers excavating right next to head start,
right next to housing developments, and we caught it on film . . .
clips that prove that this rogue company has no concern for the
health and wellbeing, and we're calling on the City of San
Francisco that's taken such a bold, proactive role in containing
the coronavirus by issuing shelter in place and mask laws and
curfew laws, yet the Lennar Corporation appears to get away with
murder with impunity," he continued.

The Final Call had not yet received a response to its request for
comment from Mayor Breed at press time.  However she announced in
January that the state's testing was appropriate on parcel A—a
smaller plot that is part of larger parcels of land cleaned up and
turned over to the city for use, in lieu of waiting for the entire
shipyard to be decontaminated.

Mayor Breed and other city officials sought out independent
analysis from a panel of University of California at San Francisco
and Berkeley experts last April.  They determined that the
radiation testing procedures established by state and federal
regulatory agencies at the Hunters Point Shipyard were appropriate
and sufficient.

"Nothing is more important than the health and safety of the people
living in the Bayview and Hunters Point, and this community
deserves transparency," read their statement.

(The Hunters Point Bio Medical Monitoring Clinic and Screening at
5021 Third Street is conducting urine and blood sampling testing
for heavy metals and radionuclides or radioactive chemicals found
in the toxic soil.  Residents can contact Atty. Bonner's office to
be connected to Dr. Ahimsa Porter Sumchai at 415-331-3070 or
charles@bonnerlaw.com. Contacts for Gov. Newsom (916) 445-2841,
Mayor Breed (415) 554-6141; and Sup. Walton (415) 554-7670.) [GN]


LENNY JOHNS PIZZERIA: Quizhpi Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL QUIZHPI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, - against - LENNY JOHNS PIZZERIA INC., d/b/a
LENNY & JOHN'S PIZZERIA, and JOHN SCANDIFFIO, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03301 (E.D.N.Y., July 23, 2020) is a
civil action brought by Plaintiff and all other similarly situated
kitchen workers to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 et seq. ("FLSA")
and New York Labor Law ("NYLL").

Plaintiff and similarly situated non-exempt workers work or have
worked as kitchen workers to prepare food items and restock food
supplies for Lenny Johns Pizzeria Inc. d/b/a Lenny & John's
Pizzeria, a company owned and operated by Scandiffio.

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated current and former non-exempt workers who elect to opt-in
to this action pursuant to the FLSA and specifically, the
collective action provision of 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), to remedy
violations of overtime provisions of the FLSA by Defendants.

Defendants also failed to provide Notice and Acknowledgement of Pay
Rate and Payday under Section 195(1) of the NYLL as well as
accurate wage statements as required under Section 195(3) of the
NYLL.

Lenny Johns Pizzeria Inc. is a pizza restaurant incorporated in the
state of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
          225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 323-6980
          E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com

LONGVIEW ER: Misclassifies Massage Therapists, Davis et al Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
HAILEY DAVIS and RACHEL ROWE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LONGVIEW ER OPERATIONS,
LLC, TYLER ER OPERATIONS, LLC, and GALVESTON ER OPERATIONS, LLC,
all doing business as HOSPITALITY HEALTH ER, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-00238-JRG (E.D. Tex., July 15, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as massage therapists.

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs were required by Defendants
to work more than 40 hours in a workweek. However, instead of
paying them overtime wages, Defendants paid them a straight hourly
rate only with no federal withholding, social security or Medicare
taxes withheld. Allegedly, Defendants misclassified Plaintiffs and
other similarly situated massage therapists as independent
contractors, thereby failing to pay them overtime compensation as
required by the FLSA.

Longview ER Operations, LLC, Tyler ER Operations, LLC, and
Galveston ER Operations, LLC operates as Hospitality Health ER.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq.
          HOMMEL LAW FIRM
          5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115
          Tyler, TX 75703
          Tel: 903-596-7100
          Fax: 469-533-1618
          https://hommelfirm.com/contact/


MICHIGAN STATE POLICE: Ruling Lets Class-Action Bias Suits Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Michigan Court of Appeals has given the go-ahead for two class
action lawsuits to go forward against the Michigan State Police
over claims that the agency's testing and other hiring practices
discriminate against Black applicants.

The court ruled in two cases, one filed in 2015 and the other in
2017, in which African American candidates complain that state
police officials have used non-job related criteria such as credit
information to deny Black applicants jobs as well as promotions.

In the 2015 lawsuit, MSP applicant Marlon Carter alleged MSP's
pre-screening interview was discriminatory because it assigned
numerical values to such criteria as credit history in determining
if an applicant would move forward in the interview process.

The lawsuit not only names the Michigan State Police but also its
former director,  Kriste Kibbey Etue, as well as the Civil Service
Commission and its director.

"Comments or reaction to a court action in a lawsuit involving the
state are best referred to the AG's Office, but I can tell you that
the MSP does not discriminate against any applicant in the
recruiting or hiring process," state police spokeswoman Shanon
Banner said in an email.

A message seeking comment was left with a spokeswoman for Attorney
General Dana Nessel.

A Wayne County Circuit Court judge ruled last year that Carter's
lawsuit lacked merit to certify it as a class-action complaint.

But the Michigan Court of Appeals disagreed, writing in its ruling,
which was released, that "there are questions of law or fact common
to the members of the class that predominate over questions
affecting only individual members."

Both lawsuits were filed by attorney Leonard Mungo in Wayne County
Circuit Court and filed on behalf of 698 Black applicants who
sought to become Michigan State Police troopers.

The 2017 lawsuit, filed on behalf of Carlos Bell and others with
similar complaints, alleged the Michigan State Police's entrance
exam, which has been revamped several times over the past 18 years,
had a "disparate adverse impact on African-American applicants."

Bell alleges "intentional discrimination arising from defendants'
failure to monitor the adverse impact of the examination on African
American applicants."

A Wayne County Circuit Court judge ruled that the case should go
forward as a class- action lawsuit, bringing together former MSP
applicants who took the 2002 version of the MSP applicants' exam
and the test given between March 2002 and December 2014. But the
Michigan Civil Service Commission and the state's  personnel
director appealed.

The three-judge panel for the Michigan Appeals Court upheld the
circuit court ruling.

Mungo said the decision on both cases "is tremendously huge" in
pointing out "disparate" treatment of Black applicants in hiring
and also promotions and job treatment.

"The Court of Appeals has agreed that there is a problem and that
African Americans are being giving disparate treatment as a group,"
Mungo said.

The percentage of Black troopers in the Michigan State Police has
dipped, said Mungo, to around 5% compared to 12.5% during the
mid-1990s.

"We're calling (the MSP) out on the exact sin that the Justice
Department called out (state police agencies) for in the 1970s," he
said.

According to statistics provided by Banner, 113 of 1,945 MSP
troopers and command officers, or 5.6%, are Black.

Mungo said the Department of Justice leveled a consent decree
against state police departments around the country, including
Michigan, and ordered many hiring practices and policies to be
scrapped or reform to ensure fairness among all applicants.

Ensuring that African Americans and other racial minorities are
adequately represented in the ranks on the Michigan State Police
and other law enforcement agencies "is important in terms of Black
Lives Matter and the police brutality of Blacks," said Mungo. [GN]

MIDWEST MEDICAL: Underpays Employees, Reust Claims
--------------------------------------------------
MEGAN REUST, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. MIDWEST MEDICAL TRANSPORT COMPANY, LLC, Defendant,
Case no. 1:20-cv-01548-PAB (N.D. Ohio, July 14, 2020) is a class
and collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its
alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an Emergency Medical
Technician.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to include the shift
differential and retention bonuses in determining Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees' regular rate of pay for purposes of
calculating their overtime compensation, thereby failing to pay
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees' exact overtime
compensation pursuant to the FLSA.

Midwest Medical Transport Company, LLC provides medical transport
services to customers throughout the Midwest. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          614 W. Superior Ave., Suite 1148
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Tel: (216) 230-2955
          Fax: (330) 754-1430
          Email: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com

                - and –

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Tel: (330) 470-4428
          Fax: (330) 754-1430
          Emails: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                  sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


MODANI DALLAS: Underpays Inside Sale Employees, Juarez Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
ELOY JUAREZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MODANI DALLAS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-01872-S (N.D. Tex., July 15, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the federal Portal-to-Portal Pay
Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an inside sale employee in
or about July 2015 and was paid on an hourly plus bonus and/or
commission basis. Then, he was promoted to a salaried manager after
approximately October 2018 until approximately March 2020.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and the putative action
members were not paid by Defendant time and one-half their regular
rate of pay despite regularly working in excess of 40 hours per
seven-day workweek as an inside sale employees, thereby failing to
pay them all overtime premium compensation.

Modani Dallas, LLC sells home and office furniture and related
accessories. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER VAUGHT PLLC
          1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Tel: (214) 251-4157
          Fax: (214) 261-5159
          Email: avaught@txlaborlaw.com


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Gets Subpoena as Part of Federal Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
WTVC, citing the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, reports that
flooring giant Mohawk Industries, based in Calhoun, Georgia, has
been subpoenaed as part of a federal class-action lawsuit.

The paper reports federal regulators are looking into whether
Mohawk misled investors in order to hide financial troubles and
defective product made at a north Georgia plant.

Mohawk disclosed that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern
District of Georgia and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
recently issued subpoenas to the company.

The Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi claims
Mohawk and its chairman and chief executive officer, Jeffrey
Lorberbaum, falsely booked revenue through a scheme to make
deliveries on Saturdays when customers were closed and couldn't
decline product they didn't need yet or that Mohawk knew was
defective," according to the report.

The suit cites the accounts of former employees who portray what
they call this 'Saturday scheme' as a way for the company to
'conceal from investors the true reasons for the company's
ballooning inventory. When the truth was finally revealed to
investors through a series of partial disclosures beginning in July
2018, the price of Mohawk common stock plunged, wiping out $7.4
billion in shareholder value.'

The newspaper reports Mohawk said in an SEC filing that it "intends
to vigorously defend itself in the lawsuit" and it previously
described the allegations as 'frivolous.'

It did not immediately respond to Atlanta Journal-Constitution
requests for further comment. [GN]


MOTION PICTURE HEALTH: IATSE Members File ERISA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Hollywood Reporter reports that a pair of International
Cinematographers Guild (IATSE Local 600) members are leading a
class action lawsuit filed in California federal court against the
Board of the Motion Picture Industry Health Plan, alleging that it
violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by not
treating all plan members fairly.

Entertainment industry workers covered by the plan include members
of IATSE's 13 Los Angeles locals, the largest being Local 600,
Local 700 (Motion Picture Editors Guild) and Local 800 (Art
Directors Guild).

To qualify for coverage, members must work 400 hours (or 600 hours
for newly-qualifying participants) in a six-month period. According
to the complaint, the defendants voted to extend up to 300 hours
for April and May to "active participants who are currently
enrolled" and whose benefits period ended June 30, "thereby
explicitly excluded participants on COBRA or on disability, and
excluding participants working toward initial eligibility."

In contrast, members with a qualifying period that ended March 21
were given a credit of 25 hours if they proved that were it not for
COVID-19, they would have met the requirement, according to the
complaint. "In doing so, defendants applied a more onerous standard
to participants whose qualifying period end March 21. ... [Likewise
those] who were on track to meet the requirement by April 25."
Plaintiffs also allege in the filing that the Board's plan
management was unfair in terms of premium waivers for dependents
and COBRA coverage. These actions "forced" affected members to
either pay for COBRA or other insurance coverage, or go without
insurance amid the novel coronavirus pandemic, according to the
filing.

According to the complaint, which is posted below, before the
production shutdown plaintiffs Greg Endries and Dee Nichols were on
track to meet their hours by their March 21 deadline.

Renaker, Hasselman Scott and Kantor & Kantor, attorneys for the
plaintiffs, are asking for the 300-hour extension plus retroactive
health benefits with a waiver of the premium for dependents "for
those that would have qualified for eligibility had they received
the extension" (or insurance reimbursement where applicable), as
well as the same COBRA subsidies as other plan participants.

Reps for the MPI Health Plan did not immediately respond to a
request for comment on the complaint. [GN]

MYLAN N.V.: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of August 25 Filing Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP reminds
investors of the upcoming deadline to move for appointment as lead
plaintiff in the class action litigation on behalf of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of
Mylan N.V. ("Mylan" or the "Company") (MYL) between February 16,
2016 and May 7, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you purchased the common stock of Mylan during the Class Period,
you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no
later than August 25, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions will not be
affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as
your counsel in the action.

Mylan investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and how
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or contact
Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358.

Background on the Mylan Securities Class Litigation

Mylan, incorporated in the Netherlands and headquartered in
Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, is the second-largest generic drug
manufacturer in the world. During the Class Period, Mylan's largest
U.S. manufacturing facility was located in Morgantown, West
Virginia.

The action alleges defendants made material misrepresentations and
omissions regarding Mylan's failure to comply with U.S. federal
quality control regulations, particularly at its Morgantown
facility. Under a scheme implemented by Mylan's President,
defendant Rajiv Malik, Mylan chemists allegedly manipulated quality
control test data to create the illusion that Mylan's drugs had
achieved passing quality control results.

On June 28, 2018, Mylan disclosed that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") had conducted an investigation into the
Morgantown facility in the spring of 2018, which culminated in the
FDA's issuance of its second citation in less than two years. The
FDA's investigation detailed 13 significant deficiencies in Mylan's
operations, including poor quality control oversight, major lapses
in equipment cleaning, and ineffective controls. On this news, the
price of Mylan stock fell $1.12 per share, or approximately 3%,
from a closing price of $37.45 on June 27, 2018, to close at $36.33
per share on June 28, 2018.

On August 8, 2018, during Mylan's second quarter of 2018 earnings
conference call, defendant Malik stated that Mylan had "undertaken
a restructuring and remediation program in Morgantown" that
included a "discontinuation of a number of products" and would have
a "negative impact on production levels, product supply, and
operations. On this news, the price of Mylan stock fell $2.62 per
share, or 6.69%, from a closing price of $39.23 on August 7, 2018,
to close at $36.61 per share on August 8, 2018, on extremely
elevated trading volume.

On November 9, 2018, the FDA issued a formal warning letter
concerning "significant violations of current good manufacturing
practice[s]" at Mylan's Morgantown plant, and reporting that
products at the plant were "adulterated." On this news, the price
of Mylan stock fell $1.01 per share, or 2.73%, from a closing price
of $36.95 on November 9, 2018, to close at $35.94 per share on
November 12, 2018.

On February 26, 2019, during Mylan's fourth quarter and fiscal year
2018 earnings conference call, the Company announced an 18%
decrease in net sales from the prior year, attributing this
shortfall, in part, to its Morgantown restructuring, which included
the discontinuation of almost 250 products. On this news, the price
of Mylan stock fell $4.61 per share, or 15.05%, from a closing
price of $30.62 on February 26, 2019 to close at $26.01 per share
on February 27, 2019.

On May 7, 2019, Mylan reported that its revenues and
earnings-per-share were down year-over-year by 7% and 15%,
respectively, as the Company discontinued manufacturing certain
products in the Morgantown facility, and that its quarterly
adjusted free cash flow was severely lacking, now matching its 2015
levels. On this news, the price of Mylan shares fell $6.73 per
share, or 23.81%, from a closing price of $28.26 on May 6, 2019, to
close at $21.53 per share on May 7, 2019, on extremely heavy
trading volume.

               About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law
firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting
corporate responsibility.

