---

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

              Tuesday, August 11, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 160

                            Headlines

ABC PHONES: Solorio Suit Removed From Super Court to E.D. Calif.
AIRBUS SE: Portnoy Law Files Lawsuit on Behalf of Investors
AIRBUS SE: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action Filing
ALTICE USA: Court Dismisses Wiley From Suit Over Data Breach
AMERICAN AIRLINES: AAG's Bid to Dismiss Count II in Scanlan Denied

AMERICAN FUTURE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Castro Claims
AMYRIS INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
AURORA, CO: Faces Minter Suit Alleging Violations of Civil Rights
BARR PHARMACEUTICALS: 2nd Cir. Upholds Aggrenox Settlement Approval
BAYER AG: Robbins Geller Reminds of September 14 Deadline

BP EXPLORATION: Wins Summary Judgment in Rapalo-Garcia BELO Suit
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Pawar Law Group Reminds of August 24 Deadline
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Robbins Geller Reminds of August 24 Deadline
CALIFORNIA: Ashker Can File Meeropol Declaration Under Seal
CARNIVAL CORP: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action

CARTER BROTHERS: $823,300 Settlement in Gutierrez Gets Final OK
CENTENE CORP: October 26 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Foon Amends Wage & Hour Class Action Complaint
CENTURA HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Billing Practices
CHAMPION PETFOODS: Renfro Appeals D. Colo. Ruling to 10th Circuit

CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
CIRCLE K STORES: Court Dismisses Popejoy Labor Suit as Moot
CLEAVER-BROOKS INC: Wins Bid for 56 Asbestos Trials in Agena Suit
COMPASS GROUP: 7th Cir. Flips Remand of Bryant Suit to State Court
DEUTSCHE BANK: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 14 Motion Deadline

DIAMOND RESORTS: Court OKs Notice & Opt-Out Form in Gonzalez Suit
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of August 18 Deadline
ENPHASE ENERGY: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of August 17 Deadline
EXECUTIVE LIQUIDATION: Faces Herrera FLSA Suit in D. New Jersey
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline

FIRSTENERGY CORP: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of September 28 Deadline
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
FLINT, MI: Residents Can Proceed with Contaminated Water Lawsuit
GARUDA LABS: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action Lawsuit
GEO GROUP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 8 Deadline

GEORGIA: 11th Cir. Dismisses Bourassa's Appeal in Gumm Inmates Suit
GEORGIA: M.D. Ga. Dismisses Adams Inmate Suit vs. Warden White
GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Federman Reminds of Sept. 23 Deadline
GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Gainey McKenna Reminds of Sept. 23 Deadline
GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 23 Deadline

GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 23 Deadline
HARTFORD INSURANCE: NJ Court Dismisses Jacobsen Suit With Prejudice
HOME DEPOT: Lozano Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
HOT POT FLUSHING: Court Dismisses Chovon's FLSA and NYLL Claims
IDEANOMICS INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of August 27 Deadline

IDEANOMICS INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 27 Deadline
INMEDIATA HEALTH: Amended Complaint Filed in Stasi Class Suit
INSPERITY INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of September 21 Deadline
INTEL CORPORATION: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
INTERO REAL: Appeals Ruling in Chinitz TCPA Suit to 9th Circuit

IRIS RAMOS: Given More Time to Close Sale of Roslindale Property
J2 GLOBAL: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of September 8 Deadline
JAMBA JUICE: Delacruz Appeals Judgment in ADA Suit to 2nd Circuit
JP MORGAN: Gramatis CEA Suit Moved From Illinois to S.D. New York
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Pawar Law Group Reminds of Lawsuit

KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Zhang Investor Reminds of Lawuit
KINGOLD JEWELRY: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 31 Deadline
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Court Refuses to Correct Order in Johansen Suit
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FL: 11th Cir. Flips Injunction in Swain Suit
NEW YORK: Doe Sues in N.D. New York Over Civil Rights Violation

OASIS PETROLEUM: Wright Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
OTAY MESA, CA: Alvarez Appeals Prisoner Suit Ruling to 9th Cir.
PLAYAGS INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 24 Deadline
PROASSURANCE CORP: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of August 17 Deadline
PROASSURANCE CORP: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 17 Deadline

PROSHARES ULTRA: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
PROSHARES ULTRA: Rosen Law Announces Class Action Filing
ROOFLINE INC: Rojo Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to E.D. California
SERVICEMASTER: Teamsters Suit Moved From to M.D. to W.D. Tenn.
SIMPLIFIED LABOR: Shackelford Suit Removed to C.D. California

SPRINGBORO COMMUNITY: Court Allows Parents to Use Pseudonyms
STEVENS TRANSPORT: Can Compel Arbitration in Parr Wage-Hour Suit
TACO BELL: Dominguez Appeals Rulings in ADA Suit to 2nd Circuit
TAP ROCK: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Martin Class Suit
TEXAS A&M: Lamberth Seeks Tuition Refunds Due to COVID-19 Closure

VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Wolf Haldenstein Announces Class Action Filing
WINS FINANCE: Bragar Eagel Reminds of September 23 Deadline
WIRECARD AMERICAN: Hagens Berman Appointed as Lead Counsel

ZARA USA: Sosa Appeals Decisions in ADA Suit to Second Circuit
[*] Survey Confirms Prediction Regarding Class Action Spike

                            *********

ABC PHONES: Solorio Suit Removed From Super Court to E.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as PRISCILLA SOLORIO and MARIANO
DIAZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
persons v. ABC PHONES OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. a Corporation, and
DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. BCV-20-101428 (Filed June 22,
2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Kern to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California on July 30, 2020.

The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-01051-NONE-JLT to the proceeding.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege claims for failure to
compensate for all hours worked, failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to timely
reimburse for necessary business expenditures, failure to provide
accurate, timely, and itemized wage statements, waiting time
penalties, and unfair business practices.

ABC Phones was founded in 1996. The Company's line of business
includes providing two-way radiotelephone communication services
such as cellular telephone services.[BN]

Defendant ABC Phones is represented by:

          Robert L. Shipley, Esq.
          Brandon S. Gray, Esq.
          ROBERT L. SHIPLEY, APLC
          2784 Gateway Road, Suite 104
          Carlsbad, CA 92009
          Telephone: 760 438 5199
          E-mail: rshipley@shipleylaw.com
                  bgray@shipleylaw.com


AIRBUS SE: Portnoy Law Files Lawsuit on Behalf of Investors
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Airbus SE ("Airbus" or "the Company")
(OTC: EADSF) investors that acquired securities between February
24, 2016 and July 30, 2020.

Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email.

In August 2012, the United Kingdom ("U.K.") Serious Fraud Office
("SFO") announced that it had opened a formal criminal
investigation into one of Airbus's subsidiaries, GPT Special
Project Management Ltd. ("GPT"), which Airbus acquired in 2007.
The allegations called into question a service contract entered
into by GPT prior to its acquisition by Airbus, relating to
activities conducted by GPT in Saudi Arabia.

Unbeknownst to investors and the public, however, Airbus was at an
increased and foreseeable risk of facing significant potential
liabilities for other alleged illegal activities that would later
be investigated by governmental authorities around the world.
These activities, combined with the investigation into GPT,
implicated all three of Airbus's divisions, calling into question
the sustainability of the Company's reported earnings during the
Class Period.

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: (i) that Airbus's policies and protocols
were insufficient to ensure the Company's compliance with relevant
anti-corruption laws and regulations; (ii) that, consequently,
Airbus engaged in bribery, corruption, and fraud in order to
enhance its business with respect to its commercial aircraft,
helicopter, and defense deals; (iii) that, as a result, Airbus's
earnings were derived in part from unlawful conduct and therefore
unsustainable; (iv) the full scope and severity of Airbus's
misconduct; (v) that resolution of government investigations of
Airbus would foreseeably cost Airbus billions of dollars in
settlements and legal fees and subject the Company to significant
continuing government investigation and oversight; and (vi) that,
as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 8, 2016, Reuters reported that the U.K. had opened a
corruption probe into Airbus.  Specifically, the SFO announced that
it had "opened a criminal investigation into allegations of fraud,
bribery, and corruption in the civil aviation business of Airbus,"
which "relate to irregularities concerning third party
consultants."  The investigation followed Airbus's flagging of
"misstatements and omissions" involving outside contractors in
certain export financing applications to U.K. regulators and the
European Export Credit Agencies earlier in the year, which the
Company had found through an internal probe.

On this news, Airbus ADRs fell $0.21 per share, or 1.49%, to close
at $13.86 per share on August 8, 2016, and Airbus foreign
ordinaries fell $0.82 per share, or 1.45%, to close at $55.58 per
share on August 8, 2016.

France and the U.S. later opened their investigations into the
subject of the SFO's allegations in 2017 and 2018, respectively.
On January 31, 2020, media outlets reported that Airbus had agreed
to a deal with U.S., U.K., and French prosecutors to settle bribery
and export-control violations against the Company for EUR3.6
billion ($4 billion).  Pursuant to the settlement, Airbus also
agreed to appoint an external compliance officer for at least two
years to monitor the Company's handling of its defense-related
sales and disclosures.

On this news, Airbus ADRs fell $0.72 per share, or 1.93%, to close
at $36.68 per share on January 31, 2020, and Airbus foreign
ordinaries fell $2.21 per share, or 1.48%, to close at $147.00 per
share on January 31, 2020.

Then, on March 15, 2020, the Wall Street Journal reported that
Airbus executives had previously raised red flags about fees paid
to a number of middlemen working with its helicopter division, led
at the time by the Company's current Chief Executive Officer
("CEO"), Defendant Guillaume M.J.D. Faury ("Faury"),  that may have
violated global bribery and corruption rules, according to internal
documents related to Airbus's $4 billion bribery settlement, which
were not previously made public and/or reported.

On this news, Airbus ADRs fell $3.44 per share, or 15.71%, to close
at $18.46 per share on March 16, 2020, and Airbus foreign
ordinaries fell $7.97 per share, or 9.3%, to close at $77.75 per
share on March 16, 2020.

Finally, on July 30, 2020, the Wall Street Journal reported that
the SFO had charged GPT and three individuals with corruption in
connection with a defense contract the U.K. had arranged with Saudi
Arabia.  These charges were the culmination of the investigations
initiated by the SFO back in August 2012.

On this news, Airbus ADRs fell $0.67 per share, or 3.56%, to close
at $18.13 per share on July 31, 2020, and Airbus foreign ordinaries
fell $2.85 per share, or 3.8%, to close at $72.10 per share on July
31, 2020.

Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.

The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

         Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
         Admitted CA and NY Bar
         Tel No: 310-692-8883
         E-mail: lesley@portnoylaw.com [GN]

AIRBUS SE: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Airbus SE (OTC: EADSY, EADSF) between February 24,
2016 and July 30, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Airbus investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Airbus class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1773.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) Airbus's policies and protocols were insufficient to
ensure the Company's compliance with relevant anti-corruption laws
and regulations; (2) consequently, Airbus engaged in bribery,
corruption, and fraud in order to enhance its business with respect
to its commercial aircraft, helicopter, and defense deals; (3) as a
result, Airbus's earnings were derived in part from unlawful
conduct and therefore unsustainable; (4) the full scope and
severity of Airbus's misconduct; (5) resolution of government
investigations of Airbus would foreseeably cost Airbus billions of
dollars in settlements and legal fees and subject the Company to
significant continuing government investigation and oversight; and
(6) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 5,
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-1773.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 achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN]

ALTICE USA: Court Dismisses Wiley From Suit Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, BRITTANY WILEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ALTICE USA, INC.,
Defendant. EDWARD HELLYER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ALTICE USA, INC., Defendant,
Lead Case 20-CV-1297 (JMF), No. 20-CV-01410 (JMF) (S.D. N.Y.),
Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York dismissed without prejudice Plaintiff Wiley
from the Consolidated Action as a named Plaintiff along with her
factual allegations associated with her individual circumstances.

On April 8, 2020, the Court ordered the Plaintiffs to file a
Consolidated Class Action Complaint adding additional named
Plaintiffs by May 4, 2020.  In the same order, it ordered that
Plaintiff Wiley and her individual factual allegations be dismissed
from the action.  The Plaintiffs have now filed a Consolidated
Class Action Complaint, naming additional Plaintiffs.

Accordingly, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2),
Plaintiff Wiley is dismissed from the Consolidated Action as a
named Plaintiff along with her factual allegations associated with
her individual circumstances.  The dismissal is without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 5, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/HkDc96 from Leagle.com.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: AAG's Bid to Dismiss Count II in Scanlan Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Harvey Bartle III of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania denied Defendant American Airlines Group,
Inc.'s motion to dismiss Count II of the Second Amended Complaint
in JAMES P. SCANLAN, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES GROUP, INC., et al, Civil
Action No. 18-4040 (E.D. Pa.).

The Plaintiff, an American Airlines pilot and a Major General in
the United States Air Force Reserve, brings the purported class
action against his employer American Airlines, Inc. ("AA") and its
parent American Airlines Group, Inc. ("AAG").

Count II of the Second Amended Complaint alleges breach of contract
by AAG under Texas law.  Specifically, the Plaintiff asserts that
AAG established a profit sharing plan in which he and the other AA
pilots participate.  According to Count II, they are not receiving
what is due under the plan because AAG excludes from eligible
earnings the income to which the pilots are entitled while they are
on short term military leave.

AAG asked the Court to dismiss Count II under Rule 12(b)(1) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the ground that the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over that allegation.

The profit sharing plan established by AAG sets aside 5% of its
pre-tax earnings each year for pro rata distribution to qualifying
employees of AA and other affiliated airlines based on each
participant's "individual eligible earnings" for that year.  Under
the Plan, AAG has the authority to modify, amend, annul, or
terminate this Plan at any time and for any reason.  The Plan is
administered by the Compensation Committee of AAG's Board of
Directors.

It is undisputed that the Plan is not a benefit negotiated by the
union representing the pilots.  Further, Section H of the Plan
declares that in no event shall the terms of the Plan be deemed
incorporated into any collective bargaining, works council, or
similar agreement and nothing therein shall be deemed to amend,
modify, or otherwise alter any collective bargaining, works council
or similar agreement.

On Oct. 20, 2016, Beth Holden, Managing Director of Labor Relations
of AA, and Dan Carey, President of the Allied Pilots Association,
the pilots' union, signed a letter which confirms their
understanding regarding profit sharing for pilots employed by
American Airlines.

The Plaintiff maintains that he and the purported class have been
short changed because AAG has been improperly interpreting
"eligible earnings" under Section K of the profit sharing plan.  

AAG agrees that relief depends on the interpretation of the Section
401(k) plan, although it disputes the interpretation advanced by
the Plaintiff.  It is undisputed that the 401(k) plan referenced in
the profit sharing plan is the same plan maintained as part of a
Collective Bargaining Agreement between AA and the pilots' union.


AAG argues that the dispute over the meaning of the Section 401(k)
plan is "a minor dispute" within the exclusive jurisdiction of a
board of adjustment under the Railway Labor Act.  The Railway Labor
Act, which was amended in 1936 to include the airline industry,
differentiates in the way major disputes and minor disputes between
management and labor are resolved.  Pursuant to the Railway Labor
Act, minor disputes, that is disputes which involve controversies
over the meaning of an existing collective bargaining agreement,
must be submitted to and resolved by an adjustment board.  

The parties have advised the court that AA and the pilots have in
place such a board to adjust minor disputes.  Disputes, however,
between an air carrier and its employees which are independent of a
collective bargaining agreement are not subject to the dispute
resolution mechanism of the Railway Labor Act.  In support of its
position that Count II involves a minor dispute subject to the
Railway Labor Act's non-judicial process, AAG argues that the
profit sharing plan was maintained and transformed into a
collective bargaining agreement when AA and the pilots union signed
the Oct. 20, 2016 letter confirming that the pilots would
participate in the profit sharing plan.

Contrary to the position of AAG, Judge Bartle finds that the letter
does not demonstrate that AA and the union bargained for or
negotiated for the pilots' participation.  The undisputed testimony
of Todd Jewett, AA's Managing Director of Labor Relations-Flight,
verifies that no bargaining or negotiation took place with respect
to the establishment of the profit sharing plan.  The purpose of
the plan is to reward eligible employees of AA and other airlines
for their efforts in helping achieve the strategic, financial and
operating objectives of AAG.  AAG simply allowed the pilots'
participation in the plan it unilaterally established and can
unilaterally terminate.  AAG did so as a matter of grace and not of
right but only after the union gave its approval for AA pilots to
take part.

Regardless of the Oct. 20, 2016 letter, AAG maintains that the
profit sharing plan specifically incorporates by reference the
definition of "eligible earnings" from the 401(k) plan, which is
part of a collective bargaining agreement.  AAG contends that the
court must determine what "eligible earnings" means in the profit
sharing plan and the only way to do so is to interpret the language
of the 401(k) plan, that is, to interpret a collective bargaining
agreement. If there is a dispute over the interpretation of a
collective bargaining agreement in the airline industry, it is a
minor dispute under the Railway Labor Act and such interpretation
is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the board of adjustment.

The profit sharing plan is not a collective bargaining agreement,
the Judge finds.  It was established and written by AAG alone
without input from the union and can be amended, modified,
annulled, or terminated unilaterally by AAG without any input from
the union.  The Court has before it the interpretation of a
provision of the profit sharing plan, which happens to incorporate
by reference certain language from a 401(k) plan to which AAG is
not a party.  Thus it is immaterial whether the parties agree or
disagree as to the meaning of the words or provisions of the 401(k)
plan as used in the profit sharing plan since the definition of
eligible earnings for present purposes is independent of any
collectively bargained agreement.

The profit sharing plan could just as easily have copied the exact
words of the 401(k) plan to define "eligible earnings" without any
mention of the 401(k) plan itself.  Under that scenario, AAG
concedes it would not have a meritorious argument that a minor
dispute under the Railway Labor Act is at issue.  The use of the
shorter form of incorporation by reference rather than writing out
at length the language of the 401(k) plan without specifically
identifying the language's source does not in the Court's view
convert the profit sharing plan or any part of it into a collective
bargaining agreement. Looking at the realities and putting
substance over form, neither the profit sharing plan nor any of its
provisions metamorphosed into a collectively bargained agreement
under the Railway Labor Act.

Finally, there is another reason why AAG's motion to dismiss Count
II fails.  The Railway Labor Act concerns disputes between an
employee or groups of employees and a carrier or carriers by air.
The Plaintiff is an employee of AA.  The claim in Count II is not
against AA, an air carrier.  The only Defendant sued in Count II is
AAG, the parent of AA and the only party, which established and
controls the profit sharing plan.  AAG is not an air carrier.  In
sum, the case does not have a dispute between an employee and air
carrier growing out of a grievance, that is, arising out of the
interpretation or application of their collective bargaining
agreement.  Therefore, the minor dispute provision of the Railway
Labor Act is not applicable.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Bartle concludes that the Plaintiff
is correct that Count II does not concern an interpretation of and
is independent of any Collective Bargaining Agreement.  Thus his
claim is not a minor dispute subject to the exclusive jurisdiction
of a board of adjustment under the Railway Labor Act.  The motion
of Defendant AAG to dismiss Count II of the Second Amended
Complaint is denied, the Court rules.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 5, 2020 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/ZewrRm from Leagle.com.


AMERICAN FUTURE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Castro Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHNNY CASTRO v. AMERICAN FUTURE TECHNOLOGY CORP. dba IBUYPOWER;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV28848 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 30, 2020), is brought on behalf of
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated alleging violation
of Private Attorneys General Act, Labor Code, arising from the
Defendants' failure to provide meal periods, to provide rest
periods, and to pay all wages, including minimum and overtime
wages.

Mr. Castro began his employment with AFTC on July 27, 2015. He was
employed in Employer's packing department, where he packaged
computers prior to their shipment.

The Defendant is a California corporation involved in the business
of building and selling computers and related hardware peripherals,
and is and/or was the employer of the Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katherine J Odenbreit, Esq.
          Joshua D. Klein, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590-5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
          E-mail: kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net
                  jklein@mahoney-law.net


AMYRIS INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on July 29 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware on behalf of holders of Amyris, Inc. ("Amyris"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ GS: AMRS) common stock (the "Complaint").
The Complaint, which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 against Amyris and its Board of Directors (the
"Board"), is captioned Sabatini v. Amyris, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-01013 (D. Del.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
this notice or your rights, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra, toll free at (888) 969-4242, by
e-mail at info@rl-legal.com, or at
https://www.rigrodskylong.com/offices-contact.

On July 6, 2020, Amyris filed a proxy statement (the "Proxy
Statement") with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission.  The Proxy Statement scheduled a special meeting of
Amyris' stockholders to vote upon the approval of:  (i) the
issuance of shares of Amyris' common stock issuable upon exercise
by Foris Ventures, LLC of its option to convert all or any portion
of the secured indebtedness outstanding under the Amended and
Restated Loan and Security Agreement dated October 28, 2019, as
further amended on June 1, 2020, into shares of the Company's
common stock; and (ii) the issuance of shares of Amyris common
stock issuable upon the conversion of the Company's Series E
Convertible Preferred Stock.  Among other things, the Complaint
alleges that defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in
the Proxy Statement.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 28, 2020.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Delaware and New York, has
recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of investors
and achieved substantial corporate governance reforms in securities
fraud and corporate class actions nationwide.

Attorney advertising.  Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

CONTACT:

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
Seth D. Rigrodsky
Gina M. Serra
(888) 969-4242 (Toll Free)
(302) 295-5310
Fax: (302) 654-7530
info@rl-legal.com
https://rl-legal.com [GN]


AURORA, CO: Faces Minter Suit Alleging Violations of Civil Rights
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Aurora, et
al. The case is captioned as Lindsay Minter, Kristin Mallory,
Thomas Mayes, Tyler Sprague, and Alissia Acker, on behalf of
themselves, and others similarly situated v. City of Aurora,
Colorado; Vanessa Wilson, Interim Police Chief, in her official
capacities; Vanessa (I) Wilson, in her individual capacity;  F/N/U
Rodriguez, in her or his individual capacity; John & Jane Does
1-100, in their individual capacities; John & Jane Boes 1-25, in
their individual capacities; John & Jane Foes 1-31, in their
individual capacities; and John & Jane Moes 1-16, in their
individual capacities, Case No. 1:20-cv-02172-RM-NYW (D. Colo.,
July 23, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Raymond P. Moore.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.

