/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200902.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, September 2, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 176

                            Headlines

1ST RELIANT: Fabricant Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
ABETTERFINANCIALPLAN.COM: Caputo Files RICO Suit in Delaware
ADVANCE PRIDE: Raimann Files Suit in Delaware
AHDS BAGEL: Morales Sues in S.D. New York Alleging FLSA Violation
ALCLEAR LLC: Mead Suit Transferred to California

ALPHABET INC: McCoy Balks at Unlawful Personal Data Collection
AMERICAN EAGLE: Myers Seeks Collective Status
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Nickerson Sues Over 5% Drop in Share Price
AQUA-LUNG AMERICA: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Cruz Says
ARBORWEAR LLC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Cruz Alleges

ARIZONA: Teen Seeks Cost for Male Chest Reconstruction Surgery
ARMORED REPUBLIC: Young Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS: JM Antitrust Suit Moved to Delaware
ATLANTIC LOTTERY: Stikeman Elliott Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
BBVA USA: Chattopadhyay Class Suit in California Ongoing

BBVA USA: Continues to Defend Ferguson Class Action in Alabama
BOLL & BRANCH: Griffith Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. California
BRODIE STORE: Fails to Pay Legal Minimum Wages, Crenshaw Claims
BSA LTD: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Sham Contracting
C&W FACILITY: Underpays Employees, Knecht Claims

CABOT OIL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss GoTo Services Spinoff Suit Pending
CITY PARK CLEARWATER: Hollis Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
CLEVELAND, OH: Appeals Court Flips Dismissal of Yoby Breach Suit
COBRA ACQUISITIONS: Lejeune Class Certification Bid Granted

COMPLETE BUSINESS: Fleetwood Suit Seeks to Certify 4 Classes
CONTINENTAL 409: Hollis Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
CONTRACTED MEDICAL: Court Denies Snyder Class Certification Bid
DENNY'S INC: Rafferty Bid for Collective Status Denied
DEUTSCHE BANK: Wins Final OK of $15MM Securities Suit Settlement

DONALD J. TRUMP: Gomez Suit Seeks to Certify 4 Subclasses
DOUGH SLINGER: Misclassifies General Managers, Chaney Claims
ELI LILLY: Continues to Defend Litigation Over Insulin Products
ENCOMPASS HEALTH: No Trial Date Set Yet in Nichols Suit
ENERGY RECOVERY: Kirby McInerney Reminds of September 21 Deadline

EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Gross Sues Over Unlawful Credit Reporting
EVERCORE INC: Settlement in Adeptus' 2014 IPO Suit Wins Final OK
FEDEX GROUND: Graef Suit Removed From Super. Court to C.D. Calif.
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
FISHUSA INC: Calcano Alleges Violation under ADA in New York

FMA ALLIANCE: Wosner Alleges Violation under FDCPA
FMA ALLIANCE: Wosner Asserts Breach of FDCPA
G.D. BARRI: Fails to Pay Overtime, Gardner Claims
GENERAL MOTORS: Scobey Seeks Proper OT Pay for Maintenance Staff
GENERALI US: Refuses to Refund Trip Cancellations, Flanigan Says

GENERALI US: Sanchez Seeks Pay for Canceled Trip Due to Pandemic
GEODIS LOGISTICS: Palacio Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
GITIBIN & ASSOCIATES: Underpays Employees, Vasquez Claims
HAPPY DOTS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Fischler Claims
HOOVESTOL INC: Hardwick Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California

HUNT OIL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages & OT, Davis Claims
I LOVE THIS BAR: Young Seeks Proper Wage for Bartenders
INSPERITY INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of September 21 Deadline
IRVING N. MOTOR: Gilmore Files TCPA Suit in Texas
J2 GLOBAL: Klein Law Reminds of Sept. 8 Motion Deadline

JEFFERSON INSURANCE: Denies Travel Policy Coverage, Saag Claims
JIANG WU INC: Olsen Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Bid to Dismiss Gumm Action under Advisement
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Still Defends Aqueous Film-Forming Foam Suits
JZANUS LTD: Schwartz Files Suit Under FDCPA

KLOECKNER METALS: Delgado Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Jimenez MFWA Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
KRAFT HEINZ: Rocco et al. Sue Over Deceptive Coffee Products Ads
KRIGER LAW: Almada Seeks to Certify Class
L-RAY LLC: Faces Rojas Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.

LABORATORY CORP: Bid to Dismiss AMCA-Related Suit Pending
LABORATORY CORP: Conditional Class Cert. Bid in Mitchell Denied
LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Voluntary Dismissal of Tanious Suit Granted
LIMANI 51: Faces Rahman Suit Over Violations of Human Rights Laws
LLOYD'S LONDON: Hair Salon Sues Over Denied Insurance Claims

MAKITA USA: Fails to Pay Proper Minimum & OT Wages, Jimenez Says
MASUDA INVESTMENTS: Clevenger Seeks Minimum and Overtime Wages
MCCBREN CORP: Faces Hernandez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
MCKESSON CORPORATION: McDonald Files PI Suit in Delaware
MDL 2445: 3rd Cir. Upholds Class Certification of Suboxone Suit

MDL 2953: Court Denies Centralization of 12 Hernia Mesh Suits
MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Mulls Appeal of Cleven Summary Judgment
MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Mulls Appeal of Summary Judgment Ruling
MIDLAND FUNDING: Church FDCPA Class Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
MIMEDX GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Carpenters Pension Fund Suit Pending

MORGAN STANLEY: Blythe Files Suit in New York
NB NETWORK: Faces Herrera Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
NEW JERSEY: Court Narrows RLUIPA Claims in Abdul-Aziz Inmate Suit
ONESPAN INC: Hagens Berman Announces Securities Class Action
ONESPAN INC: Kirby McInerney Announces Securities Class Action

OP REALTY: Liu, et al. Seek to Certify Class of Chinese Citizens
PISA GROUP: Williams Seeks to Certify Class in TCPA Suit
PLAYAGS INC: Oklahoma Police Sues Over Decline in Share Price
PORTLAND GENERAL: Oregon High Court Denies Petition for Review
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: Settles Retirement Fund Class Suit for $5.8MM

QG PRINTING: Sims Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to C.D. California
REBECCA ADDUCCI: Court Certifies Class & Habeas Litigation Group
RICK SNYDER: Duplicate Class Cert Bid Stricken in Flint Water Case
ROOSEVELT UNIVERSITY: Felix Wants Refunds After COVID-19 Closure
RYDER SYSTEM: Putative Securities Class Suit in Florida Ongoing

SANTANDER BANK: Pokrovski Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
SCRIPPS MEDIA: Suris Alleges Violation under ADA
SERVICE CORP: Appeal in Moulton Class Suit Remains Pending
SERVICE CORP: Continues to Defend Taylor Class Suit in Florida
SKI DATA: Navarro Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to C.D. California

SKY SOLAR: Schall Law Firm Reminds of September 15 Deadline
SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Hedges Says
SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Petition for Review in St. Lucie Suit Pending
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Class Suits Over Accounting Review Ongoing
SPSG PARTNERS: Whiteside Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California

TAILORED INDUSTRY: Olsen Allges Violation under ADA
TRANS WORLD: Suit Over VIP Backstage Pass Memberships Ongoing
UNITED PARCEL: Garvey Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage
VBI VACCINES: Dec. 3 Preliminary Hearing in Suit v. SciVac
VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action

VELOCITY INVESTMENTS: Bailey Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
WALGREEN CO: Robinson et al. Claim Acetaminophen Label Misleading
WHITEFEATHER HOLDINGS: Faces French Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
WILLIS TOWERS: Supreme Court Asked to Weigh in on Janvey Accord
WINCO HOLDINGS: Castanon Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California

ZZOUNDS MUSIC: Calcano Alleges Violation under ADA

                            *********

1ST RELIANT: Fabricant Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. 1ST RELIANT HOME LOANS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 8:20-cv-01549 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 20, 2020),
arises from the illegal actions of the Defendants in negligently
contacting the Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading the
Plaintiff's privacy.

According to the complaint, the Company contacted the Plaintiff's
cellular telephone ending in -1083, in an effort to solicit the
Plaintiff to purchase the Defendants' services, beginning in
October 2018, using an "automatic telephone dialing system", as
defined by 47 U.S.C. Section 227(a)(1).

According to the complaint, the Defendant never received
Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an
automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded
voice on Plaintiff's cellular telephone.

1st Reliant Home Loans, Inc., is a California-based lender
providing business loans, lines of credit and other financial
products.[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
          Telephone: (323) 306-4234
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  twheeler@toddflaw.com


ABETTERFINANCIALPLAN.COM: Caputo Files RICO Suit in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against
AbetterFinancialPlan.com. The case is styled as Joseph Caputo and
Joan Caputo, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Dean Vagnozzi, AbetterFinancialPlan.com,
doing business as: A Better Financial Plan, John W. Pauciulo,
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, ABFP Management Company, LLC,
ABFP Income Fund, LLC, ABFP Income Fund 2, L.P., ABFP Income Fund
3, LLC, ABFP Income Fund 4, LLC, ABFP Income Fund 5, LLC, ABFP
Income Fund 6, LLC, ABFP Income Fund 7, LLC, ABFP Income Fund
Parallel LLC, ABFP Income Fund 2 Parallel LLC, ABFP Income Fund 3
Parallel LLC, ABFP Income Fund 4 Parallel LLC, ABFP Income Fund 6
Parallel LLC and ABFP Income Fund 7 Parallel LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01041-UNA (D. Del., Aug. 5, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as
Racketeer/Corrupt Organization filed pursuant to the Racketeering
(RICO) Act.

A Better Financial Plan has been providing alternative investment
opportunities for over 15 years.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Robert J. Kriner , Jr., Esq.
   Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP
   2711 Centerville Road, Suite 201
   Wilmington, DE 19808
   Tel: (302) 656-2500
   Fax: (302) 656-9053
   Email: rjk@chimicles.com

      - and -

   Scott M. Tucker, Esq.
   Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP
   2711 Centerville Road, Suite 201
   Wilmington, DE 19808
   Tel: (302) 656-2500
   Email: scotttucker@chimicles.com

     - and -

   Tiffany Joanne Cramer, Esq.
   Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP
   2711 Centerville Road, Suite 201
   Wilmington, DE 19808
   Tel: (302) 656-2500
   Email: tjc@chimicles.com

ADVANCE PRIDE: Raimann Files Suit in Delaware
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advance Pride
International Limited. The case is styled as Dale Raimann and John
Styslinger, Plaintiffs v. Advance Pride International Limited, Dang
Yu (George) Pan, Essence International Financial Holdings Limited,
HPJ Merger Sub Corp., HPJ Parent Limited, Jie Wang, Joseph Fisher,
Ping (David) Li, Wen Liang Li and Wen Wei Ma, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-02847-BHH (D. Del., Aug. 5, 2020).

The case type is stated as Breach of Fiduciary Duties.

Advance Pride International Limited is an Offshore driller.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Blake Bennett, Esq.
   Cooch & Taylor Pa-Wilmington
   1000 W St 10th Fl
   Wilmington, DE 19899
   Tel: : (302) 984-3889
   Fax: (302) 984-3939
   Email: bbennett@coochtaylor.com



AHDS BAGEL: Morales Sues in S.D. New York Alleging FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AHDS Bagel LLC, et
al. The case is captioned as Binicio Morales, Salvador Sanchez, and
Fabian De Jesus, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. AHDS Bagel LLC; 1101 Bagel Corp., doing business as:
Pick A Bagel; Ariey Nussbaum; Haim Wysoki; and Dov Moshe, Case No.
1:20-cv-06590 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 18, 2020).

The lawsuit arises from violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The lawsuit alleges denial of overtime compensation.

AHDS Bagel specializes in retail bakeries.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


ALCLEAR LLC: Mead Suit Transferred to California
------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Meredith Mead, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alclear, LLC and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, was transferred from the Los
Angeles Superior Court with the assigned Case No. 20STCV19395 to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on August 18, 2020, and assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-07480.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other
Fraud.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.

The Defendant is represented by:

   Laura Alexandra Stoll, Esq.
   Goodwin Procter LLP
   601 S Figueroa St
   Los Angeles, CA 90017

ALPHABET INC: McCoy Balks at Unlawful Personal Data Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case ROBERT MCCOY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALPHABET INC., a Delaware
corporation, and GOOGLE LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-05427 (N.D. Cal., August 5, 2020)
arises from Defendants' monitoring, collection, and misuse of
Plaintiff's and Class members' sensitive personal data without
obtaining meaningful consent or providing adequate disclosures as
required by law.

According to the complaint, Google has abused its market position
to gain an unfair advantage against its competitors in other
industries, including social media platforms and applications such
as TikTok, Facebook, and Instagram.

Specifically, Google has relied on an internal secret program
called "Android Lockbox." This program allows Google employees to
spy on Android Smartphone users. Through Android Lockbox, Google
employees have been able to monitor and collect sensitive personal
data on users when they interact with non-Google applications on
their smartphones. In doing so, Google has foregone obtaining
meaningful consent from consumers, like Plaintiff and Class
members, and has chosen to secretively monitor and collect users'
sensitive personal data for this undisclosed purpose.

The actions of Google are an invasion of Plaintiff's and Class
members' privacy interests, as established through California's
privacy laws and California's Constitution. In addition, Google's
actions constitute a breach of contract and implied contract, as
well as violations of the common law and several state laws.

Alphabet Inc. is the successor issuer to, and parent holding
company of Google LLC. Alphabet owns all the equity interest in
Google LLC.

Google LLC is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products, which
include online advertising technologies, a search engine, cloud
computing, software, and hardware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
          Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq.
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 788-4220
          Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
          E-mail: rschubert@sjk.law
                  wjonckheer@sjk.law

               - and -

          Christian Levis, Esq.
          Amanda Fiorilla, Esq.
          Henry Kusjanovic, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: clevis@lowey.com
                  afiorilla@lowey.com
                  hkusjanovic@lowey.com

               - and -   

          Anthony M. Christina, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          One Tower Bridge 100 Front Street, Suite 520
          West Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (215) 399-4770
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: achristina@lowey.com

AMERICAN EAGLE: Myers Seeks Collective Status
----------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA MYERS, et al., on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN
EAGLE PLUMBING & DRAIN CLEANING, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-00429-MWM (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order:

   1. conditionally certifying the Fair Labor Standards Act
      collective action and provide notice to the putative class
      members:

      "all current and former technicians of American Eagle
      Plumbing & Drain Cleaning, LLC, American Eagle Plumbing
      and Drain Cleaning of Dayton Inc., and American Eagle
      Plumbing and Drain Cleaning of Florida, LLC who worked in
      the field providing plumbing services and who worked over
      40 hours in any workweek beginning July 21, 2017 through
      the date of final disposition of this case"

      - and -

      "all current and former technicians of American Eagle
      Plumbing & Drain Cleaning, LLC, American Eagle Plumbing
      and Drain Cleaning of Dayton Inc., and American Eagle
      Plumbing and Drain Cleaning of Florida, LLC who worked in
      the field providing plumbing services and who did not earn
      minimum wage for all hours worked in any workweek
      beginning July 21, 2017 through the date of final
      disposition of this case";

   2. directing the Defendants to provide Plaintiffs' Counsel a
      list (in Microsoft Office Excel format) containing the
      names and last known addresses (including zip code), email
      addresses, and phone numbers of the following employees in
      their possession;

   3. directing the Plaintiffs' counsel to mail the Putative
      Collective Class Members via First Class U.S. Mail and
      email within seven days of receiving the list; and

   4. giving the Putative Collective Class Members 60 days from
      the date the Notice Packet is mailed to return their
      Consent to Join form and join this case.

American Eagle offers plumbing, sewer and drain cleaning.[CC]

Attorney for the Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees are:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael B. Mattingly, Esq.
          Lindsey N. Boyd, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
          255 East Fifth Street, Suite 1900
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 977-8397
          Facsimile: (513) 977-8141
          E-mail: michael.mattingly@dinsmore.com
                  Lindseyn.boyd@dinsmore.com

AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Nickerson Sues Over 5% Drop in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
DIANA NICKERSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, INC., NICHOLAS K.
AKINS, BRIAN X. TIERNEY, and JOSEPH M. BUONAIUTO, Case No.
2:20-cv-04243-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 20, 2020) brought on behalf
of persons or entities, who purchased publicly traded American
Electric securities between November 2, 2016, and July 24, 2020,
inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by the
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, On July 21, 2020, the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the Southern District of Ohio issued a press release
entitled "Ohio House Speaker, former chair of Ohio Republican
Party, 3 other individuals & 501(c)(4) entity charged in federal
public corruption racketeering conspiracy involving $60 million."

The documents detailed a brazen scheme by Ohio-based energy
companies to corrupt the political process and undermine democratic
institutions in the State of Ohio in order to secure passage of
Ohio House Bill 6 ("HB6"). The allegations contained in the
criminal complaints and affidavits were supported by detailed
transcripts of phone calls, recorded conversations, text messages,
bank records and contemporaneous documentary evidence.

The scheme went further, hiring top signature collection firms in
order to prevent them from working on the ballot initiative by
creating a conflict of interest. Energy company-funded Generation
Now paid at least 15 such firms not to work. The enterprise also
bribed an employee of the citizens' ballot initiative for inside
information that could be used against the campaign. The
transaction was implemented by Matthew Borges, then a lobbyist, who
was also the former Chairman of the Ohio Republican Party, and
current criminal defendant in the Criminal Proceedings. Other
operatives bribed signature collectors in order to subvert the
ballot campaign's efforts. In the end, the Plaintiff contends, the
energy companies' massive resources and unscrupulous tactics
successfully prevented the referendum from gathering the requisite
signatures and HB6 remained in effect.

On this news, shares of AEP shares fell $4.79 per share, or over
5%, to close at $83.26 per share on July 27, 2020, the next trading
day, on unusually heavy trading volume, damaging investors.

American Electric Power Company, Inc., is an electric public
utility holding company which engages in the generation,
transmission, and distribution of electricity for sale to retail
and wholesale customers in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
          Beau D. Hollowell, Esq.
          KARON LLC
          700 W. St. Clair Ave., Ste. 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 622-1851
          Facsimile: (216) 241-8175
          E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com
                  bhollowell@karonllc.com

               - and -

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                  lrosen@rosenlegal.com


AQUA-LUNG AMERICA: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Cruz Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHAEL CRUZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AQUA-LUNG AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-05655 (S.D.N.Y., July 21, 2020) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

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

Aqua-Lung America, Inc. manufactures and distributes sporting
goods. The Company offers diving boots, gloves, knives, gear bags,
underwater cameras, masks, padding gears, life vests, load bearing
harnesses, swimming apparels, and dry wear garments. Aqua-Lung
America serves customers in the United States. [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
          E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal


ARBORWEAR LLC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Cruz Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
SHAEL CRUZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARBORWEAR LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-05656 (S.D.N.Y., July 22, 2020) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

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

Newell Brands, Inc. retails consumer products. The Company offers
housewares, home furnishings, office supplies, tools and hardware,
and hair accessories. Newell Brands markets its products worldwide.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575-4175
          E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal


ARIZONA: Teen Seeks Cost for Male Chest Reconstruction Surgery
--------------------------------------------------------------
D.H., by and through his mother, JANICE HENNESSY-WALLER; and JOHN
DOE, by his guardian and next friend, SUSAN DOE, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JAMI
SNYDER, Director of the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment
System, in her official capacity, Defendant, Case No.
4:20-cv-00335-SHR (D. Ariz., August 6, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Medicaid Act, the
Affordable Care Act, and the Equal Protection Clause.

According to the complaint, the Defendant refuses to cover male
chest reconstruction surgery as treatment for gender dysphoria. The
Plaintiffs are transgender teenagers who urgently need male chest
reconstruction surgery to alleviate their gender dysphoria. Both
teenagers are forced to self-treat their gender dysphoria by
wearing restrictive bindings to reduce the profile of their chests.
The Plaintiffs' treating providers are very concerned about the
many negative health consequences of those binders. Despite these
ongoing harms, the Defendant categorically excludes male chest
reconstruction surgery for treatment of gender dysphoria.

As a result of the Defendant's denial of coverage, the Plaintiffs
and all others similarly situated transgender teenagers are harmed
both physically and mentally. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
     
         Daniel C. Barr, Esq.
         Janet M. Howe, Esq.
         PERKINS COIE LLP
         2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2000
         Phoenix, AZ 85012-2788
         Telephone: (602) 351-8085
         Facsimile: (602) 648-7085
         E-mail: dbarr@perkinscoie.com
                 jhowe@perkinscoie.com

                - and –
         
         Brent P. Ray, Esq.
         Andrew J. Chinsky, Esq.
         KING & SPALDING LLP
         353 N. Clark Street, 12th Floor
         Chicago, IL 60654
         Telephone: (312) 995-6333
         Facsimile: (312) 995-6330
         E-mail: bray@kslaw.com
                 achinsky@kslaw.com

                - and –
         
         Asaf Orr, Esq.
         NATIONAL CENTER FOR LESBIAN RIGHTS
         870 Market Street, Suite 370
         San Francisco, CA 94102
         Telephone: (415) 392-6257
         Facsimile: (415) 392-8442
         E-mail: aorr@nclrights.org

                - and –
         
         Abigail K. Coursolle, Esq.
         Catherine McKee, Esq.
         NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM
         3701 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 750
         Los Angeles, CA 90010
         Telephone: (310) 204-6010
         E-mail: coursolle@healthlaw.org
                 mckee@healthlaw.org

ARMORED REPUBLIC: Young Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
Armored Republic LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Armored Republic LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-06605-VEC (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 18, 2020).