The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of
the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In
compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent
verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the
best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual
dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as
one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting
our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds
itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest
defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named
Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America."
[GN]

NANUSHKA US: Guglielmo Seeks Website Access for Blind Buyers
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JOSEPH GUGLIELMO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. NANUSHKA US, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-05562-JMF (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and
the New York City Human Rights Law.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated blind consumers, alleges that the Defendant's website,
www.nanushka.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually
impaired consumers. The website lacks a variety of features and
accommodations, which effectively barred the Plaintiff and Class
members from being able to determine what specific products were
offered for sale. The access barriers on the website include, but
not limited to: (1) absence of alt. text, which is the invisible
code embedded beneath a graphical image that could allow blind
users to differentiate what products were on the screen; (2)
failure to add a label element or title attribute for each field;
and (3) presence of same title elements on the website's pages.

The Defendant's failure and refusal to remove access barriers on
its website effectively denied the Plaintiff and Class members the
ability to use and enjoy the online products and services offered
by the Defendant the same way sighted individuals do.

Nanushka US, Inc. is a clothing company that owns and operates the
website www.nanushka.com. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         David P. Force, Esq.
         STEIN SAKS, PLLC
         285 Passaic Street
         Hackensack, NJ 07601
         Telephone: (201) 282-6500
         Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
         E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com

NEW YORK: Class of Inmates With Disabilities in Johnson Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MELVIN JOHNSON, JAMAL SCOTT, and ARMANDO TORRES,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO, in his official
capacity, ACTING COMMISSIONER ANTHONY ANNUCCI, in his official
capacity, and THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-6568-CCR (W.D. N.Y.), Judge Christina Reiss of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York granted the
Named Plaintiffs' June 28, 2019 motion for class certification
pursuant Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) and
appointment of class counsel under Rule 23(g).

Named Plaintiffs Johnson, Scott, and Torres commenced the putative
class action suit against the New York State Department of
Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS"), the Governor of
New York, the Acting Commissioner of DOCCS, and the State of New
York, on behalf of themselves and other inmates with disabilities
in DOCCS custody who are housed in Regional Medical Units
("RMUs").

The Named Plaintiffs allege that inmates housed in RMUs are
deprived of the right to participate equally in prison programs,
services, and activities because of their disabilities. They
further allege that the Defendants refuse to make reasonable
modifications, or even conduct individualized assessments in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.  In their Complaint,
the Named Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment, an injunction
ordering DOCCS to provide equal access or equivalent services for
RMU inmates, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

Before the court is the Named Plaintiffs' June 28, 2019 motion for
class certification pursuant Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a)
and 23(b)(2) and appointment of class counsel under Rule 23(g).
DOCCS opposed the motion on Aug. 28, 2019.  By agreement of the
parties, the case was stayed from Sept. 6, 2019 to Nov. 1, 2019.
On Nov. 1, 2019, the Plaintiffs replied in support of their motion.
The Court heard oral argument on March 5, 2020, at which time it
took the motion under advisement.

The Named Plaintiffs are represented by Simeon L. Goldman, Esq. and
Jessica Louise Barlow, Esq.  The Defendants are represented by
Assistant Attorney General Gary M. Levine and Assistant Attorney
General Matthew D. Brown.

In support of its opposition to class certification, DOCCS cites
"Facility Operation Manuals" that instruct Facility personnel
regarding procedures governing medical provider assessments of
inmates who seek to participate in programs or services outside of
the RMUs, including Policies for all five Facilities dated June
2019, as well as earlier versions of the Policies for Wende dated
August 2015 and June 2017.

In their Complaint, the Named Plaintiffs describe the proposed
class as all individuals who are housed in an RMU who seek access
to programs and services available to individuals housed in general
population.  However, in their motion for class certification, the
Named Plaintiffs suggest an expanded class definition that would
also include inmates who have disabilities that place them at risk
of entering or returning to RMUs during their incarceration.  At
the Court's class certification hearing, the Named Plaintiffs
agreed that the proposed class may be further modified as follows:
"all individuals housed in an RMU from six months prior to the
filing of the Complaint through the date the Complaint was filed."

The Plaintiffs are represented by Disability Rights New York
("DRNY"), the federally authorized Protection and Advocacy System
for people with disabilities in New York.  Although the Plaintiffs'
counsel, Jessica L. Barlow, Esq., has not previously served as lead
counsel in a class action lawsuit, she will be assisted by the
counsel who has done so.  Both Attorney Barlow and her co-counsel
are experienced in disability litigation and have independent
knowledge and special expertise which render them amply able to
provide adequate representation to the putative class.

Judge Reiss determines that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the
Requirements of Rule 23(a).  The Judge finds that (i) because the
Plaintiffs' proposed class is expected to exceed 300 individuals
and will maximize the financial resources of the class members and
their access to justice, it satisfies the numerosity requirement;
(ii) the Named Plaintiffs have shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that their claims involve questions common to all class
members that outweigh any individualized determinations; (iii) the
Named Plaintiffs' claims arise from the same conduct by the
Defendants pursuant to "blanket policies," and their claims are
typical of the class members' claims; and (iv) the Named Plaintiffs
have established that they will adequately represent the interests
of the class, and there is no apparent conflict of interest that
would impair DRNY representation.

Moreover, Judge Reiss finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the
Requirements of Rule 23(b)(2).  The Judge holds that the Named
Plaintiffs have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the
requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) are met.  With the class
definition modified to ensure that the members may be identified
based upon manageable, objective criteria, class certification is
warranted.  The Judge therefore grants the Named Plaintiffs' motion
to certify the class subject to the revised class definition.

In the exercise of that broad discretion and in recognition of the
factors weighing in favor of granting class certification in
thecase, the Judge modifies the class definition as follows:  All
incarcerated individuals with disabilities who were housed in the
RMU at any Facility between Feb. 8, 2018 and Aug. 8, 2018, the date
of filing of the Named Plaintiffs' Complaint.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Reiss granted the Named
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification subject to the modified
class definition set forth, and granted the Named Plaintiffs'
request to appoint the class counsel.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 19, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/hi0wmw from Leagle.com.


NEW YORK: Gallagher et al. Sue Over Voter Disenfranchisement
------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Gallagher, Suraj Patel, Katherine Stabile, Jillian Santella,
Aaron Seabright, James C. McNamee, Kristin Sage Rockerman, Maria
Barva, Miriam Lazewatsky, Myles Peterson, Samantha Pinsky,
Christian O’Toole, Tess Harkin, Caitlin Phung, Antonio
Pontex-Nunez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. New York State Board of Elections; Peter
S. Kosinski, Andrew Spano, and Douglas Kellner, individually and in
their official capacities as Commissioners of the New York State
Board of Elections; Todd D. Valentine, Robert A. Brehm,
individually and in their official capacities as CoExecutive
Directors of the New York State Board of Elections; and Andrew
Cuomo as Governor of the State of New York, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-05504 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2020), asserts new election
rules, created by executive order in the middle of COVID-19
pandemic, stands to disenfranchise a massive number of voters
including Plaintiffs, without any warning or anything resembling
Constitutionally adequate protections.

The case arises after the release of Governor Cuomo Andrew's
Executive Order 202.26 wherein New York shifted from a voter-paid
absentee voting system (voters applied their own stamps to the
envelopes, which would then be postmarked by United States Postal
Service) to a pre-paid absentee voting system (voters do not apply
stamps to envelopes, and the USPS would therefore not postmark the
envelopes).

According to the complaint, the net effect is that thousands of
voters will simply have their votes discarded, because they did not
know to demand USPS step outside of its normal procedures and stamp
their ballots (or indeed, did not know that they should not drop
the ballots in a corner mailbox).

Additionally, because of the unprecedented volume of absentee
ballot requests, some voters, such as Plaintiff Katherine Stabile,
did not receive a ballot until June 23 in the mail. Therefore, if
allowed to throw out ballots as they intend to, the Board will
disenfranchise more than 16,000 voters in Brooklyn alone, and
hundreds of thousands statewide -- all for reasons beyond those
voters' control.

As a result, to throw out the ballots of Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated would be to violate their due process rights
under the Fourteenth Amendment and corresponding portions of the
New York State Constitution.

New York State Board of Elections is the bipartisan agency vested
with the responsibility for administration and enforcement of all
laws relating to elections in New York State.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Remy Green, Esq.
          Elena L. Cohen, Esq.
          Jessica Massimi, Esq.
          Jonathan Wallace, Esq.
          COHEN&GREEN P.L.L.C.
          1639 Centre Street, Suite 216
          Ridgewood, NY 11385
          Telephone: (929) 888-9480
          Facsimile: (929) 888-9457
          E-mail: remy@femmelaw.com

               - and -

          Ali Najmi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALI NAJMI
          261 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 401-6222
          Facsimile: (888) 370-2397
          E-mail: ali@najmilaw.com

NINE POINT ENERGY: Lewis Files Suit in North Dakota
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nine Point Energy,
LLC. The case is styled as Sarah Heggen Lewis, Emily Heggen and
Marn Heggen, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiffs v. Nine Point Energy, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00124-CRH (D. N.D., July 15, 2020).

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

Nine Point Energy is a private exploration and production company
focused on the safe and efficient development of oil & gas assets
in the Williston Basin.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Joshua A. Swanson, Esq.
   Vogel Law Firm (Fargo)
   218 NP Avenue
   PO Box 1389
   Fargo, ND 58107-1389
   Tel: (701) 237-6983
   Email: jswanson@vogellaw.com

     - and -

   George A Barton, Esq.
   Law Office of George A. Barton
   7227 Metcalf Ave. Suite 301
   Overland Park, KS 66204
   Tel: (913) 563-6255
   Email: gab@georgebartonlaw.com

     - and -

   Robert James Pathroff, Esq.
   Vogel Law Firm (Bismarck)
   PO Box 2097
   200 N. 3rd St., Ste. 201
   Bismarck, ND 58502-2097
   Tel: (701) 258-7899
   Fax: (701) 258-9705
   Email: rpathroff@vogellaw.com






NO TAX 4 NASH: Elrod et al. Sue Over Recall Petition Robocalls
--------------------------------------------------------------
RACHAEL ANNE ELROD, ANDREW KAUFMAN, and SARAH MARTIN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NO
TAX 4 NASH, JIM ROBERTS, MICHELLE FOREMAN, KIMBERLY EDWARDS, and
JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00617 (M.D. Tenn.,
July 17, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in an
illegal practice of placing calls to the cellular phones of the
Plaintiffs and Class members using an automatic telephone dialing
system and an artificial or prerecorded voice without getting prior
express consent in order to inform them on how to sign the recall
petition campaign for the mayor and council members who supported
the 34% property tax increase in Nashville, Tennessee.

In receiving unwanted and unsolicited calls on their cellular
telephones, the Plaintiffs suffered concrete harm in the form of
lost time spent fielding the unwanted calls, loss of use of their
cellular telephones as the calls came in, loss of capacity of the
voice mailbox, invasion of their privacy, and intrusion upon their
seclusion and evening time with their families.

No Tax 4 Nash is a corporation, association of persons banded
together for a specific purpose, or the trade name of a corporation
or association based in Nashville, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
         
         John Spragens, Esq.
         SPRAGENS LAW PLC
         311 22nd Ave. N.
         Nashville, TN 37203
         Telephone: (615) 983-8900
         Facsimile: (615) 682-8533

NORITAKE CO: Blind Can't Fully Use & Enjoy Website, Guglielmo Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH GUGLIELMO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORITAKE CO., INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-05563-ER (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant discriminates against
blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, by
failing to design, construct, and maintain a website that is
equally accessible to blind consumers and failing to take
corrective actions to remove the access barriers on its website.

The Defendant's website, noritakechina.com, contains several access
barriers that hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to fully use
and enjoy the facilities, goods, and services offered by the
Defendant to the general public. These access barriers include, but
not limited to: (1) presence of broken links; (2) lack of label
element or title attribute for each field; and (3) absence of alt.
text, which is the invisible code embedded beneath a graphical
image, making it difficult for blind consumers to differentiate
what products were on the screen.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek a permanent injunction to
cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies so that its
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

Noritake Co., Inc. is a drinkware and dinnerware company that owns
and operates the website noritakechina.com. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         David P. Force, Esq.
         STEIN SAKS, PLLC
         285 Passaic Street
         Hackensack, NJ 07601
         Telephone: (201) 282-6500
         Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
         E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com

OKLAHOMA: Indian Tribe Members Sue over Traffic Fines
-----------------------------------------------------
Members of federally recognized Indian Tribes have commenced a
lawsuit against the State of Oklahoma and several cities and towns,
on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
to compel the State and its political subdivisions to disgorge of
their ill-gotten gains and to recover the monies paid to courts,
district attorneys, and political subdivisions that were paid as
fines and costs for traffic offenses or misdemeanor crimes.  They
claim the fines were levied despite the Defendants having no
jurisdiction to do so.

The Plaintiffs have either been prosecuted for traffic offenses or
misdemeanor crimes occurring within the Cherokee Reservation by the
State of Oklahoma or its political subdivisions. These Plaintiffs
have each paid money for fines, court costs, and/or supervision
fees to the State of Oklahoma or its political subdivisions.

According to the complaint, pursuant to the Court's holding,
neither the State of Oklahoma, nor any of its political
subdivisions has subject matter jurisdiction to criminally charge
and prosecute members of a federally recognized American Indian
tribe for crimes committed on the Cherokee Reservation. That
subject matter jurisdiction is vested solely in the Cherokee Nation
or in the United States. It is well recognized that crimes
allegedly committed by members of a federally recognized tribe that
occurred in Indian country must be subject to the sovereign
immunity possessed by such Indian nations.

In so doing, the political subdivisions have violated the rights of
the Tribal members, as guaranteed by treaty, United States Federal
Law and the United States Constitution. Specifically, the actions
of these Defendants have violated the due process rights of the
Tribal members by subjecting them to trial and punishment before a
Court that had no subject matter jurisdiction.