Aurora is a Home Rule Municipality in the U.S. state of Colorado,
spanning Arapahoe and Adams counties, with the extreme southeastern
portion of the city extending into Douglas County. Aurora is one of
the principal cities of the Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO Metropolitan
Statistical Area.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mari Anne Newman, Esq.
          Andrew Joseph McNulty, Esq.
          KILLMER LANE & NEWMAN LLP
          1543 Champa Street, Suite 400
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 571-1000
          Facsimile: (303) 571-1001
          E-mail: mnewman@kln-law.com
                  amcnulty@kln-law.com


BARR PHARMACEUTICALS: 2nd Cir. Upholds Aggrenox Settlement Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a
district court order approving settlement in the Aggrenox antitrust
litigation against Barr Pharmaceuticals, et al.

The appellate case is In re: Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Vermont, Inc., et al., Interested
Party-Appellants, v. A.F. of L. - A.G.C. Buildings Trade Welfare
Plan, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, et
al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, Pirelli Armstrong Retiree Medical
Benefits Trust, on its own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Barr Pharmaceuticals
Inc., a Delaware Corporation, now known as Barr Pharmaceuticals,
LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries,
Ltd., an Israeli Corporation, Defendant, Case Nos. 18-2474 (L),
18-2578 (Con) (2d Cir.).

The appeal involves a challenge to a settlement of class action
claims asserted against pharmaceutical manufacturers who are
alleged to have unlawfully delayed the availability of less
expensive generic versions of the prescription drug 'Aggrenox'.
The Claims-Administrator Appellants appeal from a decision by the
district court approving settlement of the class action litigation.
The district court did so over objections by certain
Claims-Administrators to the opt-out procedures established by the
court.

On Jan. 8, 2018, the class action Plaintiffs moved for preliminary
approval of their settlement with the pharmaceutical manufacturers.
The amount to be paid in settlement was dependent upon the number
of class members who opted out of the class action settlement.
That motion included a proposed notice to the class of the
settlement.  

The proposed notice provided that the class included all health
insurance companies that make payments from their own funds and
entities with self-funded plans that contract with a health
insurer.  The notice explained that any class member had the
ability to opt-out by submitting a request for exclusion from the
settlement.  It also provided that the Claims-Administrators could
opt out of the settlement on behalf of the class members who
participate in the employment-based health plans they administer by
submitting individualized proof of their authority to do so.  The
required proof was a declaration from an authorized representative
of the Plan attesting to the administrator's authority to opt the
entity out of the class action settlement.

On Jan. 16, 2018, Humana Inc., a third-party administrator that was
neither a class member nor an appellant in the case, filed a letter
opposing any preliminary approval of the settlement, including the
opt-out procedures the class action Plaintiffs proposed for any
Plans.  Unlike Humana, however, the Claims-Administrators never
objected to the class action Plaintiffs' proposed notice.

On March 6, 2018, the district court preliminarily approved the
settlement agreement, which included the class notice and opt-out
procedures proposed by the class action plaintiffs on January 8.
The district court instructed that any objection or notice of
intention to appear at a hearing to consider approval of the
settlement be submitted no later than May 11, 2018.  The
Claims-Administrators did not object to either the settlement or
the opt-out procedures by that deadline, nor did any of the Plans
that the Claims-Administrators contend they represent on appeal.

It is undisputed that the Claims-Administrators and each of those
Plans received notice of the preliminary approval of the class
action settlement and their deadline to object. Indeed, before the
May 11 deadline, the Claims-Administrators opted out of the
settlement on their own behalf.  They also filed exclusion requests
that purported to opt out the Plans they administered. It is
undisputed that the exclusion requests they submitted purportedly
on behalf of the Plans did not contain the individualized proof of
authority that the district court required.

After the May 11, 2018 deadline, the Claims-Administrators, for the
first time, objected to the opt-out procedures.  The
Claims-Administrators provided the district court 11
heavily-redacted purported "exemplar" contracts that govern a
handful of the Plans they administer and argued that those
contracts authorized them to opt out of the settlement on behalf of
the 1,237 Plans they administered.  They contended that the court
should permit them to establish their own authority to opt Plans
out based on the redacted "exemplar" contracts, claiming that these
contracts established that they have blanket authority to opt
hundreds of Plans out of the settlement.

The district court did not allow the Claims-Administrators to
establish their own authority to opt out the Plans in that manner.
It concluded that the redacted "exemplar" contracts were
insufficient demonstrations of the Claims-Administrators authority.
As noted by the district court, four Plans in fact had submitted
claims in the settlement despite putative opt-outs that the
Claims-Administrators submitted on their behalf.  The district
court then confirmed that the Plans in question, none of which have
joined the appeal, remained in the class and entered final judgment
certifying the class and approving the settlement.  

The appeal followed.

On review, the Second Circuit finds that the Claims-Administrators,
having opted out of the class action, do not have standing to
appeal the judgment entered in the class action.  Moreover, even if
it were possible to overlook that impediment, the
Claims-Administrators waived their right to challenge the opt-out
procedures when they did not file timely objections in the district
court to the opt-out procedures.  The district court specifically
noted in its Preliminary Approval Order that all persons and
entities who fail to file an Objection will be deemed to have
waived any such objections by appeal, collateral attack, or
otherwise.  Thus, the Claims-Administrators waived any right to
appeal on the issue.

It should be noted as well that the Claims-Administrators have
failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion
in applying the opt-out procedures it established.  The
requirements the court established provided certainty about class
membership, thus preserving the rights of absent class members and
protecting the Defendants from duplicative liability.  The opt-out
procedures approved by the district court fell well within its
broad discretion to supervise class actions.  Those procedures
permitted the Claims-Administrators to opt out on behalf of the
Plans, but the Appellants failed to follow those procedures or
object to them in a timely manner.  Importantly, those procedures
comported with Rule 23 and with due process.  The opt-out
requirements established by the district court were well-grounded
in the precedent of this Court and cannot be distinguished from
opt-out requirements applied in other multi-district litigation
class actions. See, e.g., Cent. States Se. & Sw. Areas Health &
Welfare Fund v. Merck-Medco Managed Care, L.L.C., 504 F.3d 229, 243
(2d Cir. 2007);

The Second Circuit has considered the Appellants' remaining
arguments and concluded that they are either waived or without
merit.  Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
affirmed, the Second Circuit ruled.

A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's May 5, 2020 Summary Order
is available at https://is.gd/o3Aw4e from Leagle.com.

Peter D. St. Phillip -- pstphillip@lowey.com -- Uriel Rabinovitz --
urabinovitz@lowey.com --LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway,
Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601. Miguel A. Estrada, Lucas C.
Townsend, GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-5306. For Interested Party-Appellants: Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Vermont, Inc., et al.

Renae D. Steiner, HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C., 310 Clifton Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55403, Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP
1135 W. 6th St., Suite 125, Austin, TX 78703. Marvin Alan Miller,
MILLER LAW LLC, 115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2910 Chicago, IL
60603. For Plaintiffs-Appellees: A.F. OF L. — A.G.C. Buildings
Trade Welfare Plan et. al.

Ross E. Elfand -- relfand@whitecase.com -- Jack E. Pace III --
jpace@whitecase.com -- WHITE & CASE LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020. Peter J. Carney, Matthew S. Leddicotte ,
Kathryn J. Mims, WHITE & CASE LLP 701 13th Street, NW Washington,
DC 20005. For Defendant-Appellees: Boehringer Ingelheim
International Gmbh, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc., and
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GMBH & Co. KG.

Brian T. Burgess -- bburgess@goodwinlaw.com -- GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
901 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 2000. -and- Robert D.
Carroll, Christopher Holding GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 100 Northern
Avenue Boston, MA 02210. For Defendant-Appellees: Barr
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Duramed
Pharmaceuticals Sales Corp., Teva Women's Health, Inc., and Teva
Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc.


BAYER AG: Robbins Geller Reminds of September 14 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on July 27 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of Bayer Aktiengesellschaft
(OTC:BAYRY) American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") between May 23,
2016 and March 19, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case
is captioned City of Grand Rapids General Retirement System, et al.
v. Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, No. 20-cv-04737, and is assigned to
Judge Richard G. Seeborg. The Bayer class action lawsuit charges
Bayer and certain of its officers and members of its management
board with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Bayer ADRs during the Class Period to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff in the Bayer class action lawsuit. A
lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the Bayer class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Bayer class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the Bayer class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff
of the Bayer class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your
rights regarding the Bayer class action lawsuit, please provide
your information here or contact counsel, J.C. Sanchez of Robbins
Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Bayer class
action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than September
14, 2020.

Bayer is a multinational pharmaceutical and life science company.
On May 23, 2016, Bayer announced that it had made an unsolicited
all-cash offer to acquire Monsanto Company, a provider of
agricultural chemicals and other products based in St. Louis,
Missouri. On June 7, 2018, Bayer completed its all-cash acquisition
of Monsanto for $128 per share, or $63 billion, including debt. One
of Monsanto's flagship products is Roundup, the most widely used
weed killer around the world, which generated nearly $5 billion in
annual revenue for Monsanto. The active ingredient in Roundup is
glyphosate, a toxic chemical long suspected of causing cancer.

Throughout the Class Period, defendants touted the acquisition as
"a compelling transaction for shareholders" that would create
"significant value" by generating "stronger growth, better
profitability, and a more resilient business profile." Defendants
specifically downplayed the liability risks related to Monsanto's
Roundup product, emphasizing that Bayer had conducted a "thorough
analysis" during the due diligence process and "undertook
appropriate due diligence of litigation and regulatory issues
throughout the process," which led Bayer to finalize the
acquisition.

The Bayer class action lawsuit alleges that the above-referenced,
and other similar statements, were false and misleading given that
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that the acquisition of
Monsanto would not result in the benefits for Bayer that defendants
had represented due to Monsanto's significant exposure to liability
risk related to its Roundup product.

On August 10, 2018, a jury in one of the first Roundup cancer
lawsuits filed in state court against Monsanto, Johnson v. Monsanto
Co. (San Francisco County Superior Court) (the "Johnson Case"),
found unanimously that Monsanto's glyphosate-based Roundup weed
killer was a "substantial factor" in causing the plaintiff to
develop non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and that Monsanto knew, or should
have known, of the risks associated with exposure to the chemical
and failed to warn of this severe health hazard. Accordingly, the
jury ordered Monsanto to pay $39 million in compensatory damages
and $250 million in punitive damages. On this news, the price of
Bayer ADRs declined over 11%.

On October 22, 2018, although the court in the Johnson Case reduced
the award of punitive damages from $250 million to $39 million to
match the compensatory damages awarded to the plaintiff, the court
otherwise denied Monsanto's motion for judgment notwithstanding the
verdict and motion for a new trial and upheld the jury's verdict,
ruling that "there is no legal basis to disturb the jury's
determination that plaintiff's exposure to [glyphosate-based
herbicides] was a substantial factor in causing his [non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma]." On this news, the price of Bayer ADRs declined nearly
9%.

Then, on March 19, 2019, a jury in the Hardeman Case--the first
federal Roundup cancer lawsuit to proceed to trial--issued a
verdict on causation in phase one of the bifurcated trial, finding
that plaintiff's "exposure to Roundup was a substantial factor in
causing his non-Hodgkin's lymphoma." On this news, the price of
Bayer ADRs declined over 9%.

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

Contact:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]


BP EXPLORATION: Wins Summary Judgment in Rapalo-Garcia BELO Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARVIN SALOMON RAPALO-GARCIA, v. BP EXPLORATION &
PRODUCTION INC. and BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY, SECTION M (5),
Civil Action No. 18-11465 (E.D. La.), Judge Barry W. Ashe of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted
Defendants BP Exploration & Production, Inc. and BP America
Production Co.'s motion for summary judgment.

The toxic-tort case arises out of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill
that occurred on April 20, 2010.  On Jan. 11, 2013, U.S. District
Judge Carl J. Barbier, who presided over the multidistrict
litigation arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident, approved
the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement
Agreement ("MSA").  The MSA includes a Back-End Litigation Option
("BELO") that permits certain class members, such as clean-up
workers who follow procedures outlined in the MSA, to sue BP for
later-manifested physical conditions ("LMPC").

Rapalo-Garcia alleges that he was exposed to oil, dispersants, and
other harmful chemicals while he worked as a clean-up worker in
response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  On Aug. 27, 2013,
Rapalo-Garcia was diagnosed with chronic nasopharyngitis, chronic
OE, chronic pain upper limbs, and chronic sinusitis.  Rapalo-Garcia
alleges that these medical conditions were legally and proximately
caused by exposure to oil, dispersants and other harmful chemicals
from the Oil Spill.

BP does not dispute that Rapalo-Garcia was an oil-spill clean-up
worker or that he is a member of the MSA class.  It also does not
dispute that Rapalo-Garcia's alleged conditions, diagnosed after
April 16, 2012, fit within the MSA's definition of a LMPC.  Rather,
BP argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because
Rapalo-Garcia has not submitted an expert report and, thus, cannot
prove that his alleged medical conditions were legally caused by
his exposure to substances related to the Deepwater Horizon oil
spill.

Before the Court is BP's motion for summary judgment.
Rapalo-Garcia did not file an opposition to the motion.

Although a BELO plaintiff need not prove liability to recover
damages, he or she must prove that exposure to oil or other
substances legally caused his or her physical condition.  

Judge Ashe concludes that the scheduling order in the case required
Rapalo-Garcia to produce to BP his expert reports by March 9, 2020
to prove his toxic-tort claim.  As of early May 2020, Rapalo-Garcia
has not produced any expert reports to BP.  Further, there is no
evidence before the Court related to Rapalo-Garcia's medical
condition or his Aug. 27, 2013 diagnosis, or discussing harmful
levels of exposure for the chemicals at issue or the quantities of
those chemicals to which Rapalo-Garcia was exposed while he worked
cleaning up the oil spill.  Therefore, Rapalo-Garcia has not put
forward sufficient evidence to prove causation or even to place it
at issue.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 5, 2020 Order &
Reasons is available at https://is.gd/MzXh90 from Leagle.com.


BROOKDALE SENIOR: Pawar Law Group Reminds of August 24 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pawar Law Group on July 27 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of
Brookdale Senior Living, Inc. (NYSE: BKD) from August 10, 2016
through April 29, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Brookdale Senior Living, Inc.
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the class action, go here or call Vik Pawar, Esq. toll-free
at 888-589-9804 or email info@pawarlawgroup.com for information on
the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) 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 the
Company's financial results and reputation; (3) as a result, the
Company's financial results were unsustainable; and (4) 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.

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.

No class has been certified.  Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you hire one.  You may hire
counsel of your choice.  You may also do nothing at this time and
be an absent member of the class.  Your ability to share in any
future recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff.

Pawar Law Group represents investors from around the world.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter.

Contact:

Vik Pawar, Esq.  
Pawar Law Group  
20 Vesey Street, Suite 1410  
New York, NY 10007  
Tel: (917) 261-2277  
Fax: (212) 571-0938  
info@pawarlawgroup.com [GN]


BROOKDALE SENIOR: Robbins Geller Reminds of August 24 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on July 27 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the Middle District of Tennessee
on behalf of purchasers of Brookdale Senior Living Inc. (NYSE:BKD)
securities between August 10, 2016 and April 29, 2020 (the "Class
Period"). The case is captioned Posey v. Brookdale Senior Living
Inc., No. 20-cv-00543, and is assigned to Judge Aleta A. Trauger.
The Brookdale Senior Living class action lawsuit charges Brookdale
Senior Living, Lucinda "Cindy" M. Baier (President and current
Chief Executive Officer), T. Andrew Smith (former Chief Executive
Officer) and Steven E. Swain (Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer) with violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Brookdale Senior Living securities during
the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the
Brookdale Senior Living class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff acts
on behalf of all other class members in directing the Brookdale
Senior Living class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a
law firm of its choice to litigate the Brookdale Senior Living
class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery of the Brookdale Senior Living class
action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If
you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Brookdale Senior Living
class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights
regarding the Brookdale Senior Living class action lawsuit, please
provide your information here or contact counsel, Michael Albert of
Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at
malbert@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Brookdale
Senior Living class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no
later than August 24, 2020.

Brookdale Senior Living is the nation's largest senior-living
community operator, with $4 billion in reported revenue in 2019.
The Company's common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange
under the ticker BKD.

The complaint filed in Posey v. Brookdale Senior Living Inc.
alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose that: (i) "Brookdale[
Senior Living]'s financial performance was sustained by, among
other things, the Company's purposeful understaffing of its senior
living communities"; (ii) "the foregoing conduct subjected
Brookdale [Senior Living] to an increased risk of litigation and,
once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative
impact on [Brookdale Senior Living's] financial results and
reputation"; (iii) "as a result, [Brookdale Senior Living's]
financial results were unsustainable"; and (iv) "as a result,
[Brookdale Senior Living's] public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times."

On April 30, 2020, Nashville Business Journal reported that a
proposed class action lawsuit had been filed against the Company,
accusing it of "chronically insufficient staffing" for the purpose
of meeting financial benchmarks since at least April 24, 2016.
According to the lawsuit, Brookdale Senior Living misled residents
and their families when it promised to provide basic care and daily
living services. The complaint filed in Posey v. Brookdale Senior
Living Inc. alleges that, on this news, Brookdale Senior Living's
stock price fell more than 15% over two trading sessions to close
at $3.12 per share on May 1, 2020.

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

Contacts:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
Michael Albert, 800-449-4900
malbert@rgrdlaw.com [GN]


CALIFORNIA: Ashker Can File Meeropol Declaration Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TODD ASHKER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOVERNOR OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:09-cv-05796-CW
(RMI) (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, Eureka
Division, granted the Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to File
Under Seal and the Declaration of Rachel Meeropol in support of
same.

The Court has received the Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion.
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(a), Judge Illman finds that the
Plaintiffs have shown that the portions of the documents to be
sealed are entitled to protection under the law because they
contain confidential information that the Defendants claim could
harm the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(CDCR) institutional safety and security if disclosed.

The Plaintiffs have met the "good cause" standard for sealing
portions of the Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Lift
Redactions, because they have shown that they contain confidential
information that Defendants claim would harm institutional safety
and security, and would further compromise ongoing investigations
of alleged prison gang activity if disclosed.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Illman granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 5, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/idECNb from Leagle.com.


CARNIVAL CORP: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Carnival Corporation & Plc
("Carnival" or "the Company") (NYSE: CCL) (NYSE: CUK) and certain
of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired Carnival securities between January 28, 2020
through May 1, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors
are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/ccl.

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company's medics were reporting increasing
events of COVID-19 illness on the Company's ships; (2) Carnival was
violating port of call regulations by concealing the amount and
severity of COVID-19 infections on board its ships; (3) in
responding to the outbreak of COVID-19, Carnival failed to follow
the Company's own health and safety protocols developed in the wake
of other communicable disease outbreaks; (4) by continuing to
operate, Carnival ships were responsible for continuing to spread
COVID-19 at various ports throughout the world; and (5) as a result
of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/ccl or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Carnival
you have until July 27, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you
as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

Contact:

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]


CARTER BROTHERS: $823,300 Settlement in Gutierrez Gets Final OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RAMSES GUTIERREZ, et al., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CARTER BROTHERS
SECURITY SERVICES, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, AT&T
DIGITAL LIFE, INC., PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY DBA AT&T
DATACOMM, INC., AT&T CORP. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:14-CV-00351-MCE-CKD (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Morrison C. England, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California granted the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for
Final Approval of Class Settlement & Entry of Judgment.

The Class Settlement in the case was granted preliminary approval
on Dec. 3, 2019.  The law firm of Rose Law, APC was appointed Class
Counsel, and the named Plaintiffs were appointed as the Class
Representatives for the proposed class to be certified for
settlement purposes.  Phoenix Class Action Administration Solutions
of Orange, California, was appointed as the class administrator.
The Judge ordered notices be sent to the Settlement Class Members.

Upon further review, Judge England approved the Stipulation of
Class Settlement and Release; provided, however, that payments to
the Settlement Class Members will be as set forth on page 15 of the
Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval.  

The Court finds that the $823,329 Gross Settlement Fund and
proportional settlement amounts are fair and reasonable to the
Settlement Class Members when balanced against the probable outcome
of further litigation relating to class certification, liability
and damages issues and potential appeals.

The Court acknowledges that the Defendant has also entered into
individual settlements, conditioned upon entry of the Order, with
30 individuals who worked as Carter Brothers technicians installing
AT&T Digital Life products: (a) in Southern California; and (b)
outside of California, which are not funded from the Gross
Settlement Amount but rather by funds in addition to the Gross
Settlement Amount, and are subject to the terms and conditions set
forth in those separate agreements with the Southern California
Individual Settling Parties and the Out-of-State Individual
Settling Parties.

Solely for settlement purposes, the Judge certified the Settlement
Class as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b)
and as a Rule 23 settlement class.  The Settlement Class is defined
as the 35 individuals named in Exhibit C of the parties'
Stipulation of Class Settlement and Release who worked as Carter
Brothers technicians installing AT&T Digital Life products in
Northern California, during the four years prior to the filing of
the Action.  Participating Settlement Class Member means: (i) The
Named Plaintiffs; and (ii) All Opt-In Plaintiffs who filed Consent
to Join Forms and who did not timely opt out of the Settlement,
plus one worker who mistakenly filed a late Consent to Join Form
that the parties have nevertheless agreed to accept as timely, as
referenced in the Supplemental Declaration of Joseph W. Rose.

The Court further confirmed: (i) the law firm of Rose Law, APC as
the Class Counsel; (ii) Phoenix Class Action Administration
Solutions of Orange, California, as the class administrator, and
will receive payment from the Settlement Fund for services of
$7,271.85; and (iii) the 15 named Plaintiffs as the Class
representatives, each of whom will receive service award payments
from the Net Settlement Fund of $5,000 in addition to their
individual proportional share of the Net Settlement Fund as
Participating Settlement Class Members.

Proportional payments to the Participating Settlement Class Member
from the Net Settlement Fund will be as set forth on page 15 of the
Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval.

The California Labor and Workforce Development Agency will receive
payment from the Settlement Fund of $37,500, constituting 75% of a
$50,000 allocation for civil penalties under the Labor Code Private
Attorneys' General Act.

Class Counsel Rose Law, APC's application for attorney's fees of
$193,332 in representation of the Plaintiffs and the Settlement
Class Members is reasonable and approved, and will be paid from the
Settlement Fund, the Court ordered.

