---

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

              Monday, August 24, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 169

                            Headlines

180 CONCRETE DESIGN: Godinez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
A-TEAM TRAPPERS: Fails to Pay Overtime, Estes Claims
ABBVIE INC: Faces Teamsters Antitrust Suit Over Bystolic Drug
ABC FINANCIAL: Cal. App. Flips Dismissal of Morar's HSSCA Claims
ADAMAS PHARMA: Class Actions Underway in California

ALDINE FORTUNE: Fernandes Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ALLSTATE: Policyholders File Class Action
ANCHOR DRILLING: $1.1M Settlement in Kapolka FLSA Suit Has Approval
ANTHEM INC: Appeal in Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Suit Pending
ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI: Sued in Kansas Over Trip Reimbursements

AT&T MOBILITY: N.D. Calif. Refuses to Dismiss Vianu Consumer Suit
ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Wins Partial Summary Judgment in Rolan Suit
AUSTRALIA: Latham & Watkins Attorneys Discuss Climate Change Suit
AUTO CARE WARRANTY: Moore Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls Ads
BAHAMAS PARADISE: Employees File Breach of Contract Class Action

BANKSIA: Norman O'Bryan Admits to Legal Costs Scandal
BAYER AG: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Sept. 14 Motion Deadline
BIG CITY: App. Court Upholds Dismissal of Maddicks Class Claims
BILLING CONCEPTS: Loses Bid to Cap Legent's Potential Recovery
BLYTHEVILLE, ARK: App. Court Upholds Dismissal of Carlock Suit

BROOKDALE SENIOR: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Aug. 24 Motion Deadline
CARDINAL INNOVATIONS: Misclassifies Care Coordinators, Ford Claims
CARNICERIA CESINA: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
CELGENE CORP: Court Narrows Claims in AMF Pensionsforsakring Suit
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Customers File NIS179 Million Class Action

CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY: Walsh Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
CHARLOTTE SCHOOL: Approval of $2.65MM Herrera Suit Deal Affirmed
CHEETAH MOBILE: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Aug. 24 Motion Deadline
CHEETAH MOBILE: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Aug. 25 Motion Deadline
CHICAGO BRIDGE: Kahn Swick Announces Pendency of Class Action

COMMONWEALTH EDISON: Brooks Alleges Bribery to Hike Electric Price
COMMUNITY CARE: Patient File Data Breach Class Action
CORPORATE EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Reinhardt Says
CSA TRAVEL: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Booking Refund
DEVA CONCEPTS: Hedges Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA

ECI MANAGEMENT: Court Says Aegis Must Pay to Defend Class Action
ENERGY RECOVERY: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 21 Motion Deadline
ESKATON VILLAGE: Cal. App. Flips in Part Judgment in Coley Suit
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Omits Material Merger Facts, Smith Claims
FRESH FARMS: Yarger Class Certification Bid Denied, Discovery OK'd

GENERAL MOTORS: Objections to Final Order in Teachers Suit Nixed
GGM LLC: Carmichael Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages
GLOBAL CREDIT: Alarco Sues in E.D. New York Over FDCPA Violation
GOOGLE INC: Settles Class Action Over 2018 Google+ Data Breach
GORDON AYLWORTH: Court Denies Dismissal of MacCartney Class Action

GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 23 Bid Deadline
HIGH QUALITY: Daschback Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
HIGHLAND DENTAL: Facility Not Accessible to Disabled, Romero Says
HINGHAM, MA: Court Junks State Law Claims in Belezos Class Action
HISCOX INSURANCE: Rochester Drug Wins Prelim. Injunction on Costs

IDAHO: Court Narrows Allen's Inmate Claims Under Section 1983
IHEART COMMUNICATIONS: Walker et al. Sue Over Retirement Plan
INSPERITY INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 21 Motion Deadline
INTEL CORP: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 28 Motion Deadline
INTEL CORP: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Sept. 28 Motion Deadline

ITALK GLOBAL: Wu Suit Moved From Super. Court to C.D. California
J&M SECURITIES: App. Court Upholds Dismissal of Mitchell Suit
J.R. ENGINEERING: Conditional Certification in Roberts Partly OK'd
JANUS HENDERSON: VelocityShares Class Suits Still Ongoing
JWB PROPERTIES: Fischer Seeks Minimum & Overtime Pay

K & A DESIGN: Misclassifies Stylists, Duncan Claims
KELLER WILLIAMS: Asher Sues in W.D. Texas Over Violation of TCPA
KORAL INDUSTRIES: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Fischler Claims
LA PECORA BIANCA: Wins Final OK of $462.5K Reeves Suit Settlement
LOS ANGELES, CA: Final Judgment in Garris Suit Affirmed in Part

LOS ANGELES, CA: Justice X Law Group Files Class Action
M B-REAL: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
MINNESOTA: Daywitt Sues DHS Alleging Violations of Civil Rights
MUNICIPAL HEALTH: Certification of 2 Classes in Hendrix Affirmed
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Anderson Files Injury Suit in S.D. Indiana

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Bloom Files Injury Suit in S.D. Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Byrd Files Personal Injury Suit in Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Hatch Personal Injury Suit in Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces McCurdy Injury Suit in S.D. Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Miroth Personal Injury Suit in Indiana

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Watson Personal Injury Suit in Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Gallardo Files Injury Suit in S.D. Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Glover Files Personal Injury Suit in Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Harris Files Personal Injury Suit in Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Mayer Files Personal Injury Suit in Indiana

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Reaves Files Personal Injury Suit in Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Taylor Files Personal Injury Suit in Indiana
NATURE REPUBLIC: Court Approves Stipulation to Dismiss Cooks Suit
NEIGHBORHOOD RESOURCES: Crump Sues in Del. Over FDCPA Violation
NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel Steps Down

NELNET INC: Class Suit Related to CARES Act Ongoing
NEW YORK: 2nd Circuit Appeal v. Amaro Filed in Gulino Bias Suit
NUCOR CORP: Fackler et al. Sue Over CGB's Lease Termination
ONE CALL: Galarza Says OT Unpaid, Claims Adjusters Misclassified
ONYX + ROSE: Baker Files Suit in Vermont Alleging TCPA Violation

PACCAR INC: Court Narrows Claims in Bowes Product Liability Suit
PAYPAL INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Cruz Claims
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Staniec Sues Over Refusal to Refund Race Fees
PHILIP MORRIS: Blais Class Suit in Canada Stayed
PHILIP MORRIS: Letourneau Class Action Suit Stayed

PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Rosen Law Reminds of Sept. 4 Motion Deadline
PLAYAGS INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Aug. 24 Motion Deadline
PROSHARES ULTRA: Schall Law Announces Class Action Filing
PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Certification in Suit v. LogistiCare Appealed
PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Lynch Suit Against Ride Plus Concluded

PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Patel Class Action Concluded
PURDUE PHARMA: Vermilion Intends to Join Opioid Class Action
QUIK FUND: Rosenberg Seeks Lost and Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
REV-A-SHELF CO: Paguada Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
RH INC: Settlement in Securities Suit Has Final Approval

SALINAS VALLEY: Faces Class Action Over Email Breaches
SAN FRANCISCO: App. Court Flips Dismissal of Carroll FEHA Suit
SHELBY COUNTY, TN: Bid to Substitute Party in Turnage Suit Granted
SHREWSBURY VOLKSWAGEN: Judge Wrong to Reduce Attorney Fees
SRG OPERATING: Picos Sues Over Unpaid Wages, OT & Meal/Rest Pay

STATUS: Plaintiffs Propose Alternative Methods to Serve Cases
SUBARU: Court Narrows Claims in Amato Defective Product Suit
SUBWAY FRANCHISEE: Shinn Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
T-MOBILE USA: Court OKs $8-Mil. Settlement in Salgado Labor Suit
TIKTOK: Families File Class Action in Illinois

TRANSUNION LLC: Traille Balks at Background Checks
TRI-STATE INSURANCE: La Cocina Seeks Coverage for COVID-19 Losses
U.S. OIL: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Class Action
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: BakerHostetler Discuss Arbitration Ruling
UNITED STATES: Hallinan's TRO Bid for FCC-Butner Inmates Denied

US TREASURY: Inmates Entitled to COVID-19 Pay, Galvan et al. Say
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Canadian Securities Class Action
VERMONT: Court Denies as Moot Russell's Class Certification Bid
VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Sept.14 Deadline
VIVINT SOLAR: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls, Barrett Says

VOLVO GROUP: Parcell Alleges Discrimination and Retaliation
WELLS FARGO: Court Dismisses McIntosh Wrongful Foreclosure Suit
WELLS FARGO: Nonprofits Receive Class Action Settlement Checks
WINS FINANCE: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 23 Motion Deadline
YALE UNIVERSITY: Connecticut Class Action Seeks Tuition Refund

[*] Gross Law Announces Several Shareholder Class Actions
[*] New Bill May Hamper Institutional Abuse Class Action Process
[*] Wisconsin Courts See Increase in ERISA Class Action Claims
[] China Allows Investors to File Capital Market Crime Class Suits
[] Ontario Class Suit Legislation Amendment May Hit Antitrust Suits


                            *********

180 CONCRETE DESIGN: Godinez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
ARTURO GODINEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 180 CONCRETE DESIGN, INC., 180 CONCRETE
WIND-UP, INC., and AUSTIN HARKINS, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 5:20-cv-00952 (W.D. Tex., August 13, 2020) brings this
collective action complaint against Defendants for their alleged
willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an installer.

Plaintiff claims that Defendant suffered and permitted him and
other similarly situated installers to work more than 40 hours per
week, but they were only paid on an hourly basis. Defendants
allegedly failed to pay them overtime premiums for all hours worked
beyond 40 per week.

Plaintiff seeks actual damages for the full amount of their unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's
fees, costs, and expenses, and pre- and post-judgment interest.

Austin Harkins is the President of both Corporate Defendants and
exercised managerial responsibilities and substantial control over
Defendants' employees.

180 Concrete Design, Inc. and 180 Concrete Wind-up, Inc. provide
commercial and residential concrete installation in and around San
Antonio, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
          MORELAND VERRETT, PC
          2901 Bee Cave Rd., Box L
          Austin, TX 78746
          Tel: (512) 782-0567
          Fax: (512) 782-0605
          Email: doug@morelandlaw.com


A-TEAM TRAPPERS: Fails to Pay Overtime, Estes Claims
----------------------------------------------------
JAMES ESTES, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. A-TEAM TRAPPERS, LLC and CHRISTOPHER COLE,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-01891-SDM-AAS (M.D.
Fla., August 13, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought
against Defendants for their alleged willful violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an Animal Wildlife Removal
Tech beginning in June 2019 and was eventually promoted to the
position of Animal Wildlife Removal Specialist.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff regularly and routinely
worked over 40 hours in a workweek, but he was not paid by
Defendant at one and one-half times his regular hourly rate for
each and every hour that he worked in excess of 40 hours in a work
week. Allegedly, Defendant failed to consider Plaintiff's total
remunerations when calculating his appropriate overtime rate each
week.

Christopher Cole is the President of A-Team Trappers, LLC and
exercised day to day control of operations and the supervision and
payment of its employees.

A-Team Trappers, LLC offers wildlife removal, prevention, cleanup
and treatments. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hunter A. Higdon, Esq.
          Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
          FLORIN GRAY BOUZAS OWENS, LLC
          16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
          Lutz, FL 33558
          Tel: (727) 254-5255
          Fax: (727) 483-7942
          Emails: Hunter@fgbolaw.com
                  wolfgang@fgbolaw.com


ABBVIE INC: Faces Teamsters Antitrust Suit Over Bystolic Drug
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case TEAMSTERS WESTERN REGION & LOCAL 177 HEALTH CARE PLAN, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff. v.
ABBVIE, INC., ALLERGAN, INC., ALLERGAN SALES, LLC, ALLERGAN USA,
INC., FOREST LABORATORIES, INC., FOREST LABORATORIES, LLC, FOREST
LABORATORIES HOLDINGS, LTD., and FOREST LABORATORIES IRELAND LTD.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-06647 (S.D.N.Y., August 19, 2020) is
an antitrust action seeking damages arising out of Defendants'
unlawful exclusion of generic substitutes for the branded drug
Bystolic.

Bystolic, the brand name for nebivolol hydrochloride or nebivolol
HCl, is a "beta blocker" used to treat high blood pressure.

To protect its monopoly profits, Forest entered into multiple
unlawful pay-for-delay deals (also known as "reverse-payment"
agreements) with each of its potential generic competitors for
Bystolic: Alkem Laboratories Ltd.; Amerigen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and Amerigen Pharmaceuticals, Ltd.; Generics Inc., USA, Glenmark
Generics Ltd., and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals S.A.; Hetero USA, Inc.
and Hetero Labs Ltd.; Indchemie Health Specialties Private Ltd.;
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Torrent Pharma, Inc.; and Watson
Pharma, Inc. and Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

The side-deals that Forest provided to each Generic Competitor were
intended to shield Forest from the risk of competition, and the
Generic Competitors readily accepted these exclusionary side-deals
to quit the patent fight.

According to the complaint, Defendants' monopoly power in the
nebivolol HCl market was maintained through willful exclusionary
conduct, as distinguished from growth or development as a
consequence of a legally-obtained valid patent, other
legally-obtained market exclusivity, a superior product, business
acumen, or historical accident.

Defendants' unlawful conduct injured Plaintiff and the proposed
Class by preventing generic nebivolol HCl manufacturers from
entering the market with competing generic products and has cost
Plaintiff and the proposed Class hundreds of millions of dollars in
overcharge damages.

Plaintiff Teamsters Western Region & Local 177 Health Care Plan is
a multiemployer health and welfare plan headquartered in Arizona
that provides self-funded healthcare coverage to over 40,000
employees and their family members.

Abbvie Inc., Allergan, Inc., Allergan Sales, LLC, Allergan USA,
Inc., Forest Laboratories, Inc., Forest Laboratories Holdings,
Ltd., and Forest Laboratories, LLC are pharmaceutical companies in
the U.S.

Forest Laboratories Ireland, Ltd. is a Dublin, Ireland-based
pharmaceutical company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick T. Egan, Esq.
          BERMAN TABACCO
          One Liberty Square
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 542-8300
          Facsimile: (617) 542-1194
          E-mail: pegan@bermantabacco.com

               - and -

          Todd A. Seaver, Esq.
          BERMAN TABACCO
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-3200
          Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
          E-mail: tseaver@bermantabacco.com

ABC FINANCIAL: Cal. App. Flips Dismissal of Morar's HSSCA Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Two,
issued an Opinion affirming in part and denying in part the
Superior Court's Order granting the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
in the case captioned ANA-MARIA MORAR, Plaintiff and Appellant v.
ABC FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case No.
A153508 (Cal. App.).

The Plaintiff and Appellant entered into a contract with two
entities for use of a fitness facility, and four months later was
diagnosed with various medical conditions that precluded her from
using that facility. She sought to cancel the contract based on
disability, which by statute, fitness service providers must do.
She was referred to an agent of the other contracting parties
responsible for processing such cancellation and refund requests
and was told she had not met the requirements for cancellation.
Eventually, she sued the two entities with which she had
contracted, as well as their agent, the company that had declined
her requests. The agent twice demurred on the ground that she
failed to state a claim against it.

Ms. Morar, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
filed a class action complaint against respondent ABC Financial
Services, Inc. (ABC) and two other entities, who are not parties to
this appeal, Accettura Bros., Inc., doing business as California
Ripped Fitness (Ripped Fitness), and National Financial Systems,
Inc., doing business as National Fitness Financial Systems (NFFS),
and 20 unnamed Doe defendants, asserting claims for violation of
the Health Studio Services Contract Act (HSSCA); the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act (CLRA); the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Bus. & Prof.
Code, Sections 17200-17210; and for conversion and declaratory
relief.

Thereafter, Ms. Morar filed a First Amended Complaint asserting the
same causes of action. ABC demurred to the First Amended Complaint,
contending she had failed to state a cause of action against it
under any of the statutes or for conversion or declaratory relief.
After briefing and argument, the trial court sustained the demurrer
but granted Ms. Morar leave to amend. She then filed a Second
Amended Complaint, again asserting the same causes of action. ABC
again demurred to the entire complaint, and after briefing and
argument the Superior Court of the State of California again
sustained the demurrer, this time without leave to amend. The
Superior Court then entered a judgment dismissing Ms. Morar's
claims against ABC.

The Plaintiff now appeals from the judgment dismissing the action
as against the agent, claiming the trial court erred in sustaining
the demurrer and denying her another opportunity to amend.

Disposition

The Appeals Court states it finds error in the Superior Court's
ruling sustaining the demurrer as the HSSCA, UCL and declaratory
relief causes of action. The Appeals Court reverses the judgment
dismissing Ms. Morar's claims against ABC for violation of the
HSSCA and the UCL and her claim seeking declaratory relief.

The Appeals Court affirms the Superior Court's judgment dismissing
Ms. Morar's causes of action against ABC under the CLRA and for
conversion. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' June 11, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycun44l2 from Leagle.com.


ADAMAS PHARMA: Class Actions Underway in California
---------------------------------------------------
Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend putative class action suits pending before the
California Superior Court for the County of Alameda (Case No.
RG1901875) and in the Northern District of California (Case No.
4:19-cv-08051).

On May 13, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the federal securities laws was filed in California
Superior Court for the County of Alameda (Case No. RG1901875).

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 by the
Company and certain of the Company's current and former directors
and officers for allegedly making false statements and omissions in
the registration statement and prospectus filed by the Company in
connection with our January 24, 2018, secondary public offering of
common stock.

On December 10, 2019, another putative class action lawsuit
alleging violations of the federal securities laws was filed in
federal court in the Northern District of California (Case No.
4:19-cv-08051).

This lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1934 by
the Company and certain of the Company's current and former
officers.

On March 16, 2020, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in
federal court in the Northern District of California (Case No.
4:20-cv-01815). This lawsuit alleges breaches of fiduciary duty and
violations of the Securities Act of 1934 by certain of the
Company's current and former directors and officers. The Company is
named as a nominal defendant only.

On April 6, 2020, another, virtually identical, shareholder
derivative lawsuit was filed in federal court in the Northern
District of California (Case No. 4:20-cv-02320).

This lawsuit contains the same allegations, claims, and defendants
as the first derivative action. Other similar cases may be filed in
the future.

In all of these actions, Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages and other relief.

These actions are ongoing.

The Company believes it has strong factual and legal defenses to
all actions and intends to defend itself vigorously.

Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc., incorporated on November 15, 2000, is
a pharmaceutical company. The Company is engaged in developing
medicines to manage the daily lives of those affected by chronic
neurologic disorders. The Company offers a platform based on an
understanding of time dependent biologic effects of disease
activity and drug response to achieve relief without tolerability
issues. The company is based in Emeryville, California.


ALDINE FORTUNE: Fernandes Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, STANLEY J. FERNANDES, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. ALDINE FORTUNE, INC., MUBARAK ALI MAREDIA, RAFIK
AKBARALT BHANDARI, and AZIM MUBARAK MAREDIA, Defendants, Case No.
4:20-cv-02869 (S.D. Tex., August 15, 2020) challenges Defendants'
alleged unlawful widespread policy and practice of paying
employees' overtime wages in violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Plaintiff worked as a clerk for the Defendants from January 17,
2019 until June 19, 2019 at one of Defendants' business
establishments, a large Exxon branded gas station, convenience
store and fast food restaurant.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff was required by Defendants to
work overtime hours on a weekly basis during his employment with
them, but he was informed that no overtime would be paid. Instead,
Defendant compensated Plaintiff straight-time for overtime hours
worked; thereby failing to pay him at one-and one-half times his
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 pursuant
to the FLSA.

Mubarak Ali Maredia, Rafik Akbaralt Bhandari, and Azim Mubarak
Maredia are owners and operators of Corporate Defendant's gas
station and convenience store businesses and possessed authority to
set wages and overtime policies for all clerks.

Aldine Fortune, Inc. operates gas station and convenience stores.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq.
          ALI S. AHMED, P.C.
          430 W. Bell Street
          Houston, TX 77019
          Tel: (713) 898-0982
          Email: aahmedlaw@gmail.com


ALLSTATE: Policyholders File Class Action
-----------------------------------------
Crain's Chicago Business reports that policyholders sued giant auto
insurers including Allstate and Geico, saying the companies did not
sufficiently reduce premiums given the number of drivers staying
off the road due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Six separate lawsuits were filed in Cook County Circuit Court,
saying insurance relief offered during the pandemic doesn't go far
enough when accounting for the drop in claims. Complaints compare
the companies' rebate policies to State Farm, which offered a 25
percent credit between March 20 and May 31, the Chicago Tribune
reports.

The suits note that miles driven by Illinois motorists dropped by
nearly two-thirds in the spring and that Allstate's 15 percent
credit "falls far short of the relief that any fair and reasonable
actuarial analysis would require."

Other insurers named as defendants are American Family Insurance,
Progressive, Geico, Erie Insurance, and Travelers, according to the
Tribune.

If the suits are granted class-action status, they would include
all Illinois policyholders who had policies with the auto insurers
since March, according to David Neiman, one of the attorneys
representing Illinois consumers. Thousands of policyholders could
join each suit. [GN]


ANCHOR DRILLING: $1.1M Settlement in Kapolka FLSA Suit Has Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHAD KAPOLKA AND BRETT TURRENTINE, Individually and on
behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. ANCHOR
DRILLING FLUIDS USA, LLC and Q'MAX AMERICA, INC. Defendants, Case
No. 2:18-cv-01007-NR (W.D. Pa.), Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
granted the Plaintiffs' Amended Motion to Approve Collective Action
Settlement to settle their claims under the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA").

The Plaintiffs have alleged that the Defendants misclassified them,
along with the other putative class members, as independent
contractors, and wrongfully denied them overtime compensation on
that basis.

The parties have agreed to settle the Plaintiffs' claims in
exchange for the Defendants' payment of $1.105 million.  From this
gross settlement fund, the counsel seeks to deduct $386,750 in
attorneys' fees, $6,727.70 in costs and expenses, up to $7,000 in
settlement administrative costs, and $5,000 "service" or
"enhancement" payments to each of the two named Plaintiffs.  After
applying these deductions, the result is a net settlement award of
$694,522.30.  The net award will be distributed among opt-in class
members on a pro rata basis, dependent on an analysis of the number
of weeks of overtime pay at issue for each class member.

Judge Ranjan finds that the proposed settlement represents a fair
and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute under the FLSA.

For the following reasons, the Court is persuaded that this
agreement represents a fair and reasonable settlement of a bona
fide FLSA dispute, and that the proposed resolution will further
the aim of implementing the FLSA in the workplace.  The Judge also
finds that (i) the requested 35% fee award is fair and reasonable;
(ii) the reported costs are adequately documented and reasonably
and appropriately incurred; and (iii) that the proposed service
payments to Mr. Kapolka and Mr. Turrentine are reasonable and
appropriate, given their efforts in bringing the case and the risks
attendant to participating in public interest litigation as a named
Plaintiff.

For all these reasons, Judge Ranjan concluded that the parties'
settlement, including its provisions on attorneys' fees, costs, and
service awards, is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide
dispute under the FLSA.  He therefore approved the proposed
agreement in its entirety.  

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at
https://is.gd/OIBCsJ from Leagle.com.

CHAD KAPOLKA & BRETT TURRENTINE, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Michael A.
Josephson -- mjosephson@mybackwages.com -- Josephson Dunlap Law
Firm, Andrew W. Dunlap -- adunlap@mybackwages.com -- Josephson
Dunlap Law Firm & Joshua P. Geist -- josh@goodrichandgeist.com --
Goodrich & Geist, P.C.

ANCHOR DRILLING FLUIDS, USA, LLC & Q'MAX AMERICA INC., Defendants,
represented by David B. Jordan -- djordan@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, pro hac vice, Brian M. Hentosz -- bhentosz@littler.com
-- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Jonathan A. Sprague --
jsprague@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., pro hac vice.


ANTHEM INC: Appeal in Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the appeal in the class action suit
entitled, In re Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation, has been
heard but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has yet
to issue a decision.

The company is a defendant in a class action lawsuit that was
initially filed in June 2016 against Anthem, Inc. and Express
Scripts, which has been consolidated into a single multi-district
lawsuit captioned In Re Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The consolidated complaint was filed by plaintiffs against Express
Scripts and the company on behalf of all persons who are
participants in or beneficiaries of any  The Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) or non-ERISA healthcare plan
from December 1, 2009 to December 31, 2019 in which the company
provided prescription drug benefits through the ESI PBM Agreement
and paid a percentage based co-insurance payment in the course of
using that prescription drug benefit.

The plaintiffs allege that the company breached its duties, either
under ERISA or with respect to the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing implied in the health plans, (i) by failing to
adequately monitor Express Scripts' pricing under the ESI PBM
Agreement, (ii) by placing the company's own pecuniary interest
above the best interests of its insureds by allegedly agreeing to
higher pricing in the ESI PBM Agreement in exchange for the
purchase price for our NextRx PBM business, and (iii) with respect
to the non-ERISA members, by negotiating and entering into the ESI
PBM Agreement that was allegedly detrimental to the interests of
such non-ERISA members.

Plaintiffs seek to hold the company and Express Scripts jointly and
severally liable and to recover all losses suffered by the proposed
class, equitable relief, disgorgement of alleged ill-gotten gains,
injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs and interest.

In April 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the claims
brought against it, and it was granted, without prejudice, in
January 2018. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which was heard in
October 2018 but has not yet been decided.

Anthem said, "We intend to vigorously defend this suit; however,
its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined."

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

Anthem, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a health
benefits company in the United States. It operates through three
segments: Commercial & Specialty Business, Government Business, and
Other. The company was formerly known as WellPoint, Inc. and
changed its name to Anthem, Inc. in December 2014. Anthem, Inc. was
founded in 1944 and is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.


ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI: Sued in Kansas Over Trip Reimbursements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that travel insurer Assicurazioni Generali Group was
hit with another proposed class action on Aug. 5, accusing it of
wrongfully denying a trip cancellation claim after the insured was
exposed to COVID-19 and went through quarantine.

The proposed class action, filed in Kansas federal court, alleges
that Generali U.S. has refused to provide reimbursements for a
canceled road trip and accommodations in Texas, only offering a
voucher that the policyholder never requested.

The class representative said the family had to cancel the trip and
stay in quarantine after her daughter was exposed to COVID-19 in
July, before the family was planning to drive from Kansas to Texas.
The complaint claimed that trip cancellation and quarantine due to
unforeseeable events are explicitly covered by the Generali's
travel insurance.

Audra Sanchez of Sedgwick County, Kansas, said she bought a $254
travel insurance policy with Generali in May, when she paid $3,500
through Vrbo.com to reserve a waterfront beach house in Rockport,
Texas, for a family vacation in July. Sanchez and her family
planned to drive to Texas on July 24, her complaint said.

However, on July 13, Sanchez found out that her daughter had been
directly exposed to COVID-19 while playing at a friend's house.
Sanchez, who has an autoimmune disorder, was told by her doctor to
do a two-week quarantine with her family the next day. Sanchez
submitted to Generali her doctor's letter, which directed her
family to quarantine until at least Aug. 1, along with her trip
cancellation claim on July 15.

Five days later, Generali denied her claim. Sanchez said that
instead of covering her loss of over $3,000, the insurer offered a
voucher for the premium amount she paid at $254.

Sanchez said the policy defined quarantine as "enforced isolation
of you or your traveling companion," exactly what she and her
family experienced. She said the family had to go through the
enforceable quarantine based on a doctor's suggestion and the
Kansas Health Department's guidelines. And her daughter's exposure
to COVID-19 was a covered "unforeseeable event" out of her control,
she said.

In the complaint, Sanchez said she did not make the trip
reservation until after Texas and Kansas lifted stay-at-home orders
in late April and early May. She said that on May 10, when she
booked the trip, COVID-19 was not spreading in her community and
that the only other state that would have been involved in the road
trip would be Oklahoma, which never issued any stay-at-home orders
or travel restrictions.

The class representative said that she would not have bought the
policy had it warned "expressly or impliedly" that it would not
cover claims arising from COVID-19 in any way.

Sanchez alleged that Generali has "adopted an approach to
categorically issue denials to every claim arising during the
natural disaster that was brought on by COVID-19." She sought to
represent a national class or an alternative Kansas class of
Generali policyholders who have been prevented from traveling
during the pandemic.

Sanchez is asking the court to hold that Generali should indemnify
the proposed class for their trip cancellations as required by the
policy. She is demanding damages to be determined in a jury trial
as well as attorney fees.

Generali has stated on its website that "there will be no coverage
for COVID-19 related losses occurring on or after March 11, 2020,
the date COVID-19 was formally declared a pandemic by the World
Health Organization."

In June, Generali was slapped with a proposed class action in New
York federal court accusing it of wrongfully withholding premiums
for canceled trips despite the policyholder's "numerous requests,"
instead giving out vouchers that require rebooking by the end of
the year.

In July, a Texas woman sued Generali in another proposed class
action over the insurer's refusal to cover canceled road trips and
accommodations for her daughter's wedding in Florida. She alleged
that Generali had promised to send "detailed explanations" for the
coverage denial but never did.

Representatives for the parties could not be immediately reached
for comment.

Sanchez is represented by Nathaniel Scearcy and Timothy L. Sifers
of The Potts Law Firm LLP.

Counsel for Generali was not immediately available.

The case is Sanchez v. Generali U.S. Branch et al., case number
2:20-cv-02380, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas.  [GN]


AT&T MOBILITY: N.D. Calif. Refuses to Dismiss Vianu Consumer Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Francisco Division, issued an Order denying the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the case captioned IAN VIANU and IRINA BUKCHIN,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. AT&T
MOBILITY LLC, Case No. 19-cv-03602-LB (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Ian Vianu and Irina Bukchin, both California residents,
have wireless-service contracts with AT&T Mobility LLC. On behalf
of themselves and a putative class of similarly situated California
consumers, they sued AT&T, claiming that AT&T offers so-called flat
monthly wireless-service plans and--after the customers sign up for
the wireless-service contracts at that rate--adds an
"Administrative Fee" that it misleadingly suggests is a legitimate
surcharge (like a government-type surcharge) when it is just an
unfair and deceptive scheme to boost its monthly rates.

The complaint has five California state-law claims: (1) unfair,
unlawful, and fraudulent conduct, in violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); (2) untrue and misleading
advertising, in violation of California's False Advertising Law
("FAL"); (3) deceptive conduct, in violation of California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); (4) a claim for
public-injunctive relief to permanently enjoin the false
advertising and deception, in violation Cal. Civ. Code Section
3422; and (5) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing. Claims one through three and five are class claims, and
claim four is an individual claim (as are the other claims, to the
extent that they seek public-injunctive relief).

AT&T moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims on these grounds: (1)
the contract's 100-day limitations period bars all claims; (2) the
statute of limitations bars all claims; (3) the Plaintiffs'
voluntary payment (with knowledge of the facts) bars their recovery
for restitution and damages under the UAL, FAL, and breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (a theory called
the voluntary-payment doctrine); (4) the Plaintiffs did not
plausibly allege reliance on the purported misstatements about the
Administrative Fee, which bars their UCL, FAL, and CLRA claims; and
(5) the Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to pursue injunctive
relief.

The Plaintiffs counter that (1) all claims are timely because AT&T
engaged in multiple wrongful acts within the limitations period,
and under California's continuous-accrual doctrine, each wrongful
action triggered a new limitations period, (2) the discovery rule
in any event tolls the limitations period, and AT&T's conduct was a
continuing violation, (3) the 100-day provision does not bar the
lawsuit because the Plaintiffs initiated the lawsuit within 100
days of challenged fees, and under the discovery rule, earlier
charges are actionable, (3) they pleaded reliance adequately, (4)
the voluntary-payment doctrine is a defense that is not resolvable
at a motion to dismiss and in any event may not apply to
consumer-protection claims, and (5) they plausibly pleaded
standing.

Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler denies the Motion to Dismiss except
that the Court holds that the discovery rule does not apply, and
AT&T's conduct was not a continuing violation.

The Court denies the Motion to Dismiss on these grounds: (1) the
Court does not enforce the 100-day contractual provision; (2) under
the continuous-accrual doctrine, the claims are timely under the
relevant statutes of limitations; (3) the Court does not reach the
voluntary-payment doctrine at the pleadings stage; (4) the
Plaintiffs pleaded reliance plausibly; and (5) the Plaintiffs have
Article III standing. The Court grants the motion to the extent
that it holds that the discovery rule does not apply, and AT&T's
conduct was not a continuing violation.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 11, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycmsvfyj from Leagle.com.


ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Wins Partial Summary Judgment in Rolan Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, issued an Opinion and Order granting
DuPont Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in the case
captioned LERITHEA ROLAN, and LAMOTTCA BROOKS, Individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ATLANTIC
RICHFIELD COMPANY, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, and THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY, Defendants. Cause No. 1:16-CV-357-HAB-SLC. (N.D.
Ind.).

Plaintiffs Lerithea Rolan and Lamottca Brooks were residents of
East Chicago, Indiana, living in the West Calumet Public Housing
Complex in 2016 when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
warned them of dangerous levels of lead and arsenic in the soil
where they lived.

One of the Plaintiffs' claims against the DuPont Defendants is for
cost recovery under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).  Plaintiffs seek two
categories of CERCLA costs: (1) investigative costs; and (2)
temporary relocation costs. The DuPont Defendants contend that they
cannot recover either as a matter of law, and cite to the Court's
previous grant of summary judgment in favor of Atlantic Richfield
Company on the same CERCLA recovery claims. See Rolan v. Atlantic
Richfield Co., 1:16-cv-357-HAB-SLC, 2019 WL 5429075 (N.D. Ind. Oct.
22, 2019).  A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 22, 2019 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/Nbre8h from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs filed their Response to Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment of Dupont and Chemours, stating that although they
disagree with the Court's decision granting Atlantic Richfield
Company's summary judgment motion with respect to Plaintiffs'
CERCLA claim, they recognize that the Court's previous decision
will likely govern its decision with respect to the DuPont
Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment. Further, because
the arguments set forth by the DuPont Defendants are the same
arguments made by Atlantic Richfield Company in its summary
judgment motion, Plaintiffs adopted and incorporated by reference
the arguments they made in their Response to Atlantic Richfield,
including the statement of material disputed facts.

The Court notes that because the facts concerning Plaintiffs'
CERLCA claims against the Dupont Defendants are indistinguishable
from those designated in support of the claims against Atlantic
Richfield, the same reasons that supported judgment as a matter of
law in favor of Atlantic Richfield support the summary denial of
Plaintiffs' remaining CERCLA recovery claims.

Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to recover from the Dupont
Defendants the preliminary costs of investigation they incurred
when they hired Carlson.  In October 2016, one of Plaintiffs'
attorneys engaged and paid Edward E. Garske of Carlson
Environmental Consultants ("Carlson") for a preliminary opinion as
to what the West Calumet Housing Complex residents should do in
response to the lead and arsenic in the soil. The Dupont Defendants
disagree and submit that they are entitled to judgment as a matter
of law with respect to these costs because the evidence shows that
Plaintiffs did not personally incur the investigation costs that
were paid by legal counsel.  Second, even if they had incurred the
fees, they were duplicative of the EPA's work; did not further the
investigation or remediation of the Site; and were only incurred in
connection with the instant litigation.

On review, the Court finds that counsel -- not Plaintiffs -- has
assumed the legal obligation to pay Carlson.  Speculation and
subjective beliefs cannot create genuine issue of fact where the
written document does not show that Plaintiffs have an existing
legal obligation to reimburse counsel for the consultant's fees. As
a matter of law, Plaintiffs have not "incurred" the costs of the
investigation.  Summary judgment in favor of the Dupont Defendants
is appropriate, the Court opines.

Plaintiffs challenge the allegation that the advice they sought
from Carlson was a litigation-related expense, but they do not
provide any evidence that disputes the timeline that appears to
connect the retention of Carlson to their litigation rather than to
their decision to leave East Chicago.  In any event, the Court
finds that it would make no difference to the outcome.  The Court
understands Plaintiffs to assert that "Carlson's work was far
different from mere oversight or duplication of EPA's work" like
that performed in the cases cited above.  However, Plaintiffs have
not cited to a single authority that would permit recovery of costs
incurred for the purpose of obtaining an opinion whether a resident
should discontinue residing at a site where the EPA has established
plans to remediate, much less when the opinion is based solely on
review of documents like those Carlson reviewed here.  The Court
finds that Plaintiffs have not designated evidence from which a
finder of fact could conclude that they are entitled to recoup
Carlson's fees through a CERCLA recovery action.

Plaintiffs seek recovery of costs associated with their temporary
relocation efforts on grounds that the situation in East Chicago
revealed that Plaintiffs had reason to relocate even after the EPA
cleaned the interior surfaces of their homes.

The Court finds that, as a matter of law, Plaintiffs' expenses for
temporary housing and related expenses, incurred because they
decided to limit their time at the West Calumet Housing Complex, is
an economic loss for which CERCLA was not intended to provide a
remedy.

Here, the EPA's cleanup remedy did not require demolition, the
Court adds.  Nor did the lead agency determine that relocation or
evacuation was necessary as part of the remediation plan.  

Plaintiffs' out-of-pocket relocation costs are not a recoverable
response cost, the Court opines.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the DuPont Defendants' Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment, a full-text copy of which Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/vexlclj from Leagle.com.

                 Order on Certification Motion

Also, in a separate October 2019 Order, the Court denied in part
the Plaintiff's Amended Motion and Incorporated Memorandum for
Class Certification.

The Plaintiffs sought certification of the following Class in
pursuit of these claims: All persons who resided in the Class Area
in July 2016 when the EPA announced that high levels of lead and
arsenic were found in the Class Area.  The Class Area is located in
East Chicago, Indiana and is defined generally as bordered: (1) on
the north by the northern boundary of the Carrie Gosch Elementary
School and a line extending eastward from that boundary to the
eastern edge of a north/south utility right of way that runs
parallel to McCook Avenue north of East 149th Place; (2) on the
east by: (i) the easternmost edge of a north/south utility right of
way that runs parallel to McCook Avenue until East 149th Place, and
(ii) McCook Avenue between East 149th Place and 151st Street; (3)
on the south by East 151st Street; and (4) on the west by the
Indiana Harbor Canal.

District Judge Holly Brady held that simply connecting the
Defendants to the contamination in the Class Area does not show
that class wide proceedings would generate common answers apt to
drive the resolution of the litigation.  The Plaintiffs'
identification of the common questions regarding the elements of
their CERCLA recovery cost claim does not include the crucial
element that they incurred costs that can be identified as response
costs that were necessary and consistent with the NCP.  Nor can
there be any quarrel with the conclusion that those costs cannot be
resolved with evidence that is common to the class as a whole.
Accordingly, the case involves at least one crucial question that
would not be common to the class.

In addition, the Plaintiffs have not established that their claims,
that they lived in the Class Area in July 2016 when the EPA
announced high levels of contaminants in the soil, and then took
investigative action and incurred costs for temporary housing and
relocation, have the same essential characteristics as the claims
of the class at large.  They have not identified any necessary and
NCP-consistent costs that other potential class members likely
incurred in furtherance of containment or cleanup.

Even with the shared experience of living in a housing complex
within the USS Lead Superfund, there has been no showing of
predominance, which is "far more demanding."  Evaluating whether
the costs, if any, incurred by the putative class members
constitute recoverable CERCLA costs will require highly
individualized inquiries into each class member's conduct in
response to the contamination.  These individualized inquires will
predominate over any questions of law or fact common to the
putative class members.

Finding no common issues that predominate over the individual ones
that would apply to the putative class and greatly simplify the
litigation, the Judge declines to certify the CERLA recovery cost
claim as a class action.

Having examined the record, the Judge also finds that additional
information is necessary to determine whether the Plaintiff's
negligence claim against DuPont meets the requirements for class
certification.  Too many unanswered questions remain, which prevent
the Judge from determining whether the Plaintiffs' theory of
liability against DuPont can be proved on a classwide basis.
However, this does not mean that DuPont's actions did not also
contribute to the contamination, and the Plaintiffs have presented
evidence that DuPont's operations may have caused contamination
through airborne emissions.  

Moreover, evidence concerning the limitation of the geographical
area encompassed by the Class Area, as well as the expected method
of proving DuPont's liability might reveal that a causation
determination as to one class member could be extrapolated to all
members and -- on the other side -- that failure to prove that
DuPont caused contamination for a particular property or yard would
end the case for all members of the class.  Currently, there is
insufficient evidence in the record to determine whether the cause
of the contamination that impacted the residents in the Class Area
was identical for each of the Plaintiffs and the class members.

For the reasons stated, Judge Brady denied in part the Amended
Motion and Incorporated Memorandum for Class Certification, a copy
of which Order is available at https://is.gd/fx4u70 from
Leagle.com.

LeRithea Rolan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Lamottca Brooks, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by James D.
Brusslan -- jbrusslan@lplegal.com -- Levenfeld Pearlstein LLC,
Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr. -- tom@attorneyzim.com -- Zimmerman Law
Offices PC, Sharon A. Harris -- sharon@attorneyzim.com -- Zimmerman
Law Offices PC & Jason B. Hirsh -- jhirsh@lplegal.com -- Levenfeld
Pearlstein LLC.

Atlantic Richfield Company, Defendant, represented by Diana E.
Reiter -- diana.reiter@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter Kaye
Scholer LLP, pro hac vice, Jesse M. Feitel --
jesse.feitel@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP,
pro hac vice, Kathleen A. DeLaney -- kathleen@delaneylaw.net --
DeLaney & DeLaney LLC, Nancy G. Milburn --
nancy.milburn@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP,
pro hac vice & Sean O. Morris -- sean.morris@arnoldporter.com --
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, pro hac vice.

E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company & The Chemours Company,
Defendants, represented by Dina M. Cox -- dcox@lewiswagner.com --
Lewis Wagner LLP, Honor R. Costello -- hcostello@crowell.com --
Crowell & Morning LLP, pro hac vice, Kathleen Taylor Sooy --
ksooy@crowell.com -- Crowell & Moring LLP, pro hac vice & Tracy A.
Roman -- troman@crowell.com -- Crowell & Moring LLP, pro hac vice.