The case 1. TAYLEUR RAYE PICKUP 2. CHANDA LYNELLE BUTCHER 3.
LINDSEY REANNA BUTCHER 4. CRYSTAL LEE LEACH 5. SHYANNE NICOLE
SIXKILLER 6. And Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. 1. THE
DISTRICT COURT OF NOWATA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA 2. THE DISTRICT COURT OF
WASHINGTON COUNTY, OKLAHOMA 3. THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE
COUNTY, OKLAHOMA 4. THE DISTRICT COURT OF CRAIG COUNTY, OKLAHOMA 5.
THE DISTRICT COURT OF MAYES COUNTY, OKLAHOMA 6. THE DISTRICT COURT
OF ROGERS COUNTY, OKLAHOMA 7. KEVIN BUCHANAN, in his official
capacity, District Attorney of Nowata and Washington Counties,
Oklahoma 8. KENNY WRIGHT, in his official capacity, District
Attorney of Delaware County, Oklahoma 9. MATT BALLARD in his
official capacity, District Attorney of Craig, Mayes, and Rogers
Counties, Oklahoma 10. STEVE KUNZWEILER, in his official capacity,
District Attorney of Tulsa County, Oklahoma 11. APRIL FRAUENBERGER,
in her official capacity, Court Clerk of Nowata County, Oklahoma
12. JILL SPITZER, in her official capacity, Court Clerk of
Washington County, Oklahoma 13. CAROLINE WEAVER, in her official
capacity, Court Clerk of Delaware County, Oklahoma 14. DEBORAH
MASON, in her official capacity, Court Clerk of Craig County,
Oklahoma 15. LAURA WADE, in her official capacity, Court Clerk of
Mayes County, Oklahoma 16. CATHI EDWARDS, in her official capacity,
Court Clerk of Rogers County, Oklahoma 17. DON NEWBERRY, in his
official capacity as Court Clerk of Tulsa County, Oklahoma 18. THE
TOWN OF ADAIR, OKLAHOMA 19. THE CITY OF BARTLESVILLE, OKLAHOMA 20.
THE TOWN OF BIG CABIN, OKLAHOMA 21. THE TOWN OF BLUEJACKET,
OKLAHOMA 22. THE CITY OF CATOOSA, OKLAHOMA 23. THE TOWN OF CHELSEA,
OKLAHOMA 24. THE TOWN OF CHOTEAU, OKLAHOMA 25. THE CITY OF
CLAREMORE, OKLAHOMA 26. THE CITY OF COLLINSVILLE, OKLAHOMA 27. THE
TOWN OF COPAN, OKLAHOMA 28. THE CITY OF DEWEY, OKLAHOMA 29. THE
TOWN OF DISNEY, OKLAHOMA 30. THE CITY OF GROVE, OKLAHOMA 31. THE
CITY OF JAY, OKLAHOMA 32. THE TOWN OF KANSAS, OKLAHOMA 33. THE TOWN
OF LANGLEY, OKLAHOMA 34. THE TOWN OF LOCUST GROVE, OKLAHOMA 35. THE
CITY OF NOWATA, OKLAHOMA 36. THE TOWN OF OOLOGAH, OKLAHOMA 37. THE
CITY OF OWASSO, OKLAHOMA 38. THE CITY OF PRYOR, OKLAHOMA 39. THE
TOWN OF RAMONA, OKLAHOMA 40. THE TOWN OF SALINA, OKLAHOMA 41. THE
TOWN OF SOUTH COFFEYVILLE, OKLAHOMA 42. THE TOWN OF SPAVINAW,
OKLAHOMA 43. THE TOWN OF STRANG, OKLAHOMA 44. THE TOWN OF TALALA,
OKLAHOMA 45. THE TOWN OF VERDIGRIS, OKLAHOMA 46. THE CITY OF
VINITA, OKLAHOMA 47. THE TOWN OF WARNER, OKLAHOMA 48. THE TOWN OF
WEST SILOAM SPRINGS, OKLAHOMA, Defendants, Case No.
4:20-cv-00346-JED-FHM (N.D. Okla., July 20, 2020).[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark Lyons, Esq.
          LYONS AND CLARK, INC.
          616 S. Main, Suite 201
          Tulsa, OK 74119
          Telephone: (918) 599-8844
          Facsimile: (918) 599-8585

               - and -

          John M. Dunn, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JOHN M. DUNN, PLLC
          616 South Main Street, Suite 206
          Tulsa, OK 74119
          Telephone: (918) 526-8000
          Facsimile: (918) 359-5050
          E-mail: jmdunn@johndunnlaw.com

               - and -

          Misty S. Fields, Esq.
          FIELDS & GARNER, PLLC
          20 Court Place
          Pryor, OK 74361
          Telephone: (918) 824-1114
          Facsimile: (918) 512-1775

ONEIDA GROUP: Blind Buyers Can't Use Website, Guglielmo Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH GUGLIELMO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE ONEIDA GROUP INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-05564 (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant denied blind and
visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, full and
equal access to its website, www.oneida.com. The Defendant's
website contains several access barriers that hinder the Plaintiff
and Class members to fully use and enjoy the facilities, goods, and
services offered by the Defendant to the general public. These
access barriers include, but not limited to: (1) presence of broken
links; (2) lack of label element or title attribute for each field;
and (3) absence of alt. text, which is the invisible code embedded
beneath a graphical image, making it difficult for blind consumers
to differentiate what products were on the screen.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek a permanent injunction to
correct the Defendant's discriminatory conduct so that its website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers.

The Oneida Group Inc. is a global marketer of tabletop and food
preparation products for the consumer and foodservice markets,
headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         David P. Force, Esq.
         STEIN SAKS, PLLC
         285 Passaic Street
         Hackensack, NJ 07601
         Telephone: (201) 282-6500
         Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
         E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com

ORLANS PC: Court Dismisses Garland Class Suit
---------------------------------------------
In the case, FREDDIE GARLAND, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ORLANS PC, LINDA ORLANS,
and ALISON ORLANS, Defendants, Case No. 18-11561 (E.D. Mich.),
Judge Denise Page Hood of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, (i) granted the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; (ii) denied the Plaintiff's Motion
to Strike the Motion to Dismiss; (iii) denied the Plaintiff's
Motion to Strike Portions of Defendants' Supplemental Brief; (iv)
denied as moot the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class; and (v)
dismissed the Plaintiff's Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA) claim with prejudice and the Plaintiff's Regulation of
Collection Practices Act ("RCPA") claim without prejudice.

On May 17, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the proposed class action
lawsuit, alleging that the Defendants violated the FDCPA, and the
RCPA, when Defendant Orlans mailed one or more similar letters to
the Plaintiff and others.  The Plaintiff alleges two fair debt
statutory claims, one under the FDCPA and one under the RCPA.  Each
claim is based on form letters sent to the Plaintiff and other
putative class members on Orlans PC letterhead.  The Plaintiff's
letter from Orlans PC was dated May 18, 2017, and the first page of
it is attached as Exhibit A to the complaint.  His principal claim
is that the Defendants send out foreclosure notices appearing to be
from attorneys (or susceptible to that interpretation) that are
instead processed by non-attorney staff and mailed without
meaningful attorney review. Plaintiff and the class seek only
statutory damages.

The Defendants are Michigan's second-largest foreclosure law firm
(Orlans PC) and its two principal owners and executives (Linda
Orlans and Alison Orlans).  The complaint alleges an RCPA subclass
of homeowners who were sent foreclosure letters by the Defendants
since April 17, 2011: All persons to whom Orlans PC caused to be
sent any version of the Orlans PC Foreclosure Letter in connection
with mortgages conveyed for residential real property located in
Michigan, dated on or after April 17, 2011, which was not returned
as undelivered by the U.S. Post Office, through the date that the
Court issues an order certifying any class requiring notice in this
matter, and through the date of entry of final judgment as to any
class for which notice is not required under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.

The complaint alleges that in Michigan, the vast majority of Orlans
PC's foreclosures have been pursuant to Michigan's foreclosure by
advertisement statute.  The Defendants in the Motion do not
challenge the allegation or offer any contrary evidence.  The
complaint further alleges that in each foreclosure by advertisement
proceeding in Michigan handled by Orlans PC since at least 2011,
Orlans PC has sent a letter to the debtor/mortgagor in substantial
conformity with Exhibits A and B to the complaint.

On July 18, 2018, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant
to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).  The Plaintiff then filed a Motion
to Strike the Motion to Dismiss.

On Nov. 21, 2018, the Court entered an order holding the case in
abeyance pending the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Obduskey v.
McCarthy & Holthus LLP, No. 17-1307, 138 S.Ct. 2710 (June 28,
2018).  On March 20, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its
decision in Obduskey.  It then ordered supplemental briefing
regarding the Motion to Dismiss -- expressly limited to the effect
of the Obduskey ruling on the case, and the parties filed
supplemental briefs.  In addition, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to
Strike Defendants' Supplemental Brief.

The parties have since submitted numerous other filings: (i) the
Plaintiff's Citation of Supplemental Authority in Opposition to
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; (ii) the Plaintiff's Second Citation
of Supplemental Authority in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss; (iii) the Defendants' Further Citation of New,
Supplemental, Authority in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); (iv) the Defendants' Citation of
Additional New Supplemental Authority in Support of Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); (v) the
Plaintiff's Third Citation of Supplemental Authority in Opposition
to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; (vi) the Defendants' Citation of
New Sixth Circuit Authority in Support of Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); and (vii) the
Plaintiff's Second Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss.

Judge Hood grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with respect to
the FDCPA claim, with prejudice.  The Plaintiff asserts that the
purpose of the Orlans PC Foreclosure Letter was not to implement
foreclosure, so it does not satisfy any of the three rationales
given by the Obduskey court.  He argues that is especially true
because Orlans PC was not attempting to enforce a security interest
when sending the letter to mitigate losses of their client.  The
Judge finds that the Plaintiff's arguments are inconsistent with
the language of Section 1692a(6) which indicates that enforcement
of security interests need not be the only business of a party that
is involved in the nonjudicial foreclosures, but instead simply a
business of the party (as is the case with Orlans PC).  As the
majority and Justice Sotomayor noted, Congress can amend the FDCPA
if persons pursuing nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings should be
included in the definition of "debt collector" at Section
1692a(6).

As the Judge has concluded that there is no viable FDCPA claim
before the Court, the Court no longer has federal subject matter
jurisdiction over the matter.  Although he has the discretion to
exercise the Court's supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's
RCPA claim, Judge Hood finds: (a) that the RCPA claim is rooted in
Michigan law; and (b) more importantly, the issue of whether the
RCPA applies to a non-judicial foreclosure has not been litigated
in or decided by Michigan courts.  For that reason, in the absence
of federal subject matter jurisdiction, Judge Hood: (1) concludes
that a determination of the RCPA's applicability to nonjudicial
foreclosures would best be litigated in Michigan state courts; and
(2) dismisses the Plaintiff's RCPA's claim without prejudice.

Judge Hood denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike the Motion to
Dismiss.  The Judge (a) orders the Defendants and the Defendants'
counsel to cease filing irrelevant and/or unnecessary statements
regarding the character or history of the Plaintiff; and (b)
advises the Defendants and their counsel that any further
irrelevant and/or unnecessary statements may subject the author or
speaker to being held in contempt of Court.  

The Judge is not persuaded that he should grant the relief sought
by the Plaintiff, however, for several reasons.  First, the
Plaintiff (and the Court) previously noted in public documents that
he was incarcerated immediately prior to filing the first cause of
action, only months before filing the cause of action.  Second, the
statements regarding the Plaintiff's criminal history are, in fact,
accurate.  Third, the Court is not -- and will not be -- prejudiced
against the Plaintiff due to uncivil and unnecessary statements
made by another party in documents filed on the docket or made on
the record.

In its Motion to Strike Portions of Supplemental Brief, the
Plaintiff argues that the Defendants filed a supplemental brief
containing extensive argument and an exhibit that have nothing to
do with the impact of the Obduskey decision on the pending motion
to dismiss.  The Defendants respond that they needed to address the
subject matter jurisdiction of the cause of action if the FDCPA
claim was dismissed.

The Judge finds that the Defendants' arguments exceeded the
parameters of the April 9, 2019 Stipulated Order.  Obduskey did not
address subject matter jurisdiction, nor did it address
supplemental jurisdiction.  The parties had the opportunity to
fully address those issues when the Motion to Dismiss originally
was briefed in 2018 -- and each party exercised that opportunity.
The Judge concludes, however, that there is no need to strike the
Defendants' Supplemental Brief and require them to refile the
appropriate portions.  The Court has the capacity, and has
exercised that capacity, to consider only the arguments in
Defendants' Supplemental Brief (and Reply) that stem from the
Obduskey decision.

The Judge concludes that the Plaintiff is entitled to an award of
fees for the preparation and filing of the Motion to Strike
Portions of Defendants' Supplemental Brief.  The Defendants did not
object to the Plaintiff's request for an award of $1,000, an amount
the Court finds reasonable and warranted.  Accordingly, the Judge
orders that the Defendants pay the Plaintiff $1,000 for having to
file the Motion to Strike Portions of Defendants' Supplemental
Brief.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, Judge Hood (i) granted the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; (ii) denied the Plaintiff's Motion
to Strike the Motion to Dismiss; (iii) denied the Plaintiff's
Motion to Strike Portions of Defendants' Supplemental Brief; (iv)
denied as moot the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class; and (v)
dismissed the Plaintiff's FDCPA claim with prejudice and the
Plaintiff's RCPA claim without prejudice.

The Judge warned the Defendants about filing bad faith arguments or
failing to comply with Court Orders.  The Plaintiff is awarded
$1,000 for having to file the Motion to Strike Portions of
Defendants' Supplemental Brief.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 19, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/qr2u71 from Leagle.com.


PACHA SOAP: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Guglielmo Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH GUGLIELMO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. PACHA SOAP CO., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-05567 (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2020) is a civil rights action
brought by the Plaintiff against Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people.

Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). These access barriers that Plaintiff
encountered have caused a denial of Plaintiff's full and equal
access multiple times in the past, and now deter Plaintiff on a
regular basis from accessing the Defendant's Website in the
future.

Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.

Pacha Soap Co. is a Nebraska-based soap manufacturer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David P. Force, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com

PEMBER COMPANIES: O'Bryan Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Laborers
----------------------------------------------------------------
RANDY O'BRYAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PEMBER COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:20-cv-04805 (W.D. Wis., July 20, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws.

According to the complaint, the Defendant did not compensate the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated hourly-paid, non-exempt
employees for all compensable travel time during work day and all
non-discretionary compensation, such as bonuses, commissions,
incentives, and/or other rewards. These practices resulted in the
Plaintiff and the Class being denied overtime compensation at the
rate of one and one-half times their regular hourly rate of pay for
hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a laborer at its
shop in Menomonie, Wisconsin from April 2017 until June 2020.

Pember Companies, Inc. is a company that specializes in
construction, concrete and excavating work, with a principal office
address of N4449 469th Street, Menomonie, Wisconsin. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         James A. Walcheske, Esq.
         Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
         Matthew J. Tobin, Esq.
         WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
         15850 W. Bluemound Road, Suite 304
         Brookfield, WI 53005
         Telephone: (262) 780-1953
         Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
         E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                 sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                 mtobin@walcheskeluzi.com

PHOENIX, AZ: COVID19 Relief Bias vs Immigrants, Poder et al. Say
----------------------------------------------------------------
Poder in Action, an Arizona nonprofit corporation; Arizona Dream
Act Coalition, an Arizona nonprofit corporation; and Aurora Galan
Mejia, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. The City of Phoenix, a municipal corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01429-DWL (D. Ariz., July 20, 2020) is
a class action brought by the Plaintiffs to stop the City of
Phoenix from imposing restrictions based on immigration status for
persons to participate in the City's COVID-19 emergency housing
program to prevent evictions and homelessness.

The program's emergency housing funds are to offset certain
economic harms suffered by persons who live in the City of Phoenix
and to assist with payments for residential rental, mortgage or
utility expenses. The funds are for persons who need assistance to
pay their designated vendors, and payments will go directly to
landlords, mortgage companies and utilities.

Under a statutory formula based on population, approximately $293
million was allocated to the City of Phoenix under the Coronavirus
Relief Fund, a fund administered by the U.S. Department of Treasury
under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act
("CARES Act"). The City of Phoenix decided to use approximately $25
million of the Coronavirus Relief Fund to assist renters and
homeowners to be able to stay in their homes.

According to the complaint, the City restricts which immigrants can
participate in the program. Only an immigrant applicant who meets
the qualified immigration status requirements as defined in the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996 ("PRWORA") is eligible to participate in the program. There
are many immigrants who live in the City who are in need of the
emergency housing assistance but do not meet these requirements
including Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ("DACA")
recipients, persons with Temporary Protected Status, asylum
applicants, U-Visa holders who are victims of serious crimes and
others.

Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin
Defendant from continuing to restrict participation in this program
and eligibility for these funds based on immigration status.

Plaintiff Poder in Action is a grassroots nonprofit organization
based in Phoenix.

Plaintiff Arizona Dream Act Coalition is an immigrant youth led
nonprofit organization whose mission is to promote educational
success of immigrant youth, increase civic engagement, integrate
immigrants into Arizona's economy to the fullest extent possible
and to advocate for immigrant rights.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ellen Sue Katz, Esq.
          Brenda Muñoz Furnish, Esq.
          Orien Nelson, Esq.
          WILLIAM E. MORRIS INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE
          3707 North Seventh Street, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85014
          Telephone: (602) 252-3432
          E-mail: eskatz@qwestoffice.net
                  bmfurnish@qwestoffice.net
                  onelson@qwestoffice.net

               - and -

          Daniel J. Adelman, Esq.
          ARIZONA CENTER FOR LAW IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
          514 West Roosevelt Street
          Phoenix, AZ 85003
          Telephone: (602) 258-8850
          E-mail: danny@aclpi.org

PINPOINT PAINTING: Fails to Pay Overtime, Harrison et al Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD HARRISON and MICHAEL A. HARRISON, Plaintiffs v. PINPOINT
PAINTING, LLC, DOUG RAHMY, and ZAK FORSYTHE, Defendants, Case No.
CV 20 934850 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl, July 14, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged willful
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as painters and performed
other duties for Defendants from approximately September 1, 2014
until on or about June 11, 2020.