Class Counsel Rose Law's application for advanced costs
reimbursement of $39,204 in representation of the Plaintiffs and
the Settlement Class Members is reasonable and approved and will be
paid from the Settlement Fund, the Court further ordered.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 5, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/xbJvRx from Leagle.com.

Joseph W. Rose -- joe@joeroselaw.com -- Mehran Tahoori --
mehran@joeroselaw.com -- ROSE LAW, APC, Gold River, California,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs.


CENTENE CORP: October 26 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

ISRAEL SANCHEZ, Individually and
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Case No. 4:17-cv-00806-AGF

Plaintiff,

v.

CENTENE CORP., MICHAEL F. NEIDORFF, and JEFFREY A. SCHWANEKE,

Defendants.

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES

This notice is for all persons and entities who purchased the
common stock of Centene Corporation ("Centene") during the period
from May 24, 2016 through July 25, 2016, inclusive, and who were
damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class").

Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Settlement Class
by definition as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency of
Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness
Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation
Expenses (the "Notice"), available at
www.CenteneSecuritiesLitigation.com.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A
CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned litigation (the "Action") is pending in the Court.

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff in the Action has reached
a proposed settlement of the Action for $7,500,000 in cash (the
"Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the
Action.

A hearing will be held on October 26, 2020 at 10:00 a.m., before
the Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig at the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Courtroom 12 South,
Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse, 111 South 10th Street, St.
Louis, MO 63102, to determine whether: (i) the proposed Settlement
should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) for
purposes of the proposed Settlement only, the Action should be
certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, Lead
Plaintiff should be certified as Class Representative for the
Settlement Class, and Lead Counsel should be appointed as Class
Counsel for the Settlement Class; (iii) the Action should be
dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases
specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated March 5, 2020 (and in the Notice) should be
granted; (iv) the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as
fair and reasonable; and (v) Lead Counsel's application for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to a payment from the Settlement. If you have not yet
received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Centene
Securities Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box
91364, Seattle, WA 98111; 888-964-0670; or
info@CenteneSecuritiesLitigation.com. Copies of the Stipulation of
Settlement, Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the
Settlement website, www.CenteneSecuritiesLitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit
a Claim Form postmarked no later than October 13, 2020. If you are
a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form,
you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement
but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders
entered by the Court in the Action (including the releases provided
therein).

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you will be bound by any
judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action (including
the releases provided therein). If you are a member of the
Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement
Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is
received no later than October 5, 2020, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any
judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will
not be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
litigation expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to
Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no
later than October 5, 2020, in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Defendants, or
their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this
notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate
in the Settlement should be directed to the Claims Administrator or
Lead Counsel.

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

Centene Securities Litigation
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 91364
Seattle, WA 98111
888-964-0670
www.CenteneSecuritiesLitigation.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq.
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575
Los Angeles, CA 90067
800-380-8496
settlements@blbglaw.com

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI [GN]


CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Foon Amends Wage & Hour Class Action Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
A first amended complaint has been filed in the case, MICHELE FOON,
on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01420-MCE-AC (E.D. Cal.).  

Plaintiff Foon, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, initiated the putative wage and hour class
action against Defendant Centene in San Joaquin County Superior
Court.  The Defendant thereafter removed the action to federal
court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.  

The Defendant employs the Plaintiff in an hourly, non-exempt
position in California.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant
failed to provide all required 10-minute rest breaks to her and the
former and other current non-exempt employees.  The Defendant also
allegedly required her to work double-digit-hour days without
providing the requisite breaks and failed to provide her and the
other similarly situated employees with meal breaks when they
worked shifts exceeding five hours per day.

Further, when the Defendant paid the Plaintiff and the putative
class members for missed and/or non-compliant meal and rest breaks,
it did so only at their base hourly pay rate and not their "regular
rate of compensation," which would include commissions,
non-discretionary bonuses, and other items of compensation.  It
also allegedly failed to indemnify its California employees for all
necessary expenditures or losses incurred during the discharge of
their duties, including those for computer and internet equipment
and services.  Finally, the Defendant allegedly did not include on
the employees' itemized written statements all applicable hourly
rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number
of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee.

On April 19, 2019, the Plaintiff provided written notice to the
Labor and Workforce Development Agency and the Defendant regarding
the alleged Labor Code violations.  She never received written
notice from the LWDA stating it intended to investigate her
allegations.

She thereafter initiated the original action setting forth the
following causes of action: (1) Failure to Provide Rest Breaks; (2)
Failure to Provide Meal Breaks; (3) Failure to Reimburse; (4)
Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; (5)
Violations of Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq.;
(6) Violation of the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"); and
(7) Failure to Produce Records Upon Request.

The Defendants initially filed a Motion to Dismiss six of the
causes of action in the Original Complaint.  In a  May 5, 2020
Memorandum & Order available at https://is.gd/TVpGpK from
Leagle.com, Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California granted the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with leave to amend.  

As for the First and Second Causes of Action, the Plaintiff alleges
the Defendant intentionally and regularly failed to provide all
10-minute rest breaks to her and the former and other current
non-exempt employees for every 4 hours they worked, in violation of
Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512.  She further alleges it
repeatedly within the past months required her to work
double-digit-hour days without providing required rest breaks; and
that the members of the Rest Break Class were not provided with
rest breaks as required by law, nor did they receive an additional
hour of premium pay for each missed rest break.  Judge England
holds that these conclusory allegations lack any factual detail
from which the Court could plausibly infer how the Plaintiff
suffered any actual violations.  Therefore, in accordance with
Landers v. Quality Communications, Inc., the Plaintiff's rest and
meal break claims are dismissed with leave to amend.

As for the Third Cause of Action, the Plaintiff alleges that she
and the other members of the Reimbursement Class were not
indemnified by the Defendant for necessary expenses such as
internet service and mileage.  Again, such an allegation is too
conclusory.  The Plaintiff fails to explain the necessity and
reasonableness of her expenses in relation to the business and
fails to present any costs for her expenses.  Without additional
facts, the Judge cannot evaluate whether Section 2802 applies to
her allegations in the first place.  Given the complete dearth of
facts in the Complaint, the Third Cause of Action is dismissed with
leave to amend.

Turning to the Fourth Cause of Action, the Judge held that the
Plaintiff failed to adequately show an injury because she did not
allege either that she was not provided wage statements at all or
that the wage statements she did receive prevented her from
promptly and easily determining the wages paid.  In addition, her
Complaint is wholly conclusory as to whether any failure on the
Defendant's part was "willful."  Hence, the Plaintiff's Fourth
Cause of Action is thus dismissed with leave to amend.

The Plaintiff's Fifth Cause of Action is derivative of her
foregoing claims.  Given its derivative nature, the Fifth Cause of
Action is also dismissed with leave to amend.

Finally, according to the Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to
represent "aggrieved employees" for PAGA purposes, explaining that
the former and other current California employees are also
aggrieved employees in that one or more of the alleged violations
were also committed against them during their time of employment
with the Defendant.  These allegations, however, are legally
insufficient.  Therefore, the Plaintiff's Sixth Cause of Action is
dismissed with leave to amend.

Subsequently, on May 25, 2020, the Plaintiff filed with the Court a
first amended complaint.



CENTURA HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Billing Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
Emily Payne, writing for benefits PRO, reports that though the
consumer-driven health care movement is not progressing as much as
employers and health care providers would like, there is still some
progress being made. Case in point: a Colorado man is taking a
stand against surprise billing practices.

The lawsuit accuses Centura Health of failing to provide patients
with out-of-pocket cost estimates before non-emergency procedures.
[GN]


CHAMPION PETFOODS: Renfro Appeals D. Colo. Ruling to 10th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Cammeo Renfro, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Renfro, et al. v. Champion Petfoods
USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-CV-02756-DDD-MEH, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado, Denver.

The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants made a false and misleading
statement on the packaging of their premium dog food brands Orijen
and Acana, in violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Renfro, et al. v. Champion
Petfoods USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-1274, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

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

   -- Docketing statement is due on August 19, 2020, for Deisree
      Dempster and Cammeo Renfro;

   -- Transcript order form is due on August 19, 2020, for
      Deisree Dempster and Cammeo Renfro; and

   -- Notice of appearance is due on August 19, 2020, for
      Champion Petfoods LP, Champion Petfoods USA, Inc., Deisree
      Dempster, and Cammeo Renfro.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants CAMMEO RENFRO, individually and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated individuals, and DEISREE DEMPSTER,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals, are represented by:

          David L. Black, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
          1888 North Sherman Street Suite 200
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (202) 618-3734

               - and -

          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
          Karla M. Gluek, Esq.
          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          E-mail: rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com
                  kgluek@gustafsongluek.com
                  dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & RIVAS LLC
          Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102-0000
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA
          8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810
          Bethesda, MD 20814
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960

               - and -

          Kevin Andrew Seely, Esq.
          ROBBINS & YARBROUGH
          1120 Lincoln St., Ste. 1606
          Denver, CO 80203-0000
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          E-mail: kseely@robbinsllp.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Mark J. Tamblyn, Esq.
          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          E-mail: mjt@wexlerwallace.com
                  kaw@wexlerwallace.com

Defendants-Appellees CHAMPION PETFOODS USA, INC. and CHAMPION
PETFOODS LP are represented by:

          David Andrew Coulson, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG
          101 East College Avenue
          Tallahassee, FL 32301
          Telephone: (850) 222-6891
          E-mail: coulsond@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          John Kevin Crisham, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG
          1144 15th Street, Suite 3300
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 572-6500
          E-mail: crishamj@gtlaw.com


CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP alerts investors
that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against
Chembio Diagnostics, Inc. (NASDAQ:  CEMI) ("Chembio") on behalf of
those who purchased or otherwise acquired Chembio common stock
between March 12, 2020 and June 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Chembio common stock
during the Class Period may, no later than August 17, 2020, seek to
be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For
additional information or to learn how to participate in this
litigation please click
https://www.ktmc.com/chembio-diagnostics-inc-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=chembio.

According to the complaint, Chembio develops diagnostic solutions
and offers products for treatment, detection, and diagnosis of
infectious diseases. Chembio claims to have developed and patented
a new and innovative technology called the Dual Path Platform
("DPP(R)"), which allows for rapid diagnostic testing of a variety
of chemical substances. On its website, Chembio maintains that its
products "meet the highest standards for accuracy and superior
performance to help prevent the spread of infectious diseases" and
that its "innovative solutions, like the Chembio Dual Path Platform
(DPP(R)), make [point-of-care] testing faster, more accurate, and
more cost effective."

On March 12, 2020, Chembio entered into a worldwide strategic
partnership with LumiraDx Limited, a company focused on developing,
manufacturing, and commercializing industry-leading point-of-care
diagnostic platforms, with the aim of developing a diagnostic test
for the detection of the COVID-19 virus and IgM and IgG antibodies
on both of their DPP(R) platforms (the "DPP COVID-19 Test").
Following this news, Chembio's shares jumped 65% during pre-market
trading. Throughout the Class Period, the defendants touted their
progress in developing the DPP COVID-19 Test, representing that it:
(i) successfully aided in determining current or past exposure to
the COVID-19 virus; (ii) provided high sensitivity and specificity;
and (iii) was 100% accurate. The defendants' overly positive
progress updates convinced some entities to place purchase orders
for the DPP COVID-19 Tests worth millions of dollars. These events
further boosted the price of Chembio shares, including on March 20,
2020, when Chembio's shares rose 54%. Chembio's representations
ultimately drove its stock from a closing price of $3.10 per share
on March 11, 2020, to a Class Period high of $15.54 per share on
April 24, 2020, an increase of more than 400%.

The complaint alleges that, on June 16, 2020, after the market
closed, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") issued a
press release disclosing that it had revoked Chembio's Emergency
Use Authorization ("EUA") for its DPP COVID-19 Test. In a public
announcement, the FDA informed that its decision was "due to
performance concerns with the accuracy of the test." More
specifically, the FDA informed that the DPP COVID-19 Test
"generate[d] a higher than expected rate of false results and
higher than that reflected in the authorized labeling for the
device." As a result, the FDA concluded that the "test's benefits
no longer outweigh its risks."  The next day, on June 17, 2020,
Chembio publicly acknowledged the receipt of the FDA's June 16,
2020 letter and informed the public of the FDA's revocation of its
EUA.  Following this news, Chembio shares declined from a closing
price on June 16, 2020 of $9.93 per share to close at $3.89 per
share on June 17, 2020, a decline of more than 60%.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that Chembio's DPP COVID-19 Test did not provide
high-quality results and there were material performance concerns
with the accuracy of its DPP COVID-19 Test.

Chembio investors who wish to discuss this securities fraud class
action lawsuit and their legal options are encouraged to contact
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or
Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (844) 877-9500 (toll free) or at
info@ktmc.com.

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

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

CIRCLE K STORES: Court Dismisses Popejoy Labor Suit as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Anthony W. Ishii of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California dismissed as moot the case, HEATHER POPEJOY,
on behalf of herself and other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
CIRCLE K. STORES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 to 10
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-CV-1777 AWI BAM (E.D. Cal.).

The putative class action alleges violations of the California
Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code.  It was
removed by Defendant on Dec. 20, 2019.  The Defendant filed a
motion to dismiss on April 13, 2020.  

By May 1, 2020, the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss the
case.  The stipulation is signed by the counsel for both parties
and is purportedly made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1).  In
relevant part, the stipulation states that the Parties stipulate
and agree that the matter between them has been resolved, and
pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1), they stipulate and agree that the action
should be immediately dismissed with prejudice as to the
Plaintiff's individual claims only, and dismissed without prejudice
as to the claims of the putative class members.

Dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1), when properly filed, are effective
immediately and do not require a court order/court approval.
Because the stipulation has been properly presented by the parties,
Popejoy's individual claims have terminated automatically with
prejudice.  Judge Ishii will order the Clerk to recognize the
automatic dismissal.

With respect to the attempt to dismiss the class claims without
prejudice, typically dismissal of class claims requires the parties
to follow Rule 23(e) and provide the Court with various
information.  The parties did not follow Rule 23(e), so the
purported Rule 41 dismissal of the class action claims are
ineffective.

Nevertheless, the Court reads the "resolved" language of the
stipulation, in combination with the dismissal with prejudice, as
indicating that the parties have fully settled all the individual
harms suffered by Popejoy that are reflected in the Complaint.  The
Ninth Circuit has held that a suit brought as a class action must
as a general rule be dismissed for mootness when the personal
claims of all named plaintiffs are satisfied and no class has been
properly certified.

In light of Judge Ishii's reading of the dismissal, the case fits
within the general rule recognized in Employers Teamsters.  That
is, because Popejoy's personal claims have been resolved and no
class has been certified, the case is now moot.  Therefore, the
Court (i) ordered the Clerk to terminate Popejoy in light of the
parties' properly filed Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal with prejudice;
(ii) dismissed the case as moot; (iii) vacated the May 11, 2020
hearing date; and (iii) denied as moot the Defendant's motion to
dismiss.  The Clerk is directed to close the case.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 5, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/Eb8qF4 from Leagle.com.


CLEAVER-BROOKS INC: Wins Bid for 56 Asbestos Trials in Agena Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii issued an Order
granting the Defendants' Motion for 56 Separate Trials in the case
captioned TERRY N. AGENA, et al. v. CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC., et al.,
Case No. 19-cv-00089-DKW-RT (D. Haw.).

The 73 individual Plaintiffs joined in this action consist of
former asbestos plaintiffs or representatives of former asbestos
plaintiffs involved in one of 56 separate, underlying
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits litigated against
Defendant Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., in either state or federal court.
Each of the asbestos plaintiffs ultimately settled their respective
lawsuit against Cleaver-Brooks, resulting in 56 separate settlement
agreements executed between 2007 and 2015. Each of the 73
Plaintiffs in this action now seeks damages for fraudulent
inducement of their respective settlement.

The Plaintiffs allege that Cleaver-Brooks and its nationwide
coordinating counsel concealed adverse information during discovery
in each of the 56 underlying actions in order to obtain favorable
settlements, and that the Plaintiffs through their counsel relied
upon the Defendants' discovery misrepresentations and settled for
less than they would have if they had known the truth. The
Plaintiffs assert three causes of action: (1) fraudulent inducement
(2) violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO) and (3) violation of Hawaii's anti-racketeering statute
(Hawaii RICO).

The 56 underlying actions were filed separately between 2006 and
2014. In each case, the Plaintiff's asbestos claim was unique. Each
claimant was allegedly exposed to asbestos for varying lengths of
time between 1940 and 2009. The claimants were working different
jobs at different locations when they were allegedly exposed to
asbestos. The 56 underlying actions resulted in 56 separate
settlement agreements that were executed at different times between
2007 and 2015.

The Defendants ask the Court to order 56 separate trials in this
case--one trial for each settlement agreement at issue--in order to
avoid juror confusion and prejudice to the Defendants. The
Plaintiffs contend that any prejudice to the Defendants and juror
confusion can be "cured" with limiting instructions at trial. The
Plaintiffs, therefore, insist on a single trial in the interest of
judicial economy and convenience to the parties.

The Court concludes that the nominal efficiency that will result
from trying the claims together does not outweigh the reality that
it would be virtually impossible for a jury to compartmentalize the
numerous factual and legal differences necessary to fairly evaluate
the fraud elements of 56 separate settlements.

In sum, this case bears all the hallmarks that counsel in favor of
56 separate trials: (1) the issues across the underlying cases are
significantly different from one another; (2) the issues are
complex; (3) the documentary and testimonial evidence on the issues
will be substantially different; (4) the claims will be tried
before a jury; (5) discovery costs will not significantly increase
as a result of separate trials; and (6) each Plaintiff will still
have his/her day in court, citing Clark, 772 F. Supp. 2d at 1269,
District Judge Derrick K. Watson opines. On the other hand, he
adds, a single trial for all 56 settlements would undermine the
focus of the trier of fact, confuse the issues, and prejudice the
Defendants. Accordingly, the Court concludes that this case must be
tried in 56 separate trials--one for each settlement at issue.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 8, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yda4gft9 from Leagle.com


COMPASS GROUP: 7th Cir. Flips Remand of Bryant Suit to State Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed a
district court order remanding a BIPA lawsuit against Compass Group
USA to state court.

The appellate case is CHRISTINE BRYANT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
COMPASS GROUP USA, INC., Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 20-1443 (7th
Cir.).

Section 15(b) of the Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act
("BIPA") regulates the collection, use, and retention of a person's
biometric identifiers or information.  It requires collectors of
this material to obtain the written informed consent of any person
whose data is acquired.  The regime is designed to protect
consumers against the threat of irreparable privacy harms, identity
theft, and other economic injuries arising from the increasing use
of biometric identifiers and information by private entities.  As a
matter of state law, anyone "aggrieved" by a violation of the
disclosure and informed consent obligations is entitled to bring a
private action against the alleged offender.

Christine Bryant worked for a call center in Illinois.  As a
convenience for its employees, the center had a workplace
cafeteria, in which it had installed Smart Market vending machines
owned and operated by Compass.  The machines did not accept cash;
instead, a user had to establish an account using her fingerprint.
Accordingly, during her orientation, Bryant and her coworkers were
instructed by their employer to scan their fingerprints into the
Smart Market system and establish a payment link to create user
accounts.  Once their accounts were active, employees could
purchase items and add money to their balance using just their
fingerprints.  Their fingerprints are "biometric identifiers"
within the meaning of the Act.

In violation of section 15(a) of BIPA, Compass never made publicly
available a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently
destroying the biometric identifiers and information it was
collecting and storing.  In addition, in violation of section
15(b), Compass never: (1) informed Bryant in writing that her
biometric identifier (fingerprint) was being collected or stored,
(2) informed Bryant in writing of the specific purpose and length
of term for which her fingerprint was being collected, stored, and
used, or (3) obtained Bryant's written release to collect, store,
and use her fingerprint.

Bryant does not assert that she did not know that her fingerprint
was being collected and stored, nor why it was happening.  She
voluntarily created a user account for the Smart Market vending
machines and regularly made use of the fingerprint scanner to
purchase items from the machines.  She contends simply that
Compass' failure to make the requisite disclosures denied her the
ability to give informed written consent as required by section
15(b).  Compass' failure to comply with the Act resulted, both for
her and others similarly situated, in the loss of the right to
control their biometric identifiers and information.

Seeking redress for that invasion of her personal data, on Aug. 13,
2019, Bryant brought a putative class action against Compass in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, pursuant to BIPA's provision
providing a private right of action in state court to persons
"aggrieved" by a violation of the statute.  Bryant seeks to
represent a class of Illinois citizens who used Compass' Smart
Market biometricenabled vending machines after August 2014.  She
alleges that Compass violated her and class members' statutory
rights under BIPA when it collected users' fingerprints without
first making the required written disclosures about use and
retention and without written authorization.  For purposes of the
standing issue before the Court, the Seventh Circuit accepts
Bryant's allegations as true.

Compass removed the action to federal court under the Class Action
Fairness Act ("CAFA") on the basis of diversity of citizenship and
an amount in controversy exceeding $5 million.  Compass is
incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in
North Carolina; Bryant is a citizen of Illinois.  It is enough to
assure the minimal diversity required by CAFA.  The requisite
amount in controversy is also secure: claims of individual class
members are aggregated for purposes of CAFA, and in the case, BIPA
authorizes statutory damages of $5,000 for each intentional or
reckless violation.  Compass asserts, and Bryant does not contest,
that the alleged class has at least 1,000 members.

Bryant moved to remand the action to the state court, claiming that
the district court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction because
she lacked the concrete injury-in-fact necessary to satisfy the
federal requirement for Article III standing.  The district court
found that Compass's alleged violations of sections 15(a) and (b)
were bare procedural violations that caused no concrete harm to
Bryant; accordingly, it remanded the action to the state court.
Compass petitioned the Court for permission to appeal the remand
order under 28 U.S.C. Section 1453(c); on March 13, 2020, the Court
accepted the appeal.

The question now before the Seventh Circuit is whether, for
federal-court purposes, such a person has suffered the kind of
injury-in-fact that supports Article III standing.  The Seventh
Circuit concludes that a failure to follow section 15(b) of the law
leads to an invasion of personal rights that is both concrete and
particularized.  

The Seventh Circuit finds that the text of the statute demonstrates
that its purpose is to ensure that consumers understand, before
providing their biometric data, how that information will be used,
who will have access to it, and for how long it will be retained.
The judgment of Illinois' General Assembly is that the sensitivity
of biometric information and the risk of identity theft or other
privacy or economic harm that may result from its dissemination,
necessitates that people be given the opportunity to make informed
choices about to whom and for what purpose they will relinquish
control of that information.  Compass' failure to abide by the
requirements of section 15(b) before it collected Smart Market
users' fingerprints denied Bryant and others like her the
opportunity to consider whether the terms of that collection and
usage were acceptable given the attendant risks.