AUSTRALIA: Latham & Watkins Attorneys Discuss Climate Change Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul A. Davies, Esq., -- paul.davies@lw.com -- and Michael D.
Green, Esq. -- michael.green@lw.com -- of Latham & Watkins LLP, in
an article for Lexology, report that on July 22, 2020, investors
filed a class-action claim against the Australian government,
alleging that it failed to disclose material climate change risks
relating to its bonds (O'Donnell v. Commonwealth and Ors). The
claim is thought to be the first of its kind against a national
government.

O'Donnell v. Commonwealth and Ors

The claim is led by Kathleen (Katta) O'Donnell, a 23-year-old
student and owner of Australian government bonds traded on
Australia's main stock exchange.

The bonds owned by O'Donnell will mature in 2050. Equity Generation
Lawyers, the firm representing O'Donnell, noted that under the
world's current climate pledges, the earth is expected to warm 3.2
degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times by 2050. They add that
the temperature increase is expected to cause stark physical
damage, including the destruction of 99% of the Great Barrier Reef,
as well as increase the frequency of drought, bushfires, and other
extreme weather events.

Australia's reliance on fossil fuels and its support of coal mining
and gas development (Australia is the world's largest exporter of
coal) means that its emissions are among the largest in the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Legal Arguments

A publicly available Concise Statement sets out the legal basis of
O'Donnell's claim. In summary, the claim argues:

The government acts as a "promoter" of the government bonds in
question, and therefore owes "a duty of utmost candour and honesty
to investors who acquire or intend to acquire [the bonds]".
Allegedly, this duty requires the government to disclose
information about Australia's climate change risks, which may
influence the investor's decision to acquire the bonds. The
government is said to have breached its duty as a promoter by
disclosing some material risks to the bonds, but failing to
disclose any information about Australia's climate change risks.

The government bonds in question are a "financial product". By
promoting and arranging for the trading of the bonds on the
Australian stock exchange, the government is engaging in conduct
that is "misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive"
by disclosing some risks, but failing to disclose any information
about Australia's climate change risks. This breaches a prohibition
set out in s. 12DA(1) of the Australian Investments and Securities
Commission Act 2001 (the ASIC Act).

Government officials are required to exercise their powers, perform
their functions, and discharge their duties with reasonable care
and diligence, according to the Public Governance, Performance and
Accountability Act 2013 (the PGPA Act). By breaching their duty of
disclosure and contravening s. 12DA(1) of the ASIC Act (as referred
to above), the government has also breached its duty under s. 25(1)
of the PGPA Act.

The claim seeks an injunction to restrain the government from
further promoting exchange-traded bonds until it complies with its
duty of disclosure, as well as a government declaration that it
breached its duty.

Climate Change Litigation in Australia

Australia is one of the most active jurisdictions for climate
change litigation. For example:

In August 2017, 23-year-old Mark McVeigh filed a claim alleging
that the trustee of his pension fund, the Retail Employees
Superannuation Trust, breached fiduciary duties owed to him by
failing to adequately consider climate change risks.

In February 2019, the New South Wales Land and Environment Court
denied approval for a new open-cut coal mine on the basis that the
mine was contrary to the public interest, principles of
ecologically sustainable development, and Australia's obligations
under the Paris Agreement.

In January 2020, Australian bushfire victims, together with Friends
of the Earth Australia, filed a complaint against an Australian
multinational banking and financial services company under the OECD
Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, alleging that the bank
was not transparent about its indirect emissions resulting from its
business lending and failed to conduct adequate climate risk
assessments in its operations.

Climate Change Litigation Worldwide

Since 2019, activists and advocacy groups worldwide have
increasingly turned to litigation to address climate change
issues.

Notable recent litigation includes the Urgenda case, in which the
Dutch Supreme Court ordered the Dutch government to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions to 25% below 1990 levels by 2020.
Significantly, the claimants successfully drew from human rights
arguments to support their claim. See this post for further
details.

Claimants are also challenging misleading "greenwashing" marketing
campaigns by carbon-intensive companies, either to courts or
non-judicial bodies.

According to a recent LSE study, in climate change litigation cases
from May 2019 to May 2020 (non-US), 58% of cases had outcomes that
encouraged climate change action. The study adds that while the
COVID-19 pandemic may result in a delay or decrease of new filings,
it may also alternatively motivate claimants to find new grounds
for bringing cases (for instance, by linking the current health
emergency to the climate emergency).

Latham & Watkins will continue to monitor developments in this
area. [GN]


AUTO CARE WARRANTY: Moore Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE MOORE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. AUTO CARE WARRANTY SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-04801 (N.D. Ill., August 15, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff received pre-recorded
telemarketing calls from Defendant on her two cellular telephone
numbers (630) 699-XXXX and (727) 753-XXXX, which are registered on
the National Do Not Call Registry, on at least February 17, March
6, April 2, June 9, 17 and 19, 2020. Plaintiff tried to ignore the
calls because he was not interested in the services being offered,
but the calls continued on June 26, 2020.

Plaintiff claims that he was harmed by Defendant's unsolicited
calls because his privacy has been violated and he was subjected to
annoying and harassing calls that constitute a nuisance.

Auto Care Warranty Solutions, LLC provides vehicle service
warranties. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Tel: (508) 221-1510
          Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com


BAHAMAS PARADISE: Employees File Breach of Contract Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Arrojas, writing for South Florida Business Journal,
reports that employees filed a class action lawsuit on Aug. 4
against Bahamas Paradise Cruise Line, accusing the company of
withholding compensation and breach of contract.

The Deerfield Beach-based cruise company operates two ships out of
the Port of Palm Beach.

The suit alleges that employees onboard the company's ships were
pressured into signing an agreement that stated they were
voluntarily staying onboard without pay. This reportedly came
shortly after the cruise line suspended voyages in mid-March due to
the Covid-19 pandemic.

Crew members allege they were told they would not be rehired by the
company if they did not sign the agreement, the lawsuit says.

According to the suit, the document was circulated on March 17, one
day after Bahamas Paradise owner Kevin Sheehan told employees
aboard Grand Celebration the company was unilaterally terminating
all contracts and crew would not be fully compensated, whether or
not they signed the document.

Employee contracts state that should contracts be terminated for
any reason, employees have a right to two months basic severance
pay from their employer, according to the lawsuit. Bahamas Paradise
has yet to pay this severance, the lawsuit alleges.

Bahamas Paradise declined to comment on the pending litigation.

About 12 employees have committed to joining the class action
lawsuit, said Michael Winkleman, lead attorney representing the
case from Miami-based Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman P.A.

The lawsuit claims crew members were forced to continue to work
onboard the ships without pay since March. The suit also alleges
breach of contract and forced labor.

Winkleman said while the agreement crew members signed stated they
were staying on voluntarily without pay, it did not explicitly
state penalties for not signing. He said employees were told
separately they would either not be hired back or they would be
called back to work last when operations resumed.

The lawsuit also alleges the company refused to facilitate a return
journey for employees whose contracts expired and live outside of
the U.S.

"[Bahamas Paradise] falsely imprisoned [crew members] on the cruise
ship and refused to repatriate and/or arrange for transportation
because [the company] did not want to purchase commercial flights
for [employees]," the lawsuit states.

Dragan Janicijevic is the lead plaintiff in the case. He was
employed as a casino dealer onboard of the cruise line's vessels,
according to the lawsuit. [GN]


BANKSIA: Norman O'Bryan Admits to Legal Costs Scandal
-----------------------------------------------------
Michael Pelly, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that the lead counsel behind the Myer class action, Norman O'Bryan
SC, has admitted to doctoring millions in legal costs in another
case, conceding he should lose his licence over the scandal.

As a costs hearing involving the Banksia Securities class action
proceeded in the Victorian Supreme Court, Mr O'Bryan admitted his
"deep regret" over his conduct.

It was alleged that he and funder Mark Elliott engaged in "a
fraudulent scheme" after the claim on behalf of debenture holders
was settled for $64 million in 2018.

The Supreme Court approved the settlement but in late 2019 the
Court of Appeal refused to sign off on the attached legal fees
($4.75 million) and funder's commission ($12.8 million) after a
group member challenged the amounts.

The finance group collapsed in 2012, with investor losses estimated
at more than $660 million.

Justice John Dixon foreshadowed disciplinary action against the
lawyers after a court-appointed contradictor, Peter Jopling, QC,
said their behaviour should "shock the court, all legal
practitioners and the lay public".

The Banksia claim was funded by Australian Funding Partners Limited
(AFPL), which was run by Mr Elliott, a former MinterEllison
partner, until his death in an accident on his farm earlier this
year. Anthony Zita, who runs small Melbourne firm Portfolio Law,
was the solicitor of record and Mr O'Bryan was lead counsel.

It was the same team that brought many other shareholder claims,
including the landmark Myer action. That case was abandoned earlier
this year after a finding that a collapse in its share price could
not be linked to misleading profit forecasts by former chief
executive Bernie Brooks.

Mr Jopling noted Mr O'Bryan had not submitted the fees for Banksia
via his clerk, because "no self-respecting clerk" would sign off on
them. He alleged Mr Zita was a "post-box" controlled by Mr
Elliott.

Mr Jopling told the court Mr O'Bryan had an arrangement under which
the barrister would not submit fees to Mr Elliott until a case had
settled. Barrister Michael Symons was on a retainer of $800,000 a
year to work on Elliott cases.

He said that for the Banksia claim, Mr Elliott had told Mr O'Bryan
to charge $2.56 million legal fees and had discussed how they might
deceive a costs consultant. It included charging a cancellation fee
of $300,000 for the trial (20 days x $15,000).

The consultant ultimately approved fees of $2.3 million for Mr
O'Bryan, $680,000 for Mr Symons and $377,000 for Mr Zita and
Portfolio Law.

Mr O'Bryan's counsel, David Batt, QC, said his client would not
oppose the court making an order to remove him from the roll of
legal practitioners: "He accepts that that should occur."

He said he also would not defend any of the allegations made by Mr
Jopling and would not seek payment of any unpaid fees in the
Banksia case.

"Mr O'Bryan seeks to convey and give some measure of effect to his
contrition and his very deep regret at his actions and to do what
he is now able to do to assist in these proceedings being brought
to conclusion."

Fall from grace

It is a dramatic fall from grace. Mr O'Bryan's father and
grandfather were Supreme Court judges and his brother Michael is a
Federal Court judge. He has long been regarded as one of Victoria's
leading silks and has done a lot of work for regulatory agencies
including ASIC.

The Victorian Bar's website no longer carries Mr O'Bryan's name.

"Mr. O'Bryan has expressed his contrition and very deep regret in
these actions,'' said bar CEO Katherine Lorenz.

"The Victorian Bar makes no comment on its internal procedures in
relation to members."

AFPL has dropped its commission claim to about $7 million and also
admitted to misconduct.

The hearing continues. [GN]


BAYER AG: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Sept. 14 Motion Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

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


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


Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (BAYRY)
Class Period: 5/23/2016 - 3/19/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: September 14, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-bayer-aktiengesellschaft-american-depositary-shares-securities-litigation
   

FirstEnergy Corp. (FE)
Class Period: 2/21/2017 - 7/21/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: September 28, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-firstenergy-corp-securities-litigation
    

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

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

                         About ClaimsFiler

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

To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com [GN]


BIG CITY: App. Court Upholds Dismissal of Maddicks Class Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THERESA MADDICKS, ET AL., Respondents, v. BIG CITY
PROPERTIES, LLC ET AL., Defendants, BIG CITY REALTY MANAGEMENT,
LLC, ET AL., Appellants, Case No. 67 (N.Y. App.), the Court of
Appeals of New York affirmed the Appellate Division's order
dismissing the class claims.

At issue in the case is what the Plaintiffs characterize as the Big
City Portfolio, which consists of multiple apartment buildings
located primarily in the Harlem neighborhood in Manhattan.  The
portfolio is managed by Defendant Big City Realty Management, LLC.
Individual corporate Defendants own various buildings in the
portfolio, and the Plaintiffs -- who are current and former tenants
in various buildings within the portfolio -- suggest that those
corporate entities are owned or controlled by a single holding
company, Defendant Big City Acquisitions, LLC.

The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants, in an effort to
extract additional value from those properties, have engaged in
what they characterize as a clear pattern and practice of improper
and illegal conduct.  The allegations of the operative complaint --
designated as the first amended class action complaint -- state
that the action was commenced to end the illegal and fraudulent
practices employed by the Defendants over the course of their
ownership and operation of the buildings within the portfolio.
That claim of illegality and fraud, the Plaintiffs maintain,
addresses a scheme to inflate rents over and above the amounts the
Defendants were legally permitted to charge.

Given their belief that nearly all factual and legal issues raised
in the first amended class action complaint are common to each
other and to the members of the proposed class and sub-class, and
that the statutory prerequisites to class certification would be
satisfied, the Plaintiffs alleged that the lawsuit may be properly
maintained as a class action.  The Plaintiffs asserted six causes
of action to be pursued by the proposed class and sub-class,
sounding principally in the alleged violation of the Rent
Stabilization Law and General Business Law Section 349.  They seek,
among other things, reformation of illegal leases to provide that
the units subject to those agreements are subject to rent
stabilization.

In lieu of answering, and before the appropriateness of the claims
for class action could be tested through the mechanisms fixed in
article 9 of the CPLR, the Defendants moved to dismiss the amended
class action complaint.  They argued that the Plaintiffs failed to
state a cause of action for violation of General Business Law
Section 349, and that the class allegations fail as a matter of
law.  With respect to the latter contention, the Defendants
maintained that the Plaintiffs' claim of illegality and fraud is
not a single instance of wrongdoing, and improperly attempts to
bind together four disconnected theories of malfeasance.

The Supreme Court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint.
It determined conclusively from the facts alleged that, as a matter
of law, there is no basis for class relief based on its belief that
the Plaintiffs rely on several different theories of the manner in
which the Defendants inflated the rent that each require a
fact-specific analysis that precludes class certification.

On appeal, a divided Appellate Division modified Supreme Court's
order by denying the part of the motion seeking dismissal of the
class action claims against the Defendants, except to the extent
those allegations addressed the cause of action for violation of
General Business Law Section 349.  The Appellate Division concluded
that the dismissal of the remaining class allegations at that early
stage, before an answer was filed and before any discovery
occurred, was premature.

The court added that it does not appear conclusively from the
operative complaint that, as a matter of law, there is no basis for
class action relief before rejecting the contention of the
dissenters that the claims are fact-intensive and can only be
determined through an examination of the evidence pertinent to each
individual unit allegedly affected by the Defendants' misconduct,

The conclusion that Plaintiffs' class action claim should not be
dismissed at this juncture was based on the Appellate Division's
analysis of the complaint.  It speaks to the setting of improper
rents in the affected apartments as part of a systematic effort by
Defendant Big City Acquisitions to avoid compliance with the rent
stabilization laws.

The New York Court of Appeals shares the view that dismissal of
class claims based on allegations of a methodical attempt to
illegally inflate rents was premature.  Initially, the Appellate
Court agrees with the Defendants and the amici curiae who submitted
a brief in support of their position that there is no per se bar to
a pre-answer motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) seeking an order
dismissing a class action allegation.  Nothing in the CPLR provides
that a class claim cannot be dismissed, even at the pre-answer
stage, for failure to state a cause of action.

Five additional points complete the Appellate Court's analysis.
First, the Appellate Court holds that it bears noting that his
approach -- allowing the action to proceed to the CPLR article 9
stage -- is the moderate one in these circumstances.  Through CPLR
902 the legislature established a procedure for immediate threshold
review of the question whether an action may proceed as a class
action.  The prudent course charted, namely, viewing the
allegations of the complaint through the lens required by Leon v
Martinez, and leaving the class allegations for evaluation at the
hearing stage envisioned by the legislature, leaves open the
possibility that the Defendants will obtain the same result --
termination of the class claims -- at the appropriate time.

Second, the Appellate Court agrees with the Plaintiffs that to
dismiss these class claims at this juncture would be to effectively
nullify CPLR 906.11  That section makes clear that the
certification of a class action need not be an all-or-nothing
proposition and permits the certification of subclasses or the
isolation of specific issues for class treatment.  To dismiss the
entirety of the class claims at this time would be to prematurely
dispose of causes that could be severed into individual claims
through the procedures established in CPLR article 9.

Third, it is a long-held principle that the individualized proof
required on issues such as damages of each class member does not
preclude a finding that common questions of law or fact predominate
over individual question.  It is equally well-established that such
issues may, if necessary, be tried separately.  The possibility
that individual damages determinations may become complicated to
the extent the class allegations survive a CPLR article 9 test does
not suggest that the commonality element cannot be satisfied.
Consistent with the legislative desire that CPLR article 9 be
construed liberally, courts have -- properly -- shown a willingness
to order class litigation on liability issues and allow individual
damages issues to be handled separately by a special master.

Fourth, the Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs allege that
unspecified inspections of the apartments merely suggest that IAIs
may not have been completed.  The Appellate Court agrees with the
Plaintiffs, however, that they adequately stated IAI claims.  In
the absence of the pre-certification discovery contemplated by CPLR
902, information with respect to those improvements is not readily
available to them.

Finally, the existence of a potential statute of limitations issue
does not compel a finding that individual issues predominate over
common ones.  Although the individual class members whose claims
are shown to fall outside the relevant statute of limitations are
barred from recovery, a timeliness problem with respect to some
class members does not establish that individual issues
predominate, particularly where there are allegations of a nucleus
of a common scheme of fraud.  It would be antithetical to CPLR 901
to conclude that a statute of limitations defense applicable to
some, but not all, members of a class of plaintiffs would insulate
defendants from class liability.

Based on the foregoing, the Appellate Court affirmed the Appellate
Division order insofar as appealed from, with costs.  The Appellate
Court answered the question certified to the Court by the Appellate
Division, namely, "whether the order of that court was properly
made," in the affirmative.

A full-text copy of the New York Court of Appeals' Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/NGYtS6 from Leagle.com.

Simcha D. Schonfeld -- sds@kandsllp.com -- for appellants.

Roger Sachar -- rsachar@nfllp.com -- for respondents.

Rent Stabilization Association of NYC, Inc. et al.; Lower Seaman
Tenants Association et al., amici curiae.


BILLING CONCEPTS: Loses Bid to Cap Legent's Potential Recovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San
Antonio Division, issued an Order denying the Defendant's Motion
for Summary Judgment in the case captioned LEGENT COMM, LLC v.
BILLING CONCEPTS, INC., Case No. SA-19-CV-00202-ESC (W.D. Tex.).

The lawsuit is an action for breach of contract and an accounting
arising out of a Services Agreement between Legent and BCI.
Legent's Second Amended Complaint is the live pleading in this
action. BCI has moved for summary judgment on one of its
affirmative defenses, arguing that all of Legent's claims are
subject to a contractual liability limitation provision, which caps
Legent's potential recovery in this lawsuit.

Legent is a state and federally regulated telecommunications
Interexchange Carrier ("IXC") that provides long distance telephone
service to residential and business customers. Legent purchases and
resells its telecommunications services and is known in the
industry as a "reseller."

BCI is one of several operating subsidiaries of Billing Services
Group Limited ("BSG"), a publicly traded British holding company.
BCI is a billing clearinghouse that aggregates third-party
telecommunications charges (like the long-distance charges billed
by Legent) in order to facilitate the billing by Local Exchange
Carriers ("LECs") without requiring Legent to negotiate separate
agreements with each LEC across the country.

Legent and BCI entered into a Services Agreement (entitled One Plus
Billing and Information Management Services Agreement) in September
of 2001 to govern their LEC billing arrangement.

In addition to providing billing services to Legent and other
providers of long-distance telephone service, BCI also allegedly
provides billing services to companies that provide "enhanced
services," such as website hosting, directory listings, e-mail,
voicemail, and streaming video services. According to Legent, these
services are unregulated, which led some companies to engage in
"cramming"--the practice of placing unauthorized enhanced-services
charges on a customer's LEC bill without valid consent.

In April 2009, two class action lawsuits were commenced against
AT&T and Verizon for cramming stemming from LEC billing originated
by BCI's parent company and other billing-clearinghouse
aggregators. Neither Legent nor any of the IXCs who submit LEC
billing pursuant to a Services Agreement with BCI were parties to
the class actions. As a consequence of the class actions, BCI and
other BCI entities invoked certain protections in the Services
Agreements governing their relationships with Legent and other
IXCs. Specifically, they withheld from Legent and other IXCs the
funds generated from processing their billing records until the
offsets, charge-backs, refunds, and LEC fees and assessments could
be proportionally allocated to each of the IXCs responsible for
satisfying the consumers' claims in the class actions and the
consequential offsets, charges, fees, and other assessments imposed
by the LECs in the class actions.

In November 2018, Legent contacted BCI and requested an accounting
of these "class action holdbacks." Legent claims that BCI ignored
the request, and that, therefore it, sent a formal default notice
to BCI for failing to account for and pay any excess class action
holdbacks to Legent. According to Legent, BCI withheld at least
$1.762 million in class action holdbacks, but after conducting
discovery in this case, Legent contends a more accurate estimate
could be as high as $2.015 million. Legent concedes that BCI was
permitted to holdback certain direct expenses and a proportionate
allocation of expenses but calculates the appropriate holdback
amount to be only $183,310, and, therefore, believes BCI should pay
Legent between $1.579 and $1.832 million for unauthorized,
excessive holdbacks.

The parties' dispute centers on Section 12(d) of the parties'
Services Agreement, which reads in part: LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
AND INDEMNITY. (d) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this
Agreement, the liability of Company in any and all categories and
for any and all Claims arising out of this Agreement or out of any
act or omission relating thereto will, in the aggregate, not exceed
three (3) month's average of Company's Processing Fees charged to
Customer over the twelve (12) months preceding the date on which
the damage or injury is alleged to have occurred...

BCI argues that Legent's claims are all subject to this provision
and, therefore, Legent can only recover through this lawsuit a
maximum of the average of three months of BCI's processing fees
charged to Legent over the 12 months preceding Legent's injury.
According to the declaration of Scott A. White, Legent's sole owner
and member, three months' average processing fees historically
constitute a mere 2-4% of the revenue that BCI pays Legent. BCI
argues that Section 12(d) unambiguously limits Legent's recovery in
this action. In advancing this argument, BCI relies primarily on
the broad definition of "claim" set forth in the Services
Agreement.

BCI also argues, among other things, that Legent's claims for
breach of contract and for an accounting involve alleged
withholding of amounts purportedly owed under the parties' contract
and are therefore predicated on claims of "loss, liability [and]
damage" arising exclusively from alleged breaches of the parties'
contract. BCI, therefore, maintains that all of Legent's claims
fall within the definition of "claim" in the contract and are
subject to Section 12(d)'s limitations.

Legent concedes Section 12(d) is valid and enforceable, but insists
it must be read in the context of the entire agreement and
maintains that its cap was not intended to prevent Legent from
invoking contractual remedies for breaches by BCI of its "core
accounting and payment obligations" under other sections of the
contract.

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S. ("Betsy") Chestney opines that BCI's
proposed construction of the Services Agreement requires viewing in
isolation the first portion of Section 12(d) and the definition of
"claim" but ignoring many other provisions in the contract. Viewing
the parties' Services Agreement as a whole, and reading Section
12(d) contextually so as to harmonize the entire contract, both of
which are required under Texas law, the Court finds that BCI has
not met its heavy burden to prevail on its affirmative defense.

BCI has not established beyond peradventure that the only
unambiguous interpretation of Section 12(d) is that the sole remedy
Legent is entitled to in this suit is the average of three months
of BCI's processing fees, Judge Chestney states.

The primary relief Legent seeks in this lawsuit is performance
under the contract. BCI's primary obligation under the Services
Agreement is simply to pay Legent the amounts collected from
Legent's customers for the services Legent provided (less the
agreed-upon processing fees and assessments).

Judge Chestney notes that BCI's proposed construction of the
Services Agreement would allow BCI to intentionally withhold monies
it collected from Legent's customers on Legent's behalf, subject
only to the requirement that it remit to Legent the small sum
contemplated by Section 12(d). Judge Chestney opines, among other
things, that the better construction of the Parties' Services
Agreement is that Section 12(d) limits the liability of BCI beyond
its contractual obligations to correctly process and pay Legent for
its submitted and qualifying billing records and does not affect
Legent's ability to enforce BCI's performance obligations.

BCI concedes in its reply that Paragraph 12(d) does not and cannot
eliminate its contractual obligations. To argue otherwise would
obviously go too far. But BCI still maintains that Paragraph 12(d)
limits the remedies Legent is pursuing in this case for breach of
those obligations. In doing so, BCI improperly conflates two
distinct concepts--performance and damages--by advancing an
interpretation that functionally would eliminate its obligations
under the contract, Judge Chestney explains.

Having considered BCI's Motion, the response and replies thereto,
the record, and the governing law, the Court ruled that the
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on the Parties' Contractual
Limitation of Liability is DENIED.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 11, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y842hdb9 from Leagle.com


BLYTHEVILLE, ARK: App. Court Upholds Dismissal of Carlock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Arkansas issued an Opinion affirming a trial
court judgment granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in
the case captioned JAMES CRAIG CARLOCK, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A
REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS OF PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellant,
v. THE CITY OF BLYTHEVILLE, ARKANSAS, Appellee. No. CV-18-992.
(Ark.)

James Craig Carlock, individually and as a representative of a
class of persons similarly situated, appeals from an order of the
Mississippi County Circuit Court dismissing his illegal-exaction
complaint against the City of Blytheville, Arkansas.

Carlock filed a class-action complaint in 2014 alleging that the
excess revenue was an illegal exaction because the tax was approved
for the sole purpose of paying the City's debt to the federal
government.  

The parties filed competing motions for summary judgment.

The trial court entered an order granting summary judgment in favor
of the City and dismissing Carlock's complaint. In the order, the
trial court recited case law from the Supreme Court of Arkansas
holding that the determination of whether the use of tax revenue
for a specific purpose is to be based on the wording of the ballot
title.  The trial court found that, based on the wording of the
ballot title, the City's use of the excess funds to pay payroll
taxes was authorized and there was no illegal exaction.

The appeal followed.

Plaintiff argued on appeal that the trial court should have been
permitted to look beyond the wording of the enabling ordinance and
ballot title in determining whether tax money is being spent for an
approved purpose.  Plaintiff contended that case law from the
Supreme Court of Arkansas to the contrary should either be
overruled or not applied in the case.  

Carlock recognizes the Arkansas Supreme Court's precedent. Despite
this, he contends on appeal that in illegal-exaction cases
involving a tax enacted through an election, trial courts should be
permitted to consider evidence other than the ballot title in
determining whether tax revenue is being used for an authorized
purpose. To that end, he argues that precedent from this court
requiring a trial court to make the decision based on the contents
of the ballot title be either reversed or not applied in this
case.

The Arkansas Supreme Court declines Carlock's invitation to break
from its longstanding precedent. In Arkansas-Missouri Power Corp.
v. City of Rector, 214 Ark. 649, 217 S.W.2d 335 (1949), it was
argued that the fact that the revenue generated from a tax enacted
for the stated purpose of constructing a power plant would be
insufficient to cover the entire construction cost did not render
the tax an illegal exaction, despite the absence of any indication
in the language of the ballot title that additional funds would be
necessary, because the need for additional funding had been
discussed at city council meetings and a mass meeting the night
before the election.  

While citizens who voted in the special election at issue in the
instant case may or may not have seen press coverage or read
statements about the proposed sales and use tax, it is certain that
every person who voted was given the opportunity to review the
ballot title prior to casting his or her ballot. Because of this,
the language of the ballot title should remain the determining
factor in deciding what was approved.

Carlock does not dispute the plain language of the ordinance and
ballot title, which clearly permit the City to use the funds to pay
payroll and employment taxes. He also does not contend that the
City used the funds for some purpose other than paying payroll and
employment taxes.

Because the trial court properly utilized the enabling ordinance
and ballot title in determining the approved uses for the excess
funds, the order dismissing the complaint is affirmed, the Supreme
Court rules.

A full-text copy of the Arkansas Supreme Court's Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yyy27hm3 from Leagle.com

Law Offices of Harris & Morrison, 118 West Walnut PO Box 185,
Blytheville, AR 72316, by: James W. Harris and Zachary W. Morrison,
for appellant.

William Clark Mann III , 500 W Markham St., Little Rock, AR 72201,
for appellee.


BROOKDALE SENIOR: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Aug. 24 Motion Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 5 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Brookdale Senior Living, Inc. ("Brookdale" or
the "Company")(NYSE:BKD) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise, acquired Brookdale securities between
August 10, 2016, and April 29, 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 Brookdale securities during
the class period, you have until August 24, 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.

Brookdale is headquartered in Brentwood, Tennessee. The Company is
the nation's largest senior living community operator, with $4
billion in reported revenue in 2019.

As of February 1, 2020, Brookdale owned 356 communities, leased 307
communities, managed seventy-seven communities on behalf of third
parties, and three communities for which it has an equity interest.
The Company operates independent living, assisted living and
dementia-care communities and continuing care retirement centers
("CCRCs"). Through its ancillary services programs, the Company
also offers a range of outpatient therapy, home health,
personalized living, and hospice services.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Brookdale'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 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; (iii) as a result, the Company's financial results were
unsustainable; and (iv) as a result, the Company'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 Brookdale in
this Judicial District, which accused the Company of, among other
things, purposeful "chronically insufficient staffing" at its
facilities to meet financial benchmarks since at least April 24,
2016. According to the lawsuit, Brookdale misled residents and
their families when it promised to provide basic care and daily
living services. The lawsuit also claims that the proposed class of
plaintiffs "have not received the care and services they paid for."
The lawsuit asks for damages and Brookdale to "stop the unlawful
and fraudulent practices."

On this news, Brookdale's stock price fell $0.56 per share, or
15.22%, over two trading sessions, closing at $3.12 per share on
May 1, 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 [GN]


CARDINAL INNOVATIONS: Misclassifies Care Coordinators, Ford Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, TRACIE FORD and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. CARDINAL INNOVATIONS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00736 (M.D.N.C., August 13, 2020) arises from Defendant's
alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Care Coordination Employee
from April 2015 to March 2020.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated
Care Coordination employees regularly worked over 40 hours per
workweek. But, because Defendant classified them as exempt from
state and federal overtime laws, Defendant failed to pay them
lawful overtime when they worked over 40 hours in an individual
workweek.

Cardinal Innovations Healthcare Solutions provides health care
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason S. Chestnut, Esq.
          Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
          Craig L. Leis, Esq.
          GIBBONS LEIS, PLLC
          14045 Ballantyne Corporate Pl., #325
          Charlotte, NC 28277
          Tel: 704-612-0038
          Emails: jason@gibbonsleis.com
                  phil@gibbonsleis.com
                  craig@gibbonsleis.com


CARNICERIA CESINA: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Luz Rodriguez (aka Lucy), individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. CARNICERIA CESINA Y ENCHILADA INC. (D/B/A
CARNICERIA CESINA Y ENCHILADA) and REGULO MORALES, Case No.
1:20-cv-03631 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2020), is brought for unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938.

The lawsuit is also brought for the Defendants' violations of the
New York Labor Law and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage
orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants
in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,
overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that she
worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff
Rodriguez appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium.
Further, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which she had to work over 10
hours a day. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of
requiring the Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40
hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime
compensation required by federal and state law and regulations.

Plaintiff Rodriguez was employed as a cashier and general assistant
at the Defendants' Mexican food products store.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a Mexican food products
store (which also sells prepared foods), located in Corona, New
York, under the name "Carniceria Cesina y Enchilada".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CELGENE CORP: Court Narrows Claims in AMF Pensionsforsakring Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John Michael Vasquez of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the case, In re CELGENE
CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 18-4772, (N.D.
J.).

Under the putative class action, Lead Plaintiff AMF
Pensionsforsakring, AB (AMF) asserts that Celgene Corporation and
several of its key officers and/or employees engaged in securities
fraud under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, as well as Section 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), as to public
statements relating to three drugs in Celgene's new product
pipeline.  AMF purchased or acquired Celgene common stock at
allegedly artificially inflated prices between January 12, 2015 and
April 27, 2018 (the Class Period).

Celgene is a biopharmaceutical company that primarily develops and
commercializes drugs for the treatment of cancer and inflammatory
diseases. Celgene manufacturers and sells the multiple myeloma drug
Revlimid, which in 2010, accounted for approximately 70% of
Celgene's total annual product sales. Defendants do not appear to
dispute these facts. What Defendants deny, however, are Plaintiff's
allegation that Defendants committed securities fraud with respect
to statements about three products in the I&I franchise that
Celgene was developing as potential Revlimid revenue replacements.
The Inflammatory & Immunology (I&I) products at issue are (1)
GED-0301, (2) Otezla, and (3) Ozanimod.

Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint (SAC) for failure to state a claim pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), as well as the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA).

Plaintiff's allegations of securities fraud involve statements that
Defendants made about the three I&I pipeline drugs. Because the
alleged misrepresentations and omissions are different for each
drug, the Court addresses them separately.

One issue, however, pertains to all three products. To establish
securities fraud with respect to each product, Plaintiff relies
heavily on information from confidential sources, identified
throughout the SAC as "FEs". The FEs are former Celgene employees,
consultants and scientists. The Third Circuit has indicated how
such allegations must be viewed in light of the PSLRA.  The Court
generally finds that the FEs' information is sufficient to support
a properly-pled complaint.

A. GED-0301

Defendants argue that Plaintiff fails to sufficiently plead any
material misrepresentation or omission as to GED-0301. Plaintiff's
overall theory with respect to GED-0301 appears to be that
Celgene's statements regarding the potential for GED-0301 were not
supported by the clinical study results.

Plaintiff's allegations, however, lack sufficient factual support,
the Court notes. As evidence of Celgene's internal decision to
scrap GED-0301, Plaintiff's key allegation appears to be that
GED-0301 was not discussed in quarterly review meetings between
approximately September 2016 and when the Phase III trial was
stopped in October 2017. Plaintiff also relies on circumstantial
information from confidential witnesses who learned of the "fact"
that GED-0301 was about to be scrapped from other employees.
Moreover, Plaintiff fails to establish that any Defendant was even
aware of this alleged decision to scrap GED-0301.

Plaintiff must provide more concrete information as to Celgene's
purported decision to abandon GED-0301 in order to state a claim.
Accordingly, Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted as to the
allegations about GED-0301.

B. Otezla

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made misrepresentations and
omissions as to Celgene's ability to meet its 2017 Otezla sales
projections. As for the alleged omission, Plaintiff argues that
Defendants are liable for material omissions because Defendants
failed to "disclose the true cause of the decline in sales."
Accordingly, the Court gives Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt and
presumes that Plaintiff establishes actionable omissions with
respect to Otezla.

Defendants argue that most of their allegedly misleading statements
and omissions about Otezla are protected by the PSLRA Safe Harbor
for forward-looking statements.  A statement is "forward-looking"
if it contains a "projection of revenues, income [], earnings []
per share, capital expenditures, dividends, capital structure, or
other financial items," or statements of "future economic
performance, including any such statement contained in a discussion
and analysis of financial condition by the management."

Celgene's 10-Ks each include a detailed explanation of multiple
risk factors.  Celgene also stated that "HCMO-implemented
restrictions imposed upon our products can significantly impact
drug usage in the HCMO patient population, and consequently our
revenues." Finally, Celgene discussed barriers to entry outside of
the United States. Celgene also incorporated its detailed warnings
in its other filings with the SEC and in multiple investor
presentations. As a result, the majority of Defendants'
forward-looking statements contained appropriate cautionary
language. Thus, these statements are protected by the PSLRA Safe
Harbor. But as pled, certain of Defendants' oral forward-looking
statements did not contain meaningful cautionary language. For
example, during the January 12, 2015 conference, Robert J. Hugin,
former Executive Chairman of Celgene's Board of Directors, stated
only that "the presentation, hopefully, does have forward-looking
statements, and results may or may not be as I discussed here
today."  This cautionary statement is not substantive nor did Hugin
reference other cautionary statements. Accordingly, these
statements that did not incorporate Celgene's 10-K cautionary
language are not protected by the Safe Harbor.

While Plaintiff certainly pleads facts to demonstrate that certain
Celgene employees doubted whether the 2017 projections were
attainable from the beginning of the Class Period, Plaintiff does
not establish that any Defendant knew that the 2017 projection was
unattainable until, at the earliest, July 2016. Specifically, Scott
A. Smith, former President and Chief Operating Officer of Celgene,
and Terrie Curran, former U.S. Commercial Head of the I&I franchise
of Celgene, were "expressly warned" in at least one meeting during
the third quarter of 2016 "that the forecasted Otezla sales for
2017 were not attainable." Therefore, the forward-looking
statements that occurred prior to this time frame were not made
with actual knowledge of falsity. Accordingly, these statements are
not actionable as they are protected by the Safe Harbor. The only
remaining forward-looking statement was made by Mark Alles, Chief
Executive Officer of Celgene, at a May 31, 2017 conference.
Plaintiff, however, fails to allege that Mark Alles was told that
the 2017 numbers were not possible. Thus, this statement is also
not actionable.

Turning to the non-forward looking statements, Plaintiff fails to
demonstrate that they all constitute misrepresentations or
omissions, the Court finds. As a result, the discussion of Otezla's
first quarter sales in the April 2017 press release is not
actionable.

The next statement at issue was made by Terrie Curran during the
April 27 conference call. Curran's identified statement was a
response to a question and constitutes his opinion on whether
Otezla sales will bounce back. Plaintiff pleads sufficient facts to
suggest that Curran's opinion lacked a reasonable basis and that
Curran did not honestly believe it. As discussed, Curran was
explicitly warned by the third quarter of 2016 that Celgene was not
going to hit its 2017 projection. In fact, Plaintiff alleges that
Curran and Smith told the forecasting team to change the internal
forecasts to conceal the lack of sales growth. This statement,
therefore, is actionable. This is also the case for Alles'
statement on May 31, 2017.

In sum, Plaintiff alleges actionable statements from Curran and
Alles.

C. Ozanimod

Defendants argue that Plaintiff fails to identify a false or
misleading statement as to Ozanimod. Plaintiff counters that
Defendants' failure to disclose Celgene's discovery of the
Metabolite and need for further Phase I testing are actionable
half-truths.

Here, Plaintiff has plausibly pled allegations as to certain
Defendants concerning Ozanimod. Celgene repeatedly indicated that
it would submit the NDA for Ozanimod by the end of 2017, and
Celgene did in fact do so. However, in light of Celgene's discovery
of the Metabolite and the FDA's guidance concerning metabolites as
well as specific alleged facts, Celgene's disclosure as to the NDA
submission was materially incomplete and misleading. To make the
public disclosures concerning the NDA legally accurate, Celgene was
required to also disclose meaningful information as to the
Metabolite vis-a-vis the NDA.

Defendants' non-forward-looking statements about the NDA submission
in December 2017 are also actionable.

In sum, Plaintiff pleads that Alles, Peter Kellogg as Celgene Chief
Financial Officer, Curran, Philippe Martin as Celgene Vice
President of Leadership & Project Management - Immunology, and
Smith made actionable statements about Ozanimod, the Court notes.

Scienter

"Scienter is a mental state embracing intent to deceive,
manipulate, or defraud, and requires a knowing or reckless state of
mind."25 Avaya, 564 F.3d at 252.

Plaintiff establishes scienter only as to Smith, CurranMartin and
Curran, which may be imputed to Celgene, the Court opines.

Reliance

Plaintiff relies on a fraud-on-the-market theory of reliance. With
the fraud-on-the-market presumption, "if a market is shown to be
efficient, courts may presume that investors who traded securities
in that market relied on public, material misrepresentations
regarding those securities." Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Trust
Funds, 568 U.S. 455, 462 (2013). Defendants do not challenge
Plaintiff's allegations regarding the fraud-on-the-market
presumption. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff
adequately pleads reliance.

Loss Causation

Defendants also fail to challenge Plaintiff's economic loss or loss
causation allegations, the Court adds. As for economic loss,
Plaintiff pleads that it purchased stock during the class period
and was damaged as a result of the alleged misrepresentations and
omissions.

Section 20(a)

In Count Two, Plaintiff asserts claims for control person liability
against Alles, Kellogg, Smith, Curran, Hugin, and Jacqualyn A.
Fouse as Strategic Advisor to the Celgene Management Executive
Committee under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act ("Section 20(a)
Defendants").  

Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act imposes joint and several
liability on any individual who exercises control over a controlled
person who violates Section 10(b). Thus, liability under Section
20(a) is contingent upon sufficiently pleading an underlying
violation of Section 10(b) by the controlled person.

Plaintiffs must establish that Alles, Kellogg, Hugin and Fouse
controlled these Defendants and that they were culpable. Plaintiff
only provides the conclusory allegation that the Section 20(a)
Defendants each had the power to influence and control, and did
influence and control, directly or indirectly, the decision-making
of the Company. Likewise, Plaintiff's opposition makes only a
passing reference to the issue. This is insufficient to state a
Section 20(a) claim, the Court opines.  

Count Two is dismissed, the Court rules.

In sum, the District Court grants in part and denies in part
Defendants' motion to dismiss Lead Plaintiff's Second Amended
Complaint. With respect to the portions of the SAC that are
dismissed, the dismissal is without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/rsvo5gb from Leagle.com

Chester County Employees' Retirement Fund, Movant, represented by
LAURENCE M. ROSEN – lrosen@rosenlega.com - THE ROSEN LAW FIRM,
PA.

ALLEN E. DAVIS, Movant, represented by JEFFREY MORROW POLLOCK -
jmpollock@foxrothschild.com - FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP.

PHILIP K UEHISA, Movant, represented by EVAN JASON SMITH
-esmith@brodskysmith.com - BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC.

City of St. Petersburg Police Retirement System, Movant,
represented by KENNETH MARK REHNS  - krehns@saxenawhite.com -
Saxena White P.A.

Celgene Investor Group, Movant, represented by EDUARD KORSINSKY -
ek@zlk.com - LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP.

ERSTE-SPARINVEST KAPITALANLAGEGESELLSCHAFT M.B.H., Movant,
represented by JOSEPH J. DEPALMA - jdepalma@litedepalma.com - LITE,
DEPALMA, GREENBERG, LLC.

GENERAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF DETROIT, Movant,
represented by GARY S. GRAIFMAN , KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN,
ESQS.

AMF PENSIONSFORSAKRING AB, Lead Plaintiff, represented by DARREN J.
CHECK - dcheck@ktmc.com - KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP, DAVID
ANDREW BOCIAN - dbocian@ktmc.com - KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK
LLP, JAMES E. CECCHI - jcecchi@carellabyrne.com - CARELLA BYRNE
CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C., ANDREW ZIVITZ , KESSLER TOPAZ
MELTZER & CHECK, LLP, JOSHUA EDWARD D'ANCONA , KESSLER TOPAZ
MELTZER & CHECK LLP, MARGARET ELIN MAZZEO , KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER &
CHECK LLP & NATHAN HASIUK , KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP.

CITY OF WARREN GENERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by JAMES E. CECCHI, CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY
& AGNELLO, P.C.

DONALD J. FRITSCHIE, GEORGE MCGAHREN, KEVIN MATZKE, CHARLES
MATTHEWS & KRISTINE MATTHEWS, Plaintiffs, represented by ANDREW R.
WOLF - awolf@wolflawfirm.net - The Wolf Law Firm, LLC & MARK A.
FISHER - mfisher@wolflawfirm.net - THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC.

MENORA MIVTACHIM INSURANCE LTD. & MENORA MIVTACHIM PENSIONS AND
GEMEL LTD., Plaintiffs, represented by PETER S. PEARLMAN -
psp@njlawfirm.com - COHN, LIFLAND, PEARLMAN, HERRMANN & KNOPF,
LLP.

CELGENE CORPORATION, MARK J. ALLES, PETER N. KELLOGG, SCOTT A.
SMITH, NADIM AHMED & TERRIE CURRAN, Defendants, represented by
LAWRENCE S. LUSTBERG - llustberg@gibbonslaw.com - GIBBONS, PC,
CYMETRA MONIQUE WILLIAMS - cwilliams@gibbonslaw.com - GIBBONS PC &
KATE ELIZABETH JANUKOWICZ  - kjanukowicz@gibbonslaw.com - GIBBONS
PC.

Peter Callegari, Jonathan Q. Tran & PHILIPPE MARTIN, Defendants,
represented by LAWRENCE S. LUSTBERG , GIBBONS, PC.

JACQUALYN A. FOUSE & ROBERT J. HUGIN, Defendant Consolidateds,
represented by LAWRENCE S. LUSTBERG , GIBBONS, PC.

CHARLES H. WITCHCOFF, Defendant Consolidated, represented by
CHRISTOPHER A. SEEGER - cseeger@seegerweiss.com - SEEGER WEISS
LLP.


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Customers File NIS179 Million Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. (NYSE: CEL) (TASE: CEL) (hereinafter: the
"Company") on Aug. 6 disclosed that a purported class action was
filed against the Company, alleging that the Company misled its
customers by failing to disclose certain information in relation to
a certain service. The amount claimed from the Company, if the
lawsuit is certified as a class action, was estimated by the
plaintiff to be approximately NIS 179 million. At this preliminary
stage, the Company is unable to assess the lawsuit's chances of
success.

                      About Cellcom Israel

Cellcom Israel Ltd., established in 1994, is a leading Israeli
communications group, providing a wide range of communications
services. Cellcom Israel is the largest Israeli cellular provider,
providing its approximately 2.747 million cellular subscribers (as
at March 31, 2020) with a broad range of services including
cellular telephony, roaming services for tourists in Israel and for
its subscribers abroad, text and multimedia messaging, advanced
cellular content and data services and other value-added services
in the areas of music, video, mobile office etc., based on Cellcom
Israel's technologically advanced infrastructure. The Company
operates an LTE 4 generation network and an HSPA 3.5 Generation
network enabling advanced high speed broadband multimedia services,
in addition to GSM/GPRS/EDGE networks. Cellcom Israel offers
Israel's broadest and largest customer service infrastructure
including telephone customer service centers, retail stores, and
service and sale centers, distributed nationwide. Cellcom Israel
further provides OTT TV services, internet infrastructure and
connectivity services and international calling services, as well
as landline telephone services in Israel. Cellcom Israel's shares
are traded both on the New York Stock Exchange (CEL) and the Tel
Aviv Stock Exchange (CEL).

For additional information please visit the Company's website
http://investors.cellcom.co.il.[GN]


CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY: Walsh Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
--------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN WALSH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No.
8:20-cv-01538 (C.D. Cal., August 19, 2020) is a class action
brought on behalf of all people who paid tuition and fees, either
directly or through a third party paying on their behalf, for
in-person undergraduate or graduate programs at Chapman, and who
have been unable to receive the benefit of the education for which
they paid, and/or the services for which their fees were paid,
since the campus effectively shut down March 12, 2020 and moved
classes on-line as part of Chapman's response to the Novel
Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19") pandemic.

While the effects of the COVID-19 crisis are shared by all
individuals and institutions across the country, the Defendant has
failed to apportion the burden in an equitable manner or consistent
with its obligations as an educational institution. Some classes in
the Spring 2020 course terms were canceled, and all remaining
Spring 2020 classes were held exclusively online.

As a result of the closure of the Defendant's campuses and
facilities, Defendant has failed to deliver the educational
services, facilities, access and/or opportunities for which
Plaintiff and the putative class contracted and paid, either
directly or through a third-party on their behalf.

Nonetheless, Defendant has retained all tuition, fees, and related
payments for these classes, and plans to do so for similar online
classes in the coming course terms.

As a result of the Defendant's unilateral policy changes, Plaintiff
has not received the educational services, access to facilities,
and/or related opportunities for which Plaintiff and the putative
class contracted and paid.

Chapman University is a California-based private university
comprised of eleven constituent schools.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephanie R. Tatar, Esq.
          TATAR LAW FIRM, APC
          3500 West Olive Avenue, Suite 300
          Burbank, CA 91505
          Telephone: (323) 744-1146
          E-mail: Stephanie@thetatarlawfirm.com
  
               - and -

          Yvette Golan, Esq.
          THE GOLAN FIRM, LLP
          2000 M Street, NW, Suite #750-A
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (866) 298-4150
          Facsimile: (928) 441-8250
          E-mail: ygolan@tgfirm.com

               - and -

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          David A. Searles, Esq.
          Edward H. Skipton, Esq.
          FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
                  dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com
                  eskipton@consumerlawfirm.com

CHARLOTTE SCHOOL: Approval of $2.65MM Herrera Suit Deal Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the District Court's Judgment approving the
Settlement Agreement in the cases captioned DANIEL HERRERA; ZACHARY
AIKEN; OMAR BASHI; KIMBERLEY BEYER; STEVEN BURLESON; KABIR BUHARI;
EDGAR JULIAN CABRA; KAYLA CARMENIA; CHARLIE CARPENTER; SHERRY
DUNCAN; BRENT FINNELL; PAMELA FREEMAN; CHARLES HORNACK; JAMES A.
HOWE; TALECE HUNTER; EPHRAIM MOSELY; ANNABELLE PARDO; SUSAN
PATROSKI; DAWN PATTERSON; MICHAEL PEREZ; KARINA RAHALL; SHANELL
REID; JAMAL WILLIAMS, Objectors-Appellants, and ROBERT C.
BARCHIESI, Individually and in a Representative capacity on behalf
of a class of all persons similarly situated; LEJLA HADZIC,
Individually and in a Representative capacity on behalf of a class
of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHARLOTTE SCHOOL
OF LAW, LLC; INFILAW CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees, RAISSA
LEVY; JAMES VILLANUEVA; SHANNA RIVERA; ANDRE MCCOY; 17CV26 LEVY
PLAINTIFFS; LEAH ASH; 17CV39 ASH PLAINTIFFS; SPENCER KREBS; MORGAN
SWITZER; DAVE WYATT; JACENTA MARIE PRICE; KRYSTAL HORSLEY; MARKISHA
DOBSON; 17CV190 PLAINTIFFS, Consolidated Plaintiffs-Appellees,
INFILAW HOLDING, LLC; JAY CONISON; CHIDI OGENE; DONALD LIVELY,
Consolidated Defendants-Appellees, and STERLING PARTNERS; STERLING
CAPITAL PARTNERS IV, LLC, Defendants. ROBERT C. BARCHIESI,
Individually and in a Representative capacity on behalf of a class
of all persons similarly situated; LEJLA HADZIC, Individually and
in a Representative capacity on behalf of a class of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, REBECCA APPELBAUM;
CAROLINE APRAHAMIAN; ERIN BOWMAN; BRIDGET CAMPBELL; ARIEL CARTER;
KIA JOHNSON; VONDA JOHNSON; JESSICA HALL; ALECIA KING; BRYANT
LAVENDER; HATTY MACON; NISHI PATEL; ALEX PETTY; LEROY RICHARDSON;
KAYTLIN RUZICKA; JULIETA SMITH; CHRISTOPHER TABAKA; STACY TOWNSEND,
Objector-Appellants v. CHARLOTTE SCHOOL OF LAW, LLC; INFILAW
CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees, RAISSA LEVY; JAMES VILLANUEVA;
SHANNA RIVERA; ANDRE MCCOY; 17CV26 LEVY PLAINTIFFS; LEAH ASH;
17CV39 ASH PLAINTIFFS; SPENCER KREBS; MORGAN SWITZER; DAVE WYATT;
JACENTA MARIE PRICE; KRYSTAL HORSLEY; MARKISHA DOBSON; 17CV190
PLAINTIFFS, Consolidated Plaintiffs-Appellees, INFILAW HOLDING,
LLC; JAY CONISON; CHIDI OGENE; DONALD LIVELY, Consolidated
Defendants-Appellees, and STERLING PARTNERS; STERLING CAPITAL
PARTNERS IV, LLC, Defendants, Case Nos. 19-1148, 19-1161 (4th
Cir.).

Three putative federal class action lawsuits were filed against
Defendants; one in the Middle District of North Carolina and two in
the Western District of North Carolina. Specifically, on December
22, 2016, Krebs v. CSL, No. 1:16-cv-01437-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C.), was
filed in the Middle District of North Carolina. On the same day,
Barchiesi v. CSL, No. 3:16-cv-00861-GCM (W.D.N.C.), was filed in
the Western District of North Carolina. On January 19, 2017, Levy
v. CSL, No. 3:17-cv-00026-GCM (W.D.N.C.), was also filed in the
Western District of North Carolina.

On April 10, 2017, Krebs was transferred from the Middle District
of North Carolina to the Western District of North Carolina, No.
3:17-cv-00190-GCM. Accordingly, on October 13, 2017, the District
Court consolidated Krebs, Barchiesi, and Levy for discovery
purposes.

On December 28, 2016, Plaintiff Leah Ash filed suit in North
Carolina Superior Court, Ash v. CSL, No. 16-CVS-22993, which was
removed to the District Court over her objection, Ash v. CSL,
3:17-cv-00039-GCM (W.D.N.C.). Then, on November 14, 2017, the
District Court consolidated Ash with Krebs, Barchiesi, and Levy.
Id.

From April 19, 2018, to April 20, 2018, the Plaintiffs in the
federal and state lawsuits and their counsel participated in a
mediation conducted by professional mediator, Hunter Hughes. As a
result, the Defendants and the Plaintiffs in Krebs and Levy, as
well as Plaintiff Leah Ash (collectively "Settling Parties"),
executed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Barchiesi
Plaintiffs. Eventually, a settlement agreement was reached.

As noted in the Settlement Agreement, this was to be a limited
fund, non-opt-out settlement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(1)(B). The settlement class was defined as those
"who enrolled in, attended, or paid tuition or fees to CSL between
September 1, 2013 through and including August 15, 2017."

According to the Appellate Court's Opinion, the central question
raised in this appeal is whether the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina abused its discretion in
approving a limited fund class action settlement pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)(B) and Ortiz v. Fibreboard
Corp., 527 U.S. 815 (1999).

The dispute giving rise to the settlement centers around
allegations concerning Charlotte School of Law, LLC's ("CSL")
compliance with the American Bar Association's ("ABA")
accreditation standards, related ABA directives to take remedial
action, and representations or lack thereof concerning the same.

The Defendants funded the settlement with $2,650,000, which was
derived from two sources: a $2,500,000 portion of an insurance
policy and a $150,000 institutional contribution. After a
meticulous review, the District Court ultimately approved the
limited fund settlement.

The Appellate Court concludes that the District Court did not abuse
its discretion in approving the limited fund settlement. The
Appellate Court further finds that the District Court did not abuse
its discretion by ultimately determining that the settlement was
fair, reasonable, and adequate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(e), and in denying a motion for discovery, largely
concerning the Defendants' ability to fund the settlement.

Accordingly, the Appellate Court affirms the District Court's
decisions in full.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' June 11, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycutw8vz from Leagle.com.

Gary K. Shipman, Esq., Kyle J. Nutt, Esq., Angelique Adams, Esq.,
SHIPMAN & WRIGHT, LLP, at 575 Military Cutoff Rd., Suite 106, in
Wilmington, North Carolina; H. Forest Horne, Esq.--email@m-j.com,
John Alan Jones, Esq.--email@m-j.com, Steven D. Corriveau,
Esq.,--email@m-j.com, MARTIN & JONES, PLLC, in Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Barchiesi Appellants.

Christopher R. Bagley, Esq.--christopher.bagley@farrin.com, Gary W.
Jackson, Esq.--gary.jackson@farrin.com, LAW OFFICES OF JAMES SCOTT
FARRIN in Durham, North Carolina, for Herrera Appellants.

David E. Mills, Esq.--dmills@cooley.com, Michael D. Hays, Esq.,
COOLEY LLP, in Washington, D.C.; Robert T. Cahill,
Esq.--rcahill@cooley.com, in Reston, Virginia, for Appellees
Charlotte School of Law, LLC, InfiLaw Corporation, InfiLaw Holding
LLC, Jay Conison, Chidi Ogene, and Donald Lively.

Anthony J. Majestro, Esq., POWELL & MAJESTRO, PLLC, at 405 Capitol
Street, Suite P-1200, in Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees
Spencer Krebs, et al.

Philip Bohrer, Esq., BOHRER BRADY LLC, at 8712 Jefferson Highway,
Suite B, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Brian L. Kinsley, Esq., CRUMLEY
ROBERTS, LLP, in Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees Raissa
Levy, et al.

Michael John Messinger, Esq., LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL MESSINGER,
PLLC, in Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee Leah Ash.


CHEETAH MOBILE: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Aug. 24 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 Cheetah Mobile, Inc. (NYSE:
CMCM). 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.

Cheetah Mobile, Inc. (NYSE: CMCM)

Class Period: March 25, 2019 to February 20, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 24, 2020

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

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

The complaint, filed on June 25, 2020, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
certain of Cheetah Mobile's apps were not compliant with the terms
of its agreements with Google; (2) that, as a result there was a
reasonable likelihood that Google would terminate its advertising
contracts with the Company; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing,
the Company's ability to attract new users would be adversely
impacted; (4) that, as a result, the Company's revenue was
reasonably likely to decline; and (5) that as a result, defendants'
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times.

For more information on the Cheetah Mobile class action go to:
https://bespc.com/CMCM

               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]


CHEETAH MOBILE: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Aug. 25 Motion Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 4 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Cheetah Mobile, Inc. ("Cheetah Mobile" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: CMCM) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in United States District Court for the Central
District of California, and indexed under 20-cv-06896, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Cheetah Mobile
securities between March 25, 2019, and February 20, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against the
Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Cheetah Mobile securities
during the class period, you have until August 25, 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.

Cheetah Mobile is a mobile Internet company that offers mobile
utility products (such as Clean Master and Cheetah Keyboard),
casual games (such as Piano Tiles 2, Bricks n Balls), and live
streaming product Live.me. The Company provides its advertising
customers, which include direct advertisers and mobile advertising
networks through which advertisers place their advertisements, with
direct access to highly targeted mobile users and global
promotional channels.

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 failed to disclose to investors that: (i)
certain of Cheetah Mobile's apps were not compliant with the terms
of its agreements with Google; (ii) as a result, there was a
reasonable likelihood that Google would terminate its advertising
contracts with the Company; (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's ability to attract new users would be adversely impacted;
(iv) as a result, the Company's revenue was reasonably likely to
decline; and (v) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

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

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]


CHICAGO BRIDGE: Kahn Swick Announces Pendency of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY N.V. SECURITIES LITIGATION

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION

TO:     All those who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. ("CB&I") on the New
York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") during a Class Period from October 30,
2013, through and including June 23, 2015 (the "Class").

Excluded from the Class are the Defendants, officers and directors
of CB&I, members of their immediate families and their legal
representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in
which Defendants have or had a controlling interest.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY.
YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION.

This Notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York (the "Court"), entered March
23, 2020, certifying the above-captioned action as a Class Action.
This Action has not been settled and continues to be litigated.
Accordingly, no claim form need be filed at this time.

If you are a member of the Class, your rights are affected by this
Action, and you may have the right to participate in any recovery.
You also have the right to exclude yourself from the Class in
accordance with the directions set forth in a more detailed Notice
of Pendency of Class Action, which was mailed separately to persons
and entities identified from the records of Defendant Chicago
Bridge & Iron Company N.V. as members of the Class. That Notice of
Pendency of Class Action describes in more detail this Class Action
and your rights with respect thereto.

If you have not received a more detailed Notice by mail, please
contact:

Chicago Bridge Iron Securities Litigation
P.O. Box 3410
Portland, OR 97208-3410
Telephone: (855) 958-3609
www.ChicagoBridgeIronSecuritiesLitigation.com

Inquiries other than requests for the Notice may be made to Class
Counsel:

Lewis S. Kahn, Esq.
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
1100 Poydras Avenue, Suite 3200
New Orleans, Louisiana 70163
Telephone: (504) 455-1400
Fax: (504) 455-1498

PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
FOR INFORMATION OR ADVICE.

Dated: August 6, 2020

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
United States District Court
Southern District of New York [GN]


COMMONWEALTH EDISON: Brooks Alleges Bribery to Hike Electric Price
------------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN BROOKS and DAVID CHAVEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COMMONWEALTH EDISON
COMPANY d/b/a ComEd and EXELON CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-04555 (N.D. Ill., August 3, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendants for alleged violation of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, civil conspiracy, violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, and unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, ComEd allegedly paid bribes to Michael
A. Madigan, the Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives,
in order to ensure the passage of legislative bills that would
permit the company to charge higher electric rates to consumers in
Illinois, including the Plaintiffs. Under Madigan's stewardship,
the Illinois legislature passed two bills in 2011 and 2016, the
Energy Infrastructure and Modernization Act (EIMA) and the Future
Energy Jobs Act (FEJA), each of which permitted ComEd to charge
dramatically higher rates for electricity in the state. The
Defendants' participation in a pattern of racketeering activity is
confirmed in ComEd's Deferred Prosecution Agreement, which admits
facts confirming their knowing participation in bribery and mail
and/or wire fraud. ComEd concealed its illegal payments using
off-the-books payment records and fraudulent invoices.

As a result of the Defendants' unlawful conduct, the Plaintiffs and
Class members have suffered and will continue to suffer injury,
ascertainable losses of money or property, and monetary and
non-monetary damages, including from overpaying for electricity
from the Defendants.

Commonwealth Edison Company, d/b/a ComEd, is an electric utility
provider with its principal place of business located at 440 South
LaSalle Street, Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.

Exelon Corporation is a Fortune 100 energy company with its
principal place of business located at 10 S. Dearborn Street, 49th
Floor, Chicago, Cook County, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
     
         Laurel G. Bellows, Esq.
         THE BELLOWS LAW GROUP, P.C.
         209 South LaSalle, Suite 800
         Chicago, IL 60604
         Telephone: (312) 332-3340
         E-mail: lbellows@bellowslaw.com

                - and –
         
         Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
         MASON, LIETZ & KLINGER, LLP
         227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (202) 975-0477

                - and –
         
         Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
         Rachel J. Geman, Esq.
         Jason L. Lichtman, Esq.
         John T. Nicolaou, Esq.
         LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
         250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
         New York, NY 10013
         Telephone: (212) 355-9500

                - and –
         
         Kevin R. Budner, Esq.
         LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
         275 Battery Street
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 956-1000

                - and –
         
         Andrew R. Kaufman, Esq.
         LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
         222 Second Avenue South, Suite 1640
         Nashville, TN 37201
         Telephone: (615) 313-9000

COMMUNITY CARE: Patient File Data Breach Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Diana, writing for Albany Business Review, reports that a
Community Care Physicians patient has filed a proposed class action
complaint against Community Care and its accounting firm, BST &
Co., after data was stolen in a data breach late last year.

This is the second proposed class action suit filed against BST in
the last few months, and the first suit filed in which Community
Care was also named as a defendant.

The latest lawsuit was filed in state Supreme Court in Albany
County on July 31 on behalf of lead plaintiff Eleanor Murray, a
Niskayuna resident and Community Care patient.

Attorneys from Weitz & Luxenberg PC of New York; Turke & Strauss
LLP of Wisconsin; Cohen & Malad LLP of Indiana; and Branstetter,
Stranch & Jennings PLLC of Tennessee are seeking a class action
status for the suit, which has not yet been certified.

BST & Co. was hit with a ransomware attack on Dec. 7 that exposed
the data of some of its accounting and tax service clients,
including the medical group Community Care Physicians.

The company revealed the attack in an advisory sent to media in
February, along with letters sent to Community Care patients
affected by the attack. Community Care is the region's
third-largest physician group.

BST found the files accessed in the attack contained some personal
information of patients, including names, dates of birth, medical
record numbers, medical billing codes and insurance descriptions.
Patient medical records and Social Security numbers were not
exposed.

After analyzing what data was pulled from the attack, BST mailed
notice letters on Feb. 14 to the patients of Community Care that
had information accessed or acquired as a result of the attack.

The class action suit alleges the ransomware attack was a result of
BST's failure to implement adequate cybersecurity procedures to
protect private information, and it faults Community Care for
allegedly trusting BST without looking into its data security
practices.

The lawsuit claims the hackers had access to the private
information of 170,000 individuals, including Community Care
patients. It is not clear what the effect may have been on BST's
other customers. As a result of the attack, the lawsuit says class
members have been exposed to a heightened risk of fraud and
identity theft.

Community Care said it does not comment on pending or ongoing
litigation.

BST said it does not comment on pending litigation. The firm has
until Aug. 17 to respond to the first lawsuit, which was filed in
May. [GN]


CORPORATE EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Reinhardt Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Reinhardt, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. CORPORATE EXPRESS, INC. (D/B/A CORPORATE EXPRESS),
DANIEL CONTE, ANGEL ORTIZ, and ONISS DOE, Case No. 1:20-cv-06343
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2020), is brought for unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation
for the hours that he worked, according to the complaint. Rather,
the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the
hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any
hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium. Furthermore, the Defendants repeatedly
failed to pay the Plaintiff wages on a timely basis. The Defendants
maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff to work
in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage
and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and
regulations.

Plaintiff Reinhardt was employed as a driver in Manhattan for the
Defendants' bus rental service.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a bus rental service, which
operates in Manhattan and whose main office is located in Harrison,
New Jersey, under the name "Corporate Express."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CSA TRAVEL: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Booking Refund
---------------------------------------------------------
Potts Law Firm on Aug. 5 disclosed that a Wichita, Kansas, woman
has filed a proposed federal class action lawsuit against the
company that serves as the Vrbo travel website's exclusive travel
insurance provider. The lawsuit alleges that CSA Travel Protection,
the American affiliate of Italy-based Generali Group, has refused
to honor its policy and refund more than $3,500 for a properly
cancelled booking of a beach house in Rockport, on the Texas Gulf
Coast.

Audra Sanchez made a reservation through Vrbo in May 2020 for the
accommodations for her husband and four children for a weeklong
vacation, planned for July 24-31. When booking the property, Ms.
Sanchez paid more than $250 for a travel insurance coverage plan
from CSA. At that time there were no reports of widespread
transmission of COVID-19 in the Wichita or Rockport communities,
and both state's governors had lifted stay-at-home orders.

However, on July 13, Ms. Sanchez's 12-year-old daughter was
directly exposed to COVID-19 while playing at a friend's house. Ms.
Sanchez, who has an autoimmune disorder, was immediately concerned
and contacted her doctor, who directed the family to conduct a
two-week quarantine. The doctor also wrote a letter, which was
submitted to CSA along with her trip cancellation claim, requesting
that the insurer "release [Ms. Sanchez] from her obligations to her
vacation package at this time" because the doctor directed them to
quarantine until at least August 1.

CSA responded by email five days later that the claim was being
denied, and only offered a refund of her insurance premium.  

"Ms. Sanchez did all the right things, took all the right
precautions, and fully expected this company to honor its
commitment," said Tim Sifers of the Kansas City office of the Potts
Law Firm, who represents Ms. Sanchez. "These denials by Vrbo's
insurance provider are widespread, and a class action is the most
efficient and effective means to gain compensation for those who
purchased these policies in good faith, only to be wrongfully
denied."

The case is Audra Sanchez et. al. v. Generali Group et.al., Case
2:20-cv-02380-SAC-TJJ, filed in U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas in Kansas City.  [GN]


DEVA CONCEPTS: Hedges Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Deva Concepts LLC.
The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Deva Concepts LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-06280 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2020).

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

Deva Concepts LLC manufactures hair care products. The Company
produces and markets a range products for cleaning, conditioning,
and styling curly hair.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com


ECI MANAGEMENT: Court Says Aegis Must Pay to Defend Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence J. Bracken II, Esq. -- lbracken@HuntonAK.com -- and
Michael S. Levine, Esq. -- mlevine@HuntonAK.com -- of Hunton
Andrews Kurth, in an article for The National Law Review, report
that deciding that certain damages claimed by the underlying case
plaintiff were covered "Loss" under a professional services policy,
the Eleventh Circuit determined that AEGIS must pay to defend
Georgia landlord ECI Management, LLC, in a class action for
wrongful failure to return tenants' security deposits under
O.C.G.A. Sec. 44-7-35(c).  The policy defined "Loss" as "a
compensatory monetary amount for which the Insured may be held
legally liable, including judgments . . . awards, or settlements,"
but specifically excluded:

- any disgorgement, return, withdrawal, restitution or reduction
of any sums which are or were in the possession or control of any
Insured;

- punitive, exemplary, treble damages or any other damages
resulting from the multiplication of compensatory damages; [or]

- equitable relief, or fees, costs or expenses incurred by the
Insured to comply with any such equitable relief.

The Eleventh Circuit, reversing the district court, decided that
AEGIS was obligated to defend the landlord because the plaintiff in
the underlying case had demanded attorney's fees under the Georgia
Security Deposit statute, which was covered Loss.  AEGIS contended
that attorney's fees were not covered Loss because they were only
available for intentional conduct that would entitle plaintiffs to
treble damages, which were excluded under the policy.  The Eleventh
Circuit rejected AEGIS's argument, noting that "while it is true
that an award of attorney's fees under the statute, as a practical
matter, rises and falls with the award of treble damages, it does
not directly flow from those damages.  Rather, both the treble
damages and the attorney's fees flow from a finding that that the
landlord acted intentionally . . ."  Accordingly, the attorneys'
fees claimed in the underlying case were covered Loss, requiring
AEGIS to defend the landlord.

The appellate court did agree with the district court and AEGIS
that there was no coverage for the transfer of any part of the
security deposit back to the tenant, because such a transfer would
fall within the scope of the Policy's carve-out for "any
disgorgement, return, withdrawal, restriction of reduction of any
sums which are or were in possession or control of any insured . .
. "  Thus, any defense obligation could not be based on those
allegations.

The Eleventh Circuit's decision follows well-established Georgia
law requiring strict construction of any exclusions to coverage and
imposing on insurers "a duty to define any limitations on that
coverage in clear and explicit terms."  Because attorney's fees
were not specifically excluded from coverage under the landlord's
policy (and in fact, "awards" were specifically included within the
definition of "Loss"), they were covered under the policy and
triggered the landlord's duty to defend.  As the court observed,
"[i]f the facts as alleged in the complaint even arguably bring the
occurrence within the policy's coverage, the insurer has a duty to
defend the action," and the attorney's fee claim unquestionably
fell within coverage of the AEGIS policy.

A copy of the decision is available at https://is.gd/EQZMR6 [GN]


ENERGY RECOVERY: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 21 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 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.

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]


ESKATON VILLAGE: Cal. App. Flips in Part Judgment in Coley Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Third District, Sacramento,
issued an Opinion reversing in part and affirming in part the Trial
Court's Judgment in Plaintiff's favor in the case captioned RONALD
F. COLEY, Plaintiff and Appellant v. ESKATON et al., Defendants and
Appellants, Case No. C084328 (Cal. App.).

Eskaton, Eskaton Village-Grass Valley (Eskaton Village), and
Eskaton Properties Inc. (collectively, the Eskaton entities) are
related corporations that develop and support common interest
developments for older adults in Northern California. Since the
Village's homeowners association's inception, Eskaton Village has
controlled three out of the five seats on the Association's board.
Exercising its majority voting power, Eskaton Village has
consistently elected three employees of the Eskaton entities to sit
on the Association's board. And, at least in recent years, it has
appointed directors, who are financially incentivized to run the
Association for the benefit of Eskaton Village. Two of those
employees are defendants here, Todd Murch and Elizabeth L. Donovan.
Defendant Murch is the chief executive officer and president of all
the Eskaton entities. Defendant Donovan is the chief operating
officer of all the Eskaton entities.

Ronald F. Coley owns a home in one of their developments, Eskaton
Village Grass Valley (the Village). He brought this suit against
the Village's homeowners association, two of the directors on the
association's board, and the directors' employers (the Eskaton
entities), alleging these directors ran the Association for the
benefit of the Eskaton entities rather than the Association and its
members.

The Trial Court agreed with Mr. Coley in part, finding these
directors breached their fiduciary duty to the homeowners
association and its members in several respects. In particular, the
Trial Court found one director improperly shared with the Eskaton
entities the Association's privileged communications with its
counsel, and both directors, in violation of the Association's
governing documents, approved certain assessments that benefited
the Eskaton entities and harmed many of the Association's members.

Based on this conduct, the Trial Court found the directors'
employers, the Eskaton entities, were liable for any damages Mr.
Coley suffered as a result, though it declined to find the
directors liable in their personal capacities. The Trial Court
awarded Mr. Coley damages of $2,328.51 and attorney fees of
$654,242.53.

Both Parties appealed. The Eskaton entities and the two director
defendants (collectively, the Defendants) contend the Trial Court
should have afforded the directors more deference under the
business judgment rule--a rule under which courts tend to defer to
the decisions of corporate directors. They also claim the Trial
Court misread the Association's governing documents, miscalculated
appropriate damages, and misapplied vicarious-liability principles
in finding the Eskaton entities liable for their employees' conduct
even though their employees were not liable themselves. Finally,
they assert the Trial Court awarded an excessive amount of attorney
fees.

Mr. Coley, in his cross-appeal, raises several additional issues.
He contends the Trial Court should have found the two directors
personally liable for their conduct, and alleges the Trial Court
wrongly rejected several of his claims against the Defendants.

Disposition

The Appeals Court agrees in part with both of the Parties. The
Judgment is reversed in part and affirmed in part. The Appeals
Court finds, as the Defendants contend, that the Trial Court
miscalculated the damages on certain claims and should, after
reducing the damages award on remand, reconsider the awarded
attorney fees in light of this reduction.

The Appeals Court also agrees, as Mr. Coley asserts, that the Trial
Court should have found the two directors personally liable for
their actions. In all other respects, the Appeals Court affirms the
judgment. The Appeals Court directs the Trial Court to enter a
modified judgment finding Defendants-Directors Murch and Donovan
liable in their personal capacities for their respective breaches
of their fiduciary duties.

The Appeals Court also remands to allow the Trial Court to
recalculate the damages award consistent with the Appeals Court's
opinion; to consider whether the awarded attorney fees should be
reduced in light of the reduced damages; and to determine
Defendants Murch's and Donovan's liability for damages and their
liability, if any, for Mr. Coley's attorney fees.

The Parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' June 11, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9wjemam from Leagle.com.


FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Omits Material Merger Facts, Smith Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; THERESIA GOUW;
MICHAEL DECESARE; JAMES BEER; DAVID DEWALT; ELIZABETH HACKENSON;
MARK JENSEN; KATHY MCELLIGOTT; ENRIQUE SALEM; HEZY YESHURUN;
FERRARI GROUP HOLDINGS, L.P.; and FERRARI MERGER SUB, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-06006 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendants for violation of Sections
14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made false and
misleading solicitation statement with the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) on July 20, 2020 by omitting material
information with respect to Forescout Technologies' proposed merger
agreement with Ferrari Group Holdings, L.P. and Ferrari Merger Sub,
Inc. The material facts that the Defendants failed to disclose in
the solicitation statement include: (1) Forescout's financial
projections; (2) the Discounted Equity Value Analysis and
Discounted Cash Flow Analysis performed by Morgan Stanley & Co.
LLC, Forescout's financial advisor, in connection with the proposed
transaction; (3) the timing and nature of the past services Morgan
Stanley provided to the parties to the merger agreement and their
affiliates, and when Morgan Stanley informed the Defendants of such
past services; (4) communications regarding post-transaction
employment during the negotiation of the underlying transaction;
and (5) other potential alternative strategies available to
Forescout, which, despite significant uncertainty, had the
potential to result in a more successful and valuable company
considered by the Individual Defendants.

The omissions in the solicitation statement are material to the
Plaintiff and the Class, and they will be deprived of their
entitlement to make a fully informed decision with respect to the
proposed transaction if such misrepresentations and omissions are
not corrected prior to the expiration of the tender offer on August
14, 2020.

Forescout Technologies, Inc. is a provider of automated security
control solutions with principal place of business located in San
Jose, California.

Ferrari Group Holdings, L.P. is a company that specializes in the
worldwide shipment of jewellery and luxury goods.

Ferrari Merger Sub, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and an indirect
wholly owned subsidiary of Ferrari Group Holdings, L.P. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
         Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
         Gina M. Serra, Esq.
         825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300
         Garden City, NY 11530
         Telephone: (516) 683-3516
         E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
                 tjm@rl-legal.com
                 gms@rl-legal.com

                - and –
         
         Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
         RM LAW, P.C.
         1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
         Berwyn, PA 19312
         Telephone: (484) 324-6800
         E-mail: rm@maniskas.com

FRESH FARMS: Yarger Class Certification Bid Denied, Discovery OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as DANYALE YARGER, on behalf of
herself and those similarly situated, v. FRESH FARMS, LLC, Case No.
2:19-cv-02767-JAR-JP (D. Kan., Filed December 19, 2019), the Hon.
Judge Julie A. Robinson entered an order:

   1. denying Fresh Farms' motion to set aside clerk's entry of
      default;

   2. granting in part and denying in part without prejudice the
      Plaintiff's motion to certify class and for leave to take
      discovery prior to entry of final judgment;

   3. granting a motion for leave to take discovery;

   4. denying without prejudice the motion to certify class; and

   5. giving the Plaintiff 90 days from the date of this Order
      to conduct class certification and damages-related
      discovery and to file a renewed motion for class
      certification.

The Court held that, while the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification is premature, the Plaintiff's request for leave to
conduct discovery prior to the entry of a final default judgment is
well-taken. The Plaintiff states that putative class members can be
readily located and notified of this action, and that the statutory
amount of damages can be determined, through business records
maintained by Fresh Farms, its officers, and its marketing and
mobile-aggregation vendors. "It would be unjust to prevent
Plaintiff from attempting to demonstrate the elements for
certification of a class without the benefit of discovery, due to
Defendant's failure to participate in this case," the Court said.

The Plaintiff, a Kansas resident, alleges that Fresh Farms, a South
Dakota wholesaler that delivers fruit and vegetables to customers
nationwide, violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, by
sending unsolicited, automatic text messages to the Plaintiff's and
the putative class members' cellular phones.[CC]

GENERAL MOTORS: Objections to Final Order in Teachers Suit Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NEW YORK STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, DANIEL F. AKERSON, NICHOLAS
S. CYPRUS, CHRISTOPHER P. LIDDELL, DANIEL AMMANN, CHARLES K.
STEVENS, III, MARY T. BARRA, THOMAS S. TIMKO, and GAY P. KENT,
Defendants, Civil Case No. 14-11191 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Linda V.
Parker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, rejected Donald C. Marro's objections
to the Court's final order, entered in May 2016, (i) approving the
settlement of the class action securities lawsuit, and (ii) denying
his motions.

One of Mr. Marro's complaints was that the settlement was unfair
because it did not include GM warrants as eligible securities and
that the Plan of Allocation was unfair because it excluded recovery
based on shares of GM stock sold before March 10, 2014, the first
alleged corrective disclosure in the action.  The Sixth Circuit
rejected Mr. Marro's claims on appeal on Nov. 27, 2017.

Mr. Marro moved for rehearing, which the Sixth Circuit also denied.
His petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court
was denied on Oct. 29, 2018.

Once Mr. Marro's appeal was resolved, the claims administrator was
at last able to distribute the settlement funds to the Settlement
Class Members.  On May 2, 2019, the Lead Plaintiff moved for an
order to distribute the funds.  The Court entered a distribution
order on May 21, 2019.  Payments were mailed to the Settlement
Class Members beginning July 31, 2019.

Since that time, Mr. Marro has filed multiple duplicative
objections to the order of disbursement and motions for oral
argument with respect to his objections.  In his filings, Mr. Marro
contends that his claim was not paid in full.  He does not
elaborate on why he believes he was not paid the amount due under
the Plan of Allocation.  The Lead Plaintiff details in its
opposition to Mr. Marro's filings that he, in fact, was paid the
correct amount.

Judge Parker therefore concludes that Mr. Marro's objections are
frivolous.  Oral argument is not needed.  Accordingly, the Judge
denied Mr. Marro's objections and motions.  The matter remains
closed and Mr. Marro may not file any further motions or objections
without prior approval of the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's December 2019 Opinion & Order is
available at https://is.gd/NeezTZ from Leagle.com.

New York State Teachers' Retirement System, Individually, and on
Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,
represented by Adam Wierzbowski -- adam@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, E. Powell Miller --
epm@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller Law Firm, James Abram Harrod --
jim.harrod@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP,
Marc L. Newman, The Miller Law Firm, Rebecca Ellen Boon, Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, Salvatore J. Graziano --
sgraziano@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossman LLP
& Sharon S. Almonrode -- ssa@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller Law
Firm, P.C.

General Motors Company, Mary T. Barra, Daniel Ammann, Daniel F.
Akerson, Nicholas S. Cyprus, Christopher P. Liddell, Thomas S.
Timko & Charles K. Stevens, III, Defendants, represented by Raymond
W. Henney -- rhenney@honigman.com -- Honigman LLP, Robert J.
Kopecky -- robert.kopecky@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP &
Timothy A. Duffy -- tim.duffy@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis.

Gay P. Kent, Defendant, represented by Guy T. Petrillo --
gpetrillo@pkbllp.com -- Petrillo Klein and Boxer LLP, Jill Caroline
Barnhart, Petrillo Klein and Boxer LLP, Joshua Klein, Petrillo
Klein & Boxer LLP, Michael P. Cooney -- mcooney@dykema.com --
Dykema Gossett, Raymond W. Henney, Honigman LLP & Thomas H.
Trapnell -- ttrapnell@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett PLLC.

KBC Asset Management NV, Movant, represented by Nancy V. Savageau,
Secrest Wardle.

Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, Movant, represented by E.
Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm & Sharon S. Almonrode, The
Miller Law Firm, P.C.

New York State Teachers' Retirement System, Movant, represented by
Adam Wierzbowski, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, E. Powell
Miller, The Miller Law Firm, Gerald H. Silk, Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP, James Abram Harrod, Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossman LLP, Rebecca Ellen Boon, Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann, Salvatore J. Graziano, Bernstein, Litowitz,
Berger & Grossman LLP & Sharon S. Almonrode, The Miller Law Firm,
P.C.

Menorah Mivtachim Insurance Ltd & Menora Mivtachim Pensions and
Gemel Ltd., Movants, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz
LLP, Joshua B. Silverman, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick E. Cafferty,
Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP & Patrick V. Dahlstrom,
Pomerantz LLP.

Gemel Ltd., Movant, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz
LLP & Patrick E. Cafferty, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel
LLP.

Donald C. Marro, Movant, pro se.


GGM LLC: Carmichael Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN CARMICHAEL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GGM, LLC d/b/a CURALEAF AZ
GLENDALE f/k/a GLENDALE GREENHOUSE, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-01534-MTL (D. Ariz., August 3, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent numerous text
messages to the cellular phone numbers of the Plaintiff and Class
members using an automatic telephone dialing system in an attempt
to promote its services to them without obtaining prior express
written consent.

As a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff and Class
members were harmed including, but not limited to, invasion of
privacy, harassment, aggravation, annoyance, and disruption of the
daily life.

GGM, LLC, d/b/a Curaleaf AZ Glendale, f/k/a Glendale Greenhouse, is
a cannabis dispensary with principal place of business located at
8160 W Union Hills Dr., Glendale, Arizona. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Aaron M. Ahlzadeh, Esq.
         EDELSBERG LAW, PA
         20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417
         Aventura, FL 33180
         Telephone: (786) 289-9589
         E-mail: aaron@edelsberglaw.com

GLOBAL CREDIT: Alarco Sues in E.D. New York Over FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Global Credit &
Collection Corp. The case is styled as Edith Alarco, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Global Credit &
Collection Corp., Case No. 1:20-cv-03605 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 10,
2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Global Credit & Collection Corporation (GCC) is a debt collection
agency that handles first-party receivable management and
third-party debt collections.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Uri Horowitz, Esq.
          HOROWITZ LAW, PLLC
          14441 70th Road
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (718) 705-8706
          Fax: (718) 705-8705
          Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com


GOOGLE INC: Settles Class Action Over 2018 Google+ Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Gelinas, writing for KOMANDO.COM, reports that class-action
lawsuits are big news no matter how you slice it. Unlike ordinary
suits, which typically feature a small number of claimants,
class-action suits tend to include thousands of people when
settlements are finally agreed upon.