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs regularly worked more than
40 hours but were not paid the overtime premium as required by the
FLSA.

Plaintiffs claim that they have suffered damages by failing to
receive the total compensation. Thus, Plaintiffs seek to recover
the total amount of unpaid wages, liquidated damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorney fees and costs.

Pinpoint Painting, LLC is a full service, interior & exterior
painting company serving both Residential and Commercial markets in
the Greater Cleveland & Akron areas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alan I. Goodman, Esq.
          AIG LAW
          55 Public Square, Suite 1330
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Tel: (216) 456-2486
          Fax: (216) 456-2487
          Email: agoodman@aiglaw.com


PLAID INC: Illegally Collects Bank Data,  Evans et al. Allege
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID EVANS, PATRICK LENAHEN, ADAM SMOTKIN, and OSWALDO HERRERA,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. PLAID INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 3:20-cv-04804-JSC (N.D. Cal., July 17, 2020) is an action
brought by the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and
similarly-situated consumers, to seek declaratory and injunctive
relief requiring Defendant to cease its misconduct, purge the data
it has unlawfully collected from consumers' banking and other
financial accounts, notify consumers of its misconduct, and inform
consumers of the steps they can take to protect themselves from
further invasions, as well as to seek economic redress for
Defendant's violations of consumers' dignitary rights, privacy, and
well-being caused by Defendant's unethical and undisclosed
invasions into their financial affairs.

According to the complaint, Defendant takes consumers' financial
account login credentials, accesses their banking and other
financial accounts several times per day, and then sells and
otherwise misuses the highly personal and private information it
has wrongfully obtained. Plaid discloses none of this to
consumers.

The Defendant gathers all this data through software embedded in
widely-used financial technology apps such as Venmo, Coinbase,
Square's "Cash App," and Stripe. Defendant's stated mission is to
make it "easy" for consumers to "connect" their bank accounts to
these financial technology apps, but Defendant conceals its conduct
and true intentions from consumers.

First, Plaid induces consumers to hand over their private bank
login credentials to Plaid by making it appear those credentials
are being communicated directly to consumers' banks. Second, Plaid
uses consumers' login credentials to obtain direct and full access
to consumers' personal financial banking information for Plaid's
own commercial purposes wholly unrelated to consumers' use of the
apps. Thus, a consumer who makes a single mobile payment on an app
from a checking account unwittingly gives Plaid, years' worth of
private, granular financial information from every account the
consumer maintains with the bank, including accounts maintained for
others such as relatives and children.

Further, Defendant exploits its ill-gotten information in a variety
of ways, including marketing the data to its app customers,
analyzing the data to derive insights into consumer behavior, and,
most recently, selling its collection of data to Visa as part of a
multi-billion dollar acquisition. Plaid has unfairly benefited from
the personal information of millions of Americans and wrongfully
intruded upon their private financial affairs.

Plaid Inc. is a San Francisco, California-based financial
technology company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jon A. Tostrud, Esq.
          TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 278-2600
          E-mail: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian P. Murray, Esq.
          Lee Albert, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Avenue, Suite 530
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com
                  lalbert@glancylaw.com

               - and -    

          Paul C. Whalen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. WHALEN, P.C.
          768 Plandome Road
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          Telephone: (516) 426-6870
          E-mail: paul@paulwhalen.com

PLAID: Denies Privacy Class Action Allegations
----------------------------------------------
PYMNTS reports that Plaid is facing a lawsuit which alleges that it
has violated users' privacy and used customers' private data in
inappropriate manners for years, affecting over 200 million
individual accounts, according to a court filing with the northern
district of California.

The California-based financial services company, founded in 2012,
works to build products to power digital finance and FinTech issues
through its own data transfer network.

But the lawsuit alleges that Plaid has made a practice of taking
that information for itself through log-ins to customer accounts,
and then selling the information or "otherwise highly misusing" it
without disclosing anything to customers.

Plaid, according to the court document, describes itself as an
infrastructure company, according to co-founder Zach Perret. But
the lawsuit alleges that this does not capture the full picture of
what the company's "true purpose," which it claimed is "invading
consumers' privacy for profit."

Plaintiffs allege that the company has been able to glean
information via software from well-known platforms like Venmo or
CashApp under the pretense of helping customers access easy online
banking.

However, Plaid denied the allegations in a statement to PYMNTS.

"This copycat lawsuit is baseless and Plaid will vigorously defend
itself," a company spokesman said. "Plaid does not sell or rent
consumers' personal information and personal information is only
obtained with consent. We firmly believe that consumers should have
permission-based access to and control over their financial data,
and embody these principles in our practices."

Visa agreed earlier this year to buy Plaid for $5.3 billion. The
payments giant also participated in a funding round in 2018 that
helped value Plaid at $2.6 billion.

In addition, Microsoft has teamed with Plaid for a financial
management solution called Money in Excel, which allows users a
secure integration of their financial account, imported data and
sharper insights into financial health overall. [GN]


PLAID: Faces Another Class Action Over Privacy Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Emilia David, writing for Cointelegraph, reports that a new class
action lawsuit complaint against fintech startup Plaid has been
filed with more plaintiffs alleging the company violated the data
privacy of users.

The new complaint filed on behalf of four new plaintiffs alleged
that Plaid -- which was bought by Visa for $5.3 billion this year
-- collected information on over 200 million distinct financial
accounts who use services such as Venmo, Coinbase, Square's Cash
App and Stripe.

The complaint states Plaid obtained "direct and full access to
consumers' personal financial banking information for Plaid's own
commercial purposes wholly unrelated to the consumers' use of the
apps." It adds:

"Plaid exploits its ill-gotten information in a variety of ways,
including marketing the data to its app customers, analyzing the
data to derive insights into consumer behavior, and, most recently,
selling its collection of data to Visa as part of a multi-billion
dollar acquisition. Plaid has unfairly benefited from the personal
information of millions of Americans and wrongfully intruded upon
their private financial affairs."

This is the second class action complaint filed against Plaid. The
first complaint, filed on June 25, alleged Plaid was "data
plumbing" popular services like Venmo, Stripe, Cash App and
Robinhood.

A spokesperson for Plaid told Cointelegraph it believes this second
complaint is baseless.

"This copycat lawsuit is baseless and Plaid will vigorously defend
itself. Plaid does not sell or rent consumers' personal information
and personal information is only obtained with consent. We firmly
believe that consumers should have permission-based access to and
control over their financial data, and embody these principles in
our practices."

Cointelegraph reported Plaid has denied the accusations and said it
has never sold user data. Coinbase also confirmed it does rely on
Plaid for account verification but data has never been shared with
the exchange. [GN]


PRO WELD: Ozuna Seeks Proper OT Pay for Assembly Workers
--------------------------------------------------------
SANTOS OZUNA, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. PRO WELD INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-2550 (S.D. Tex., July 20, 2020) is an
action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for its
failure to pay the full overtime premium required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") that allows Defendant to gain an unfair
advantage over competitors who follow the law in their employment
practices.

Mr. Ozuna worked for Pro Weld as an assembly worker from October of
2018 until July 21, 2019.

According to the complaint, Defendant has many other employees who
are/were paid on an hourly basis. These individuals were also
assembly workers who regularly worked over 40 hours per week as
well, and they were also not paid all overtime pay owed for hours
they worked in excess of 40 per workweek, because a portion of
their pay was characterized as "per diem" pay.

Defendant's underpayment of the Plaintiff, often referred to as
"wage theft," allowed Defendant to gain an unfair advantage in the
marketplace as compared to their competitors that pay their
employees all of the money required by law and who do not use
improper and invalid "per diem" pay to reduce their overtime
payments.

Pro Weld Industrial Services, LLC is a Texas-based recruiting firm
providing expert manpower for industrial companies.[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
          Telephone: (713) 868-3388
          Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
          E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
                  vijay@buenkerlaw.com

PROASSURANCE CORP: Scott+Scott Attorneys Announces Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international
shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, is reminding
investors that a class action lawsuit is pending against
ProAssurance Corporation ("ProAssurance" or the "Company") (NYSE:
PRA) and certain of its officers and directors alleging violations
of federal securities laws.  If you purchased ProAssurance
securities between April 26, 2019 and May 7, 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.

ProAssurance is one of the largest medical liability insurance
providers in the United States.

The lawsuit alleges the defendants misrepresented ProAssurance's
underwriting and reserve standards, and failed to adequately
reserve for losses.

On January 22, 2020, ProAssurance announced that because of a
deteriorating loss experience related mainly to one large
healthcare account underwritten in 2016, the Company was estimating
a $37 million adverse development for the fourth quarter of 2019.

On this news, ProAssurance's stock price fell $4.18 per share, or
11%, to close at $33.40 per share on January 23, 2020.

Then, on May 8, 2020, ProAssurance announced that the same client
would likely not renew its policy and instead would likely exercise
an option for tail coverage that would result in an additional $50
million in losses in the second quarter of 2020.

On this news, ProAssurance's stock price fell $4.38 per share, or
22%, to close at $15.95 per share on May 8, 2020.

What You Can Do

If you purchased ProAssurance securities between April 26, 2019 and
May 7, 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. [GN]

PROASSURANCE CORPORATION: Scott+Scott Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, an international shareholder and
consumer rights litigation firm, is reminding investors that a
class action lawsuit is pending against ProAssurance Corporation
("ProAssurance" or the "Company") (NYSE: PRA) and certain of its
officers and directors alleging violations of federal securities
laws.  If you purchased ProAssurance securities between April 26,
2019 and May 7, 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.

ProAssurance is one of the largest medical liability insurance
providers in the United States.

The lawsuit alleges the defendants misrepresented ProAssurance's
underwriting and reserve standards, and failed to adequately
reserve for losses.

On January 22, 2020, ProAssurance announced that because of a
deteriorating loss experience related mainly to one large
healthcare account underwritten in 2016, the Company was estimating
a $37 million adverse development for the fourth quarter of 2019.

On this news, ProAssurance's stock price fell $4.18 per share, or
11%, to close at $33.40 per share on January 23, 2020.

Then, on May 8, 2020, ProAssurance announced that the same client
would likely not renew its policy and instead would likely exercise
an option for tail coverage that would result in an additional $50
million in losses in the second quarter of 2020.

On this news, ProAssurance's stock price fell $4.38 per share, or
22%, to close at $15.95 per share on May 8, 2020.

What You Can Do

If you purchased ProAssurance securities between April 26, 2019 and
May 7, 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. [GN]

PROTECH SOLUTIONS: Faces Class Action Over PUA Claims Handling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times reports that a class-action
lawsuit has been filed against the company hired by the state to
design a website for the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program,
which had a security breach in the beginning and still has many
claimants locked out of the system.

Chicago and Cleveland lawyers, associating locally with Dustin
McDaniel, filed the suit against Protech Solutions on behalf of
three named plaintiffs, including one who said she has been a
victim of the security breach.

The lawsuit alleges Protech failed to protect personal and
financial information. I haven't received responses yet from
Protech or the state for comment on the lawsuit.

It is seeking an emergency hearing to get people unlocked to
receive claims. At one point, as many as 14,000 were said to be on
hold.

Protech got a $3 million contract to design the system.  The
Arkansas Times reported May 15 that an applicant for claims for the
self-employed had discovered all information on all claimants was
easily seen. The system was shut down for security fixes. The state
has asked for an FBI investigation, still in progress. The state
has also said it has insurance for such circumstances.

Since then, though payments have begun, thousands of people have
complained that their accounts are on hold and they can't penetrate
state phone lines or web portals to get information. The state has
blamed the problems on rooting out fraud, though an official
acknowledged to legislators recently that some problems might be
linked to simple errors on forms.

UPDATE: A consulting firm with ties to Governor Hutchinson (see
below in this article) apparently has been designated to provide
responses for Pro Tech. It sent this statement from Kenneth French
of the company:

In an effort to protect individuals and the state, ProTech
Solutions implemented a fraud detection instrument to catch all
possible threats to the PUA program. In these cases, accounts are
flagged and then reviewed by the state—at which point a decision
is rendered by the state. This is a standard operating procedure.


"As for the allegation of an identity incident, there is no
evidence of this being linked to the PUA data incident on May 15.
It is important to note, however, that the state has made available
$1 million in identity protection insurance for all PUA applicants
affected by the data incident. The individual must decide whether
or not to accept that protection."

This statement is silent on the security breach acknowledged in May
for the entire database. It also is silent on the assertion by the
state that it doesn't have the security plan the firm was supposed
to provide under it's $3 million contract.

If the governor's former aide, J.R. Davis, who provided this
statement or ProTech or Workforce Services ever provides a number
on those locked out; why they've remained locked out for weeks, and
why it is so difficult for claimants to get answers from Workforce
Services, I'll pass that along.

The lawsuit says:

. . . . at one of the worst times in the lives of Plaintiffs and
Class members, when they find themselves unemployed in the midst of
a pandemic and resulting recession, Protech negligently and
recklessly made Plaintiffs' and Class members' path to recovery
significantly harder by interfering with their access to PUA
payments and putting their identity and credit standing at risk.

You can get a flavor of the frustration from a continuing string of
comments on an earlier item we did about PUA problems.

The lawsuit continues:

As a result of the Data Breach, the PUA Application System was
temporarily shut down. Even after the PUA Application System was
back up and running, Plaintiffs and other Class members were and
are still locked out of their accounts pending a "fraud review."

As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiffs and Class members must
now be vigilant and review their credit reports for incidents of
identity theft, and to educate themselves about security freezes,
fraud alerts, and other steps to protect themselves against
identity theft.

Data security breaches have dominated the headlines for the last
two decades, and it does not take an IT industry expert to know
that the failure to take reasonable security precautions places
individual's personal information at risk.

The lawsuit details the consequences of security breaches and says
they sometimes aren't discovered until long after the fact.

The suit said one plaintiff received a payment June 8 and 15 and
then was locked out; another has not received a benefit since June
1, and a third, Terry Morrow, was a victim of the data breach.

On or about May 14, 2020, Morrow applied online for PUA benefits
through the ADWS PUA website created, implemented, and maintained
by Protech. During the application process, Morrow supplied her
account information for her Skylight Net Spin Card with Regions
Bank, so that her PUA payments could be made directly to that
account.

As a direct result of the Data Breach, Morrow was the victim of
identity theft. The day after she applied online for PUA benefits
through the PUA website created, implemented, and maintained by
Protech, someone fraudulently used her name and SSN to set up an
account with Bank of America in Texas ("BOA Account"), and without
her authorization or knowledge transferred all her money from her
Skylight Net Spin Card (i.e., $757.24) into the BOA Account.

Morrow spent approximately 20 hours trying to get her money back,
including filing a police report and dealing with the bank. As a
direct result of the data Breach, Morrow fell behind on paying her
utilities and other bills. Morrow has also been charged late fees
and penalties on accounts that, as a direct result of Defendant's
conduct, have become delinquent.

As a direct result of the Data Breach, Morrow will have to expend
additional time and energy protecting and monitoring her identity
and credit.

The suit says the class covered by the lawsuit numbers 30,000. It
claims negligence and invasion of privacy and seeks injunctive
relief, including to lift holds on the PUA accounts.

Here's the motion for a preliminary injunction to restore access to
PUA accounts.

The case has been assigned to Judge Alice Gray.