It was not a failure to satisfy a purely procedural requirement.
Rather, Compass withheld substantive information to which Bryant
was entitled and thereby deprived her of the ability to give the
informed consent section 15(b) mandates.  Equipped with the missing
information, she may have chosen not to use the vending machines
and instead brought her own lunch or snacks.  Or she may have opted
for the convenience of the machines.  She did not realize that
there was a choice to be made and what the costs and benefits were
for each option.  The deprivation is a concrete injury-in-fact that
is particularized to Bryant.  Bryant thus meets the requirements
for Article III standing on her section 15(b) claim.

Finally, the Seventh Circuit finds that Bryant did not suffer a
concrete and particularized injury as a result of Compass's
violation of section 15(a). She therefore lacks standing under
Article III to pursue that claim in federal court.  As she noted
earlier, the Court has no authority and no occasion to address her
state-court standing to bring the claim.

Recognizing the privacy and economic risks involved in the wide use
of biometric information, the Illinois General Assembly mandated in
section 15(b) of BIPA that private entities make certain
disclosures and receive informed consent from consumers before
obtaining such information.  As alleged, Compass did not make the
requisite disclosures to Bryant or obtain her informed written
consent before collecting her fingerprints.  By failing to do so,
Compass inflicted the concrete injury BIPA intended to protect
against, i.e. a consumer's loss of the power and ability to make
informed decisions about the collection, storage, and use of her
biometric information.  That injury satisfies the requirements for
Article III standing, and so Bryant's claim under section 15(b) may
proceed in federal court.

The Seventh Circuit therefore reversed the judgment of the district
court remanding the action to the Circuit Court of Cook County, and
remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings
consistent with its Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's May 5, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/Z3nPD5 from Leagle.com.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 14 Motion Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Deutsche Bank
Aktiengesellschaft (NYSE: DB), Insperity, Inc. (NYSE: NSP), and
Energy Recovery, Inc. (NASDAQ: ERII).  Stockholders have until the
deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff.
Additional information about each case can be found at the link
provided.

Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft (NYSE: DB)

Class Period: November 7, 2017 to July 6, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 14, 2020

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

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

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

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

The complaint, filed on July 15, 2020, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the bank's business, operational, and
compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Deutsche
Bank had failed to remediate deficiencies related to AML, its
disclosure controls, and procedures and internal control over
financial reporting, and its U.S. operations' troubled condition;
(ii) as a result, the bank failed to properly monitor customers
that the bank itself deemed to be high risk; (iii) the foregoing,
once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative
impact on the bank's financial results and reputation; and (iv) as
a result, the bank's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the Deutsche Bank class action go to:
https://bespc.com/DB

Insperity, Inc. (NYSE: NSP)

Class Period: February 11, 2019 to February 11, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 21, 2020

On July 29, 2019, Insperity released its second quarter 2019
financial results. Despite delivering year-over-year growth and
meeting analysts' estimates, the Company offered disappointing
third quarter 2019 guidance and reduced its full-year 2019
guidance. Further, defendants revealed that in the second quarter
2019, Insperity had experienced an increase in large medical claim
costs, which defendants described as an anomaly which would not
impact projected cost benefit trends.

On this news, Insperity shares fell $35.74 per share, or 25
percent.

On November 4, 2019, Insperity released its third quarter 2019
financial results, which substantially missed analysts' estimates
and were materially down year-over-year. In addition, Insperity
materially reduced its full-year 2019 guidance. Defendants
attributed these results to continued large medical claim costs,
which they again attempted to describe as a mere anomaly to assuage
investor concern.

On this news, Insperity shares fell by $36.29 per share, or 34
percent.

Finally, on February 11, 2020, after the close of trading,
Insperity released its fourth quarter and full-year 2019 financial
results. On this date, Insperity revealed that, for the third
quarter in a row, large medical claims had again impacted the
Company. Further, the Company stated that it had restructured its
contract with UnitedHealthcare to no longer have financial
responsibility for any medical claims over $1 million. Insperity
also offered disappointingly bearish guidance for the first quarter
and full-year 2020.

On this news, Insperity shares declined by $17.44 per share, or 20
percent.

The complaint, filed on July 21, 2020, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants failed to disclose, and would continue to
omit, the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's
business, operations, and financial condition, which were known to
or recklessly disregarded by defendants: (i) the Company had failed
to negotiate appropriate rates with its customers for employee
benefit plans and did not adequately disclose the risk of large
medical claims from these plans; (ii) Insperity was experiencing an
adverse trend of large medical claims; (iii) as a mitigating
measure, the Company would be forced to increase the cost of its
employee benefit plans, causing stunted customer growth and reduced
customer retention; and (iv) the foregoing issues were reasonably
likely to, and would, materially impact Insperity's financial
results.

For more information on the Insperity securities class action case
go to: https://bespc.com/NSP

Energy Recovery, Inc. (NASDAQ: ERII)

Class Period: August 2, 2017 to June 29, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 21, 2020

On October 19, 2015, the Company announced that it has signed a
fifteen-year deal with Schlumberger Technology Corp.
("Schlumberger"), which gave Schlumberger the exclusive right to
the use of the Company's VorTeq technology (the "Schlumberger
Licensing Agreement"). Under the terms of the Schlumberger
Licensing Agreement, Schlumberger paid $75 million exclusivity fee
and was to pay an additional $50 million milestone payments in
2016. The terms also dictated that Schlumberger would pay
continuing annual royalties for the duration of the license
agreement, subject to the satisfaction of certain key performance
indicators.

On June 29, 2020 — not even five years into the Schlumberger
License Agreement — the Company issued a press release,
announcing the termination of the licensing agreement with
Schlumberger, citing to "different strategic perspectives as to the
path to VorTeq commercialization." The Company further announced
that following the termination, "no further payments will be made
by either party" and that "Energy Recovery will now be fully
responsible for commercialization of the VorTeq technology
globally."

This news caused a sharp decline in the price of Energy Recovery
shares, which fell 15.8%, to close at $7.59 on June 30, 2020.
Several securities analysts downgraded Energy Recovery's rating and
significantly lowered the Company's price target. As one analyst
commented, "[the Company] should have been able to perceive in
advance and then explicitly warn about the significant, and likely
rising, odds of this outcome."

The complaint, filed on July 21, 2020, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and financial health. Specifically,
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose to investors that: (i) the Company and Schlumberger had
different strategic perspectives regarding commercialization of
VorTeq; (ii) which created substantial risk of early termination of
the Company's exclusive licensing agreement with Schlumberger;
(iii) accordingly, the revenue guidance and expectations of future
license revenue was false and lacked reasonable basis; and (iv) as
a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times or lacked a reasonable basis and
omitted material facts.

For more information on the Energy Recovery class action go to:
https://bespc.com/ERII

               About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

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

Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]


DIAMOND RESORTS: Court OKs Notice & Opt-Out Form in Gonzalez Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada issued an Order
approving the Parties' Notice and Opt-Out Form to Putative Hawaii
Class Members in the case captioned DANIEL GONZALEZ and JEFFREY
HUGHES, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. DIAMOND RESORTS INTERNATIONAL MARKETING, INC., and
WEST MAUI RESORTS PARTNERS, L.P., Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-00979-APG-NJK (D. Nev.).

By Order entered on May 1, 2020, the Court granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Certify the Hawaii Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
The Court ordered that the Parties confer regarding the contents of
the notice to putative class members, and if an agreement could be
reached, to submit the proposed notice to the Court within 30 days
of the Order for the Court's review and approval.

After conferring, the Parties reached an agreement as to contents
of the proposed notice and opt-out form.

Based on the Parties' stipulation, and for good cause shown, the
Court approves the proposed Notice and Opt-out Form submitted by
the Parties.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 8, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9wu7ldg from Leagle.com

MICHAEL N. FEDER--MFeder@dickinson-wright.com, DICKINSON WRIGHT
PLLC, in Las Vegas, Nevada.

MARTIN D. HOLMES (Pro Hac Vice), PETER F.
KLETT--pklett@dickinsonwright.com, (Pro Hac Vice), DICKINSON WRIGHT
PLLC, in Nashville, TN.

TREVOR W. HOWELL (Pro Hac Vice), HOWELL LAW, PLLC, 701 Broadway,
Suite 401, Box 17, in Nashville, TN 37203, Attorneys for
Plaintiffs, Collective Class Members and Hawaii Class Members.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of August 18 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on July 27 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Endo International plc ("Endo" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: ENDP) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed
in United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and
indexed under 20-cv-07536, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired Endo securities between August 8, 2017, and June
10, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to
recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Endo securities during the
class period, you have until August 18, 2020, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Endo was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.
The Company manufactures and sells generic and branded
pharmaceuticals in the U.S. and internationally, including both
generic and branded opioid products.

Endo operates through several subsidiaries engaged in the opioid
market, including Endo Health Solutions Inc. ("EHS"), Endo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("EPI"), Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc.
("PPCI"), and Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. ("PPI").

Endo and its subsidiaries have been substantial manufacturers of
opioids in the U.S., with the State of New York ("New York")
comprising a significant part of Endo's opioid market. Opioids
sales constituted a substantial portion of Endo's overall revenues.
Opioids sales were responsible for roughly $403 million of Endo's
overall revenues in 2012, $657 million in 2014, and $486 million of
Endo's $4 billion in sales in 2016. Its branded opioid, Opana ER,
yielded revenue of $1.15 billion from 2010 to 2013, and it alone
accounted for 10% of Endo's total revenue in 2012.

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

On June 10, 2020, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo ("Governor Cuomo")
announced that the New York Department of Financial Services
("DFS") had filed administrative charges against Endo in connection
with its role in the opioid crisis, alleging that Endo fraudulently
misrepresented the safety and efficacy of its opioid drugs while
minimizing the risk of addiction and other ill effects. That same
day, DFS issued its own press release specifically announcing that
it "has filed charges and initiated administrative proceedings
against Endo . . . and its subsidiaries, [EHS], [EPI], and [PPCI]"
in connection with "DFS' ongoing investigation into the entities
that created and perpetuated the opioid crisis"; that "[t]he DFS'
statement of charges alleges that, like other opioid Manufactures,
Endo . . . [k]nowingly furthered a false narrative to legitimize
opioids as appropriate for broad treatment of pain by downplaying
their long-known addictive nature and risks"; and that Endo and its
subsidiaries "[m]isrepresented the safety and efficacy of opioids,
without legitimate scientific substantiation," and "[d]eployed a
large sales force to target healthcare providers directly with
these misrepresentations."

On this news, Endo's Ordinary share price fell $0.66 per share, or
14.63%, to close at $3.85 per share on June 10, 2020.

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

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


ENPHASE ENERGY: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of August 17 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on July 29 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

FSCT Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/forescout-technologies-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8237&wire=1
ENPH Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/enphase-energy-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8237&wire=1
BAYRY Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/bayer-aktiengesellschaft-loss-submission-form?prid=8237&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

Forescout Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:FSCT)

FSCT Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 6, 2020
- May 15, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : August 10, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/forescout-technologies-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8237&wire=1

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

Enphase Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ:ENPH)

ENPH Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 26,
2019 - June 17, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : August 17, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/enphase-energy-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8237&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Enphase
Energy, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose 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 (4) as
a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (OTC PINK:BAYRY)

Lawsuit on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Bayer American Depositary Receipts between May
23, 2016 and March 19, 2019.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : September 14, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/bayer-aktiengesellschaft-loss-submission-form?prid=8237&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, 1) following its acquisition of
Monsanto Company, Bayer could be at risk of suffering billions of
dollars in judgments and reputational damage if the lawsuits
brought against Monsanto alleging that exposure to its
glyphosate-based Roundup product caused cancer were successful, 2)
a result, Defendants' positive statements about the prospects of
the Monsanto acquisition and the benefits it would create for
Bayer's business were materially false and/or misleading and/or
lacked a reasonable basis.

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

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

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


EXECUTIVE LIQUIDATION: Faces Herrera FLSA Suit in D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Executive
Liquidation, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as JOHN HERRERA and
LUIS NUNEZ, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated
v. EXECUTIVE LIQUIDATION, INC.; KARL HELD; JACK WATKINSON; NANCY
ROSE BANCA; CASEY ROSE HAMLIN; and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No.
2:20-cv-09330-KM-JBC (D.N.J., July 23, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Kevin McNulty.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Executive Liquidation specializes in liquidation services for
companies and organizations that are relocating, downsizing, or
reorganizing.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Heng Wang, Esq.
          WANG GAO & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          36 Bridge Street
          Metuchen, NJ 08840
          Telephone: (732) 767-3020
          E-mail: heng.wang@wanggaolaw.com


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of
FirstEnergy Corp.  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 Frank R. Cruz to discuss their legal
rights in these class actions at 310-914-5007 or by email to
--fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com --

FirstEnergy Corp. (NYSE: FE)
Class Period:  February 21, 2017 - July 21, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline:  September 28, 2020

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, FirstEnergy 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 FirstEnergy and its representatives and
affiliates had orchestrated a $60 million campaign to corrupt the
political process in order to secure the passage of legislation
favoring the Company and its affiliates; (2) that FirstEnergy and
its representatives and affiliates had secretly funneled tens of
millions of dollars to Ohio politicians to bribe those politicians
in order to secure votes in favor of HB6, a $1.3 billion ratepayer
bailout for FirstEnergy's unprofitable nuclear facilities; (3) that
FirstEnergy and its representatives and affiliates had conducted a
massive, misleading advertising campaign in support of HB6 and in
opposition to a ballot initiative to repeal HB6 by passing millions
of dollars through an intricate web of 'dark money' entities and
front companies in order to conceal the Company's involvement; (4)
that FirstEnergy and its representatives and affiliates had
subverted a citizens' ballot initiative to repeal HB6 by, among
other unscrupulous tactics, hiring more than 15 signature gathering
firms (and thus conflicting them out of supporting the initiative)
and bribing ballot initiative insiders and signature collectors;
(5) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants' Class Period
statements regarding FirstEnergy's regulatory and legislative
efforts were materially false and misleading; and (6) that, as a
result of the foregoing, FirstEnergy was subject to an extreme,
undisclosed risk of reputational, legal and financial harm.

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

FIRSTENERGY CORP: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of September 28 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 the common stock of FirstEnergy Corp. ("FirstEnergy" or
the "Company") (NYSE: FE) between February 21, 2017 and July 21,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you purchased the common stock of FirstEnergy during the Class
Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by
no later than September 28, 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.

FirstEnergy 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 FirstEnergy Securities Class Litigation

FirstEnergy, headquartered in Akron, Ohio, is an electric utility
company. The action alleges that, during the Class Period,
defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding FirstEnergy's internal controls, business practices and
prospects. In particular, defendants boasted of FirstEnergy's
legislative "solutions" to difficulties with its nuclear
facilities, but failed to disclose that those "solutions" revolved
around an illicit campaign to influence state lawmakers to support
legislation favoring the Company. For nearly three years,
FirstEnergy and its affiliates channeled more than $60 million to
state politicians and lobbyists, including Ohio Speaker Larry
Householder, to ensure the passage of Ohio House Bill 6 ("HB 6"),
which provided a $1.3 billion ratepayer-funded bailout of
FirstEnergy's failing nuclear facilities. Defendants also falsely
stated that they were in compliance with state and federal laws and
regulations throughout the Class Period, when in reality they were
exposing the Company and its investors to undisclosed risks of
legal, financial, and reputational damage.

On July 21, 2020, federal agents announced the arrest of Speaker
Householder and four other persons, including a lobbyist for
FirstEnergy, in connection with a $60 million racketeering and
bribery scheme. The criminal complaint and affidavit described an
alleged pay-to-play scheme in which FirstEnergy influenced the
legislative process in order to guarantee the passage of HB 6,
including by defending the bill against a citizens ballot
initiative to overturn the bill. Prosecutors described the case as
the "largest bribery, money-laundering scheme" in Ohio history. On
this news, the price of FirstEnergy stock fell $7.01 per share, or
almost 17%, from its closing price of $41.26 on July 20, 2020, to
close at $34.25 on July 21, 2020, on heavy trading volume.

On July 22, 2020, Cleveland.com published an article providing
additional details regarding the Company's illicit actions in
connection with the scheme. On this news, the price of FirstEnergy
stock dropped an additional $7.16, or 20.9% from its closing price
of $34.25 per share on July 21, 2020, to close at $27.09 on July
22, 2020, 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]

FIRSTENERGY CORP: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on July 28 disclosed that it filed
a class action seeking to represent purchasers of FirstEnergy Corp.
(NYSE:FE) common stock during the period between February 21, 2017
and July 21, 2020 (the "Class Period"). This action was filed in
the Southern District of Ohio and is captioned Owens v. FirstEnergy
Corp., No. 20-cv-3785.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased FirstEnergy common stock during the Class
Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the FirstEnergy
class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
class members in directing the FirstEnergy class action lawsuit.
The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate
the FirstEnergy class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to
share in any potential future recovery of the FirstEnergy class
action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If
you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the FirstEnergy class action
lawsuit, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from July
28, 2020. If you wish to discuss the FirstEnergy class action
lawsuit or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Brian E. Cochran
of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at
bcochran@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy of the complaint as filed
at
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-firstenergy-corp-class-action-lawsuit.html.

The FirstEnergy class action lawsuit charges FirstEnergy and
certain of its current and former officers with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. FirstEnergy is an electric utility
company with subsidiaries and affiliates involved in the
distribution, transmission and generation of electricity, as well
as energy management and other energy-related services. Its ten
electric utility operating companies serve more than six million
customers in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland,
New Jersey, and New York. The Company also owned and operated two
nuclear power plants in the State of Ohio, the Perry Nuclear
Generating Station and the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding
FirstEnergy's internal controls, business practices and prospects.
Specifically, defendants touted FirstEnergy's legislative
"solutions" to problems with its nuclear facilities, but failed to
disclose that these "solutions" centered on an illicit campaign to
corrupt high-profile state legislators in order to secure
legislation favoring the Company. Over a nearly three-year period,
FirstEnergy and its affiliates funneled more than $60 million to
prominent state politicians and lobbyists, including Ohio Speaker
Larry Householder, in order to secure the passage of Ohio House
Bill 6 ("HB6"), which provided a $1.3 billion ratepayer-funded
bailout to keep the Company's failing nuclear facilities in
operation. In addition, defendants falsely represented that they
were complying with state and federal laws and regulations
regarding regulatory matters throughout the Class Period, exposing
the Company and its investors to the extreme undisclosed risks of
reputational, legal and financial harm. As a result of defendants'
false statements and omissions, the price of FirstEnergy stock was
artificially inflated to a high of more than $50 per share during
the Class Period, and Company insiders were able to sell more than
$17 million worth of their FirstEnergy shares at these artificially
inflated prices.

Then on July 21, 2020, federal agents announced the arrest of
Householder and four others persons, including a prominent
FirstEnergy lobbyist, in connection with a $60 million racketeering
and bribery scheme. The 82-page criminal complaint and affidavit
detailed an alleged pay-to-play scheme in which FirstEnergy
corrupted every facet of the legislative process in order to ensure
the passage of HB6, including defending the bill against a
citizens' ballot initiative. Prosecutors described the case as
involving the "'largest bribery, money-laundering scheme'" in Ohio
history. On this news, the price of FirstEnergy stock plummeted,
trading as low as $22.85 per share on July 22, 2020, down 45% from
its closing price of $41.26 per share on July 20, 2020.

The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.

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


FLINT, MI: Residents Can Proceed with Contaminated Water Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Flint residents whose health and
homes were harmed by lead-contaminated water scored a legal
milestone on July 29 when the Michigan Supreme Court said they
could proceed with a lawsuit against public officials for the
disastrous decisions that caused the scandal.

"Plaintiffs in this case raise some of the most disturbing
allegations of malfeasance by government actors in Michigan's
history," Justice Richard Bernstein said.

The court's opinion was a key procedural step in long-running
litigation that now will return to the Court of Claims.

The Supreme Court, 4-2, said Flint residents could pursue a claim
of diminished property values. Residents also can argue that their
right to bodily integrity was violated by the use of corrosive
water from the Flint River.

That part of the opinion was a 3-3 tie. But it's a victory for
residents because a tie under court rules affirms an earlier
decision in their favor by the Michigan appeals court.

Flint used water from the Flint River in 2014-15 without treating
it to reduce the corrosive effect on old pipes. As a result, lead
leached into the system. Use of the river water was supposed to be
a temporary measure while a pipeline was built to Lake Huron.

The lawsuit names then-Gov. Rick Snyder, two former Flint
government managers appointed by Snyder and public agencies that
repeatedly assured the public that the water was safe.

"Defendants have fought plaintiffs every step of the way by
attempting to foreclose their lawsuit through procedural grounds.
Yet, the people of Flint have endured, and they now ask for an
opportunity to be heard," Bernstein said. "The judiciary should be
the one governmental institution that hears their grievances and
affords them the opportunity to at least proceed with their case."

In a dissent, two conservative justices, Stephen Markman and Brian
Zahra, said the lawsuit should be stopped based on strict deadlines
to file a claim. Justice Elizabeth Clement didn't participate
because she was involved in Flint water legal matters as a member
of Snyder's senior staff.

During arguments in March, Assistant Attorney General Nate Gambill
had urged the court to rule against Flint residents.

"There is no policy maker who authorized or mandated that low-level
staffers go out and expose the plaintiffs to toxic water," he said.
[GN]


GARUDA LABS: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action complaint alleging that
Garuda Labs, Inc. failed to properly classify its employees, which
resulted in inaccurate wages. The Garuda Labs, Inc. class action
lawsuit, Case No. CGC-20-585229, is currently pending in the San
Francisco Superior Court of the State of California. A copy of the
Complaint can be read here.

The complaint alleges Garuda Labs, Inc. committed acts of unfair
competition in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law,
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec 17200, et seq. (the "UCL"), by engaging
in a company-wide policy and procedure which "failed to properly
classify PLAINTIFF and the other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members as
employees." This allegedly resulted in failure to pay them wages
for all time worked, failure of reimbursement of business related
expenses, failure to provide them with meal and rest breaks, and
failure to reimburse these employees for the employer's share of
payroll taxes and mandatory insurance.