Armored Republic LLC was founded in 2012. The company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of durable goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS: JM Antitrust Suit Moved to Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JM SMITH CORPORATION d/b/a,
SMITH DRUG COMPANY, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS L.P.; ASTRAZENECA L.P.;
ASTRAZENECA UK LIMITED; HANDA PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC; and PAR
PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-07233 (Filed Aug. 2, 2019),
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware (Wilmington) on Aug. 18, 2020.

The District of Delaware Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-01076-UNA to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the antitrust
laws concerning the pharmaceutical drug Seroquel XR (TM)
(quetiapine fumarate extended-release tablets) (Seroquel XR). This
civil antitrust action seeks treble damages arising out of the
Defendants' anticompetitive conduct that delayed generic
competition in the United States and its territories for Seroquel
XR, a prescription drug product approved by U.S. Food and Drug
Administration in the United States.

Seroquel XR is used for (1) add-on treatment to an antidepressant
for patients with major depressive disorder who did not have an
adequate response to antidepressant therapy; (2) acute depressive
episodes in bipolar disorder; (3) acute manic or mixed episodes in
bipolar disorder alone or with lithium or divalproex; (4) long-term
treatment of bipolar disorder with lithium or divalproex; and (5)
schizophrenia.

The Plaintiff seeks overcharge damages arising from AstraZeneca's
unlawful agreements with Handa and Accord Pharmaceuticals, Inc. not
to compete in the market for Seroquel XR and corresponding generic
versions thereof in the United States. Handa subsequently assigned
this unlawful agreement to Par, which performed the agreement, sold
generic Seroquel XR at supracompetitive prices, and shared the
illicit gains with Handa.

Smith Drug Company is a Spartanburg, South Carolina-based drug
wholesale company and a division of J M Smith Corporation.

AstraZeneca manufactures, fabricates, and processes drugs in
pharmaceutical preparations.[BN]

Plaintiff JM Smith is represented by:

          Stuart E. Des Roches, Esq.
          Andrew W. Kelly, Esq.
          ODOM & DES ROCHES, LLC
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 2020
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 522-0077
          E-mail: stuart@odrlaw.com
                  akelly@odrlaw.com

               - and -

          Russell A. Chorush, Esq.
          HEIM PAYNE & CHORUSH, LLP
          1111 Bagby, Suite 2100
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 221-2000
          E-mail: rchorush@hpcllp.com

               - and -

          David F. Sorensen, Esq.
          Caitlin G. Coslett, Esq.
          Michaela L. Wallin, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net
                  ccoslett@bm.net
                  mwallin@bm.net

               - and -

          Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq.
          Joseph Opper, Esq.
          Kimberly M. Hennings, Esq.
          Dan Litvin, Esq.
          GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP
          88 Pine Street, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 398-0055
          E-mail: bgerstein@garwingerstein.com
                  jopper@garwingerstein.com
                  khennings@garwingerstein.com
                  dlitvin@garwingerstein.com

               - and -

          Susan C. Segura, Esq.
          David C. Raphael, Jr., Esq.
          Erin R. Leger, Esq.
          SMITH SEGURA & RAPHAEL, LLP
          3600 Jackson Street, Suite 111
          Alexandria, LA 71303
          Telephone: (318) 445-4480
          E-mail: draphael@ssrllp.com
                  eleger@ssrllp.com

               - and -

          Peter Kohn, Esq.
          Joseph T. Lukens, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1550
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 277-5770
          E-mail: pkohn@faruqilaw.com
                  jlukens@faruqilaw.com


ATLANTIC LOTTERY: Stikeman Elliott Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandra Urbanski, Esq. -- aurbanski@stikeman.com -- and Sinziana
Hennig, Esq. -- shennig@stikeman.com -- of Stikeman Elliott LLP, in
an article for Mondaq, report that in a long-awaited development
for class action practice, the Supreme Court of Canada in Atlantic
Lottery Corp. Inc. v. Babstock ("Atlantic Lottery") has held that
waiver of tort and disgorgement are not independent causes of
action.

For the past 16 years, plaintiffs in proposed class actions have
often advanced waiver of tort or disgorgement claims for recovery
of defendants' gains from alleged wrongdoing. Plaintiffs have
pursued these gains-based remedies primarily to avoid having to
prove loss to class members, which would often require
individualized inquiries that can disqualify a case from class
action certification.

Given the legal uncertainty surrounding these doctrines, courts
have been reluctant to find that gains-based claims disclosed no
reasonable cause of action before or at the certification stage.
The Supreme Court of Canada had the opportunity to resolve the
confusion regarding waiver of tort in its 2013 decision in Pro Sys
Consultants Ltd. v. Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft"), but
declined to do so.

The Ruling

In Atlantic Lottery, the Supreme Court held that waiver of tort and
disgorgement are not independent causes of action that can relieve
plaintiffs from having to prove damage to class members. In doing
so, the Court emphasized the importance of disposing of hopeless
claims at an early stage, regardless of whether those claims are
"novel". The decision does away with waiver of tort, and confirms
the very limited availability of disgorgement and punitive damages
in breach of contract cases.

Background: History of the proceeding

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action against the
defendant lottery corporation, alleging that video lottery
terminals ("VLTs") were inherently dangerous and deceptive. As an
intentional strategy to increase the likelihood of certification,
the plaintiffs pleaded that they were not advancing claims for
injuries suffered by class members, but for the total gain realized
by the defendant from VLTs, which would not require any individual
inquiries. The plaintiffs relied on the following claims:

   * waiver of tort, a doctrine said to permit plaintiffs in tort
cases to forgo (or "waive") compensation for their losses and
recover the gain made by the defendant instead, without proof of
loss;

  * disgorgement of the defendant's gains and punitive damages for
breach of contract, and in particular, of an alleged implied term
of the defendant's contract with VLT users to provide safe games;
and

  * unjust enrichment, on the basis that the defendant received a
benefit at the expense of VLT users in the absence of any juristic
reason.

The defendant brought an application to strike the plaintiffs'
claim on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of
action.

The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador dismissed the
defendant's application to strike and held that the plaintiffs had
satisfied the requirements for certification.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal substantially upheld
the certification judge's conclusions. The defendant appealed this
decision to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's Analysis

At the Supreme Court, a 5-4 majority struck all of the plaintiffs'
claims and denied certification. The majority held that a cause of
action for waiver of tort does not exist and that the plaintiffs'
other claims were doomed to failure. The dissenting judges would
have struck the claim for waiver of tort but upheld certification
of the breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims.

Waiver of tort

The unanimous Court agreed that a cause of action for waiver of
tort does not exist in Canadian law.

Justice Brown, writing for the majority, acknowledged that no
Canadian authority had ever recognized waiver of tort as a cause of
action, but that many class action certification decisions,
including the Supreme Court in Microsoft, had declined to find that
it did not exist. He indicated that it was appropriate to
definitively resolve the issue for several reasons, including the
need for a "culture shift" towards resolving disputes promptly,
even where they may involve "novel" claims, and the need to resolve
a state of legal uncertainty that was consuming court time and
litigant resources.

Justice Brown held that the term "waiver of tort" is confusing and
should be abandoned. He identified the plaintiffs' claim as one of
disgorgement for wrongdoing. While disgorgement is available for
some forms of wrongdoing without proof of damage (e.g. breach of
fiduciary duty), it is not available in response to negligent
conduct, because causing damage to a plaintiff is what makes
negligent conduct wrongful. Negligence "in the air" -- the mere
creation of risk -- is not a wrong.

Justice Brown also noted practical difficulties in how an action in
negligence without proof of damage would operate. The claim would
entitle any plaintiff falling within the risk created by the
defendant to recover all of the defendant's gains. Justice Brown
reiterated that "recovery in tort demands an explanation as to why
the plaintiff is the party entitled to a remedy" and should not
encourage "a race to recovery by awarding a windfall to the first
plaintiff who arrives at the courthouse steps."

Disgorgement and punitive damages for breach of contract

The majority struck the plaintiffs' breach of contract claim on the
basis that it could not support the remedies the plaintiffs were
seeking, namely disgorgement and punitive damages.

Justice Brown noted that compensatory damages are the ordinary
remedy for breach of contract, and that the orthodox legal position
was that disgorgement of the defendants' profits was not an
available remedy. While courts have accepted that disgorgement may
be available for breach of contract in certain exceptional
circumstances, Brown J. indicated that, at a minimum, the plaintiff
would have to have a legitimate interest in preventing the
defendant's profit-making activity that could not be vindicated by
other remedies.

Justice Brown held that there was nothing exceptional about the
alleged breach of contract that would warrant disgorgement of the
defendant's profits, as the plaintiffs' claim was simply that they
"paid to play a gambling game and did not get exactly what they
paid for." Furthermore, plaintiffs are not entitled to disgorgement
merely because they are unwilling or lack evidence to prove loss.

Justice Brown reiterated that punitive damages for breach of
contract are also exceptional and will only be awarded where there
is an independent actionable wrong. While a breach of a duty of
good faith can be an actionable wrong, not every contract imposes
good faith obligations. As the alleged contract did not fit within
any of the established good faith categories, the plaintiffs' claim
for punitive damages had no reasonable chance of success.

Unjust enrichment
The majority held that the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim also
had no reasonable chance of success. Justice Brown confirmed that
unjust enrichment requires establishing that:

  * the defendant was enriched,

  * the plaintiffs suffered a corresponding deprivation; and

  * there was no juristic reason for the enrichment and
corresponding deprivation.

In this case, the plaintiffs' own pleadings alleged that there was
a contract between the defendant and the plaintiffs under which the
plaintiffs paid to play VLTs, and nothing in the pleadings could
vitiate the alleged contract. A defendant that gets a benefit
pursuant to a valid contract is justified (i.e. has a juristic
reason) in retaining that benefit.

Implications

The Supreme Court's decision has important takeaways for class
action defendants.

First, Atlantic Lottery resolves the long-standing uncertainty
regarding waiver of tort. Plaintiffs will no longer be able to
plead waiver of tort in order to have claims certified without
having to grapple with how they would prove harm on a class-wide
basis. The decision also provides that disgorgement is not
available in negligence cases. While Atlantic Lottery does not
categorically foreclose claims for disgorgement for breach of
contract, it sets stringent requirements for such potential
claims.

Second, Atlantic Lottery shows a welcome willingness by the Court
to dispose of legal issues at an early stage in a class proceeding.
The majority decision acknowledges that leaving issues such as
waiver of tort unresolved wastes court time and litigant resources,
and "can and does result in certification to the detriment of the
defendant, who is then practically compelled to pay a settlement to
the plaintiff." In addition to waiver of tort, the majority
decision also engages with and disposes of claims for disgorgement,
unjust enrichment, breach of duty of good faith, and punitive
damages for breach of contract.

Going forward, Atlantic Lottery should signal to certification
judges that close scrutiny of the pleadings in proposed class
actions is appropriate and beneficial to the administration of
justice. [GN]


BBVA USA: Chattopadhyay Class Suit in California Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a
putative class action suit entitled, Amitahbo Chattopadhyay v. BBVA
USA Bancshares, Inc., et al.

In March 2019, the Company and its subsidiary, Simple Finance
Technology Corp., were named as defendants in a putative class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, Amitahbo Chattopadhyay v. BBVA USA
Bancshares, Inc., et al.

Plaintiff claims that Simple and the Company only permit United
States citizens to open Simple accounts (which are exclusively
originated through online channels).

Plaintiff has recently amended the complaint and now also takes
issue with BBVA USA's practice of directing non-citizen applicants
to complete the online account origination processes in a physical
branch location.

Plaintiff alleges that these practices constitute alienage
discrimination and violations of California's Unruh Act.

The Company believes that there are substantial defenses to these
claims and intends to defend them vigorously.

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

BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. (the Parent) is a financial holding
company that conducts its business operations primarily through its
commercial banking subsidiary, BBVA USA, which is an Alabama
banking corporation headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. The
Parent was organized in 2007 as a Texas corporation. In April,
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. (BBVA) announced that it was
moving to unify its brand globally. As part of this re-branding,
the Bank will transition away from the use of the BBVA Compass name
and be re-branded as BBVA. As part of this re-branding, effective
June 10, 2019, the Parent amended its Certificate of Formation to
change its legal name from BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. to BBVA
USA Bancshares, Inc.

The Parent is a wholly owned subsidiary of BBVA. BBVA is a global
financial services group founded in 1857. It has a significant
market position in Spain, owns the largest financial institution in
Mexico, has franchises in South America, has a banking position in
Turkey and operates an extensive global branch network. BBVA
acquired the Company in 2007.


BBVA USA: Continues to Defend Ferguson Class Action in Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------
BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class
action suit entitled, Ferguson v. BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc.

In July 2019, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama, Ferguson v. BBVA USA Bancshares,
Inc., wherein the plaintiffs allege certain investment options
within the Company's employee retirement plan violate provisions of
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 is (ERISA).

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief.

The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these claims
and intends to defend them vigorously.

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

BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. (the Parent) is a financial holding
company that conducts its business operations primarily through its
commercial banking subsidiary, BBVA USA, which is an Alabama
banking corporation headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. The
Parent was organized in 2007 as a Texas corporation. In April,
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. (BBVA) announced that it was
moving to unify its brand globally. As part of this re-branding,
the Bank will transition away from the use of the BBVA Compass name
and be re-branded as BBVA. As part of this re-branding, effective
June 10, 2019, the Parent amended its Certificate of Formation to
change its legal name from BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. to BBVA
USA Bancshares, Inc.

The Parent is a wholly owned subsidiary of BBVA. BBVA is a global
financial services group founded in 1857. It has a significant
market position in Spain, owns the largest financial institution in
Mexico, has franchises in South America, has a banking position in
Turkey and operates an extensive global branch network. BBVA
acquired the Company in 2007.


BOLL & BRANCH: Griffith Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Dena Griffith, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Boll & Branch,
LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-01181, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California (Western Division, Los
Angeles) on Aug. 14, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-07345-PA-PLA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Percy Anderson.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act. The docket states nature of suit as 890 Other Statutory
Actions.

Boll & Branch is a privately held, U.S. based, e-commerce company
that sells luxury bedding online. Headquartered in Summit, New
Jersey, the Company manufactures and sells organic cotton bed
linens, blankets and bath towels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          David William Hall, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 357-2107
          Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
          E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com
                  dhall@hedinhall.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Amanda Brooke Stubblefield, Esq.
          Steven Charles Coffaro, Esq.
          KEATING MUETHING KLEKAMP PLL
          One East Fourth Street, Suite 1400
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 579-6430
          Facsimile: (513) 579-6457
          E-mail: astubblefield@kmklaw.com
                  steve.coffaro@kmklaw.com

               - and -

          Sean P. Flynn, Esq.
          GORDON & REES, LLP
          5 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 255-6950
          Facsimile: (949) 474-2060
          E-mail: sflynn@grsm.com


BRODIE STORE: Fails to Pay Legal Minimum Wages, Crenshaw Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JARRED CRENSHAW, BO ADAMS, STEPHANIE CAIRNS, MOLLY FOLLEY, RACHEL
HERNANDEZ, MADELINE HOWES, APRIL LAKEY, MICHELLE MARTIN, THOMAS
QUINTERO, EVELYN RINCON, VAUGHN RICHARDSON, ALEXANDRA ROCAMONTES,
AMY SCHAFFNER, CONNOR SONERHOLTERS, and MARSHALL WOMBLE v. BRODIE
STORE, INC., D/B/A WHIP IN, ARIF PRASLA, ZAHIR PRASLA, and WALID
PRASLA, Case No. 1:20-cv-00851-RP (W.D. Tex., Aug. 14, 2020),
alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs the legal
minimum wage as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants' alleged violations include (1) retaining portions
of employee tips while simultaneously claiming a tip credit
pursuant to Section 3(m) of the FLSA (29 U.S.C. section 203(m));
and, (2) requiring tipped employees to perform non-tipped work or
side work in excess of Department of Labor regulations.

The Plaintiffs seeks unpaid wages, damages for unpaid minimum
wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorney's fee and costs
pursuant to the FLSA.

All Plaintiffs worked as bartenders during their respective
employment tenures with the Defendants.

The Defendants operate a combined convenience store and gastropub
called the Whip In, in Austin, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
          Daniel B. Ross, Esq.
          ROSS SCALISE LAW GROUP
          1104 San Antonio Street
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 474-7677
          Facsimile: (512) 474-5306
          E-mail: Charles@rosslawpc.com


BSA LTD: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Sham Contracting
---------------------------------------------------------
Damian McIver, writing for ABC, reports that a company whose
technicians carry out work on behalf of Foxtel, Optus and NBN Co
has been accused of sham contracting in a class action potentially
involving more than 2,000 workers.

The claim, lodged in the Federal Court is against BSA Ltd, a
publicly-listed company which turned over $495 million in the
2018-19 financial year.

It is the second major firm in the telecommunications sector to
face such allegations. Similar action was taken against Tandem in
2018.

Vicky Antzoulatos from Shine Lawyers, which is representing the
workers, said thousands of telecommunications technicians engaged
by BSA as contractors should have been classified as employees.

"BSA set up this system of work . . . to reduce costs and increase
profit, but it's being done at the expense of workers," she said.

According to Ms Antzoulatos, BSA's system of work enabled it to
avoid paying annual leave, sick leave, superannuation and other
basic entitlements.

She said workers bore the full cost of purchasing vehicles, tools,
equipment and insurance, and then had to accept substandard rates
of pay for the jobs on offer.

"Workers were not able to basically make enough money to make ends
meet and that has had devastating consequences [such as] marriage
breakdowns, going into debt, bankruptcy and suicide attempts," she
said.

BSA has denied the allegations and said it "has a long track record
of good working relationships with . . . our independent
contractors".

"We believe our contracting arrangements are compliant with legal
obligations and are in line with those used industry wide by all
reputable major players," the company said.

"We will vigorously defend any action on this matter."

Sunshine Coast man Stuart Pope worked for BSA between 2012 and
2016, primarily installing and fixing Foxtel boxes.

In theory, as an independent contractor, he should have been able
to choose the days and hours he worked, and the clients he
accepted.

He said that was not the case.

"Not one bit -- we had to give a three-month forecast of our
availability -- it was pretty much their way or the highway," he
said.

Val Butler from the Victorian branch of the Communication Workers
Union said BSA exercised significant control over its workforce.

"They're contracted from 7:00 in the morning until 7:00 at night,
they have to make themselves available on weekends," she said.

Mr Pope said he was paid a flat rate for items of work completed,
regardless of how long the particular job took.

"With a service call, you could be there for five minutes, you
could be there for two hours. Out of those service calls all we got
paid was $55," he said.

He said those rates often did not cover the costs of transport,
tools and equipment.

Mr Pope said the conditions inflicted a toll on his mental health,
which deteriorated further after his father died unexpectedly in
2015.

"I probably only had three days off. It was a pretty horrific time
for me because what they [BSA] said to me was that there was no-one
up there to cover the jobs 'so you've got to go do it'."

Industry at 'pointy end of precarious employment', union says

Mr. Pope worked in an industry in which companies have increasingly
moved away from an employment-based model of work to one that
relies on third-party contractors.

Telstra, for example, has shed more than 19,000 workers since 2006
and plans to cut a further 8,000 jobs by 2022.

Ms Butler said it was not the sort of job market in which
telecommunications technicians could easily shop around.

"It really is at the pointy end of precarious employment . . . in
an industry where that's all we seem to see these days," she said.

Ms Antzoulatos said the cases against BSA and Tandem could have
wider ramifications.

"I think there is a lot riding on this case," she said.

In 2018, the Supreme Court of Victoria was asked to consider a
workers compensation dispute involving a BSA contractor.

It ruled that the worker "was not carrying on an independent trade
or business" and was entitled to be covered by BSA's insurance
policy, like a regular employee.

That was an encouraging verdict for those pursuing the claim
against BSA, but there are no guarantees the Federal Court will
view it in the same way.

Whatever the outcome, Mr Pope is much happier now in his new trade
as an electrician.

"Not much stress or worry anymore," he said. "I get paid for every
minute of my job." [GN]


C&W FACILITY: Underpays Employees, Knecht Claims
------------------------------------------------
CHAD KNECHT, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. C&W FACILITY SERVICES INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-03899-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio, July 31, 2020) brings this
complaint against Defendant for its alleged failure to pay
employees overtime wages in violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt
Pay Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly Maintenance
Technician at Defendant's operations located in Etna, Ohio
beginning in 2016 until 2018 and was promoted to Assistant
Maintenance Manager and remained working in that capacity until
2020.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked 40 or more hours per
workweek. However, Plaintiff's daily hours worked automatically
deducted 30 minutes by Defendant for a meal break although
Plaintiff did not take a meal break or the meal break being
interrupted by having to perform work duties. As a result,
Defendant failed to fully and properly paid Plaintiff for all hours
worked, thereby violating the FLSA and the Ohio Acts.