Unfortunately, the sheer amount of people making a claim can
drastically reduce the payout for everyone involved. When Equifax
settled during its data breach suit, anyone making a claim ended up
with far less money than they expected. Tap or click here to see
just how small each Equifax payout was.

And now, it's Google's turn in the hot seat. Thanks to a data
breach affecting Google+ accounts back in 2018, the company has
been ordered to pay out a settlement to potentially millions of
users. If you got an email about this settlement, don't worry --
it's real. But just like with Equifax, you might not like the final
amount you end up with.

Google settles data breach lawsuit

If you're a Gmail user and received a strange-looking email
claiming to be from Google, we can understand why you might have
ignored it. Spam and phishing schemes are everywhere these days,
and masquerading as a major company is one of the most common
tactics these con artists use. Tap or click here to see how
scammers are pretending to be Amazon.

But this email, which details a class-action lawsuit settlement
from Google, is actually very real. In fact, if you read to the
bottom, it tells recipients that they may be entitled to a cash
payment due to damages incurred during the 2018 Google+ data
breach.

Google says "class members" are entitled to make a claim so long as
they meet the following qualifications:

"The Settlement Class is defined as: "all persons within the United
States who (a) had a consumer Google+ account for any period of
time between January 1, 2015, and April 2, 2019, and (2) had their
non-public Profile Information exposed as a result of the software
bugs Google announced on October 8, 2018, and December 10, 2018.
Excluded from the Settlement Class are (a) Google and its officers,
directors, employees, subsidiaries, and Google Affiliates; (b) all
judges and their staffs assigned to this case and any members of
their immediate families; (c) the Parties' counsel in this
litigation; and (d) any Excluded Class Member."

And the amount that class members are entitled to? A whopping sum
of up to $12 per person affected. Yes, that's right -- $12! And the
"up to" in the statement is doing a lot of heavy lifting, as Google
also specifies that the pool of money will shrink depending on how
many people make claims.

Well, we'll give Google credit for this: It's more than the amount
Equifax was willing to pony up.

How can I make a claim before I miss out on my $12?

To get your money, all you have to do is visit a dedicated website
set up by Google to handle applications. You can find it by tapping
or clicking here to visit Google's class action claims webpage.

If you apply, you'll just be asked to fill out some personal
information, as well as provide a method for Google to pay you.
This website is officially operated by Google, so you don't have to
worry about sharing this information.

Alternatively, if you don't want to participate, Google also
includes an area where you can opt-out of the claim. If you don't
care about claiming $12, we would strongly recommend opting out to
ensure that those who do apply get as much money as possible. After
all, the $7.3 million judgment only translates to $12 per person if
450,000 apply and no more.

That said, we doubt the number of claimants will be that small.
Still, whether you end up with $12 or 12-cents, it's money you
didn't have before. Maybe you can put it into cryptocurrency? Tap
or click here for insider secrets on cryptocurrency.

Bonus: Has Google learned its lesson?

A $7.5 million settlement is more of a slap on the wrist than a
major punishment for a company as large as Google, but another
email from the company shows that it's at least paying attention to
what people are saying about its privacy and data policies.

According to The Verge, Google has sent a privacy email to an
undisclosed number of users informing them that they will be
resuming human reviews of audio captured by Google Assistant. This
might sound like a loss for privacy advocates, but the kicker comes
at the end -- where Google says you have to opt-in in order for
your data to be used.

This is a big shift from where they were after being called out for
the practice, but it was inevitable that it would pick back up
again once Google started making changes to its AI. The good news
is that Google has turned audio storage off by default for all
users, and will only start using your data if you agree to let
them.

But there is a catch: The email doesn't mention that human reviews
for data already captured by Google are off-limits, which means the
company likely has plenty of material to start working with as it
is. We can't win them all, it seems. [GN]


GORDON AYLWORTH: Court Denies Dismissal of MacCartney Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case Carlton Chase, Eric MacCartney, and Luanne Mueller,
individually and on behalf of all others, Plaintiffs, v. Gordon,
Aylworth & Tami, P.C., and Vision Investigative Service, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 3-18-cv-0568-AC (D. Or.), the U.S. District
Court for the District of Oregon adopts Magistrate Judge John
Acosta's Findings and Recommendation and rules that the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss is denied in full.  The Court's July 14, 2020
Order is available at https://is.gd/YQaIk6 from PacerMonitor.com.

Gordon, Aylworth & Tami, P.C. (GAT) is an Oregon law firm and
Vision Investigative Services is a wholly owned subsidiary of GAT.
Plaintiffs allege that GAT violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA) and Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act
(UTPA). Plaintiffs also allege against both Defendants a claim for
common law unjust enrichment.

Defendants have moved to dismiss all claims asserted by Plaintiffs
under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and to dismiss Plaintiffs' state law claims (both
statutory and common law) under Oregon's anti-SLAPP statute.

Judge Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation in the case in
February 2020, recommending that the Court deny the portion of the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss asserting anti-SLAPP arguments
against Plaintiffs' state law claims.  

The rest of the arguments in the Defendants' motion have already
been denied in an October 2019 Court Order available at
https://tinyurl.com/yyfhkdap from Leagle.com.

Carlton Chase, Individually and on behalf of all others, Eric
MacCartney, Individually and on behalf of all others & Luanne
Mueller, Individually and on behalf of all others, Plaintiffs,
represented by Kelly D. Jones, Kelly D. Jones, Attorney at Law, 819
SE Morrison St., Suite 255, Portland, OR 97214, Michael R. Fuller -
michael@underdoglawyer.com - OlsenDaines & Matthew Sutton, Attorney
at Law. 205 Crater Lake Avenue, Medford, Oregon 97504

Gordon, Aylworth & Tami, P.C. & Vision Investigative Service, LLC,
Defendants, represented by Xin Xu, Xin Xu Law Group, 5285 Meadows
Rd., Ste 181, Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035


GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 23 Bid 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 Guidewire Software Inc.
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.

Guidewire Software, Inc. (NYSE: GWRE)

Class Period: March 6, 2019 to March 4, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 23, 2020

Guidewire provides enterprise-level software systems for the
property and casualty ("P&C") insurance industry.  During the Class
Period, defendants represented to investors that Guidewire was
well-positioned to capitalize on a shift in the P&C insurance
industry away from on-premise software systems to software systems
provided over the cloud.  Defendants touted the "robust" demand
that existed for Guidewire's cloud-based products and assured
investors that customer demand was "enduring and broad-based across
most or all segments of the market." Defendants further touted the
demand for Guidewire's cloud offering by reporting, at the end of
each quarter, that cloud sales represented a substantial and
growing percentage of the Company's overall sales. The Company also
issued highly favorable revenue and Annual Recurring Revenue
("ARR") guidance, and assured investors that customer demand
remained strong across the Company's entire product offering,
including its legacy
on-premise business.

On March 4, 2020, only three months after reiterating its strong
revenue guidance for fiscal 2020, the truth about Guidewire's
failed cloud transition emerged.  In announcing its financial
results for the second quarter of 2020, the Company was forced to
slash its revenue guidance for fiscal year 2020 by $57 million,
from a range of $759 million to $771 million down to $702 million
to $714 million. Rather than forecasting a year-over-year revenue
increase of up to 7% for fiscal 2020, the Company was now
forecasting a substantial revenue decline of approximately 7.5%.
The Company similarly lowered its critical ARR guidance to be
between 11% and 12% in fiscal 2020, compared to its previous range
of 14% to 16%.

On this news, Guidewire's stock price plummeted by 17% in a single
day, falling from $112.48 on March 3, 2020 to $93.56 on March 4,
2020, a decline of $18.92 per share.

The complaint, filed on July 24, 2020, alleges that the demand for
Guidewire's cloud products was weak and the Company's transition to
the cloud was not going well because Guidewire's cloud-based
products needed to be significantly improved to meet customer needs
and catch-up with rival systems.  Further, Guidewire's failed
transition to the cloud was damaging the Company's traditional
on-premise business, as customers delayed purchasing decisions or
declined to renew existing licenses.  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.

For more information on the Guidewire, class action go to:
https://bespc.com/GWRE

               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]


HIGH QUALITY: Daschback Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD DASCHBACK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HIGH QUALITY VEHICLE PROTECTION,
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendants,
Case No. 5:20-cv-01635 (C.D. Cal., August 14, 2020) is a class
action complaint brought against Defendant for their alleged
negligent and willful violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff received calls on her
cellular telephone number ending in -7110 from Defendant beginning
in or around February 2019. Defendant allegedly used an "automatic
telephone dialing system" in placing calls to sell or solicit its
business services to individuals, including Plaintiff, even without
their "prior express consent" to receive calls using ATDS or an
artificial or prerecorded voice on their cellular telephone.

High Quality Vehicle Protection sells extended automobile
warranties. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HIGHLAND DENTAL: Facility Not Accessible to Disabled, Romero Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Misael Romero, Plaintiff, v. Highland Dental Center; MCEC
Investment Group, LLC and Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 5:20-cv-01676 (C.D. Cal., August 19, 2020) is an action seeking
to remedy unlawful discrimination by the Defendants against the
Plaintiff in the Defendants' places of public accommodation in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act [42 U.S.C. Section
12101, et seq.] and the Unruh Civil Rights Act [California Civil
Code Section 51, et seq.].

The Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff in the full and
equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages, or accommodations on the basis of Plaintiff's
disability at the Subject Property in violation of the ADA.

The Subject Property is a commercial facility open to the general
public, is a public accommodation, and is a business establishment
insofar as goods and/or services are made available to the general
public thereat. The Subject Property does not comply with the
minimum requirements of the ADA and is therefore not equally
accessible to Plaintiff or similarly situated persons with mobility
disabilities.

Defendants violated the ADA by failing to remove all
mobility-related architectural barriers at the Subject Property. On
information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the failure to
remove barriers has been knowing, willful and intentional because
the barriers described herein are clearly visible and tend to be
obvious even to a casual observer and because the Defendants
operate the Subject Property and have control over conditions
thereat and as such they have, and have had, the means and ability
to make the necessary remediation of access barriers if they had
ever so intended.

Plaintiff is a resident of the state of California who requires the
use of a wheelchair for mobility purposes and who is therefore a
"person with a disability" within the meaning of the ADA.

Highland Dental Center is a dental care service provider. The
Center owns, operates, or leases real property located at 1063 W
Highland Ave, San Bernardino, CA 92405, also known as San
Bernardino County Assessor's Parcel No. 0144-031-22, 0144-031- 23,
0144-031-24, and 0144-031-25, collectively, the "Subject
Property."

MCEC Investment Group, LLC, owns, operates, or leases real property
located at the Subject Property.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ross Cornell, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC
          5042 Wilshire Blvd., #46382
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Telephone: (562) 612-1708
          Facsimile: (562) 394-9556
          E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com

HINGHAM, MA: Court Junks State Law Claims in Belezos Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NICHOLAS G. BELEZOS, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF SELECTMEN of
Hingham, Massachusetts, in their official capacity, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Defendants, Civil
Action No. 17-12570-MBB (D. Mass.), Magistrate Judge Marianne B.
Bowler of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
ALLOWED a Motion for Reconsideration and DISMISSED the state law
claims in counts I, II, and III as barred under the doctrine of
claim preclusion.

Defendants Board of Selectmen of the Town of Hingham, sued in their
official capacity, seek reconsideration of a July 2019 decision
that, in turn, reconsidered a March 2019 decision on the third
element of claim preclusion, i.e., the existence of a prior final
judgment on the merits.  They submit that the July 2019 decision
constitutes a manifest error of law as well as a manifest
injustice, which warrants reconsideration.  

The Plaintiff maintains that the July 2019 decision is correct, the
decision in Springfield Pres. Tr., Inc. v. Springfield Library and
Museums Ass'n, Inc., is controlling, and defendants are
unsuccessfully attempting to raise a new argument that the Court
deemed waived in the July 2019 decision.

The original and the first amended complaints raise federal
constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and ultra vires
claims under state law.  The first amended complaint appropriately
relies on federal question and civil rights jurisdiction for the
section 1983 claims.  Although it also cites the Declaratory
Judgment Act ("DJA"), as a basis for jurisdiction, such reliance is
misplaced because the DJA applies to a case of actual controversy
within its jurisdiction.  The DJA does not itself confer subject
matter jurisdiction, but, rather, makes available an added anodyne
for disputes that come within the federal courts' jurisdiction on
some other basis.

On April 13, 2018, the Defendants filed the motion to dismiss all
of the claims in the amended complaint on the basis of claim
preclusion, the merits, and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.  The
Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion on April 27, 2018.
Less than a month later, he filed a motion for class certification.
In lieu of responding, the Defendants asked for an extension of
time to oppose the class certification motion until after the Court
ruled on the motion to dismiss.  On June 5, 2018, the Court granted
the motion for an extension.

On March 29, 2019, the Court allowed the motion to dismiss the
federal claims on claim preclusion and on the merits.  At the same
time and in lieu of declining to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction, the Court allowed a dismissal of the state law claims
solely on the basis of claim preclusion but held the dismissal of
these claims in abeyance until a decision on the pending class
certification motion filed almost a year earlier.  The March 29,
2019 decision did not address the Defendants' merits-based argument
to dismiss the state law claims.

On April 12, 2019, the Defendants filed the opposition to class
certification.  Three days later, the Plaintiff filed the motion to
reconsider the dismissal of the federal claims and the state law
claims.  The July 3, 2019 opinion addressed both the federal and
the state law claims, allowed reconsideration of the
claim-preclusion dismissal of the state law claims, and denied
reconsideration of the merits-based dismissal of the federal
claims.

Again less than one month later, the Defendants filed the motion to
reconsider the denial of claim preclusion for the state law claims.
The Plaintiff opposed the motion and asserted there was no bar to
prevent him from litigating the state law claims.  The motion
therefore called into question the existence of a remedy in state
court in the event the Court declined supplemental jurisdiction and
dismissed the state law claims without prejudice.

Magistrate Judge Bowler holds that subsequent dismissal of the
foundational federal claims on March 29, 2019 does not deprive the
Court of jurisdiction.  In March 2019, the court adjudicated the
claim preclusion of the state law ultra vires claims at the same
time it adjudicated the claim preclusion of the federal claims.
Judicial economy and convenience provided a basis to adjudicate
both sets of claims because they involved the same legal issue,
i.e., claim preclusion, and the same procedural facts, i.e., the
Plaintiff's state-court proceedings.

In July 2019, the Court addressed reconsideration of the federal
and the state law claims.  Because neither party raised nor
objected to the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction, it
addressed the state law claims at the same time it addressed the
federal law claims.

Moreover, the July 2019 decision determined that claim preclusion
did not bar relitigation of the state law ultra vires claims.  The
ability to file a separate suit in state court is germane to a
determination of supplemental jurisdiction and thus warranted a
determination of the claim-preclusive effect of the state law
claims.  

More to the point, the July 2019 decision increased the likelihood
of the Plaintiff's ability to refile the ultra vires claims in
state court because they were no longer barred under principles of
claim preclusion.  Thereafter and upon review of the Defendants'
motion for reconsideration, it became apparent that the state law
claims were barred.  The resurgence of the issue of a state forum
and remedy as barred by claim preclusion thus provided
justification to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state
law claims and decide that issue by adjudicating the Defendants'
reconsideration motion.

There is also no unfairness to the Plaintiff inasmuch as he chose
the federal forum.  In any event, the Plaintiff waived any
objection to the Court's continued exercise of supplemental
jurisdiction in deciding the Defendants' reconsideration motion
because he presently requests that the Court continues to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in the case.
The Defendants, for their part, ask the Court to grant their
pending motion for reconsideration, which necessarily entails
exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

In accordance with the foregoing discussion, Magistrate Judge
Bowler allowed the motion for reconsideration.  She dismissed the
state law claims in counts I, II, and III as barred under the
doctrine of claim preclusion.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 2019 Memorandum &
Order is available at https://is.gd/hqGoKh from Leagle.com.

Nicholas G. Belezos, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Frederick P. Zotos --
fzotos@pathogenics.com -- Pathogenics, Inc.

Board of Selectmen of Hingham, Massachusetts, in their official
capacity, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Defendant, represented by Joseph A. Padolsky, Louison,
Costello, Condon & Pfaff, LLP.


HISCOX INSURANCE: Rochester Drug Wins Prelim. Injunction on Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York issued
a Decision and Order granting the Plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary Injunction in the case captioned ROCHESTER DRUG
CO-OPERATIVE, INC. v. HISCOX INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Case No.
6:20-CV-06025EAW (W.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative brings an action against
Hiscox Insurance Company, Inc., for breach of an insurance policy
due to the Defendant's refusal to advance reasonable defense costs
for a trial. On January 24, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a motion for
preliminary injunction seeking an order pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 65(a) enjoining and restraining the Defendant from
"[d]ishonoring [Plaintiff's]. . . right to the advancement of
current and future defense costs, inclusive of attorneys' fees,
discovery expenses, and expert fees; and. . . [r] efusing to
advance reasonable defense costs" in connection with three lawsuits
scheduled to go to trial on March 20, 2020, in New York State
Supreme Court, Suffolk County.

The Court issued an Order on February 25, 2020, granting the
Plaintiff's motion subject to it posting a bond in the amount of
$500,000, and noting that a Decision and Order would subsequently
be issued memorializing the Court's reasoning in further detail.

The Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on February 6, 2020, for failure
to state a claim.

The Court now issues this Decision and Order setting forth in
further detail its reasons for previously granting the Plaintiff's
motion for preliminary injunction, and for those same reasons, it
now denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss.

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff is a drug distribution cooperative owned by and run
for the benefit of independent pharmacies. The Plaintiff purchases
pharmaceuticals directly from manufacturers and distributes them to
licensed pharmacies throughout the northeast. Over the past two
years, the Plaintiff has been sued, alongside other drug
distributors, in more than 31 actions throughout the state of New
York, both state and federal, for its alleged involvement in the
unlawful distribution of opioids ("NY Opioid Lawsuits"). These
cases include three actions brought by Nassau County, Suffolk
County, and the State of New York (the "Trial Litigation").

In July 2015, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District
of New York filed a civil action against the Plaintiff based on its
failure to file required reports with the U.S. Drug Enforcement
Agency ("DEA"). On July 8, 2015, a consent order was entered where
the Plaintiff admitted to violations of the Controlled Substances
Act regarding its failure to report and agreed to pay a $360,000
penalty. In February 2017, the Government served a civil document
request on Plaintiff seeking documents related to its distribution
of controlled substances.

On February 1, 2017, Plaintiff submitted a completed AIG Portfolio
Select Application for an insurance policy to the Defendant. In
March 2017, the Plaintiff purchased Private Company Management
Liability Insurance Policy No. UVA 1901769.17 from the Defendant,
effective from March 8, 2017, to March 8, 2018 (the "Policy"). The
Defendant agreed under the Policy to pay up to $5,000,000 for
defense costs incurred to defend the Plaintiff against covered
claims and an additional executive limit of liability of
$1,000,000, subject to a $25,000 retention.

In November 2017, Plaintiff retained the law firm Allegaert Berger
& Vogel LLP ("ABV") to represent it in the NY Opioid Litigation
brought by the New York Attorney General and various New York
counties and municipalities ("State Actions"). Also in November
2017, the U.S. Attorney served a criminal subpoena on the
Plaintiff. The Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the state court
lawsuits, and the Defendant acknowledged potential coverage for
those lawsuits "subject to the Policy's terms and conditions,
currently known information and a full reservation of rights."

On April 22, 2019, the Plaintiff entered into a deferred
prosecution agreement ("DPA") with the U.S. Attorney for the
Southern District of New York. The DPA included admissions of
wrongdoing by Plaintiff, and provided for the dismissal of the
information with prejudice after five years' compliance with the
terms of the agreement. On April 23, 2019, the Plaintiff stipulated
to a civil settlement with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern
District of New York (the "Stipulation"), which also contained
admissions of wrongdoing and provided that Plaintiff will obtain a
release of liability if it complied with the Stipulation's terms,
and that a judgment would be filed only "[i]n the event of an
Uncured Default" of the Company's settlement payments.

On August 5, 2019, the Defendant issued a draft letter to the
Plaintiff advising that the admissions contained in the DPA and
Stipulation precluded coverage for the totality of the State
Actions based on the Illegal Conduct Exclusion in the Policy. The
Plaintiff responded disputing the Defendant's position regarding
the applicability of the Illegal Conduct Exclusion, asserting that
there had been no "final adjudication" necessary to trigger the
Exclusion. The Defendant issued its final letter denying coverage
on September 13, 2019.

The Plaintiff filed the instant action on January 10, 2020. The
Plaintiff hand-delivered to the Chambers papers in support of a
motion for preliminary injunction, motion to expedite, and motion
to seal. On January 22, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied
in part the motion to expedite, denied the motion to seal, and
instructed the Plaintiff to file the motion for preliminary
injunction, motion to expedite, and motion to seal with proposed
redactions by January 24, 2020.

On February 25, 2020, the Court issued an Order granting the motion
for preliminary injunction subject to the Plaintiff posting a bond
in the amount of $500,000. On March 16, 2020, the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Courts for New York State issued an
order postponing "civil jury trials in which opening statements
have not commenced" until further notice in an effort to mitigate
the effects of the COVID-19 outbreak.

On March 12, 2020, Plaintiff filed a voluntary petition in the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of New York
(Rochester Division) seeking relief under Chapter 11 of the United
States Bankruptcy Code. On April 6, 2020, the Court instructed that
the parties advise the Court as to the impact of the Plaintiff's
bankruptcy filing on this action, to which the parties submitted
their responses on April 10, 2020.

Conclusion

The Court finds, among other things, that the issuance of this
injunction would serve the public interest by holding the Defendant
to its contractual obligations. The Plaintiff was entitled to
expect that it could hold the Defendant to the terms of those
agreements should a dispute arise. As a result of the Defendant's
potential failure to adhere to its obligations, Plaintiff faced the
prospect of losing its defense counsel prior to trial pending at
the time the preliminary injunction issued, citing Rex Med. L.P. v.
Angiotech Pharm. (US), Inc., 754 F.Supp.2d 616, 626 (S.D.N.Y.
2010).

Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied. The
Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is granted as
previously referenced in the Court's Order entered on February 25,
2020.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 11, 2020 Decision and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9gw635p from
Leagle.com.


IDAHO: Court Narrows Allen's Inmate Claims Under Section 1983
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho issued an
Screening Order in the case captioned ZACHARY ALLEN v. JAY
CHRISTENSEN; JOSH TEWALT; EVAN PAGE; IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION; TIM McKAY; GABRIELLA PEREZ; KATE BELTRAN; DANEL HUDON;
STATE BOARD OF CORRECTION; TAYLOR WILSON; CPL. SHAPPEL MORRISON;
LT. ALOU; LT. HUST; CPL. DRIGGS; DEFENDANT FRAUS; JILLIAN SCHLESTE;
SARA HART; and OFFICER MULENEX, Case No. 1:20-cv-00015-DCN (D.
Idaho).

Jay Christensen is the warden of the Idaho State Correctional
Center (ISCC).

Plaintiff Zachary Allen is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis in this civil rights action. The Plaintiff brings
claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, the civil rights statute. The
Court previously reviewed the Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Sections 1915 and 1915A. The Court determined that the
Complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted because its allegations were overly vague and did not link
any particular action to any particular Defendant. The Complaint
also contained claims that appeared to be barred by Younger v.
Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 46 (1971), or Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477
(1994).

The Court allowed the Plaintiff an opportunity to amend. The
Plaintiff proceeded to file six amended complaints, the last of
which the Court will now review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections
1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b).

The Plaintiff states that, in April 2020, he overheard Defendant
Shappel Morrison speaking with non-defendants Sergeant Taylor and
Lieutenant Greenland. Defendant Morrison allegedly stated, "Allen
still refuses to drop the lawsuits as ordered and its [sic] costing
us, he's getting way to [sic] comfortable in PC [protective
custody] on his walk." Sergeant Taylor responded, "I suggest we
move him down to A-walk from where he's at, it'll create tension in
the dorm as he is on a political walk." Greenland then stated,
"Well we've already had a few fights on this tier ..., if he gets
beat down, it may persuade him to do as ordered." Morrison then
said, "I can't wait to see him get beat down, it'll be
entertaining."

Before he was moved to the new housing unit, the Plaintiff was hit
in the mouth and shoved around by another inmate, who threatened
him and stated, "You leave this walk ... we'll get you and beat
your ass, remember what happens to pussies Rat." The Plaintiff
informed Greenland that he would be in danger if he was moved to
another housing unit. Greenland responded, "Get over it Mr. Allen
and man up, theirs [sic] nothing we can do, go back to the dorm,
Nigger." The Plaintiff also informed non-defendant Taylor,
non-defendant Lieutenant Lau, and Defendant Morrison of his fear of
being attacked if he had to move to another unit, but he "was
continuously ignored."

The Plaintiff also states, among other things, that he was seen by
Defendant Clinician Sara Hart, apparently for mental health
treatment. The Plaintiff told Hart "what was going on." Hart
allegedly told the Plaintiff, "According to Warden Tim McKay until
you drop the lawsuits there's nothing I can do for you accept [sic]
bring you anxiety handouts."

Having screened the Sixth Amended Complaint, the Court enters an
order allowing the Plaintiff to proceed on some of his claims.

Chief District Judge David C. Nye allows the Plaintiff to proceed
on some of his claims, including:

   * First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants
     Morrison, Driggs, Hart, and McKay;

   * Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claims against
     Defendants Morrison, Driggs, and Fraus; and

   * Eighth Amendment medical treatment claims against Defendants
     Hart and McKay.

All other claims against all other Defendants are DISMISSED, and
all other Defendants are TERMINATED as parties to this action;

Defendants Morrison, Driggs, Hart, McKay, and Fraus will be allowed
to waive service of summons by executing, or having their counsel
execute, the Waiver of Service of Summons as provided by Fed. R.
Civ. P. 4(d) and returning it to the Court within 30 days. If the
Defendants choose to return the Waiver of Service of Summons, the
answer or pre-answer motion will be due in accordance with Rule
12(a)(1)(A)(ii). Accordingly, the Clerk of Court will forward a
copy of the Sixth Amended Complaint, a copy of this Order, and a
Waiver of Service of Summons to the following counsel: Mark
Kubinski, Esq., Deputy Attorney General for the State of Idaho,
Idaho Department of Corrections, and Kevin West, Esq., and Dylan
Eaton, Esq., of Parsons Behle & Latimer, in Boise, Idaho.

Judge Nye notes that the Plaintiff may proceed as outlined. The
Order does not guarantee that any of the Plaintiff's claims will be
successful. Rather, it merely finds that some of Plaintiff's claims
are plausible--meaning that these claims will not be summarily
dismissed at this time but should proceed to the next stage of
litigation. Judge Nye adds that this Order is not intended to be a
final or a comprehensive analysis of the Plaintiff's claims.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 11, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc8yj879 from Leagle.com.


IHEART COMMUNICATIONS: Walker et al. Sue Over Retirement Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK E. WALKER and LISA HENSHAW, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. IHEART
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF IHEART
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., THE RETIREMENT BENEFITS COMMITTEE, and JOHN
DOES 1-30. Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-02359-E (N.D. Tex., August
19, 2020) is a class action brought pursuant to Sections 409 and
502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 1109 and 1132, against the Plan's
fiduciaries, which include iHeart Communications, Inc., the Board
of Directors of iHeart Communications, Inc., and its members during
the Class Period, and the Retirement Benefits Committee and its
members during the Class Period for breaches of their fiduciary
duties.

Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period Defendants,
as "fiduciaries" of the Plan breached the duties they owed to the
Plan, to Plaintiffs and to the other participants of the Plan by,
inter alia, (1) failing to objectively and adequately review the
Plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each
investment option was prudent, in terms of cost; and (2)
maintaining certain funds in the Plan despite the availability of
identical or similar investment options with lower costs and/or
better performance histories.

In many instances, Defendants failed to utilize the lowest cost
share class for many of the mutual funds within the Plan, and
failed to consider certain collective trusts available during the
Class Period as alternatives to the mutual funds in the Plan,
despite their lower fees and materially similar investment
objectives.

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

iHeart Communications, Inc. is an American mass media corporation
based in Dallas, Texas. iHeart is the Plan sponsor and a named
fiduciary.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Craig A. Harris, Esq.
          Natalie A. Sears, Esq.
          MUNSCH HARDT KOPF & HARR, P.C.
          500 N. Akard St., Suite 3800
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 855-7500
          Facsimile: (214) 855-7584
          E-mail: charris@munsch.com
                  nsears@munsch.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

INSPERITY INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 21 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 Insperity, Inc. (NYSE: NSP).
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.

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

               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]


INTEL CORP: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 28 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 Intel Corporation.
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.

Intel Corporation (NASDAQ: INTC)

Class Period: April 23, 2020 to July 23, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 28, 2020

On July 23, 2020, after the market closed, Intel disclosed that
production of its 7-nanometer chips would be delayed after the
Company had "identified a defect mode in [its] 7-nanometer process
that resulted in yield degradation."

On this news, the Company's share price fell by $9.81, or
approximately 16%, to close at $50.59 per share on July 24, 2020.

The complaint, filed on July 28, 2020, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
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.

For more information on the Intel class action go to:
https://bespc.com/INTC-2

                   About Bragar Eagel & Squire

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. [GN]


INTEL CORP: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Sept. 28 Motion 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 Intel
Corporation ("Intel" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: INTC) securities
between April 23, 2020 and July 23, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

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

On July 23, 2020, after the market closed, Intel disclosed that
production of its 7-nanometer chips would be delayed after the
Company had "identified a defect mode in [its] 7-nanometer process
that resulted in yield degradation."

On this news, the Company's share price fell more than 10% in
afterhours trading on July 23, 2020.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: : (1) that 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.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Intel securities, 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.

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

Contacts:

  Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
  Howard G. Smith, Esquire
  215-638-4847
  888-638-4847
  howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
  www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]


ITALK GLOBAL: Wu Suit Moved From Super. Court to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jialu Wu, Individually and On Behalf Of All
Others Similarly Situated v. iTalk Global Communications, Inc.,
Case No. 20STCV25343, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 10,
2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-07150 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

iTalk Global Communications, Inc., a telecommunications company.
iTalk is a VoIP and internet telecom provider to global overseas
Chinese and Korean consumers.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Zachary A. Schenkkan, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUAL URQUHART AND SULLICAN LLP
          865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (213) 443-3705
          Fax: (213) 443-3100
          Email: zackschenkkan@quinnemanuel.com


J&M SECURITIES: App. Court Upholds Dismissal of Mitchell Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VELMA L. MITCHELL, TANISHA L. WINSTON AND KAYLA
SANDERS, Appellants, v. J&M SECURITIES, LLC AND SHANNON METZGER,
Respondents/Cross-Appellants, Case No. ED 107431 (Mo. App.), the
U.S. Court of Appeals of Missouri for the Eastern District,
Division One, affirmed the trial court's judgment (i) dismissing
the Plaintiffs' petition for failure to state a claim against the
Defendants; and (ii) denying the Defendants' motion for attorney
fees.

All of the claims in the Plaintiffs' petition were premised on
allegations that the Defendants engaged in the unauthorized
practice of law.  J&M is a limited liability company, solely owned
by Metzger, and it holds itself out as a professional judgment
enforcement firm.  It is not a law firm, and Metzger is not
licensed to practice law in Missouri.

According to the petition, J&M obtained judgments through
collection lawsuits or by assignment.  With respect to Plaintiff
Mitchell, J&M obtained a default judgment against her in a
collection lawsuit arising from unpaid rent.  Plaintiffs Winston
and Sanders also had unpaid rent, resulting in consent judgments
that were allegedly assigned to J&M.

To collect on each of these judgments, Metzger filed a garnishment
application and interrogatories on behalf of J&M.  The requests
were directed to Mitchell's bank account and Winston's and
Sanders's employers, respectively.  None of these documents were
signed by an attorney.  Copies of these garnishment applications
and interrogatories were attached to the petition.

The Plaintiffs alleged that because J&M is a limited liability
company, only a Missouri licensed attorney was authorized to submit
court filings on its behalf.  The petition alleged that because he
was not a licensed attorney, Metzger's filing of garnishment
applications and interrogatories on J&M's behalf was the
unauthorized practice of law.

The Plaintiffs alleged in Count I that the Defendants' unauthorized
practice of law constituted a deceptive practice,
misrepresentation, false promise or unfair practice in violation of
the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA").  In Count II,
Winston and Sanders sought to hold the Defendants liable for money
had and received, alleging that it would be unjust for the
Defendants to retain the money that had been withheld from those
Plaintiffs' wages via Metzger's unauthorized practice of law.  The
Plaintiffs sought to establish a class action, asserting that the
Defendants had engaged in the practice in hundreds of cases in
Missouri.

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim, arguing that, according to Division of Employment Security
v. Westerhold, seeking a garnishment is not the practice of law and
therefore the entire theory of liability in both counts failed.
The court agreed, granted the motion to dismiss and ordered the
petition dismissed with prejudice.

The Defendants moved, as the prevailing party, for attorney fees
under the MMPA on the ground that the Plaintiffs had pursued
vexatious and frivolous claims because they directly contradicted
the clear holding of Westerhold.  The court entered an amended
judgment, adding that the lawsuit was not frivolous and there was
no basis for awarding attorney fees.

The appeal and cross-appeal followed.  The Plaintiffs challenge the
dismissal of their petition, and the Defendants challenge the
denial of attorney fees.

The Appellate Court finds that filling in the blanks on the OSCA
form applications for garnishment and accompanying interrogatories
was not an assertion of a legal claim or legal position.  There was
no legal skill or knowledge involved in filling in the blanks on
these OSCA forms with the basic information that automatically
triggered the issuance of a writ of garnishment.  Metzger's conduct
as alleged in the petition was not the practice of law.  Therefore,
as a matter of law, the Plaintiffs' claims based on the premise
that Metzger engaged in the unauthorized practice of law were
properly dismissed.  The Plaintiffs' Points I and II are denied.

The Defendants contend in their cross-appeal that the trial court
erred in denying their motion for attorney fees under the MMPA.
The Appellate Court disagrees.  According to the trial court's
judgment, it appears that at some point -- perhaps at a hearing of
which there is no transcript in the legal file -- the Plaintiffs
argued "that Westerhold was wrongly decided."  To the extent they
made such an argument to the trial court, it was of course
permissible as long as it was a "non-frivolous argument."  

The Defendants make no attempt to show that the argument -- the
details of which are not apparent to the Court -- was frivolous.
The Defendants assert only that the argument was not made in "good
faith," with no explanation or support in the record.  Not only is
it conclusory assertion unpersuasive, it is based on an outdated
standard.  In 1994, the Supreme Court replaced the requirement in
Rule 55.03 that the argument for reversal, extension or
modification of an existing law be a "good faith argument" with the
requirement that it be a "nonfrivolous argument."  Under these
circumstances, it was well within the trial court's discretion to
deny the motion for attorney fees under the MMPA.  The Court denied
the Defendants' point on cross-appeal.

Based on the foregoing, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial
court judgment, a copy of which order is available at
https://is.gd/y4i1OS from Leagle.com.

David T. Butsch -- dbutsch@butschroberts.com -- and Christopher E.
Roberts -- croberts@butschroberts.com -- Attorneys for Appellants.

Mayer S. Klein -- mklein@frankelrubin.com-- Michael J. Payne --
mpayne@limbaughlaw.com -- and Rachel M. Shenker --
rshenker@frankelrubin.com -- Attorneys for Respondent.


J.R. ENGINEERING: Conditional Certification in Roberts Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case JAMES ROBERTS, JR., Plaintiff, v. J.R. ENGINEERING,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:19-CV-00110 (N.D. Ohio), the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio entered these
rulings:

(1) Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification is granted
     in part and denied in part.  The Court conditionally
     certified the following collective action class:

       All former and current non-exempt manufacturing employees
       of J.R. Engineering, Inc. in Barberton, Ohio and Norton,
       Ohio between October 31, 2016 and the present who
       performed unpaid pre-shift and/or post-shift work.

(2) JRE's Motion to Strike Certain Portions of the Declarations
     of James Roberts, Jr., Jacob Pastorius, and Tristan Adkins
     is granted in part and denied in part. JRE's Motion to Strike

     is GRANTED with respect to the statements in Paragraphs 11
     and 14 of Roberts's Declaration and Paragraph 7 of
     Pastorius's and Adkins's Declarations that aver Plaintiffs
     are similarly situated to other JRE manufacturing employees,
     but is DENIED in all other respects.

JRE is an Ohio corporation that manufactures automobile parts.  It
has two manufacturing facilities - one in Norton, Ohio that
operates under the name J.R. Wheel, and one in Barberton, Ohio that
operates under the name J.R. Engineering.

Plaintiff James Roberts, Jr. filed the complaint on January 15,
2019, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
against JRE, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, et seq., and the Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA"), Ohio Rev. Code Sec. 4111.01 et seq.
Of particular relevance here, Plaintiff alleges that JRE violated
the FLSA by failing to appropriately compensate Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees for overtime hours worked before and
after the end of their shifts.  Also, on January 15, 2019, Roberts,
Tristan Adkins ("Adkins"), and Jacob Pastorius ("Pastorius")
(collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed Consent Forms to opt in as
plaintiffs in the present action.

In the request for Conditional Certification, the Court finds that
Plaintiffs have satisfied the modest factual showing necessary to
demonstrate that they are similarly situated to other JRE
manufacturing employees at JRE's J.R. Wheel and J.R. Engineering
facilities.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y27wu6tb from Leagle.com


                      Case Management Order

In a Case Management Order dated June 29, 2020, certain events have
been scheduled.  Case is assigned to the standard track. Discovery
is due by Dec. 31, 2020.  Expert discovery shall be completed by
May 14, 2021.  The party initially seeking to introduce expert
testimony shall exchange his or her Expert Report on or before Feb.
15, 2021.  Responsive Expert Reports shall be exchanged on or
before April 1, 2021.  Dispositive Motions and Class
decertification motion shall be filed on or before June 7, 2021.
Oppositions to dispositive motions and class decertification motion
are due by Aug. 8, 2021.  Replies in support of dispositive motions
and Class decertification motion are due by July 22, 2021. Status
Conference is set for Oct. 27, 2020 at 01:30 p.m. in Chambers 16A.


James Roberts, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Chastity L. Christy , Lazzaro
Law Firm, Lori M. Griffin , Lazzaro Law Firm & Anthony J. Lazzaro ,
Lazzaro Law Firm, The Heritage Building, Suite 250 34555

J.R. Engineering, Inc., Defendant, represented by Monica L. Frantz
- mfrantz@ralaw.com - Roetzel & Andress, Morris L. Hawk-
mhawk@ralaw.com - Roetzel & Andress & Nancy A. Noall -
nnoall@ralaw.com - Roetzel & Andress.


JANUS HENDERSON: VelocityShares Class Suits Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Janus Henderson Group plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the Company and/or its
subsidiaries continue to defend several class action lawsuits
related to VelocityShares Daily Inverse VIX. The cases are
Eisenberg v. Credit Suisse AG and Janus Indices, Halbert v. Credit
Suisse AG and Janus Indices, Qiu v. Credit Suisse AG and Janus
Indices and Y-GAR Capital v. Credit Suisse AG and Janus Indices,
and Rubinstein v. Credit Suisse Group AG and Janus Indices.

On March 15, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY")
against Janus Index & Calculation Services LLC, which effective
January 1, 2019, was renamed Janus Henderson Indices LLC ("Janus
Indices"), a subsidiary of JHG, on behalf of a class consisting of
investors who purchased VelocityShares Daily Inverse VIX Short-Term
ETN (Ticker: XIV) between January 29, 2018, and February 5, 2018
(Eisenberg v. Credit Suisse AG and Janus Indices). Credit Suisse,
the issuer of the XIV notes, is also named as a defendant in the
lawsuit.

The plaintiffs generally allege statements by Credit Suisse and
Janus Indices, including those in the registration statement, were
materially false and misleading based on its discussion of how the
intraday indicative value ("IIV") is calculated and that the IIV
was not an accurate gauge of the economic value of the notes.

On April 17, 2018, a second lawsuit was filed against Janus Indices
and Credit Suisse in the U.S. District Court of the Northern
District of Alabama by certain investors in XIV (Halbert v. Credit
Suisse AG and Janus Indices).

On May 4, 2018, a third lawsuit, styled as a class action on behalf
of investors who purchased XIV between January 29, 2018, and
February 5, 2018, was filed against Janus Indices and Credit Suisse
AG in the SDNY (Qiu v. Credit Suisse AG and Janus Indices). The
Halbert and Qiu allegations generally copy the allegations in the
Eisenberg case.

On August 20, 2018, an amended complaint was filed in the Eisenberg
and Qiu cases (which have been consolidated in the SDNY under the
name Set Capital LLC, et al. v. Credit Suisse AG, et al.), adding
Janus Distributors LLC, doing business as Janus Henderson
Distributors, and Janus Henderson Group plc as parties, and adding
allegations of market manipulation by all of the defendants.

The Janus Henderson and Credit Suisse defendants moved to dismiss
the Set Capital amended complaint, and on September 25, 2019, the
court dismissed all claims against all defendants. The court denied
the plaintiffs' request for an opportunity to further amend their
complaint, and therefore dismissed the case in its entirety.

Plaintiffs have filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.


The defendants in Halbert — Credit Suisse and Janus Indices —
jointly moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On August 22, 2019,
the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion
to dismiss the claims. The court dismissed all claims against Janus
Indices — including all federal securities claims — other than
a claim for negligent misrepresentation. On September 26, 2019,
Janus Indices filed its answer to the complaint. As of June 30,
2020, the case remains in the discovery phase.    

Janus said, "We believe the remaining claims in these ETN lawsuits
are without merit and are vigorously defending the actions. As of
June 30, 2020, we cannot reasonably estimate possible losses from
the remaining claims in the ETN note lawsuits."

Janus Henderson Group plc is an asset management holding entity.
Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides services to
institutional, retail clients, and high net worth clients. It
manages separate client-focused equity and fixed income portfolios.
The firm also manages equity, fixed income, and balanced mutual
funds for its clients. It invests in public equity and fixed income
markets, as well as invests in real estate and private equity.
Janus Henderson Group plc was founded in 1934 and is based in
London, United Kingdom with additional offices in Jersey, United
Kingdom and Sydney, Australia.