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

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

GEO GROUP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 8 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on July 28 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

FSCT Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/forescout-technologies-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8211&wire=1
GEO Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/the-geo-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8211&wire=1
JCOM Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/j2-global-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8211&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

Forescout Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: FSCT)

FSCT Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 6, 2020
- May 15, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 10, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/forescout-technologies-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8211&wire=1

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

The GEO Group, Inc. (NYSE: GEO)

GEO Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 27, 2020
- June 16, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 8, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/the-geo-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8211&wire=1

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

J2 Global, Inc. (NASDAQ: JCOM)

JCOM Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 5, 2015
- June 29, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 8, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/j2-global-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8211&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, J2
Global, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) J2 Global engaged in
undisclosed related party transactions; (2) J2 Global used
misleading accounting to hide requisite impairments and
underperformance in acquisitions; (3) several so-called independent
members of the Company' board of directors and audit committee were
not disinterested; and (4) as a result, Defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times.

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

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

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


GEORGIA: 11th Cir. Dismisses Bourassa's Appeal in Gumm Inmates Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the appellate case, TIMOTHY DENVER GUMM, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
RICK JACOBS, Field Operations Manager, GDCP, WARDEN BRUCE CHAPMAN,
GDCP, RODNEY McCLOUD, Superintendent, GDCP, WILLIAM POWELL, Deputy
Warden of Security, GDCP, JUNE BISHOP, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees, JEFFREY BOURASSA, Movant-Appellant, Case No.
19-11944 (11th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Mr. Bourassa's appeal
from the district court's denial of his motion to intervene in a
class action brought by Georgia prisoners against state prison
officials.

In 2015, Georgia prisoners brought a class action under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 against officials of the Georgia Department of
Corrections.  The prisoners alleged that the "Tier III" solitary
confinement program to which they were assigned violated their
constitutional rights.  They sought declaratory relief and an
injunction requiring the GDC to establish procedures to protect
them from prolonged isolation and to improve the conditions of
confinement.

The Plaintiffs moved to certify a class.  Plaintiffs argued that
they were adequate class representatives because their interests
completely aligned with those of the class members, they had a
strong personal interest in the lawsuit, and they were familiar
with the substance of their claims.  As for the class counsel,
their attorneys had substantial experience litigating civil rights
matters in federal court, including against Georgia prison
officials.

The parties negotiated a settlement agreement and jointly moved for
approval of the agreement and certification of the proposed class.
Their agreement addressed the conditions of confinement and the
procedures for reviewing assignment to the Tier III program.  It
also limited the duration of Tier III confinement to 24 months,
save for six security exceptions.  Two of the exceptions permitted
confinement beyond 24 months if the inmate's crime was so egregious
that the person was placed in the Tier III Program immediately upon
being placed in GDC custody or if the inmate, due to his unique
position of influence and authority over others, poses such an
exceptional, credible, and articulable risk to the safe operation
of the prison system or to the public that no facility other than
the Tier III Program facility is sufficient to contain the risk.

The district court granted preliminary class certification and
approval of the settlement subject to objections and a fairness
hearing. It ordered that notice of the settlement be
hand-delivered, along with a copy of the Settlement Agreement, to
each inmate currently assigned to the Tier III Program.

Mr. Bourassa, a pro se Georgia prisoner, had been assigned to both
Tier II and Tier III confinement.  He first objected to the
settlement based on lack of notice, claiming that he did not
receive the agreement because he had been taken into federal
custody when the agreement was hand-delivered to other inmates.  He
argued that, because he had been assigned to Tier III, he would
return there after his federal trial and was therefore a class
member with the right to notice and an opportunity to object.  Mr.
Bourassa eventually received the settlement agreement and provided
substantive objections to provisions of the agreement.

Mr. Bourassa moved to intervene in the class action, repeating some
of his objections to the settlement.  He also argued that the
Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 did not bar his intervention
and that he was entitled to intervention as a matter of right.  He
asserted that his rights were not adequately represented by the
named plaintiffs for two reasons - first, because his litigation
strategy would have differed from theirs and, second, because they
had acceded to the two aforementioned exceptions to the 24-month
limit for confinement.  Mr. Bourassa requested permissive
intervention in the alternative.

After it granted final approval of the class settlement and
certified the class, the district court denied Mr. Bourassa's
motion to intervene.  The district court began by pointing out that
Mr. Bourassa failed to cite any statute that would give him an
unconditional right to intervene under Rule 24(a)(1).  Regarding
Rule 24(a)(2), the court found that Mr. Bourassa's motion was
timely, and it assumed that he met two of the other three
requirements. The court concluded, nonetheless, that Mr. Bourassa
failed to demonstrate that the class plaintiffs did not adequately
represent his interests.  The district court therefore denied his
intervention as of right and denied permissive intervention under
Rule 24(b) in the alternative.

Mr. Bourassa appealed.  He also moved in the district court for
leave to appeal in forma pauperis, but the court denied that
motion.

Mr. Bourassa presents several arguments.  However, the Appellate
Court generally does not consider issues not raised in the district
court.  Some arguments -- such as those regarding Tier II custody
-- are not relevant to the class action and therefore not germane
to his motion to intervene.  Some appear to be direct objections to
the settlement agreement and are therefore beyond the scope of Mr.
Bourassa's appeal.  His two remaining arguments are unpersuasive.

First, Mr. Bourassa fails to support his contention that his
interests were not adequately represented because the Plaintiffs
acceded to the two security exceptions to the 24-month confinement
limitation.  His own allegations undermine that argument.  Based on
his motion to intervene, Mr. Bourassa was not placed in Tier III
confinement until after he was first taken into Georgia custody.
The first exception therefore would not apply to him.  He also
failed to provide evidence as to why the GDC would find that he
fits under the second exception -- i.e., that he has a "unique
position of influence and authority over others" or poses a serious
threat -- such that extended Tier III confinement would be required
if he were to return to Georgia custody.

Second, Mr. Bourassa argues that he could have obtained better
results than the class counsel and that he would have pursued a
different litigation strategy.  But he provided no evidence or
persuasive arguments for the former assertion and, as courts and
treatises have explained, divergence of tactics and litigation
strategy is not tantamount to divergence over the ultimate
objective of the suit.

For the foregoing reasons, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that the
district court correctly denied Mr. Bourassa's motion to intervene,
and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Eleventh Circuit's May 5, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/a2GC79 from Leagle.com.


GEORGIA: M.D. Ga. Dismisses Adams Inmate Suit vs. Warden White
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Macon
Division, issued an order dismissing without prejudice the case
captioned RONALD DAVID ADAMS, et al., Plaintiffs v. WARDEN JERMAINE
WHITE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-00187-MTT-CHW (M.D.
Ga.).

Jermaine White is the Warden at Washington State Prison.

Plaintiff Ronald David Adams has filed a complaint seeking relief
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 on behalf of himself and six other
prisoners in Washington State Prison in Davisboro, Georgia. Only
Plaintiff Adams has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis in this action.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "PLRA") requires that
a prisoner bringing a civil action in forma pauperis be responsible
for the Court's filing fee. Additionally, the Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals has held that prisoners proceeding in forma
pauperis are not allowed to join together as plaintiffs in a single
lawsuit and pay only a single filing fee. Instead, each prisoner
must file his own lawsuit and pay the full filing fee.

The Plaintiffs are, therefore, not permitted to proceed in an
action together in forma pauperis, District Judge Marc T. Treadwell
opines. As it does not appear that Plaintiffs' claims would be
barred by the applicable statutes of limitations if they are
required to refile their claims, the complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE in its entirety.

Each Plaintiff, including Adams, may file a separate complaint, in
which he asserts only claims personal to him, if he chooses to do
so. Each Plaintiff must also either pay the filing fee or submit a
proper motion to proceed in forma pauperis with his individual
complaint.

Further, to the extent that Plaintiff Adams seeks to bring these
claims as a class action, a pro se plaintiff may not represent the
interest of other prisoners. This same principle prevents a pro se
Plaintiff, like Plaintiff Adams, from representing some or all of
the other inmates, who are named as Plaintiffs in this case.

Thus, this action is dismissed in its entirety without prejudice.
Plaintiff Adams's pending motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis is DENIED AS MOOT. The Plaintiff has also filed a motion
to appoint counsel and a motion to amend the complaint to add
another plaintiff. In light of this dismissal, these motions are
also DENIED AS MOOT.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 8, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/EOaDvg from Leagle.com


GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Federman Reminds of Sept. 23 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood on July 27 disclosed that on July 24, 2020, a
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California against Guidewire Software,
Inc. (NYSE: GWRE). The complaint alleges violations of federal
securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of
issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the
market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price during the Class Period, which is March 6, 2019 through March
4, 2020.

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

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Guidewire
Software, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during the
Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described
above. You may move the Court no later than Wednesday, September
23, 2020 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class.
However, in order to do so, you must meet certain legal
requirements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995.

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

Robin Hester
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com
Or, visit the firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com [GN]


GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Gainey McKenna Reminds of Sept. 23 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on July 27 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Guidewire Software, Inc.
("Guidewire" or the "Company") (NYSE: GWRE) in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of
those who purchased or acquired the securities of Guidewire between
March 6, 2019 and March 4, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Guidewire investors under
the federal securities laws.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's
transition to the cloud was not going well; (ii) the Company's
cloud-based products needed to be improved to meet customer needs
and catch-up with rival systems; (iii) the Company's failed
transition to the cloud was also hurting its traditional on-premise
business; and (iv) as a result, the Company's revenue guidance,
including guidance principally based on significantly increasing
demand for the Company's cloud-based products, was baseless and
unattainable.  When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Guidewire
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the
September 23, 2020 lead plaintiff motion deadline.  A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class
members in directing the litigation.  If you wish to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey
McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at
tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]


GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 23 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announced the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Guidewire Software, Inc. (NYSE: GWRE) between March
6, 2019 and March 4, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Guidewire investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Guidewire class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1907.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) the Company's transition to the cloud was not going well;
(2) Guidewire's cloud-based products needed to be improved to meet
customer needs and catch-up with rival systems; (3) the Company's
failed transition to the cloud was also hurting Guidewire's
traditional on-premise business; and (4) as a result, Guidewire's
revenue guidance, including guidance principally based on
significantly increasing demand for the Company's cloud-based
products, was baseless and unattainable. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
23, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1907.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors
throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities
class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm
was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number
of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has
achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement
against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked
and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen
Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

CONTACT:

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


GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 23 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on July 27 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Guidewire Software, Inc. ("Guidewire" or "the Company") (NYSE:
GWRE) for violations of Sections 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 March 6,
2019 and March 4, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 23, 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. Guidewire's transition to cloud computing
was not proceeding successfully. The Company's cloud-based products
lagged behind competitors and required improvement. This ongoing
failure also impacted the Company's traditional business. Based on
these facts, the Company's public statements were false and
materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market
learned the truth about Guidewire, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

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


HARTFORD INSURANCE: NJ Court Dismisses Jacobsen Suit With Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------

In the case, ROBERT JACOBSEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HARTFORD INS.
CO. FLOOD & HOME, Defendant, Civil Action No. 14-cv-03094
(PGS)(TJB) (D. N.J.), Judge Peter G. Sheridan of the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey denied Jacobsen's application
to amend the complaint, and dismissed the action with prejudice.

The matter returns to the District Court after the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated and remanded the District
Court's dismissal of Plaintiff Jacobsen's claims against Defendant
Property and Casualty Insurance Co. of Hartford-Property for
Jacobsen's failure to appear at trial.  On remand, the District
Court was instructed to consider the factors set forth in Poulis v.
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.  The Third Circuit noted that
nothing in it prevents the District Court from again dismissing
Jacobsen's claims if the trial court concludes that dismissal is
warranted under Poulis.

By way of background, the matter was set for trial on March 11,
2019.  Jacobsen did not appear.  As such, Hartford-Property made an
oral application on the record for dismissal on the grounds that
Mr. Jacobson failed to appear and prosecute.  After
Hartford-Property set forth its reasons for dismissal, the Court
reviewed and considered the Poulis factors.  For the reasons set
forth on the record, the District Court decided that the Poulis
factors weighed in favor of dismissal.  Thus, the action was
dismissed at that time.

Since Judge Sheridan considered the Poulis factors, the Third
Circuit's decision on appeal was a bit surprising.  Evidently, the
Third Circuit did not receive the transcript of the March 11, 2019
proceedings.  There may have been several reasons as to why the
Third Circuit did not receive the transcript, including that: (1)
Jacobsen did not order and file the transcript with his appeal; and
(2) Hartford-Property did not notice Jacobsen's failure to do so.
In any event, the Third Circuit was not privy to his discussion of
the Poulis factors, which served as my basis for dismissal of the
action.

On remand, the District Court entered on the docket an Order to
Show Cause ordering the parties to address the issues of whether
the District Court can rely on its previous analysis of the Poulis
factors, and whether the case should be dismissed based on that
prior analysis.  The District Court held oral argument on April 15,
2020.  At that time, Jacobsen indicated that he desired to amend
the complaint to assert: (1) class action allegations on behalf of
all similarly situated homeowners; (2) allegations against a new
Defendant, the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA"); and
(3) allegations of fraud against Hartford-Property and FEMA.

As a threshold matter, Judge Sheridan adopts the Court's rationale
set forth on the record on March 11, 2019, and supplements that
analysis by adopting Hartford-Property's analysis of the Poulis
factors as set forth in his brief.  Since the matter will be
dismissed with prejudice, Jacobsen's pending motions for settlement
conferences are denied as moot.

With regard to Jacobsen's motion to amend the complaint, it is
denied for several reasons, including: (1) that the case has been
pending for nearly six years; (2) Jacobsen indicated that he wished
to assert a new legal theory of fraud; and (3) Jacobsen indicated
that he wished to assert the class action allegations, which would
necessarily lead to extensive discovery and motion practice.  For
these reasons, inter alia, permitting amendment would result in
substantial prejudice to Hartford-Property, and, as such, the
motion is denied.

Having come before the District Court on its Order to Show Cause;
for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum; for the
reasons set forth on the record on March 11, 2019 and on April 15,
2020; and for the reasons submitted orally and in writing by the
Defendant, Judge Sheridan (i) dismissed the matter with prejudice;
(ii) denied as moot the Plaintiff's motions for settlement
conferences; and (iii) denied the Plaintiff's oral application for
leave to amend the complaint.

The Clerk of Court is direct to close the file.  The Clerk's Office
is directed to mail a copy of the Memorandum and Order to
Jacobsen.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 5, 2020 Memorandum &
Order is available at https://is.gd/DXEBkO from Leagle.com.


HOME DEPOT: Lozano Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL G. LOZANO,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV13980 (Filed April 9, 2020), was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on July 30, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-06866 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff was formerly employed by Home Depot as a nonexempt
employee. He alleges that Home Depot failed to pay minimum and
overtime wages, failed to provide required meal and rest periods,
failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failed to
provide wages when due, and that Home Depot violated California's
unfair competition law. He also seeks penalties for Labor Code
violations under the Private Attorneys General Act.

Home Depot is the largest home improvement retailer in the United
States, supplying tools, construction products, and services. The
company is headquartered in unincorporated Cobb County, Georgia,
with an Atlanta mailing address.[BN]

Defendant Home Depot is represented by:

          Donna M. Mezias, Esq.
          Dorothy F. Kaslow, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          580 California Street, Suite 1500
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415-765-9500
          Facsimile: 415-765-9501
          E-mail: dmezias@akingump.com
                  dkaslow@akingump.com


HOT POT FLUSHING: Court Dismisses Chovon's FLSA and NYLL Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued
a Memorandum & Order granting the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in
the case captioned GENARIO CUC CHOVON, on behalf of himself, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiffs v. HOT POT FLUSHING
LLC d/b/a LITTLE SHEEP MONGOLIAN HOT POT HOT POT MANGATTAN 1 LLC
d/b/a LITTLE SHEEP MONGOLIAN HOT POT JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS d/b/a
LITTLE SHEEP MONGOLIAN HOT POT And MICHAEL PUI LEUNG LUK,
Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-3000 (ERK) (VMS) (E.D.N.Y).

On May 21, 2019, Genario Cuc Chovon filed a complaint on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated employees alleging claims
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law
against the Defendants and John Doe Corporations 1-23. In February
2020, the Defendants served Chovon with an Offer of Judgment
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 68. Pursuant to the offer, the
Defendants offered, "to allow judgment to be taken against them,
jointly and severally, in the sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars
($50,000.00), inclusive of all of Plaintiff Chovon's claims for
relief, damages, fees, costs, and expenses, but exclusive of
Plaintiff Chovon's claim for reasonable attorneys' fees as of the
date of this Offer of Judgment."

On March 10, 2020, Mr. Chovon served the Defendants with a motion
to conditionally certify a collective action of certain FLSA claims
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and to certify a class action
of certain NYLL claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The next
day, March 11, Mr. Chovon accepted the Offer of Judgment. That same
day, he filed a Consent to Sue form on behalf of Valentin Castro
Hernandez ("Hernandez"). On March 12, 2020, the Defendants filed a
Notice of Acceptance of the Offer of Judgment. The Defendants'
counsel wired $50,000 to the Plaintiff's counsel's trust account,
to be held in escrow pending the entry of the judgment.

On March 13, 2020, Mr. Chovon's counsel filed a letter seeking "to
clarify that although [Chovon] ha[d] accepted Defendants' offer of
judgment, the case should not be dismissed, as the claims of opt-in
plaintiff [Hernandez] and other prospective class and
collective-action plaintiffs remain unresolved, and Plaintiffs'
motion for class and collective-action certification" remained
outstanding. Counsel's letter concluded by requesting "that the
judgment be entered as to Chovon only, and that the case not be
dismissed pending the determination of the remaining claims." The
Defendants responded that they had no objection to the clerk
entering judgment as to Mr. Chovon's claims, and further stated
their intention to move to dismiss the action.

Having determined that Mr. Chovon's acceptance of the Defendants'
offer extinguished his interest in the conditional collective
action, District Judge Edward R. Korman says he need not address
the related question of whether the Plaintiff's putative class
action under NYLL is also moot. Indeed, the Second Circuit has
established that unlike dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, dismissals for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) leave no discretion
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law
claims, citing Cohen v. Postal Holdings, LLC, 873 F.3d 394, 399 (2d
Cir. 2017); Nowak v. Ironworkers Local 6 Pension Fund, 81 F.3d
1182, 1187 (2d Cir. 1996). Accordingly, the Plaintiff's NYLL claims
are dismissed without prejudice to other potential members of the
putative class seeking appropriate recompense in separate
proceedings.

Conclusion

Mr. Chovon's acceptance of the Defendants' Offer of Judgment
constituted complete relief on his individual claims, and the clerk
of the court shall enter judgment to that effect. There being no
live case or controversy for the Court to resolve, the Defendants'
motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under
Fed. R. Civ. 12(b)(1) is granted, without prejudice to other
members of the putative collective and class actions.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 8, 2020 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydyhh583 from
Leagle.com


IDEANOMICS INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of August 27 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds
Ideanomics, Inc. (NASDAQ:IDEX) ("Ideanomics") investors that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of
those who purchased or otherwise acquired Ideanomics common stock
between March 20, 2020 and June 25, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

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

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

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

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

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Ideanomics' MEG Center in Qingdao was not "a one
million square foot EV expo center"; (ii) Ideanomics had been using
doctored or altered photographs of the purported MEG Center in
Qingdao; (iii) Ideanomics' EV business in China was not performing
nearly as strong as Ideanomics had represented; and (iv) as a
result, Ideanomics' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

If you wish to discuss this securities fraud class action lawsuit
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests with respect to this litigation, please contact Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell,
Esq.) at (844) 877-9500 (toll free) or (610) 667-7706, or via
e-mail at info@ktmc.com.

Ideanomics investors may, no later than August 27, 2020, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

CONTACT:

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


IDEANOMICS INC: Rosen Law Firm 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 achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN]

INMEDIATA HEALTH: Amended Complaint Filed in Stasi Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint has been filed in the putative class action
captioned VICKI STASI, SHANE WHITE, and CRYSTAL GARCIA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. INMEDIATA HEALTH GROUP CORP., Defendant, Case No.
19cv2353 JM (LL) (S.D. Cal.).

The original class complaint was filed in December 2019, and the
Amended Complaint was filed on May 19, 2020.

The Original Complaint alleges that in January 2019, Inmediata
learned it was experiencing a large "data security incident"
resulting in the exposure of "personal information" of over 1.5
million "affected individuals".  

Inmediata provides software and service solutions to healthcare
providers.  The affected individuals' data was viewable online and
downloadable.  Due to a webpage setting that permitted search
engines to index internal webpages that Inmediata used for business
operations, the affected individuals' information was also
searchable, findable, viewable, and downloadable by anyone with
access to an internet search engine.  The affected individuals'
data exposed included the types of information that federal and
state law requires companies to take security measures to protect:
names, addresses, social security numbers, dates of birth, gender,
and medical claim information including dates of service, diagnosis
codes, procedure codes and treating physicians.

By letter dated April 22, 2019, Inmediata notified the Plaintiffs
of a data security incident that may have resulted in the potential
disclosure of your personal and medical information.  On April 24,
2019, Inmediata issued a press release regarding the incident.
Inmediata also filed sample "notice of data security incident"
letters with various state attorneys general that mirrored the
language of the letters sent to the Plaintiffs.

The letters stated that in January 2019, Inmediata became aware
that some of its member patients' electronic patient health
information was publicly available online as a result of a webpage
setting that permitted search engines to index pages that are part
of an internal website we use for our business operations.  They
also stated that information potentially impacted by this incident
may have included your name, address, date of birth, gender, and
medical claim information including dates of service, diagnosis
codes, procedure codes and treating physician.  Inmediata offered
to provide identity monitoring services, but only to those who had
their social security numbers disclosed.

The Original Complaint contained claims for negligence, negligence
per se, breach of contract, violation of California's
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, and the Minnesota
Health Records Act.  They bring the action on behalf of themselves
and all persons whose personal information was compromised as a
result of the Inmediata Data Security Incident announced by
Inmediata on or around April 24, 2019.

Inmediata sought to dismiss the Original Complaint.  In a May 5,
2020 Order available at https://is.gd/EORPTZ from Leagle.com, Judge
Jeffrey Miller of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California granted Inmediata's Motion to Dismiss under Rule
12(b)(1) for lack of standing.  The Judge declined to decide
whether the Plaintiffs' claims must also be dismissed under Rule
12(b)(6).  And the Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their
complaint.