Thomas Zimmerman of Chicago, one of the lawyers filing the suit,
told me that it had received a copy of the Protech Solutions
contract.  [GN]

RUBIN AND ROTHMAN: Goldklang Asserts Breach of FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rubin and Rothman,
LLC. The case is styled as Rochel Goldklang, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rubin and
Rothman, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
7:20-cv-05451-VB (S.D. N.Y., July 15, 2020).

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

Rubin & Rothman, LLC is a New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and
Massachusetts creditor's rights law firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
   Stein Saks PLLC
   285 Passaic st
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (347) 668-9326
   Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com




SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CA: Court Dismisses Freeman with Leave to Amend
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BENNIE FREEMAN, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN ASSISTANCE, et. al., Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-02418-KJM-CKD PS (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Carolyn K.
Delaney of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Plaintiff Freeman asserts seven causes of action against the County
of Sacramento Department of Human Assistance alleging racial
discrimination and harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
("FEHA").  The complaint's factual allegations are sparse, but the
Plaintiff generally alleges that during his 15-year tenure working
for the County, he has repeatedly been denied promotional positions
because he is African American.

The Defendant asks the Court to dismiss the complaint in its
entirety under Rule 12(b)(6) because (1) the Plaintiff improperly
attempts to assert a class action; (2) the Plaintiff has not
sufficiently alleged that he exhausted his administrative remedies
before filing suit; and (3) the Plaintiff's factual allegations
fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

With respect to his disparate treatment claim under Title VII, the
Plaintiff appears to be attempting to assert a class action by
alleging that the claim is brought by him on behalf of themselves
and the class they seek to represent.  Magistrate Judge Delaney
finds that the Plaintiff has made no motion pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23 asking the Court to certify the case as
a class action.  In addition, the Plaintiff is a non-lawyer
proceeding without the counsel and admits that he is not an
individual schooled in the law.  It is well established that a
layperson cannot ordinarily represent the interests of a class.  To
the extent the Plaintiff is attempting to assert a disparate
treatment claim on behalf of class members, the Plaintiff's claim
should be dismissed.

Next, the Magistrate Judge finds that the Plaintiff has
sufficiently alleged that he exhausted his administrative remedies
under Title VII and the FEHA.  Although it would be helpful to know
the timeline of events and the contents of the EEOC charge, the
Plaintiff's exhaustion allegations are sufficient.  The complaint
alleges that Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies
and complied with all statutory prerequisites to Title VII claims.
It further alleges that he filed a charge of discrimination and
retaliation individually and on behalf of himself with the EEOC and
the EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue.  These allegations are
enough to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).  

In addition, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff fails to
allege sufficient factual information to state plausible claims for
relief under Title VII and the FEHA.  The Magistrate Judge finds
that the Plaintiff's factual allegations are deficient with respect
to each of his claims.  The complaint (i) fails to state a
plausible claim for disparate treatment under Title VII or the
FEHA; (ii) neither identifies the specific employment practice that
the Plaintiff is challenging, nor shows a causal relationship
between the facially neutral practice and the significant disparate
impact on African American employees; (iii) provides no reasonable
basis to infer that the Defendant refused to promote the Plaintiff
because he complained of discrimination or filed a charge with the
EEOC; and (iv) fails to allege facts to show that the actions were
part of a "concerted pattern" and were repeated and routine.

The Plaintiff may be able to cure the deficiencies in the complaint
by alleging additional facts, the Court notes.  Thus, the
Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed without prejudice and with
leave to amend, the Court holds.  Should he choose to file an
amended complaint, he is informed that the court cannot refer to a
prior pleading in order to make his amended complaint complete.
Once the Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original
pleading no longer serves any function in the case.  Therefore, in
an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and
the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Delaney granted the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss.  The Judge dismissed the Plaintiff's complaint
with leave to amend.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 19, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/kHf26z from Leagle.com.

In a further order dated June 18, 2020, the Court gave the
Plaintiff more time to file an amended complaint, if any.
Plaintiff may file an amended complaint no late than 60 days of the
Court's June 2020 Order.


SANTA BARBARA, CA: Settles Class Action Over Jail Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------
Mitchell White, writing for Santa Barbara News-Press, reports that
the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department announced a
settlement in a class-action lawsuit regarding conditions of
confinement at the County Jail.

The settlement from the Dec. 6, 2017, lawsuit was announced by the
Sheriff's Office. The case involved plaintiffs Clay Murray, David
Franco, Shareen Winkle, Maria Tracy and Erick Brown. The plaintiffs
were represented by several different attorneys, including
Disability Rights California, Prison Law Office, and King &
Spalding LLP.

The lawsuit alleged that conditions at the jail do not meet the
minimum standards under the Constitution and federal law, with the
plaintiffs arguing that the county and Sheriff's Office "failed to
provide adequate mental health and medical care, overused and
misused solitary confinement, discriminated against people with
disabilities, and allowed for unsanitary and unsafe living
conditions for people incarcerated at the jail," according to the
plaintiffs.

The lead plaintiff, Mr. Murray, is an Army veteran suffering from
post-traumatic stress disorder who uses a wheelchair. While in
custody, the plaintiffs said he received no meaningful mental
health treatment and was confined to a housing unit that was
inaccessible to people with physical disabilities.

"Activities as basic as taking a shower or using the toilet put Mr.
Murray at risk of injury every day. Due to overcrowding and the
lack of accessible beds, Mr. Murray was forced to sleep on the
floor many nights." read a statement from Disability Rights
California.

Subject to court approval, the settlement binds Santa Barbara
County and the Sheriff's Office to changes that authorities say
have already been implemented and future commitments to improve
living conditions for people confined in the jail, said Raquel
Zick, sheriff's spokeswoman.

"The County and the Sheriff's Office have been implementing process
improvements and advancements over the last several years
consistent with the settlement plan," Ms. Zick said. "The
settlement plan will result in more out of cell time for inmates,
specialized mental health units and timelines to address different
acuity levels of medical and mental health conditions, increased
observations of actively suicidal inmates and decreased use of
safety cells."

Improvements to the Main Jail will provide ADA-related
modifications and adequate space for programming for vulnerable
populations and will allow increased participation in recreational
activities, Ms. Zick said.

Both the Sheriff's Office and the county have agreed to continue to
address the jail's "asserted deficiencies until durable solutions
are implemented," Ms. Zick said, adding that many requirements have
been partially or completely implemented.

Sheriff Bill Brown issued a lengthy statement on the settlement,
which he called "a milestone in our agency's delivery of
correctional services" to those in custody.

"(The settlement) sets the path toward much needed improvements in
the processes, programs, and overall environment of the entire Main
Jail campus," Sheriff Brown said. "As these measures are
implemented, we will be able to provide better correctional
services to our incarcerated community members. Although our
Custody professionals have performed admirably for years, they have
been hampered in their efforts by limited resources and an obsolete
and inefficient jail facility that is more than 50 years old. The
much-welcomed subject matter expert evaluations and remedial plans
that are a part of this agreement will pave the way toward a
comprehensive community of care for the entire inmate population."

Sheriff Brown said he appreciates the support from the county Board
of Supervisors in the settlement, and also expressed gratitude to
custody staff and members of the county counsel's office to bring
together "a roadmap for future progress."

"As we enter into this agreement we know there will be many
difficulties in meeting the myriad of requirements it contains, but
I have confidence that the dedicated men and women in our Custody
Operations Branch will rise up and see to it that we meet those
challenges," Sheriff Brown said.

The Sheriff's Office and the county have agreed to pay the
plaintiff's counsel $1,132,809 for "reasonable fees and expenses
incurred" when an investigation was launched into the conditions at
the jail.

"We have communicated with hundreds of people held in the Santa
Barbara County Jail, and have heard again and again that the
conditions there are simply intolerable.  The design and conditions
of this half-century old jail have no place in modern society,"
Aaron Fischer, litigation counsel at Disability Rights California
said in a statement. "This settlement comes at a moment of critical
urgency and great opportunity. The jail's dangerous conditions are
compounded by the tremendous risk that the COVID-19 pandemic poses
to our clients. And we are also seeing a long overdue discussion
about institutional racism and mass incarceration, both of which
disproportionately harm people -- especially people of color --
with mental health needs and other disabilities. With this
settlement, the community should expect significant improvements in
conditions at the Santa Barbara County Jail."

A copy of the settlement can be found at
https://www.sbsheriff.org/class-action-stipulated-judgement-and-notice-of-settlement/.
[GN]


SELECT HOTELS: Mirabueno Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Meal & Rest Breaks
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER MIRABUENO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SELECT HOTELS GROUP, LLC; HYATT
CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No.
20STCV26806 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 16, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendants alleging several violations
pursuant to the California Labor Code including failure to:

     1. provide the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
workers accurate and itemized wages statements;

     2. compensate them appropriate minimum wages and overtime for
all hours worked;

     3. provide a minimum wage lawful meal periods and rest
periods; and

     4. give timely payment during employment and payment upon
separation of employment.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a house-person or
lobby attendant from October 2018 until February 15, 2020.

Select Hotels Groups, LLC is a hospitality company doing business
in California.

Hyatt Corporation is a multinational hospitality company
headquartered in the Riverside Plaza area of Chicago, Illinois.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Justin Lo, Esq.
         WORK LAWYERS, PC
         22939 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 202
         Torrance, CA 90505
         Telephone: (866) 496-7552
         Facsimile: (424) 355-8535
         E-mail: Justin@WorkLawyers.com

SURFSIDE COFFEE: Duffey Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, THERESA DUFFEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SURFSIDE COFFEE COMPANY LLC, a
Foreign Limited Liability Company, and CHRISTOPHER MELLGREN,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00501 (M.D. Fla., July
15, 2020) arises from Defendants' alleged unlawful pay practices in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a store manager.

The complaint alleges that Defendant inappropriately and improperly
classified Plaintiff and those current and former employees
similarly situated to Plaintiff as exempt employees. As a result,
although Plaintiff and those similarly situated employees
customarily and regularly performed non-exempt work which consumed
90% or more of their time, Defendant failed to pay them overtime
for all the hours they worked in excess of 40 each workweek.

Christopher Mellgren owns, operates and manages Surfside and all of
the retail store units.

Surfside Coffee Company LLC is a Dunkin' Donuts franchise network
in Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus W. Viles, Esq.
          VILES & BECKMAN, LLC
          6350 Presidential Court
          Fort Myers, FL 33919
          Tel: (239) 334-3933
          Fax: (239) 334-7105
          Email: viles@viesandbeckman.com
                 yllen@vilesandbeckman.com


TACOS EL PAISA: Basurto Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT for Restaurant Staff
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, AMELIA BASURTO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TACOS EL PAISA INC. (D/B/A TACOS EL PAISA)
and BLANCA SERRANO, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05483 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 16, 2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to pay the
Plaintiff appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours
compensation for all hours worked beyond 40 hours in a workweek and
failure to maintain accurate recordkeeping of total worked hours in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiff was employed as a waitress at the Defendants'
restaurant located at 1548 St. Nicholas Ave, New York, New York
from approximately January 8, 2020 until on or about May 11, 2020.

Tacos El Paisa Inc., d/b/a Tacos El Paisa, is a Mexican restaurant
operator located at 1548 St. Nicholas Ave., New York, New York.
[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

TORO FOODS: Leon Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------
CARLOS LEON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TORO FOODS, LLC and GERARDO DEANDA,
Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-00823 (W.D. Tex., July 14, 2020) is a
collective action complaint brought against Defendants for their
alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid and
non-exempt cook at one of Defendant's restaurants from April 2018
until September 2018.

Plaintiff claims that Defendant did not pay him and other Hourly
Employees an overtime premium of 1.5x his regular hourly rate for
all hours worked in excess of 40 per week.

Gerardo DeAnda is an owner, principal, officer and/or director of
Toro.

Toro Foods, LLC operates two restaurants in San Antonio, Texas.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Tel: (501) 221-0088
          Fax: (888) 787-2040
          Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


TWITTER: Faces Suit on Cryptocurrency Advertising Ban in Australia
------------------------------------------------------------------
Riddhi Jain, writing for itmunch, reports that cryptocurrency
entrepreneurs are suing Twitter, Facebook and Google in Australia
that would cost the tech companies up to US$300 billion, which is
equivalent to A$436 billion. The individuals and companies filing
the lawsuit claim that their businesses were harmed when the three
companies "colluded" to ban cryptocurrency advertising in 2018. The
Australian class-action lawsuit filed will be represented by a
Sydney-based law firm, JPB Liberty.

The 'David-and-Goliath' case has already attracted litigants with
claims of over US$600 million (A$872 million). It is now under
review by a senior barrister and pending funding. The funding for
this 'no win, no fee' case is being organized by JPB Liberty from
institutional venture capitalists, litigation funders and other
ideologically aligned investors. The claimants are to receive 70%
of the eventual settlement (or damages) and the funders will get
30%.

Tech giants and the cryptocurrency ban

The big tech firms are being sued by cryptocurrency businesses in
Australia saying Google, Twitter and Facebook colluded to ban
cryptocurrency advertising. Facebook and Twitter included the ban
in their terms and conditions within weeks of each other in 2018.

Google partially reversed the sweeping ban in September 2018. It
allowed regulated exchanges to buy ads in Japan and the US. In
2019, Facebook said it wouldn't require pre-approval anymore for
ads related to blockchain technology. However, cryptocurrency
advertisements still have to undergo review.

More on the Australian class-action lawsuit

Cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, are largely used to move money
across international borders and the blockchain technology that
supports it is transforming data security. The entrepreneurs say
that there were only a few regulated exchanges in 2018. The
Australian class-action suit claims that the social media
advertising ban on cryptocurrencies harmed their legitimate
business growth as they were kept from using the world's biggest
online advertising platforms to reach their potential target
audience.

JPB Liberty's Israeli-based Vice President of Technology & Public
Affairs, Brian Bishko thinks Facebook is too powerful to exist and
a danger to the world. Dr Bishko says if your business has a
component that even minutely looks like a cryptocurrency, you will
be caught in the same net. He adds that your business might get a
few adverts but eventually tech giants would review your account
and later, block it.

Tech companies cannot be held accountable or responsible for the
content being posted on their platform. This is due to a US legal
protection that deems them to be a platform for content being
shared and not the publisher. Google, Facebook and Twitter are
increasingly taking editorial decisions over what content they
would host on their respective platforms. The tech giants
demonetize or delete accounts, reject ad requests and ban
individuals and businesses that make a living off social media
whose ideologies are not in sync with the tech companies. [GN]


U.S. OIL FUND: Pomerantz Investigates Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
United States Oil Fund, LP ("USO" or the "Company") (NYSEARCA:USO).
Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.

The investigation concerns whether USO and certain of its officers
and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful
business practices.

USO is an exchange traded fund ("ETF") purportedly designed to
track the daily changes in percentage terms of the spot price of
West Texas Intermediate ("WTI") light, sweet crude oil delivered to
Cushing, Oklahoma. USO stated that it would achieve its investment
objectives by investing substantially all of its portfolio assets
in the near month WTI futures contract. However, extraordinary
market conditions in early 2020, including the economic impact of
the COVID-19 pandemic and a price ware between Saudi Arabia and
Russia, made USO's purported investment objective and strategy
unfeasible. Because of the nature of USO's investment strategy,
these and other converging factors caused the Fund to suffer
exceptional losses and undermined its ability to meet its
ostensible investment objective. However, rather than disclose the
known impacts and risks to the Fund as a result of these
exceptional threats, the Fund's principals instead conducted a
massive offering of USO shares, ultimately selling billions of
dollars' worth of USO shares to the market. Although the offering
increased the fees payable to the Fund's principals, it also
exacerbated the undisclosed risks to the Fund by magnifying trading
inefficiencies and causing USO to approach position and
accountability limits as a result of the Fund's massive positions
in the WTI futures market. Ultimately, the Fund suffered billions
of dollars in losses and was forced to abandon its investment
strategy. Through a series of rapid-fire investment overhauls, USO
was forced to transform from the passive ETF designed to track spot
oil prices that its principals had pitched to investors to an
almost unrecognizable actively managed fund struggling to avoid a
total implosion. In April and May 2020, USO's principals belatedly
acknowledged the extreme threats and adverse impacts that the Fund
had been experiencing at the time of the March offering, but which
they had failed to disclose to investors.