C&W Facility Services Inc. provides facility maintenance, cleaning
and related services for businesses and organizations throughout
the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Tel: 614-949-1181
          Fax: 614-386-9964
          Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com


CABOT OIL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (NYSE: COG) between
October 23, 2015 and June 12, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Cabot investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Cabot class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1920.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) Cabot had inadequate environmental controls and
procedures and/or failed to properly mitigate known issues related
to those controls and procedures; (2) as a result, Cabot, among
other issues, failed to fix faulty gas wells, thereby polluting
Pennsylvania's water supplies through stray gas migration; (3) the
foregoing was foreseeably likely to subject Cabot to increased
governmental scrutiny and enforcement, as well as increased
reputational and financial harm; (4) Cabot continually downplayed
its potential civil and/or criminal liabilities with respect to
such environmental matters; and (5) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October
13, 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-1920.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

CITRIX SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss GoTo Services Spinoff Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Citrix Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the defendants' motions to dismiss the class
action suit related to the company's 2017 spin-off of Citrix's GoTo
family of service offerings remains pending.

On July 25, 2019, a class action lawsuit was filed against Citrix,
LogMeIn, Inc. and certain of their directors and officers in the
Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County,
Florida.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making alleged misstatements and omissions in
LogMeIn's Registration Statement and Prospectus filed in connection
with the 2017 spin-off of Citrix's GoTo family of service offerings
and subsequent merger of that business with LogMeIn.

The complaint seeks among other things the recovery of monetary
damages.

On April 28, 2020, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint, which remain pending.

Citrix said, "We believe that Citrix and our directors have
meritorious defenses to these allegations; however, we are unable
to currently determine the ultimate outcome of this matter or the
potential exposure or loss, if any."

Citrix Systems, Inc., incorporated on April 17, 1989, offers
Enterprise and Service Provider products, which include Workspace
Services solutions and Delivery Networking products. The Company's
Enterprise and Service Provider products include Cloud Services
solutions, and related license updates and maintenance, support and
professional services. The Company's NetScaler nCore Technology is
an architecture that enables execution of multiple packet engines
in parallel. The company is based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.


CITY PARK CLEARWATER: Hollis Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
AARON HOLLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITY PARK CLEARWATER, LLC d/b/a CITY PARK
CLEARWATER APARTMENTS, Defendant, Case No. CACE-20-012559 (Fla.
Cir., 17th Jud., August 3, 2020) is a class action complaint
brought against Defendant for its alleged unlawful conduct in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Defendant sent unsolicited text
messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number in an attempt to
promote its apartments for rent. Defendant allegedly used an
automatic telephone dialing system in transmitting the messages
even without Plaintiff's express written consent to received such
text messages.

City Park Clearwater, LLC d/b/a City Park Clearwater Apartments
operates apartments for rent. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Tel: 954-907-1136
          Emails: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                  tom@jibraellaw.com


CLEVELAND, OH: Appeals Court Flips Dismissal of Yoby Breach Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County,
issued an Opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the Trial
Court's Order granting the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
in the case captioned CLINT YOBY, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants v.
CITY OF CLEVELAND, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 108174 (Ohio
App.).

The City is a municipal corporation and political subdivision under
R.C. 2744.01(F). The City's municipally owned utility Cleveland
Public Power ("CPP") sells electric power to customers in
Cleveland, including residential, commercial, and industrial
customers, such as the Appellants in this case.

In the 1970s, CPP generated electric power and distributed it to
its customers. In 1974, Cleveland City Council passed Ordinance No.
1629-73 that amended and renamed then Section
1.2518--"Environmental and Ecological Adjustment." This section
allowed the City through CPP to recover certain identified costs
incurred in the operation of the utility without need for further
city council action or approval. The two-paragraph section was
renumbered in 1976 during the recodification to current Cleveland
Codified Ordinances ("C.C.O.") 523.17, but the heading stayed
constant--"Environmental and Ecological Adjustment."

By 1977, CPP essentially ceased generating power and became an
electricity reseller. The Parties admit that between 1974 and 1984,
CPP did not assess any costs that would qualify for recoupment
under the Environmental and Ecological Adjustment (hereinafter
"EEA").

This case arises from a class action lawsuit filed by
Plaintiffs-Appellants Clint Yoby, Tremont Scoops L.L.C., 2362
Professor Avenue L.L.C., and Tymex Plastics, Inc., against
Defendant-Appellee the city of Cleveland ("the City") where the
central issue is whether the City was authorized under the law to
assess certain adjustments on customers' electric bills.

The Parties stipulated to class certification, defining the class
as "all Cleveland Public Power customers who paid bills that
included an 'Energy Adjustment Charge' during a time when Cleveland
Public Power was making an Environmental Adjustment in the billed
Energy Adjustment Charge."

Both Parties moved for summary judgment. The City sought full and
complete summary judgment on all claims, and the Appellants sought
partial summary judgment on their breach of contract cause of
action. The Trial Court granted the City's motion for summary
judgment, denied the Appellants' motion for partial summary
judgment, and entered judgment in favor of the City on all claims
of the complaint.

The Appellants appeal from the Trial Court's decision granting
summary judgment in favor of the City on the Appellants' causes of
action for breach of contract, fraud, declaratory judgment,
injunction, and unjust enrichment. The Appellants raised two
assignments of error.  The Appellants do not appeal the denial of
their partial motion for summary judgment.

Decision

In its Opinion, the Appellate Court affirms in part; reverses in
part; and remands the case for further proceedings.

Appellate Judge Kathleen Ann Keough notes that nevertheless,
whether the Appellate Court views C.C.O. 523.17 as ambiguous or
unambiguous, the Appellate Court would reach the same result--that
C.C.O. 523.17 requires that adjustments made to customer bills must
correlate to those costs incurred "for compliance with Federal,
State or City environmental and protection laws." Accordingly, the
Appellate Court agrees with the Appellants.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party, Judge Keough opines that there is a material question of
fact whether the aggregate revenues collected under the base rates
and the authorized adjustment charges exceeded that permitted by
both the base rates and the other ordinances. If it did, the
assessment and collection of the EEA would be unreasonable under
the totality of the ordinances and may constitute a breach of
contract.

Hence, the Appellate Court finds that the Trial Court erred in
granting summary judgment in favor of the City on the Appellants'
breach of contract claim. Because this claim survives summary
judgment, the Appellate Court offers no opinion on the Appellants'
assertion that the City also breached its contract because (1) the
EEA was not separately identified on billings; or (2) any EEA was
not prorated.

Judge Keough also opines, among other things, that the Appellants'
claims for restitution, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief
are based upon the same facts as those supporting their claim for
breach of contract. Therefore, until the questions of fact are
resolved with respect to the breach-of-contract action, there also
exists a dispute of material fact as to the Appellants' other
causes of action. Accordingly, the Trial Court erred in granting
summary judgment in favor of the City on the Appellants' claims for
declaratory relief, injunction, unjust enrichment, and
restitution.

Therefore, the Appellate Court ruled that:

   -- the Appellants' second assignment of error is sustained;

   -- the Judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and
      remanded;

   -- the parties share equally the costs herein taxed;

   -- it finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal;

   -- a special mandate be sent to the Trial Court to carry this
      judgment into execution; and

   -- A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate
      pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' June 18, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybmhmqux from Leagle.com.

Landscroner, Grieco, Merriman, L.L.C., and Jack Landscroner;
Merriman, Legando, Williams & Klang, L.L.C., Drew Legando, Thomas
Merriman, and Edward Jerse; Bashein & Bashein Co., L.P.A., W. Craig
Bashein, and John Hurst; Scott & Scott, L.L.P., and Geoffrey M.
Johnson -- gjohnson@scott-scott.com -- Meyers, Roman, Friedberg &
Lewis, Peter Turner -- pturner@meyersroman.com -- Carolyn Blake --
cblake@meyersroman.com -- and Debra Horn -- dhorn@meyersroman.com
-- for the Appellants.

Calfee, Halter & Griswold, L.L.P., Richard P. Goddard --
rgoddard@calfee.com -- N. Trevor Alexander -- talexander@calfee.com
-- and Abbey Kinson Brown -- abrown@calfee.com -- for the
Appellee.


COBRA ACQUISITIONS: Lejeune Class Certification Bid Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as EJ LEJEUNE, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARY SITUATED; HENRY TORRES VILLEGAS,
JOSE A. REYES DIAZ, JULIO LOPEZ RIOS, et al., v. COBRA
ACQUISITIONS, LLC, ESPADA LOGISTICS AND SECURITY GROUP, LLC, ESPADA
CARIBBEAN, LLC, JAMES JORRIE, JENNIFER GAY JORRIE, Case No.
5:19-cv-00286-JKP-ESC (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth S.
Chestney granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's renewed
motion for conditional certification and for notice to putative
class members as follows:

   --  The Court certifies a collective action under the
       Fair Labor Standards Act, comprised of:

       "all individual engaged by ESPADA to provide services to
       Cobra in Puerto Rico between January 21, 2017 and the
       present who were paid a day-rate."

   --  Notice recipients shall have 60 days following the date
       on which notice is sent to file a proper and complete
       consent form with this Court.

   --  The Plaintiff may send reminder notice by mail and email,
       with language agreed upon by the parties, 45 days after
       notice is sent.

Judge Chestney further ordered that the parties confer on the
remaining disputed issues related to notice and file a joint notice
or, if no agreement is reached, joint competing notices  for the
Court's consideration. In all other respects the motion is denied.

The Plaintiffs include ISRAEL DIAZ, LUIS M. RODRIGUEZ, WILFREDO
SANCHEZ, KELVIN CULP, KERRY POOL, DARIN REID, FORREST SMITH, DARREN
GULIN, CRAIG WRIGHT, JOSHUA GRIMES, BOBBY PATTON, STEVE EBEL, BRIAN
KOPP, RICHARD GIBSON, MIKE SIELICKI, BENNETT ELLIOTT, OSCAR
CASTANOJR., DOMINGO DE LA GARZA, DYLAN SUTTON, CHARLES FOSS, KEVIN
AHEARN, COURTNEY BEASLEY, ROCKY COCHRAN, ENSLEY WINDHAM, TYLER
NEGRI, RICARDO BENAVIDESJR., ZACHARY AKEY, DANIEL PERALES,
ALEXANDRE PENNANT, CHARLES ENMANJR., RUBEN TREJO, MICHAEL TUCKER,
MANOLO MAURIZ, MAX HIDALGO, ESEQUIEL NAVEJAS, MARIO BELLAMY, NEYSHA
DIAZ, JON-MIKEL MOODY, GIOVANNI PEREZ, JON-MIKEL MOODY, STEVEN T.
SALMON, PORTALATIN M. TORRES, and JOHN NEGRI.

Cobra Acquisitions is part of the investment firms industry.[CC]

COMPLETE BUSINESS: Fleetwood Suit Seeks to Certify 4 Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as FLEETWOOD SERVICES, LLC,
ROBERT L. FLEETWOOD and PAMELA A. FLEETWOOD, v. COMPLETE BUSINESS
SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. d/b/a PAR FUNDING, et al., Case No.
2:18-cv-00268-JS (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order granting their motion for class certification pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following classes:

   Merchant Class:

   "all citizens of Texas who, on or after January 22, 2015,
   paid money to a member of the Lending Enterprise pursuant to
   a CBSG Agreement with an effective interest rate exceeding
   twenty-eight percent and without an arbitration clause";

   Merchant Class:

   "all citizens of Texas who, on or after January 22, 2015,
   paid money to a member of the Lending Enterprise pursuant to
   a CBSG Agreement with an effective interest rate exceeding
   fifty-six percent and without an arbitration clause";

   Principal Class:


   "all citizens of Texas who, on or after January 22, 2015,
   paid money to a member of the Lending Enterprise pursuant to
   a CBSG Agreement with an effective interest rate exceeding
   twenty-eight percent and without an arbitration clause";

   Principal Class:

   "all citizens of Texas who, on or after January 22, 2015,
   paid money to a member of the Lending Enterprise pursuant to
   a CBSG Agreement with an effective interest rate exceeding
   fifty-six percent and without an arbitration clause."

Complete Business Solutions is one of the UK's leading providers of
business supplies and services.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs & the Classes are:

          Shane R. Heskin, Esq.
          Justin E. Proper, Esq.
          WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP
          1650 Market Street
          One Liberty Place, Suite 1800
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-7395
          Telephone: (215) 864-7000
          E-mail: properj@whiteandwilliams.com
                  heskins@whiteandwilliams.com

               - and -

          David S. Almeida, Esq.
          COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP
          71 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 212-4949
          E-mail: dalmeida@beneschlaw.com

CONTINENTAL 409: Hollis Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------
AARON HOLLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CONTINENTAL 409 FUND LLC d/b/a SPRINGS AT
TRADITION, Defendant, Case No. CACE-20-012457 (Fla. Cir. 17th Jud.,
July 31, 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 three unsolicited
text messages to his cellular telephone number from Defendant even
without his express written consent to be contacted using an
automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS). Defendant allegedly
engages in unsolicited text messaging by utilizing an ATDS in
transmitting the message to promote its apartment rental business
with no regard for consumers' privacy rights.

Continental 409 Fund LLC d/b/a Springs at Tradition operates an
apartment rental business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Tel: 954-907-1136
          Fax: 855-529-9540
          Emails: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                  tom@jibraellaw.com


CONTRACTED MEDICAL: Court Denies Snyder Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as JOANNA M. SNYDER and JENNIFER
DONAHUE v. CONTRACTED MEDICAL FOR THE DOC, et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-10226-RGS (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Richard G. Stearns
entered an order:

   1. denying motions by Elba Morales, Nikki Piazza, Tonicia
      Goodwin, Wendy Filkins, Caroline McDonough, Diane Farley
      and Justina Talbot to join this lawsuit;

   2. denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; and

   3. denying Plaintiffs' motion for appointment of counsel.

The Court said, "Each of the two plaintiffs who signed the amended
complaint appears pro se in this action, and neither of them is an
attorney admitted to the Bar of this court. The pro se plaintiffs
cannot adequately represent the interests of the class they have
identified. Accordingly, the motion to certify a class is
denied."[CC]

DENNY'S INC: Rafferty Bid for Collective Status Denied
-------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as Lindsay Rafferty, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. Denny's Inc., a
Florida Corporation,, Case No. 1:19-cv-24706-DLG (S.D. Fla.), the
Hon. Judge Donald L. Graham entered an order denying the
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of Fair Labor
Standards Act collective action, and to permit notice and equitable
tolling.

The Court finds that the Plaintiff is not similarly situated to the
members of the proposed nationwide class of 8400 DENNY'S servers.
The Plaintiff does not identify a uniform corporate-wide policy
that violates FLSA. Instead, the class of employees which Plaintiff
seeks to represent contains individual employees who have worked at
different restaurants, in different states, for different managers,
and, most likely, in quite different working conditions. Granting
the Plaintiff's Motion would defeat the aim of judicial efficiency
that class action suits were created to promote, the Court said.

The Plaintiff worked as a server at a corporate-owned Denny's
restaurant located in Akron, Ohio from February 1, 2012, until
October 31, 2018. On November 13, 2019, she initiated the lawsuit
against the Defendant, alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

Denny's is an American table service diner-style restaurant chain.
It operates over 1,700 restaurants in the United States, Canada,
Costa Rica, El Salvador, Mexico, The Dominican Republic, and
Guatemala.[CC]

DEUTSCHE BANK: Wins Final OK of $15MM Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
issued a Judgment approving the Class Action Settlement in the case
captioned IN RE GSE BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No.
1:19-cv-01704 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs Joseph M. Torsella, in his official capacity as the
Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and statutory
custodian of all Commonwealth Funds; City of Birmingham Retirement
and Relief System; Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103,
I.B.E.W.; and Local 103, I.B.E.W. Health Benefit Plan
("Plaintiffs") on behalf of themselves and the other members of the
Settlement Class, and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. ("Defendant")
have settled all claims asserted against Deutsche Bank and its
predecessors, successors, assigns, subsidiaries, and affiliates,
including Deutsche Bank AG, in this Action with prejudice on the
terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated August 21, 2019, for a "Settlement Amount" of
$15,000,000 in cash.

Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Court certifies, for the purposes of settlement only
the following Settlement Class:

     All persons and entities who or which entered into a GSE
     Bond Transaction with one or more Defendants or a direct or
     indirect parent, subsidiary, affiliate, or division of a
     Defendant during the Settlement Class Period. Excluded from
     the Settlement Class are: Defendants; direct or indirect
     parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, or divisions of
     Defendants; all federal government entities; and any
     judicial officer presiding over this Action and the members
     of his or her immediate family and judicial staff and any
     juror assigned to this Action. Also excluded from the
     Settlement Class is any person or entity who or which
     properly excludes himself, herself, or itself by filing a
     valid and timely request for exclusion in accordance with
     the requirements set forth in the Notice.

Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, and Lowey Dannenberg, P.C., the
Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel will apply to the Court for an award of
attorneys' fees to be paid from (and out of) the Settlement Fund.
Co-Lead Counsel will also apply to the Court for reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses, which may include a request for reimbursement
of the Plaintiffs' costs and expenses directly related to their
representation of the Settlement Class, to be paid from (and out
of) the Settlement Fund. Co-Lead Counsel's application for an award
of attorneys' fees and/or Litigation Expenses is not the subject of
any agreement between the Parties other than what is set forth in
this Stipulation.

Co-Lead Counsel may pay from the Settlement Fund, without further
approval from the Defendants or further order of the Court, all
Notice and Administration Costs incurred and paid or payable up to
the sum of $500,000.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 18, 2020 Judgment is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yac3dwtt from Leagle.com


DONALD J. TRUMP: Gomez Suit Seeks to Certify 4 Subclasses
---------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as DOMINGO ARREGUIN GOMEZ, et
al., v. DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America,
et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01419-APM (D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court for an order:

   1. certifying the case as a class action pursuant to Federal
      Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule) 23, including the following
      subclasses:

      a. Immediate Relative Parent Subclass:

         "Individual U.S. citizens with an approved immigrant
         visa petition for an immediate relative parent and
         whose sponsored relative is subject to Presidential
         Proclamation 10052";

      b. Preference Relative Subclass:

         Individual U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents
         with an approved immigrant visa petition for a relative
         in a preference immigrant category, including a spouse,
         parent, child, or sibling, and any qualifying
         derivative relatives, where the immigrant visa is
         "current" or will become "current," meaning visas are
         authorized for issuance abroad, while Presidential
         Proclamation 10052 is in effect, and whose sponsored
         preference relative is subject to Proclamation 10052";

      c. Diversity Visa Subclass:

         "Individuals who have been selected to receive an
         immigrant visa through the U.S. Department of State’s
         FY2020 Diversity Visa Lottery and who had not received
         their immigrant visa on or before April 23, 2020, when
         the Presidential Proclamation 10014, later extended by
         Presidential Proclamation 10052, took effect";

      d. Temporary Worker Subclass:


         "United States employers who have an approved
         nonimmigrant visa petition for an employee or potential
         employee in the H-1B, H-2B, or L-1 nonimmigrant visa
         categories; where the employee or potential employee’s
         petition for nonimmigrant status has been approved for
         temporary employment in the United States, and where
         the employee or potential employee is subject to
         Proclamation 10052"; and

      e. Exchange Visitor Program Subclass:

         Entities designated by the U.S. Department of State as
         an Exchange Visitor Program sponsor for any category of
         J-1 exchange visitors included in Proclamation 10052".

  2. appointing all named Plaintiffs as class representatives
     for their respective subclass:


     -- Immediate Relative Parent Subclass: Daniel Chibundu
        Nwankwo

     -- Preference Relative Subclass: Nazif Alam, Carmen Ligia
        Pimentel, Juan Carlos Rosario Lebron, Claudio Alejandro
        Sarniguet Jiménez, Angela Sinon, Mohamed Saleh, Loida
        Phelps, and Nancy Abarca

     -- Diversity Visa Subclass: Fatma Bushati, Jodi Lynn
        Karpes, Shyam Sundar Koirala, Aja Tamamu Mariama Kinteh,
        Iwundu épouse Kouadio Ijeoma Golden, and Aya Nakamura

     -- Temporary Worker Subclass: 3Q Digital, PowerTrunk Inc.,
        Shipco Transport Inc., and Superior Scape Inc.

     -- Exchange Visitor Program Subclass: ASSE International,
        Inc. and EurAuPair International; and

   3. appointing their counsel as class counsel.

President Trump announced and executed Presidential Proclamation
10014 on April 22, 2020. The April Proclamation was later extended
and expanded by Presidential Proclamation No. 10052. The
Proclamations suspend entry into the United States of virtually all
immigrants seeking to become permanent residents and many foreign
nationals seeking entry on temporary nonimmigrant visas.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Proclamations are unlawful and have
been issued, enforced, and implemented in a manner contrary to
statutory and constitutional command.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nadia H. Dahab, Esq.
          Stephen Manning, Esq
          Tess Hellgren, Esq
          Jordan Cunnings, Esq
          INNOVATION LAW LAB
          333 SW Fifth Avenue No. 200
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 241-0035
          E-mail: stephen@innovationlawlab.org
                  nadia@innovationlawlab.org
                  tess@innovationlawlab.org
                  jordan@innovationlawlab.org

               - and -

          Jesse M. Bless, Esq.
          AMERICAN IMMIGRATION
          LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
          1301 G Street NW, Ste. 300
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (781) 704-3897
          E-mail: jbless@aila.org

               - and -

          Karen C. Tumlin, Esq.
          Esther H. Sung, Esq.
          JUSTICE ACTION CENTER
          P.O. Box 27280
          Los Angeles, CA 90027
          Telephone: (323) 316-0944
          E-mail: karen.tumlin@justiceactioncenter.org
                  esther.sung@justiceactioncenter.org

               - and -

          Laboni A. Hoq, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LABONI A. HOQ
          Justice Action Center Cooperating Attorney
          P.O. Box 753
          South Pasadena, CA 91030
          E-mail: labonihoq@gmail.com

DOUGH SLINGER: Misclassifies General Managers, Chaney Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
COLEMAN CHANEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DOUGH SLINGER, LLC, JEREMY BROWN and LEANN
BROWN, Defendants, Case No. 6:20-cv-00427 (E.D. Tex., August 3,
2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendants
for their alleged failure to pay proper wages in violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a general manager for their
restaurant located in Texas since January 2020 and still currently
employed.