In its May 5 Order, Judge Miller found that the Plaintiffs cited no
case in which the expenditure of time or money to prevent future
identity theft was sufficient in and of itself to support standing
without a finding that the threat of identity theft was imminent.


Upon the Court's order, the Plaintiffs have filed an amended
complaint in the case.  And Inmediata has filed a Motion to Dismiss
the Amended Complaint.  The Court has yet to rule on the matter.


INSPERITY INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of September 21 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that class
action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the
following publicly-traded companies.  Investors have until the
deadlines listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion.

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

Insperity, Inc. (NYSE: NSP)
Class Period:  February 11, 2019 – February 11, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline:  September 21, 2020

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) that the Company had failed to negotiate appropriate rates with
its customers for employee benefit plans and did not adequately
disclose the risk of large medical claims from these plans; (2)
that Insperity was experiencing an adverse trend of large medical
claims; (3) that as a mitigating measure, the Company would be
forced to increase the cost of its employee benefit plans, causing
stunted customer growth and reduced customer retention; and (4)
that the foregoing issues were reasonably likely to, and would,
materially impact Insperity's financial results.

Energy Recovery, Inc. (NASDAQ: ERII)
Class Period:  August 2, 2017 – June 29, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline:  September 21, 2020

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Energy
Recovery made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose: (1) that the Company and Schlumberger Technology had
different strategic perspectives regarding commercialization of
VorTeq; (2) that these differences created substantial risk of
early termination of the Company's exclusive licensing agreement
with Schlumberger; (3) accordingly, the revenue guidance and
expectations of future license revenue was false and lacked
reasonable basis; and (4) as a result, Defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted material facts.

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

Contacts

The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]


INTEL CORPORATION: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Intel
Corporation.  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 Frank R. Cruz to discuss their legal
rights in these class actions at 310-914-5007 or by email to
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com.

Intel Corporation (NASDAQ: INTC)
Class Period:  April 23, 2020 - July 23, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline:  September 28, 2020

Shareholders with $50,000 in losses or more are encouraged to
contact the firm.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Intel 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 Intel had identified a defect mode in its 7-nanometer process
that resulted in yield degradation; (2) that, as a result, the
Company would experience a six-month delay in its production
schedule for 7-nanometer products; (3) that Intel was reasonably
likely to rely on third-party foundries for manufacturing its
7-nanometer products; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Intel
was reasonably likely to lose market share to its competitors who
are already selling 7-nanometer 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.

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

INTERO REAL: Appeals Ruling in Chinitz TCPA Suit to 9th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Intero Real Estate Services filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Ronald Chinitz v. Intero Real Estate
Services, Case No. 5:18-cv-05623-BLF, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Jose.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 28,
2020, the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order on July
22, 2020:

   1. certifying these classes:

      The National Do-Not-Call (DNC) Class defined as:

      "all persons in the United States who: (a) received more
      than one call made on behalf of Intero by, or on behalf
      of, one of Intero's California sales associates; (b)
      promoting Intero's goods or services; (c) that was placed
      through the dialing platform provided by Mojo Dialing
      Solutions, Inc., the calling records for which appear in
      one of 35 account files, identified in Appendix A; (d) in
      a 12-month period; (e) on their non-business telephone
      lines; (f) whose telephone number(s) were on the NDNCR for
      at least 31 days; (g) at any time since September 13,
      2014"; and

      The Internal DNC Class defined as:

      "all persons in the United States who: (a) were on an
      internal list of persons who asked Intero not to call them
      ("Internal DNC List"), (b) received more than one call
      made on behalf of Intero by, or on behalf of, one of
      Intero's California sales associates; (c) promoting
      Intero's goods or services; (d) in a 12-month period; (e)
      on their non-business telephone line; (f) at any time
      since September 14, 2014";

   2. appointing the Plaintiff Ronald Chinitz as the class
      representative;

   3. appointing Tycko & Zavareei LLP and Reese LLP as class
      counsel; and

   4. directing the Plaintiff to propose a notice plan no later
      than August 22, 2020, for the National DNC Class seeking
      damages under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3).

The Court finds that the Plaintiff has met the requirements of Rule
23(b)(2) for the Internal DNC Class and National DNC Class seeking
injunctive relief, as well as the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) for
the National DNC Class seeking damages.

This is a putative class action brought by the Plaintiff against
Defendant for allegedly making unlawful calls to Plaintiff's
residential telephone lines in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Ronald Chinitz v. Intero Real
Estate Services, Case No. 20-80117, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents RONALD CHINITZ, individually, and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated persons, is represented by:

          George Granade, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515
          Los Angeles, CA 90211
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          E-mail: ggranade@reesellp.com

               - and -

          V. Chai Oliver Prentice, Esq.
          TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI LLP
          1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 254-6808
          E-mail: vprentice@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Michael Reese, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
           E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com

               - and -

          Hassan Zavareei, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com

Defendant-Petitioner INTERO REAL ESTATE SERVICES is represented
by:

          Robert Travis Campbell, Esq.
          Tomio Buck Narita, Esq.
          SIMMONDS & NARITA, LLP
          44 Montgomery St.
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415)283-1000
          E-mail: tcampbell@snllp.com
                  tnarita@snllp.com


IRIS RAMOS: Given More Time to Close Sale of Roslindale Property
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts
extended for the fourth time Iris Ramos' time to close the sale of
a portion of the real property located at 55 Hillock Street,
Roslindale, Massachusetts to Ronald Foley and Simone Mourad for
$199,999.

The Buyers are in the process of obtaining appropriate permits and
permissions from the City of Boston, but it is taking longer than
expected due to the current public health emergency.  Thus, the
Buyer has requested an extension, and the Debtor and her husband
have agreed.  No other terms of the transaction are changed.  

No objections to the closing extension sought were filed.

Iris Ramos sought Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. D. Mass. Case No.
19-10789) on March 12, 2019.  The Debtor tapped David G. Baker,
Esq., as counsel.

J2 GLOBAL: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of September 8 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action that has been filed on behalf
of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of J2 Global
Inc. ("J2 Global" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: JCOM) between October
5, 2015 and June 29, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

If you purchased J2 Global securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit J2 Global Shareholder
Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414
or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose: (1) J2 Global engaged in undisclosed related party
transactions; (2) J2 Global used misleading accounting to hide
requisite impairments and underperformance in acquisitions; (3)
several so-called independent members of the Company's board of
directors and audit committee were not disinterested; and (4) as a
result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.

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

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

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 8, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased J2 Global securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/j2globalinc-jcom-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-282/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

Contact Information:

Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]


JAMBA JUICE: Delacruz Appeals Judgment in ADA Suit to 2nd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Emanuel Delacruz filed an appeal from the District
Court's Order dated July 6, 2020, and Judgment dated July 6, 2020,
entered in his lawsuit entitled Delacruz v. Jamba Juice Company,
Case No. 19-cv-10321, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case
arises from the Defendant's failure to sell store gift cards that
contain writing in Braille and to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its store gift
cards, and therefore denial of its products and services offered
and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
says the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to
cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices,
and procedures so that the Defendant's store gift cards will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires Braille, which is a tactile writing system, to read
written material, including books, signs, store gift cards, credit
cards, etc.

The appellate case is captioned as Delacruz v. Jamba Juice Company,
Case No. 20-2521, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated, is represented by:

          Oliver Koppell, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF G. OLIVER KOPPELL & ASSOCIATES
          99 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 867-3838
          E-mail: okoppell@koppellaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Jamba Juice Company is represented by:

          Alexander Fuchs, Esq.
          345 East 81st Street
          New York, NY 10028
          Telephone: (212) 389-5082

               - and -

          Lewis Steven Wiener, Esq.
          EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
          700 6th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 383-0140
          E-mail: lewiswiener@eversheds-sutherland.com


JP MORGAN: Gramatis CEA Suit Moved From Illinois to S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS GRAMATIS, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE &
CO., J.P. MORGAN CLEARING CORP., J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, J.P.
MORGAN FUTURES, INC. (now known as J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC), and
JOHN DOES 1-50, Case No. 1:20-cv-03810 (Filed May 29, 2020), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (Foley Square) on July 30, 2020.

The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-05918-ALC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr.

The case is brought under the Commodities Exchange Act for losses
suffered when the Plaintiff and the Class purchased and/or sold
U.S. Treasury futures contracts and options on those contracts on
domestic exchanges at artificial prices that were the result of
spoofing and market manipulation by J.P. Morgan.

The central theory of this case is straightforward. Beginning in
2009, unbeknownst to the Plaintiff and the Class, J.P. Morgan used
an illegal trading strategy called "spoofing"--entering orders to
buy or sell Treasury Futures though it never intended to execute
those orders--to fool everyone else and create an artificial
appearance of market demand and artificial prices, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff transacted in Treasury Futures during the Class
Period, including purchases and sales of futures on domestic
exchanges.

JP Morgan is a global financial services firm and one of the
largest banking institutions in the United States, with operations
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
          Brian M. Hogan, Esq.
          Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN, LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500
          E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com
                  bhogan@fklmlaw.com
                  doug@fklmlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Amanda Flug Davidoff, Esq.
          Akash Mayank Toprani, Esq.
          Robert Andrew Sacks, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP (DC)
          1700 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 956-7500
          Facsimile: (202) 293-6330
          E-mail: davidoffa@sullcrom.com
                  toprania@sullcrom.com
                  sacksr@sullcrom.com

               - and -

          Mark W. Page, Esq.
          Suyash Agrawal, Esq.
          MASSEY & GAIL LLP
          50 East Washington, Suite 400
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 283-1590
          E-mail: mpage@masseygail.com
                  sagrawal@masseygail.com


KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Pawar Law Group Reminds of Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Pawar Law Group on July 27 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of
Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: KNDI) from June 10, 2015
through March 13, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Kandi Technologies Group, Inc.
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the class action, go here or call Vik Pawar, Esq. toll-free
at 888-589-9804 or email info@pawarlawgroup.com for information on
the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) certain areas in the Company's previously issued
financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2015 and
2014, and the first three quarters for the year ended December 31,
2016 required adjustment; (2) in turn, the Company lacked effective
controls over financial reporting; and (3) as a result, defendants'
positive statements about the Company'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.

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.

No class has been certified.  Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you hire one.  You may hire
counsel of your choice.  You may also do nothing at this time and
be an absent member of the class.  Your ability to share in any
future recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff.

Pawar Law Group represents investors from around the world.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter.

Contact:

Vik Pawar, Esq.  
Pawar Law Group  
20 Vesey Street, Suite 1410  
New York, NY 10007  
Tel: (917) 261-2277  
Fax: (212) 571-0938  
info@pawarlawgroup.com [GN]


KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Zhang Investor Reminds of Lawuit
----------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law on July 27 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
on behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Kandi Technologies
Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: KNDI) between June 10, 2015 and March 13,
2017, inclusive (the "Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for investors under the federal securities laws.

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.

To join the class action,
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=kandi-technologies-group-inc&id=2310
call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period (1) certain
areas in the Company's previously issued financial statements for
the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the first three
quarters for the year ended December 31, 2016 required adjustment;
(2) in turn, the Company lacked effective controls over financial
reporting; and (3) as a result, defendants' positive statements
about the Company'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 has not been certified.  You may retain counsel of your
choice.  You may take no action at this time and be an absent class
member.  Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon
being a lead plaintiff.  

Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide.  Attorney
Advertising.  Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact:

Zhang Investor Law P.C.
99 Wall Street, Suite 232
New York, New York 10005
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com
tel: (800) 991-3756 [GN]


KINGOLD JEWELRY: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 31 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 secure loans
fraudulently; (2) consequently, Kingold 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 achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by
numerous independent and respected sources.  Rosen Law Firm has
secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

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


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Court Refuses to Correct Order in Johansen Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a
Memorandum and Order denying the Third Party Plaintiff's Motion to
Correct Court Order in the case captioned KEN JOHANSEN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, INC., and SPANISH QUOTES, INC.
d/b/a WESPEAKINSURANCE, Defendants, LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, INC.,
Cross-Claimant v. SPANISH QUOTES, INC. d/b/a WESPEAKINSURANCE,
Cross-Defendant, LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. PRECISE LEADS, INC.,
and DIGITAS, INC., Third-Party Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-12920-ADB
(D. Mass.).

Plaintiff Ken Johansen filed a putative class action complaint,
alleging that Liberty Mutual Group Inc. and Spanish Quotes Inc.,
doing business as WeSpeakInsurance, called him and others, or
caused them to be called, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA).

Mr. Johansen subsequently settled with Liberty Mutual and Spanish
Quotes, and his claims against them were dismissed with prejudice.
The Defendants were then unable to agree whether Liberty Mutual was
entitled to indemnity under the Master Services Agreement ("MSA")
between Liberty Mutual and its marketing firm, Digitas, and the
associated Aggregator Service Agreement ("ASA") with Spanish
Quotes.

On October 2, 2019, the Court found that Digitas and Spanish Quotes
had violated their contractual duties to indemnify Liberty Mutual
and granted summary judgment (the "October Order"). Liberty Mutual
then filed a motion to correct the October Order to set a damages
hearing.

The October Order holds that Liberty Mutual is "entitled to
indemnification for its attorneys' fees incurred in defending
against the Johansen lawsuit." The Court granted the motion in
favor of Liberty Mutual and determined that Digitas and Spanish
Quotes violated their contractual duties to indemnify Liberty
Mutual in the underlying Johansen case.

Digitas filed its appeal on October 31, 2019. On November 18, 2019,
Liberty Mutual filed a motion with the First Circuit Court of
Appeals for leave to file a Rule 60(a) motion with this Court. The
First Circuit granted the motion but "[took] no position on the
merits of [the] Rule 60(a) motion or as to whether Rule 60(a) is
the appropriate procedural vehicle for the relief to be sought."
Liberty Mutual Ins., et al. v. Digitas, Inc., No. 19-2113, Doc.
00117527141 (1st Cir. Dec. 13, 2019). Liberty Mutual then filed its
motion to correct the October Order on December 20, 2019, and
Digitas opposed on January 10, 2020.

In the Memorandum and Order, District Judge Allison D. Burroughs
notes that the legal question of whether Digitas and Spanish Quotes
violated their contractual duties to indemnify Liberty Mutual is
now before the First Circuit. Depending on the Appellate Court's
view of the case, the Court may eventually be in a position to have
an evidentiary hearing and make the factual findings necessary to
determine the amount of money that Liberty Mutual is owed under the
contract for Digitas' failure to indemnify Liberty Mutual in the
underlying Johansen lawsuit as it was required to do.

Further, Liberty Mutual will still be in a position to file a
motion to enforce the judgment or reopen the case in the event that
the parties cannot agree on what Liberty Mutual is due in light of
Digitas and Spanish Quotes' breach of the agreement and the legal
fees incurred by Liberty Mutual as a result. At this point,
however, with the case pending before the First Circuit, it would
be inappropriate for the Court to reopen discovery and hold a
damages hearing to determine the specific damages owed, Judge
Burroughs opines.

Accordingly, Liberty Mutual's motion to correct the Court's October
Order is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 8, 2020 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yd5cxf7c Leagle.com


MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FL: 11th Cir. Flips Injunction in Swain Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit issued an
Opinion reversing the District Court's Order granting Plaintiffs'
Motion for the Issuance of Injunction in the case captioned ANTHONY
SWAIN, ALEN BLANCO, BAYARDO CRUZ, RONNIEL FLORES, WINFRED HILL, et
al., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. DANIEL JUNIOR, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY,
FLORIDA, Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 20-11622 (11th Cir.).

Daniel Junior is the Director of the Miami-Dade Corrections and
Rehabilitation Department (MDCR).

The Plaintiffs here, a group of medically vulnerable inmates,
challenged the conditions of their confinement at Miami's Metro
West Detention Center. In particular, they assert that Miami-Dade
County and Daniel Junior, the Director of the Miami-Dade
Corrections and Rehabilitations Department, have inadequately
responded to the COVID-19 outbreak and, thereby, violated their
constitutional rights.

Along with their complaint, the Plaintiffs also filed an emergency
motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary
injunction, as well as a motion to certify the class.

Holding that the Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of
their claim and would suffer irreparable injury in the absence of
immediate relief, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida enjoined the County and Junior to take a number of
precautionary measures to halt the virus' spread and ordered them
to file regular reports regarding the virus' status.

On April 29, 2020, after holding a two-day hearing, the District
Court issued a preliminary injunction on the Plaintiffs' Section
1983 claim relating to serious risk posed by COVID-19 to the
Plaintiffs.

The Defendants immediately appealed the preliminary injunction and
requested a stay, which the Appeals Court granted in a published
order. Swain v. Junior, 958 F.3d 1081, 1092 (11th Cir. 2020).

A motions panel of the Appellate Court stayed the injunction
pending resolution of the Defendants' appeal. After considering the
merits, and with the benefit of outstanding written briefs and oral
arguments, the Appellate Court concludes that the District Court
erred in issuing the injunction.

The Appellate Court notes that it simply cannot conclude that, when
faced with a perfect storm of a contagious virus and the space
constraints inherent in a correctional facility, the Defendants
here acted unreasonably by doing their best. Because the Defendants
acted reasonably, they cannot be found liable under the Eighth
Amendment.

While the virus unquestionably poses a serious threat to inmates,
the District Court gave insufficient consideration to the burdens
with which the injunction would saddle the Defendants, according to
the Appellate Court. And to be clear, this is not solely about
weighing health and safety against security and administrative
efficiency, it is also about weighing health and safety against
health and safety. As the Appellate Court explained in its stay
order, the injunction stripped away at least some of the
Defendants' discretion to allocate scarce resources among different
county operations necessary to fight the pandemic.

The District Court, therefore, erred in failing to consider the
damage its proposed injunction may cause the Defendants.

Accordingly, the Appellate Court vacates the injunction and remands
the case to the District Court.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' June 15, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/zVKD5w from Leagle.com


NEW YORK: Doe Sues in N.D. New York Over Civil Rights Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Howard Zucker, et al.
The case is captioned as Jane Doe, on behalf of herself and her
minor child; and Childrens Health Defense and all others similarly
situated, et al. v. Howard Zucker, in his official capacity as
Commissioner of Health for the State of New York, et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-00840-BKS-CFH (N.D.N.Y., July 23, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Brenda K. Sannes.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.

The Plaintiffs include Zane BBoe, Sr., on behalf of herself and her
minor child; John Coe, Sr., on behalf of himself and his minor
children; Jane Coe, Sr., on behalf of herself and her minor
children; John Foe, Sr., on behalf of himself and his minor child;
Jane Goe, Sr., on behalf of herself and her minor child; Jane Loe,
on behalf of herself and her medically fragile child; and Jane Joe,
on behalf of herself and her medically fragile child.

The Defendants include M.D. Elizabeth Rausch-Phung in her official
capacity as Director of the Bureau of Immunizations at the New York
State Department of Health; New York State Department of Health;
Three Village Central School District; Cheryl Pedisich, acting in
her official capacity as Superintendent, Three Village Central
School District; Corinne Keane, acting in her official capacity as
Principal, Paul J. Gelinas Jr. High School, Three Village Central
School District; Lansing Central School District; Chris
Pettograsso, acting in her official capacity as Superintendent,
Lansing Central School District; Christine Rebera, acting in her
official capacity as Principal, Lansing Middle School, Lansing
Central School District; Lorri Whiteman, acting in her official
capacity as Principal, Lansing Elementary School, Lansing Central
School District; Penfield Central School District; Dr. Thomas
Putnam, acting in his official capacity as Superintendent, Penfield
Central School District; South Huntington School District; Dr.
David P. Bennardo, acting in his official capacity as
Superintendent, South Huntington School District; BR. David
Migliorino, acting in his official capacity as Principal, St.
Anthony's High School, South Huntington School District; Ithaca
City School District; DR. Luvelle Brown, acting in his official
capacity as Superintendent, Ithaca City School District; Susan
Eschbach, acting in her official capcity as Principal, Beverly J.
Martin Elementary School, Ithaca City School District; Shenendehowa
Central School District; DR. L. Oliver Robinson, acting in his
official capacity as Superintendent, Shenendehowa Central School
District; Sean Gnat, acting in his official capacity as Principal,
Koda Middle School, Shenendehowa Central School District; Andrew
Hills, acting in his official capacity as Principal, Arongen
Elementary School, Shenendehowa Central School District;
Coxsackie-Athens School District; Randall  Squier, Superintendent,
acting in his official capacity as Superintendent, Coxsackie-Athens
School District; Freya Mercer, acting in her official capacity as
Principal, Coxsackie-Athens School District; Albany City School
District; Kaweeda G. Adams, acting in her official capacity as
Superintendent, Albany City School District; Michael Paolino,
acting in his official capacity as Principal, William S. Hackett
Middle School, Albany City School District; and all others
similarly situated.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael H. Sussman, Esq.
          SUSSMAN, WATKINS LAW FIRM
          1 Railroad Avenue
          P.O. Box 1005
          Goshen, NY 10924
          Telephone: (845) 294-3991
          Facsimile: (845) 294-1623
          E-mail: sussman1@frontiernet.net

               - and -

          Sujata S. Gibson, Esq.
          THE GIBSON LAW FIRM, PLLC
          418 East State Street
          Ithaca, NY 14850
          Telephone: (607) 327-4125
          E-mail: sujata@gibsonfirm.law


OASIS PETROLEUM: Wright Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANTOINE WRIGHT, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated v.
OASIS PETROLEUM LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-02674 (S.D. Tex., July 30,
2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages
from Oasis Petroleum under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Day Rate Consultants
regularly worked more than 40 hours a week but Oasis did not pay
them overtime. Instead of paying overtime pay as required by the
FLSA, Oasis classifies its Consultants as independent contractors
and pays them a flat amount for each day worked.

Antoine Wright worked for Oasis as a Safety Consultant from October
2017 until September 2018.

Oasis Petroleum is a company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration and
hydraulic fracturing in the Williston Basin, as well as in the
Delaware Basin of the Permian Basin in West Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  tjones@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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


OTAY MESA, CA: Alvarez Appeals Prisoner Suit Ruling to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs-Petitioners Jacinto Victor Alvarez, et al., filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Jacinto Alvarez,
et al. v. Christoher LaRose, et al., Case No.
3:20-cv-00782-DMS-AHG, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, San Diego.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jul. 7,
2020, the Hon. Judge Dana M. Sabraw entered an order:

   1. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction;
      and

   2. denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for certification
      of the following class:

      "all people detained pretrial or post-conviction by the
      United States Marshal Service at Otay Mesa who are aged 45
      or older or who have medical conditions that place them at
      heightened risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19."