JWB PROPERTIES: Fischer Seeks Minimum & Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
CODY FISCHER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JWB PROPERTIES LLC d/b/a LOCAL GASTROPUB and
JEFFREY JOHNSON, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02599-MSN-tmp (W.D.
Tenn., August 13, 2020) brings this collective action complaint
against Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a bartender from
approximately May 2017 until June 2020.

Plaintiff alleges that he and other servers and bartenders were
required by Defendants to spend well more than 20% of their time
performing non-tip-producing work tasks, but they were paid the
lower tipped hourly rate.

Additionally, Defendants required Plaintiff and other servers and
bartenders to share their tips with Defendants and non-tipped
employees who have no customer interaction but were paid more than
minimum wage.

Jeffrey Johnson owns, operates, manages, and serves as registered
agent for Defendant JWB Properties LLC and the Local Gastropub
restaurants.

JWB Properties LLC d/b/a Local Gastropub operates restaurants in
Memphis, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          Philips Plaza
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Tel: (615) 244-2202
          Fax: (615) 252-3798
          Emails: dgarrison@barretjohnston.com
                  jfrank@barretjohnston.com

                - and –

          J. Luke Sanderson, Esq.
          WAMPLER, CARROLL, WILSON & SANDERSON, P.C.
          44 N. Second St., Ste. 500
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Tel: (901) 523-1844
          Fax: (901) 523-1857
          Email: luke@wcwslaw.com


K & A DESIGN: Misclassifies Stylists, Duncan Claims
---------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE DUNCAN, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. K & A DESIGN GROUP, KELLY HEARON, and ALMA
BALDWIN, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02156-JPH-DLP (S.D. Ind.,
August 14, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against
Defendants for their alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a Stylist from
approximately on or about May 2017 until October 2018.

According to the complaint, Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and
other stylists as independent contractors. As a result, although
Plaintiff routinely and regularly worked 40 or more hours per week,
Defendant did not pay him minimum and overtime wages for all hours
worked beyond 40 per week.

Kelly Hearon and Alma Baldwin are part owners of K & A Design
Group.

K & A Design Group offers salon services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John H. Haskin, Esq.
          Bradley L. Wilson, Esq.
          Shannon L. Meltoon, Esq.
          JOHN H. HASKIN & ASSOCIATES
          255 North Alabama St., 2nd Floor
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Tel: (317) 955-9500
          Fax: (317) 955-2570
          Emails: jhaskin@jhaskinlaw.com
                  bwilson@jhaskinlaw.com
                  smelton@jhaskinlaw.com


KELLER WILLIAMS: Asher Sues in W.D. Texas Over Violation of TCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keler Williams
Realty, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Robert Asher,
individually on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Keller
Williams Realty, Inc. also known as: KW Management, LLC; KW
Management, LLC doing business as: Keller Williams Austin SW; Case
No. 1:20-cv-00835 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 10, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Keller Williams Realty is an American technology and international
real estate franchise with headquarters in Austin, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert A. McLauchlan, III, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT A. MCLAUCHLAN
          1409 Harborside Drive
          Galveston, TX 77550
          Phone: (512) 339-4100
          Email: rmclauchlan@ipcounseling.com


KORAL INDUSTRIES: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Fischler Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN FISCHLER, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KORAL INDUSTRIES LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-03676-FB-JO (E.D.N.Y., August 13, 2020) is a class
action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged
violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), the New
York State Human Righst Law (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human
Rights Law (NYCHRL).

Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person, and a
member of a protected class of individuals under the Title III of
the ADA and the regulations implementing the ADA, the NYSHRL and
NYCHRL. Plaintiff can only use computer with the assistance of
screen-reading software.

Plaintiff claims that he encountered multiple access barriers when
he visited Defendant's website on or about June 19, 2020 which
denied him the full enjoyment of the facilities, goods, and
services of the Webste.

The complaint alleges that Defendant has engaged in an intentional
discrimination conduct for constructing and maintaining a website
that is in accessible to visually-impaired individuals like
Plaintiff.

Moreover, Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring
Defendant to comply with WCAG 2.0 guidelines for its website.

Koral Industries LLC, which began selling reusable and washable
facemasks recently due to the COVID-19 pandemic, is an online
retailer of sportswear for women and operates its website
www.koral.com. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
          Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Ave., Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10017-6705
          Tel: 212-392-4772
          Emails: doug@lipskylowe.com
                  chris@lipskylowe.com


LA PECORA BIANCA: Wins Final OK of $462.5K Reeves Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, New York County, issued a Decision and Order
granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement in the case captioned STEVEN REEVES, and KRISTEN BOOTH
v. LA PECORA BIANCA, INC., LA PECORA BIANCA HOLDINGS, LLC, LPB1
LLC, and MARK BARAK, Case No. 151153/2018 (N.Y. Sup.).

On February 6, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint
against the Defendants alleging that the Defendants violated the
New York Labor Law ("NYLL") by mismanaging the tip pool and failing
to provide notices of pay rate and wage statements. The Complaint
alleges four causes of action: (1) failure to pay minimum wages,
(2) failure to pay overtime wages, (3) failure to furnish notices
of pay rate, and (4) failure to furnish accurate wage statements.

On May 6, 2019, after having participated in mediation before Ruth
D. Raisfeld, Esq., the Plaintiffs and the Defendants entered into a
Settlement Agreement, which provided for a Gross Settlement Fund of
$462,500 (the "Settlement Fund"). On November 20, 2019, the Court
granted Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement, certified
the Settlement Class, appointed Plaintiffs as Class
Representatives, appointed the Plaintiffs' Counsel as Class
Counsel, scheduled a date for a Fairness Hearing, and authorized
distribution of the Notice of Settlement.

Subsequently, on May 4, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an unopposed
Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. The Fairness
Hearing that had originally been scheduled for April 7, 2020, was
cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, no one responded
by requesting to appear at the hearing by the due date of March 13,
2020. Due to the cancellation of the Fairness Hearing, the Court
directed an additional notice be sent to the Class Members
regarding a possible new virtual Fairness Hearing.

On May 22, 2020, the Plaintiffs mailed out a notice to class
members informing them that the Court will evaluate the Settlement
Agreement based on written submission by the parties, and any Class
Member could appear at the Fairness Hearing if they submitted their
reason for appearing by June 10, 2020, by email. No Class Member
again has requested a hearing in opposition to the Settlement.
Under the circumstances, the Court deems the right to appear and be
heard at the Fairness Hearing to be satisfied and waived.

Having considered the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement and the record in this matter, for the
reasons set forth in the written submissions by the parties, and
for good cause shown, the Court grants the Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement and approves the Settlement
Fund, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, of $462,500.

Pursuant to New York Civil Practice Law and Rules 901 and 902, the
Court certifies, for settlement purposes, a Class consisting of:
"all individuals who have been employed by Defendants in any
position at any time from August 1, 2015, to January 23, 2019."

The Court has appointed Plaintiffs Steven Reeves and Kristen Booth
to represent the Class and orders a service award of $10,000 for
each Named Plaintiff.

The Court appointed the Plaintiffs' Counsel, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP,
as Class Counsel. The Court grants the requested fee of $154,151.25
to Class Counsel and awards the Counsel reimbursement of their
litigation expenses in the amount of $8,268.24. The Court approves
the settlement administration costs in the amount of $22,000.

Within 10 days of the Effective Date, the Claims Administrator
shall pay, from the Settlement Fund, the Individual Settlement
Amounts, as defined in the Settlement Agreement, to Qualified Class
Members, in accordance with the allocation plan described in the
Settlement Agreement under the heading Calculation of Individual
Settlement Amounts from the Net Allocation Fund. Upon completion of
payment to the Qualified Class Members and no later than within 20
days of the Effective Date, the Claims Administrator shall pay, in
a second installment, the Plaintiffs' Counsel's attorneys' fees of
$154,151.25 and reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses of
$8,268.24 from the Settlement Fund and shall pay the service award
of $10,000 to each Named Plaintiff.

The Court approves the appointment of Rust Consulting as the
Settlement Administrator and, upon completion of the payment of
attorney fees and litigation costs and expenses and service awards,
approves the payment of $22,000 to be payable to Rust Consulting
for the cost of Settlement Administration as part of the second
installment.

Upon the Effective Date, the Action will be dismissed with
prejudice in its entirety and all members of the Settlement Class,
who have not excluded themselves from the settlement shall be
conclusively deemed to have released and discharged Defendants
from, and shall be permanently enjoined from, directly or
indirectly, pursuing and/or seeking to reopen, any and all claims
that have been released pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. The
Court retains continuing jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the
Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's June 11, 2020 Decision and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycxx82y9 from
Leagle.com.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Final Judgment in Garris Suit Affirmed in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRANDI GARRIS; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY
OF LOS ANGELES; LOS ANGELES HOUSING AND COMMUNITY INVESTMENT
DEPARTMENT, FKA Los Angeles Housing Department,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-56574 (9th Cir.), the Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part
the district court's final judgment in favor of the City of Los
Angeles and the Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment
Department

The putative class action complaint in the case against the City,
alleges that a housing inspection ordinance facially violates the
Fourth Amendment.  The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that
the Ordinance is unconstitutional, an injunction against its
enforcement, and restitution of fees and fines paid under the
Ordinance.

At the outset of the litigation, the district court dismissed the
restitution claims with prejudice, without addressing the futility
of amending the complaint.  After the City amended the Ordinance,
the parties stipulated to dismissal of the remaining injunctive and
declaratory claims.  Before the district court entered a final
judgment, the Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the district
court's order dismissing their restitution claims and sought leave
to file a first amended complaint.  The district court denied the
motions and entered a final judgment in favor of the City.  The
Plaintiffs appeal from that judgment under 28 U.S.C. Section 1291.


The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded.
The Ninth Circuit holds that the district court did not err in
dismissing the restitution claims, which were based on the
Plaintiffs' facial attack on the Ordinance.  Although the Ordinance
allows entry into a residence without a warrant with consent or
upon exigent circumstances, it stresses that in all cases the City
must secure lawful entry, including but not limited to securing an
inspection warrant pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
Sections 1822.50 through 1822.57.  The Ordinance gives no
indication that the law enforcement powers it gives inspectors
permit such inspectors to hunt for evidence of general criminal
wrongdoing.  Amendment of the complaint to reassert a facial
challenge to the Ordinance would therefore be futile.

The Plaintiffs argue on appeal that they should have been granted
leave to amend to raise an as-applied challenge to the Ordinance.
In dismissing the restitution claims without leave to amend, the
district court did not consider whether any amendment would be
futile.  Although amendment to seek restitution for annual fees
would be futile, the Court cannot conclude that a plaintiff who
underwent an unconstitutional search of his apartment could not
assert a claim for restitution for any fines imposed in connection
with that search, nor can it conclude that there is no possibility
of a claim for damages if the plaintiff objected to an inspection
and yet the inspection proceeded without a warrant.  Because
amendment must be allowed with "extreme liberality" under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), the Court remanded to allow the
Plaintiffs to propose a complaint raising an as-applied challenge
to the Ordinance.  It expresses no opinion as to the merits of such
a challenge.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's March 17, 2020 Memorandum
is available at https://is.gd/uEzgJ8 from Leagle.com.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Justice X Law Group Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Khari Jones, Jr., writing for Los Angeles Sentinel, reports that
the Justice X Law Group has filed a Class Action Complaint in
federal court against the LAPD for falsely identifying thousands of
Black and Latinx men and women as gang members in a systemic
manner.

There are over 20 officers under investigation and 57 charges.
According to the Justice X Law Group, this is just a small number
of officers and there are many more to come.

The dehumanization and dismantling of lives occurred for many years
and even decades, Dove indicates. He states that Blacks and Latinos
are placed in categories that make them less than others. It is
part of a systemic injustice that is transpired to the minority
community, Dove infers.

"This lawsuit is huge. It is one of the biggest lawsuits that we
believe we ever landed in the city of Los Angeles and it speaks to
the heart of the corruption that has destroyed and devastated so
many Black men and women. So many Latino men and women. It's more
widespread than people think," says Civil Rights Attorney Austin R.
Dove.

The individuals who have been misidentified and misclassified as
gang members -- the financial and economic disadvantage is
incalculable.

The Co-Founder of the Justice Law Group, Stephen King, says police
have a presumption of guilt for Black and Brown people. He states,
police take illegal steps based on fear.

"If you instill fear on someone, there can be no equality in
justice with fear. We fear the criminal justice system; we fear the
police and they know it. They are taking away our abilities to earn
a living for families," says King. "These cops will pay. They know
what they are doing is wrong. They laugh about it; they high five
it," King implies.

King mentions this kind of action destroys the morale of the Black
community and it has to stop. Even when a person is falsely accused
and proven innocent, they still suffer the consequences of that
mischaracterization, King tells reporters. "They are trying to take
away what we're trying to build."

Branden Costas is a victim of police racial inequality. Costas
graduated from Palisades Charter High School in 2006, when police
falsely accused him of being a shooter. He faced life in prison.

"At the age of 18, I was thrown into a situation where police took
me from my house. I was guilty until proven innocent. I was facing
a life-sentence for something I didn't see happen."

Attorney Christian Contreras infers there is a written and
unwritten policy in the police department, where supervisors and
policymakers are telling officers to arrest Black and Brown people.
"The entire system is corrupt, where police officers think they can
criminalize these people and misclassify Black and Brown people."

Contreras mentions that the LAPD is waging war against poor people.
"We're talking about the criminalization of people who are living
in a certain neighborhood. What they are saying is just because you
hang around certain people, you're a gang associate."

"Police are involved with gang activity themselves. That's what we
really need to look at," says Attorney Humberto Guizar. He states
it's a gang mentality within the police department. "They think
they are above everybody and they can mistrust everybody else
because they have a badge," says Guizar.

"Anybody out there that has been mistreated by the police come to
us and we will gladly embrace you. Call us at 877-71-JusticeX,"
states Guizar. [GN]


M B-REAL: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. M B-REAL, INC. D/B/A AMERICAN LENDING CO.,
and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01488-JM-BLM
(S.D. Cal., July 31, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated consumers, alleges that the Defendants contacted her
cellular telephone number using an automatic telephone dialing
system in an attempt to promote its products and services without
obtaining prior express written consent.

The Plaintiff and Class members received telemarketing or
solicitation calls from the Defendants despite the inclusion of
their telephone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry.

M B-Real, Inc., d/b/a American Lending Co., is a lender providing
business loans, lines of credit and other financial products,
headquartered in San Diego County, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
         Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
         21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
         Woodland Hills, CA 91367
         Telephone: (877) 619-8966
         Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
         E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                 abacon@toddflaw.com

MINNESOTA: Daywitt Sues DHS Alleging Violations of Civil Rights
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harpestead, et al.
The case is styled Kenneth Daywitt, David Jannetta, Steven Hogy,
Merlin Adolphson, Michael Whipple, Peter Lonergan, as and others
similarly situated v. Jodi Harpestead, DHS Commissioner; Marshall
Smith; Nancy Johnston; Jim Berg; Jannine Hebert; Kevin Moser; Terry
Kniesel; Ray Ruotsalainen; in their individual and official
capacities, Case No. 0:20-cv-01743-NEB-BRT (D. Minn., Aug. 10,
2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Civil Detainee: Conditions of
Confinement for the Civil Rights Act.

Jodi Harpestead is a DHS Commissioner and prior to her appointment,
was the president and CEO of Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota
(LSS) since September 2011.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.[BN]


MUNICIPAL HEALTH: Certification of 2 Classes in Hendrix Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Arkansas issued an Opinion affirming the
Circuit Court's Order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned MUNICIPAL HEALTH BENEFIT FUND,
Appellant v. RICKY HENDRIX, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
ARKANSANS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellee. Case No. CV-19-681 (Ark.).

Appellant Municipal Health Benefit Fund ("MHBF") appeals a Pope
County Circuit Court order certifying two classes pursuant to Rule
23 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. For reversal, MHBF
argues that Appellee Ricky Hendrix failed to prove the
class-certification requirements of commonality, predominance,
superiority, typicality, and adequacy and that the circuit court
lacked jurisdiction over the class action.

MHBF is a trust created by the Arkansas Municipal League under
authority of the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Arkansas Code
Annotated Sections 25-20-101-108. MHBF provides benefits to
employees of its municipal members. The terms of MHBF's policy
booklet apply uniformly to those who receive health-benefit
coverage through MHBF, and the policy booklet sets forth the
benefits available and MHBF's rights and obligations concerning
payment of those benefits.

Mr. Hendrix obtained MHBF health-benefit coverage for his family
and himself through his employment as a detective with the
Russellville Police Department. On May 20, 2016, Mr. Hendrix's
daughter was injured in a car accident, necessitating treatment
from multiple medical-care providers. MHBF denied payment for
portions of the bills incurred by his daughter based on its
interpretation of two exclusionary terms in its policy booklet: (i)
[MHBF]'s interpretation of its policy to require an insured to
purchase coverage pursuant to [Arkansas Code Annotated] Section
23-89-202(1) in conjunction with their automobile insurance
coverage or, in the absence of such optional coverage, that the
policy entitled the MHBF to coordinate their insurance benefits as
if that coverage existed; and (ii) [MHBF]'s position that the
medical charges incurred by their insureds can be denied or reduced
by the MHBF based on [its] belief that those charges were not
reasonable and customary under the language (and/or the absence
thereof) of the Fund's policy related to this exclusionary term.

Mr. Hendrix appealed both above bases for exclusions to MHBF's
Board of Trustees. An appeal hearing was held on May 5, 2017, and
MHBF ultimately denied his appeal of both bases for exclusion in
their entirety.

On December 19, 2017, Mr. Hendrix filed his amended class-action
complaint, alleging that the two exclusionary terms were so
subjective, ambiguous, and misleading that they were unenforceable
against the classes. He sought a declaration on the enforceability
of MHBF's interpretation of the two exclusionary terms and asserted
a failure to pay insurance claims pursuant to Arkansas Code
Annotated Section 23-79-208 or, alternatively, breach of contract
for failure to pay the benefits as agreed.

The Circuit Court granted Mr. Hendrix's motion to certify two
classes to pursue the three causes of action asserted in the
amended complaint. The two classes included:

   * Class 1--The auto-insurance class:

     All individuals and/or entities located and/or domiciled
     within the State of Arkansas who filed one or more claims
     with the Arkansas Municipal Health Benefit Fund on and
     between September 7, 2012 and December 31, 2016 and who had
     their claim(s) denied or reduced by the MHBF, in whole or in
     part, on the stated basis that the Fund was coordinating
     that claim as if the claimant had the med-pay coverage
     addressed by Ark. Code Ann. [ ] Section 23-89-202(1); and

   * Class 2--The reasonable and customary charges or UCR class:

     All individuals and/or entities located and/or domiciled
     within the State of Arkansas who filed one or more claims
     with the Arkansas Municipal Health Benefit Fund on or
     between September 12, 2012 through the date of entry of this
     Class Certification Order and who had their claim(s) denied
     or reduced by the MHBF, in whole or in part, on the stated
     basis that the charges claimed exceed those that are
     reasonable and customary.

The Circuit Court ruled that the class members satisfied the
requirements of Rule 23, and it made detailed findings on each of
the Rule 23 requirements. MHBF filed a timely appeal from the
Circuit Court's order granting class certification.

The Arkansas Supreme Court Chief Justice John Dan Kemp opines that
Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion on its commonality and
predominance findings. Further, because MHBF asserts no independent
argument about superiority, the Supreme Court also affirms the
Circuit Court's finding that the classes satisfied the superiority
requirement.

The Supreme Court also holds that the Circuit Court did not abuse
its discretion in determining that Mr. Hendrix has no conflict of
interest disqualifying him from representing the classes. The
Supreme Court agrees that the typicality requirement was satisfied
in this case because the exclusionary terms on which any liability
rests are common to all members of the respective classes; thus,
typicality requirement had been met in this case.

Judge Kemp also states that the Supreme Court is also unpersuaded
by MHBF's argument that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction
because other class members may not have exhausted their
administrative remedies. In its commonality analysis, the Circuit
Court stated that Mr. Hendrix had exhausted his administrative
remedies because MHBF denied his internal appeal. The Supreme Court
agrees that exhaustion of administrative remedies by all class
members would be futile in this case because the interpretation and
enforceability of the two policy exclusions are common to all class
members. Thus, the Supreme Court holds that the case is not subject
to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

HART, WOOD, and WOMACK, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part.

RHONDA K. WOOD, Justice, concurring in part and dissenting in
part.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's June 11, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9d686h5 from Leagle.com.

Harrington, Miller, Kieklak, Eichmann & Brown, P.A., by R. Justin
Eichmann, Esq.--mail@arkansaslaw.com; and Asia Cruz, Esq., for
Appellant.

Streett Law Firm, P.A., by James A. Streett,
Esq.--James@StreettLaw.com; and Brian G. Brook, Attorney at Law,
PLLC, by Brian G. Brooks, Esq.--bgblawfirm@sbcglobal.net, for
Appellee.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Anderson Files Injury Suit in S.D. Indiana
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Deborah Anderson, as
attorney-in-fact for Marcus Anderson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:20-cv-02120-JRS-DLP (S.D. Ind., Aug. 10,
2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Fax: (713) 554-9098
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Bloom Files Injury Suit in S.D. Indiana
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Robert Bloom,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:20-cv-02115-RLY-MPB (S.D. Ind., Aug. 10, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Fax: (713) 554-9098
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Byrd Files Personal Injury Suit in Indiana
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Jerome Byrd, Jr.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:20-cv-02112-JRS-MJD (S.D. Ind., Aug. 10, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Fax: (713) 554-9098
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Hatch Personal Injury Suit in Indiana
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Jenifer Hatch, in her
capacity as guardian of Robert Larsen, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:20-cv-02124-RLY-MJD (S.D. Ind., Aug. 10,
2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Fax: (713) 554-9098
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces McCurdy Injury Suit in S.D. Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Robert McCurdy,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:20-cv-02123-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind., Aug. 10, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Fax: (713) 554-9098
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Miroth Personal Injury Suit in Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Melvin Miroth,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:20-cv-02113-JPH-DLP (S.D. Ind., Aug. 10, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Fax: (713) 554-9098
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Watson Personal Injury Suit in Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Robert Watson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:20-cv-02116-TWP-DLP (S.D. Ind., Aug. 10, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Fax: (713) 554-9098
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Gallardo Files Injury Suit in S.D. Indiana
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Jeffrie Gallardo,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:20-cv-02111-JMS-DML (S.D. Ind., Aug. 10, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Fax: (713) 554-9098
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Glover Files Personal Injury Suit in Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as William Glover,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:20-cv-02119-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind., Aug. 10, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Fax: (713) 554-9098
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Harris Files Personal Injury Suit in Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Omre Harris,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:20-cv-02114-JRS-DLP (S.D. Ind., Aug. 10, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Fax: (713) 554-9098
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Mayer Files Personal Injury Suit in Indiana
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Shawn Mayer,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:20-cv-02117-JMS-DLP (S.D. Ind., Aug. 10, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Fax: (713) 554-9098
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Reaves Files Personal Injury Suit in Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Silas Bernard Reaves,
Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:20-cv-02121-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind., Aug. 10, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Fax: (713) 554-9098
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Taylor Files Personal Injury Suit in Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Sherwood Taylor,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:20-cv-02118-JMS-DLP (S.D. Ind., Aug. 10, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Fax: (713) 554-9098
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATURE REPUBLIC: Court Approves Stipulation to Dismiss Cooks Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
issued an Order granting Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with
Prejudice in the case captioned RICHARD COOKS, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. NATURE REPUBLIC INTERNATIONAL,
LLC, Case No. CV 20-1110 FMO (PVCx) (C.D. Cal.).

According to the Order, the Court has received and reviewed the
parties' Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice as to Nature
Republic International, LLC, in which the parties stipulate that
the "action, including all parties and claims" is "dismissed with
prejudice" pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).

However, District Judge Fernando M. Olguin states that the lawsuit
is a putative class action, and the class claims cannot be
dismissed with prejudice at this juncture. Having reviewed the case
file and determined that no prejudice to the putative class will
result from dismissal, the Court ruled that the action is dismissed
with prejudice as to the Plaintiff and without prejudice as to the
class claims.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 28, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ya9hm4t5 from Leagle.com.


NEIGHBORHOOD RESOURCES: Crump Sues in Del. Over FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Neighborhood
Resources, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Deborah Crump,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Neighborhood Resources, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
Gellert Scali Busenkell & Brown, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; Case No. 1:20-cv-01056-UNA (D. Del., Aug. 10, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Neighborhood Resources, LLC, provides management services;
assessment billing with delinquent assessment collections;
delinquent assessment collections; demand letters; unpaid
assessment notices; attorney services; storm water & sediment pond
maintenance; amnesty program; snow plowing; consulting services and
more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mary Higgins, Esq.
          Mary Anne McLane Detweiler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARRY HIGGINS
          Commonwealth Building
          260 Chapman Road, Suite 201
          Newark, DE 19702
          Phone: (302) 894-4357
          Email: mary.higgins@letsbelegal.com
                 maryamclane@letsbelegal.com


NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel Steps Down
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, Oakland Division, issued an Order granting Lead
Plaintiffs' Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Plaintiffs Oklahoma
Firefighters Pension and Retirement System and El Paso Firemen &
Policemen's Pension Fund in the case captioned IN RE NEKTAR
THERAPEUTICS SECURITIES LITIGATION. Case No. 4:18-cv-06607-HSG.
(N.D. Cal.).

Attorney Christopher J. McDonald, Esq. is withdrawn as Lead
Plaintiffs' counsel of record in the case. Lead Plaintiffs shall
continue to be represented in this matter by attorneys of the law
firms Labaton Sucharow LLP and Wagstaffe, Von Loewenfeldt, Busch &
Radwick, LLP.

Attorneys for Lead Plaintiffs:

     Thomas A. Dubbs, Esq.
     Michael P. Canty, Esq.
     Marisa N. DeMato, Esq.
     James E. McGovern, Esq.
     Francis P. McConville, Esq.
     LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
     New York, New York
     E-mail: tdubbs@labaton.com
             mcanty@labaton.com
             mdemato@labaton.com
             jmcgovern@labaton.com
             fmcconville@labaton.com

          - and -

     James M. Wagstaffe, Esq.
     WAGSTAFFE, VON LOEWENFELDT, BUSCH & RADWICK, LLP
     San Francisco, CA
     E-mail: wagstaffe@wvbrlaw.com

NELNET INC: Class Suit Related to CARES Act Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
Nelnet, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the company is defending a putative class
action brought by student loan borrowers alleging that Great Lakes
furnishing of certain information to credit reporting agencies was
inaccurate under the  Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security Act (CARES Act).

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act)
and other COVID-19-related borrower relief measures have resulted
in, and may continue to result in, certain processing and other
changes within our loan servicing operations, including the
processing of automatic forbearances, special payment instructions,
and special credit reporting. Such changes involve additional
regulatory and other complexities, uncertainties, and matters of
interpretation.

Currently, the company is defending a putative class action brought
by student loan borrowers alleging that Great Lakes furnishing of
certain information to credit reporting agencies was inaccurate
under the CARES Act.

The company denies any wrongdoing.

Nelnet said, "In addition, such COVID-19 regulatory measures and
associated operational changes increase the risk that noncompliance
with applicable laws, regulations, and Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau guidance could result in penalties, litigation,
reputation damage, and a loss of customers."

Nelnet, Inc. is a diverse company with a purpose to serve others
and a vision to make customers' dreams possible by delivering
customer focused products and services. The largest operating
businesses engage in loan servicing; education technology,
services, and payment processing; and communications. The company
is based in Lincoln, Nebraska.


NEW YORK: 2nd Circuit Appeal v. Amaro Filed in Gulino Bias Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment
dated June 30, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET AL.
v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY
OF NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (New York City).

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

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

The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board of
Education, Case No. 20-2438, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Leslie-Ann Amaro is represented by:

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

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

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


NUCOR CORP: Fackler et al. Sue Over CGB's Lease Termination
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, LARRY FACKLER, EDWARD HOBBS, and STEPHEN HAGER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
NUCOR CORPORATION and GREENLAND ACQUISITION COMPANY, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00539-DJH (W.D. Ky., July 31, 2020),
arises from the Defendants' alleged intentional interference with
prospective contractual and business relations, violation of the
Open Meetings Act, and civil conspiracy.

According to the complaint, the Defendants entered into a secret
agreement with certain public officials at Meade County Fiscal
Court and the Meade County - Brandenburg Industrial Development
Authority and Consolidated Grain & Barge Co. (CGB) in August and
September 2019 to terminate CGB's grain facility lease with the
Meade County Riverport Authority in Brandenburg. Defendant Nucor
offered to pay CGB $20 million to terminate the lease and destroy
its grain facility by March 31, 2020, so that Nucor can occupy the
area and build a steel mill at the Meade County River Port. In
order to accomplish the transaction as quickly as Nucor wished, the
public officials at Meade County Fiscal Court and Brandenburg
Industrial Development Authority conceived a plot to remove and
replace Riverport Authority members Nicholas Hardesty and Don
Bewley who objected the termination of CGB's lease because of
concerns about the damage it would cause to farmers.

On October 1, 2019, the lease termination agreement was approved by
the Riverport Authority following the removal of Hardesty and
Bewley. This action affected the Plaintiffs and all others
similarly situated farmers because it destroyed their prospective
contractual relationships with CGB. The Plaintiffs and the Class
sold and delivered grain to CGB at the grain facility and they
intended and expected to continue selling all or nearly all of
their grain to CGB for the remaining term of the lease, which
should be binding and effective at a minimum through the year 2024,
and likely through 2034.

As a result of the Defendants' illegal acts, CGB ceased operation
of the grain facility and terminated all contractual relationships
with the Plaintiffs and the Class as of February 1, 2020.

Nucor Corporation is a producer of steel and related products with
its principal place of business in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Greenland Acquisition Company, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with
its principal office in Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
         
         Clark C. Johnson, Esq.
         Michael C. Merrick, Esq.
         KAPLAN JOHNSON ABATE & BIRD LLP
         710 West Main Street, Fourth Floor
         Louisville, KY 40202
         Telephone: (502) 416-1630
         Facsimile: (502) 540-8282
         E-mail: cjohnson@kaplanjohnsonlaw.com
                 mmerrick@kaplanjohnsonlaw.com

ONE CALL: Galarza Says OT Unpaid, Claims Adjusters Misclassified
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOEL GALARZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ONE CALL CLAIMS, LLC; KRISTI SMOOT; KELLY
SMOOT; and TEXAS WINDSTORM INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00808 (W.D. Tex., July 31, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated misclassified independent contractors overtime pay for
hours worked while performing services to Texas Windstorm Insurance
Association.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a misclassified
independent contractor performing property claims adjusting,
estimating, and/or scoping services for the Defendants' customer,
Texas Windstorm Insurance Association, from September 2017 until
August 2019.

One Call Claims, LLC is an insurance claims services outsourcing
company that is incorporated under the laws of the State of Alabama
and doing business in the Western District of Texas, Austin
Division. The company has its principal place of business in the
State of Arizona.

Texas Windstorm Insurance Association is a domestic insurance
company created by the Texas Legislature in 1971 through the Texas
Sunset Act to engage in the business of insurance in the counties
subject to hurricane damage. Its principal place of business is
located at 5700 S. MoPac Expressway, Building A, Austin, Texas.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Michael A. Starzyk, Esq.
         STARZYK & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         8665 New Trails, Suite 160
         The Woodlands, TX 77381
         Telephone: (281) 364-7261
         Facsimile: (281) 364-7533
         E-mail: mstarzyk@starzyklaw.com

ONYX + ROSE: Baker Files Suit in Vermont Alleging TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Onyx + Rose, LLC. The
case is styled as Tyler Baker, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Onyx + Rose, LLC, a Limited Liability
Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-00117-wks (D. Vt., Aug. 10, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Onyx + Rose sells the highest quality CBD Hemp Oil products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Pettersen, Esq.
          PETTERSON LAW PLLC
          1084 East Lakeshore Drive
          Colchester, VT 05446
          Phone: (802) 477-2780
          Email: pettersenlaw@gmail.com


PACCAR INC: Court Narrows Claims in Bowes Product Liability Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle, issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned JAMES BOWES, et
al. v. PACCAR, INC., et al., Case No. C19-1794-JCC (W.D. Wash.).

The Defendants manufacture and sell heavy-duty commercial vehicles.
Beginning in 2010, the Defendants began to manufacture PACCAR MX-13
diesel engines ("Engines"). The Engines incorporate an
aftertreatment system ("ATS") that the Defendants have previously
included in other vehicles. The ATS contains a diesel particulate
filter ("DPF") system and a selective catalytic reduction ("SCR")
system, which control the Engines' emission of nitrogen oxides and
particulate matter. In order to meet the Environmental Protection
Agency's ("EPA") 2010 Heavy-Duty On Highway Emissions Standard
("2010 Standard"), the Defendants designed, manufactured, sold for
profit, and warranted Engines with an Emissions Aftertreatment
System ("EAS") emissions control unit. The EAS includes an exhaust
gas recirculation ("EGR") component that assists in altering the
temperature and composition of the exhaust.

In a 2010 annual report, the Defendants reported that the Engines
were certified by the EPA and the California Air Resources Board.
The Defendants stated that the Engines were durable,
high-performing, and efficient. The Defendants' marketing material
has stated "that the Engine has a B10 design life of 1,000,000
miles" and that the Engines' reliability and durability have been
rigorously tested.

The Plaintiffs allege that a defect in the Engines causes vehicles
containing the Engines ("Vehicles") to not function reliably, even
following repeated warranty repairs and replacements. The EAS and
related systems continuously monitor Vehicles and, upon detection
of a malfunction, trigger a malfunction indicator and produce a
fault code that is stored in the Engine Control Module ("ECM"). The
Engines are designed to attempt to address malfunctions themselves;
if a malfunction cannot be adequately addressed, an indicator light
informs the Vehicle's operator of the malfunction. The operator is
instructed to take the affected Vehicle to an authorized facility
for malfunction identification and repair.

The Defendants require that repair work on Engines be performed at
Defendants' authorized dealers, who use the fault codes to identify
issues while performing the repairs. (Id. at 11-12.) If the
operator fails to do so, the Vehicle's on-board diagnostic ("OBD")
system "will increase operator 'inducements' including power
derates or shutdown as required to protect the Engine and ATS."

The Plaintiffs, who are purchasers of the Vehicles, allege that
they and members of the purported class "have repeatedly
experienced emissions related performance and reliability
problems," including that "the Vehicles regularly experience
numerous fault codes which require servicing." They allege that,
prior to selling the Engines, the Defendants knew or should have
known that the EAS and related systems were not sufficiently robust
to meet the Defendants' representations about the systems'
reliability and durability, that the Engines and EAS were
experiencing failures, and that frequent repairs would be
required.

The Plaintiffs' Vehicles have repeatedly broken down or suffered
shutdowns, which have required the Plaintiffs to deliver the
Vehicles to the Defendants' authorized dealers for warranty repair
work. Even after warranty repair work was performed, the Plaintiffs
contend that their Vehicles continued to exhibit illuminated
warning lights; Engines derated or shut down; and they experienced
problems with sensors, injectors, and dosers along with other
system failures. They assert that because of the Vehicles' issues
they have suffered out-of-pocket damages and damages arising from
the diminished values of the Vehicles both at the time of sale and
now that the market is aware of the alleged defects. They state
that they would have either not purchased the Vehicles or would
have paid less for the Vehicles but for the Defendants' omissions
and misrepresentations related to the Vehicles.

On November 5, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. They purport to
bring the action on behalf of a nationwide class, which excludes
New Jersey, Georgia, and Texas, for violations of Washington law.
In the alternative, the Plaintiffs purport to bring the action on
behalf of a Florida class, an Illinois class, an Ohio class, and a
South Dakota class. The Plaintiffs also allege on behalf of the
nationwide class that Defendants violated the Washington Consumer
Protection Act and breached an express warranty in violation of
Wash. Rev. Code Section 62A.2-313. In the alternative, among other
things, the Plaintiffs allege on behalf of the Florida class that
the Defendants breached an express warranty, an implied warranty
and a contract or common law warranty in violation of Florida law,
and violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Decision

District Judge John C. Coughenour ruled that the Defendants' motion
to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff Bowes's
claims for breach of implied warranty in tort and negligent design,
engineering, or manufacturing arising under Ohio law are DISMISSED
without prejudice and with leave to amend.

If the Plaintiffs choose to file an amended complaint, they must
plead additional allegations that cure the deficiencies identified
in the Order. The amended complaint must be filed within 30 days of
the issuance of the order. If filed, the amended complaint shall
only include additional allegations regarding the dismissed
claims.

Judge Coughenour explains that the complaint's allegations
demonstrate that Plaintiff Bowes purchased the Vehicle at issue as
a commercial party, was not in privity with the Defendants when he
did so, and now seeks to recover economic damages under tort
theories of liability. Given the Ohio Supreme Court's implied
rejection of this method of recovery, the Sixth Circuit's analysis
of relevant Ohio caselaw, and the weight of Ohio courts of appeals'
decisions on this issue, the Court finds that the Ohio Supreme
Court would conclude that Plaintiff Bowes's status as a commercial
party not in privity with the Defendants precludes him from
recovering purely economic damages under tort theories of recovery,
citing Gravquick A/S, 323 F.3d at 1222; Chemtrol Adhesives, 537
N.E.2d at 635 n.7; HDM Flugservice GmbH, 332 F.3d at 1028-30;
Midwest Ford, 694 N.E.2d at 117; Nat'l Interstate Ins. Co., 2012 WL
264577, slip op. at 3.

The Defendants assert that PACCAR disclaimed all implied warranties
and, therefore, the Plaintiffs' claims for breach of implied
warranty must be dismissed. Judge Coughenour notes that the
Defendants' argument is premised on language contained in the
limited warranties attached to their motion to dismiss, which are
not properly before the Court and, thus, the Court will not
consider them in ruling on the Defendants' motion to dismiss.
Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED on this
ground, among other grounds.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 11, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7oncxwu from Leagle.com.


PAYPAL INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Cruz Claims
------------------------------------------------------
The case, SHAEL CRUZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. PAYPAL, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-06481 (S.D.N.Y., August 14, 2020) arises from Defendant's
alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

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

Plaintiff claims that when he visited Defendant's website recently
in May 2020, he was effectively barred from being able to enjoy the
privileges and benefits of Defendant's public accommodation due to
the website's lack of variety of features and accommodations which
denied him full access similar to that of a sighted individual.

Paypal, Inc., which owns and operates www.paypal.com, is a
worldwide online payments system company that supports online money
transfers and serves as an electronic alternative to traditional
paper methods. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



PHILADELPHIA, PA: Staniec Sues Over Refusal to Refund Race Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Staniec, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Case No. 200800985 (Pa. Com.
Pleas, Philadelphia Cty., Aug. 12, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for breach of contract and, alternatively, unjust
enrichment arising from its refusal to provide the Plaintiff with a
refund of her race registration fee.

The annual Broad Street Run, which is organized and put on by the
City, was initially scheduled to take place on May 3, 2020. The
Plaintiff registered to participate in the 2020 Broad Street Run
and, as part of that registration, paid a $57.00 entry fee plus a
$3.42 processing fee for a total of $60.42 at the time they were
selected from the race's lottery.

Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, on March 23, 2020, the City
rescheduled the event for October 4, 2020. At that time, registered
runners could choose to defer their registration until the 2021
event or transfer their registration to another person for no fee.
Then, on July 14, 2020, the City announced that it had "decided to
transition the 2020 Blue Cross Broad Street Run to a virtual
event." Despite the transition to a strictly virtual event as
opposed to an in-person race, the City refuses to provide the
Plaintiff with a refund of their registration fee, or even a
transfer of that registration fee to the 2021 Broad Street Run
event.

The Plaintiff contends that she has been damaged by the City's
conduct. She registered for the 2020 Broad Street Run event, which
was advertised as an in-person race, yet now that the event has
been effectively cancelled, the City will not refund the
registration fee, she asserts.

Ms. Staniec is a resident of the City of Philadelphia, who
registered for the 2020 Broad Street Run's lottery on February 3,
2020.

The City of Philadelphia is a municipality of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          Robert J. Mongeluzzi, Esq.
          SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.
          1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 496-8282
          Fax: (215) 496-0999
          Email: phoward@smbb.com


PHILIP MORRIS: Blais Class Suit in Canada Stayed
------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the class action
suit entitled, Conseil Quebecois Sur Le Tabac Et La Sante and
Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges
Inc. (RBH) and JTI-Macdonald Corp., hasbeen stayed, as there is
currently a comprehensive stay up to and including September 30,
2020 of all tobacco-related litigation pending in Canada against
RBH

In a class action pending in Canada, Conseil Quebecois Sur Le Tabac
Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans,
Benson & Hedges Inc. (RBH) and JTI-Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior
Court, Canada, filed in November 1998, RBH and other Canadian
manufacturers (Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. and JTI-Macdonald
Corp.) are defendants.

The plaintiffs, an anti-smoking organization and an individual
smoker, sought compensatory and punitive damages for each member of
the class who allegedly suffers from certain smoking-related
diseases. The class was certified in 2005.

The trial court issued its judgment on May 27, 2015. The trial
court found RBH and two other Canadian manufacturers liable and
found that the class members' compensatory damages totaled
approximately CAD 15.5 billion, including pre-judgment interest
(approximately $11.6 billion). The trial court awarded compensatory
damages on a joint and several liability basis, allocating 20% to
our subsidiary (approximately CAD 3.1 billion, including
pre-judgment interest (approximately $2.3 billion)).

In addition, the trial court awarded CAD 90,000 (approximately
$67,180) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 30,000 (approximately
$22,390) to RBH. The trial court estimated the disease class at
99,957 members. RBH appealed to the Court of Appeal of Quebec.

In October 2015, the Court of Appeal ordered RBH to furnish
security totaling CAD 226 million (approximately $168.7 million) to
cover both the Letourneau and Blais cases, which RBH has paid in
installments through March 2017.