According to the complaint, Defendants classified Plaintiff and
other General Managers as exempt from the overtime. Thus, they were
compensated at a rate below the applicable minimum weekly salary
despite regularly and typically working more than 40 hours per
week.

The complaint asserts that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and
other General Managers one and one-half times their regular rate of
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week.

Jeremy Brown and Leann Brown controlled the day-to-day operations
of Dough Slinger and maintained the wage and employment practices.

Dough Slinger, LLC operates restaurants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Tel: (501) 221-0088
          Fax: (888) 787-2040
          Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


ELI LILLY: Continues to Defend Litigation Over Insulin Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend several class
action suits related to the company's insulin products.

The company, along with Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC (Sanofi) and Novo
Nordisk, Inc. (Novo Nordisk) are named as defendants in a
consolidated purported class action lawsuit, In re. Insulin Pricing
Litigation, in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey relating to
insulin pricing seeking damages under various state consumer
protection laws and the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organization Act (federal RICO Act).

Separately, the company, along with Sanofi and Novo Nordisk, are
named as defendants in MSP Recovery Claims, Series, LLC et al. v.
Sanofi Aventis U.S. LLC et al., in the same court, seeking damages
under various state consumer protection laws, common law fraud,
unjust enrichment, and the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO Act).

In both In re. Insulin Pricing Litigation and the MSP Recovery
Claims litigation, the court dismissed claims under the federal
RICO Act and certain state laws.

Also in the same court, the company, along with Sanofi, Novo
Nordisk, CVS, Express Scripts, and Optum, have been sued in a
purported class action, FWK Holdings, LLC v. Novo Nordisk Inc., et
al., for alleged violations of the federal RICO Act as well as the
New Jersey RICO Act and anti-trust law.

That same group of defendants, along with Medco Health and United
Health Group, also have been sued in other purported class actions
in the same court, Rochester Drug Co-Operative Inc. v. Eli Lilly &
Co. et al. and Value Drug Co. v. Eli Lilly & Co. et al., for
alleged violations of the federal RICO Act.

The Minnesota Attorney General's Office has initiated litigation
against the company, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk, State of Minnesota
v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al., in the U.S. District Court of
New Jersey, alleging unjust enrichment, violations of various
Minnesota state consumer protection laws, and the federal RICO Act.


Additionally, the Kentucky Attorney General's Office filed a
complaint against us, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk, Commonwealth of
Kentucky v. Novo Nordisk, Inc. et al., in Kentucky state court,
alleging violations of the Kentucky consumer protection law, false
advertising, and unjust enrichment.

Harris County in Texas filed a complaint against the company,
Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Express Scripts, CVS, Optum, and Aetna,
County of Harris Texas v. Eli Lilly & Co., et al., in federal court
in the Southern District of Texas, alleging violations of the
federal RICO Act, federal and state anti-trust law, and the state
deceptive trade practices-consumer protection act.

Harris County also alleges common law claims such as fraud, unjust
enrichment, and civil conspiracy. This lawsuit relates to the
Company's insulin products as well as Trulicity.

Eli Lilly said, "We believe all of these claims are without merit
and are defending against them vigorously."

Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and
markets pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company operates in
two segments, Human Pharmaceutical Products and Animal Health
Products. Eli Lilly and Company was founded in 1876 and is
headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.


ENCOMPASS HEALTH: No Trial Date Set Yet in Nichols Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Encompass Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that court in Nichols v. HealthSouth
Corp., has not yet set a date for trial to begin.

The company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed March 28,
2003 by several individual stockholders in the Circuit Court of
Jefferson County, Alabama, captioned Nichols v. HealthSouth Corp.

In July 2019, the company entered into settlement agreements with
all but one plaintiff and paid those settling plaintiffs an
aggregate amount of cash less than $0.1 million. The remaining
plaintiff alleges that the company, some of its former officers,
and its former investment bank engaged in a scheme to overstate and
misrepresent the company's earnings and financial position. The
plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages.

This case was stayed in the circuit court on August 8, 2005.
However, the complaint has been amended from time to time,
including to request certification as a class action.

Additionally, one of the former officers named as a defendant has
repeatedly attempted to remove the case to federal district court.


The company filed its latest motion to remand the case back to
state court on January 10, 2013. On September 27, 2013, the federal
court remanded the case back to state court.

On December 10, 2014, the company filed a motion to dismiss on the
grounds the plaintiffs lacked standing because their claims were
derivative in nature, and the claims were time-barred by the
statute of limitations. On May 26, 2016, the trial court granted
the company's motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Supreme Court of
Alabama reversed the trial court's dismissal on March 23, 2018.

On April 6, 2018, the company filed an application for rehearing
with the Alabama Supreme Court. On March 22, 2019, the Alabama
Supreme Court denied the company's application for rehearing and
remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The
court has not yet set a date for the trial to begin.

Encompass said, "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this
case against the sole remaining plaintiff. Based on the stage of
litigation, review of the current facts and circumstances as we
understand them, the nature of the underlying claim, the results of
the proceedings to date, and the nature and scope of the defense we
continue to mount, we do not believe an adverse judgment or
settlement is probable in this matter, and it is also not possible
to estimate an amount of loss, if any, or range of possible loss
that might result from an adverse judgment or settlement of this
case."

Encompass Health Corporation provides facility-based and home-based
post-acute healthcare services in the United States. The company
operates through two segments, Inpatient Rehabilitation, and Home
Health and Hospice. The company was formerly known as HealthSouth
Corporation and changed its name to Encompass Health Corporation in
January 2018. Encompass Health Corporation was founded in 1983 and
is based in Birmingham, Alabama.


ENERGY RECOVERY: Kirby McInerney Reminds of September 21 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of those who acquired
Energy Recovery, Inc. ("Energy Recovery" or the "Company")
(NASDAQGS: ERII) securities during the period from August 2, 2017
through June 29, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until
September 21, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company had a different strategic perspective
regarding commercialization of the Company's VorTeq technology than
Schlumberger Technology Corp., which had exclusive rights to the
use of VorTeq; (2) which created substantial risk of early
termination of the Company's exclusive licensing agreement with
Schlumberger; (3) accordingly, the guidance and expectations of
future license revenue was false and lacked reasonable basis; and
(4) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times or lacked a reasonable
basis and omitted material facts.

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

Kirby McInerney is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. [GN]

EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Gross Sues Over Unlawful Credit Reporting
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yaakov Gross, individually, and on behalf of similarly situated
consumers v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
515345/2020 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., Aug. 20, 2020), is brought for
damages arising from the Defendants' violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

According to the complaint, on a date better known by the
Defendant, Ocwen began servicing the Plaintiff's mortgage loan,
with account number 8100****. Account number 8100**** appears twice
on Plaintiff's Equifax report. The Plaintiff disputed the duplicate
trade lines to Equifax via mail in February 2020. Thereafter,
Equifax forwarded the Plaintiff's dispute to Ocwen. Equifax also
failed to conduct a reasonable investigation, and allowed Ocwen to
report two items on his credit report for one account.

Mr. Gross contends that the problem with the duplicate reporting is
that it has resulted in his credit being worse than it should be.
Specifically, one of the Ocwen duplicates is reporting a current
status of late 30 days, while the other Ocwen account is reporting
current. Had the first Ocwen account not report as a duplicate, he
would only have one Ocwen report on his credit, and it would not
have a currently negative status. As a result, the Plaintiff's
creditworthiness has been impacted, and he has refrained from
applying for credit, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person, who has resided in Brooklyn, New
York.

Equifax is a "consumer reporting agency."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW LLC
          1373 Broad Street, Suite 203-C
          Clifton, NJ 07013
          Phone: 862-227-3106
          Email: dz@zemellawllc.com


EVERCORE INC: Settlement in Adeptus' 2014 IPO Suit Wins Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Evercore Inc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2020, that a court has granted final approval of the settlement in
the consolidated class action lawsuit against Evercore Group
L.L.C., in connection with Adeptus' June 2014 initial public
offering and May 2015, July 2015 and June 2016 secondary public
offerings.

Beginning on or about November 16, 2016, several putative
securities class action complaints were filed against Adeptus
Health Inc. ("Adeptus") and certain others, including Evercore
Group L.L.C. (EGL) as underwriter.

The cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas where a consolidated complaint was filed
asserting, in part, that the offering materials issued in
connection with the four public offerings violated the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933 by containing alleged misstatements and
omissions.

On April 19, 2017, Adeptus filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and was
subsequently removed as a defendant. On November 21, 2017, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, and the defendants filed
motions to dismiss on February 5, 2018.

On September 12, 2018, the defendants' motions to dismiss were
granted as to the claims relating to the initial public offering
and the May 2015 secondary public offering, but denied as to the
claims relating to the July 2015 and June 2016 secondary public
offerings.

EGL underwrote approximately 293 shares of common stock in the July
2015 secondary public offering, representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately $30,800, but did not underwrite any shares
in the June 2016 secondary public offering.

On September 25, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
relating only to the July 2015 and June 2016 secondary public
offerings. On December 7, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification, and the defendants filed briefs in opposition.


On February 16, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint after having been granted leave to amend by the court. On
March 4, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss as to the
second amended complaint.

On January 9, 2020, the Court granted preliminary approval of a
settlement among the parties, including the underwriters, and
granted final approval of the settlement at a hearing on May 20,
2020. The settlement amount attributed to the Company is not
material to the Company.

Evercore Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
independent investment banking advisory firm in the United States,
Europe, Latin America, and internationally. It operates through two
segments, Investment Banking and Investment Management. The company
was formerly known as Evercore Partners Inc. and changed its name
to Evercore Inc. in August 2017. Evercore Inc. was founded in 1995
and is headquartered in New York, New York.


FEDEX GROUND: Graef Suit Removed From Super. Court to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MARISA GRAEF, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE
SYSTEM, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. 20STCV22720
(Filed June 10, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 18,
2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-07456 to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts claims for failure to pay wages for all time
worked at minimum wage; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to
provide required meal periods; failure to provide required rest
periods; and failure to indemnify employees for losses and
expenditures in violation of the California Labor Code.

Fedex Ground provides package delivery services. The Company
delivers packages by truck to residential and business addresses
throughout North America.[BN]

Defendant Fedex Ground is represented by:

          Evan R. Moses, Esq.
          Alexander M. Chemers, Esq.
          Melis Atalay, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213-239-9800
          Facsimile: 213-239-9045
          E-mail: evan.moses@ogletree.com
                  alexander.chemers@ogletree.com
                  melis.atalay@ogletree.com


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP reminds
investors of the upcoming deadline to move for appointment as lead
plaintiff in the class action litigation on behalf of investors who
purchased the common stock of FirstEnergy Corp. ("FirstEnergy" or
the "Company") (NYSE:FE) between February 21, 2017 and July 21,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you purchased the common stock of FirstEnergy during the Class
Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by
no later than September 28, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions
will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.

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

Background on the FirstEnergy Securities Class Litigation

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

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

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

                      About Lieff Cabraser

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

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

For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's
representation of investors, please visit
https://www.lieffcabraser.com/.

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


FISHUSA INC: Calcano Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
FishUSA, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Evelina
Calcano, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FishUSA, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-06589 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 18, 2020).

FishUSA offers a wide online selection of products and accessories
for fly fishing, freshwater fishing and ice fishing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



FMA ALLIANCE: Wosner Alleges Violation under FDCPA
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FMA Alliance, Ltd.
The case is styled as Elky Wosner, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FMA Alliance, Ltd.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03785 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 18, 2020).

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

FMA Alliance, Ltd. (FMA) is a privately-owned receivables
management company originally formed in 1983 and headquartered in
Houston, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan Weiss, Esq.
   2076 East 27 Street
   Brooklyn, NY 11229
   Tel: (718) 928-8872
   Email: yoniw18@gmail.com



FMA ALLIANCE: Wosner Asserts Breach of FDCPA
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FMA Alliance, Ltd.
The case is styled as Elky Wosner, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FMA Alliance, Ltd.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03786 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 18, 2020).

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

FMA Alliance, Ltd. (FMA) is a privately-owned receivables
management company originally formed in 1983 and headquartered in
Houston, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan Weiss, Esq.
   2076 East 27 Street
   Brooklyn, NY 11229
   Tel: (718) 928-8872
   Email: yoniw18@gmail.com



G.D. BARRI: Fails to Pay Overtime, Gardner Claims
-------------------------------------------------
AARON GARDNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. G.D. BARRI & ASSOCIATES, INC., an Arizona
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01515-MTL (D. Ariz., July
31, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against
Defendant for its alleged failure to pay overtime in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was staffed by Defendant from September 2018 until March
2019 as a Construction Manager to a power plant operated by the
Arizona Public Service Company.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40
hours in a week, routinely 60 or more hours a week as reflected in
Defendant's payroll records. However, Defendant did not pay
Plaintiff overtime at one and one-half times his regular rate of
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek
as required by the FLSA.

G.D. Barri & Associates, Inc. provides contract labor solutions to
the power and utilities' industries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel R. Randall, Esq.
          RANDALL LAW PLLC
          4742 N 24th Street, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Tel: (602) 328-0262
          Fax: (602) 926-1479
          Email: srandall@randallslaw.com

                - and –

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: (713) 352-1100
          Fax: (713) 352-3300
          Emails: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  cfitz@mybackwages.com

                - and –

          Richard ("Rex") J. Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: (713) 877-8788
          Fax: (713) 877-8065
          Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Scobey Seeks Proper OT Pay for Maintenance Staff
----------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL SCOBEY, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
employees, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, A Michigan limited
liability company, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-12098-DPH-RSW (E.D.
Mich., August 4, 2020) is a collective action brought by Plaintiff
on behalf of himself and all similarly situated current and former
employees to recover damages for Defendant's willful violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq.
("FLSA") and its attendant rules and regulations.

According to the complaint, Defendant willfully violated the FLSA
by knowingly suffering or permitting Plaintiffs to work in excess
of 40 hours per week without paying overtime compensation at a rate
of 1.5 times the regular rate. Defendant knew or should have known
that Plaintiffs were not exempt under the FLSA and that their
employees must be paid at a premium overtime pay rate of not less
than 1.5 times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per week.

Plaintiff is a resident of Lake Odessa, Michigan, and currently
works for Defendant as a salaried maintenance employee.

General Motors, LLC is an American multinational corporation that
designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and
vehicle parts, with principal place of business in East Lansing,
Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jesse L. Young, Esq.
          KREIS ENDERLE, P.C.
          8225 Moorsbridge, P.O. Box. 4010
          Kalamazoo, MI 49003-4010
          Telephone: (269) 324-3000
          E-mail: jyoung@kehb.com

GENERALI US: Refuses to Refund Trip Cancellations, Flanigan Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMY FLANIGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GENERALI U.S. BRANCH; GENERALI GLOBAL ASSISTANCE, INC.
D/B/A CSA TRAVEL PROTECTION AND INSURANCE SERVICES; and CUSTOMIZED
SERVICES ADMINISTRATORS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-01807-JZ (N.D.
Ohio, Aug. 14, 2020), alleges that the Defendants refuse to issue
reimbursement for trip cancellations explicitly covered by travel
insurance policies they issued.

The Defendants contracted to indemnify the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated for pecuniary and other losses and damages
incurred as a result of covered events that prevented insureds from
taking their planned trip. The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants have caused substantial harm to her and the proposed
class by improperly refusing to issue reimbursement for trip
cancellations explicitly covered by the Policy. The Plaintiff has
been completely denied reimbursement for her Trip Cancellation
Claim. She contends that the Defendants have effectively adopted an
approach to categorically issue denials to every Claim arising
during the natural disaster that was brought on by COVID-19.

The Plaintiff's claims, as well as the claims of each proposed
class member, are supported by the written provisions of the Master
Policy for travel protection insurance underwritten and
administered to them by the Defendants, according to the complaint.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory damages, as well as
declaratory and injunctive relief.

Established in 1935, Generali US Branch is licensed as a domestic
insurance/reinsurance company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
          Ben Wickert, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554-9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
          E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
                  bwickert@raiznerlaw.com


GENERALI US: Sanchez Seeks Pay for Canceled Trip Due to Pandemic
----------------------------------------------------------------
AUDRA SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated; Plaintiff, v. GENERALI U.S. BRANCH; and GENERALI GLOBAL
ASSISTANCE, INC. D/B/A CSA TRAVEL PROTECTION AND INSURANCE
SERVICES; and CUSTOMIZED SERVICES ADMINISTRATORS, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 2:20-cv-02380-SAC-TJJ (D. Kan., August 5, 2020) is a class
action arising out of Defendants' acts and omissions amounting to a
breach of contractual duty, under the terms of travel insurance
policies Defendants issued to Plaintiff.

According to the complaint, Defendants have caused substantial harm
to Plaintiff and the proposed class by improperly refusing to issue
reimbursement for trip cancellations explicitly covered by the
Policy. Plaintiff has been completely denied reimbursement for her
Trip Cancellation Claim. Upon information and belief, Defendants
have effectively adopted an approach to categorically issue denials
to every Claim arising during the natural disaster that was brought
on by COVID-19. Defendants refused to pay COVID-19 related trip
cancellations by others insured under the Policy, whether said
claimants submitted claims requesting indemnity for: (a) the
Maximum Limit(s) Per Person or Plan for Trip Cancellation as listed
on their respective Schedules of Benefits; (b) actual damages
incurred due to trip cancellations; or (c) the price of the
premiums initially paid by the insureds for Policies.

Plaintiff paid approximately $3,500 through VRBO.com to reserve the
vacation rental accommodations at a waterfront beach house in
Rockport, Texas. Upon checkout on VRBO's booking site, Plaintiff
elected to pay an optional, additional fee of $254.53 for a travel
insurance coverage plan.

Plaintiff contends that Generali has breached the Policy by failing
to timely pay Class Members for their respective losses for covered
damages.

Generali U.S. Branch is a Maryland corporation engages in the
business of issuing insurance policies that are underwritten by
Generali Group.

Generali Global Assistance, Inc. does business under the name Europ
Assitance USA, Inc. in Idaho and Michigan.

Customized Services Administrators, Inc. operates as an insurance
broker with principal place of business in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy L. Sifers, Esq.
          Nathaniel K. Scearcy, Esq.
          THE POTTS LAW FIRM, LLP
          1901 W. 47th Place, Ste. 210
          Westwood, KS 66205
          Telephone: (816) 931-2230
          Facsimile: (816) 931-7030
          E-mail: tsifers@potts-law.com
                  nscearcy@potts-law.com

GEODIS LOGISTICS: Palacio Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as CECILIA RUBIO PALACIO,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated and
aggrieved v. GEODIS LOGISTICS, LLC; a Tennessee limited liability
company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CIV-DS-2009606
(Filed May 29, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Bernardino to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 17,
2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:20-cv-01657 to the proceeding.

In her Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed
to pay her and similarly situated employees in accordance with the
applicable Wage Order and California Labor Code sections. These
alleged violations include failure to provide required meal
periods; failure to provide required rest periods; failure to pay
overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay timely
wages during employment; failure to pay all wages due to discharged
and quitting employees; and failure to furnish accurate wage
statements.

GEODIS is a global transport and logistics company.[BN]

Defendant GEODIS is represented by:

          Noah J. Woods, Esq.
          Penny Chen, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619.515.1827
          Facsimile: 619.232.4302
          E-mail: nwoods@littler.com
                  pchen@littler.com


GITIBIN & ASSOCIATES: Underpays Employees, Vasquez Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
ADAN BASQUEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GITIBIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. d/b/a
GO RENTALS, a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20VECV00834 (Cal. Sup. Ct., August
3, 2020) brings this complaint against Defendants for their alleged
violation of the Private Attorneys General Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt
Driver/Detailer from on or about July 25, 2019 through on or about
July 31, 2019.

Plaintiff asserts these claims:

     -- Defendants failed to provide him and other similarly
situated employees legally-compliant meal and rest periods;

     -- Defendants failed to include all forms of Incentive Pay
when calculating their regular rate of pay, thereby failing to pay
them proper overtime wages;

     -- Defendants failed to provide them accurate, itemized wage
statements; and

     -- Defendants failed to pay all wages owed to him upon his
separation of employment.

Moreover, Plaintiff notified Defendants and the California Labor
and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA), but the LWDA did not
provide notice that it intends to investigate the violations.

Gitibin & Associates, Inc. is an elite car rental service company.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
          Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq.
          Milan Moore, Esq.
          Romina Tamiry, Esq.
          LIDMAN LAW, APC
          2155 Campus Drive, Suite 150
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Tel: (424) 322-4772
          Fax: (424) 322-4775
          Emails: slidman@lidmanlaw.com
                  enguyen@lidmanlaw.com
                  rtamiry@lidmanlaw.com


HAPPY DOTS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Fischler Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN FISCHLER, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HAPPY DOTS AND STRIPES, INC. d/b/a
Araks, Defendant, Case No. 1;20-cv-03472 (E.D.N.Y., July 31, 2020)
is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its
alleged violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA),
New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and New York City Human
Rights Law (NYCHRL).