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs are requesting the Court to impose
a reduction of the prison population at OMDC as the first step in
addressing the facility's COVID-19 outbreak. The Court, however,
cannot order such relief without first following the PLRA's
requirements. The Plaintiffs, therefore, have failed to establish a
likelihood of success on the merits of their claim."

The appellate case is captioned as Jacinto Alvarez, et al. v.
Christoher LaRose, et al., Case No. 20-55795, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners-Appellants JACINTO VICTOR ALVAREZ, JOSEPH
BRODERICK, MARLENE CANO, JOSE CRESPO-VENEGAS, NOE GONZALEZ-SOTO,
VICTOR LARA-SOTO, RACQUEL RAMCHARAN, GEORGE RIDLEY, MICHAEL JAMIL
SMITH, LEOPOLDO SZURGOT, and JANE DOE, on behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated, are represented by:

          Mitra Ebadolahi, Esq.
          John David Loy, Esq.
          Sarah D. Thompson, Esq.
          Bardis Vakili, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN DIEGO AND IMPERIAL COUNTIES
          P.O. Box 87131
          San Diego, CA 92138-7131
          Telephone: (619) 232-2121
          Facsimile: (619) 232-2121
          E-mail: mebadolahi@aclusandiego.org
                  davidloy@aclusandiego.org
                  sthompson@aclusandiego.org
                  bvakili@aclusandiego.org

               - and -

          Sirine Shebaya, Esq.
          NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT OF THE
          NATIONAL LAWYERS' GUILD
          2201 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 656-4788
          E-mail: sirine@nipnlg.org

               - and -

          Alexander Simkin, Esq.
          ROPES & GRAY LLP
          1211 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 596-9744
          E-mail: alexander.simkin@ropesgray.com

Defendants-Respondents-Appellees CHRISTOHER J. LAROSE, Senior
Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center; STEVEN C. STAFFORD, United
States Marshal for the Southern District of California; and DONALD
W. WASHINGTON, Director of the United States Marshals Service, are
represented by:

          Douglas Keehn, Esq.
          Brett Norris, Esq.
          Paul Starita, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE US ATTORNEY
          880 Front Street, Room 6293
          San Diego, CA 92101-8893
          Telephone: (619) 546-7573
          E-mail: douglas.keehn@usdoj.gov
                  brett.norris@usdoj.gov


PLAYAGS INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 24 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of PlayAGS, Inc. (NYSE: AGS) between
August 2, 2018 and August 7, 2019, 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
PlayAGS investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the PlayAGS class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1885.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) PlayAGS was experiencing challenges in its business in
Oklahoma; (2) as a result, the Company's recurring revenue would be
negatively impacted; (3) PlayAGS was experiencing challenges in its
Interactive business segment, including delays in securing
regulatory approvals and relevant licenses; (4) as a result of the
foregoing, PlayAGS was reasonably likely to record a goodwill
impairment; and (5) as a result, defendants' statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to 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-1885.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 achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

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


PROASSURANCE CORP: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of August 17 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of ProAssurance Corporation
("ProAssurance" or the "Company") investors that acquired
ProAssurance securities (NYSE: PRA) between April 26, 2019 and May
7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information. If you suffered a loss you have until
August 17, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff.

ProAssurance provides medical liability insurance to providers in
the United States. ProAssurance's most important division is its
Specialty Property and Casualty segment ("Specialty P&C"), which
has consistently accounted for at least 60% of the Company's gross
premiums written since 2015.

The complaint filed in this lawsuit alleges that during the Class
Period, Defendants misrepresented the Company's underwriting and
reserve standards, and failed to adequately reserve for losses.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) ProAssurance lacked adequate
underwriting process and risk management controls necessary to set
appropriate loss reserves in its Specialty P&C segment; (ii)
ProAssurance failed to properly assess a large national healthcare
account that experienced losses far exceeding the assumptions made
when the account was underwritten; and (iii) as a result,
ProAssurance was subject to a materially heightened risk of
financial loss and reserve charges.

On January 22, 2020, ProAssurance announced that because of a
deteriorating loss experience related primarily to one large
healthcare account underwritten in 2016, the Company was estimating
a $37 million adverse development in its Specialty P&C loss
reserves for the fourth quarter of 2019. Additionally, the Company
stated that since mid-2019 it had been executing a "comprehensive
underwriting strategy in response to emerging trends and changing
conditions in healthcare professional liability." In response to
these disclosures, ProAssurance's stock price fell $4.18 per share,
or 11%, to close at $33.40 per share on January 23, 2020.

On February 20, 2020, ProAssurance announced its 2019 fourth
quarter and full year results. The Company revealed that the
adverse development from this one large national healthcare account
was actually $51.5 million, much larger than the initial estimate
of $37 million only a month prior.

Then, on May 8, 2020, ProAssurance announced that the large
healthcare 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. This loss, when combined with the $51.5 adverse development,
meant that the Company would suffer over $100 million in losses
from a single account.

In response to these disclosures, ProAssurance's stock price fell
$4.38 per share, or 22%, to close at $15.95 per share on May 8,
2020.

Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information. If you suffered a loss you have until
August 17, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff.

The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
against caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner
has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]


PROASSURANCE CORP: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 17 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of ProAssurance Corporation (NYSE:
PRA) between April 26, 2019 and May 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important August 17, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline
in the case. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for ProAssurance
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the ProAssurance class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1879.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) ProAssurance lacked adequate underwriting process and
risk management controls necessary to set appropriate loss reserves
in its Specialty Property and Casualty segment; (2) ProAssurance
failed to properly assess a large national healthcare account that
experienced losses far exceeding the assumptions made when the
account was underwritten; and (3) as a result, ProAssurance was
subject to materially heightened risk of financial loss and reserve
charges. 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-1879.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 achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

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


PROSHARES ULTRA: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of
ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil.  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 Frank R. Cruz to discuss their legal
rights in these class actions at 310-914-5007 or by email to
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com.

ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil (NYSEArca: UCO)
Class Period:  March 6, 2020 - April 27, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline:  September 28, 2020

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, UCO 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
extraordinary market volatility caused by decreased demand for oil
from the coronavirus pandemic and increased oil supply and
diminished oil prices caused by the Russia/Saudi oil price war; (2)
that a massive influx of investor capital into the Fund, totaling
hundreds of millions of dollars, in a matter of days, which
increased Fund inefficiencies, heightened illiquidity in the WTI
futures contract markets in which the Fund invested, and caused the
Fund to approach positional and regulatory limits (adverse trends
exacerbated by the Offering itself); and (3) that a sharp
divergence between spot and future prices in the WTI oil markets,
leading to a super contango market dynamic as oil storage space in
Cushing, Oklahoma dwindled and was insufficient to account for the
excess supply expected to be delivered pursuant to the WTI May 2020
futures contract; (4) as a result, UCO could not continue to pursue
the passive investment strategy represented in the Registration
Statement, causing its results to significantly deviate from its
purported benchmark.

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

PROSHARES ULTRA: Rosen Law Announces Class Action Filing
--------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on July 29
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil
(NYSEArca: UCO) between March 6, 2020 and April 27, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for UCO
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the UCO class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1909.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) extraordinary market volatility caused by decreased
demand for oil from the coronavirus pandemic and increased oil
supply and diminished oil prices caused by the Russia/Saudi oil
price war; (2) a massive influx of investor capital into the Fund,
totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, in a matter of days,
which increased Fund inefficiencies, heightened illiquidity in the
WTI futures contract markets in which the Fund invested, and caused
the Fund to approach positional and regulatory limits (adverse
trends exacerbated by the Offering itself); (3) a sharp divergence
between spot and future prices in the WTI oil markets, leading to a
super contango market dynamic as oil storage space in Cushing,
Oklahoma dwindled and was insufficient to account for the excess
supply expected to be delivered pursuant to the WTI May 2020
futures contract. As a result, UCO could not continue to pursue the
passive investment strategy represented in the Registration
Statement, causing its results to significantly deviate from its
purported benchmark. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
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-1909.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 achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Contact Information:

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


ROOFLINE INC: Rojo Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ANGEL ROJO, an Individual, On
Behalf of Himself, All Others Similarly Situated, and On Behalf of
the General Public as Private Attorneys v. ROOFLINE, INC., a Texas
Corporation, ROOFLINE SUPPLY & DELIVERY, a California Corporation;
and DOES 1 through 250, Case No. 34-2020-00279923 (Filed June 3,
2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Sacramento to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California on July 30, 2020.

The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-at-00751 to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for Fair
Employment and Housing Act retaliation; FEHA disability
discrimination; failure to accommodate; failure to engage in the
interactive process; failure to prevent discrimination, harassment,
or retaliation in violation of FEHA; wrongful termination in
violation of public policy; and violation of Labor Code.

Roofline was founded in 2006. The Company's line of business
includes the wholesale distribution of roofing, siding, and
insulation materials.[BN]

Defendant Roofline is represented by:

          Aaron H. Cole, Esq.
          Melis Atalay, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213 239-9800
          Facsimile: 213 239-9045
          E-mail: aaron.cole@ogletree.com
                  melis.atalay@ogletree.com


SERVICEMASTER: Teamsters Suit Moved From to M.D. to W.D. Tenn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as TEAMSTERS LOCAL 237 WELFARE
FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
v. SERVICEMASTER GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC., NIKHIL M. VARTY and ANTHONY
D. DiLUCENTE, Case No. 3:20-cv-00457 (Filed May 1, 2020), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee on July 30, 2020.

The Western District of Tennessee Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-02553-JTF-tmp to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge John T. Fowlkes, Jr.

The lawsuit is a securities fraud class action on behalf of all
purchasers of ServiceMaster common stock between February 26, 2019,
and November 4, 2019, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against ServiceMaster and the
Company's most senior executives.

ServiceMaster provides services to residential and commercial
customers in the termite, pest control, cleaning and restoration
markets. ServiceMaster's largest and most profitable business
segment is Terminix, a termite and pest control business that
operates primarily in the United States. In 2019, the Terminix
segment represented approximately 87% of the Company's
revenues.[BN]

Plaintiff Teamsters Local 237 Welfare Fund Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated is represented by:

          Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
          Christopher M. Wood, Esq.
          Danielle S. Myers, Esq.
          Debra J. Wyman, Esq.
          Michael Albert, Esq.
          Rachel A. Cocalis, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP (SAN DIEGO)
          655 W Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
                  cwood@rgrdlaw.com
                  danim@rgrdlaw.com
                  debraw@rgrdlaw.com
                  malbert@rgrdlaw.com
                  rcocalis@rgrdlaw.com

Movant Scott Torppey is represented by:

          John Tate Spragens, Esq.
          SPRAGENS LAW PLC
          311 22nd Ave. N.
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 983-8900
          Facsimile: (615) 682-8533
          E-mail: john@spragenslaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alexandra M. Ortiz Hadley, Esq.
          Charles Malone, Esq.
          John C. Hayworth, Esq.
          BUTLER SNOW LLP
          150 Third Avenue South, Suite 1600
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 651-6728
          Facsimile: (615) 651-6701
          E-mail: alexa.ortiz@butlersnow.com
                  Charlie.Malone@butlersnow.com
                  John.Hayworth@butlersnow.com

               - and -

          Jason Gerstein, Esq.
          Timothy E. Hoeffner, Esq.
          MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
          The Pinnacle at Symphony Place
          E-mail: jgerstein@mwe.com
                  thoeffner@mwe.com


SIMPLIFIED LABOR: Shackelford Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as LEONARD EARL SHACKELFORD, an
individual, and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. SIMPLIFIED LABOR STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC., a California
corporation; DAMCO DISTRIBUTION SERVICES INC, a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV39975
(Filed Nov. 6, 2019), was removed from the California Superior
Court for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on July 30, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-06846 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Labor Code, including
failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages;
failure to provide meal periods; and failure to provide rest
periods.

Simplified Labor is a recruiting and staffing provider that
specializes in placing administrative, clerical, and customer
service. Damco Distribution provides logistics services.[BN]

Defendant Damco represented by:

          Mark D. Kemple, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
          3 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
          Telephone: 310-586-7700
          Facsimile: 310-586-7800
          E-mail: kemplem@gtlaw.com


SPRINGBORO COMMUNITY: Court Allows Parents to Use Pseudonyms
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western
Division, issued an Order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave
to Proceed Pseudonymously in the case captioned JOHN AND JANE DOE
NO. 1, et al., Plaintiffs v. SPRINGBORO COMMUNITY CITY SCHOOL
DISTRICT, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-785 (S.D. Ohio).

The Plaintiffs, the parents/guardians of 22 different first-grade
students, have filed suit against Defendants John Hopkins, Carrie
Corder, and Daniel Schroer (Individual Defendants). The Plaintiffs
have also filed suit against Defendant Springboro Community City
School District (Springboro). Defendant Hopkins was a physical
education teacher at Clearcreek Elementary during the 2018-2019
school year. Defendant Corder was the principal of Clearcreek
Elementary during the 2018-2019 school year, and Defendant Schroer
was the superintendent of Springboro during the 2018-2019 school
year.

In their first amended complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that,
during the 2018-2019 school year, Defendant Hopkins sexually abused
numerous first-grade students. The Plaintiffs also allege that, by
allowing Defendant Hopkins's conduct to persist, the other
Defendants failed to afford those first-grade students a safe
educational environment. The Plaintiffs assert a/an: (I) Title IX
claim; (II) Section 1983 claim; (III) "reckless supervision/failure
to monitor, discover, and report" claim; (IV) assault and battery
claim; (V) IIED claim; and (VI) injunctive relief claim. The
Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, compensatory and punitive damages.

As a general matter, a complaint must state the names of all the
parties. In certain circumstances, however, courts may excuse
plaintiffs from identifying themselves, citing Doe v. Porter, 370
F.3d 558, 560 (6th Cir. 2004).

According to the Order, the balance of the factors identified in
Porter weighs in favor of the Plaintiffs' position. In this case,
challenging governmental activity, factor (1) Plaintiffs allege
that Defendant Hopkins sexually abused numerous first-grade
students, and that the other Defendants failed to afford those
first-grade students a safe educational environment.

Plainly, the Plaintiffs will be required to disclose information of
the utmost intimacy in order to prosecute this case (factor (2).
And plainly, the privacy of each of the seven- to eight-year-old
children the Plaintiffs represent is at-issue (factor (4). Thus,
while this case will not require the Plaintiffs to disclose any
intention to violate the law (factor (3), there is no question that
the Plaintiffs' privacy interests substantially outweigh the
presumption of open judicial proceedings.

Accordingly, the Court grants the motion for leave to proceed
pseudonymously. Within 21 days of the date of this Order, the
parties shall confer by telephone, and submit a stipulated
protective order to the Court, which addresses the Plaintiffs'
confidentiality concerns. If the parties cannot agree on the terms
of a stipulated protective order, they shall so inform the Court by
the same deadline.

The Court also ruled that the motion for leave to amend the first
amended complaint is granted, and the motion to partially dismiss
the first amended complaint is denied without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 8, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7zxsojx from Leagle.com


STEVENS TRANSPORT: Can Compel Arbitration in Parr Wage-Hour Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEREMY PARR et al., v. STEVENS TRANSPORT, INC. et al,
Civil Action No. 3:19-CV-2378-S (N.D. Tex.), Judge Karen Gren
Scholer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, granted Defendants Stevens Transports, Inc.
and Stevens Transport CD, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Individual
Arbitration.

The case is a putative wage-and-hour class action brought by
Plaintiffs Parr, Ronald Castle, and Julie Vines against Defendants
Stevens Transport, Inc. ("STI"), Stevens Transport CD, Inc. ("CD"),
and Does 1-10, under California law.  

STI and CD, Texas corporations engaged in the hauling and delivery
of freight, allegedly hired Parr, Castle, and Vines as truck
drivers.  Specifically, the Defendants hired Parr, a resident of
Missouri or Texas, and Castle, a resident of Arizona, as employees;
and, entered into an independent contractor arrangement with Vines,
a resident of Texas.

Importantly, individuals employed with STI, like Parr and Castle,
attend a three-day orientation in Texas, where they execute certain
paperwork and enter into a Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims.
CD's independent contractors, like Vines, are individuals who own
or lease their own trucks, and who enter into independent
contractor agreements with CD in Texas that include the Arbitration
Agreement.

The Defendants allow employees and independent contractors to ask
questions about the Arbitration Agreement, to take it home for
further review, and to discuss it with others, including an
attorney.  In fact, the Arbitration Agreement requires the
signatory to acknowledge that he or she has been given the
opportunity to discuss the Arbitration Agreement with his or her
private legal counsel and that the signatory has availed him- or
herself of that opportunity to the extent desired.  Parr, Castle,
and Vine each signed the Arbitration Agreement with either STI or
CD while in Texas.

According to the Arbitration Agreement, arbitration was to occur
under the auspices of Judicial Workplace Arbitration, Inc.'s Rules
& Procedures for Arbitration, and the Defendants would pay the fees
and costs of the arbitrator and the arbitration hearing.
Additionally, each agreement included an express class action
waiver.  The agreements also contained forum-selection and
choice-of-law provisions, that required arbitration to take place
in Dallas, Texas, under the substantive law (and the law of
remedies, if applicable) of the State of Texas, or federal law, or
both.  Finally, the Arbitration Agreement delegated all issues,
other than those pertaining to the class waiver.

Based on the parties' Arbitration Agreement, the Defendants filed
the present Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration.  As the
parties agree, state law, rather than federal law, dictates the
enforceability of the arbitration agreement and the class-action
waiver, because the Plaintiffs are interstate truck drivers who
qualify for the Federal Arbitration Act's "transportation worker"
exemption.  The parties disagree, however, as to whether Texas law
or California law applies.

Judge Scholer finds that the Plaintiffs did not demonstrate that
California has a materially greater interest than the chosen state
in the determination of the enforceability of the Arbitration
Agreement and class-action waiver.  Their own contacts with
California are dubious.  The Plaintiffs are not California
residents.  Parr logged 10.2% of his mileage in California over 7
months; Castle logged 10.4% over 3.5 years; and Vines logged 6.55%
over almost 4 years.

Similarly, the Arbitration Agreements at issue were signed while
the Plaintiffs were physically in Texas.  The Defendants are
incorporated and headquartered in Texas, manage their business
activities and operations in Texas, and retain drivers as Texas
employees for purposes of unemployment and workers' compensation.
Of the Defendants' drivers, 9 out of 3,248 were California
residents, while 1,122 were Texas residents; similarly, 8 out of
1,176 independent contractors were California residents, while 404
were Texas residents.

Given the parties' significant interaction with Texas and minimal
interaction with California, the Judge finds that California does
not have a materially greater interest in determining the
enforceability of the arbitration agreement and the class-action
waiver.  Consequently, the Judge applies Texas law in determining
the enforceability of the arbitration agreement and the class
action waiver pursuant to the parties' choice-of-law provision.
The proper procedure is for her to first determine if there is a
binding arbitration agreement that delegates arbitrability to the
arbitrator.  If there is such an agreement, she must then compel
arbitration so the arbitrator may decide gateway issues the parties
have agreed to arbitrate.

The Judge finds that, pursuant to Texas law, the parties entered
into an arbitration agreement.  Furthermore, the Plaintiffs do not
dispute that they entered into the Arbitration Agreements.  Rather,
they contend that the Court should not enforce the Arbitration
Agreements because: (1) the choice-of-law provision contained
therein purports to eliminate all of the claims the Plaintiffs
bring in the case; and (2) the agreements are unconscionable
because they are contracts of adhesion, they were signed due to
oppression, the Defendants did not provide them with the rules that
would govern any arbitration, the agreements permit the Defendants
to seek certain exclusive remedies, and require the parties to
attempt to resolve the dispute through direct negotiation.

However, these arguments do not challenge the validity of contract
formation, but represent affirmative defenses against the
enforcement of a presumptively formed contract.  The parties
expressly delegated the determination of any issues related to
interpretation, applicability, or enforceability of the Arbitration
Agreements to the arbitrator, and the Judge is not at liberty to
rewrite the parties' contract or add to its language.  It is
especially true given that the Plaintiffs' arguments pertain to the
entirety of the agreements -- i.e., including the choice-of-law
provision, the Class Action Waiver, etc. -- and not solely to the
arbitration clause.

Furthermore, the Judge declines the Plaintiffs' invitation to reach
these gateway issues by finding that any conclusion other than that
the agreements are unconscionable is "wholly groundless.  The
Supreme Court in Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc.
rejected the "wholly groundless" exception, and directed courts to
enforce the parties' agreement even if the court believes "the
arbitrator will inevitably conclude that the dispute is not
arbitrable.  While Henry Schein involved the Federal Arbitration
Act, the "wholly groundless" exception does not appear in the Texas
Arbitration Act, and Texas courts look to federal case law
construing the FAA for guidance because of the similarities between
the two acts.  Pursuant to Henry Schein, therefore, the Judge finds
that all issues related to the interpretation, applicability, or
enforceability of the Arbitration Agreements, will be decided by
the Arbitrator.

Finally, Texas courts routinely compel cases to individual
arbitration where, as in the case, the clear language of the
parties' agreement expressly forbids class actions.  In fact, the
Plaintiffs do not contest the validity of the Class Action Waiver
under Texas law.  Absent any argument or basis to hold the class
action waiver provision internally invalid, the Judge must conclude
it applies.

For the reasons discussed, Judge Scholer granted the Defendants'
Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration.  Any challenges to the
enforceability or scope of the Arbitration Agreements must be
decided by the arbitrator.  The action will be stayed and
administratively closed pending the outcome of arbitration.  The
Judge directed the Clerk of Court to administratively close the
case until such time as the Court orders it to be reopened.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 5, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/tMCzuR from
Leagle.com.


TACO BELL: Dominguez Appeals Rulings in ADA Suit to 2nd Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Yovanny Dominguez filed an appeal from the District
Court's Opinion and Order dated June 17, 2020, Order dated July 6,
2020, and Judgment dated July 6, 2020, issued in his lawsuit
entitled Dominguez v. Taco Bell Corp., Case No. 19-cv-10172, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Dominguez v. Taco Bell Corp.,
Case No. 20-2498, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Yovanny Dominguez, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER
PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, is represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSCOIATES
          150 East 18th Street
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com

               - and -

          Oliver Koppell, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF G. OLIVER KOPPELL & ASSOCIATES
          99 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 867-3838
          E-mail: okoppell@koppellaw.com

               - and -

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
          175 Varick Street
          New York, NY 10014
          Telephone: (646) 770-3775
          E-mail: bmarkslaw@gmail.com

Defendant-Appellee Taco Bell Corp. is represented by:

          David Raizman, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          400 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 438-1285
          E-mail: david.raizman@ogletree.com


TAP ROCK: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Martin Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GARY MARTIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. TAP ROCK RESOURCES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 20 CV 00170 WJ-CG (D. N.M.), Judge William P.
Johnson of the U.S. District Court for the New Mexico denied the
Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Original Complaint.