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]


UNITED STATES OIL: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 18 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of United States Oil Fund, LP
(NYSEArca: USO) between March 19, 2020 and April 28, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important August 18, 2020
lead plaintiff deadline in securities class action. The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for USO investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the USO class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1865.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

The complaint alleges that defendants stated that USO would achieve
its investment objective by investing substantially all of its
portfolio assets in the near month WTI futures contract. However,
unbeknownst to investors, extraordinary market conditions in early
2020 made USO's purported investment objective and strategy
unfeasible. Rather than disclose the known impacts and risks to the
fund, USO held an offering of billions of dollars of USO shares in
March 2020. Ultimately, the fund suffered billions of dollars in
losses and was forced to abandon its investment strategy. It was
not until late April and May 2020, that defendants acknowledged the
extreme threats and adverse impacts that the fund had been
experiencing at the time of the March offering, but which they
failed to disclose to investors. 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 August 18,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1865.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- or
--cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN]

UNITED STATES: Firm Releases Full Report in Class-Action v. DETR
----------------------------------------------------------------
8 News Now reports that filing for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance
(PUA) has been a long, arduous journey for many, and it could come
to an end soon.

8 News Now examined a 310-page report from Hutchison & Steffen,
PLLC, detailing problems and issues that have delayed payments owed
to applicants.

It analyzes every angle you can imagine, following the course of
COVID-19 and the Department of Employment, Training and
Rehabilitation's (DETR) response and handling of claims. It also
looks at how other states have handled it.

The report was released in advance of a hearing set, in which a
judge could force DETR to pay all pending claims.

Now, we'll break it down.

It was put together by what's called a "special hearing master." In
this case, that was an attorney who worked with both sides after
the class-action lawsuit was filed.

In the section concerning PUA claims, it starts with how a claim is
made, how it is resolved and looks at issues with claims.

The special master asks extensive questions of both DETR and the
plaintiffs, who represent all in similar situations. Each answer is
thoroughly detailed.

One area explained in great detail has to do with the contracted
call center, Alorica. It lists numerous issues, having to do with
training, rude staff and a lack of Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) compliancy. It goes on to say:

"The evidence reviewed by the special master raises serious
questions about Alorica's performance on behalf of the state.

But instead of just listing problems, there were potential
solutions listed, too. The special master listed 14 suggestions for
the court to consider, gathered from thousands of claimant emails.

And, there are ideas from the special master himself that will help
in all aspects as we move forward. Those include creating a PUA
appeal process, adding a "volunteer claim concierge corps,"
improving the call center, specifically relations with Alorica, and
denying claims when fraud is expected. [GN]

UNITED STATES: Kirkland & Ellis Helps Secure ICE Class Suit Win
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Cueto, writing for Law360, reports that when he was 17, Wilmer
Garcia Ramirez arrived in the United States after leaving his birth
country of Guatemala, where his parents had arranged for him to
work 11-hour days on various coffee plantations since the age of
9.

As a child, he was placed in the custody of the Office of Refugee
Resettlement, and a court later determined that it was not in
Wilmer's best interest to be returned to his parents, opening the
door for him to become a lawful resident. But when Wilmer turned
18, instead of being allowed to live with a family friend who
agreed to sponsor him, he was transferred to a U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement detention center.

More than two years after filing a class action suit on behalf of
Wilmer and other unaccompanied teens in ICE detention, Kirkland &
Ellis LLP and its nonprofit partners at the National Immigrant
Justice Center and the American Immigration Council won a major
court decision that the way the agency has handled cases like
Wilmer's is not allowed under federal law.

"We couldn't be happier with the court's decision," said Steve
Patton, a litigation attorney who is of counsel at Kirkland &
Ellis. "Lawyers always say when they win that the court's decision
is thorough and well-reasoned, but here that old saw is spot-on."

The case concerned children like Wilmer who were held in ORR
custody as minors, but who aged out of that custody when they
turned 18. Under federal law, such teenagers should be allowed to
live in the "least restrictive" setting possible while their
immigration case proceeds, such as living with a relative or
sponsor.

Under the law, these 18-year-olds should only be transferred to an
ICE detention facility in circumstances when the teenager is
considered a risk to themselves or the community, or if they are a
flight risk.

In the ruling, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras concluded that
ICE "frequently" fails to ask about alternative housing for these
teenagers, such as group homes and sponsors, before transferring
them to adult detention facilities and instead gives officers
"unbridled discretion to make age-out custody determinations
however they would like."

The decision also found that ICE agents were not properly trained
on the law, and that some of their training appeared directly
contrary to it.

According to Patton of Kirkland & Ellis and Mary Meg McCarthy,
executive director of the National Immigrant Justice Center, the
victory was a hard fought one.

NIJC, which has partnered with Kirkland & Ellis in the past, first
contacted Patton and the firm in fall of 2017, after noticing a
sharp increase in the number of clients who were transferred to ICE
detention facilities when they turned 18. The team of attorneys
went to work talking to immigration services providers across the
county, trying to see how different field offices were handling
these types of cases.

When it became clear that the new practices were widespread, the
team filed a proposed class action in March 2018. Patton said that
the attorneys chose to keep a "rifle shot" focus and make the
claims as straightforward as possible.

Once the case commenced and discovery got away, however, Patton
said the attorneys met steep resistance from the agency.

"It was as intense and hard-fought a resistance -- just adamant
resistance -- to discovery as I think I've experienced in all my
years of practice," he said. "It was hand-to-hand combat for almost
the entire period of discovery."

It was difficult, he said, to get the government to disclose "even
basic information." In fact, he said, the judge eventually ordered
weekly telephone conferences so that the parties could hash out
discovery matters on a regular basis.

Throughout the process, the non-profit attorneys acted as subject
matter experts on immigration law and took point on talking to
other immigration services providers about the situation on the
ground for young immigrants aging out of ORR custody. The Kirkland
& Ellis team, meanwhile, took the lead on a lot of the "nuts and
bolts" of the litigation itself, Patton said.

Patton estimated that at least a dozen Kirkland & Ellis attorneys
worked on the case at some point during the two years of
litigation, but the core trial team included seven attorneys:
Michael B. Slade, who came aboard for the trial, and Tia
Trout-Perez, who worked on the case from the start, as well as
associates Britney A. Lewis, Erin Reynolds, Orla O'Callaghan and
Paul Quincy, and Patton himself.

The team faced arguments from ICE that the agency has the
discretion to decide whether detention is warranted and that it
isn't legally obligated to seek out alternatives. At trial, the
chief of ICE's Juvenile and Family Residential Management Unit
argued that that burden rested instead with the ORR.

After that 18-day bench trial in April, in which the plaintiffs put
on 37 witnesses, including a former immigration judge,
statisticians, and a pediatrician who specializes in immigrant
children, Judge Contreras ruled on July 2 that ICE had violated the
law.

"The statute requires the secretary of DHS -- acting through ICE
officers in the field -- to take into account the statutory risk
factors as they consider placing each age-out in the least
restrictive setting available," Judge Contreras wrote. "Doing this
necessarily requires making an inquiry aimed at determining what
settings are available and which of these is the least restrictive.
As was clear from the testimony presented at trial, ICE officers
are consistently failing to take either of these steps."

The judge has yet to rule on relief for the class. But McCarthy
said that the 181-page decision on liability was already a major
victory.

"It was important to have such a thorough decision," she said. "I'm
so glad that the court really took the time and the effort to
review all the evidence that demonstrated that the government was
not complying with the law."

She also noted, as was also noted in the decision, that when ICE
agents do make an effort to find sponsors or other alternatives to
detention for teenagers, they are able to do so in most cases.

Now that the ruling has been handed down, the attorneys are
scheduled to begin discussions of relief for the class. The judge
has indicated he intends to issue the ruling on relief quickly.

There is no reason, McCarthy and Patton said, for these young
people to remain locked up.

"We have to have a process," McCarthy said. "We have to treat these
young people fairly."

Counsel for ICE did not respond to a request for comment. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Settlement Fund to Bolster Tribal Agriculture Cos.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Balaskovitz, writing for MiBiz, reports that a settlement fund
created from a landmark 2010 class action lawsuit is providing tens
of millions of dollars to help tribes bolster agricultural
companies, including access to critical lending needed to jumpstart
operations.

Most recently, the Native American Agriculture Fund awarded grants
to Upper Peninsula-based tribes to expand fish processing and
provide a revolving loan fund. The $250,000 awarded to Lake
Superior Community Development Corp. in L'Anse will deploy loan
capital to Native farms and ranches across the state and includes
business training and tax preparation for Native producers.

Those eligible for the revolving loan program include farmers,
ranchers, harvesters and commercial fisheries that are part of any
federally recognized tribe in Michigan, said Eddy Edwards.

"In the end, the big goal is to try to let tribes and tribal people
be more self sustaining in regional food production, which
increases food security and sovereignty," Edwards said.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for self sufficiency
through food security, such as not being reliant on commercial food
processing operations, Edwards added.

"Regional food systems are key to providing good food and more
organics rather than corporate food processing we see a lot of,"
Edwards said.

Edwards is a member of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, which was
awarded $75,000 from NAAF last month to create an "integrated
community food sovereignty system" through a certified fish
processing facility and using fish byproducts to expand organic
vegetable production. The funding will support traditional foods
and expand the tribe's capacity to process fish.

"Each and every family in the community is connected to fishing in
some way. The KBIC supports its fishermen as well as other
harvesters in keeping these traditions," KBIC President Warren
"Chris" Swartz said in a statement. "As stewards of the resources,
our goal is to facilitate sustainable harvest of fisheries
resources to provide into the future for the seventh generation."

Landmark opportunity

The Native American Agriculture Fund is a charitable trust created
under a landmark class action lawsuit settlement in 2010. In
Keepseagle v. Vilsack, tribes alleged the U.S. Department of
Agriculture discriminated against Native farmers and ranchers in
loan programs since 1981. Edwards said the NAAF is vital, as tribal
members still report a burdensome loan process through the USDA.

The NAAF has roughly $266 million available in funding for business
assistance, agricultural education, technical support and advocacy.
The first funding round issued $10 million to 80 organizations
across the U.S. The second round starting this year includes $15
million in grants. The pandemic also led NAAF to distribute $2
million in rapid response funding to 74 grantees.

According to the 2017 U.S. Census of Agriculture, American
Indian/Alaska Native farms represent 3 percent of all U.S. farms.
In Michigan, the number of farms on reservation land increased by
more than 10 percent from 2012 to 2017, comprising 2 percent of all
Michigan farms.

Although the numbers have grown in recent years, Edwards said a
majority of Native farmers are "small time."

Bay Mills Community College, the tribally controlled educational
institution of the Bay Mills Indian Community, received nearly
$300,000 in 2018 under a fast track program before the NAAF was
created. The college operates the 40-acre Waishkey Bay Farm, which
serves as an incubator and research center for sustainable
agriculture. The funding allowed the farm to expand staff and
student programming as well as buy new equipment.

Edwards said the biggest need among Native agricultural startups is
"equipment to do the job" at a commercial scale.

"It's a great opportunity for economic development because food is
something people buy everyday," he said. "There's a big swing to
people becoming more aware of where their food is coming from, what
it's made of and what the (growing) conditions are."

As a Native Community Development Financial Institution (CDFI), the
Lake Superior Community Development Corp. also assists members with
the business side of establishing agriculture companies with
accounting and tax preparation.

"We don't want to just give them money, we want to make sure
they're successful," Edwards said. "A lot of people might know how
to farm and ranch but they don't know how to deal with the IRS."

The revolving fund will provide loans up to $50,000. Edwards'
organization also received NAAF rapid response funding for smaller
grants of $2,500. He said the funding is about taking advantage of
a program specifically designed to build agricultural capacity
among tribes.

"This is an opportunity through NAAF to provide funding to Native
farmers and ranchers for the next 20 years," Edwards said, adding
it will help "build capacity so they can be more self reliant."
[GN]


UNITED STATES: Two Immigrants Sue Over Citizenship, Right to Vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Loop reports that a Jamaican-born woman residing in Philadelphia in
the United States has sued the Trump Administration to become a US
citizen and gain the right to vote in the November presidential
elections.

The woman, Maria Campbell-Davis, along with Syrian national, Abdel
Wahab Alaussos, have both asked the US District Court in Eastern
Pennsylvania to order the US government to quickly administer the
oath to everyone in their position while there is still time to
register to vote in the US elections.

The two immigrants have taken action and filed a class action
lawsuit against the United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services (CIS) which administers the oath of allegiance, and other
federal agencies and officials.

According to the lawsuit filed by four attorneys, including two
from the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, the Jamaican and
the Syrian said the right to cast a ballot is "a fundamental
privilege of US citizenship".

In relation to Campbell-Davis, she was interviewed for
naturalisation in January of this year and was set to take the oath
on March 19, US media reports indicated.

The ceremony to take the oath was, however, cancelled due to the
outbreak of the coronavirus, and it has not been rescheduled
despite the immigration agency resuming its operations.

The present situation means that Campbell-Davis is unable to vote
in November, or petition for her Jamaican sons to migrate to the
US.

But both the Jamaican and Syrian are lawful permanent residents in
the US.

Meanwhile, the two immigrants said while the initial delay was
understandable, it has now gone on too long. They want the US CIS
to use all available means and technologies to conduct
naturalisations by September 28, which is three weeks before
October 19, the last day on which Pennsylvanians can register to
vote in the November presidential elections.

"A much larger, expedited effort is needed to accommodate the
hundreds of plaintiffs (whose) paths to US citizenship have been
delayed, to ensure that they are not needlessly harmed by any
additional delays," the lawsuit stated. [GN]


WALGREEN CO: Eidmann Sues Over False Infants' Acetaminophen Label
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CAMERON EIDMANN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WALGREEN CO., Defendant, Case No.
5:20-cv-04805 (N.D. Cal., July 17, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the False and Misleading
Advertising Law, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and Unfair
Competition Law.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated consumers, alleges that the Defendant's packaging and
labeling of the Infants' Pain & Fever Acetaminophen is misleading
and deceptive. The Infants' product packaging design could mislead
a parent into thinking that the product is specially formulated or
otherwise possesses some unique medicinal quality to make it
specifically appropriate for infants as opposed to older children.
The front of a box of the Infants' Product contains representations
which are likely to deceive consumers into believing the Infants'
Product is specially formulated for infants or otherwise unique for
infants. In reality, the medicine contained in a bottle of Infants'
Product contains the same active ingredient and formulation that is
contained in a bottle of the Defendant's Children's Pain & Fever
Acetaminophen Oral Suspension. Thus, there is no difference in the
medicine sold in the Infants' Product and the Children's Product.
But the Defendant does not disclose this important information
anywhere on the Infants' Product packaging. This omission causes
consumers, including the Plaintiff, economic damage because the
Defendant charges substantially more money for its Infants' Product
than its Children's Product.