Plaintiff is a legally blind, visually-impaired handicapped person,
and a member of a protected class of individuals under Title III of
the ADA.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff encountered multiple access
barriers when he visited Defendant's website on or about June 24,
2020 which denied him the full enjoyment of the facilities, goods,
and services of the Website. Defendant allegedly failed to design,
construct, maintain and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

Happy Dots and Stripes, Inc. is an online retailer of clothing and
lingerie for women and operates its website www.araks.com. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HOOVESTOL INC: Hardwick Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS HARDWICK, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. HOOVESTOL, INC., a
Minnesota corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
20STCV19610 (Filed May 22, 2020), was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Aug.
18, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-mc-00078 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff's complaint asserts claims arising from the
Defendants' failure to pay wages for all hours worked; failure to
provide meal periods and rest periods or compensation in lieu
thereof; failure to reimburse for business expenses; failure to
timely pay wages due at termination; knowing and intentional
failure to comply with itemized wage statement provisions in
violation of the California Labor Code.

Hoovestol offers postal service contracting services. The Company's
line of business includes carried freight, mail contracting, and
hauling mail.[BN]

The Defendant Hoovestol is represented by:

          Raymond A. Greene, III, Esq.
          Arthur S. Gaus, Esq.
          Rohit A. Sabnis, Esq.
          BURNHAM BROWN
          P.O. Box 119
          Oakland, CA 94604-0119
          Telephone: (510) 444-6800
          Facsimile: (510) 835-6666
          E-mail: rgreene@burnhambrown.com
                  agaus@burnhambrown.com
                  rsabnis@burnhambrown.com


HUNT OIL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages & OT, Davis Claims
------------------------------------------------------
OLAN DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HUNT OIL COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
7:20-cv-00184 (W.D. Tex., August 3, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged illegal pay
practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Lease Operator from March
2018 until September 2019.

According to the complaint, Defendant improperly classified
Plaintiff and other similarly situated oilfield workers as
independent contractors. Thus, they were paid a day-rate only for
all hours worked in a day even those in excess of 40 hours in a
week. As a result, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and other
similarly situated oilfield workers proper wages and overtime
compensation as required by the FLSA.

Hunt Oil Company offers oil and gas services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: 713-352-1100
          Fax: 713-352-3300
          Emails: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

                - and –

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: 713-877-8788
          Fax: 713-877-8065
          Email: rburch@burcknerburch.com


I LOVE THIS BAR: Young Seeks Proper Wage for Bartenders
-------------------------------------------------------
AMBER YOUNG, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. I LOVE THIS BAR LLC d/b/a Park Street Cantina, c/o
Fadi Michael 2561 Punderson Drive Hilliard, OH 43026 AND I LOVE
VINE LLC d/b/a Granero Lounge, c/o Fadi Michael 2561 Punderson
Drive Hilliard, OH 43026 AND I LOVE HIGH LLC d/b/a Short North
Julep, c/o Fadi Michael 2561 Punderson Drive Hilliard, OH 43026 AND
PARK STREET BOYS LLC d/b/a Callahan's Bar and Rooftop, c/o Fadi
Michael 2561 Punderson Drive Hilliard, OH 43026 AND FADI MICHAEL,
2561 Punderson Drive Hilliard, OH 43026 Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-03971-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, August 5, 2020) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff individually and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated, against
Defendants to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime wages,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fee, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq.;
the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, O.R.C. 4111.03 and
4111.08; and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, Ohio Rev. Code Section
4113.15.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants beginning in or around October
2019 until May 2020 as bartender. Her primary job duties included
serving and assisting customers.

The complaint asserts that Defendants have intentionally,
willfully, and repeatedly engaged in a pattern, practice, and/or
policy of violating the FLSA and the Ohio Acts with respect to
Named Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, including
tipped employees such as servers, bartenders.

Defendants have failed to pay overtime for all overtime hours
worked, make required tip credit notice disclosures, pay minimum
wage for all hours worked while physically retaining tips of
Defendants' employees.

I Love This Bar LLC d/b/a Park Street Cantina, I Love Vine LLC
d/b/a Granero Lounge, I Love High LLC d/b/a Short North Julep, Park
Street Boys LLC d/b/a Callahan's Bar and Rooftop are domestic
limited liability restaurant companies with their principal places
of business in Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Rd. Suite #126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

INSPERITY INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of September 21 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming September 21, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in the class action filed on behalf of Insperity, Inc.
("Insperity" or the "Company") (NYSE: NSP) common stock between
February 11, 2019, and February 11, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

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

On February 11, 2020, after the market closed, Insperity issued a
press release announcing its fourth quarter and full year 2019
financial results. Therein, Insperity disclosed that "[t]he average
profit per [worksite employee] per month declined from $272 in 2018
to $259 in 2019 on a higher than expected benefits cost trend due
to elevated large healthcare claim activity." Additionally, the
Company reported that it had "recently added a new feature" in its
health plan so that, beginning in 2020, Insperity will not have
financial responsibility for any amount of a participant's annual
claim costs that exceed $1 million.  

On this news, Insperity's share price fell $17.44 per share, or
over 19%, to close at $71.64 per share on February 12, 2020, at
unusually heavy trading volume.  

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

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Insperity common stock
during the class period, you may move the Court no later than
September 21, 2020 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this
putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to the pending class action
lawsuit, please contact 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. [GN]


IRVING N. MOTOR: Gilmore Files TCPA Suit in Texas
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Irving N. Motor
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Flora Gilmore, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Irving N.
Motor Company, LLC doing business as: Clay Cooley Nissan Irving, a
Texas Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-xc-02254
(N.D. Tex., Aug. 18, 2020).

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

Clay Cooley Nissan of Irving of Irving TX serving Dallas,
Arlington, Grand Prairie, is one of the Nissan dealers in
Irving.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


J2 GLOBAL: Klein Law Reminds of Sept. 8 Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on Aug. 10 disclosed that class action
complaints have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the
following companies. There is no cost to participate in the suit.
If you suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline
to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Casper Sleep Inc. (NYSE:CSPR)

in or traceable to the Company's public offering conducted on or
around February 7, 2020.

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 18, 2020

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Casper Sleep
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) Casper's profit margins were actually
declining, rather than growing; (2) Casper was changing an
important distribution partner, costing it 130 basis points of
gross margin in the first quarter of 2020 alone; (3) Casper was
holding a glut of old and outdated mattress inventory that it was
selling at steeply discounted clearance prices, further impairing
the Company's profitability; (4) Casper was suffering accelerating
losses, further placing its ability to achieve positive cash flows
and profitability out of reach; (5) Casper's core operations were
not profitable, but were causing the Company to suffer over $40
million in negative cash flows during the first quarter of 2020
alone and doubling its quarterly net loss year over year; (6) as a
result of the foregoing, Casper's ability to achieve profitability,
implement its growth initiatives, and expand internationally had
been misrepresented in the documents issued in connection with
Casper's initial public offering, as the Company needed to shutter
its European operations, halt all international expansion, jettison
over one fifth of its global corporate workforce, and significantly
curtail new store openings in order to avoid an imminent cash and
liquidity crisis, let alone achieve positive operating cash flows;
and (7) as a result of the foregoing, Casper's revenue growth rate
was not sustainable and had not positioned the Company to achieve
profitability.

Learn about your recoverable losses in CSPR:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/casper-sleep-inc-loss-submission-form?id=8452&from=1

United States Oil Fund, LP (NYSE:USO)

The Lawsuit is on behalf of shareholders of United States Oil Fund,
LP who purchased shares between March 19, 2020 and April 28, 2020
and/or pursuant or otherwise traceable to the Fund's March 19, 2020
registration statement.

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 18, 2020

The USO lawsuit alleges that throughout the class period, United
States Oil Fund, LP made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) unbeknownst to
investors, extraordinary market conditions in early 2020 made USO's
purported investment objective and strategy unfeasible; (2) as
excess oil supply increased and oil prices plummeted, the
facilities available for storage in Cushing approached capacity,
causing a "super contango" in which the futures prices for oil
substantially exceeded the spot price; (3) instead of revealing the
known impacts and risks to the Fund, USO held an offering of
billions of dollars of USO shares in March 2020; and (4) as a
result USO suffered billions of dollars in losses and was forced to
abandon its investment strategy.

Learn about your recoverable losses in USO:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/united-states-oil-fund-lp-loss-submission-form?id=8452&from=1

J2 Global, Inc. (NASDAQ:JCOM)

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

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 8, 2020

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


JEFFERSON INSURANCE: Denies Travel Policy Coverage, Saag Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
DR. MICHAEL SAAG, individually and behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AGA SERVICE COMPANY, D/B/A ALLIANZ GLOBAL ASSISTANCE,
and JEFFERSON INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-06704 (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 20, 2020), alleges that the Defendants have engaged in a
nationwide policy of systematically denying coverage under their
travel insurance policies issued to the Plaintiff and putative
class members under the policy's "epidemic" exclusion without
consideration to valid, covered claims, in breach of the parties'
insurance agreement.

On January 9, 2020, the Defendants, in exchange for the payment of
a $1,812.00 premium, issued the Plaintiff and his wife an insurance
policy to cover against certain losses arising from the Plaintiff's
trip from Birmingham, Alabama, to Johannesburg, South Africa, from
April 12, 2020, through April 29, 2020. The coverage effective date
of the policy was from January 10, 2020, through April 30, 2020.

On March 18, 2020, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by his physician as
having contracted the COVID-19 virus, requiring cancelation of his
trip. The Plaintiff's traveling companion, his wife, Amy Saag, also
exhibited symptoms but was never officially diagnosed with
COVID-19. As a result, both the Plaintiff and his traveling
companion were required to quarantine. The Plaintiff says he and
his traveling companion's medical condition was disabling enough to
make a reasonable person cancel their trip.

On April 13, 2020, Mr. Saag sought coverage for his covered loss
under the policy from AGA and/or Jefferson but the Defendants
denied his claim even though they stated on their website as of
March 16, 2020, that they would accommodate claims under Trip
Cancellation or Trip Interruption Benefits for those customers, who
cancelled their trip due to contracting COVID-19 either before or
during their trip.

The complaint states that the Defendants have improperly denied
otherwise valid claims that would trigger coverage under the
policies issued to the Plaintiff and putative class members. The
Defendants' general reliance on the "epidemic" exclusion for all
consumers is considered deceptive when read against the whole of
the policy. The Plaintiff contends that such actions constitute a
violation of New York law, a breach of the parties' agreement and
of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and are a
deceptive and unfair practice under N.Y. GEN. BUS. LAW SECTION
349.

AGA Service Company d/b/a Allianz Global Assistance is a Richmond,
Virginia-based travel services provider.

Jefferson Insurance Company is a Richmond, Virginia-based insurance
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian R. Morrison, Esq.
          Ariana J. Tadler, Esq.
          TADLER LAW LLP
          One Penn Plaza, 36th Floor
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 946-9300
          Facsimile: (929) 207-3746
          E-mail: bmorrison@tadlerlaw.com
                  atadler@tadlerlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick C. Marshall, Esq.
          James M. Terrell, Esq.
          Courtney C. Gipson, Esq.
          METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS, & MILLER, PC
          2201 Arlington Avenue S.
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 939-0199
          Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
          E-mail: pmarshall@mtattorneys.com
                  jterrell@mtattorneys.com
                  cgipson@mtattorneys.com


JIANG WU INC: Olsen Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jiang Wu Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Thomas
J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Jiang Wu Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-06586 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 18, 2020).

Jiang Wu Inc. sells bags, handbags, athletic gym bags, sport bags,
and backpacks, and small leather goods, like wallets. Its top
supplier is Skywell Handbags Limited. Hong kong is where most
shipments originate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


JOHNSON CONTROLS: Bid to Dismiss Gumm Action under Advisement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International plc said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the court in Gumm v. Molinaroli,
et al., Case No. 16-cv-1093, heard oral argument on a motion to
dismiss and took the matter under advisement.

On August 16, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit, Gumm v.
Molinaroli, et al., Case No. 16-cv-1093, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, naming
Johnson Controls, Inc., the individual members of its board of
directors at the time of the merger with the Company's merger
subsidiary and certain of its officers, the Company and the
Company's merger subsidiary as defendants.

The complaint asserted various causes of action under the federal
securities laws, state law and the Taxpayer Bill of Rights,
including that the individual defendants allegedly breached their
fiduciary duties and unjustly enriched themselves by structuring
the merger among the Company, Tyco and the merger subsidiary in a
manner that would result in a United States federal income tax
realization event for the putative class of certain Johnson
Controls, Inc. shareholders and allegedly result in certain
benefits to the defendants, as well as related claims regarding
alleged misstatements in the proxy statement/prospectus distributed
to the Johnson Controls, Inc. shareholders, conversion and breach
of contract.

The complaint also asserted that Johnson Controls, Inc., the
Company and the Company's merger subsidiary aided and abetted the
individual defendants in their breach of fiduciary duties and
unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks, among other things,
disgorgement of profits and damages.

On September 30, 2016, approximately one month after the closing of
the merger, plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction motion
seeking, among other items, to compel Johnson Controls, Inc. to
make certain intercompany payments that plaintiffs contend will
impact the United States federal income tax consequences of the
merger to the putative class of certain Johnson Controls, Inc.
shareholders and to enjoin Johnson Controls, Inc. from reporting to
the Internal Revenue Service the capital gains taxes payable by
this putative class as a result of the closing of the merger.

The court held a hearing on the preliminary injunction motion on
January 4, 2017, and on January 25, 2017, the judge denied the
plaintiffs' motion.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 15, 2017, and the
Company filed a motion to dismiss on April 3, 2017. On October 17,
2019, the court heard oral arguments on the motion to dismiss and
took the matter under advisement.

Johnson Controls said, "Although the Company believes it has
substantial defenses to plaintiffs' claims, it is not able to
predict the outcome of this action."

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

Johnson Controls International plc operates as a diversified
technology and multi industrial company worldwide. The company
operates through Building Technologies & Solutions and Power
Solutions segments. The company was formerly known as Johnson
Controls, Inc. and changed its name to Johnson Controls
International plc in September 2016. Johnson Controls International
plc was founded in 1885 and is headquartered in Cork, Ireland.


JOHNSON CONTROLS: Still Defends Aqueous Film-Forming Foam Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International plc said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the company and its subsidiaries
continue to defend several class action suits related to Aqueous
Film-Forming Foam ("AFFF").

Two of the Company's subsidiaries, Chemguard, Inc. (Chemguard) and
Tyco Fire Products (Tyco), have been named, along with other
defendant manufacturers, and, in some cases, certain subsidiaries
of the Company affiliated with Chemguard and Tyco Fire Products, in
a number of class action and other lawsuits relating to the use of
fire-fighting foam products by the U.S. Department of Defense (the
"DOD") and others for fire suppression purposes and related
training exercises.

Plaintiffs generally allege that the firefighting foam products
manufactured by defendants contain or break down into the chemicals
perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS") and perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and/or other PFAS compounds and that the use of these
products by others at various airbases, airports and other sites
resulted in the release of these chemicals into the environment and
ultimately into communities' drinking water supplies neighboring
those airports, airbases and other sites.

PFOA, PFOS, and other PFAS compounds are being studied by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and other
environmental and health agencies and researchers.

The EPA has not issued binding regulatory limits, but has stated
that it would propose regulatory standards for PFOS and PFOA in
drinking water by the end of 2019, in accordance with its PFAS
Action Plan released in February 2019, and issued interim
recommendations for addressing PFOA and PFOS in groundwater in
December 2019.

While those studies continue, the EPA has issued a health advisory
level for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water. Both PFOA and PFOS are
types of synthetic chemical compounds that have been present in
firefighting foam.

However, both are also present in many existing consumer products.
According to EPA, PFOA and PFOS have been used to make carpets,
clothing, fabrics for furniture, paper packaging for food and other
materials (e.g., cookware) that are resistant to water, grease or
stains.

Plaintiffs generally seek compensatory damages, including damages
for alleged personal injuries, medical monitoring, diminution in
property values, investigation and remediation costs, and natural
resources damages, and also seek punitive damages and injunctive
relief to address remediation of the alleged contamination.

In September 2018, Tyco Fire Products and Chemguard filed a
Petition for Multidistrict Litigation with the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") seeking to
consolidate all existing and future federal cases into one
jurisdiction. On December 7, 2018, the JPML issued an order
transferring various AFFF cases to a multi-district litigation
("MDL") before the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina. Additional cases have been identified for transfer
to or are being directly filed in the MDL.

AFFF Putative Class Actions

Chemguard and Tyco Fire Products are named in 30 putative class
actions in federal courts originating from Colorado, Delaware,
Florida, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington New
Hampshire, South Carolina, the District of Columbia, Guam, West
Virginia, Michigan and South Dakota.

All but one of these cases has been transferred to the MDL, and it
is anticipated that the Abbot case will be removed to federal court
and transferred following service of the complaint.

The following putative class actions were filed since the beginning
of fiscal year 2020:

     * Aguon et al. v. The 3M Company et al., filed October 3,
2019, in the United States District Court, District of Guam.

     * County of Rockland [New York] et al. v. 3M Company et al.,
filed February 4, 2020, in the United States District Court,
District of South Carolina.

     * City of Millington et al. v. 3M Company et al., filed
February 25, 2020, in the United States District Court, District of
Columbia.

     * Stengel et al. v. 3M Company et al., filed April 29, 2020,
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
West Virginia.

     * Abbott et al. v. The 3M Company et al., filed May 6, 2020 in
the Superior Court for the State of Washington in and for Spokane
County.

     * Garcia et al. v. 3M Company et al., filed May 15, 2020 in
the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina
(originating from South Dakota).

     * Gentile et al. v. The 3M Company et al., filed May 27, 2020,
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.

AFFF Individual or Mass Actions

There are approximately 632 individual or "mass" actions pending
that were filed in state or federal court in California (2 cases),
Colorado (41 cases), New York (4 cases), Pennsylvania (15 cases),
New Mexico (2 cases) and South Carolina (568 cases direct filed
from various U.S. jurisdictions) against Chemguard and Tyco Fire
Products and other defendants in which the plaintiffs generally
seek compensatory damages, including damages for alleged personal
injuries, medical monitoring, and alleged diminution in property
values.

The cases involve two plaintiffs in California, approximately 7,000
plaintiffs in Colorado, approximately 126 plaintiffs in New York,
15 plaintiffs in Pennsylvania, two plaintiffs in New Mexico, and
more than 500 plaintiffs from various states who direct-filed
complaints in South Carolina.

All but two of these matters have been transferred to or
directly-filed in the MDL, and it is anticipated that the
California cases will be transferred following service of the
complaints.

Many of the additional filed actions were directly filed in South
Carolina by plaintiffs who were among the 660 plaintiffs the
Company had previously disclosed to have made filings in
Pennsylvania state court.

The Company anticipates that the remainder of the possible
individual product liability claims filed in Pennsylvania state
court will either soon be filed in the MDL (and that all such
claims in state court will be dismissed accordingly) or will be
dismissed in Pennsylvania without a corresponding filing in South
Carolina.

AFFF Municipal Cases

Chemguard and Tyco Fire Products are also defendants in 51 cases in
federal courts involving municipal or water provider plaintiffs in
Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, New York, Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington, the
District of Columbia and several municipalities or water providers
from various states who direct-filed complaints in South Carolina.
These municipal plaintiffs generally allege that the use of the
defendants' fire-fighting foam products at fire training academies,
municipal airports, Air National Guard bases, or Navy or Air Force
bases released PFOS and PFOA into public water supply wells,
allegedly requiring remediation of public property.

Since the beginning of fiscal year 2020, 21 municipal actions have
been filed against the Company.

In May 2018, the Company was also notified by the Widefield Water
and Sanitation District in Colorado Springs, Colorado that it may
assert claims regarding its remediation costs in connection with
PFOS and PFOA contamination allegedly resulting from the use of
those products at the Peterson Air Force Base. In May 2020, the
Company was also notified by the Lakewood Water District in Pierce
County, Washington that it may assert claims regarding remediation
in connection with PFOA, PFOS, and other PFAS contamination
allegedly resulting from the use of those products at Joint Base
Lewis-McChord.

State or U.S. Territory Attorneys General Litigation related to
AFFF

In June 2018, the State of New York filed a lawsuit in New York
state court (State of New York v. The 3M Company et al No.
904029-18 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Albany County)) against a number of
manufacturers, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to
alleged PFOS and PFOA contamination purportedly resulting from
firefighting foams used at locations across New York, including
Stewart Air National Guard Base in Newburgh and Gabreski Air
National Guard Base in Southampton, Plattsburgh Air Force Base in
Plattsburgh, Griffiss Air Force Base in Rome, and unspecified
"other" sites throughout the State. The lawsuit seeks to recover
costs and natural resource damages associated with contamination at
these sites.

This suit has been removed to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of New York and transferred to the MDL.

In February 2019, the State of New York filed a second lawsuit in
New York state court (State of New York v. The 3M Company et al
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Albany County)), against a number of manufacturers,
including affiliates of the Company, with respect to alleged PFOS
and PFOA contamination purportedly resulting from firefighting
foams used at additional locations across New York.