The Plaintiff commenced the lawsuit against Tap Rock to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages, as a collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and as a Rule 23 Class
Action under the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.  He worked for Tap
Rock as a Drilling Consultant from approximately February 2018
until October 2018.

Tap Rock is an oil and gas company doing business throughout the
United States and is focused on Exploration and Production in the
geological formation known as the Delaware Basin.  

The Plaintiff claims that Tap Rock used day-rate contractors in New
Mexico and Texas and that he and other workers like him worked for
more than 40 hours each week.  Instead of paying these workers
overtime, Tap Rock misclassified them as independent contractors
and paid them a daily rate with no overtime pay.  The Plaintiff and
the putative class members seek overtime wages equal to 1 and
one-half times their regular rates for each overtime hour worked in
excess of 40 hours in any one week, including all available penalty
wages.

The Plaintiff alleges that he represents at least two classes of
similarly situated co-workers, that is, a FLSA class and a NMMWA
class.  The FLSA class of similarly situated workers is alleged to
consist of all oilfield workers employed by or performing work on
behalf of Tap Rock who were classified as independent contractors
and paid a day-rate without overtime during the past three years
and is referred to as "the Day-Rate Workers."  He alleges that the
New Mexico class consists of all oilfield workers employed by or
performing work on behalf of Tap Rock in New Mexico who were
classified as independent contractors and paid a day-rate without
overtime during the past three years and refers to this class as
"the New Mexico Class."  The "Day-Rate Workers" and the "New Mexico
Class" comprise the putative class members.

The Defendant seeks dismissal of the Plaintiff's collective action
claims under the FLSA; as well as the class action claims under the
NMMWA.  Federal jurisdiction in the case arises pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1331 and under the FLSA.

The Defendant moves for dismissal under the familiar Iqbal-Twombly
standard for dismissal of claims under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).  In
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the U.S.
Supreme Court held that to withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss, a complaint must contain enough allegations of fact, taken
as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.
Although the Twombly and Iqbal pleading standard does not require
detailed factual allegations, a complaint must give the defendant
fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it
rest.

The Plaintiff urges the Court to defer review of the complaint
until after he moves for conditional certification, claiming that
some courts have held it was premature to dismiss FLSA collective
actions based on the pleadings alone, before a plaintiff has had an
opportunity to develop a record.  

Looking to Tenth Circuit precedent in Thiessen v. Gen. Elec.
Capital Corp., Judge Johnson holds that a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss is appropriate to challenge the sufficiency of class
allegations when the plaintiffs have not moved for conditional
certification.  At the same time, it is also clear that a
full-scale inquiry into the allegations is not called for at the
pleading stage.  He will therefore review the complaint to
determine whether the Plaintiff has stated a plausible entitlement
to relief by the putative class members and which is sufficient to
provide fair notice to the Defendant and sufficient to survive a
motion to dismiss.

The Defendant claims that the Plaintiff fails to plead sufficient
facts to give fair notice to Tap Rock of the "similarly situated"
Putative Class about their job duties, titles, or details regarding
entitlement to overtime.  The Plaintiff contends that the category
of "oilfield workers" is not vague and overbroad and that the
allegations in the complaint are sufficient to withstand dismissal.


The Judge finds that the category of "oilfield workers" is not
vague and overbroad when considered together with the other
allegations in the complaint, which provides a plausible
description of the putative class.  The Judge also agrees with the
Plaintiff that the word "etc." at the end of the job title list
does not make the list overbroad or vague, nor does it suggest that
an endless litany of random job positions is being thrown into the
putative class mix.  

The complaint alleges a common compensation scheme which in itself
violates the FLSA, so that the particulars of each job description
is not as critical in identifying a putative class.  While the
Plaintiff's complaint may not be a model of pleading specificity,
it does squeak past Iqbal-Twombly standards, particularly when
compared with complaints that have been found to fall below
threshold requirements.  For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant's
motion to dismiss is denied as to the Plaintiff's FLSA claims.

Finally, the Defendant contends that the Plaintiff's Rule 23 class
action claims under the NMWWA should be dismissed for same lack of
specificity which it argues is fatal to the FLSA claims.  A
complaint need only give the defendant fair notice of what the
claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.  Having concluded
that the Plaintiff's complaint provides Defendant with such notice,
the Judge also denied the Defendant's motion with respect to the
Plaintiff's claims asserted under the NMWWA.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Johnson denied the Defendant's Rule
12(b)(6) Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Original Complaint.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 5, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/d3z6Jq from
Leagle.com.


TEXAS A&M: Lamberth Seeks Tuition Refunds Due to COVID-19 Closure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUKE LAMBERTH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, and ELAINE MENDOZA,
TIM LEACH, PHIL ADAMS, ROBERT L. ALBRITTON, JAY GRAHAM, MICHAEL A.
HERNANDEZ III, BILL MAHOMES, MICHAEL J. PLANK, and CLIFF THOMAS, in
their official capacities as members of The Texas A&M University
System Board of Regents, Case No. 4:20-cv-02605 (S.D. Tex., July
23, 2020), is brought to seek refunds on behalf of all persons, who
paid or will pay tuition to attend one of the universities in the
A&M System for an in-person, hands-on education for the Spring 2020
semester and any Summer 2020 semester, and had their course work
moved to remote online learning.

According to the complaint, such persons paid all or part of the
tuition for the Spring 2020 semester and Summer 2020 semesters that
ranged from approximately $386.83 per credit hour to $1,603.27 per
credit hour for an undergraduate student and $506.33 per credit
hour to $1,706.15 per credit hour for a graduate student. Tuition
includes the payment of mandatory fees.

Beginning in March 2020, as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic,
the Universities moved to online instruction and ceased or severely
limited on-campus services, facilities, and activities. Even though
the Universities canceled in-person classes and failed to provide
the in-person services that the Mandatory Fees were intended to
cover, the Universities have not refunded to students any amount of
the tuition or Mandatory Fees.

The Plaintiff contends that A&M Students have paid substantial sums
to the Universities for a first-rate education and educational
experience, with all the appurtenant benefits offered by a
first-rate university, but have been provided a materially
deficient and insufficient alternative, which alternative
constitutes a decrease in value as compared to what was originally
contracted for. In effect, the Universities have unlawfully seized
and are in possession of property (funds) of A&M Students in the
form of paid tuition and Mandatory Fees.

The Plaintiff seeks, individually and on behalf of all other
students similarly situated, just compensation for the taking of
tuition and Mandatory Fees proportionate to the amount of time that
remained in the Spring 2020 semester when the Universities switched
to online distance.

The Plaintiff paid to attend the Spring 2020 semester at Texas A&M
University as a full-time undergraduate student.

The Texas A&M University System is a state university system in
Texas and is one of the state's six independent university
systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                  eciolko@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Bill Cobb, Esq.
          Ann Stehling, Esq.
          COBB & COUNSEL PLLC
          100 Congress Avenue, Suite 2000
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 693-7570
          Facsimile: (512) 233-2767
          E-mail: bill@cobbxcounsel.com
                  ann@cobbxcounsel.com


VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that class a
action lawsuit have been filed on behalf of shareholders of
Velocity Financial, 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 Frank R. Cruz to discuss their legal
rights in these class actions at 310-914-5007 or by email to
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com.

Velocity Financial, Inc. (NYSE: VEL)
Class Period:  January 2020 IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline:  September 28, 2020

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Velocity 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
at the time of Velocity's initial public offering (the "IPO"), the
Company's non-performing loans had dramatically increased in size
from the figures provided in the Registration Statement and
Prospectus that Velocity had issued in connection with the IPO; (2)
that defendants failed to provide any information to investors
regarding the potential impact of the novel coronavirus on
Velocity's business and operations, despite the fact that the
international spread of the virus had already been confirmed at the
time of the IPO; (3) as a result, the failure to disclose the
substantial and growing proportion of the Company's loans that were
non-performing and/or on non-accrual status as of the IPO rendered
the statements contained in the Registration Statement and
Prospectus regarding the quality of the Company's loan portfolio
and underwriting practices materially misleading. Follow us for
updates on Twitter: twitter.com/FRC_LAW.

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

VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
September 28, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased Velocity
Financial, Inc. ("Velocity" or the "Company") (NYSE: VEL)
securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement
issued in connection with the Company's January 2020 initial public
offering ("IPO").

Investors suffering losses on their Velocity 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.

In January 2020, Velocity completed its initial public offering
("IPO"), selling 7,250,000 shares at $13 per share and raising
approximately $94 million.

On May 13, 2020, the Company announced its financial results for
first quarter 2020, the same quarter in which the IPO was
conducted. Velocity reported a 50% decrease in net income and
disclosed that its loan originations would remain suspended
indefinitely, effectively halting potential growth in the Company's
loan portfolio. Moreover, the Company stated that its proportion of
non-performing loans had accelerated to $174 million, nearly double
the unpaid principal amount year over year.

Since the IPO, the Company's shares have traded as low as $2.47 per
share, or 80% below the $13 IPO price.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that 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 at the time of Velocity's
initial public offering (the "IPO"), the Company's non-performing
loans had dramatically increased in size from the figures provided
in the Registration Statement and Prospectus that Velocity had
issued in connection with the IPO; (2) that defendants failed to
provide any information to investors regarding the potential impact
of the novel coronavirus on Velocity's business and operations,
despite the fact that the international spread of the virus had
already been confirmed at the time of the IPO; (3) as a result, the
failure to disclose the substantial and growing proportion of the
Company's loans that were non-performing and/or on non-accrual
status as of the IPO rendered the statements contained in the
Registration Statement and Prospectus regarding the quality of the
Company's loan portfolio and underwriting practices materially
misleading.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Velocity securities pursuant
and/or traceable to the IPO, you may move the Court no later than
September 28, 2020, to ask the Court to appoint you as lead
plaintiff if you meet certain legal requirements. 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 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]

VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Wolf Haldenstein Announces Class Action Filing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a federal
class action securities lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
all persons or entities that purchased Velocity Financial, Inc.
("Velocity" or the "Company") (NYSE: VEL) pursuant to the Company's
January 2020 initial public stock offering ("IPO").

All investors who purchased American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") of
Velocity Financial, Inc. and incurred losses are urged to contact
the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or
(212) 545-4774.  

On January 22, 2020, Velocity sold 7,250,000 shares of stock in its
initial public stock offering at $13.00 per share, raising
$94,250,000 in new capital.

In its IPO offering documents, Velocity touted it "ha[d] developed
the highly-specialized skill set required to effectively compete in
this market" and that this allowed Velocity to have "a durable
business model capable of generating attractive risk-adjusted
returns for [its] stockholders throughout various business cycles."
However, Velocity's offering documents failed to disclose that many
of Velocity's loans were in non-accrual status and at least 90 days
past due by the time of its IPO.

Velocity's true financial condition was revealed on May 13, 2020,
when Velocity released its financial results for the first quarter
of 2020, revealing that its net income decreased 50% sequentially
during the first quarter to just $2.6 million and that its
proportion of non-performing loans had accelerated to $174 million,
nearly double the unpaid principal amount year-over-year. Velocity
later revealed that by April 2020, non-performing loans accounted
for 9.9% of the Company's total portfolio, which was expected, but
not disclosed in the offering materials.

On this news, Velocity's share price fell more than 80%, to close
at just $2.53 per share on May 15, 2020.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at  www.whafh.com.
Contact:

         Kevin Cooper, Esq.
         Gregory Stone
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
         Email: gstone@whafh.com
                kcooper@whafh.com  [GN]

WINS FINANCE: Bragar Eagel Reminds of September 23 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, on July 27 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of investors that purchased Wins
Finance Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: WINS) securities between October
31, 2018 and July 6, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have
until September 23, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as
lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Wins, through its subsidiaries, purports to provide financing
solutions for small and medium enterprises in the People's Republic
of China. The Company purports to offer financial guarantees, as
well as financial leasing, advisory, consultancy, and agency
services in Jinzhong City, Shanxi Province, and Beijing.

In 2014, Wins entered into a RMB 580 million credit agreement with
Guohong Asset Management Co., Ltd. (the "Guohong Loan"), pursuant
to which Guohong's repayment was due to Wins in October 2019.

In September 2017, Wins engaged Centurion ZD CPA & Co. ("CZD") as
its independent registered public accounting firm after dismissing
its previous accounting firm.

On October 31, 2019, Wins filed a notification of inability to
timely file Form 20-F on Form NT 20-F with the Securities and
Exchange Commission("SEC") (the "2019 NT 20-F").

The following trading day, the Company's stock price declined from
$11.90 to $11.20, or 5.8%.

On November 19, 2019, Wins issued a press release announcing its
receipt of a notification letter from the NASDAQ Listing
Qualifications and its intent to submit a plan of compliance,
adding that the filing of the 2019 20-F was untimely due to the
uncertainty over recovery of the Guohong Loan but assuring
investors that failure to collect on the loan would "not impact the
Company's ongoing operations."

Then, on May 26, 2020, Wins issued a press release announcing that
the Company received a delisting determination letter from Nasdaq.
The press release stated, in relevant part, "[a]s disclosed
previously, the Company is working assiduously to complete its
delinquent filing with SEC and to regain compliance with the Nasdaq
listing rule as soon as possible."

On this news, Wins's stock price closed at $7.81 per share on May
26, 2020, in contrast to its previous close of $10.06, a decline of
22.3%.

The Company's undisclosed ongoing financial
difficulties—including non-repayment of the Guohong Loan—and
material control weaknesses came to a head on June 30, 2020, when
CZD resigned as the Company's independent auditor after less than
three years in that role. On July 6, 2020, Wins issued a press
release announcing CZD's resignation.

On this news, Wins's stock price fell $2.06 per share, or 6.1%, to
close at $31.70 per share on July 7, 2020.

The Complaint, filed on July 24, 2020, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational, and
compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the
ultimate repayment of the RMB 580 million Guohong Loan was highly
uncertain; (ii) nonpayment of the Guohong Loan would have a
significant impact on the Company's financial and operating
condition; (iii) weaknesses in Wins's internal control over its
financial reporting persisted despite the Company's repeated
assurances to investors that it was taking steps to remediate these
weaknesses; (iv) the foregoing issues, among others, made the
resignation of Wins's independent auditor foreseeably likely; and
(v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

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

               About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

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


WIRECARD AMERICAN: Hagens Berman Appointed as Lead Counsel
----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman, who on May 6, 2019, was appointed Lead Counsel in
the securities class action brought on behalf of investors in
Wirecard American Depository Shares (ADS) before Hon. Fernando M.
Olguin, DelPoggetto v. Wirecard AG et al., 2:19-cv-00986-FMO-SK
(C.D. Cal.), notifies investors in Wirecard ADS purchased in the
United States with tickers WCAGY or WRCDF, that it will be filing
an amended complaint on Aug. 14, 2020, as directed by the court, to
include additional disclosures related to the original and amended
complaints.  To determine their membership in the putative class,
Hagens Berman urges Wirecard investors to submit their losses now.

The amended complaint will expand the alleged fraudulent period
from 2015 to more recent events in 2020 and name the company's
auditor, Ernst & Young, as an additional defendant. The amendments
will include the recent events, including ex-Wirecard CEO Markus
Braun's reported arrest and the widening criminal probes amid the
disclosed $2.1 billion missing from the company's balance sheet.
Lead counsel may add further parties and amendments.

Hagens Berman urges investors in Wirecard securities traded in the
United States, and persons with knowledge of the alleged fraud or
who could otherwise further assist with the investigation, to
contact the firm now:

Lead Counsel's & Lead Plaintiff's Pending Wirecard (WCAGY; WRCDF)
Securities Fraud Class Action:

The pending securities fraud case concerns Defendants' deliberate
use of improper accounting designed to inflate sales and profits.

On May 6, 2019, the Court appointed an individual Wirecard investor
Lead Plaintiff for the Class and Hagens Berman as Lead Counsel.

On Feb. 14, 2020, Lead Plaintiff filed a first amended class action
complaint.

Since this time, revelations about the full extent of the alleged
accounting fraud continued and became worse.  Most recently, The
Financial Times reported Munich prosecutors rearrested Braun on
suspicions Wirecard's accounting fraud began in 2015 and potential
damages to banks and investors could amount to the equivalent of
approximately $3.7 billion.

The court has granted Lead Plaintiff leave to file an amended
complaint on Aug. 14, 2020, which will expand the alleged
fraudulent period to cover recent stock drops caused by the
revelation of Wirecard's financial fraud, including the company's
June disclosures, the recent arrest of former CEO Markus Braun and
the apparent reckless audit failures of Ernst & Young (Germany).

"Wirecard's fraud is enormous and must have been assisted by
others. We are focusing our investigation on who knew what and
when, including their accountants," said Hagens Berman partner Reed
Kathrein.


                      About Hagens Berman

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

ZARA USA: Sosa Appeals Decisions in ADA Suit to Second Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Yony Sosa filed an appeal from the District Court's
Opinion and Order dated June 18, 2020, Order dated July 6, 2020,
and Judgment dated July 6, 2020, issued in his lawsuit entitled
Sosa v. Zara USA, Inc., Case No. 19-cv-10958, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Sosa v. Zara USA, Inc., Case No.
20-2544, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Yony Sosa, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, is represented by:

          Darryn G. Solotoff, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DARRYN G. SOLOTOFF
          25 Melville Park Road
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (516) 695-0052
          E-mail: ds@belllg.com

Defendant-Appellee Zara USA, Inc. is represented by:

          Sean J. Kirby, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          30 Rockefeller Plaza
          New York, NY 10112
          Telephone: (212) 653-8700
          E-mail: skirby@sheppardmullin.com


[*] Survey Confirms Prediction Regarding Class Action Spike
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa L. Miller, Esq. -- vmiller@foley.com -- John J. Atallah,
Esq. -- jatallah@foley.com -- Erik K. Swanholt, Esq. --
eswanholt@foley.com -- of Foley & Lardner LLP, in an article for
The National Law Review, report that the results of the ninth
annual Carlton Fields Class Action Survey confirms Foley & Lardner
LLP's recent forecast that businesses should be prepared for a
sharp uptick in class action lawsuits. Even pre-pandemic, there was
an upward trend in class action litigation. The survey published by
Carlton Fields earlier in July confirms that there have been an
astounding number of COVID-19-related class action lawsuits in the
past few months, with over 500 new putative class actions filed
since early spring.  Based on current trends, we expect that
filings will continue to mount.

The bulk of the recent class action filings involve disputes over
insurance claims (e.g., business interruption coverage disputes)
and lawsuits brought by students seeking reimbursement of tuition
and fees.

Two limited liability companies responsible for managing a pair of
San Francisco restaurants recently filed a putative class action
suit against their insurers, seeking declaratory relief in the form
of an order requiring said insurers to provide coverage for
business interruption expenses attributable to the COVID-19
pandemic.  See Boxed Foods Company, LLC, et al. v. California
Capital Insurance Co., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-04571 (N.D. Cal.
July 9, 2020).  Similarly, two companies responsible for operating
a local barbershop and barber academy in Virginia Beach filed a
putative class action lawsuit against their insurer, asserting a
more complex set of claims for breach of contract and declaratory
relief corresponding to four particular coverages.  Legacy Sports
Barbershop LLC, et al. v. Continental Casualty Co., Case No.
1:20-cv-04149 (N.D. Ill. July 14, 2020).  The defendant insurance
companies in both lawsuits have yet to file their responses to
these complaints, but there already are hundreds of
business-interruption-related class actions that have been filed in
recent months, with many more filings likely to follow.

As to the latter category, two private South Florida universities
were recently sued by students alleging, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, entitlement to partial refunds of
tuition and fees due to the suspension of on-campus instruction and
activities.  Ferretti v. Nova Southeastern University Inc., Case
No. 0:20-cv-61431 (S.D. Fla. July 15, 2020), and Gibson v. Lynn
University Inc., Case No. 9:20-cv-81173 (S.D. Fla. July 17, 2020).
On July 24, 2020, Lynn University filed a motion to dismiss based
primarily on written policies that disclaim student entitlement to
refunds of tuition and fees in the event operation of the
university is suspended for reasons outside its control.  In its
motion, the university also leaned heavily on the concept that
performance of any contractual obligations was rendered impossible
by public safety orders prohibiting on-campus instruction and
activities.  The motion will likely be decided in August.

Earlier this year, Columbia University, Cornell, and the University
of Southern California, among several others, were hit with similar
lawsuits brought by students demanding the reimbursement of tuition
and fees due to the campus closures necessitated by the COVID-19
pandemic.  See Student A v. The Board of Trustees of Columbia
University in the City of New York, Case No. 1:20-cv-03208
(S.D.N.Y. April 23, 2020); Olivia Haynie v. Cornell University,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00467 (N.D.N.Y April 23, 2020); Watson v. The
University of Southern California, Case No. 2:20-cv-04107 (S.D.
Cal. May 5, 2020).

The lawsuit against Columbia University has been among the more
active examples.  On June 22, 2020, Columbia University moved to
dismiss the plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, asserting both
that the plaintiffs failed to plead a specific and enforceable
contractual promise, and that the university was excused from
performance after March 22, 2020, when Governor Cuomo's executive
order prohibited the conduct of in-person classes at universities
across the state.  The district court granted the plaintiffs an
opportunity to amend, and they filed their Second Amended Complaint
on July 22, 2020.  Columbia University has yet to file its
response.

As colleges and universities across the country gear up for a
virtual fall semester, they are faced with uncertainty and a
constantly changing set of challenges.  The same is true of
consumer-facing businesses, many of which have been left in the
lurch by unpredictable changes in circumstance, including
stay-at-home orders prompted by the recent uptick of COVID-19 cases
in many major metropolitan areas.

As these class action claims play out in courts across the country,
companies and educational institutions will be able to distill and
implement important "lessons learned," including how to avoid or
minimize the risk of class action liability. Regardless of the
industry, companies can implement proactive measures to fortify
their operations and protect against future exposure stemming from
the pandemic. [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 ***