Walgreen Co. is an American company that operates a pharmacy store
chain in the United States, with principal place of business
located at 200 Wilmot Road in Deerfield, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
         Sara D. Avila, Esq.
         Marc A. Castaneda, Esq.
         MILSTEIN JACKSON FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP
         10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 1400
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 396-9600
         Facsimile: (310) 396-9635
         E-mail: gwade@mjfwlaw.com
                 savila@mjfwlaw.com
                 awhitman@mjfwlaw.com

                 - and -
         
         Hank Bates, Esq.
         David Slade, Esq.
         CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
         519 W. 7th Street
         Little Rock, AR 72201
         Telephone: (501) 312-8500
         Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
         E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com
                 dslade@cbplaw.com

WELLS FARGO: Claimsfiler Reminds of Aug. 14 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuit:

Wells Fargo & Company (WFC)
Class Period: 2/2/2018 - 3/10/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: August 14, 2020

According to the Complaint, Wells Fargo is a diversified financial
services company that provides banking, investment, mortgage, and
consumer and commercial finance products and services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions in the U.S. and
internationally.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Wells Fargo planned to, and
did, improperly allocate government-backed loans under the Paycheck
Protection Program ("PPP"), and/or had inadequate controls in place
to prevent such misallocation; (ii) the foregoing foreseeably
increased the Company's litigation risk with respect to PPP
allocation, as well as increased regulatory scrutiny and/or
potential enforcement actions; and (iii) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times. [GN]

WELLS FARGO: Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Announces Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Wells
Fargo & Company ("Wells Fargo" or the "Company") (NYSE: WFC)
securities between February 2, 2018, and March 10, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Wells Fargo investors have until August 14,
2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their Wells Fargo investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

On February 2, 2018, Wells Fargo entered into a consent order with
the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the "FRS
Consent Order"), committing to comply with directives regarding its
governance and risk management policies. The FRS Consent Order was
part of an enforcement action brought against the Company in
connection with certain of its fraudulent practices.

Then, on March 4, 2020, a 113-page report revealed that Wells Fargo
"fell woefully" short of implementing meaningful corporate reforms
and that its risk and compliance policies remained dangerously
inadequate to prevent another consumer fraud from occurring,
thereby violating the FRS Consent Order.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.50, or over 6%, to
close at $38.90 on March 5, 2020.

Then, on March 10, 2020, the U.S. House Financial Services
Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters requested that the U.S.
Department of Justice ("DOJ") investigate the Company's former CEO,
for providing false statements in the context of his public
testimony a year earlier, in March 2019, which directly related to
Wells Fargo's compliance with the FRS and OCC Consent Orders and
its progress in developing and implementing effective and
meaningful reforms.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.75, or over 7%, to
close at $32.33, thereby injuring investors.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) that Wells Fargo had inadequate disclosure controls and
procedures and internal controls over financial reporting,
particularly with respect to its risk and compliance management,
policies and programs; (2) that the Company was not compliant with
the regulatory consent orders entered into in 2018; (3) that the
Company's remedial plans were inadequate, incomplete, and
insufficient to prevent from future consumer abuses; (4) that as a
result of the continued noncompliance with the regulatory consent
orders, the Company was threatened with supervisory and/or
enforcement actions and penalties; (5) that the Company's remedial
measures and risk and compliance management remained inadequate to
protect against consumer fraud; (6) 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 and omitted materials facts.

If you purchased Wells Fargo securities, have information or would
like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire,
of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847,
toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.  [GN]

WESTPAC: Maurice Blackburn Launches Class Action
------------------------------------------------
John Kavanagh, writing for BankingDay, reports that Westpac and its
subsidiaries face two class actions, after two law firms announced
that they were filing claims over car finance arrangements.

Maurice Blackburn commenced proceedings in the Victorian Supreme
Court alleging that Westpac and St George Finance "colluded with
car dealers to sting consumers with unfair high interest loans".

Earlier, Shine Lawyers said it would launch a class action in the
Federal Court alleging that Westpac and its subsidiaries, as well
as another finance company, breached their obligations under
consumer credit law by failing to disclose to consumers the true
nature of their commission structures when working with car
dealers.

The Shine claim covers Westpac, St George Bank, Bank of Melbourne
and Capital Finance Australia.

Westpac was criticised in the Hayne royal commission report for
continuing to offer so-called "flex commission" arrangements to car
dealers until they were outlawed in November 2018, even though it
accepted earlier that the practice could be unfair.

Flex commissions gave dealers a cut of the interest payable if they
could persuade the borrower to pay a higher rate than the lender's
base rate. In the Royal Commission's view that was an arrangement
that simply added cost for the borrower, who knew nothing about the
arrangement.

Shine Lawyers class action practice leader Vicky Antzoulatos said:
"If you bought a car from a dealership using 'in-store' finance
from July 2014 to November 2018, you may have been the victim of a
flex car loan rort.

"Under the now-banned scheme, dealerships spruiked cars with
finance, while failing to disclose that the interest rate on the
loans was arranged with the lender in exchange for commissions."

"In some cases, customers who bought the same car or a vehicle of
similar value on the same day were charged between 6.5 per cent and
15.5 per cent interest over and above the base rate."

Maurice Blackburn said that in some cases consumers were charged
more than three times the base interest rate set by Westpac and St
George.

Maurice Blackburn national head of class actions, Andrew Watson,
said: "Westpac and St George had set up an arrangement that
rewarded the car dealers for gouging their customers.

"This case will seek to prove that Westpac and St George failed to
comply with their obligations under consumer credit protection laws
and that this failure caused substantial losses for many
consumers."

Watson estimates the size of the class at around 400,000.

Shine's class action is open to car buyers who took out a loan for
personal use through their car dealer between July 2014 and
November 2018, and Maurice Blackburn's between 2013 and 2018. [GN]


WWE: Labaton Says Argument for Dismissal of Class Action Fails
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action plaintiff is urging a federal judge not to toss its
lawsuit against the World Wrestling Entertainment over a
relationship with Saudi Arabia that didn't materialize.

A Warren, Ohio, police and firefighter pension fund has sued the
WWE over a stock drop that occurred when the WWE announced that it
failed to reach a broadcasting deal in the country. In a motion to
dismiss filed in June, the WWE called the shareholder lawsuit
"fraud-by-hindsight" and a "strained attempt" to place blame for
the stock drop.

New York federal judge Jed Rakoff has appointed Labaton Sucharow as
lead counsel for the plaintiffs. The firm filed a response to the
motion to dismiss on July 14.

"Defendants' Motion is a scattershot effort to offer their own
alternative version of numerous alleged facts, which is not
appropriate at this stage of the case. In fact, even before
Plaintiff filed the Complaint, Defendants threatened Plaintiff's
counsel with sanctions, arguing that the initial complaints on file
(none of which were filed by Plaintiff or its counsel) included
allegations that conflicted with what Defendants contend actually
happened," the plaintiff's response says.

"Defendants frequently take the same approach in the Motion, which
should be denied in its entirety."

Multiple cases were filed earlier this year against the WWE. They
allege WWE officers failed to tell investors about difficulties
with negotiations with Saudi Arabia and the Orbit Showcase Network
(OSN).

The WWE called the Saudi-controlled direct broadcast satellite
provider serving the Middle East and North Africa regions a key
part of its financial future. However, the suits allege the Saudi
deals were in jeopardy when company officials joined fans in
criticizing that country's human rights record.

Things came to a head with the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi
on Oct. 2, 2018, believed to be directed by the Saudi government. A
decision to hold a WWE live event in Saudi Arabia a month later was
widely panned. This upset the Saudis, the complaint said.

WWE revealed on Oct. 31, 2019, that the media rights deal had been
delayed and the Saudi government owed the company tens of millions
of dollars. Several wrestlers were stranded by the Saudis when WWE
cut the live broadcasting feed of an event in the country.

When the WWE revealed it failed to secure the Saudi broadcasting
deal, stocks dropped on Feb. 6 to a low of $40.24 per share.

Senior executives sold off stock in what the complaints alleged was
insider trading. Vince McMahon sold more than 3.2 million shares
for $261 million on March 27, 2019.

The WWE says despite the deal falling through, its financial
performance ended up in the range of where it predicted it would
be.

"This is an impermissible fraud-by-hindsight case focused on WWE's
efforts to enter into a business arrangement that ultimately did
not come to fruition," the motion to dismiss says.

"The (lawsuit) represents a strained attempt by Plaintiff to assert
securities fraud claims based upon rank speculation, innuendo,
uninformed and unreliable internet postings and statements by
persons unconnected to Defendants or the subject business
dealings."

Labaton Sucharow says the defense ignores key facts and that the
complaint has met its burden, making dismissal inappropriate. [GN]

XTO ENERGY: Lewis Files Suit in North Dakota
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against XTO Energy Inc. The
case is styled as Sarah Heggen Lewis, Emily Heggen and Marn Heggen,
on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs v. XTO Energy Inc. and XTO Holdings, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00125-CRH (D. N.D., July 15, 2020).

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

XTO Energy Inc. is an American energy company, principally
operating in North America, specializing in the drilling and
production of unconventional oil and natural gas assets, typically
from shale rock through a process known as hydraulic fracturing. It
is a subsidiary of Exxon Mobil Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Joshua A. Swanson, Esq.
   Vogel Law Firm (Fargo)
   218 NP Avenue
   PO Box 1389
   Fargo, ND 58107-1389
   Tel: (701) 237-6983
   Email: jswanson@vogellaw.com

     - and -

   George A Barton, Esq.
   Law Office of George A. Barton
   7227 Metcalf Ave. Suite 301
   Overland Park, KS 66204
   Tel: (913) 563-6255
   Email: gab@georgebartonlaw.com

     - and -

   Robert James Pathroff, Esq.
   Vogel Law Firm (Bismarck)
   PO Box 2097
   200 N. 3rd St., Ste. 201
   Bismarck, ND 58502-2097
   Tel: (701) 258-7899
   Fax: (701) 258-9705
   Email: rpathroff@vogellaw.com



[*] Class Action Crackdown May Hit Farmers' Fight for Justice
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jamieson Murphy, writing for North Queensland Register, reports
that farmers could find it harder to appeal unfair decisions if the
government pushes ahead with broad sweeping changes to class action
lawsuits.

The government plans to crack down on organisations pursuing class
actions, with many believing they are being used for profit rather
than justice, but the Aussie Fighting Fund (AFFF) may inadvertently
be caught out in process.

For more than three decades, the AFFF has been an instrument of
justice, allowing farmers an avenue to challenge decisions they
would otherwise have to accept due to the large legal fees involved
in appealing them.

AFFF trustee and National Farmers Federation president Fiona Simson
doesn't believe the regulation changes were intended to target
organisations like AFFF, but it "could well fall under it" and it
"would be a shame" if it did.

"While the AFFF doesn't make a habit of funding class actions, it
has in the past and it is at the moment, with the live cattle
export shutdown case," Ms Simson said.

"But it's not seeking to make money from those cases. Over the
years, looking back at cases, we really haven't had many class
actions, it's mostly been individuals.

"The whole purpose of the AFFF is to assist farmers fight legal
battles where a legal precedent could be made that would benefit
the whole ag industry."

Ms Simson pointed to the recent Marland Mushrooms case AFFF won,
regarding the interpretation of piecework rates.

"That was a really significant case, because the piecework rate had
much wider implications to shearers and the horticulture sector,"
Ms Simson said.

The planned changes would see any third parties funding litigation
-- such as the AFFF -- regulated as if they're running a financial
services business, like a bank or an insurance company.

They would also see plaintiffs in a class action treated the same
as investors who pool their money in a collective investment to
make a profit -- like shareholders investing in a managed fund
traded on the stock exchange.

The government is still yet to reveal what the new class action
regulations will look like, despite announcing they will come into
effect by the end of August.

"We're getting legal advice at the moment and we're talking to the
Treasurer's office," Ms Simson said.

"We haven't seen the minute detail. We need to get some advice and
clarity about what the regulations look like, then see where we can
go from there.

"The government is really open to conversations. We think it's
important to talk to the government about their plans and they've
been very forthright."

While there are still many questions to be answered, Ms Simson said
it's been confirmed the changes won't make a different to the live
export case.

A parliamentary inquiry into the regulation changes heard evidence
that the number of class actions in Australia had more than tripled
in less than a decade.

However, other witnesses also pointed out the total number of class
actions amounted to less than 0.7 per cent of the nation's legal
cases.

The parliamentary committee is due to deliver a report into the
regulation changes by the end of the year. [GN]


[*] Court Dismisses Class Action Against 16 Auto Insurers
---------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Underwriter reports that Ontario's Superior Court has
quashed a proposed class action lawsuit against 16 Ontario auto
insurers--a dispute related to insurers deducting HST tax from
accident benefits paid out to minor auto accident injury
victims--because only the LAT has jurisdiction to hear Statutory
Accident Benefits (SABs) claims in the first instance.

Ontario's Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) adjudicates disputes over
auto insurance claims related to accident benefits. LAT started
hearing SABS claims in April 2016, as part of the Liberal
government's strategy at the time to help reduce auto insurance
costs and rates.

In 2014, the Ontario government amended Section 280 (3) of the
province's Insurance Act to read: "No person may bring a proceeding
in any court with respect to a dispute [regarding a SABs claim] . .
. other than an appeal from a decision of the Licence Appeal
Tribunal or an application for judicial review."

Based on these words, "in my view, it is plain and obvious that the
plaintiffs' claims against the defendant insurers [in the class
action lawsuit] fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the LAT,"
Ontario Superior Court Justice Edward Belobaba ruled in a judgement
released July 10.

The class action names 16 insurers: Economical, Allstate, Belair,
Intact, Aviva, Unifund, Certas, The Commonwealth, Co-operators,
Echelon, Wawanesa, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company,
Travelers, TD Insurance, Gore Mutual, and CUMIS.

Justice Belobaba's decision characterizes the allegations contained
in the class action, which has now been tossed from court, meaning
the allegations have not been tested nor proven.

"At their core, the facts alleged by the plaintiffs in the amended
statements of claim are about the insurers' improper inclusion of
HST and their failure to provide the full amount of the SABs to
which the plaintiffs were entitled," Justice Belobaba states in his
decision. "The plaintiffs describe the defendant insurers'
‘wrongful conduct' as follows: that they ‘did not consistently
pay or reimburse [their] insureds for applicable HST and/or
included applicable HST in the calculation of the benefit
entitlement under the SABS.'"

None of these claims made in the class action suit will be
adjudicated in court, the judge ruled. "To repeat what was said by
the Court of Appeal in Stegenga: ‘These are matters the
legislature has empowered the LAT to decide and has taken away from
the court.'"

That the legal action took the form of a class action does not
change the fact that LAT has jurisdiction over SABs claims, the
court went on to rule.

"Every proposed class action begins with the filing of a single
proceeding that must then be judicially certified as a class
proceeding with a representative plaintiff," as Justice Belobaba
explained. "Here, for example, Mr. [Bradley] Dorman as the
‘insured person' has filed a proposed class action against his
defendant insurer [Economical] and the defendant regulator
[Financial Services Commission of Ontario]. It is this initial and
singular filing that is barred by s. 280 of the Insurance Act. The
proposed class action cannot proceed because the filing of the
initial action is prohibited by statute."

As a result of the ruling, individual claimants may still pursue
their HST claims by way of the LAT. But they will not be able to
pursue their claims in court by way of a class action.

"This means of course that many SAB claimants affected by the
insurers' alleged ‘wrongful conduct' will not get their day in
court," Justice Belobaba wrote. "Individual claimants with larger
SAB claims and thus more significant HST disputes can appeal to the
LAT--and some have done so, albeit with mixed results. But in the
vast majority of minor injury cases where the disputed HST amounts
are generally less than the $100 LAT filing fee, individual claims
will not be pursued, and the impugned insurers will arguably be
enriched in the millions of dollars. Such is the consequence of the
jurisdiction design decision."

Belobaba went on to observe in his decision that the class action
plaintiffs could "take some comfort from the fact that the SAB
Schedule has recently been amended so that as of June 3, 2019,
insurers can no longer use HST to reduce SAB entitlements or
amounts."