This suit has been removed to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of New York and transferred to the MDL. In
July 2019, the State of New York filed a third lawsuit in New York
state court (State of New York v. The 3M Company et al (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Albany County)), against a number of manufacturers, including
affiliates of the Company, with respect to alleged PFOS and PFOA
contamination purportedly resulting from firefighting foams used at
further additional locations across New York.

This suit has been removed to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of New York and transferred to the MDL. In
November 2019, the State of New York filed a fourth lawsuit in New
York state court (State of New York v. The 3M Company et al (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., Albany County)), against a number of manufacturers,
including affiliates of the Company, with respect to alleged PFOS
and PFOA contamination purportedly resulting from firefighting
foams used at further additional locations across New York. This
suit has been removed to federal court and transferred to the MDL.

In January 2019, the State of Ohio filed a lawsuit in Ohio state
court (State of Ohio v. The 3M Company et al., No.
G-4801-CI-021804752 -000 (Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County,
Ohio)) against a number of manufacturers, including affiliates of
the Company, with respect to PFOS and PFOA contamination allegedly
resulting from the use of firefighting foams at various specified
and unspecified locations across Ohio.

he lawsuit seeks to recover costs and natural resource damages
associated with the contamination. This lawsuit has been removed to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
and transferred to the MDL.

In addition, in May and June 2019, three other states filed
lawsuits in their respective state courts against a number of
manufacturers, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to
PFOS and PFOA contamination allegedly resulting from the use of
firefighting foams at various specified and unspecified locations
across their jurisdictions (State of New Hampshire v. The 3M
Company et al.; State of Vermont v. The 3M Company et al.; State of
New Jersey v. The 3M Company et al.). All three of these suits have
been removed to federal court and transferred to the MDL.

In September 2019, the government of Guam filed a lawsuit in the
superior court of Guam against a number of manufacturers, including
affiliates of the Company, with respect to PFOS and PFOA
contamination allegedly resulting from the use of firefighting
foams at various locations within its jurisdiction. This complaint
has been removed to federal court and transferred to the MDL.

In November 2019, the government of the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands filed a lawsuit in the superior court of
the Northern Mariana Islands against a number of manufacturers,
including affiliates of the Company, with respect to PFOS and PFOA
contamination allegedly resulting from the use of firefighting
foams at various locations within its jurisdiction. This complaint
has been removed to federal court and transferred to the MDL.

AFFF Matters Related to the Tyco Fire Products Fire Technology
Center in Marinette, Wisconsin

Tyco Fire Products and Chemguard are defendants in one lawsuit in
Marinette County, Wisconsin alleging damages due to the historical
use of AFFF products at Tyco’s Fire Technology Center in
Marinette, Wisconsin.

The putative class action, Joan & Richard Campbell for themselves
and on behalf of other similarly situated v. Tyco Fire Products LP
and Chemguard Inc., et al. (Marinette County Circuit Court, filed
Dec. 17, 2018) alleges PFAS (including PFOA/PFOS) contaminated
groundwater migrated off Tyco's property and into residential
drinking water wells causing both personal injuries and property
damage to the plaintiffs; Tyco and Chemguard removed this case to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin and it has been transferred to the MDL.

A second lawsuit, Duane and Janell Goldsmith individually and on
behalf of H.G. and K.G v. Tyco Fire Products LP and Chemguard Inc.,
et al. (Marinette County Circuit Court, filed Dec. 17, 2018) was
also filed by a family alleging personal injuries due to
contaminated groundwater; this case has been dismissed without
prejudice.

Other AFFF Related Matters

In March 2020, the Kalispel Tribe of Indians (a federally
recognized Tribe) and two tribal corporations filed a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington against a number of manufacturers, including affiliates
of the Company, and the United States with respect to PFAS
contamination allegedly resulting from the use and disposal of AFFF
by the United States Air Force at and around Fairchild Air Force
Base in eastern Washington. This case has been transferred to the
MDL.

Other PFAS Related Matters

In April 2020, the Weirton Area Water Board in West Virginia filed
a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Brooke County, West Virginia
against a number of PFAS chemical manufacturers, including
Chemguard, with respect to PFAS contamination. This case has been
removed to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia.

The Company is vigorously defending the above matters and believes
that it has meritorious defenses to class certification and the
claims asserted.

Johnson Controls said, "However, there are numerous factual and
legal issues to be resolved in connection with these claims, and it
is extremely difficult to predict the outcome or ultimate financial
exposure, if any, represented by these matters, but there can be no
assurance that any such exposure will not be material. The Company
is also pursuing insurance coverage for these matters."

Johnson Controls International plc operates as a diversified
technology and multi industrial company worldwide. The company
operates through Building Technologies & Solutions and Power
Solutions segments. The company was formerly known as Johnson
Controls, Inc. and changed its name to Johnson Controls
International plc in September 2016. Johnson Controls International
plc was founded in 1885 and is headquartered in Cork, Ireland.


JZANUS LTD: Schwartz Files Suit Under FDCPA
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jzanus Ltd. The case
is styled as Idy Schwartz, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jzanus Ltd., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-06616 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 18, 2020).

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

Jzanus Ltd. provides revenue recovery and improvement consulting
services. The Company offers revenue cycle, home care, and HIM
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan Weiss, Esq.
   2076 East 27 Street
   Brooklyn, NY 11229
   Tel: (718) 928-8872
   Email: yoniw18@gmail.com



KLOECKNER METALS: Delgado Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ERNESTO DELGADO, as
individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
KLOECKNER METALS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV22503 (Filed June 10, 2020),
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on Aug. 17, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-07405 to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges causes of action, which the Plaintiff pursues
on a class-wide basis. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
violated the Labor Code arising from their failure to provide an
off-duty 30-minute meal break to employees, who worked 5 hours or
longer in one shift, and a second off-duty 30-minute meal breaks to
employees, who worked more than 10 hours in one shift; failure to
provide off-duty 10-minute rest breaks to employees who worked 3.5
hours or longer in one shift; and failure to pay final wages in a
timely manner to separated employees.

Kloeckner is a steel and metal distributor based in Roswell,
Georgia. Kloeckner's core business is the sale of steel and
non-ferrous metals.[BN]

Defendant Kloeckner Metals is represented by:

          Daniel B. Chammas, Esq.
          Min K. Kim, Esq.
          FORD & HARRISON LLP
          350 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 237-2400
          Facsimile: (213) 237-2401
          E-mail: dchammas@fordharrison.com
                  mkim@fordharrison.com


KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Jimenez MFWA Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as TONY JIMENEZ, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. KOHL'S DEPARTMENT
STORES, INC. and KOHL'S CORPORATION, Case No. 2081CV01337 (Filed
June 10, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of
Massachusetts, Middlesex County, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on Aug. 14, 2020.

The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-01247-SCD to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the
Massachusetts Fair Wages Act, by misclassifying him as exempt from
overtime pay and failing to pay him overtime premiums for hours
beyond 40 in a workweek. He seeks to bring claims on behalf of
himself and on behalf of a putative class of assistant store
managers at Kohl's stores in Massachusetts.

Kohl's retails merchandise. The Company focuses on apparel, shoes,
accessories, decorations, electronic, pet accessories, and house
wares targeting middle income customers. The Company operates
primarily in the Midwest and the Mid-Atlantic areas of the United
States.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

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

               - and -

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


KRAFT HEINZ: Rocco et al. Sue Over Deceptive Coffee Products Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
GENNARO ROCCO AND LORETTA SCHWEINSBURG, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KRAFT HEINZ FOODS
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-04578 (N.D. Ill., August 4,
2020) is a putative class action  brought by the Plaintiffs,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, on
behalf of purchasers of Maxwell House coffee products against
Defendant for manufacturing, distributing, and selling underfilled
Coffee Products.

According to the complaint, Defendant engages in widespread false
and deceptive advertising on its Maxwell House Coffee Products. In
a practice that offends reasonable consumer expectations, Defendant
employs a classic bait-and-switch scheme that causes unsuspecting
consumers to spend more money for less than the advertised amount
of coffee they believe they are purchasing. The packaging and
labeling of the Coffee Products prominently advertise that they
will produce a certain number of servings when, in fact, they do
not.

In this case, Plaintiffs purchased Maxwell House Coffee Products
that prominently advertise on their front labels that they "MAKE[]
UP TO 240 6 FL OZ CUPS." One serving of Maxwell House Coffee
consists of one (1) tablespoon of ground coffee and one (1) serving
of water ("6 FL OZ (3/4 CUP)"). To make the advertised 240
servings, the Coffee Products would have to contain approximately
240 tablespoons of ground coffee. But the Coffee Products purchased
by Plaintiffs contained only approximately 170 tablespoons of
ground coffee.

Kraft Heinz Food Company operates as a food and beverage company
with corporate co-headquarters in Chicago, Illinois and Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          111 W. Jackson St., Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 984-0000
          E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com

               - and -

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
          1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: bscott@bursor.com

KRIGER LAW: Almada Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as Jeffrey A. Almada,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Kriger Law Firm, APC, Case No. 3:19-cv-02109-BAS-MDD (S.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiff will move the Court on September 7, 2020 for an
order:

   1. certifying the case as a class action and certifying
      a class consisting of:

      "all persons within California who received any collection
      correspondence from the Defendant, which is identical or
      substantially similar to the June 3, 2019 correspondence
      the Defendant sent to Almada, within one year prior to the
      filing of the complaint in this matter.

   2. appointing Abbas Kazerounian and Yana A. Hart as class
      counsel.

Kriger Law Firm provides legal services.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative class are:

          Yana A. Hart, Esq.
          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: yana@kazlg.com
                  ak@kazlg.com

L-RAY LLC: Faces Rojas Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------
ANA L. ROJAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, -against- L-RAY, LLC d/b/a ALTA RESTAURANT,
CHRISTOPHER CHESNUTT and EWA OLSEN, as individuals, Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-06109 (S.D.N.Y., August 5, 2020) is an action
brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, against Defendants to recover damages for
egregious violations of the wage and hour laws under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") arising
out of Plaintiffs employment at Defendants' Alta Restaurant in New
York.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from in or around January 2019
until in or around August 2019 with primary duties as a cook and
kitchen worker, and other miscellaneous duties.

According to the complaint, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the
legally prescribed minimum wage for her hours worked from in or
around January 2019 until in or around August 2019, a blatant
violation of the minimum wage provisions contained in the FLSA and
NYLL.

Although Plaintiff worked approximately 54 or more hours per week
during his employment by Defendants, Defendants did not pay
Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant
violation of the overtime provisions contained in the state and
federal laws.

Defendants also willfully failed to post notices of the minimum
wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the
location of their employment while failing to keep accurate payroll
records as required by both NYLL and the FLSA.

L-Ray, LLC d/b/a Alta Restaurant is a New York-based
restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

LABORATORY CORP: Bid to Dismiss AMCA-Related Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated class action suit related to a data
security incident involving Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau,
Inc. d/b/a American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA) is pending.

On May 14, 2019, Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. d/b/a
American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA), an external collection
agency, notified the Company about a security incident AMCA
experienced that may have involved certain personal information
about some of the Company's patients (the AMCA Incident).

The Company referred patient balances to AMCA only when direct
collection efforts were unsuccessful. The Company's systems were
not impacted by the AMCA Incident.

Upon learning of the AMCA Incident, the Company promptly stopped
sending new collection requests to AMCA and stopped AMCA from
continuing to work on any pending collection requests from the
Company. AMCA informed the Company that it appeared that an
unauthorized user had access to AMCA's system between August 1,
2018 and March 30, 2019, and that AMCA could not rule out the
possibility that personal information on AMCA's system was at risk
during that time period.

Information on AMCA's affected system from the Company may have
included name, address, and balance information for the patient and
person responsible for payment, along with the patient's phone
number, date of birth, referring physician, and date of service.
The Company was later informed by AMCA that health insurance
information may have been included for some individuals, and
because some insurance carriers utilize the Social Security Number
as a subscriber identification number, the Social Security Number
for some individuals may also have been affected.

No ordered tests, laboratory test results, or diagnostic
information from the Company were in the AMCA affected system. The
Company notified individuals for whom it had a valid mailing
address.

For the individuals whose Social Security Number was affected, the
notice included an offer to enroll in credit monitoring and
identity protection services that will be provided free of charge
for 24 months.

Twenty-three putative class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company related to the AMCA Incident in various U.S. District
Courts.

Numerous similar lawsuits have been filed against other health care
providers who used AMCA. These lawsuits have been consolidated into
a multidistrict litigation in the District of New Jersey.

On November 15, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class
Action Complaint in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey.

On January 22, 2020, the Company filed Motions to Dismiss all
claims.

The consolidated Complaint generally alleges that the Company did
not adequately protect its patients' data and failed to timely
notify those patients of the AMCA Incident. The Complaint asserts
various causes of action, including but not limited to negligence,
breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and the violation of
state data protection statutes.

The Complaint seeks damages on behalf of a class of all affected
Company customers.

The Company will vigorously defend the multi-district litigation.

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

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.


LABORATORY CORP: Conditional Class Cert. Bid in Mitchell Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the court in Mitchell v.
Covance, Inc. et al., has denied without prejudice the plaintiff's
motion to conditionally certify a class action.

On July 30, 2019, the Company was served with a class action
lawsuit, Mitchell v. Covance, Inc. et al., filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Plaintiff alleges that certain individuals employed by Covance Inc.
and Chiltern International Inc. were misclassified as exempt
employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act and were thereby not properly paid overtime
compensation.

The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages, and
recovery of attorneys' fees and costs.

On February 3, 2020, the Court denied without prejudice the
Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify a putative class
action.

The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

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

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.


LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Voluntary Dismissal of Tanious Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
Landstar System, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 27, 2020, that the court overseeing the purported class action
suit initiated by Hany Tanious has issued an order granting
voluntary dismissal of this action in full.

On January 25, 2019, a purported class action was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Bernardino against Landstar System, Inc. and Landstar Ranger, Inc.
(together, the "Defendants").

The complaint purported to bring this action on behalf of Hany
Tanious, as an individual, and "all owner operators who performed
work for the Defendants, and who were classified as independent
contractors, during the four years preceding the filing of this
action through the present."

The complaint asserted claims based on the alleged
misclassification of Mr. Tanious as an independent contractor and
alleged violations under California law relating to overtime,
minimum wage, meal and rest breaks, failure to reimburse certain
expenses, wage statements, waiting time and unfair competition.

Mr. Tanious was a truck owner-operator and formerly an independent
contractor who was a party to an independent contractor operating
agreement with Landstar Ranger, Inc.

On June 11, 2019, the Defendants filed a Notice of Removal that
resulted in the removal of the case from state court to federal
court, where it was assigned to Judge Dale S. Fischer of the United
State District Court for the Central District of California.

On August 22, 2019, the Court issued an order, among other things,
striking all class allegations from the complaint and stating that
this matter would proceed as an individual action.

On June 15, 2020, the Court issued an order granting the
Defendants' motion to transfer venue to the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, where the matter was
assigned to Judge Marcia Morales Howard.

On June 24, 2020, the Court, sua sponte, issued an order striking
the first amended complaint that was deemed by the Court to have
been filed by the plaintiff on March 23, 2020.

On July 6, 2020, the plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal without
prejudice of all remaining claims relating to this action.

On July 15, 2020, the Court issued an order granting the voluntary
dismissal of this action in full.

Landstar System, Inc. provides integrated transportation management
solutions in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and
internationally. It operates through two segments, Transportation
Logistics and Insurance. Landstar System, Inc. was founded in 1968
and is headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida.


LIMANI 51: Faces Rahman Suit Over Violations of Human Rights Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HAMIDUR RAHMAN, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class v. LIMANI 51, LLC, d/b/a LIMANI, ESTIATORIO LIMANI
LLC d/b/a LIMANI, CHRISTOS SPYROPOULOS, and JOHN ALCIVIADES, Case
No. 1:20-cv-06708 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 20, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants for their unlawful labor practices that violate the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, as well as unlawful
discriminatory practices that violate the New York State Human
Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a server at their
restaurant LIMANI, located at 45 Rockefeller Plaza in New York City
on April 17, 2017. The Plaintiff's employment was constructively
terminated on September 8, 2019.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the other FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs have been subjected to the Defendants'
decisions, policies, plans, programs, practices, procedures,
protocols, routines, and rules, all culminating in a willful
failure and refusal to pay them compensation for the invalid meal
credit deductions.

The Plaintiff and the Class members were subject to the same
corporate practices of the Defendants: (i) failing to pay proper
wages due to an invalid tip credit; (ii) improperly deducting meal
credits from employees' wages; and (iii) failing to provide proper
wage notices that were in compliance with the requirements under
the NYLL.

The Plaintiff also seeks to recover from the Defendants for
discrimination on the basis of race and national origin: (1) back
pay, (2) front pay, (3) compensatory damages, (4) punitive damages
and (5) attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to NYSHRL N.Y. Exec.
Law Section 296 and the NYCHRL Administrative Code of City of NY
Section 8-107.

Limani 51, LLC d/b/a Limani, and Estiatorio Limani LLC d/b/a Limani
are New York-based Mediterranean restaurant companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LLOYD'S LONDON: Hair Salon Sues Over Denied Insurance Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN'S HAIR SALON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S,
LONDON, and UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON KNOWN AS SYNDICATES AML,
VSM, AUW, and AES; and BLAIR AND COMPANY, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-01527-CAB-AGS (S.D. Cal., August 6, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for breach of contract and unfair business
practices under California Business and Professions Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants denied the insurance
claims of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
policyholders for business interruption losses without any
inspection or review of their physical location or documents
concerning their business activities in 2020. The insurance
policies issued to the Plaintiff and the Class members are all risk
commercial property polices which cover loss or damage to the
covered premises resulting from all risks other than those
expressly excluded. They have suffered a direct physical loss of
and damage to their property because they have been unable to use
their properties for their intended purposes as a result of the
closure orders enforced by the State of California and other Civil
Authorities to prevent the spread of COVID-19. The Plaintiff and
Class members seek a declaratory judgment that the Defendants are
obligated to pay them for business income losses incurred due to
COVID-19 Civil Authority Orders.

Juan's Hair Salon is a hair salon business located at 500 Broadway,
Suite A, El Cajon, California.

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London and Underwriters at
Lloyd's, London known as syndicates AML, VSM, AUW, and AES is a
corporation that provides property insurance with its principal
place of business at One Lime Street, London, ECM 7HA, United
Kingdom.

Blair and Company is a company that provides claims management and
administration services for insurance programs with its principal
place of business located at 28025 Smyth Drive, Valencia,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Amber L. Eck, Esq.
         Alreen Haeggquist, Esq.
         Robert Prine, Esq.
         HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP
         225 Broadway, Suite 2050
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 342-8000
         Facsimile: (619) 342-7878
         E-mail: ambere@haelaw.com
                 alreenh@haelaw.com
                 robertp@haelaw.com

MAKITA USA: Fails to Pay Proper Minimum & OT Wages, Jimenez Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH JIMENEZ, individually, and on behalf of aggrieved employees
pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act v. MAKITA U.S.A.,
INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. 20NWCV00452 (Aug. 14, 2020), seeks civil penalties for
violation of Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay all meal
period wages and rest break wages, to properly calculate and pay
all minimum and overtime wages, to provide compliant wage
statements, to pay all wages due and owing during employment and
upon termination of employment, and to reimburse necessary business
expenses. The Defendants have also allegedly caused employees to
work on seven consecutive days per week without rest.

The Plaintiff and the other hourly-paid or non-exempt employees
worked for the Defendants at any time during the period from May
28, 2019, to the present, and one or more of the alleged violations
were committed against them.

Makita engineers and manufactures power tools. The Company designs
drills, drivers, wrenches, saws, sanders, vacuums, blowers,
grinders, polishers, planers, routers, and other related power
tools products and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
          Daniel J. Park, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          751 N. Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 101
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (818) 230-7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230-7259


MASUDA INVESTMENTS: Clevenger Seeks Minimum and Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES CLEVENGER, an individual v. MASUDA INVESTMENTS, LLC, a
limited liability company and MONICA MASUDA an individual and DOES
1-10, Inclusive, Case No. 20STCV31105 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., Aug. 17, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated alleging that the Defendants failed to
pay minimum and overtime wages and to provide uninterrupted
off-duty meal periods and/or required premium wages in violation of
the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff worked for Masuda Investments as an Assistant Manager
and Maintenance person from 2011 up until June 17, 2020, when he
was wrongfully terminated, according to the complaint. The
Plaintiff was clearly a non-exempt employee because he only
received a salary of $2,000 per month, plus a rent allowance, which
is way below the "salary basis" threshold for any overtime
exemption. Nevertheless, the Defendants never paid overtime
compensation when the Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours per week
or more than 8 hours per day.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant falsely characterized him
as exempt, and thus kept no records of his hours worked, as well as
no meal period records whatsoever.