The Court of Appeal ordered Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. to furnish
security totaling CAD 758 million (approximately $566 million) in
installments through June 2017.

JTI Macdonald Corp. was not required to furnish security in
accordance with plaintiffs' motion. The Court of Appeal ordered
that the security is payable upon a final judgment of the Court of
Appeal affirming the trial court’s judgment or upon further order
of the Court of Appeal.

On March 1, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued a decision largely
affirming the trial court's findings of liability and the
compensatory and punitive damages award while reducing the total
amount of compensatory damages to approximately CAD 13.5 billion
including interest (approximately $10.1 billion) due to the trial
court’s error in the calculation of interest.

The compensatory damages award is on a joint and several basis with
an allocation of 20% to RBH (approximately CAD 2.7 billion,
including pre-judgment interest (approximately $2.02 billion)).

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's findings that
defendants violated the Civil Code of Quebec, the Quebec Charter of
Human Rights and Freedoms, and the Quebec Consumer Protection Act
by failing to warn adequately of the dangers of smoking and by
conspiring to prevent consumers from learning of the dangers of
smoking.

The Court of Appeal further held that the plaintiffs either need
not prove, or had adequately proven, that these faults were a cause
of the class members' injuries.

In accordance with the judgment, defendants are required to deposit
their respective portions of the damages awarded in both the
Letourneau case and the Blais case, approximately CAD 1.1 billion
(approximately $821 million), into trust accounts within 60 days.

RBH's share of the deposit is approximately CAD 257 million
(approximately $194 million). PMI recorded a pre-tax charge of $194
million in its consolidated results, representing $142 million net
of tax, as tobacco litigation-related expense, in the first quarter
of 2019.

The charge reflects PMI's assessment of the portion of the judgment
that represents probable and estimable loss prior to the
deconsolidation of RBH and corresponds to the trust account deposit
required by the judgment.

As a result of the Court of Appeal of Quebec's decision the
company's subsidiary, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. ("RBH"), and
the other defendants, JTI Macdonald Corp., and Imperial Tobacco
Canada Limited, sought protection in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act ("CCAA") on
March 22, March 8, and March 12, 2019 respectively.

CCAA is a Canadian federal law that permits a Canadian business to
restructure its affairs while carrying on its business in the
ordinary course. The initial CCAA order made by the Ontario
Superior Court on March 22, 2019 authorizes RBH to pay all expenses
incurred in carrying on its business in the ordinary course after
the CCAA filing, including obligations to employees, vendors, and
suppliers.

Deconsolidation of RBH, RBH is now deconsolidated from the
company's consolidated financial statements. As part of the CCAA
proceedings, there is currently a comprehensive stay up to and
including September 30, 2020 of all tobacco-related litigation
pending in Canada against RBH and the other defendants, including
PMI and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), namely, the
smoking and health class actions filed in various Canadian
provinces and health care cost recovery actions.

Ernst & Young Inc. has been appointed as monitor of RBH in the CCAA
proceedings. In accordance with the CCAA process, as the parties
work towards a plan of arrangement or compromise in a confidential
mediation, it is anticipated that the court will set additional
hearings and further extend the stay of proceedings.

On April 17, 2019, the Ontario Superior Court ruled that RBH and
the other defendants will not be allowed to file an application to
the Supreme Court of Canada for leave to appeal the Court of
Appeal's decision in the Letourneau and the Blais cases so long as
the comprehensive stay of all tobacco-related litigation in Canada
remains in effect and that the time period to file the application
would be extended by the stay period.

Philip Morris said, "While RBH believes that the findings of
liability and damages in both Letourneau and the Blais cases were
incorrect, the CCAA proceedings will provide a forum for RBH to
seek resolution through a plan of arrangement or compromise of all
tobacco-related litigation pending in Canada. It is not possible to
predict the resolution of the underlying legal proceedings or the
length of the CCAA process."

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Letourneau Class Action Suit Stayed
--------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the class action
suit entitled, Cecilia Letourneau v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd.,
Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. (RBH) and JTI-Macdonald Corp., has
been stayed, as there is currently a comprehensive stay up to and
including September 30, 2020 of all tobacco-related litigation
pending in Canada against RBH

In a class action pending in Canada, Cecilia Letourneau v. Imperial
Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. (RBH) and
JTI-Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in
September 1998, RBH and other Canadian manufacturers (Imperial
Tobacco Canada Ltd. and JTI-Macdonald Corp.) are defendants.  

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, sought compensatory and
punitive damages for each member of the class who is deemed
addicted to smoking. The class was certified in 2005. The trial
court issued its judgment on May 27, 2015. The trial court found
RBH and two other Canadian manufacturers liable and awarded a total
of CAD 131 million (approximately $97.8 million) in punitive
damages, allocating CAD 46 million (approximately $34.3 million) to
RBH.

The trial court estimated the size of the addiction class at
918,000 members but declined to award compensatory damages to the
addiction class because the evidence did not establish the claims
with sufficient accuracy.

The trial court found that a claims process to allocate the awarded
punitive damages to individual class members would be too expensive
and difficult to administer.

On March 1, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued a decision largely
affirming the trial court's findings of liability and the total
amount of punitive damages awarded allocating CAD 57 million
including interest (approximately $42.6 million) to RBH.

As a result of the Court of Appeal of Quebec's decision in both the
Letourneau and Blais cases, the comapany's subsidiary, RBH, and the
other defendants, JTI Macdonald Corp., and Imperial Tobacco Canada
Limited, sought protection in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act ("CCAA") on March
22, March 8, and March 12, 2019 respectively. CCAA is a Canadian
federal law that permits a Canadian business to restructure its
affairs while carrying on its business in the ordinary course.

The initial CCAA order made by the Ontario Superior Court on March
22, 2019 authorizes RBH to pay all expenses incurred in carrying on
its business in the ordinary course after the CCAA filing,
including obligations to employees, vendors, and suppliers. RBH is
now deconsolidated from the company's consolidated financial
statements.

As part of the CCAA proceedings, there is currently a comprehensive
stay up to and including September 30, 2020 of all tobacco-related
litigation pending in Canada against RBH and the other defendants,
including PMI and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), namely, the
smoking and health class actions filed in various Canadian
provinces and health care cost recovery actions.

Ernst & Young Inc. has been appointed as monitor of RBH in the CCAA
proceedings. In accordance with the CCAA process, as the parties
work towards a plan of arrangement or compromise in a confidential
mediation, it is anticipated that the court will set additional
hearings and further extend the stay of proceedings.

On April 17, 2019, the Ontario Superior Court ruled that RBH and
the other defendants will not be allowed to file an application to
the Supreme Court of Canada for leave to appeal the Court of
Appeal's decision in the Letourneau and the Blais cases so long as
the comprehensive stay of all tobacco-related litigation in Canada
remains in effect and that the time period to file the application
would be extended by the stay period.

Philip Morris said, "While RBH believes that the findings of
liability and damages in both Letourneau and the Blais cases were
incorrect, the CCAA proceedings will provide a forum for RBH to
seek resolution through a plan of arrangement or compromise of all
tobacco-related litigation pending in Canada. It is not possible to
predict the resolution of the underlying legal proceedings or the
length of the CCAA process."

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Rosen Law Reminds of Sept. 4 Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Pilgrim's Pride Corporation
(NASDAQ:PPC) between February 9, 2017 and June 3, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), of the important September 4, 2020 lead
plaintiff deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Pilgrim's Pride investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Pilgrim's Pride class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1869.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) Pilgrim's Pride and its executives had participated in an
illegal antitrust conspiracy to fix prices and rig bids from at
least as early as 2012 and continuing through at least early 2017;
(2) Pilgrim's Pride received competitive advantages, which
persisted during the Class Period, from its anticompetitive
conduct; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about
Pilgrim's Pride's business, operations, and prospects lacked a
reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class-action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
4, 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-1869.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]


PLAYAGS INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Aug. 24 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 PlayAGS, Inc. (NYSE: AGS).
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.

PlayAGS, Inc. (NYSE: AGS)

Class Period: May 3, 2018 to August 7, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 24, 2020

PlayAGS is a designer and supplier of electronic gaming machines.
It operates with three business segments: (i) electronic gaming
machines ("EGM"), which comprises 95% of the Company's revenue and
provides 380 game titles on EGM cabinets; (ii) table products,
including live felt table games, side bet offerings, progressives,
signage, and other ancillary table game equipment; and (iii)
interactive, which offers social casino games including online
versions of the Company's game titles.

On August 7, 2019, PlayAGS reported a net loss of $7.6 million for
second quarter 2019, which included a $3.5 million impairment to
goodwill and $1.3 million impairment to intangible assets of the
Company's iGaming reporting unit, due to extended regulatory
timelines which delayed revenues.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $8.99, or nearly 52%,
to close at $8.31 per share on August 8, 2019.

The complaint, filed on June 25, 2020, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
PlayAGS was experiencing challenges in its business in Oklahoma;
(2) that, as a result, the Company's recurring revenue would be
negatively impacted; (3) that PlayAGS was experiencing challenges
in its Interactive business segment, including delays in securing
regulatory approvals and relevant licenses; (4) that, as a result
of the foregoing, PlayAGS was reasonably likely to record a
goodwill impairment; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

For more information on the PlayAGS class actin go to:
https://bespc.com/AGS

Cheetah Mobile, Inc. (NYSE: CMCM)

Class Period: March 25, 2019 to February 20, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 24, 2020

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

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

The complaint, filed on June 25, 2020, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
certain of Cheetah Mobile's apps were not compliant with the terms
of its agreements with Google; (2) that, as a result there was a
reasonable likelihood that Google would terminate its advertising
contracts with the Company; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing,
the Company's ability to attract new users would be adversely
impacted; (4) that, as a result, the Company's revenue was
reasonably likely to decline; and (5) that as a result, defendants'
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times.

For more information on the Cheetah Mobile class action go to:
https://bespc.com/CMCM

               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]


PROSHARES ULTRA: Schall Law Announces Class Action Filing
---------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Aug. 5 announced the filing of a class-action lawsuit against
ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil ("UCO" or "the Fund")
(NYSEArca:UCO) for violations of Sec. 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between March 6,
2020 and April 27, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 28, 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. UCO experienced huge market volatility
caused by dampened demand for oil due to the coronavirus pandemic
and both increased supply and decreased prices caused by the
Russia/Saudi oil price war. A massive influx of investor funds
heightened a number of problems for the Fund, causing it to
approach positional and regulatory limits. Combined with other
issues, this meant UCO could no longer pursue its passive
investment strategy as represented in the Fund's Registration
Statement. Based on these facts, the Fund's public statements were
false and materially misleading. When the market learned the truth
about UCO, 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.

CONTACT:

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


PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Certification in Suit v. LogistiCare Appealed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Providence Service Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6,
2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the
company has taken an appeal from the conditional certification
order in the purported class action suit filed against
LogistiCare.

On April 1, 2019, a purported class action was filed against
LogistiCare in Texas alleging that the Company's policy with
respect to timekeeping for hourly employees constituted violations
of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), as well as wage
and hour laws in South Carolina and Texas. Plaintiffs filed a
motion for conditional certification on a nationwide basis, which
LogistiCare contested.

The court granted the conditional certification motion on January
22, 2020.

The Company filed an appeal of the conditional certification order
and plans to vigorously contest the allegations on the merits as
the plaintiffs have mischaracterized the method by which employees
clock in to work.

Providence Service said, " At this early stage in the litigation,
it is impossible to predict with any certainty whether plaintiffs
will prevail on their claims, or what they might recover."

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

The Providence Service Corporation provides healthcare services in
the United States. It operates through Non-Emergency Transportation
Services (NET Services) and Matrix Investment segments. The company
was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.


PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Lynch Suit Against Ride Plus Concluded
----------------------------------------------------------
The Providence Service Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6,
2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the
putative class action suit entitled, Lynch v. Ride Plus et al., has
been resolved in a manner that does not materially impact the
Company.

In Lynch v. Ride Plus et al., a putative class action lawsuit filed
in the Superior Court for the County of San Diego, California, a
former Ride Plus driver (trade name for Provado Mobile Health, a
Company subsidiary) sought to represent all Ride Plus drivers in
California on claims identical to the Patel action.

This matter has been resolved in a manner that does not materially
impact the Company.

The Providence Service Corporation provides healthcare services in
the United States. It operates through Non-Emergency Transportation
Services (NET Services) and Matrix Investment segments. The company
was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.



PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Patel Class Action Concluded
------------------------------------------------
The Providence Service Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6,
2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the class
action suit initiated by Meher Patel has been resolved in a manner
that does not materially impact the Company.

On March 1, 2019, Meher Patel filed suit against the Company in the
Superior Court of the State of California, Tuolumne County, on
behalf of herself and as a class action on behalf of others
similarly situated, asserting violations under the California Labor
Code relating to the alleged failure by LogistiCare to comply with
certain applicable state wage and related employment requirements,
as well as claims of breach of contract and breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

This matter has been resolved in a manner that does not materially
impact the Company.

The Providence Service Corporation provides healthcare services in
the United States. It operates through Non-Emergency Transportation
Services (NET Services) and Matrix Investment segments. The company
was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.

PURDUE PHARMA: Vermilion Intends to Join Opioid Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Ouriel, writing for Sandusky Register, reports that Vermilion
Mayor Jim Forthofer recently updated the public on several matters.
They include topics on a class action motion.

"I asked council to pass a motion in support of the city
administration's intent to file as part of a class-action lawsuit.
The administration asks for damages against Purdue Pharma,"
Forthofer said.

"I believe that the residents in the city of Vermilion have
suffered a heartbreaking cost, both directly and indirectly,
resulting from opioids manufactured and marketed improperly by
Purdue Pharma." [GN]


QUIK FUND: Rosenberg Seeks Lost and Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Rosenberg and Paul D'Ascoli, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. QUIK FUND, INC., HARRIS SCOTT
FOCER, and GARY HORN, Case No. 2:20-cv-03632 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 12,
2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York
Labor Law, and the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations, to
recover lost wages and other relief related to the Plaintiffs'
employment with the Defendants.

According to the complaint, the Defendants did not keep and
maintain accurate records reflecting the actual time that the
Plaintiffs worked each day and each week. The Plaintiffs did not
receive and did not take uninterrupted meal breaks and they
generally worked about 45 hours per week. Pursuant to the written
commission agreements, the Plaintiffs were paid on a commission
only basis. They did not receive a salary, hourly rate, daily rate,
or any other rate of pay.

Throughout their employment, if they did not originate a loan that
later closed and funded, they were not paid any wages at all for
their work, the Plaintiffs allege. During their employment, the
Plaintiffs were only paid commission for one week. During each of
the remaining weeks of their employment, the Plaintiffs were not
paid any wages at all, they add.

The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants did not pay them
one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay for any hours that
they worked in excess of 40 each week. The Defendants did not pay
the Plaintiffs overtime compensation reflective of the commissions
they earned. The Defendants also did not pay the Plaintiffs minimum
wages during those weeks in which they did not earn commissions,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were jointly employed by the Defendants as mortgage
loan originators.

Quik Fund, Inc., is a mortgage lender licensed to originate loans
in the State of New York and elsewhere.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Neil H. Greenberg, Esq.
          Keith E. Williams, Esq.
          NEIL H. GREENBERG & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          4242 Merrick Road
          Massapequa, NY 11758
          Phone: 516.228.5100
          Email: nhglaw@nhglaw.com
                 keith@nhglaw.com


REV-A-SHELF CO: Paguada Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. REV-A-SHELF COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-06382
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired people.

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

The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person. The
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

The Defendant is a cabinet and kitchen organizer products company
that owns and operates the Web site.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
          10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (929) 324-0717
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


RH INC: Settlement in Securities Suit Has Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge of the U.S. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division, has
entered final order and judgment approving the class settlement,
the plan of allocation, and the attorneys' fees and expenses in IN
RE RH, INC., SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 4:17-00554-YGR (N.D.
Cal.).

In an Order dated Oct. 11, 2018, the Court certified the Action to
proceed as a class action on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of RH during the
period from March 26, 2015 through June 8, 2016, inclusive.

Lead Plaintiffs Public School Teachers' Pension & Retirement Fund
of Chicago and Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, on behalf of
themselves and the Class, and Defendants RH, and Gary Friedman and
Karen Boone, entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
dated May 6, 2019, which provides for a complete dismissal with
prejudice of the claims asserted against the Defendants in the
Action on the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation,
subject to the approval of the Court.

By Order dated June 21, 2019, the Court: (a) found, pursuant to
Rule 23(e)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that it
would likely be able to approve the Settlement as fair, reasonable,
and accurate under Rule 23(e)(2); (b) ordered that notice of the
proposed Settlement be provided to potential Class Members; (c)
provided Class Members with the opportunity either to exclude
themselves from the Class or to object to the proposed Settlement,
Plan of Allocation, and/or motion for attorneys' fees and expenses;
and (d) scheduled a hearing regarding final approval of the
Settlemen.

Upon review, Judge Rogers fully and finally approved the Settlement
set forth in the Stipulation in all respects, and finds that the
Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate to
the Class.

The Judge approved the Plan of Allocation proposed by the Lead
Plaintiffs as set forth in the Notice.

The Lead Counsel is awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of 15% of
the Settlement Fund (including interest earned at the same rate as
the Settlement Fund).  The Lead Counsel is also awarded $797,049.35
for payment of its litigation expenses.  These attorneys' fees and
expenses will be paid from the Settlement Fund.

In addition, Lead Plaintiff Public School Teachers' Pension &
Retirement Fund of Chicago and Lead Plaintiff Arkansas Teacher
Retirement System are awarded $5,960 and $1,892.28, respectively,
from the Settlement Fund as reimbursement for their reasonable
costs and expenses directly related to their representation of the
Class.  The Lead Counsel is instructed to maintain copies of the
Retainer Agreement in the event that it is necessary for any
further proceeding.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order & Judgment is available at
https://is.gd/oLC2Yn from Leagle.com.

City of Miami General Employees' & Sanitation Employees' Retirement
Trust, Plaintiff, represented by David Ronald Stickney --
davids@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossmann.

Public School Teachers Pension & Retirement Fund of Chicago &
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, Plaintiffs, represented by
Brandon Marsh -- brandon.marsh@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossman, David Ronald Stickney, Bernstein, Litowitz,
Berger & Grossmann, Jenny E. Barbosa -- jenny.barbosa@blbglaw.com
-- Bernstein Litowitz Berger and Grossmann & Jonathan Daniel
Uslaner -- jonathanu@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz et al.

David Magnani, Plaintiff, represented by Phong L. Tran --
PhongT@johnsonfistel.com -- Johnson Fistel, LLP.

Peter J. Errichiello, Jr., Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer
Pafiti -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, J. Alexander Hood,
II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz, LLP, pro hac vice & Jeremy A.
Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac
vice.

RH, Inc., Gary Friedman & Karen Boone, Defendants, represented by
Erik J. Olson -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Amanda Treleaven --
Morrison & Foerster LLP, Amanda Treleaven --atreleaven@mofo.com --
Morrison Foerster LLP, Jordan Eth -- JEth@mofo.com -- Morrison &
Foerster LLP, Mark R.S. Foster -- mfoster@mofo.com -- Morrison &
Foerster LLP & Su-Han Wang -- SWang@mofo.com -- Morrison and
Foerster LLP.

Kalpesh Patel, Movant, represented by Adam Christopher McCall --
amccall@zlk.com -- Levi Korsinsky, LLP.

Steven Hulaj, Henrietta Hulaj, Blair Hulaj & Kristen Hulaj,
Movants, represented by Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP.

Locals 302 and 612 of the International Union of Operating
Engineers-Employers Construction Industry Retirement Trust, Movant,
represented by Shawn A. Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Tricia Lynn McCormick --
TriciaM@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.


SALINAS VALLEY: Faces Class Action Over Email Breaches
------------------------------------------------------
Mary Duan, writing for Monterey County Now, reports that on July 1,
Salinas Valley Memorial Hospital posted an unusual notice on its
website. "Notice to patients and employees: Certain SVMHS email
accounts were affected by a security incident," the first line
read.

As the notice explained, SVMHS determined that on April 30, an
email account belonging to an employee had been compromised. Then
on May 7 and June 5, if was further determined that the email
accounts of a contractor and three other employees had been
compromised as well, by someone using Outlook Web Access, the
hospital system's browser-based email.

The hospital's notice stated, certain emails containing personal
information -- including names, hospital account numbers, medical
recording numbers and information such as service location and
attending physician's information -- was present in one of the
inboxes.

"We also have no evidence at this time that the unauthorized
person(s) viewed, retrieved or copied any medical or personal
information," the hospital states. "Nonetheless, as a precaution,
SVMHS has sent letters by mail to patients and employees whose
personal information may have been in the compromised inboxes."

Two of the recipients of the letters filed a class-action suit in
Monterey County Superior Court on July 20, alleging the hospital
failed to follow reasonable data security procedures and leaving
patients information open to hacking. The plaintiffs, identified in
the suit as J.P. and S.P., are seeking damages in excess of
$25,000.

The case will have its first court hearing on Nov. 24 at the
Monterey courthouse. [GN]


SAN FRANCISCO: App. Court Flips Dismissal of Carroll FEHA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Four,
issued an Opinion reversing a trial court's entry of Stipulated
Dismissal in the case captioned JOYCE CARROLL, Plaintiff and
Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al., Defendants
and Respondents, Case No. A155208. (Cal. App.).

Plaintiff was 43 years old when she began working for the City and
County of San Francisco.  She worked for the City for approximately
15 years before retiring at age 58 due to rheumatoid arthritis.
Plaintiff applied for disability retirement, and the City granted
her request shortly thereafter.  Since then, plaintiff has received
monthly disability retirement benefit payments from defendants.

Plaintiff brought a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, alleging that defendants
discriminate on the basis of age in violation of the Fair
Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) by providing reduced disability
retirement benefits to older employees who took disability
retirement after working for the City for less than 22.22 years.

The dismissal followed the court's order sustaining defendants'
demurrer on the ground that plaintiff did not file a complaint with
the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) within one
year of the date the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.


Plaintiff appeals the trial court's entry of a stipulated dismissal
with prejudice of her age discrimination complaint under the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).  The dismissal
followed the court's order sustaining defendants' demurrer on the
ground that plaintiff did not file a complaint with the Department
of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) within one year of the date
the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.

On review, the Appellate Court concludes that plaintiff's disparate
treatment and disparate impact claims were timely with respect to
the allegedly discriminatory disability retirement payments
plaintiff received within one year of the date on which she filed
her DFEH complaint.  The Appellate Court therefore reverses the
judgment.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's 2019 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yxlarf39 from Leagle.com

Aiman-Smith & Marcy, Randall B. Aiman-Smith - ras@asmlawyers.com -
Reed W. L. Marcy - rwlm@asmlawyers.com - Hallie L. Von Rock -
hvr@asmlawyers.com - Carey A. James -caj@asmlawyers.com - Brent A.
Robinson , for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Dennis J. Herrera , City Attorney, Katherine H. Porter , Joseph M.
Lake , Deputy City Attorneys, for Defendants and Respondents.


SHELBY COUNTY, TN: Bid to Substitute Party in Turnage Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SCOTT TURNAGE, CORTEZ D. BROWN, DEONTAE TATE, JEREMY
S. MELTON, ISSACCA POWELL, KEITH BURGESS, TRAVIS BOYD, TERRENCE
DRAIN, and KIMBERLY ALLEN on behalf of themselves and all similarly
situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. BILL OLDHAM, FLOYD BONNER, JR.,
ROBERT MOORE, KIRK FIELDS, CHARLENE McGHEE, REGINALD HUBBARD, DEBRA
HAMMONS, TIFFANY WARD, SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE, TYLER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION, SOFTWARE AG USA,
INC., SIERRA-CEDAR, INC., SIERRA SYSTEMS GROUP, INC., and TETRUS
CORP., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-2907-SHM-tmp (W.D. Tenn.),
Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Substitution of Party.

The Plaintiffs commenced the putative class action against the
Shelby County Defendants and the Company Defendants, claiming they
were unlawfully detained at the Shelby County Jail following the
County's installation of a new computer tracking system.  The
Plaintiffs bring claims for injunctive relief, declaratory relief,
and damages against the Shelby County Defendants under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 for violations of their Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights.  They bring common-law negligence claims against
the Company Defendants for negligently developing, installing, and
implementing the County's computer tracking system.

Plaintiff Powell died on Feb. 4, 2019.  The Shelby County Probate
Court appointed Aubrey L. Brown as administrator ad litem of
Powell's estate in August 2019.  The Plaintiffs ask the Court to
substitute Brown, the administrator ad litem of Powell's estate,
for Powell.  The Shelby County Defendants filed a response that the
Company Defendants have joined.

The first issue is whether Powell's claims were "extinguished" by
his death.  Judge Mays explains that the survivorship law of the
forum state determines whether a Section 1983 claim survives a
plaintiff's death, provided the forum state's law is not
inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.
Claims for personal injuries survive a plaintiff's death in
Tennessee.  The Defendants do not argue that Tennessee's
survivorship rule is inconsistent with the policies underlying
Section 1983 claims.  Hence, Tennessee law applies to Powell's
Section 1983 claims. Under Tennessee law, the claims survive.

The survivorship law of the forum state also determines whether a
claim brought under state common law survives a plaintiff's death.
Powell's common-law negligence claims against the Company
Defendants are "claims for personal injuries" that survive his
death.  Thus, both Powell's Section 1983 claims and his common-law
negligence claims survive and are not "extinguished" under Rule
25(a)(1).

The second issue is whether Brown, as administrator ad litem of
Powell's estate, is a proper party for substitution under Rule
25(a)(1).  In Tennessee, a decedent's personal injury suit may be
revived by the administrator of the decedent's estate and
prosecuted in the administrator's name for the benefit of the
estate.  The Judge finds that the Shelby County Probate Court has
appointed Brown as administrator ad litem to represent the interest
of the estate of the decedent.  The parties agree that Brown is a
proper party to prosecute Powell's surviving claims.  Hence,
substitution of Brown for Powell is proper under Rule 25(a)(1).

Finally, the Defendants do not dispute that Brown is a proper
substitute under Rule 25(a)(1).  They argue that the Court should
exercise its discretion to deny the Plaintiffs' motion for
substitution because Brown cannot properly be named as a putative
class representative.

The Judge holds that the Defendants' arguments about whether Brown
can serve as a class representative do not bear on the Court's
decision about whether to substitute Brown for Powell at this
juncture.  Before ruling on class certification, the Court must
conduct a 'rigorous analysis.'  The parties are engaged in class
discovery.  The Plaintiffs will not file class certification
motions until late 2020, at the earliest.  The Judge declines the
Defendants' invitation to decide appropriate class representatives
before then.  Hence, substitution of Brown for Powell is proper and
useful.  It may serve functional ends.  Brown could serve as a
class representative for a damages subclass.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Mays granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Substitution of Party.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://is.gd/O1VcHc from Leagle.com.

Scott Turnage, Plaintiff, represented by Brice Moffatt Timmons --
btimmons@blackmclaw.com -- BLACK MCLAREN JONES RYLAND & GRIFFEE,
P.C., Claiborne Hambrick Ferguson, THE CLAIBORNE FERGUSON LAW FIRM,
P.A., Frank L. Watson, III, WATSON BURNS, LLC, Joseph S. Ozment,
THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH S. OZMENT, PLLC, Michael G. McLaren --
mmclaren@blackmclaw.com -- BLACK MCLAREN JONES & RYLAND, William F.
Burns, WATSON BURNS, LLC & William E. Cochran, Jr. --
wcochran@blackmclaw.com -- BLACK MCLAREN JONES & RYLAND.

Keith Burgess, Travis Boyd & Terrence Drain, Plaintiffs,
represented by Brice Moffatt Timmons, BLACK MCLAREN JONES RYLAND &
GRIFFEE, P.C., Michael G. McLaren, BLACK MCLAREN JONES & RYLAND,
William E. Cochran, Jr., BLACK MCLAREN JONES & RYLAND & Frank L.
Watson, III, WATSON BURNS, LLC.

Kimberly Allen, Plaintiff, represented by Brice Moffatt Timmons,
BLACK MCLAREN JONES RYLAND & GRIFFEE, P.C. & William E. Cochran,
Jr., BLACK MCLAREN JONES & RYLAND.

Cortez D. Brown, Deontae Tate & Jeremy S. Melton, Consol
Plaintiffs, represented by Frank L. Watson, III, WATSON BURNS, LLC,
Joseph S. Ozment, THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH S. OZMENT, PLLC &
William E. Routt, III, WATSON BURNS, PLLC.

Melvin Ingram, Shantel Adams, Dwyane Bowens, Alfredo Cardenas,
Veronica Cleaves, Marcus Cochran, Robert Colucci, Leslie Crews,
Eric Flake, Jacob Greenwell, Lawonda Hodges, Larome Humphrey,
Robert Kataltepe, John Lintner, Keesha McClinton, Lakisha McCoy,
Clifton McCoy, Dedreck McVay, Harry Oliver, Frederick Rayford, John
Riles, Ashley Robertson, Deandre Rosser, Dustin Russell, Patrick
Shaw, Cedric Taylor, Jesse Townsend, Steven Wesby, David Beck &
Darrell Onsby, Consol Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel Owen
Lofton, THE LAW OFFICE OF CRAIG & LOFTON, PC, Matthew Charles
Gulotta, THE GULOTTA FIRM & Steven George Wilson, THE STEVE WILSON
FIRM.

Bill Oldham, in his individual capacity as former Sheriff of Shelby
County, TN, Defendant, represented by Robert E. Craddock, Jr. --
rcraddock@wyattfirm.com -- WYATT TARRANT & COMBS, Byron Norman
Brown -- bbrown@wyattfirm.com -- WYATT TARRANT & COMBS, LLP, Emmett
Lee Whitwell, Shelby County Attorney's Office, Meghan McMahon Cox
-- mcox@wyattfirm.com -- Wyatt Tarrant & Combs & Odell Horton, Jr.
-- ohorton@wyattfirm.com -- WYATT TARRANT & COMBS.  

Global TelLink Corporation, a foreign corporation, Defendant,
represented by Russell Brandon Bundren, BRADLEY ARANT BOULT
CUMMINGS LLP & James L. Murphy, BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, LLP.

Sierra-Cedar, Inc., a foreign corporation, Defendant, represented
by Kevin David Bernstein, SPICER RUDSTROM PLLC & Albert G. McLean,
SPICER RUDSTROM PLLC.

Floyd Bonner, Jr., in his official capacity as Sheriff of Shelby
County, TN, Kirk Fields, in his official capacity as Jail Director
of Shelby County, TN, Reginald Hubbard, in his official capacity as
Assistant Chief of Jail Security of Shelby County, TN & Tiffany
Ward, in her official capacity as Assistant Chief of Jail Programs
of Shelby County, TN, Defendants, represented by Meghan McMahon
Cox, Wyatt Tarrant & Combs.

Software AG USA, Inc, Defendant, represented by Douglas F. Halijan,
BURCH PORTER & JOHNSON & William David Irvine, BURCH PORTER &
JOHNSON, PLLC.


SHREWSBURY VOLKSWAGEN: Judge Wrong to Reduce Attorney Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a judge let
her experience in private practice affect her decision on whether
to cut fees for class action lawyers, a New Jersey appeals court
recently ruled.

On July 29, the Appellate Division told Monmouth County judge Mara
Zazzali-Hogan to try again, after she had reduced fees that would
have been awarded to The Wolf Law Firm and The Law Offices of
Christopher J. McGinn.

The two pursued a class action against Shrewsbury Volkswagen over
alleged Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act
violations.

Zazzali-Hogan ruled last year that those lawyers did not justify
the $162,000 they requested, which represented nearly half the
recovery for the settlement class. Zazzali-Hogan cut the hourly
rates lawyers at those firms tried to charge and added a 5%
enhancement, rather than the 25% requested.

Lawyers would have ended up with about $120,000 had Zazzali-Hogan
not been overruled by the Appellate Division.

"Class Counsel's undisputed submissions mirrored the certifications
deemed acceptable in Rendine," Judge Greta Gooden Brown wrote.

"In rejecting Class Counsel's submissions and reducing the hourly
rate for all the attorneys and the paralegal, the judge relied on
her personal experience in private practice, a methodology rejected
in Walker."

Class members received $125 apiece under the settlement.
Zazzali-Hogan reduced the attorneys' hourly rates by as much as
$190 per hour when she came up with a final amount. She combed
through the firms' work in a 48-page decision, also finding that
the case was relatively simple and didn't require as many hours as
was charged.

"Unfortunately here, the support for the fees consisted of recycled
or boilerplate certifications with no reference to any details
about this case," Zazzali-Hogan wrote.

But she wrote that she relied on "fifteen years or private
practice" when reaching her decision -- a key point for the
Appellate Division, which remanded the case for her to find a new
formula to calculate fees. [GN]


SRG OPERATING: Picos Sues Over Unpaid Wages, OT & Meal/Rest Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA PICOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SRG OPERATING, INC. and DOES 1 through 100,
Defendants, Case No. 20STCV29291 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
August 3, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for Labor
Code violations including failing to compensate the Plaintiff and
all others similarly situated non-exempt employees proper minimum
wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek; failing to provide them with all legally compliant
meal and rest periods and/or pay premiums in lieu thereof; failing
to reimburse them for all reasonable and necessary work
expenditures; failing to furnish them with complete, accurate,
itemized wage statements; and failing to maintain accurate records
of all worked hours.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a caregiver from
February 2019 until March 2020.

SRG Operating, Inc. is a company that provides senior living care
with principal place of business in Solana Beach, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Paul K. Haines, Esq.
         Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
         Alexandra R. McIntosh, Esq.
         HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
         2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180
         El Segundo, CA 90245
         Telephone: (424) 292-2350
         Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
         E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                 tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com
                 amcintosh@haineslawgroup.com

STATUS: Plaintiffs Propose Alternative Methods to Serve Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrey Shevchenko, writing for CoinTelegraph, reports that
plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit against Status and its 2017
initial coin offering of the Status Network Token (SNT) are asking
the judge to authorize official document delivery, or serving, via
alternative channels like Twitter and emails.

In court documents obtained by Cointelegraph and filed on Aug. 3,
the judge is presented with a ready-to-sign motion outlining
alternative methods for class-action plaintiffs to serve case files
to Jarrad Hope and Carl Bennetts, both co-founders of Status.

Social media for sending the law

Specifically, the motion would allow the plaintiffs to contact the
co-founders via their Twitter and LinkedIn accounts, personal and
Status emails, and any general inquiry address for the company.

This represents a notable departure from standard court procedure.
Traditionally, case files need to be physically served to the
defendants in order to give them a reasonable way of finding out
about the development of the case.

Given that the legal entity behind Status is a Swiss-based
foundation, and both Hope and Bennetts are believed to reside in
Zug, serving documents in person becomes difficult.

The case was filed in the Southern District of New York, a major
hotbed for crypto-related lawsuits.

Law firms Roche Cyrulnik Freedman and Selendy & Gay are behind the
case. The former is also acting as the legal representative of the
Kleiman estate in the Craig Wright vs. Kleiman case, in addition to
the class-action lawsuit against Tether.

In the Kleiman case, the firm already "served" a case via Twitter
in March to the former CEO of nChain.

Neither Status nor Roche Cyrulnik Freedman had returned
Cointelegraph's request for comment as of press time.

Lawsuits against alleged securities

As Cointelegraph previously reported, the case against Status is
one of 11 class-action lawsuits levied against a variety of ICO
issuers and exchanges. The plaintiffs believe that these companies
sold unregistered securities to U.S. investors in violation of the
relevant laws. Other companies and projects targeted include
Block.One, Bancor, Kyber Network, Tron, OmiseGo, Aave and others.

Furthermore, the lawsuit claims that these issuers attempted to
hide the extent to which these tokens were securities during the
sale. According to the lawsuit, SNT is a token similar to EOS,
which was deemed a security by the SEC in its $24 million
settlement.

These projects represent some of the earliest ICOs issued before
the DAO Report, after which most new offerings began to ban U.S.
residents from participating.

It is unclear if the judge will consent to these alternative
communication methods, though the Covid-19 pandemic and the
international nature of these teams could play into the plaintiffs'
hand. [GN]


SUBARU: Court Narrows Claims in Amato Defective Product Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion granting in part and denying in part Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss the case, AMATO, ET AL, Plaintiffs, v. SUBARU OF
AMERICA, INC., ET AL, Defendants. Civil Action No. 18-16118,
(D.N.J.).

The case concerns alleged engine defects in Subaru's 2009 through
and including 2018 model year Impreza WRX and WRX STi (class
vehicles or class vehicle).  Four named Plaintiffs, Joseph Amato,
James Moore, Chris Lall, and George Sandoval (collectively
"Plaintiffs"), commenced the action against Defendants Subaru of
America, Inc. ("SoA") and Subaru Corporation ("SRB"), (collectively
"Subaru" or "Defendants"), individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated.

SRB is a Japanese corporation and manufacturer of Subaru vehicles.
According to Plaintiffs, it manufactured and tested the class
engine and engine management system.  SoA manufactures, imports,
distributes and/or sells Subaru motor vehicles including all class
vehicles and also acts as the authorized representatives of Subaru
in the United States.

Plaintiffs now claim that the engines used in the class vehicles,
including engine codes EJ255, EJ257, and FA20 ("class engines"),
are "predisposed to premature engine failure."

Plaintiffs filed the class action against the Defendants alleging
class wide claims for Breach of Express Warranty of Merchantability
(Count I), Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Count
II), Violation of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (Count III), Negligent
Misrepresentation (Count VIII), and Injunctive and Declaratory
Relief (Count IX) and state law claims for certain subclasses under
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (Count IV), the Indiana Deceptive
Consumer Sales Act (Count V), New York General Business Law Section
349 Deceptive Acts and Practices (Count VI), and Arizona Consumer
Fraud Act (Count VII).

Plaintiffs claim that Defendants' had actual knowledge of the
alleged defect, which they concealed from consumers.

The class vehicles were subject to a warranty contained within the
Owner's Manual and Warranty & Maintenance Booklet materials.
According to the Complaint, these materials "do not contain any
maintenance or service information for class engine pistons or
piston ringlands that are defective."  Plaintiffs' claims that they
timely notified the defendants of breach of warranties.  The
putative class contacted SoA directly and/or through an authorized
dealership and were notified that SoA would not replace engines
incorporated in class engines or reimburse replacement costs
"because their vehicles were outside of the express warranty
period."  Now Plaintiffs' plead that Defendants failed to cure the
class vehicle defect, despite alleged knowledge of the defect, and
have breached the terms of its express warranty.

Presently, Defendants move to dismiss all claims alleged in
Plaintiffs' Complaint.

* Count I: Breach of Express Warranty

Plaintiffs' claims for breach of express warranty are premised on
the warranties Defendant Subaru of America (SoA) issued to the
class vehicles, including the basic warranty and Powertrain Limited
Warranty (Limited Warranty).  

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' breach of express warranty claims
against SoA fail and therefore, Count I should be dismissed because
(1) the Limited Warranty does not cover the alleged design defect
and (2) none of the Plaintiffs have pleaded "legitimate breach of
express warranty claims."

Defendants first argument that Count I should be dismissed against
SoA claims that the Limited Warranty that Plaintiffs rely on does
not cover the alleged defect, because according to Defendants,
Plaintiffs are alleging a design defect. The Limited warranty at
issue covers only defects in material or workmanship. Defendant
argues that material or workmanship pertains to manufacturing
defects and does not subsume design defects.

The Court agrees that the language of the Limited Warranty does not
cover design defects.

Defects in workmanship and materials are flaws pertaining to the
construction or manufacture of a product, while defects in design
are shortcomings that arise in the plans for a product's creation.


Here, Plaintiffs contend that they have sufficiently pled facts
that the class vehicle defect, is covered under warranty as a
materials and workmanship defect. The Complaint alleges that class
vehicles are defective with respect to improperly designed and
manufactured pistons and an engine management system and PCV
(positive crankcase ventilation) system.

At this stage, the Court is required to accept as true all of the
allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can
be drawn therefrom. Prior to discovery, some courts have decided
that the distinction between defect in design and defect in
materials or workmanship is a matter of semantics, and when
sufficient facts are alleged to assert both, the defendant's
characterization of the nature of the claim pre-discovery should
not control whether the complaint survives.

In this case, Plaintiffs Complaint concludes that the Piston
Ringland Defect is one of design and manufacture. However, even
taking Plaintiffs' allegations as true, their Complaint fails to
sufficiently plead facts supporting a manufacturing defect or
defect in materials or workmanship.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for breach of
express warranty, thus the Court will dismiss Count I.

* Count II: Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability

Count II of Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges that Defendants breached
the implied warranty of Merchantability under UCC Section 2-314.
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' claim, with respect to Plaintiffs
Amato and Moore, fails because any implied warranty to which
Plaintiffs were entitled was limited in duration to the same extent
as the express written Limited Powertrain Warranty.

Plaintiffs argue that although their respective vehicles' engine
failures occurred outside the unilateral express warranty period, a
claim for breach of warranty may survive because the proposed class
representatives' class vehicle exhibited unmistakable symptoms
known only by the defendants of degradation and impending premature
failure within the express warranty period.

Plaintiffs' cite no legal authority for their proposition. To be
sure, Plaintiffs' do not plead what these symptoms were or that
they brought any such symptoms to the attention of SoA for repair
or otherwise. In that regard, Plaintiffs allege that the symptoms
were known only by defendants, which Plaintiffs could not recognize
for lack of requisite expertise.

Therefore, the crux of Plaintiffs position, that the premature
failure began within the warranty period rests on their contention
that only Defendants could recognize and, in fact have knowledge,
of the impending failure. In other words, Plaintiffs' reason that
because the class vehicle contained a latent defect, they should be
able to assert breach of warranty claims. That fact, alone, cannot
revive Plaintiffs' claim for breach of implied warranty, when the
breach occurred outside of the warranty period. As an initial
matter, courts have found that latent defects discovered after the
term of the warranty are not actionable.

Plaintiffs' second argument alleges just that. They contend that
Defendant SoA's Limited Warranty is unconscionable, and therefore
unenforceable. Accordingly, the Court will now address whether
Plaintiffs bring a valid claim for breach of the implied warranty
of merchantability provided that the warranty's durational
limitation, established by the express warranty, is
unconscionable.