Having found that the court has no jurisdiction to hear the case,
the court likewise found it did not have jurisdiction to approve
settlements that Intact and Belair had made with claimants. Those
settlements were not approved by the court.

Notwithstanding its ruling in favour of the insurers, the court did
allow the class action to proceed against the province's insurance
regulator, FSCO. Essentially, the class action alleges that the
regulator failed to act on complaints from consumers about the HST
deductions.

"There is nothing in s. 280 of the Insurance Act or in the Court of
Appeal's decision in Stegenga that gives exclusive jurisdiction to
LAT over claims of regulatory negligence against a third-party
government regulator," Belobaba observed. "FSCO may well prevail on
its cause of action submissions but this is a matter for the
certification motion."

FSCO contends in a court document that there is no cause against
it, since no facts have been found about how the insurers actually
handled HST in the plaintiffs' individual SABs cases. Without any
such findings, the regulator argues, it's not possible to say the
regulator was negligent or acted in bad faith. [GN]

[*] Litigation Financing Can Provide Benefits to Minn. Businesses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Fling, Esq. -- pfling@foxrothschild.com -- of Fox Rothschild
LLP, in an article for Bloomberg Law, reports that litigation
financing is often considered a tool used by individual and class
action plaintiffs, but it also provides benefits to any sized
business, says Fox Rothschild LLP's Paul Fling and summer associate
Kaitie Eke. Following the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision
allowing it in the state, businesses should consider litigation
financing to mitigate the risk of litigation and free up cash
flow.

How knowledgeable are you regarding litigation financing? If you're
involved with a business operating in Minnesota, it may be time to
increase that knowledge, as it can benefit businesses and in-house
legal departments.

Recently, the Minnesota Supreme Court opened the door for
litigation financing in Minnesota; a practice that was formerly
prohibited. Litigation financing involves a third party (the
litigation funder) providing funding for a party in a lawsuit --
typically the plaintiff—in exchange for a portion of that party's
recovery.

In Maslowski v. Prospect Funding Partners LLC, the Minnesota
Supreme Court determined that Minnesota's prohibition against
litigation financing "is no longer necessary" because "the rules of
professional responsibility and civil procedure address the abuses
of the legal process that necessitated" such prohibition.

Notably, the court did leave the door open to challenge the
validity of specific litigation financing agreements on the basis
of equity, and acknowledged the Legislature's ability to further
regulate the practice. Despite such unknowns, however, the
Maslowski decision validates the use of litigation financing in
Minnesota and throws the door wide open for entities to take
advantage of what it has to offer.

While some may associate litigation financing with plaintiffs'
personal injury claims or class action lawsuits, those uses are
just the tip of the iceberg. Litigation financing can be just as
beneficial to businesses -- both small and large -- and in-house
legal departments. Litigation financing's benefits, and potential
threats, may prove especially poignant for companies in the age of
Covid-19.

Benefits of Litigation Financing for Businesses

In light of Maslowski, Minnesota businesses should consider how
litigation financing can help them achieve their goals. Often,
businesses and in-house legal departments must decide between
pursuing their legal rights -- for example, by litigating
violations of noncompete agreements or protecting intellectual
property rights -- or allowing such rights to go unprotected to
mitigate financial risk.

Litigation financing may ease the difficulty of such decisions and
the Minnesota Supreme Court itself points out two significant
benefits businesses enjoy when they engage litigation financing:
mitigating risk and freeing up cash flow.

Litigation financing mitigates the risk to a company as it pursues
litigation. This mitigation begins even before execution of a
financing agreement. Typically, litigation finance firms include
knowledgeable professionals with significant litigation experience.
These firms leverage this expertise and undergo due diligence prior
to investing in a company's claims. This due diligence provides an
objective third-party assessment of claims' merits and helps
businesses make informed decisions about whether to pursue legal
action based on predictions regarding the likely outcome of
litigation.

Further, litigation financing agreements themselves are often
non-recourse. This means businesses that secure financing need only
repay it if they recover a pre-determined amount through a judgment
or settlement. Under such terms, litigation financing can enable a
business to pursue its claims while minimizing the risk inherent in
litigation.

Litigation financing can also help businesses optimally manage cash
flow, profitability, and assets. Often, litigation funders commit
to paying the upfront fees and expenses of litigation. Simply put,
this frees up money that businesses can use for operational
expenses and growth, when otherwise such money would be put toward
litigation.

Third-party payment of litigation expenses also keeps such expenses
off businesses' books, allowing companies to avoid the possible hit
litigation could cause to profits. Additionally, the right
litigation claim can be a valuable asset. By pursuing thoroughly
vetted and funded claims, businesses can maximize the potential
value of settlements or judgments and take full advantage of these
assets.

Businesses may also enjoy less direct benefits of litigation
financing. Outside funds may provide companies with a wider array
of representation choices, such as attorneys who do not work on a
contingent basis. Further, by taking advantage of the benefits of
litigation financing to pursue claims, businesses may better
position themselves for success as defendants in other suits, where
funds freed up by litigation funding may provide them with more
leverage and flexibility in settlement discussions.

Additional Business Considerations Post-Maslowski

Businesses operating in Minnesota should also be aware of the
potential threats litigation financing could have for their
interests.

Specifically, it often involves funding plaintiffs' claims or
larger class action lawsuits against businesses. Backed by
litigation firms, plaintiffs may be better funded and incentivized
to pursue claims they otherwise would not have. Plaintiffs' claims
may also be stronger. Just as businesses can gain the advantage of
having potential claims vetted, so can individual plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs may therefore come into suits especially prepared and
well-informed.

Such considerations may be particularly consequential given current
events. Many legal commentators predict that certain types of
litigation will rise due to Covid-19, the economic downturn, and
the increasing pressure on the health care system. As a result, an
uptick in employment, medical malpractice, and insurance related
claims could be right around the corner.

With the backing of litigation funders, plaintiffs will likely be
in a better position to pursue these claims. Businesses and
in-house counsel should consider that such claims may increase and
prepare to meet these challenges head on. [GN]


[*] New Consumer Rights Law May Bring Little Change
---------------------------------------------------
The Financial Express reports that while the Consumer Protection
Act 1986 guaranteed protection of the rights of consumers, it was
not equipped to deal with digital-age problems, where e-commerce
and direct sellers get away with infractions. However, the
government introduced a new Bill last year that created a regulator
-- the previous consumer protection law had no regulator -- to
secure consumers' rights. The new law comes into effect on July 20,
and one of the biggest changes is the right of a consumer to sue a
company at the place of her residence and not where the company
specifies. More important, the consumer can also request
attendance/hearings via video conference, which will cut the cost
of litigation. The Act also fixes liabilities on sellers for
misleading advertisement and faulty product/service, and states
that cases must be closed at the earliest.

The government is still to address some challenges, and the
Economic Times reports that e-commerce rules will take a week or
two to be notified. Despite several attempts by courts to give a
verdict within 15 days of the hearing, cases have dragged on for
outrageous lengths of time. Without a strong tort law ecosystem,
the consumer will likely not get a fair deal. Class action will
make a stronger case for the court to impose a pinching penalty on
errant firms, which would then perhaps ensure that the consumer is
not taken for granted. Else, a mere change in law will mean little.
[GN]


[*] Spilman Thomas Attorneys Discuss COVID-19 Class Action Trend
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Ford, Esq. -- jford@spilmanlaw.com -- Risa Katz-Albert, Esq.
-- rkatz-albert@spilmanlaw.com -- Sarah Kowalkowski, Esq., Joseph
Schaeffer, Esq., Chelsea Thompson, Esq., and James Walls III, Esq.,
of Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC, in an article for JDSupra, report
that the 15th edition of unprecedented,  weekly update on
COVID-19-related litigation, showcases new and evolving trends. The
lawyers note how COVID-19 has accelerated a pre-existing trend
toward class action litigation. And the lawyers discuss specific
trends involving workplace safety, mask requirements, shutdown
orders, quarantine enforcement, and prisoners' rights. These cases,
and others like them, show no signs of cooling down as the summer
heats up.

The lawsyers hope you find these cases, and the questions they
raise, to be informative.

What level of protection is needed for frontline workers?

The Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas, a joint bargaining
agency that represents numerous unions in the hospitality industry,
filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada against three prominent Las Vegas hotel-casinos. Through
this action, the Joint Board seeks to enjoin these hotel-casino
Defendants from "promulgating and following unreasonable rules and
procedures" related to union members' safety and the Defendants'
response to confirmed COVID-19 cases. According to the Joint
Board's complaint, workers at Defendants' hotel-casinos have
contracted COVID-19 due to the Defendants' insufficient safety
precautions, such as the recommendation (rather that the
requirement) for guests to wear face masks. Compounding this
problem, the Joint Board alleges that the Defendants failed to take
appropriate corrective actions in response to their workers'
positive COVID-19 results in failing to immediately conduct contact
tracing and failing to immediately notify workers of their
potential exposure. The Joint Board requests an injunction that
will require Defendants to improve their procedures to protect
workers from contracting COVID-19 and their procedures for
responding to known outbreaks among their workers. The Joint
Board's complaint can be found here, and news coverage can be found
here.

Some states are beginning to offer limited legal protections from
lawsuits related to COVID-19. The governor of Tennessee entered an
executive order effective July 2, 2020 that provides liability
protection for health care providers in lawsuits related to
contraction of, or suspected contraction of, COVID-19, except in
cases of gross negligence or willful misconduct. The order remains
in effect until July 31, 2020 but may be extended. The Tennessee
legislature has discussed granting COVID-related liability
protection to businesses in other industries but has not reached an
agreement. The governor's order can be found here, and news
coverage can be found here.

Will the number of class actions continue to trend upward in this
new legal environment?

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic made its way across America,
class action lawsuits had been on the rise. Now, COVID-19 has
caused that trend to pick up even more steam. As of the end of May
2020, at least 560 COVID-19-related class actions had been filed.
About half of these new claims involve business interruption
insurance coverage or education refunds. Many more cases seek
refunds from gyms, entertainment venues, airlines, and other
service providers who were forced to cancel or postpone services as
a result of the pandemic. News coverage about this uptick in class
action litigation is available here.

Are prisons doing enough to protect inmates during the COVID-19
pandemic?

The Southern Center for Human Rights and the American Civil
Liberties Union of Georgia have filed a federal lawsuit against the
Clayton County (Georgia) Sheriff and members of his staff on behalf
of four people held in the Clayton County Jail, seeking to make it
into a class action. Among the allegations that the jail is
understaffed, unsanitary, and failing to reasonably respond to the
known risk of a COVID-19 outbreak, plaintiffs allege constitutional
violations to the inmates' rights in the form of cruel and unusual
punishment and due process issues. Damages sought include an order
to release or transfer some of the inmates, specifically those most
medically vulnerable, as well as improving jailhouse conditions
through better social distancing measures and providing personal
protective equipment. As of June 11, 2020, forty-five people
(thirty-two inmates and thirteen employees) had tested positive for
COVID-19, and it appears that the only cleaning supplies afforded
to inmates are toilet paper and four fluid ounces of liquid soap
per inmate per week, which are designated as their personal hygiene
supplies. Further, the lawsuit alleges that the jail is 96% full,
and cells that usually house only two inmates are being used for
three or four people at a time. Of note, this is the third federal
lawsuit against Clayton County's sheriff since June 2020, the
others pertaining to excessive force and the Georgia Open Records
Act in relation to information about COVID-19 testing in the
facility. A legal advisor for the Clayton County Sheriff's Office
has issued a statement that there is no outbreak in the facility
and that they will defend against the claims in court. News
coverage is available here.

Are businesses in a Catch-22 over mask requirements?

Some consumer-facing businesses are now required by law to enforce
mask requirements, and others have done so voluntarily to protect
customers and employees. But a new wave of lawsuits suggests that
businesses are facing a Catch-22 over these requirements—either
ignore them and face criminal liability or tort lawsuits from
COVID-19-positive customers and employees, or enforce them and face
lawsuits under the Americans with Disability Act or similar state
laws.

The Pittsburgh-area theme parks of Kennywood, Sandcastle, and
Idlewild are the latest to experience this conundrum, which already
has affected the Giant Eagle grocery chain. In a recent lawsuit
against the theme parks, the plaintiffs, who allege that either
they or their children suffer from autism or muscular dystrophy,
argue that they are unable to wear masks because of breathing or
sensory issues. These facts, according to the plaintiffs, should
exempt them from the theme parks' mask requirements under either
Pennsylvania Governor Wolf's order or the ADA. Nonetheless, the
plaintiffs allege that they have been denied entry to the parks and
lost the benefit of their season passes. They accordingly request
an injunction against the mask requirement and compensatory and
punitive damages. News coverage of the lawsuit is available here,
and the complaint is available here.

What prompted litigation over shutdown orders?

The Republican National Committee and President Trump's plans to
hold their convention in Jacksonville, Florida ran into a potential
roadblock when a group of Florida residents, putatively
representing the State of Florida, sued to prevent the convention
from going forward. The plaintiffs allege that the RNC convention
will be a public nuisance because it will bring thousands of people
together in close proximity, under conditions likely to spread the
novel coronavirus, and in an area already experiencing elevated
infection rates. They ask the court for an order closing the
convention's planned location or, alternatively, conditioning the
convention's occurrence on compliance with now-familiar mitigation
guidelines, such as social distancing and disinfectant measures. A
copy of the complaint is available here.

As COVID-19 resurges in the U.S., can governments enforce
quarantines?

Lawsuits across the country have challenged the state's various
stay-at-home orders and quarantine mandates, and we have been
tracking and reporting on their progress. Now, we have seen the
exact opposite type of lawsuit -- where a governmental entity is
suing an individual to enforce the quarantine. Hunt County is home
to roughly 96,000 people in northeast Texas and is working to
combat COVID-19 and was subject to the Texas Governor Greg Abbott's
March 31, 2020 stay-at-home order. That order has since been
lifted, and Texas had a phased reopening beginning on or about May
1, 2020.

As part of its efforts to combat COVID-19, Hunt County created a
fund that provides compensation to individuals who tested positive
for COVID-19 to allow them to complete the mandatory quarantine
without the financial pressure to return to work. Despite this
financial assistance, Hunt County became aware that individual(s)
who had tested positive for COVID-19 were nonetheless blatantly
ignoring the mandated quarantine period, and continuing to go to
work, go shopping, and otherwise interact with the community.
Despite clear warnings and instructions to stay home until testing
negative, the individual(s) continued to go into the community. In
response, on July 1, 2020, Hunt County filed a lawsuit seeking a
judicial order requiring an individual who had tested positive for
COVID-19 to stay home until he/she/they tested negative. This case
was sealed pursuant to HIPAA to protect the individual's privacy.
The Court granted the order within a week, providing one of the
first uses of the legal system to actually enforce a quarantine
mandate.

This lawsuit comes on the tails of some of Texas' record-breaking
days for new infections. The seven-day positive testing rate (the
percentage of positive cases to tests conducted averaged over seven
days) for COVID-19 in Texas has reached 16.3% -- a record-breaking
number that surpasses anything previously seen. Hospitals also are
affected, as the number of Texans hospitalized for COVID-19 has
reached new record highs. Governor Abbott admitted that "COVID-19
is now spreading at an unacceptable rate in Texas." This rapid
spread of COVID-19 explains, in part, why Hunt County sought legal
enforcement of a mandated quarantine on an individual with
COVID-19. Hunt County is likely not an anomaly--Brooks County, in
southern Texas, has also publicly warned that it intends to arrest
and prosecute individuals who test positive for COVID-19 and flout
mandatory quarantine. It is something to keep an eye on,
particularly as some members of Texas' Congress are calling for a
new, state-wide stay-at-home order. After all, Texas is only one of
many states seeing a vicious resurgence of COVID-19 infection. News
coverage can be found here and here. [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 ***