Monica Masuda is the owner of Masuda Investments and is a resident
of the County of Los Angeles, California. She is liable for the
unpaid wages and other related claims, says the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brent S. Bucshbaum, Esq.
          Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BUCHSBAUM & HAAG, LLP
          100 Oceangate, Suite 1200
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 733-2498
          Facsimile: (562) 628-5501
          E-mail: brent@buchsbaumhaag.com
                  laurel@buchsbaumhaag.com


MCCBREN CORP: Faces Hernandez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
ABRAHAM HERNANDEZ and CARLOS ERNESTO ALFARO SANCHEZ, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, -against-
MCCBREN CORP. (D/B/A TRIONA'S), MICHAEL BRENNER, and TRIONA DOE,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-06128 (S.D.N.Y., August 5, 2020) is a
class action brought by the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves,
and other similarly situated individuals, for unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29
U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., and for violations of the N.Y. Labor
Law Sections 190 et seq. and 650 et seq., and the "spread of hours"
and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor
codified at N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS. tit. 12, Section 146-1.6,
including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs.

Plaintiffs were employed as a busboy, cook and dishwasher at the
bars in New York.

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

Further, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the required "spread
of hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over 10 hours a
day. Defendants also failed to provide Plaintiffs and other
employees with accurate wage statements at the time of their
payment of wages.

Mccbren Corp. owns, operates, or controls an Irish Pub in New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MCKESSON CORPORATION: McDonald Files PI Suit in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McKesson Corporation.
The case is styled as Jessica McDonald, individually and as next
friend and guardian of Baby A.M. and Baby R.H., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. McKesson
Corporation, Cardinal Health, Inc., AmerisourceBergen Corporation,
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., Cephalon, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Johnson &
Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ortho-McNeil-Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. n/k/a Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen
Pharmaceutica Inc. n/k/a Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Endo Health
Solutions, Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Allergan PLC f/k/a
Actavis PLC, Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. n/k/a Actavis, Inc.,
Watson Laboratories, Inc., Actavis, LLC, Actavis Pharma, Inc. f/k/a
Watson Pharma, Inc., DEPOMED, INC., Mallinckrodt LLC, Mallinckrodt
PLC, SpecGX LLC, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical
Companies, Inc., Noramco, Inc., Indivior, Inc., CVS Health
Corporation, Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., Walgreen Eastern Co.,
Walgreen Co., Wal-Mart Inc. f/k/a Walmart Stores, Inc., H.D. Smith,
LLC, H.D. Smith Holdings, LLC and H.D. Smith Holding Company,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01044-UNA (D. Del., Aug. 5, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as P.I.: Other
filed pursuant to the Diversity-Personal Injury.

McKesson Corporation is an American company distributing
pharmaceuticals and providing health information technology,
medical supplies, and care management tools.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Celeste Brustowicz, Esq.
   Cooper Law Firm
   1525 Religious Street
   New Orleans, LA 70130
   Tel: (504) 309-0009
   Fax: (504) 309-6989
   Email: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com



MDL 2445: 3rd Cir. Upholds Class Certification of Suboxone Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit issued its opinion affirming the District Court's
order certifying the class in the suit entitled, In re Suboxone
(Buprenorphine Hydrochloride and Naloxone) Antitrust Litigation,
MDL No. 2445.

On September 22, 2016, 41 states and the District of Columbia, or
the States, brought suit against Indivior, Inc. (Indivior) and the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, alleging violations of federal and state antitrust
statutes and state unfair trade and consumer protection laws
relating to Indivior's launch of Suboxone Sublingual Film in 2010
and seeking an injunction, civil penalties, and disgorgement.

After filing the suit, the case was consolidated for pre-trial
purposes with the In re Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride and
Naloxone) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2445, or the Suboxone MDL,
a multidistrict litigation relating to putative class actions on
behalf of various private plaintiffs against Indivior relating to
its launch of Suboxone Sublingual Film.

While Aquestive was not named as a defendant in the original
Suboxone MDL cases, the action brought by the States alleges that
the Company participated in an antitrust conspiracy with Indivior
in connection with Indivior's launch of Suboxone Sublingual Film
and engaged in related conduct in violation of federal and state
antitrust law.

Aquestive moved to dismiss the States' conspiracy claims, but by
order dated October 30, 2017, the Court denied the motion to
dismiss. An answer was filed denying the States' claims on November
20, 2017. The fact discovery period closed July 27, 2018, but the
parties agreed to conduct certain fact depositions in August 2018.


The expert discovery phase closed May 30, 2019, but additional
reports and depositions were conducted through August 1, 2019.  

Daubert briefing is ongoing.  The remainder of the case schedule,
including summary judgment briefing, is stayed pending resolution
of Indivior's appeal of the District Court's class certification
ruling in a co-pending multi-district litigation to which the
Company is not a party.

On July 28, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
issued its opinion affirming the District Court's order certifying
the class.  

Aquestive said, "This ruling may result in a resumption of the
pre-trial proceedings in this case.  Management is not able to
determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding or
provide a reasonable estimate, or range of estimates, of the
possible outcome or loss, if any, in this matter."

Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
focuses on identifying, developing, and commercializing various
products to address unmet medical needs. The Company markets
Sympazan, an oral soluble film formulation of clobazam for the
treatment of lennox-gastaut syndrome; Suboxone, a sublingual film
formulation of buprenorphine and naloxone for the treatment of
opioid dependence; and Zuplenz, an oral soluble film formulation of
ondansetron for the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated
with chemotherapy and post-operative recovery in the United States
and internationally. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in
2004 and is headquartered in Warren, New Jersey.


MDL 2953: Court Denies Centralization of 12 Hernia Mesh Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: COVIDIEN HERNIA MESH PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2953, Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has denied the
Defendants' motion to centralize 12 actions in nine districts.

Defendants move under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize pretrial
proceedings in this litigation in the Southern District of New
York.

Plaintiffs in the Western District of New York Black action oppose
centralization, and plaintiffs in the Southern District of New York
and District of New Jersey actions filed a joinder to the Black
plaintiffs' response.  Plaintiffs in the Central District of
California and Northern District of California actions do not
oppose centralization.  All responding plaintiffs argue that,
should the Panel grant centralization, the appropriate transferee
district is the District of Massachusetts.

After considering the arguments of counsel, Judge Caldwell is not
persuaded that centralization is necessary for the convenience of
the parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation at this time.  The actions share
allegations that defects in defendants' hernia mesh products can
lead to complications.  Centralization thus likely would avoid a
certain amount of duplicative discovery, eliminate the possibility
of conflicting rulings on the scope of discovery and other pretrial
matters, and create some efficiencies for the parties and the
judiciary.  But where, as here, "only a minimal number of actions
are involved, the proponent of centralization bears a heavier
burden to demonstrate that centralization is appropriate." The
Judge is not persuaded under the present circumstances that the
benefits of centralization outweigh the disruption to the pending
actions, some of which have been pending in federal court for two
or three years.

Defendants rely upon the Panel's previous decisions in other hernia
mesh litigations to argue that centralization is appropriate.  A
grant of centralization though does not guarantee that the Panel
will find centralization appropriate in another litigation alleging
similar claims, and the Panel makes each of its decisions based on
the circumstances presented by a particular litigation at the time.
Defendants also rely upon the history of those three MDLs in
arguing that the federal cases alleging defects in Covidien hernia
mesh products will "balloon." But the Panel has been "disinclined
to take into account the mere possibility of future filings in
[its] centralization calculus." And the Panel is not persuaded that
the number of cases filed in or removed to federal court will
substantially increase here.  Defendants argue that plaintiffs'
counsel have been asserting in national advertisements that
Covidien hernia mesh products are defective, and they cite to
hernia mesh legal conferences that included sessions on Covidien
hernia mesh products.  But some of this activity has been ongoing
for at least three years, and the Panel is presented with just
twelve cases today.  The parties represent that more than 150 cases
are now pending, but almost all have been filed in state court, and
most of those in Covidien LP's home state of Massachusetts.

Defendants argue that centralization will avoid inconsistent
rulings, particularly on motions to dismiss.  Judge Caldwell finds
this argument unconvincing here because the courts in most actions
before the Panel already have ruled on motions to dismiss.

In these circumstances, the Panel is of the view that there are
alternatives to centralization available to minimize any
duplication in pretrial proceedings, including informal cooperation
and coordination of these actions.  The presence of common counsel
here should facilitate informal coordination of this relatively
small number of actions.  Plaintiffs in five of the twelve actions
before the Panel are represented by the same law firm, and
plaintiffs in another two actions also share counsel.  Defendants
are represented by the same law firm in nine of the actions.

A full-text copy of the Court's August 7, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/85t7Ak


MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Mulls Appeal of Cleven Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. (MAA) said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the Company intends to
appeal the District Court's order granting plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment in the lawsuit initiated by Cathi Cleven and Tara
Cleven to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals if permission to
appeal is granted.

In June 2016, plaintiffs Cathi Cleven and Tara Cleven, on behalf of
a purported class of plaintiffs, filed a complaint against MAA and
the Operating Partnership in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.  

In January 2017, Areli Arellano and Joe L. Martinez joined the
lawsuit as additional plaintiffs.  

The lawsuit alleges that the Company (but not Post Properties)
charged late fees at its Texas properties that violate Section
92.019 of the Texas Property Code, or Section 92.019, which
provides that a landlord may not charge a tenant a late fee for
failing to pay rent unless, among other things, the fee is a
reasonable estimate of uncertain damages to the landlord that are
incapable of precise calculation and result from the late payment
of rent.  

The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and attorneys' fees and
costs.  

In September 2018, the District Court certified a class proposed by
the plaintiffs. Additionally, in September 2018, the District Court
denied the Company's motion for summary judgment and granted the
plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment.  

Because the District Court certified a class prior to granting the
plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, the District
Court’s ruling applies to the entire class.  

In October 2018, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the
Company's petition to review the District Court's order granting
class certification.  

In September 2019, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard the
Company's oral arguments.

The Company also intends to appeal the District Court's order
granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment to the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals if permission to appeal is granted.  

The Company will continue to vigorously defend the action and
pursue such appeals.  

Mid-America Apartment said, "Management estimates that the
Company's maximum exposure in the lawsuit, given the class
certification and summary judgment ruling, is $54.6 million, which
includes both potential damages and attorneys' fees but excludes
any prejudgment interest that may be awarded."

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

Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. (MAA), incorporated on
September 22, 1993, is a multifamily focused, self-administered and
self-managed real estate investment trust (REIT). The Company owns,
operates, acquires and develops apartment communities primarily
located in the Southeast and Southwest regions of the United
States. It operates through three segments: Large market same
store, Secondary market same store and Non-Same Store and Other.
The company is based in Germantown, Tennessee.


MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Mulls Appeal of Summary Judgment Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. (MAA) said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the Company intends to
appeal the District Court's order granting plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals if
permission to appeal is granted.

In April 2017, plaintiff Nathaniel Brown, on behalf of a purported
class of plaintiffs, filed a complaint against the Operating
Partnership, as the successor by merger to Post Properties' primary
operating partnership, and MAA in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.

The lawsuit alleges that Post Properties (and, following the Post
Properties merger in December 2016, the Operating Partnership)
charged late fees at its Texas properties that violate Section
92.019. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and attorneys'
fees and costs.

In September 2018, the District Court certified a class proposed by
the plaintiff.

Additionally, in September 2018, the District Court denied the
company's motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiff's
motion for partial summary judgment.

Because the District Court certified a class prior to granting the
plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, the District
Court's ruling applies to the entire class.

In October 2018, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the
Company's petition to review the District Court’s order granting
class certification.  

In September 2019, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard the
Company's oral arguments.  

The company intends to appeal the District Court's order granting
plaintiff's motion for summary judgment to the Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals if permission to appeal is granted.

Mid-America Apartment said, "We will continue to vigorously defend
the action and pursue such appeals."

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

Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. (MAA), incorporated on
September 22, 1993, is a multifamily focused, self-administered and
self-managed real estate investment trust (REIT). The Company owns,
operates, acquires and develops apartment communities primarily
located in the Southeast and Southwest regions of the United
States. It operates through three segments: Large market same
store, Secondary market same store and Non-Same Store and Other.
The company is based in Germantown, Tennessee.


MIDLAND FUNDING: Church FDCPA Class Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as CLIFFORD J. CHURCH,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. MIDLAND
FUNDING, LLC; MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1 to
10, Case No. BER-L-003864-20 (Filed July 3, 2020), was removed from
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey on Aug. 14, 2020.

The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-10538 to the proceeding.

In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Removing
Defendants are debt collectors, and that they are liable under the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, for mailing him a letter that
allegedly contained misleading information in connection with an
attempt to collect a debt.

Midland is a large buyer of unpaid debts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM, LLC
          411 Hackensack Ave., Suite 701
          Hackensack, NJ 07601

               - and -

          Ronald I. LeVine, Esq.
          Eileen L. Linarducci, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RONALD I. LEVINE, ESQ.
          210 River St., Suite 11
          Hackensack, NJ 07601

The Defendants are represented by:

          Thomas M. Brodowski, Esq.
          Michael P. Trainor, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          130 N. 18th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 569-5500
          Facsimile: (215) 569-5555
          E-mail: MTrainor@BlankRome.com
                  TBrodowski@BlankRome.com


MIMEDX GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Carpenters Pension Fund Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MiMedx Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the consolidated class
action suit headed by Carpenters Pension Fund of Illinois is still
pending.

On January 16, 2019, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia entered an order consolidating two
purported securities class actions (MacPhee v. MiMedx Group, Inc.,
et al. filed February 23, 2018 and Kline v. MiMedx Group, Inc., et
al. filed February 26, 2018).

The order also appointed Carpenters Pension Fund of Illinois as
lead plaintiff. On May 1, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint, naming as defendants the Company,
Michael J. Senken, Parker H. Petit, William C. Taylor, Christopher
M. Cashman and Cherry Bekaert & Holland LLP.

The amended complaint (the "Securities Class Action Complaint")
alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. It asserted a
class period of March 7, 2013 through June 29, 2018.

Following the filing of motions to dismiss by the various
defendants, the lead plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended
complaint.

The lead plaintiff filed its amended complaint against the Company,
Michael Senken, Pete Petit, William Taylor, and Cherry Bekaert &
Holland (Christopher Cashman was dropped as a defendant) on March
30, 2020; defendants filed motions to dismiss on May 29, 2020.

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

MiMedx Group, Inc. is an industry leader in advanced wound care and
an emerging therapeutic biologics company, developing and
distributing placental tissue allografts with patent-protected
processes for multiple sectors of healthcare. The company is based
in Marietta, Georgia.


MORGAN STANLEY: Blythe Files Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Morgan Stanley Smith
Barney, LLC. The case is styled as Mark Blythe, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Morgan
Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-06610-UA
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 18, 2020).

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

Morgan Stanley operates as a brokerage firm and investment
advisor..[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Michael Milton Liskow, Esq.
   Calcaterra Pollack LLP
   1140 Avenue of the Americas
   Ste 9th Floor
   New York, NY 10036-5803
   Tel: (212) 899-1761
   Email: mliskow@calcaterrapollack.com

     - and -

   Janine Lee Pollack, Esq.
   Calcaterra Pollack LLP
   1140 Avenue of the Americas
   9th Floor
   New York, NY 10036
   Tel: (212) 899-1760
   Fax: (332) 206-2073
   Email: jpollack@calcaterrapollack.com


NB NETWORK: Faces Herrera Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
ERIKA HERRERA and NESTOR ALVARADO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NB NETWORK SOLUTIONS
INC., NB NET SOLUTION INC, NB NET SOLUTIONS 3 INC, NB NET SOLUTIONS
4 INC, NB NET SOLUTIONS 5 INC, NB NET SOLUTIONS 6 INC, NB NET
SOLUTIONS 8 INC, NB NET SOLUTIONS 9 INC, NB NET SOLUTIONS 10 INC,
NB NET SOLUTIONS 11 INC, NB NET SOLUTIONS 12 INC, NB NET SOLUTIONS
13 INC, NB NET SOLUTIONS 15 INC, NB NET SOLUTIONS 16 INC, NB NET
SOLUTIONS 18 INC, NB NET SOLUTIONS 19 INC, NB NET SOLUTIONS 20 INC,
NB NET SOLUTIONS 21 INC, NB NET SOLUTIONS 24 INC, NB NET SOLUTIONS
25 INC, NB NET SOLUTIONS 28 INC, NB NET SOLUTIONS 29 INC, NB NET
SOLUTIONS 33 INC, NB NET SOLUTIONS 36 INC, NB NET SOLUTIONS 37 INC,
NB NET SOLUTIONS 38 INC, NB NET SOLUTIONS 40 INC, BAYZEED
CHOWDHURY, ANELL CHOWDHURY, and NAIFUR CHOWDHURY, Defendants, Case
No. 1:20-cv-03545 (E.D.N.Y., August 6, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law by failing to compensate the Plaintiffs
and all other similarly situated retail clerks appropriate minimum
wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek; failing to pay spread of hours premium for each day
they worked in excess of 10 hours; illegally deducting money from
their weekly wages and monthly commissions; failing to keep full
and accurate time records; and failing to provide them with a wage
notice at the time of hiring.

The Plaintiffs were employed as retail clerks at the Defendants'
Boost Mobile retail stores in New York from July 2018 until
December 2018.

NB Network Solutions Inc. owns and operates a Boost Mobile retail
store located at 32 Bedford Park Boulevard, Bronx, New York 10468.

NB Net Solution Inc. owns and operates a Boost Mobile retail store
located at 3186B 21st Street, Long Island City, New York 11106.

NB Net Solutions 3 Inc. owns and operates a Boost Mobile retail
store located at 71 E. Kingsbridge Road, Bronx, New York 10468.

NB Net Solution 4 Inc. owns and operates a Boost Mobile retail
store located at 4710 Broadway, Long Island City, New York 11103.

NB Net Solution 5 Inc. owns and operates a Boost Mobile retail
store located at 197D Madison Street, New York, New York 10002.

NB Net Solution 6 Inc. owns and operates a Boost Mobile retail
store located at 2012 2nd Avenue, New York, New York 10029.

NB Net Solution 8 Inc. owns and operates a Boost Mobile retail
store located at 924 Columbus Avenue, New York, New York 10025.

NB Net Solution 9 Inc. owns and operates a Boost Mobile retail
store located at 577A Main Street, New Rochelle, New York 10801.

NB Net Solution 10 Inc. owns and operates a Boost Mobile retail
store located at 1234 St. Nicholas Avenue, New York, New York
10032.

NB Net Solution 11 Inc. owns and operates a Boost Mobile retail
store located at 8772 Sutphin Boulevard, Jamaica, New York 11435.

NB Net Solution 12 Inc. owns and operates a Boost Mobile retail
store located at 30 S. Main Street, Port Chester, New York 10573.

NB Net Solution 13 Inc. owns and operates a Boost Mobile retail
store located at 21-16 36th Avenue, Long Island City, New York
11106.

NB Net Solution 15 Inc. owns and operates a Boost Mobile retail
store located at 9205 Jamaica Avenue, Woodhaven, New York 11421.

NB Net Solution 16 Inc. owns and operates a Boost Mobile retail
store located at 612 Castle Hill Avenue, Bronx, New York 10473.

NB Net Solution 18 Inc. owns and operates a Boost Mobile retail
store located at563 E. Tremont Avenue, Bronx, New York 10457.

NB Net Solution 19 Inc. owns and operates a Boost Mobile retail
store located at 544 E. Fordham Road, Bronx, New York 10458.

NB Net Solution 20 Inc. owns and operates a Boost Mobile retail
store located at 8206 Roosevelt Avenue, Jackson Heights, New York
11372.

NB Net Solution 21 Inc. owns and operates a Boost Mobile retail
store located at 4511 Greenpoint Avenue, Sunnyside, New York
11104.

NB Net Solution 24 Inc. owns and operates a Boost Mobile retail
store located at 873B Tremont Avenue, Bronx, New York 10457.

NB Net Solution 25 Inc. owns and operates a Boost Mobile retail
store located at 2043 Bartow Avenue, Bronx, New York 10475.

NB Net Solution 28 Inc. owns and operates a Boost Mobile retail
store located at 971157th Avenue, Flushing, New York 11368.

NB Net Solution 29 Inc. owns and operates a Boost Mobile retail
store located at 1047 Westchester Avenue, Bronx, New York 10459.

NB Net Solution 33 Inc. owns and operates a Boost Mobile retail
store located at 1938 Nostrand Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11210.

NB Net Solution 36 Inc. owns and operates a Boost Mobile retail
store located at 1261 Castle Hill Avenue, Bronx, New York 10462.

NB Net Solution 37 Inc. owns and operates a Boost Mobile retail
store located at 10320 Roosevelt Avenue, Corona, New York 11368.

NB Net Solution 38 Inc. owns and operates a Boost Mobile retail
store located at 2042B Rockaway Parkway, Brooklyn, New York 11236.

NB Net Solution 40 Inc. owns and operates a Boost Mobile retail
store located at 1692 Pitkin Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11212.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
         
         Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
         675 3rd Avenue Suite 1810
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (718) 669-0714
         E-mail: mgangat@gangatpllc.com

NEW JERSEY: Court Narrows RLUIPA Claims in Abdul-Aziz Inmate Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an
Opinion granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' Motion
for Summary Judgment in the case captioned SHAROB ABDUL-AZIZ v.
GARY M. LANIGAN, et al., Case No. 17-2806 (FLW) (TJB) (D.N.J.).

Gary M. Lanigan is sued in his official capacity as
then-Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Corrections
("NJDOC").

Sharob Abdul-Aziz is a state prisoner, presently incarcerated at
East Jersey State Prison in Rahway, New Jersey. He is proceeding
pro se with a civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
("RLUIPA"). Defendants Gary M. Lanigan, Andrew P. Sidamon-Eristoff,
and Jignasa Desai-McCleary (collectively, "State Defendants"),
filed the instant motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of
the Complaint.