First, Defendants argue that the duration of the Limited Warranty
is not inherently unconscionable or unreasonable citing a number of
cases upholding warranties of shorter duration than SoA's warranty
in this case.  

Here, Plaintiffs' argument stresses that the Limited Warranty was
substantively unconscionable because it unfairly shifted costs of
premature engine failure to class vehicle purchasers. According to
the Complaint, defendants acted to conceal the Piston Ringland
Defect during the warranty period so that repair costs would be
shifted once the warranty expired and the class engine failed.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs' pleadings, alleging both
substantive and procedural unconscionability, consist of conclusory
allegations and are therefore, insufficient to state a claim for
unconscionability.

In short, Plaintiffs in the present matter plead that SoA's Limited
Warranty is substantively unconscionable because Defendants (1)
knew about the Piston Ringland Defect prior sale of the class
vehicle (2) knew that the defect would arise after the warranty
expiration and (3) acted to conceal the Piston Ringland Defect.
Plaintiffs' allegations for substantive unconscionability are
analogous to the number of decisions from this district and those
of the other interested states, which held allegations primarily
based on defendant's prior knowledge of the defect in question are
insufficient to plead substantive unconscionability and survive a
motion to dismiss.

Although Plaintiffs have pled procedural unconscionability, the
facts alleged in the Complaint are conclusory and insufficient to
permit Plaintiffs' unconscionability claim to proceed, the Court
notes.

Having found that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for
unconscionability, the Court will address Defendants next argument,
that Plaintiffs Sandoval and Lall's implied warranty claims fail
for lack of requisite privity. As an initial matter, Defendants
assert that a conflict between New York, Indiana, and Arizona law
and New Jersey law exists as to implied warranties because New
York, Indiana, and Arizona require a plaintiff to show vertical
privity whereas New Jersey has no such requirement. In that regard,
Defendants assert that each Plaintiff's home state law should
govern their implied breach of warranty claims, and therefore, to
the extent those claims are alleged under New Jersey law, they
should be dismissed.

In light of all the relevant choice of law factors, the Court finds
that each of Plaintiffs' home states maintain most significant
relationship to the claim. Here, all Plaintiffs, including Moore,
Lall and Sandoval negotiated contracts in connection with the
purchase of their class vehicle in their home state. The Complaint
alleges that Plaintiff Lall purchased his class vehicle in New
York, the state where he resides; and the work done on Lall's
vehicle also took place in New York.

Finally, Plaintiff Sandoval purchased his class vehicle in Arizona,
the state where he resides. Accordingly, each Plaintiff negotiated
their contracts in their respective states. Aside from Plaintiff
Amato, the named Plaintiffs have almost no connection to New
Jersey. In fact, each Plaintiff's home state was the (a) place of
contracting; (b) place of negotiation of the contract; (c) place of
performance; (d) location of the class vehicle; and (e) domicile,
or residence of the parties. Moreover, the general choice of law
principles set forth in § 6 supports a finding that New York and
Arizona have most significant relationship to the breach of
warranty claim brought by a citizen of its state.

The Court finds that each Plaintiffs' respective state's law should
apply to each of their implied warranty claims. Notwithstanding,
the Court rejects Defendants' assertion that Count II should be
dismissed because of such finding. Count II of the complaint
specifically alleges breach of implied warranty of merchantability
under uniform commercial code Section 2-314. Because Plaintiffs'
have pled Count II, in the alternative, as subclass claims the
Court will analyze each claim applying the law of that Plaintiff's
state.

Accordingly, as to Count II, the Court finds that three of the four
named Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for implied breach of
warranty, and thus, the Court will grant Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss COUNT II of Plaintiffs' Complaint as to Plaintiffs Amato,
Moore, and Sandoval, but deny that motion as to Plaintiff Lall.

* Count III: Violation of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

Plaintiffs' bring a claim under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
(MMWA) for Defendants' breach of the express and implied warranties
accompanying their class vehicles.  

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs cannot pursue a warranty claim
under the MMWA without looking to the underlying state law
governing such claims.

The Court agrees; each Plaintiffs' home-state law governs their
MMWA claims.
The MMWA provides that a consumer who is damaged by the failure of
a supplier, warrantor, or service contractor to comply with any
obligation under this chapter, or under a written warranty, implied
warranty, or service contract, may bring suit for damages and other
legal and equitable relief.

The Court has already ruled that no Plaintiff has stated a claim
for breach of express warranty (Count I) and only Plaintiff Lall
has stated a claim for breach of implied warranty (Count II). Given
that claims brought under the MMWA rely on the underlying state law
claims, Plaintiffs cannot sustain a MMWA claim against Defendants
based on breach of express warranty.  

Similarly, Plaintiffs Amato, Moore, and Sandoval cannot maintain a
claim under the MMWA for breach of implied warranty, as their
Complaint fails, under relevant state law, to state a claim for
such. However, Plaintiff Lall states a plausible claim for breach
of implied warranty under New York law, therefore, his MMWA claim
will survive.  

Count III, therefore, is dismissed as to all named Plaintiffs',
excluding Plaintiff Lall, the Court rules.

* Count IV: New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act

Plaintiff Amato brings a consumer fraud claim under the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act. Defendants put forth a number of arguments
calling for the dismissal of Plaintiff Amato's Claim. As an initial
matter, Defendants point out that Plaintiff Amato has not provided
his current place of residence in the Complaint before the Court.
The Complaint states that Plaintiff Amato leased a 2016 Impreza WRX
STi from an authorized Pennsylvania Subaru dealer while residing in
New Jersey.  

Plaintiffs' also concede that there were no Complaint allegations
as to what state law was applicable to the lease. Accordingly,
Defendants' also argue that Amato's claim must also be dismissed
because he is not a part of the sub-class he purports to represent
persons who purchased or leased their class vehicles in the State
of New Jersey. The Court finds that these gaps in the pleadings
warrant the dismissal of Plaintiff Amato's claim under the NJCFA,
as these facts are necessary to determine whether Amato may
properly bring a claim under the statute and whether he may do so
on behalf of the alleged class.

The Court disagrees with Defendants' contention, however, that
Amato's claim should be dismissed with prejudice, therefore Count
IV is dismissed without prejudice, with leave to amend.

* Count V: The Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act

Defendants' argument that Plaintiff Moore's claim is time barred.
Plaintiff Moore purchased a certified pre-owned 2013 WRX (his class
vehicle) in 2015. Under the IDCSA: Any action brought under this
chapter may not be brought more than two (2) years after the
occurrence of the deceptive act. Defendants argue that his purchase
occurred two years after any original representations about the
vehicle were made, and more than two years have passed since any
representations could have been made to him in connection with his
purchase. Fraudulent concealment, however, will toll the two-year
statute of limitations.
  
Plaintiffs argue that their Complaint alleges further deceptive
post-sale acts of Subaru that reset the IDCSA limitations period
when Moore inquired into his engine failure.

Indiana law narrowly defines concealment it must be active and
intentional; passive silence is insufficient to trigger the
fraudulent concealment doctrine, absent allegations that the
defendant was in a continuing fiduciary relationship with the
plaintiff. Plaintiffs' Complaint includes allegations that
Defendants owed a duty to disclose.  Defendants do not argue that
Plaintiffs' have inadequately pled that there was a duty to
disclose material facts. Absent such an argument, the Court will
not dismiss Count V at this early stage.

* Count VII: Arizona Consumer Fraud Act

Plaintiff Sandoval asserts a statutory consumer fraud claim under
the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act (ACFA). The ACFA's purpose is to
provide injured consumers with a remedy to counteract the
disproportionate bargaining power often present in consumer
transactions.

Here, Defendants assert that Mr. Sandoval is precluded from
bringing a claim under the ACFA because Mr. Sandoval's class
vehicle performed, and continues to perform, as expected" and
therefore, he has no basis for relief. Plaintiffs' do not contest
this, to the extent that Mr. Sandoval's class engine has not
experienced ringlands failure.

Instead, Plaintiffs' argue that Mr. Sandoval still maintains a
plausible claim for relief because the diminution of value in his
class vehicle, and the fact that all Plaintiffs' would not have
purchased their respective class vehicle or paid less if they had
been made aware of the defect as alleged in the complaint qualify
as appreciable loss under Arizona law.

In this case, Plaintiff Sandoval, like the plaintiffs in Cheatham,
In re Arizona Theranos, and In re Gen. Motors, has pled
out-of-pocket expenses to the extent that but for Defendants'
alleged fraudulent conduct, Plaintiff would not have purchased his
car; and has actual damages resulting from the decrease in value of
his class vehicle.   

Therefore, the Court finds sufficient pleading of damages to
sustain a claim under the ACFA and will deny Defendants motion to
dismiss Plaintiff Sandoval's claim under Count VII.

* Count VI: New York General Business Law Section 349 Deceptive
Acts and Practices

Plaintiff Lall brings a claim under Section 349 of the New York
General Business Law. Section 349 makes unlawful deceptive acts or
practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in
the furnishing of any service in this state.

Defendants make no separate argument that Plaintiff Lall failed to
state a claim under Rule 8's standards in its moving brief or
provide another reason that his claim under New York law should be
dismissed. Instead, in reply, Defendants' suggest that even without
application of the heightened 9(b) standard, Plaintiff fails to
state a claim, noting that Plaintiff was still required to allege
that misrepresentations were the but-for cause of the alleged
injury.

Without any argument that the Complaint fails to do so here, the
Court finds no reason to dismiss Plaintiff Lall's consumer fraud
claim on behalf of himself and the New York sub-class. Therefore,
the Court will deny Defendants' motion to dismiss Count VI.

* Count VIII: Negligent Misrepresentation

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' fail to state a claim for
negligent misrepresentation because (1) the claim is barred by the
economic loss doctrine and (2) Plaintiffs' have not pled the claim
with the requisite particularity.  Because Defendants fail to
sufficiently explain a conflict between laws of the relevant
jurisdictions, the Court finds that it is premature at this stage
to engage in a conflict of laws analysis. As a result, the analysis
of Plaintiffs' negligent misrepresentation claim will proceed under
New Jersey law.

First, as previously ruled, Plaintiffs' have adequately pled both
misrepresentations and omissions under the Rule 9(b) and 8
standards. For those same reasons stated above, Plaintiffs' Count
VIII will not be dismissed on that basis.  

Notwithstanding, the doctrine does not always bar claims for
negligent misrepresentation. Here, Defendants' argue that
Plaintiffs fail to include any allegations even suggesting that the
negligent misrepresentation claim arises out of different facts
than the warranty claims.

Plaintiffs provide no direct argument that the economic loss
doctrine should not bar their claim. Instead, their opposition
highlights the factual allegations that pertain to Defendants
superior knowledge of the Piston Ringland Defect, and Defendants
duty to disclose.  To that end, Plaintiff's argue Defendants' owed
an independent duty to disclose, one outside of any contractual
duty.  

Negligent misrepresentation claims based on economic loss, have
survived dismissal in such situations. Here, Defendants do not
contend that Plaintiffs' allegations regarding an independent duty
to disclose are insufficient, therefore, the Court will not dismiss
Count VIII as precluded by the economic loss doctrine.

In sum, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint.

A full-text copy of the District Court's 2019 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/wsr9qza from Leagle.com

An amended complaint has been filed in the case on April 3, 2020.

JOSEPH AMATO, JAMES B. MOORE, CHRIS LALL & GEORGE SANDOVAL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by GARY S. GRAIFMAN - ggraifman@kgglaw.com
- KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, ESQS.

SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC. & SUBARU CORPORATION, Defendants,
represented by NEAL D. WALTERS - WALTERSN BALLARDSPAHR.COM -
BALLARD, SPAHR LLP & CASEY GENE WATKINS - WATKINSC BALLARDSPAHR.COM
- BALLARD SPAHR LLP.


SUBWAY FRANCHISEE: Shinn Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christmene Shinn, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SUBWAY FRANCHISEE ADVERTISING FUND TRUST
LTD., Case No. 3:20-cv-01162 (D. Conn., Aug. 12, 2020), arises from
the Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

To promote its mobile application, the Defendant engages in
unsolicited text messaging in violation of the TCPA and National Do
Not Call Registry, according to the complaint. Through this action,
the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's
unlawful conduct. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on
behalf of herself and Class members, and any other available legal
or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendant.

The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Broward County,
Florida.

The Defendant is the marketing and advertising arm of the Subway
brand, the world's largest quick-service restaurant chain by number
of locations, with more than 44,000 restaurants in over 110
countries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brenden P. Leydon, Esq.
          TOOHER WOCL & LEYDON, L.L.C.
          80 Fourth Street
          Stamford, CT 06905
          Phone: (203) 324-6164
          Fax: (203) 324-1407
          Email: BLeydon@tooherwocl.com

               - and -

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954.400.4713
          Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954-628-5793
          Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com


T-MOBILE USA: Court OKs $8-Mil. Settlement in Salgado Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
issued an Order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval
of the Class Action Settlement in the case captioned EMMANUEL
SALGADO, GAEL GROB, DAVID GARCIA, and ANDRE WONG behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated v. T-MOBILE USA, INC.,
et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-0339-JLT (E.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs were employed as hourly-paid employees by T-Mobile
USA, Inc.; T-Mobile US, Inc.; and MetroPCS Communications Inc. The
Plaintiffs worked in positions, such as retail sales associates,
mobile experts, sales leads, retail associate managers, and retail
store managers. According to the Plaintiffs, their employers
engaged in unlawful employment practices and failed to pay overtime
wages at the appropriate overtime pay rate, to pay straight time,
minimum, overtime, and/or commission wages for all hours worked in
a timely manner, and to provide executed commission agreements,
among other illegal practices.

On February 3, 2017, Mr. Salgado filed a complaint on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated for unlawful wage and hour
practices against T-Mobile USA, Inc. in Kern County Superior Court,
Case. No. BCV-17-100243. The defendant filed a Notice of Removal on
March 8, 2017, thereby initiating the action in this Court. Both
prior to and following the filing of the Salgado action in Kern
County Superior Court, "several related actions were filed in, or
removed to, various other state and federal courts," including
Garcia v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., filed on May 27, 2016 in Los Angeles
Superior Court, Case No. KC068472; and Grob v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
filed on June 14, 2019, in the Central District of California, Case
No. 2:19-cv-06352.

On August 22, 2019, the parties participated in a mediation with
Jeff Krivis. Though the parties did not reach a settlement on the
day of the mediation, they engaged in further negotiations and
"entered into an agreement that settled the Action and all of the
Related Actions." The Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement on November 26, 2019, and appointed Plaintiffs Emmanuel
Salgado, Gael Grob, David Garcia, and Andre Wong as the Class
Representatives.

The parties "agreed on a settlement of $8,000,000 on a class wide,
common fund basis with no claim form requirement and with no
residual to revert to the Defendant." The Class Period is defined
as "the period from February 3, 2013, through the date of
Preliminary Approval, or November 30, 2019, or the last day of the
pay period in which the total number of workweeks of 1,045,295.92
increases by more than 10% (the 'Workweek Threshold Cutoff Date'),
whichever occurs first."

Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston opines that the factors set
forth by the Ninth Circuit weigh in favor of final approval of the
Settlement, which is fair, reasonable, and adequate as required by
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the
Court orders that:

   1. Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the Settlement
      Agreement is GRANTED;

   2. Certification of the Settlement Class is GRANTED, and the
      class is defined:

      [A]ll persons employed by Defendant in California as
      hourly-paid, non-exempt employees who worked in retail
      locations, including but not limited to, Retail Sales
      Managers, Retail Assistant Managers, Retails Sales
      Associates, and Mobile Experts, or functionally equivalent
      positions at any time from February 3, 2013, through the
      date of Preliminary Approval;

   3. Plaintiff's request for class representative incentive
      payments is GRANTED in the amount of $7,500 for Emmanuel
      Salgado; $4,000 for Daniel Garcia; $1,000 for Andre Wong;
      and $1,000 for Gael Grob;

   4. Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees is GRANTED in
      the modified amount of $1,600,000.00, which is 20% of the
      gross settlement amount;

   5. Class Counsel's request for costs in the amount of
      $40,005.68 is GRANTED;

   6. Settlement Administration costs in the amount of $56,000.00
      are APPROVED, to be taken from the settlement fund;

   7. The California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act
      payment to the State of California in the amount of
      $225,000 is APPROVED;

   8. The action be dismissed with prejudice, with each side to
      bear its own costs and attorneys' fees except as otherwise
      provided by the Settlement and ordered by the Court;

   9. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this action; and

  10. The Court hereby retains jurisdiction to consider any
      further applications arising out of or in connection win
      the Settlement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 11, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybu6rjr8 from Leagle.com.


TIKTOK: Families File Class Action in Illinois
----------------------------------------------
Bobby Allyn, writing for NPR, reports that families are suing
TikTok in what has turned into a major legal action in federal
court.

Dozens of minors, through their parents, are alleging that the
video-sharing app collects information about their facial
characteristics, locations and close contacts, and quietly sends
that data to servers in China.

Twenty separate but similar federal lawsuits were filed over the
past year on behalf of TikTok users in California, where the
company has offices, and Illinois, which requires that technology
companies receive written consent before collecting data on a
person's identity.

The suits now have been merged into one.

And on Aug. 4, a panel of federal judges ruled that the case will
be based in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. Judge John Z. Lee was appointed as the presiding judge.

Plaintiffs' lawyers will be asking Lee to expand the suit into a
nationwide class action, potentially affecting tens of millions of
American users.

While TikTok flatly denies the allegations, the company is under
intense pressure to avoid a long, drawn-out legal battle. The Trump
administration considers TikTok a national security threat because
its parent company, ByteDance, is based in China. President Trump
said on Aug. 3 that TikTok must be sold to an American suitor by
Sept. 15 or "close down" in the United States. Microsoft Corp., for
one, has acknowledged it is exploring a bid.

TikTok is fighting to have the privacy lawsuit dismissed. But if it
survives, the suit could cost the company hundreds of millions of
dollars.

A lawsuit filed under the same Illinois law against Facebook over
its use of facial recognition technology recently prompted the
social network to agree to a record data-privacy settlement of $650
million. Legal experts said, if the court approves the TikTok
lawsuit as a national case, the settlement sum could exceed the
Facebook payout.

The Illinois law, known as the Biometric Information Privacy Act,
"has been striking fear in the heart of many companies in the
United States for fear that claims like this will be brought," said
Leslie Weaver, one of the 33 plaintiffs' attorneys involved in the
litigation against TikTok.

Attorneys for TikTok said the app is neither capturing users'
biometric information nor sending any data to China. But TikTok's
legal team also argues that the company can transfer data to
Beijing, if it so chooses, without breaking any laws.

"The App's privacy policy also fully discloses that user data will
be shared with TikTok's corporate affiliates and third-party
business partners and service providers, as is standard with free
social networking apps that have a business model based on
advertising," TikTok lawyer Tony Weibell wrote in a submission to
the court.

Is TikTok sending data to China?

The national security debate about TikTok centers on something
nobody has so far provided direct evidence of: that Tiktok is
sending information about American citizens to China and, possibly,
the Chinese Community Party.

TikTok said its primary servers for its U.S. users are in Virginia
and its backup servers are in Singapore. The company said no data
collected on Americans ever goes to servers or authorities in
China.

But that contradicts the findings of technology experts hired by
the plaintiffs' attorneys. Those experts, who studied the
collection and journey of TikTok data, claim troves of information
are being sent to servers in China "under the control of
third-parties who cooperate with the Chinese government," according
to the lawsuit.

"Such information reveals TikTok users' precise physical location,
including possibly indoor locations within buildings, and TikTok
users' apps that possibly reveal mental or physical health,
religious views, political views, and sexual orientation,"
attorneys for users wrote in legal filings.

The lawyers declined to comment for this story and would not
disclose to NPR who their experts are or what methods they
employed.

In the lawsuit, they contend that as soon as TikTok is downloaded,
it starts collecting data, even before a user opens an account. If
a user begins making a video but then does not save it, data in the
video is still mined by TikTok, according to the suit. Even when
TikTok is merely on a phone but not being used, it is still
allegedly vacuuming up loads of personal data. It is a practice,
the suit argues, that violates the law by not receiving the consent
of users.

The attorneys for the users said the app engages in what they call
"covert theft" while attempting to hide its tracks.

"They do so by obfuscating the source code that would reveal the
private and personally-identifiable user data and content actually
taken from users' mobile devices," the suit says.

TikTok denies that any of its data collection starts before users
agree to its terms of service. TikTok is upfront about what data it
takes from users. Experts said most smartphone apps collect and
store just as much - or more - data as TikTok does.

TikTok's legal team said the lawsuit is based on a "factually
mistaken" analysis of how the app collects data and what it is
doing with that data. But worse than that, according to TikTok
lawyer Weibell, is that the suit is China-phobic in the same way
many U.S. politicians and Silicon Valley tech giants are, he
argues.

"The present lawsuit is based on (and quotes) the same anti-Chinese
rhetoric, conjecture, supposition, and innuendo that originated
with these political and competitive attacks," Weibell said in a
filing.

Weibell declined to comment on the suit to NPR.

TikTok says case should be tossed based on user agreement

TikTok's terms of service include what is known as an arbitration
clause, which makes users agree that any complaint about the
company can never be part of a class-action lawsuit.

But under California law, arbitration clauses do not apply to
minors. They can still file lawsuits if they think they have been
harmed.

Attorneys for the users said because data collection allegedly
happens before any terms of service are agreed to, users of any age
should be able to have their day in court.

TikTok, though, hopes the whole case will be thrown out on the
grounds that users do not have a right to bring the lawsuit in the
first place because of the arbitration clause that forces disputes
to be resolved outside court.

If a panel of judges overseeing the case sides with TikTok, the
whole case could fall apart. But if the panel agrees with the
plaintiffs, both sides will begin deliberations about who is able
to join the class action and how much money will be at stake.

Under the Illinois biometric law, the minimum penalty is $1,000 per
instance that identifying data was taken without someone's consent.
If it is proven that the covert theft was reckless, the penalty can
go up to $5,000 per violation.

According to market research firm Sensor Tower, TikTok has been
downloaded more than 180 million times in the United States.

Lawsuit looms over potential sale to Microsoft

What kind of exposure Microsoft would have to pending litigation
will likely be part of the software giant's review ahead of an
official offer to buy the app. But lawyers involved in the case
said the lawsuit is not likely to dissuade Microsoft, a company
valued at $1.5 trillion.

Some lawyers involved in the lawsuit predicted that a settlement
would be reached before any sale of TikTok is completed and that
TikTok may be in a rush to resolve the suits to make itself "more
sellable."

But if the suit becomes a nationwide class action, it could be a
legal headache and considerable expense that sticks around TikTok
for years to come.

Microsoft has vowed that if it becomes TikTok's new parent company,
all data on American citizens would remain within U.S. borders.

"To the extent that any such data is currently stored or backed-up
outside the United States, Microsoft would ensure that this data is
deleted from servers outside the country after it is transferred,"
Microsoft said in a statement. [GN]


TRANSUNION LLC: Traille Balks at Background Checks
--------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW TRAILLE, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TRANSUNION LLC; EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC.; and EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC. Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00949 (E.D. Va., August 19, 2020) is a class
action claim brought by the Plaintiff against each of the national
"Big-3" consumer reporting agencies ("CRAs") for violation of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1681, et seq.
("FCRA").

According to the complaint, despite actual knowledge that consumers
such as Mr. Traille received Covid-19 related lender accommodations
on their mortgage accounts under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act, the "CARES Act," Defendants refused to
follow reasonable procedures to ensure that they reported those
accounts in the manner required under both the CARES Act and the
very industry guidelines Defendants themselves issue.

If reported correctly, mortgages that are the subject of deferment,
forbearance or other accommodation under the CARES Act, or even
otherwise during an event designated as a "Natural Disaster,"
include a "special comment code" within their tradeline. That code
ensures that the account is not reported as in default and does not
harm a consumer's credit score.

However, Defendants have followed a policy of leaving the accuracy
of their credit reporting entirely to their paying customers --
such as mortgage companies addressed in this action.

As a result of the Defendants' actions, a significant number of
consumers including the Plaintiff who are entitled both by law and
by industry requirements to CARES Act accommodations without damage
to their credit history have been betrayed and have now suffered
substantial damage to their reputations, credit worthiness, and
credit scores.

TransUnion LLC, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., and Equifax
Information Services LLC are consumer reporting agencies in the
U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
          KELLY GUZZO, PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7572
          Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
          E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com

               - and -

          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          John G. Albanese, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
          Minneapolis, MN 55414
          Telephone: (612) 594-5999
          Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
          E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
                  jalbanese@bm.net

               - and -

          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  craig@clalegal.com

TRI-STATE INSURANCE: La Cocina Seeks Coverage for COVID-19 Losses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LA COCINA DE OAXACA LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRI-STATE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
MINNESOTA, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01176-MLP (W.D. Wash.,
August 3, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for breach
of contract.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated Tri-State Insurance policyholders, alleges that the
Defendant has denied coverage for the direct physical losses and/or
damages that it suffered following the closure of its restaurant in
compliance with Washington Governor Jay Inslee's Proclamations and
Orders to combat COVID-19. The insurance policy that the Plaintiff
and the Class purchased from the Defendant is an all-risk policy,
which offers Business Income Coverage, Extended Business Income
Coverage, Extra Expense Coverage, and Civil Authority Coverage. The
Defendant's denial of coverage for the Plaintiff's business losses
constitutes a breach of contract.

La Cocina de Oaxaca LLC is the owner and operator of a dine-in
restaurant and bar, La Cocina Oaxaquena, located at 1216 Pine St.
in Seattle, King County, Washington.

Tri-State Insurance is an insurance company with its headquarters
and principal place of business in Urbandale, Iowa. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Amy Williams-Derry, Esq.
         Lynn L. Sarko, Esq.
         Ian S. Birk, Esq.
         Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
         Irene M. Hecht, Esq.
         Karin B. Swope, Esq.
         Maureen Falecki, Esq.
         Nathan Nanfelt, Esq.
         KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
         1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Telephone: (206) 623-1900
         Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
         E-mail: awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com
                 lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
                 ibirk@kellerrohrback.com
                 gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
                 ihecht@kellerrohrback.com
                 kswope@kellerrohrback.com
                 mfalecki@kellerrohrback.com
                 nnanfelt@kellerrohrback.com

                - and –

         Alison Chase, Esq.
         KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
         801 Garden Street, Suite 301
         Santa Barbara, CA 93101
         Telephone: (805) 456-1496
         Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
         E-mail: achase@kellerrohrback.com

U.S. OIL: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit against United States Oil Fund, LP ("USO")
(NYSEArca:USO) and certain of its officers.  The class action,
filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other
than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired USO securities
during the period of February 25, 2020 through April 28, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). This
action is captioned under Palacios, et al. v. United States Oil
Fund, LP, et al., No. 20-cv-06442.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased USO during the Class Period to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff.  A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the litigation.  The lead
plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent
upon serving as lead plaintiff.  If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 18, 2020.

If you wish to discuss this action, you are encouraged to contact
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP by e-mailing either Jack G.
Fruchter (JFruchter@aftlaw.com) or Sean M. Handron-O'Brien
(SHandronobrien@aftlaw.com). You may also call and leave a message
at (212) 279-5050, Ext. 1602 or 1626.

The USO class action lawsuit charges USO and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. USO is an exchange traded fund ("ETF") purportedly
designed to track the daily changes in percentage terms of the spot
price of West Texas Intermediate ("WTI") light, sweet crude oil
delivered to Cushing, Oklahoma. Because retail investors are
generally not equipped to buy and sell barrels of oil or authorized
to trade oil futures, ETFs such as USO provide one of the primary
means by which such investors can gain exposure to fluctuations in
oil prices.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
stated that USO would achieve its investment objective by investing
substantially all of its portfolio assets in the near month WTI
futures contract. However, unbeknownst to investors, extraordinary
market conditions in early 2020 made USO's purported investment
objective and strategy unfeasible. Oil demand fell precipitously as
governments imposed lockdowns and businesses halted operations in
response to the coronavirus pandemic. In addition, in early March
2020, Saudi Arabia and Russia launched an oil price war, increasing
production and slashing export prices in a bid to increase the
global market share of their domestic petrochemical enterprises. As
excess oil supply increased and oil prices waned, the facilities
available for storage in Cushing, Oklahoma approached capacity,
ultimately causing a rare market dynamic known as "super contango"
in which the futures prices for oil substantially exceeded the spot
price. At the same time, retail investors began pouring hundreds of
millions of dollars into USO in an attempt to "buy the dip,"
believing (correctly) that the price of oil would rebound as
economies exited lockdown periods and the Russia/Saudi oil price
war ended. Because of the nature of USO's investment strategy,
these converging factors caused the Fund to suffer exceptional
losses and undermined the Fund's ability to meet its ostensible
investment objective.

According to the complaint, defendants, as the creators, issuers
and operators of the largest oil-related ETF in existence and
active market-making players in the complex commodities and futures
markets that determined the Fund's performance, possessed inside
knowledge about the negative consequences to the Fund as a result
of these converging adverse events. However, rather than disclose
the known impacts and risks to the Fund as a result of these
exceptional threats, defendants instead commenced an offering of
USO shares in March 2020, ultimately selling billions of dollars'
worth of USO shares to the market. Although the offering increased
the fees payable to defendants, it also exacerbated the undisclosed
risks to the Fund by magnifying trading inefficiencies and causing
USO to approach position and accountability limits as a result of
the Fund's massive positions in the WTI futures market.

Ultimately, the Fund suffered billions of dollars in losses and was
forced to abandon its investment strategy. Through a series of
rapid-fire investment overhauls, USO was forced to transform from
the passive ETF designed to track spot oil prices that defendants
had pitched to investors to an almost unrecognizable actively
managed fund struggling to avoid a total implosion. In April and
May 2020, defendants belatedly acknowledged the extreme threats and
adverse impacts that the Fund had been experiencing at the time of
the March offering, but which they had failed to disclose to
investors.

Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP (www.aftlaw.com), is a law firm
based in New York and maintaining an office in California.
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP has extensive experience in
litigating securities class action cases.  The firm has been ranked
among the leading class action law firms in terms of recoveries
achieved for shareholders, most recently obtaining approval of a
$48,750,000 settlement in In re Terraform Global Securities
Litigation, No. 1:16-cv-07967-PKC (S.D.N.Y.), representing as much
as 75% of likely recoverable damages.

If you have any questions about this Notice, the action, your
rights or your interests, please contact:

         Jack G. Fruchter
         Sean M. Handron-O'Brien
         Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
         One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
         New York, New York 10119
         Tel: (212) 279-5050, Ext. 1602 or 1626
         Fax: (212) 279-3655
         Email: JFruchter@aftlaw.com
                SHandronobrien@aftlaw.com [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: BakerHostetler Discuss Arbitration Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
John Lewis, Esq. -- jlewis@bakerlaw.com -- of BakerHostetler, in an
article for JDSupra, reports that a poor joke and unsubstantiated
hero worship were insufficient to overturn an arbitrator's award in
favor of Travis Kalanick and Uber Technologies Inc., according to
U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff. In an Aug. 3 memorandum and
order, Rakoff denied the plaintiff's motion to vacate an
arbitration award in the defendants' favor arising from a putative
class action alleging that Uber's surge pricing model was illegal
price-fixing. Meyer v. Kalanick, Case No. 1:15-cv-09796 (S.D. N.Y.
Aug. 3, 2020).

The Arbitration Runup

In December 2015, Spencer Meyer filed a putative class action
against Uber co-founder Travis Kalanick, claiming that Uber's
pricing model was horizontal price-fixing violative of antitrust
law. Once Uber was joined as a necessary party, Kalanick and Uber
moved to compel arbitration.

Initially, in 2016, Rakoff held that Meyer was not bound by the
mandatory arbitration provision in Uber's terms of service. But
that order was vacated by the Second Circuit and the case remanded
to the district court in August 2017. See Meyer v. Uber
Technologies, Inc., 868 F. 3d 66 (2d Cir. 2017). Thereafter, on
March 5, 2018, the district court reaffirmed an earlier order
sending the case to arbitration. Finally, in a 12-page award issued
on Feb. 22, 2020, arbitrator Les J. Weinstein ruled that "Meyer
shall take nothing from the arbitration."

The award prompted the plaintiff to file a motion to vacate the
award, maintaining that the arbitrator demonstrated "evident
partiality" toward Uber, contrary to the Federal Arbitration Act
(FAA), 9 U.S.C. Sec. 10(a)(2).

The Motion to Vacate

Two arguments were offered in support of the motion to vacate.
First, the arbitrator was concerned about a backlash that would
result from invalidating the pricing algorithm. Near the conclusion
of the third day of the hearing, the arbitrator remarked, "I must
say I act out of fear. My fear is if I ruled Uber illegal, I would
need security. I wouldn't be able to walk the streets at night.
People would be after me." Second, the arbitrator was "starstruck"
by the involvement of Kalanick. In support, the plaintiff claimed
that the arbitrator used his smartphone to photograph Kalanick,
after his testimony.

The defendants fired back in two ways – that the plaintiff waived
his right to seek vacatur by waiting until the award was issued to
assert them and that the underlying conduct of the arbitrator did
not warrant vacatur.

The court agreed with both of the defendants' arguments. As to the
first argument, which the court termed "forfeiture" -- the failure
to timely assert a right -- the plaintiff failed to take any action
until the negative award was issued.

The "partiality" argument fared no better. Evident partiality under
Second Circuit authority "may be found only where a reasonable
person would have to conclude that an arbitrator was partial to one
party to the arbitration,"  citing Scandinavian Reinsurance Co.
Ltd. v. Saint Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 668 F. 3d 60, 64 (2d
Cir. 2012). Solely "speculation" is insufficient. Id. at 72.

Based on a review of the entire record, Judge Rakoff decided:

. . . the arbitrator's concluding remarks, rather than a sincere
confession of fear, were simply an attempt at humor – one of many
made by the arbitrator throughout the hearing. Indeed, if the
arbitrator had in fact been making his decision out of fear, the
last thing he would have done is placed that on the record. While
perhaps inappropriate (or, worse yet, not as humorous as some of
the arbitrator's better jokes), the remarks are not inconsistent
with impartiality once their patently jestful intent is recognized.
(Slip Op. at 8, record citation eliminated.)

The photography-related allegation did not convince the court
either. As a threshold matter, there was reason to question that it
even happened. But even if it were assumed to be true, "it would
not ‘rise to the level of bias . . . necessary to vacate an
arbitration award under [FAA] § 10(a(2)'" Kolel Beth Yechiel
Michel of Tartikov, Inc. v. YLL Irrevocable Trust, 729 F. 3d 99,
106 (2d Cir. 2013). And "[g]iven the history of dubious conduct by
Mr. Kalanick's subordinates when Mr. Kalanick was the only
defendant in this case . . . such alleged hero-worship seems
doubtful on its face; but, in any case, plaintiff's speculation is
just that, speculation. . . ." Slip Op. at 9. Speculation does not
warrant vacatur. Scandinavian Reinsurance Co., 668 F. 3d at 72.

Premised on this analysis, the plaintiff's motion was denied.

Bottom Line

Under the circumstances, neither the arbitrator's alleged hero
worship nor fear of public backlash justified vacating the arbitral
award. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Hallinan's TRO Bid for FCC-Butner Inmates Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina,
Western Division, issued an Order denying the Petitioners' Motion
for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction and Writ of
Habeas Corpus in the case captioned CHARLES HALLINAN, JOSEAN
KINARD, ARNOLD J. HILL, BENJAMIN D. McRAE, JOHN DAILEY, LEE M.
AYERS, GEORGE B. RIDDICK, JORGE LUIS MALDONADO, ANTWAN HARRIS,
ANTHONY BUTLER, and TROY A. TITUS, on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated individuals, Petitioners/Plaintiffs v. WARDEN
THOMAS SCARANTINO, MICHAEL CARVAJAL, and JEFFERY ALLEN,
Respondents/Defendants, Case No. 5:20-HC-2088-FL (E.D.N.C.).

The Petitioners, federal inmates represented by counsel, filed on
May 26, 2020, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 2241 and class action complaint for injunctive and
declaratory relief. The Petitioners allege that Respondents Thomas
Scarantino, the warden of the Federal Correctional Complex in
Butner, North Carolina ("FCC-Butner"), Michael Carvajal, the
Federal Bureau of Prisons ("FBOP") director, and Jeffrey Allen, the
FBOP medical director, are violating the Petitioners' rights under
the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Specifically, the Petitioners assert that the Respondents have
failed to control the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19
within FCC-Butner, thus, exposing the Petitioners to a substantial
risk of contracting the disease.

The Petitioners seek to represent a class of similarly situated
federal inmates at FCC-Butner and a "medically vulnerable subclass"
of inmates over age 50 or who have certain preexisting health
conditions that expose them to greater risk of complications if
they contract COVID-19. The petition seeks immediate injunctive and
declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331, 2201-02,
and 2243.

District Judge Louise W. Flanagan writes that the Court holds the
Petitioners' conditions of confinement claims are not cognizable
habeas claims under Section 2241. The Court also lacks authority to
order the Petitioners' release under its inherent equitable
authority.

Judge Flanagan also opines, among other things, that the
Petitioners have not demonstrated they are likely to succeed on the
merits as to the deliberate indifference component of their claim.
In response to the COVID-19 outbreak, the Respondents immediately
implemented extensive efforts to limit the spread of the virus and
protect inmate health and safety, including screening inmates,
staff and visitors for symptoms; isolating and quarantining inmates
exposed to the virus (depending on whether they displayed
symptoms); imposing limitations on movements within the facilities
and visitation; and conducting inmate and staff testing in
accordance with guidelines from the CDC.

This evidence shows that the Respondents have responded reasonably
to the risk of harm caused by a rapidly evolving global pandemic,
Judge Flanagan explains, citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 844.
The Petitioners submitted numerous declarations, expert witness
testimony, and documentary evidence in support of their allegations
that petitioners have been deliberately indifferent to the risk of
COVID-19. This evidence, however, does not undermine the Court's
finding that the Respondents carefully and proactively responded to
the pandemic, Judge Flanagan adds.

The Court's determination that the Petitioners have not
demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits is dispositive,
and the instant motion must be denied on that basis alone, Judge
Flanagan states, citing Real Truth About Obama, 575 F.3d at 346.

The Court also finds the Petitioners have sufficiently established
likelihood of irreparable harm. The medically vulnerable subclass
members are likely to suffer imminent serious medical complications
(including death) if they contract COVID-19. An order directing the
Respondents to "release" the subclass members to home confinement,
halfway house, another FBOP facility where COVID-19 is not
spreading, or to medical furlough would reduce their chances of
contracting COVID-19. The risk of irreparable injury also is
"likely" where the outbreak at FCC-Butner is worsening by the day.
Accordingly, the Petitioners have made a clear showing they are
likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive
relief.

Based on the Court's findings, the Petitioners' motion for
temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and writ of
habeas corpus is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 11, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9md7mad from Leagle.com.


US TREASURY: Inmates Entitled to COVID-19 Pay, Galvan et al. Say
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN GALVAN and PATRICK TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STEVEN T. MNUCHIN, in his
official capacity as United States Secretary of the Treasury; the
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; CHARLES P. RETTIG, in his
official capacity as United States Commissioner of Internal
Revenue; the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; the UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04511 (N.D.
Ill., July 31, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Coronavirus
Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants contravened the plain
language of the CARES Act and denied Economic Impact Payments to
incarcerated people, including the Plaintiffs, who are eligible
individuals under the statute. The CARES Act created a 2020 tax
credit to be disbursed immediately in the form of a direct payment
called Economic Impact Payment of $1,200 to eligible individuals
generally making $75,000 or less. The Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) changed its position that incarcerated people fit within the
CARES Act definition of eligible individuals and decided not to
send them payments. IRS also sought help from prisons, jails, and
other correctional facilities nationwide to intercept checks that
it had already sent out.

As a result of the Defendants' conduct, the incarcerated people and
their families, who are primarily low-income earners and come
disproportionately from minority communities, were deprived of
receiving the financial assistance that they need in the midst of
the economic difficulties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

United States Department of the Treasury is a department of the
executive branch of the United States government headquartered in
Washington, D.C. and an agency of the United States that operates
and maintains systems that are critical to the nation's financial
infrastructure.

Internal Revenue Service is a bureau within the United States
Department of the Treasury headquartered in Washington, D.C. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
         
         Jeannie Y. Evans, Esq.
         HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
         455 Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410
         Chicago, IL 60611
         Telephone: (708) 628-4949
         Facsimile: (708) 628-4950
         E-mail: jeannie@hbsslaw.com

                - and –

         Steve W. Berman, Esq.
         HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
         1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Telephone: (206) 623-7292
         Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
         E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

                - and –

         Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq.
         HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
         301 N. Lake Ave, Suite 920
         Pasadena, CA 91101
         Telephone: (213)-330-7150
         Facsimile: (213)-330-7152
         E-mail: christopherp@hbsslaw.com

                - and –

         Michael Kanovitz, Esq.
         Sarah Grady, Esq.
         Elliot Slosar, Esq.
         LOEVY & LOEVY
         311 North Aberdeen Street, Third Floor
         Chicago, IL 60607
         Telephone: (312) 243-5900
         E-mail: mike@loevy.com
                 sarah@loevy.com
                 elliott@loevy.com

                - and –

         Patrick W. Thomas, Esq.
         NOTRE DAME TAX CLINIC
         725 Howard Street
         South Bend, IN 46617
         Telephone: (574) 631-9149
         E-mail: pthomas3@nd.edu

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Canadian Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jignesh Mehta, writing for Seeking Alpha, reports that Bausch
Health Companies (NYSE:BHC) announced that the parties in the
Canadian securities class action (Cattuci et al. v. Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International Inc. et. al., Court File No.:
500-06-000783-163) have agreed to resolve the action for C$94.0M
(about ~$69.0M), plus administration costs.

The Action, filed in the Quebec Superior Court in 2015, alleged
violations of Canadian securities laws regarding substantively the
same matters as in the U.S. securities class action, which the
Company also successfully settled.

As part of the Settlement, BHC and the other defendants admit no
liability and deny all allegations of wrongdoing whatsoever. [GN]


VERMONT: Court Denies as Moot Russell's Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont issued an Order
denying as moot the Plaintiff's renewed motion to certify class
action in the case captioned JUSTIN RUSSELL v. ANDREW PALLITO,
CYNTHIA MASON, RICHARD BILODEAU, LISA MENARD, MICHAEL TOUCHETTE,
ROBERT ARNELL, Case No. 5:15-cv-126 (D. Vt.).

Plaintiff Justin Russell, who was formerly under the supervision of
the Vermont Department of Corrections ("DOC"), brought this case
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against Defendants Andrew Pallito,
former DOC Commissioner; Cynthia Mason and Richard Bilodeau, DOC
Correctional Officers; Lisa Menard, former DOC Commissioner;
Michael Touchette, current DOC Commissioner; and Robert Arnell,
Correctional Facility Operations Manager. The Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendants violated his right to the free exercise of
religion because of a DOC policy relating to the dietary
restrictions for Muslim detainees.

On December 18, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report and
Recommendation on Mr. Russell's Renewed Motion to Certify Class
Action. Finding that Mr. "Russell's claims would require
individualized inquiries for each proposed class member," the
Magistrate Judge recommended that the Motion be denied. Mr.
Russell's objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation on the Motion were filed on January 1, 2020.

On February 26, 2020, the Plaintiff's counsel informed the Court
that the Plaintiff had been released from DOC custody as of
February 21, 2020. A day later, on February 27, 2020, the
Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation on the Motion
for Joinder of Additional Plaintiff on Expedited Basis,
recommending that the Motion for Joinder be denied. The Magistrate
Judge found that the Plaintiff failed to establish good cause under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 16(b) for permission to amend
the complaint to join an additional plaintiff. The Magistrate Judge
also noted that "[d]iscovery has been closed in this case for
approximately two years" and that "factor weighs against granting
Russell leave to join another plaintiff at this late stage." No
objections have been filed.

After careful review of the record and the Report and
Recommendation, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's
Recommendations in full. In light of this adoption, and the
Plaintiff's release from DOC custody, the Renewed Motion to Certify
Class Action is DENIED as MOOT.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 28, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7vceayl from Leagle.com.


VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Sept.14 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming September 14, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in the class action filed on behalf of Verrica
Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Verrica" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: VRCA)
securities between September 16, 2019 and June 29, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

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

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

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

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

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Verrica securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than September
14, 2020 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com.  If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

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

Contacts

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


VIVINT SOLAR: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls, Barrett Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JOSEPH BARRETT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. VIVINT SOLAR DEVELOPER, LLC and JOHN DOE
CORPORATION D/B/A NATIONAL SOLAR PROGRAM, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-11464 (D. Mass., August 3, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated consumers, alleges that the Defendants contacted his
telephone number using an automatic telephone dialing system in an
attempt to promote and market Vivint Solar's products and services
without obtaining prior express written consent. The telemarketing
calls were sent pursuant to an agreement between Vivint and John
Doe Corporation, who identified itself as National Solar Program on
the call.

Vivint Solar Developer, LLC is a solar panel consulting, designing
and installation company with its principal place of business in
Lehi, Utah. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
         PARONICH LAW, P.C.
         350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
         Hingham, MA 02043
         Telephone: (508) 221-1510
         E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com

                - and –
         
         Alex M. Washkowitz, Esq.
         CW LAW GROUP, P.C.
         188 Oaks Road
         Framingham, MA 01702
         Telephone: (508) 309-4880
         E-mail: alex@cwlawgrouppc.com

                - and –
         
         Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
         Jonathan P. Misny, Esq.
         MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP
         1114 Dublin Road
         Columbus, OH 43215
         Telephone: (614) 488-0400
         Facsimile: (614) 488-0401
         E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com
                 misny@mmmb.com

VOLVO GROUP: Parcell Alleges Discrimination and Retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL WAYNE PARCELL, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, v. VOLVO GROUP NORTH AMERICA, LLC,
Serve: CT Corporation System 4701 Cox Road, Suite 285 Glen Allen,
VA 23060 Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-00489-GEC (W.D. Va., August
18, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff to restrain and
enjoin Defendant from engaging in an unlawful pattern and practice
of discrimination and/or retaliation and/or interference in
violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA").

The Plaintiff alleges Defendant from engaging in an unlawful
pattern and practice of categorizing employee leave, taken pursuant
to the FMLA, as non-protected and unexcused "personal business"
absences; discouraging employees from, and punishing employees for,
requesting and taking FMLA leave; administering unwarranted
disciplinary actions against employees seeking FMLA leave and
denying these employees professional advancement opportunities; and
discriminating and retaliating against employees for exercising the
substantive FMLA rights to which they are entitled, thus
interfering with employee use of FMLA leave, and to recover damages
caused by Defendant's unlawful conduct.

The Defendant has interfered with Mr. Parcell's entitlement to, and
exercise of, his federally protected rights under the FMLA by
unlawfully discriminating and retaliating against him by
categorizing his FMLA leave as unexcused absences, demoting him,
and refusing to consider him for available promotions and related
career advancement opportunities.

Mr. Parcell has worked for Volvo for nearly 15 years as an
Assembler, and resides in Pearisburg, Virginia.

Volvo Group North America, LLC manufactures automobiles. The
Company offers heavy trucks, engines, and auto parts and
accessories. Volvo Group North America serves clients
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas E. Strelka, Esq.
          L. Leigh R. Strelka, Esq.
          N. Winston West, IV, Esq.
          Brittany M. Haddox, Esq.
          Monica L. Mroz, Esq.
          STRELKA EMPLOYMENT LAW
          Warehouse Row 119 Norfolk Avenue, S.W., Suite 330
          Roanoke, VA 24011
          Telephone: (540) 283-0802
          E-mail: thomas@strelkalaw.com
                  leigh@strelkalaw.com
                  winston@strelkalaw.com

WELLS FARGO: Court Dismisses McIntosh Wrongful Foreclosure Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
issued an Order granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss with
leave to amend in the case captioned MYRIAN Y. McINTOSH v. WELLS
FARGO BANK, N.A., et al., Case No. 20-cv-01649-RS (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Myrian McIntosh brings this action against Defendants
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., U.S. Bank, N.A., and Catamount Properties,
LLC, regarding a loan secured by a mortgage on the property located
at 102 Ford Drive, in American Canyon, California ("the Property").
Ms. McIntosh alleges that the Defendants breached a class action
settlement, wherein she was a class member, breached her Deed of
Trust, and violated California's Homeowner Bill of Rights
("HBOR")--and, thus, wrongfully foreclosed upon the Property.

In June 2006, Ms. McIntosh obtained a $680,000 Pick-a-Payment
refinance loan ("the Loan") from World Savings Bank, FSB, secured
by a Deed of Trust recorded against the Property. A Pick-a-Payment
loan permits the borrower to choose, for a limited period, to pay
less than the interest due on the loan with each payment. The
unpaid interest is then added to the loan's balance, increasing the
outstanding principal balance.

Between 2007 and 2009, World Savings Bank changed its name to
Wachovia Mortgage FSB, and Wachovia merged into Wells Fargo. In
2009, Ms. McIntosh obtained a modification of the Loan from Wells
Fargo. She alleges that the terms in the modification were "not
sustainable," as stated in her First Amended Complaint ("FAC").

In 2011, Ms. McIntosh obtained a second modification of the Loan
under the federal Home Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP").
She made her payments until August 2015, when she missed one. She
missed another payment in October 2015. In May 2016, she became
unable to pay her mortgage altogether. In November 2016, as per the
terms of the second modification, her interest rate increased to
4%.

Wells Fargo recorded a Notice of Default on May 3, 2017, with the
Napa County Recorder. Alongside the notice, Wells Fargo filed a
Notice of Compliance with California Civil Code Section 2923.55(c).
In August 2018, Wells Fargo assigned its beneficial interest under
the deed of trust to U.S. Bank and recorded an assignment with the
Napa County Recorder. U.S. Bank recorded a notice of trustee's sale
on January 23, 2019 with the County. The Property was sold on
August 2, 2019, to Catamount, which recorded a trustee's deed upon
sale.

In 2018 and 2019, Ms. McIntosh filed for bankruptcy several times.
Furthermore, in 2019, she filed an adversary action against the
Defendants in the Bankruptcy Court. In January 2020, the Bankruptcy
Court issued an order dismissing the adversary action under Rule
12(b)(6), in response to a motion by U.S. Bank and Catamount. In
March 2020, the Bankruptcy Court denied a motion to reconsider.

The next day, Ms. McIntosh filed the present action. She asserts
four causes of action against Wells Fargo and U.S. Bank: (1) breach
of contract, i.e., the Settlement Agreement, and promissory
estoppel; (2) breach of the deed of trust and promissory estoppel;
(3) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (4)
violation of the HBOR. She asserts two additional causes of action
against all defendants, (5) wrongful foreclosure and (6)
cancellation of instruments, and a final cause of action against
Catamount alone: (7) quiet title. She requests cancellation of the
foreclosure sale and damages pursuant to California Civil Code
Section 2924.12.

Conclusion

The Court ruled that each cause of action must be dismissed.
However, Ms. McIntosh will be given leave to amend to the extent
she can cure the defects in the FAC. Any amended complaint must be
filed within 21 days of the date of the order.

As to the Settlement Agreement, Ms. McIntosh alleges the Defendants
breached by failing to offer her a third modification in 2015 when
she begun to miss her payments. She alleges she was a Class B
member and thus entitled to a modification. However, the Court
says, it is clear from the Agreement that she was neither a Class B
member, nor was she entitled to another modification. At the time
of the Agreement, she had already obtained a modification which
converted her Pick-a-Payment loan. Therefore, she no longer had the
offending loan and was a Class A member, ineligible for
modifications under the express terms of the settlement.

Nevertheless, she did receive a further modification in 2011,
belying her allegation that Wells Fargo failed to evaluate
continually her loan for potential modifications. Furthermore, the
Settlement Agreement only promises Wells Fargo will continually
evaluate Class B members for modifications; they are not
guaranteed. Ms. McIntosh has, thus, not plausibly alleged that the
Defendants breached the Settlement Agreement.

Ms. McIntosh registers objections to several of the Defendants'
requested documents, including the consideration of the
modification agreements. She states the 2009 modification is
"arguably" not mentioned in the FAC, and the 2011 modification is
only mentioned once and, thus, that the modifications are not
discussed "extensively" enough to be incorporated.

However, District Judge Richard Seeborg notes, the FAC clearly
mentions both modifications. The crux of Ms. McIntosh's complaint
is that the Defendants had a legal obligation to offer further
modifications of the Loan, i.e., the modifications form the basis
for the complaint. Notably, Ms. McIntosh does not contest the
authenticity or accuracy of the modification documents, or that the
modifications they reflect occurred on the terms identified.
Incorporation of the modification agreements is, thus,
appropriate.

As to the Deed of Trust, the only provision of that contract which
Ms. McIntosh alleges the Defendants violated is the choice of law
provision, which states the document will be governed by state and
federal law. This, says Ms. McIntosh, means the contract is
governed in part by the HBOR, which she alleges the Defendants
violated.

The Court opines, among other things, that without an allegation
that the Defendants violated any other specific provision of the
Deed of Trust, this claim is not plausible. Thus, both breach of
contract claims must be dismissed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 11, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7aalwvh from Leagle.com.


WELLS FARGO: Nonprofits Receive Class Action Settlement Checks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nevonne McDaniels, writing for The Wenatchee World, reports that
The Northwest Justice Project and Chelan-Douglas County Volunteer
Attorney Services have received checks for $208,825 from a
class-action lawsuit over homeowners who were wrongly locked out of
their homes during foreclosure.

Attorney Clay Gatens, who worked for a Wenatchee firm at the time
and is now an owner at Cashmere's Gatens Green Weidenbach PLLC,
served as the lead counsel in Rhodes v. Wells Fargo N.A.,
representing 4,000 homeowners locked out in the years following the
2008 financial crisis. The case is one of several Gatens pursued
involving homeowners whose locks were changed by lenders and
mortgage service providers prior to foreclosure, claiming the
properties were abandoned. The original case against a different
lender, which has not yet been fully settled, started in 2010, with
a client who lived in Wenatchee.

The class-action case against Wells Fargo was filed in 2016. About
one-third of the plaintiffs in the case were from North Central
Washington or Eastern Washington.

The U.S. District Court of Eastern Washington in December 2018
awarded the plaintiffs $26.3 million in a common fund settlement
structured to make sure any unclaimed funds were not returned to
the defendant.

Four nonprofits were identified to receive any remaining funds, two
selected by Wells Fargo and the other two by the plaintiff
attorneys.

"It was important to me that some of the nonprofit recipients be
from North Central Washington, where the original case arose from.
Northwest Justice Project and Chelan-Douglas County Volunteer
Attorney Services both are involved in housing and consumer
protection and borrower protections," Gatens said.

The two nonprofits named by Wells Fargo are Rebuilding Together
Seattle and Housing Hope.

At the time, no one knew how much of the funds would be left,
Gatens said.

The process of distributing the awards to the class-action members
followed. The amount distributed to each member depended on how
long they had been locked out of their homes. Not all the checks
were cashed, for various reasons. Some members had died or moved
and could not be reached, Gatens said.

After two rounds, $835,300 was left unclaimed to be divided equally
between the designated nonprofits.

"The Northwest Justice Project looks forward to putting these funds
to use to represent vulnerable low-income people throughout
Washington state who face some of the same challenges faced by the
class members in this case, such as defending homeowners against
foreclosure, renters against eviction, and consumers against
predatory lending practices," said Judith Lurie of the Northwest
Justice Project in Wenatchee.

Eloise Barshes, executive director at Chelan-Douglas County
Volunteer Services, said the funds will help meet the needs of the
community for years to come.

"A gift of this size is a game changer for CDCVAS and offers
stability for civil legal aid in uncertain times," she said.

Gatens said the distribution to the nonprofits closes out the case,
though others are still working their way through the system.

"I'm glad for the results to the class members and the impact,
clarifying that lenders can't do this," he said. "It's been a long
road. I'm proud of the result." [GN]


WINS FINANCE: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 23 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 Wins Finance Holdings, Inc.
(NASDAQ: WINS).  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.

Wins Finance Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: WINS)

Class Period: October 31, 2018 to July 6, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 23, 2020

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 RMB580 million Guohong Loan was highly
uncertain; (ii) non-payment 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.

For more information on the Wins Finance, class action go to:
https://bespc.com/WINS-2

               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]


YALE UNIVERSITY: Connecticut Class Action Seeks Tuition Refund
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Wright, writing for DailyMail.com, reports that a Yale
University student from Ohio has launched a federal lawsuit against
Yale University, demanding the school return tuition payments after
deciding to keep classes online in response to the pandemic.

Jonathan Michel, a soon-to-be third year student from Wooley, Ohio,
said the prestigious university 'effectively breached or terminated
the contract' it had with students 'who paid for the opportunity to
participate fully in the academic life on the Yale campus.'

'While the effects of the COVID-19 crisis are shared by all
individuals and institutions across the country, Defendant has
failed to apportion the burden in an equitable manner or consistent
with its obligations as an educational institution. Defendant has
retained all tuition, fees, and related payments for the Spring
2020 semester, however, all or substantially all classes have been
exclusively held online since on or about March 23, 2020,' the
lawsuit, filed in the District Court of New Haven, Connecticut,
reads.

The suit joins many springing up across the country as disgruntled
students bite back at their schools, with similar lawsuits brought
up against Columbia and Cornell, along with many others.

Schools have said that they will continue to offer the bulk of
their classes online, only allowing a small fraction of students to
return to campus.

Michel, a student in the Davenport College, claimed that he's lost
access to key parts of his educational experience by having to take
the classes solely online as 'remote learning options cannot
replace the comprehensive educational experience.'

He cites 'access to facilities, materials, and faculty, and the
opportunity for on campus living, school events, collaborative
learning, dialogue, feedback and critique' as key factors of the
in-person experience that he and other students are missing out on.


The plaintiff is hoping to receive some portion of the funds from
the Spring 2020 semester, which cost him $27,750, according to the
suit. Academic totals for the entire 2019-20 school year came out
to roughly $75,925.  

Yale announced on March 10 that students needed not return to
campus after spring break as in-person classes were moving online.
It closed the entire campus, soon after.   

'While this step to close campus and end in-person classes was
necessitated by circumstances, it effectively breached or
terminated the contract Yale had with each and every student and
tuition provider, who paid for the opportunity to participate fully
in the academic life on the Yale campus,' the suit states.

The suit slams the university for lauding the online classes as an
adequate learning experience, asserting Yale was attempting to
'replace the irreplaceable' by attempting to 'pass off this
substitute educational experience as the same as or just as good as
fully participation in the university's academic life.'

It highlights how several of the online programs, already offered
by the university, are priced at a much lower cost than their
in-person counterpart. The suit cited the Women's Leadership
program through the School of Management, which offered a more than
$2000 price difference for their online and in-person options.

Also cited in the suit are key findings from a study that showed
that taking online classes 'reduced student achievement' by .44
points on a traditional four-point grading scale.

The study also found that online courses reduced the probability of
a student remaining enrolled at an institution by over 10
percentage points.  

Lawyers representing Michel are hoping to make the lawsuit a class
action case so that they can include other students from the
university.

The school believes that the lawsuit is legally and factually
baseless, according to Karen Peart, a spokeswoman for Yale. They
are prepared to mount a defense against the suit, the Hartford
Courant reports.

'Yale acted to protect the community by moving quickly and
effectively to online classes, which allowed students to complete
the semester safely,' Peart said. 'Yale also provided students with
prorated refunds for the room and board that they were unable to
use.' [GN]


[*] Gross Law Announces Several Shareholder Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm, in an
Aug. 10, 2020 press release, issues the following notice on behalf
of shareholders in the following publicly traded companies.
Shareholders who purchased shares in the following companies during
the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding
possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff
is not required to partake in any recovery.

Tufin Software Technologies Ltd. (NYSE: TUFN)

Affected investors purchased TUFN securities pursuant and/or
traceable to documents issued in connection with the Company's
April 2019 initial public offering and/or its December 2019
secondary public offering

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Tufin Software Technologies Ltd. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Tufin's customer relationships
and growth metrics were overstated, particularly with respect to
North America; (ii) Tufin's business was deteriorating, primarily
in North America; (iii) as a result, Tufin's representations
regarding its sustainable financial prospects were overly
optimistic; and (iv) as a result, the documents issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering were
materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information
required to be stated therein.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/tufin-software-technologies-ltd-loss-submission-form/?id=8446&from=1

Kirkland Lake Gold Ltd. (NYSE: KL)

Investors Affected: January 8, 2018 - November 25, 2019

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

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/kirkland-lake-gold-ltd-loss-submission-form/?id=8446&from=1

Wirecard AG (OTC PINK: WRCDF)

Investors Affected: August 17, 2015 - June 24, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Wirecard AG. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Wirecard overstated its cash balances during the
Class Period, falsely claiming €1.9 billion of cash in a trust
account that was missing; (2) Wirecard overstated its financial
results during the Class Period, including revenue and EBITDA; (3)
Wirecard did not have adequate risk management or countermeasures;
(4) the Company's external auditor failed to audit Wirecard in
accordance with applicable auditing principles; and (5) as a
result, Defendants' statements about Wirecard's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/wirecard-ag-loss-submission-form/?id=8446&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]


[*] New Bill May Hamper Institutional Abuse Class Action Process
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marg. Bruineman, writing for NewMarketToday.ca reports that if the
class-actions against local institutions such as the Huronia
Regional Centre, the Edgar Adult Occupational Centre and the Sheila
Morrison School were proposed on Aug. 6, they might not make it
through the classification process.

Attorney General Doug Downey's new omnibus bill, passed earlier in
July, introduces more stringent tests that lawyers say will make it
difficult to sue institutions through class-actions.

"There's a good chance that none of those institutional abuse cases
could have been certified," said Jasminka Kalajdzic, a University
of Windsor law professor and director of the Class Action Clinic at
Windsor Law. "On the new test, it's hard to see how a case could
ever pass the predominance requirement based on one issue."

Kalajdzic served as an advisor to victims of abuse at the former
Huronia Regional Centre in Orillia when the representative
plaintiffs and their litigation guardians sought additional help
with the class action process.

It was one of three successful class-actions focusing on historical
abuse at Simcoe County institutions that were settled between 2010
and 2016.

More recently, she was also co-author of the Law Commission
class-action report, which the government largely adopted in
developing the new amendments in Ontario's not quite 30-year-old
Class Proceedings Act contained in Bill 161 -- but for two changes
to the certification test.

Of the 100-plus stakeholders involved in the process and 30
submissions submitted for the review, only one -- a joint
submission from the Canadian bankers and insurance associations
-- asked that the certification test be changed "to look more like
the U.S. class-action rule that has two requirements that we never
had in Ontario and that no other province in the country has," said
Kalajdzic.

Before a class-action can proceed, a judge needs to certify it to
ensure it meets the minimum requirements. Under the amendments
"predominance and superiority" have been added as requirements,
which lawyers say raises the bar.

Now for a class-action to go ahead, it must be deemed to be the
superior way to go over individual lawsuits and a common issue of
harm must predominate over all the individual issues for those in
the prospective class.

Kalajdzic, who appeared as a witness before the standing committee
asking that those additional requirements be removed from the
certification test, says their inclusion will make class-actions
more difficult to achieve.

"Class-actions will be less available, particularly in situations
of product liability, medical devices, drugs, anything involving
personal injury," she said, because those usually involve some
individual issues that don't involve everyone in the group.

From Loretta Merritt's perspective, that's not a bad thing.

"Most of the historical abuse cases certified to date involve abuse
in residential institutions. Where the common issue is vicarious
liability it may not predominate over individual issues," said
Merritt, who believes that victims of institutional abuse are
better off going at it alone through individual lawsuits.

In addition to a more stringent test, the amendments require the
administrator distributing settlement funds to file a report with
the court no more than 60 days after the money is fully
distributed, setting out the particulars of the distribution.

She hopes that additional aspect of public accountability for the
payments to survivors may cause courts to think twice before
certifying cases involving abuse.

"When the amendments to the CPA (Class Proceedings Act) contained
in Bill 161 come into force and effect, courts may have increased
power to address these problems," she said. "The provisions
relating to the certification test and requiring a report after
distribution of settlement funds may help."

Jenessa Crognali, spokesperson for Downey, said the amendments
introduce the most comprehensive changes to the province's
class-actions process in 25 years.

"They are designed to help Ontarians resolve their legal issues
faster and receive meaningful access to justice," she said. "These
improvements address issues that clog the system and slow down
justice."

Crognali said they are also intended to promote fair and
transparent settlements for people who are part of class-action
lawsuits; ensure the interests of Ontarians are at the heart of
class-action lawsuits; improve transparency and court oversight in
cases where a third-party funds a lawsuit; and allow class-action
cases to be resolved faster, which would free up time and resources
in Ontario's courts.

Kalajdzic says the changes are meant to improve how groups of
people who are harmed by organizations can collectively see
redress, after having had the experience of being able to use the
approach of class-actions.

"Our lens was always through the eyes of class-action, class
members and how we make the system better for Ontario. We thought,
at the end of the day, that we came up with a balanced report," she
said. [GN]


[*] Wisconsin Courts See Increase in ERISA Class Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard J. Bobber, Esq. -- bernard.bobber@ogletree.com -- and Mark
E. Schmidtke, Esq. -- mark.schmidtke@ogletree.com -- of Ogletree
Deakins, in an article for Lexology, report that in recent months,
Wisconsin federal courts have witnessed a dramatic increase in
class litigation raising breach of fiduciary duty claims under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). These
claims target sponsoring employers and individuals who oversee plan
investments and plan fees for employer-sponsored 401(k) plans.
Generally summarized, the causes of action typically claim that
plan managers and administrators chose excessively expensive
investment options and/or incurred high administrative fees that
caused plan participants to suffer losses compared to other less
expensive options available on the open market. A particular target
of plaintiffs is the method of paying third-party recordkeepers
known as "revenue sharing," which compensates recordkeepers based
on the value of plan investments rather than a flat fee. Plaintiffs
have sued company boards of directors as well. The relief sought
includes the money that plan participants allegedly lost because of
the fiduciaries' faulty decisions, as well as attorneys' fees. Due
to the number of alleged class members, and a damages period
typically running six years prior to the filing of a complaint,
defendants face claims asserting that plan participants incurred
losses of up to millions of dollars in deficient investments or
excessive fees.

The Relevant Law

Under ERISA Sec. 1002(21)(A), individuals have a fiduciary duty
with respect to a qualifying benefit plan if they exercise
discretionary authority or control to manage or administer the plan
or control of plan assets. ERISA § 1104(a)(1) requires that such
individuals (i.e., plan fiduciaries) discharge their duties "solely
in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries and for the
exclusive purpose of (i) providing benefits to participants and
their beneficiaries; and (ii) defraying reasonable expenses of
administering the plan." Under ERISA's regulations at 29 C.F.R.
Sec. 2250.404a-1(b)(1), with respect to plan expenses, a fiduciary
satisfies its duties if it "(i) [h]as given appropriate
consideration to those facts and circumstances that … are
relevant to the particular investment or investment course of
action involved … and (ii) [h]as acted accordingly." Ultimately,
ERISA requires a fiduciary to act in a prudent manner, given the
facts and circumstances at the time of the fiduciary's action. A
fiduciary that breaches the duty of prudence may be personally
liable for damages that include, but are not limited to, losses
caused to the plan by the breach, as well as the plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees.

In 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a watershed
decision in Tibble v. Edison International addressing 401(k) breach
of fiduciary duty claims under ERISA. In Tibble, the Court
addressed whether the imprudent retention of an investment was an
event that started the statute of limitations period or whether the
statute of limitations expired six years after the fiduciary first
included the investment option in the plan menu. The Court held
that a fiduciary of a 401(k) plan has an ongoing duty to monitor
investments and that an ERISA plaintiff may timely raise a claim
for breach of fiduciary duty by alleging the fiduciary failed to
properly monitor and remove imprudent investments if such breach
occurred within the statute of limitations period. That is, the
Court found that the accrual of ERISA's statute of limitations for
fiduciary breaches is not limited to the date when an investment
was first included in a plan but instead continues as the fiduciary
monitors the investment over time.

In March 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit narrowed options for plan participants suing 401(k) plan
sponsors and fiduciaries in a case alleging that a plan had
included too many investment options -- investment options that
were allegedly too expensive because they included actively managed
mutual funds rather than less expensive index funds -- and that the
recordkeeper should have been compensated based on a flat fee
rather than revenue sharing. In Divane v. Northwestern University,
the court affirmed a lower court's decision that had granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The Seventh Circuit
rejected the plaintiffs' contention that a flat-fee structure was
always preferable to pay a plan's recordkeeping expenses, rejected
the plaintiffs' claim that the plan had too many investment
options, and rejected the plaintiffs' claim that it was imprudent
to have included more expensive actively managed funds when the
plan also included index funds and participants were free to choose
among options to invest their money.

Despite the decision in Divane, the state of the case law regarding
401(k) fee allegations remains a mixed bag. In contrast to the
defendants' victory in the Divane case, a class of plan
participants in May 2020 obtained judgment regarding excessive plan
administrative fees before the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado. In Ramos v. Banner Health, a class made up of
current and former employees brought suit alleging breaches of
fiduciary duties that included, but were not limited to, failing to
monitor plan offerings, paying excessive recordkeeping fees, and
using plan assets to pay prohibited expenses. The plaintiffs
sought, among other things, a recovery of approximately $85 million
in plan losses as relief.

Following a bench trial, the court rejected the plaintiffs' claim
that the defendants had breached their fiduciary duties with
respect to the funds offered by the plan. However, the court
granted judgment to the plaintiffs with respect to administrative
fees after it faulted the defendants for not having changed to a
per-participant fee model sooner. A key point for the court on this
claim was its conclusion that the defendants had not undertaken a
request for proposal for recordkeeping services in nearly 20 years.
The court concluded that the lack of regular review of
recordkeeping fees was imprudent. On this claim, the court awarded
the plaintiffs losses of nearly $1,662,000 and invited briefing to
support an award of attorneys' fees.

In terms of the ERISA breach of fiduciary duty cases filed in
Wisconsin, the significant uptick in case filings is recent and can
be traced to a common source. Prior to June 2020, there had been
only four cases claiming breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA filed
in Wisconsin since the Supreme Court's 2015 decision in Tibble.
However, in June and July 2020, the same plaintiffs' counsel, a
longtime professor of law who recently returned to private
practice, filed six new cases.

Key Takeaways

Employers and fiduciaries that maintain 401(k) or 403(b) retirement
plans may want to diligently monitor investment options and
periodically compare administrative fees on the open market. Given
the recent upturn in court filings, including in Wisconsin, plan
fiduciaries are clearly under a microscope when making decisions
about what investment options to include in their plans and what
recordkeepers to hire to provide services to the plans. Moreover,
these duties are ongoing, as circumstances may change and require
plan administrators to make different investment and administrative
services decisions to meet their fiduciary duty obligations.
ERISA's venue provision is very generous, allowing suit to be filed
wherever a plan is administered, meaning that plan sponsors with
Wisconsin operations now find themselves in a jurisdiction with
plaintiffs' counsel who are actively pursuing claims and litigation
on behalf of plan participants and beneficiaries. [GN]


[] China Allows Investors to File Capital Market Crime Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Standard reports that China's Supreme Court has approved
regulations and amendments that would permit millions of investors
to file class-action lawsuits against capital market crimes, state
media reports.

The court says this is in line with a "zero tolerance" policy on
capital market crimes, following recent fraud scandals involving
some big-name Chinese brands.

"It's a good thing for protecting investors' rights and avoiding
scams and fraud," a investor told CGTN in Beijing.

According to data from China's Security Regulatory Committee, the
country has 167 million investors, over 95 percent of whom are
small and medium investors.

The full provision posted in the Chinese Supreme Court website,
points out that class-action system is an important part of the
basic system of the capital market and an important aspect of
increasing the cost of illegal and criminal acts in accordance with
the law.

It clarifies that "if the representative requests that the
defendant who loses the lawsuit pay reasonable announcement fees,
notice fees, attorney fees, etc., the people's court shall support
it; in the special representative litigation, investors who have
not declared to withdraw shall be deemed to have agreed to
participate in the litigation; special representative litigation
cases do not pay the case acceptance fee in advance; when the
investor protection agency acts as a representative to apply for
property preservation in the litigation, the people's court may not
require guarantees, etc."

The regulations point out that false statements, insider trading,
market manipulation and other illegal and criminal activities are
harmful to the capital market.

In recent years, there have been many cases of financial fraud in
listed companies, which have seriously damaged the legitimate
rights and interests of investors, endangered the healthy and
stable development of the capital market, and had extremely bad
impacts.

Judicial interpretations have specified specific procedural rules
for the people's courts at all levels to correctly implement the
law, unify judgment standards, improve the quality and efficiency
of securities class actions, and implement the securities
class-actions system.

The full text of the "Regulations" consists of 42 articles, in four
parts.

Many say the new regulation is a landmark decision in the wake of
accounting fraud charges against Luckin Coffee, which led to the
de-listing of the Chinese coffee chain from the U.S. Nasdaq Stock
Market.

The Chinese State Administration for Market Regulation says it too
would take action against two of Luckin's domestic entities and
relevant third-party companies connected to the fraud charges.
China's finance ministry is also set to impose administrative
penalties on Luckin Coffee.

This is different from foreign class-action systems. It plays a
very important role in maintaining order in the capital market. In
the future, it can be used for reference in realizing verdicts of
similar cases and preventing judicial inconsistencies, said Xu
Shenjian, Dean of School of Juris Maser at China University of
Political Science and Law on Aug. 4.

The China Securities Journal states that, as of April 19, at least
four class-action lawsuits have been filed against Luckin Coffee
and its executives in the U.S. [GN]


[] Ontario Class Suit Legislation Amendment May Hit Antitrust Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Di Domenico, Esq. -- adidomenico@fasken.com -- of Fasken,
in an article for Mondaq, reports that since the Supreme Court of
Canada's 2013 trilogy of decisions in Pro-Sys, Sun-Rype and
Infineon, and its 2019 decision in Godfrey, plaintiffs have had
considerable success certifying private antitrust/competition class
actions in Canada. Recent amendments to Ontario's class action
legislation may change that trend. As discussed more fully below,
the most significant amendment to Ontario's class action
legislation is to the preferable procedure portion of the
certification test that currently requires plaintiffs to prove that
a class action would be the "preferable procedure for the
resolution of the common issues". The preferability requirements
now include superiority and predominance elements akin to US
Federal Rule 23(b)(3). If interpreted like US Federal Rule
23(b)(3), certification judges will likely engage in a rigorous
assessment of whether common questions of law or fact predominate
over individual questions, which may, in turn, impair the
certification of private antitrust/competition class actions.

Amendments to the Class Proceedings Act

As discussed in a prior bulletin, Ontario Bill 161 Smarter and
Stronger Justice Act, 2020 (PDF) received Royal Assent on July 8,
2020. Bill 161 is omnibus legislation that includes amendments to
Ontario's Class Proceedings Act, 1993 (the "CPA"). The amendments
will apply to proposed class actions commenced after Bill 161 has
been proclaimed in force. Bill 161 is not yet proclaimed into force
but is expected to be so proclaimed in the future.

The changes to the CPA are both numerous and significant. The
changes will impact all types of class actions, including private
class action enforcement under Canada's Competition Act (the
"Act"). At a glance, the changes:

   * amend the preferable procedure portion of the certification
     test (more on this below);

   * streamline appeal routes arising from the certification
     decision;

   * reform and expedite the carriage motion process;

   * require the registration of class actions and create a
     database of all ongoing cases;

   * provide a process for automatic dismissals for delay
     unless the plaintiffs file a certification motion
     within a year after the originating process is issued;

   * create procedures for the multijurisdictional
     coordination of class actions with other provinces;

   * encourage pre-certification preliminary motions that
     can dispense with the proceeding or narrow issues;

   * require "plain language" in court-approved notices;

   * explicitly provide for cy-près orders where it is
     impractical or impossible to directly compensate
     class members;

   * strengthen the settlement approval process,
     including heightening evidentiary and reporting
     obligations; and

   * require earlier notice to the Public Guardian and
     Trustee and the Office of the Children's Lawyer of
     cases affecting individuals that they represent.

Of these changes, the most significant is to the preferable
procedure portion of the certification test that currently requires
plaintiffs to prove that a class action would be the "preferable
procedure for the resolution of the common issues". Implications
for antitrust/competition private enforcement are discussed more
fully below.

Preferable Procedure: New Superiority and Predominance
Requirements

Currently, the preferability analysis under the CPA has two core
components: even if there is an identifiable class whose claims
raise common issues, those issues will not be determined through a
class proceeding unless: (1) such a proceeding would be inherently
fair, efficient and manageable; and (2) a class proceeding is
better than other reasonably available procedures for obtaining
redress for class members. The representative plaintiff bears the
onus of demonstrating some basis in fact that a class action would
be preferable to any other reasonably available means of resolving
the class members' claims. However, if the defendant relies on a
specific alternative to the class action, the defendant has the
evidentiary burden of proving the viability of the alternative.

Plaintiffs now bear the burden to satisfy additional preferability
requirements through the changes to the CPA. A class action is a
preferable procedure for the resolution of common issues only if,
at a minimum:

   * it is superior to all reasonably available means of
determining the entitlement of the class members to relief or
addressing the impugned conduct of the defendant, including, as
applicable, a quasi-judicial or administrative proceeding, the case
management of individual claims in a civil proceeding, or any
remedial scheme or program outside of a proceeding; and

   * the questions of fact or law common to the class members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual class
members.

These changes introduce a superiority test and a predominance
requirement similar to the US Federal Rule 23(b)(3). Professor
Jasminka Kalajdzic and Paul-Erik Veel have helpfully discussed the
implications of these changes to the preferability test in their
respective blog posts.

With respect to the superiority test, the phrases "determining the
entitlement of the class members to relief" and "addressing the
impugned conduct of the defendant" seem to compel plaintiffs to
demonstrate that a class action is preferable to resolve the class
members' claims entirely, including ultimate relief for each class
member.

The preferability requirement is generally met when the common
issues form a substantial ingredient of the class members' claims
even if individual issues trials or claims assessment processes are
necessary to finally dispose of each class member's claim. However,
and as Professor Kalajdzic notes, the enumerated list of "other
reasonably available means", namely "a quasi-judicial or
administrative proceeding, the case management of individual claims
in a civil proceeding, or any remedial scheme or program outside of
a proceeding", suggests that the onus is shifting entirely back to
plaintiffs to prove that none of the other procedures are
superior.

With respect to the predominance requirement, the phrase "questions
of fact or law common to the class predominate over any questions
affecting only individual class members" suggests that the number
of common issues must predominate over any individual issues for
the preferability requirement to be met.

If interpreted like US Federal Rule 23(b)(3), certification judges
will likely engage in a rigorous assessment (PDF) of whether common
questions of law or fact predominate over individual questions.
While jurisprudence arising from the predominance requirement under
US Federal Rule 23(b)(3) is somewhat varied, certification judges
do under that legislation consider whether there would be too many
individual issues to be resolved notwithstanding that common issues
may form a substantial ingredient of the class members' claims,
rendering the class action impractical and unlikely to promote
judicial economy.

As a practical matter, the new preferability test could cause
future intended class actions with one or a few common issues
(focused on liability) to not satisfy the certification test
because individual issues focused on harm and damages outweigh the
commonality. As discussed below, this is particularly relevant for
antitrust/competition class actions where the issues in dispute
tend to focus on loss or damage allegedly suffered by class members
and increasingly the ultimate relief of each class member - whether
a direct, indirect and umbrella purchaser - rather than whether a
violation of the Act has, in fact, taken place.

Implications of the New Preferability Requirements on
Antitrust/Competition Class Actions
Section 36(1) of the Act provides a statutory right of action for
damages to any person who has suffered loss or damage as a result
of conduct contrary to Part VI of the Act (i.e. criminal offences
under the Act). Class actions alleging conduct contrary to Part VI
of the Act typically involve collusion (e.g., price-fixing,
bid-rigging) and, to a lesser extent, criminal deceptive marketing
practices.

A court may order a remedy under section 36(1) of the Act if a
person proves, on a balance of probabilities, loss or damage
suffered as a result of conduct contrary to any provision of Part
VI of the Act. Compensable loss or damage under the Act is limited
to single damages-namely, an amount equal to the loss or damage
proved to have been suffered by that person, and any additional
amount that the court may allow, not exceeding the full cost to
that person of any investigation in connection with the matter and
of proceedings under section 36(1).

Accordingly, a prerequisite to recovery under section 36(1) is
actual damage or loss suffered by the plaintiff, as well as a
causal connection between the damage or loss suffered and the
impugned conduct, regardless of the impugned conduct at issue. For
example, the elements of a collusion offence are that competitors
agreed to engage in certain impugned conduct, whether fixing
prices, restricting output or allocating markets. However, for a
private plaintiff to obtain damages for conduct underpinning these
offences, the private plaintiff must prove that it suffered actual
loss or damages, as well as a causal connection between the conduct
underpinning the offence and the loss or damage claimed.

By way of further example, for the offence of false or misleading
representations under the Act, it is not necessary to prove that a
person was, in fact, misled or deceived in order to obtain a
conviction. However, for a private plaintiff to obtain damages, the
plaintiff must prove that it suffered actual loss or damage, as
well as a causal connection between the false or misleading
representation and the loss or damage claimed.

Recognizing the interconnection between public and private
enforcement of competition laws in Canada, the Act permits a
private plaintiff to use the "record of proceedings" in the
criminal court in which the defendant was convicted of the offence
as rebuttable proof that the defendant engaged in the impugned
conduct. As many price-fixing class actions in Canada follow guilty
pleas, plaintiffs are relieved from proving that the defendants
committed an offence contrary to the Act, absent evidence to the
contrary.

Having regard to the foregoing, liability is frequently not an
issue of focus in antitrust/competition class actions. Liability
typically preoccupies a limited number of common issues, such as
(i) whether the defendants, or any of them, engaged in specified
conduct contrary to a section under Part VI of the Act; and (ii)
what is the period in which the conduct at issue took place. As
noted, the "record of proceeding" typically addresses these common
issues entirely or in part.

In contrast, and as demonstrated in many US antitrust class
actions, commonality in respect of loss or damage suffered and the
predominance requirement present unique and complex challenges for
plaintiffs. It is not uncommon (PDF) for economic models to fall
far short of establishing that damages are capable of measurement
on a class wide basis, including where proposed economic models do
not provide a clearly defined list of variables and lack proof that
data related to the proposed variables exist (PDF).

Class definitions in Canadian price-fixing class actions,
particularly following the Supreme Court of Canada's recent
decision in Godfrey, are vast and diverse, encompassing direct,
indirect and now umbrella purchasers. There is no shortage of
skepticism regarding the viability of economic methodologies
seeking to establish that the alleged overcharges have been passed
on to various levels in the distribution chain. There is also
skepticism regarding methodologies offering a realistic prospect of
establishing loss on a class-wide basis.

If it is established that there is a need for individual inquiries
to determine loss or damage under section 36(1) of the Act and what
ultimate relief each class member is entitled to, then loss or
damage issues may be found to overwhelm questions common to the
class. Further, if certification judges see fit to inquire into the
merits of the case as part of the predominance analysis - which is
not unprecedented in US antitrust class actions - proposed
methodologies purporting to offer a realistic prospect of
establishing loss on a class-wide basis may be subject to
significant probative challenges. Having particular regard to these
issues, plaintiffs may not be able to satisfy the proposed
preferability requirements.

Of course, the preferability requirements will be interpreted by
Ontario's certification judges, and there is no way to predict how
these new changes will be interpreted and the outcome of those
decisions, including whether Ontario's certification judges will
interpret them like US Federal Rule 23(b)(3) has been generally
interpreted in the US. However, the new preferability requirements
could be game changers in a province where plaintiffs have
otherwise had considerable success certifying private
antitrust/competition class actions. [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 ***