This action originated as Abdul-Aziz v. Lanigan, Civ. A. No.
14-2026 (FLW), ("the Prior Action") in which Abdul-Aziz, along with
three other plaintiffs, William McCray, Ibn Pasha, and Charles
Rashid, asserted Section 1983 and RLUIPA claims against Lanigan,
then-Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Corrections
("NJDOC"), Sidamon-Eristoff and Desai-McCleary, as officials with
the New Jersey Department of the Treasury ("Treasury"), and Stephen
D'Ilio, then-Administrator of New Jersey State Prison, who is no
longer a party to this case. The Plaintiffs in the Prior Action
alleged interference with their religious exercise as practicing
Muslims based on four distinct grounds: (1) denial of daily halal
meats; (2) denial of donated halal feast meals; (3) prohibition and
confiscation of personal prayer oils; and (4) failure to facilitate
congregational prayer.

Subsequently, Abdul-Aziz, who had by then transferred to East
Jersey State Prison, filed an Amended Complaint, while the other
plaintiffs moved to file a separate Amended Complaint. Finding that
the plaintiffs could not proceed with two independent complaints,
the Court directed the plaintiffs to notify the Court as to whether
they wished to remain as plaintiffs in the same action. After
receiving the plaintiffs' responses, the Court found good cause to
sever the matter into two actions, creating the instant proceeding,
as well as Rashid v. Lanigan, Civ. A. No. 17-2805 (FLW).

Accordingly, Plaintiff Abdul-Aziz's Amended Complaint from the
Prior Action became the operative Complaint in this proceeding on
April 25, 2017. The Plaintiff maintains that the State Defendants'
denial of a religious diet that includes halal meat creates a
substantial burden to his observance of Islam because he is either
forced to be a vegetarian or eat non-halal meat, both of which are
"not in accordance with Islamic tradition or doctrines."

According to the Court's Opinion, the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as
follows:

   (1) summary judgment is GRANTED as to the Plaintiff's First
       Amendment claim (Free Exercise Clause) regarding the
       denial of a religious diet that includes halal meat and
       his equal protection claim arising from the provision of
       kosher meals to Jewish inmates; and

   (2) summary judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to the
       Plaintiff's RLUIPA claim regarding the denial of a
       religious diet that includes halal meat.

The Court also dismisses without prejudice the Plaintiff's First
Amendment claim (Establishment Clause) arising from the provision
of kosher meals to Jewish inmates pursuant to the Court's screening
authority under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B). At this time the
Court will also appoint counsel sua sponte and administratively
terminate this matter until counsel is assigned.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 18, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9j8kle5 from Leagle.com.


ONESPAN INC: Hagens Berman Announces Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges OneSpan Inc. (NASDAQ: OSPN) investors to submit
their losses now.  A securities fraud class action is filed and
certain investors may have valuable claims.

Class Period: May 9, 2018 – Aug. 11, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Oct. 19, 2020
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/OSPN
Contact An Attorney Now: OSPN@hbsslaw.com
        844-916-0895

OneSpan Inc. (OSPN) Securities Class Action:

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
misrepresented and concealed that: (i) OneSpan had inadequate
disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over
financial reporting; (ii) as a result, OneSpan overstated its
revenue relating to certain contracts with customers involving
software licenses in its financial statements spread out over the
first quarter of 2018 to the first quarter of 2020; (iii) as a
result, it was foreseeably likely that the Company would eventually
have to delay one or more scheduled earnings releases, conference
calls, and/or financial filings with the SEC; (iv) OneSpan
downplayed the negative impacts of errors in its financial
statements; and (v) all the foregoing, once revealed, was
foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the
Company's financial results and reputation.

According to the Complaint, the market began to learn the truth on
Aug. 4, 2020, when OneSpan postponed its Q2 2020 earnings release
and conference call by 1 week, blaming the delay on prior period
revenue recognition problems relating to certain software license
contracts.  OneSpan and senior management explained "[t]he net
contract assets that originated from a portion of these assets in
prior periods were not properly accounted for in subsequent
periods, which caused overstatements of revenue."

Then, according to the complaint, on Aug. 11, 2020, OneSpan (1)
announced it would not timely file its Q2 2020 financial statements
on Form 10Q with the SEC, (2) revealed the revenue recognition
problems stretched from Q1 2018 through Q1 2019, (3) reported that
same quarter year-over-year revenues had declined, and (4) withdrew
its FY 2020 earnings guidance.

On this news, OneSpan's common share price fell $12.36 per share,
or nearly 40%.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving OneSpan
intentionally cooked its books," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens
Berman partner leading the investigation.

If you are a OneSpan investor, click here to discuss your legal
rights with Hagens Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
OneSpan should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.  Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC.  For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 844-916-0895 or email OSPN@hbsslaw.com.

                        About Hagens Berman

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

ONESPAN INC: Kirby McInerney Announces Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of those who acquired OneSpan, Inc.
("OneSpan" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: OSPN) securities during the
period from May 9, 2018, and August 11, 2020 (the "Class Period").
Investors have until October 19, 2020 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

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) OneSpan had inadequate
disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over
financial reporting; (ii) as a result, OneSpan overstated its
revenue relating to certain contracts with customers involving
software licenses in its financial statements spread out over the
quarters from the first quarter of 2018 to the first quarter of
2020; (iii) as a result, it was foreseeably likely that the Company
would eventually have to delay one or more scheduled earnings
releases, conference calls, and/or financial filings with the SEC;
(iv) OneSpan downplayed the negative impacts of errors in its
financial statements; (v) all the foregoing, once revealed, was
foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the
Company's financial results and reputation; and (vi) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. On August 4, 2020, during
pre-market hours, OneSpan postponed its second-quarter 2020
earnings release and conference call by one week, attributing the
delay to prior period revenue recognition problems relating to
certain software license contracts spread out over the quarters
from the first quarter of 2018 to the first quarter of 2020.
OneSpan further stated that "[t]he net contract assets that
originated from a portion of these contracts in prior periods were
not properly accounted for in subsequent periods, which caused
overstatements of revenue." On this news, OneSpan's common share
price fell $0.46 per share, or 1.40%, to close at $32.50 per share
on August 4, 2020. Then, on August 11, 2020, during after-market
hours, OneSpan disclosed that it would not timely file its
quarterly report for the quarter ended June 30, 2020, with the SEC;
reported that same quarter year-over-year revenues had declined;
and withdrew its full-year 2020 earnings guidance, which the
Company had affirmed one quarter earlier. On this news, OneSpan's
common share price fell $12.36 per share, or 39.62%, to close at
$18.84 per share on August 12, 2020.

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

Kirby McInerney is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. [GN]

OP REALTY: Liu, et al. Seek to Certify Class of Chinese Citizens
----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as MAOHUI LIU, et al., v. OP
REALTY PARTNERS, LLC; OP CONDOMINIUM MANAGEMENT, LLC; and MAX P.
CAWAL,  Case No. 6:19-cv-02041-GAP-LRH (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court for an order:

   1. certifying that this action is maintainable as a class
      action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3);

   2. defining the Class as:

      "all Chinese citizens who, since 2014: were residents of
      China; purchased from OP Realty Partners, LLC one or more
      condominium units located at The Oak Plantation Resort,
      Kissimmee, Florida; and entered into sale/purchase
      agreements and/or lease agreements (including as included
      what were referenced as "Special Stipulations" within such
      agreements) with OP Realty Partners, LLC and/or OP
      Condominium Management, LLC regarding or related to such
      units and/or the sale, purchase, lease and/or use of such
      unit"; and

   3. certifying that Plaintiff Maohui Liu is adequate as Class
      Representative and appointing him to represent the Class;
      and

   4. appointing Bruce C. Fox, Esq., and Justin M. Luna,
      Esq., as Class Counsel.

The Plaintiffs are Chinese citizens who seek recovery against the
Defendants for losses arising from their purchase from the
Defendants, as investments, of various condominium units at The Oak
Plantation Resort in Kissimmee, Florida. The Plaintiffs contend
that they have suffered, and continue to suffer, financial harm and
losses due to the Defendants' wrongful conduct, failures and
breaches related to the marketing, sale, purchase, lease and use of
these units.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bruce C. Fox, Esq.
          Daniel P. Finegan, Esq.
          Qiwei Chen, Esq.
          OBERMAYER REBMANN
          MAXWELL & HIPPEL LLP
          500 Grant Street, Ste. 5240
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 566-1500
          E-mail: bruce.fox@obermayer.com
                  daniel.finegan@obermayer.com
                  Qiwei.Chen@obermayer.com

               - and -

          Justin M. Luna, Esq.
          LATHAM, LUNA, EDEN & BEAUDINE, LLP
          111 N. Magnolia Avenue, Suite 1400
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 481-5804
          E-mail: jluna@lathamluna.com

PISA GROUP: Williams Seeks to Certify Class in TCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as JANINE WILLIAMS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE PISA GROUP,
INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-04752-PBT (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order:

   1. certifying a proposed Class consisting of:

      "all natural persons in the United States who, within four
      years preceding the filing of this case, received more
      than one telephone solicitation call from PGI within a 12-
      month period telemarketing newspaper subscriptions more
      than 31 days after registering their telephone number with
      the National Do-Not-Call Registry";

   2. appointing her attorneys as Class Counsel; and

   3. granting Plaintiff all other relief to which she may be
      entitled, at law or in equity, as the Court deems
      reasonable and just.

Ms. Williams filed this class action against PGI for alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Specifically,
PGI placed at least 37 illegal telemarketing calls to her phone and
seven other Philadelphia residents numbers who were all registered
on National Do Not Call Registry at the time of the calls.

Pisa Group is a telemarketing company offering newspaper sales,
telemarketing services, and customer service support services for
newspapers.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Amy L. B. Ginsburg, Esq.
          K IMMEL & SILVERMAN , P.C.
          30 E. Butler Avenue
          Ambler, PA 19002
          Telephone: (215) 540-8888
          Facsimile: (877) 600-2112
          E-mail: aginsburg@creditlaw.com

PLAYAGS INC: Oklahoma Police Sues Over Decline in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
OKLAHOMA POLICE PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PLAYAGS,
INC., DAVID LOPEZ, KIMO AKIONA, DAVID SAMBUR, DANIEL COHEN, ERIC
PRESS, YVETTE LANDAU, ADAM CHIBIB, GEOFF FREEMAN, CREDIT SUISSE
SECURITIES (USA) LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., JEFFERIES LLC,
MACQUARIE CAPITAL (USA) INC., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH
INCORPORATED, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., STIFEL, NICOLAUS &
COMPANY INCORPORATED, SUNTRUST ROBINSONHUMPHREY, INC., NOMURA
SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., ROTH CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, UNION
GAMING SECURITIES LLC, THE WILLIAMS CAPITAL GROUP, L.P., APOLLO
GLOBAL SECURITIES, LLC, MORGAN STANLEY & CO LLC, APOLLO GLOBAL
MANAGEMENT, LLC, APOLLO GAMING HOLDINGS, L.P., APOLLO INVESTMENT
FUND VIII, L.P., and AP GAMING VOTECO, LLC Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-01443 (D. Nev., August 4, 2020) is a securities class
action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired PlayAGS common stock
during the period from May 3, 2018 through August 7, 2019, both
dates inclusive, against the Exchange Act Defendants for violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and SEC Rule l0b-5.

Plaintiff also brings the Action on behalf of all persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired PlayAGS common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to: (i) the registration statement,
prospectus, and prospectus supplement issued in connection with the
Company's August 2018 offering; and/or (ii) the registration
statement, prospectus, and prospectus supplement issued in
connection with the Company's March 2019 offering, against the
Securities Act Defendants for violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2),
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

According to the complaint, under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act, the Securities Act Defendants are strictly liable
for any false and misleading statements in the August 2018
statement, prospectus, and prospectus supplement ("SPO") Materials
and March 2019 SPO Materials. Plaintiff therefore expressly
excludes and disclaims any allegation that could be construed as
alleging fraud or intentional or reckless conduct as to the
Securities Act claims.

At the time of the August 2018 SPO and March 2019 SPO as well as
throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or omissions. Specifically, the
PlayAGS Offering Materials and Defendants' Class Period statements
were false and/or misleading because they omitted that: (i)
PlayAGS' growth strategies were failing; (ii) the Company was
experiencing major execution issues in Oklahoma; (iii) therefore,
the Company's purported competitive strengths were not reasonably
likely to lead to increased revenue; (iv) the Company's internal
controls over financial reporting were not effective; 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.

PlayAGS, Inc. is a Las Vegas, Nevada-based developer, manufacturer,
and supplier of casino games, systems, and technology.

Apollo Gaming, as part of Apollo Group, acquired PlayAGS in 2013.

Apollo Investment is a member of Apollo Gaming Holdings GP, LLC,
the general partner of Apollo Gaming.

VoteCo, as part of Apollo Group, acquired PlayAGS in 2013.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don Springmeyer, Esq.
          Bradley S. Schrager, Esq.
          Daniel Bravo, Esq.
          WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP
          3556 E. Russell Road, 2nd Floor
          Las Vegas, NV 89120
          Telephone: (702) 341-5200
          Facsimile: (702) 341-5300
          E-mail: dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com
                  bschrager@wrslawyers.com
                  dbravo@wrslawyers.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
          Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
          Francis P. McConville, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP  
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com
                  ebelfi@labaton.com
                  fmcconville@labaton.com

PORTLAND GENERAL: Oregon High Court Denies Petition for Review
--------------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the Oregon Supreme Court has
declined to review a lower court ruling.

In 1993, Portland General Electric Company (PGE) closed the Trojan
nuclear power plant (Trojan) and sought full recovery of, and a
rate of return on, its Trojan costs in a general rate case filing
with the Public Utility Commission of Oregon (OPUC).

In 1995, the OPUC issued a general rate order that granted the
Company recovery of, and a rate of return on, 87% of its remaining
investment in Trojan.

Numerous challenges and appeals were subsequently filed in various
state courts on the issue of the OPUC's authority under Oregon law
to grant recovery of, and a return on, the Trojan investment. In
2007, following several appeals by various parties, the Oregon
Court of Appeals issued an opinion that remanded the matter to the
OPUC for reconsideration.

In 2003, in two separate proceedings, lawsuits were filed against
PGE on behalf of two classes of electric service customers as a
result of OPUC actions arising from PGE's closure of the Trojan
nuclear power plant in 1993: i) Dreyer, Gearhart and Kafoury Bros.,
LLC v. Portland General Electric Company, Marion County Circuit
Court (Circuit Court); and ii) Morgan v. Portland General Electric
Company, Marion County Circuit Court. The class action lawsuits
seek damages totaling $260 million, plus interest, as a result of
the Company's inclusion, in prices charged to customers, of a
return on its investment in Trojan.

In 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court (OSC) issued a ruling ordering
abatement of the class action proceedings. The OSC concluded that
the OPUC had primary jurisdiction to determine what, if any, remedy
could be offered to PGE customers, through price reductions or
refunds, for any amount of return on the Trojan investment that the
Company collected in prices.

In 2008, the OPUC issued an order (2008 Order) that required PGE to
provide refunds, including interest, which were completed in 2010.
Following appeals, the 2008 Order was upheld by the Oregon Court of
Appeals in 2013 and by the OSC in 2014.

In 2015, based on a motion filed by PGE, the Circuit Court lifted
the abatement on the class action proceedings and heard oral
argument on the Company's motion for Summary Judgment.

In 2016, the Circuit Court entered a general judgment that granted
the Company's motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed all claims
by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the Circuit
Court dismissal to the Court of Appeals for the state of Oregon.

In November 2019, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion that
affirmed the Circuit Court dismissal. In December 2019, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court of
Appeals denied on February 4, 2020.

On April 7, 2020 the Plaintiffs filed a petition with the OSC
requesting review and reversal of the Court of Appeals opinion. On
July 16, 2020, the OSC issued an order that denied the petition for
review.

Portland General Electric Company, an integrated electric utility
company, engages in the generation, wholesale purchase,
transmission, distribution, and retail sale of electricity in the
state of Oregon. The company was founded in 1930 and is
headquartered in Portland, Oregon.


PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: Settles Retirement Fund Class Suit for $5.8MM
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bharvi Chavre, writing for The Daily Princetonian, reports that
Princeton University has paid a $5.8 million settlement "plus
therapeutic relief" to retirement plan holders in the class action
lawsuit of Elysee Nicolas v. The Trustees of Princeton University,
according to a motion filed on July 28.

The lawsuit alleged that the University permitted poor investments
and inappropriately contracted two recordkeepers instead of one,
thus incurring an unnecessary increase in fees.

University Spokesperson Ben Chang maintained the institution's
previous stance, writing in a statement to The Daily Princetonian
that "Princeton did not engage in any wrongdoing."

This deal may benefit around 24,000 people who had savings within
the University's retirement plans.

In addition to the $5.8 million payout, the University agreed to
"therapeutic relief" measures -- agreeing to use its "commercially
reasonable best efforts" to reduce fees for the next three years,
look for other plan service providers through a Request for
Proposal process, and do constant reevaluations of the investment
options offered. The University also agreed not to increase
recordkeeping fees for a three-year period.

"Princeton disputes the allegations made in the complaint and
remains confident the University would have prevailed in
litigation. However, we believe that the settlement is in the best
interests of all of the parties involved and resolves this matter
amicably without additional expenditures on the defense of the
lawsuit," Chang wrote.

"The investment fund lineup has not changed," he added. "The plans
remain financially stable and well-administered."

A preliminary settlement was announced in April, but the terms were
not disclosed until July.

Elysee Nicolas and his attorneys of record, Eric Lechtzin and
Joseph J. DePalma, did not respond to requests for comment. [GN]


QG PRINTING: Sims Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES SIMS, as an individual
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. QG PRINTING II
LLC, a Connecticut limited liability company; 74 QG PRINTING II
LLC, business organization, form unknown; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. RIC2002183 (Filed June 1, 2020), was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Riverside, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on Aug. 14, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:20-cv-01632 to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for failure to
pay wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

QG Printing provides printing services. The Company offers
inventory management, binding, monitoring, tracking, and
publishing, and logistics services. QG Printing is headquartered in
Sussex, Wisconsin.[BN]

The Defendant QG Printing is represented by:

          Gregory G. Iskander, Esq.
          James P. Van, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          Treat Towers
          1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600
          Walnut Creek, CA 94597
          Telephone: 925 932 2468
          Facsimile: 925 946 9809
          E-mail: giskander@littler.com
                  jpvan@littler.com


REBECCA ADDUCCI: Court Certifies Class & Habeas Litigation Group
----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as Janet Malam and Qaid Alhalmi,
et al., v. Rebecca Adducci, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-10829-JEL-APP
(E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Judith E. Levy entered an order:

   1. certifying a General Class consisting of:

      "all noncitizens who are detained in U.S. Immigration and
      Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody at the Calhoun County
      Correctional Facility"; and

   2. certifying a Habeas Litigation Group consisting of:

      "all noncitizens who are detained in ICE custody in the
      Calhoun County Correctional Center, and who have one or
      more medical risk factors placing them at heightened risk
      of severe illness or death if exposed to COVID-19".

According to the Court, the requirements of FRCP 23 are met, and
the Court certifies a class of all noncitizens who are detained in
ICE. The Court also finds a Rule 23(b)(2) class action to be an
appropriate framework from which it can analogize proceedings to
govern the habeas litigation group so as to best "summarily hear
and determine the facts, and dispose of the matter as law and
justice require."

On March 30, 2020, Petitioner Janet Malam filed an Emergency
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging her continued
detention at the Calhoun County Correctional Facility. On April 3,
2020, the Court allowed Plaintiff-Intervenors Amer Toma and Ruby
Briselda Escobar to intervene. On April 26, fifteen named
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint. On June 5,
2020, the Court granted the Plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint and to add seven additional named Plaintiffs.[CC]

RICK SNYDER: Duplicate Class Cert Bid Stricken in Flint Water Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
In lawsuit re: Flint Water Cases, Case No. 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM
(E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Judith E. Levy entered an order
granting in part and denying in part putative class plaintiffs'
motion to seal, granting putative class plaintiffs' motion to amend
their complaint, and striking duplicate motion for class
certification.

   --  In the case, Waid v. Snyder, Case No. 16-cv-10444

       The Court grants Putative Class Plaintiffs' motion to
       amend their complaint to add two new class
       representatives. Putative Class Plaintiffs must follow
       Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) to request a
       plaintiff's status as a named class representative is
       terminated. MDEQ Defendants proposed that they be placed
       on the same schedule as the State Defendants as set forth
       in the stipulated motion submitted by the parties
       detailing the Court's orders. The schedule for filing
       motions for summary judgment will be determined at a
       later date.

   --  In the case, Rogers v. Snyder, Case No. 18-cv-10713

       The Court granted the motion to amend the complaint in
       Rogers. The Defendants need not file new motions to
       dismiss, but by August 12, 2020, they may file
       supplemental briefs addressing any new arguments from the
       amended complaint.

   --  Depositions

       The following party depositions will be stayed:

       -- Howard Croft

       -- Thomas Saxton; and

       -- State of Michigan 30(b)(6).

       The above-listed party deponents shall make themselves
       available for their depositions on mutually agreeable
       dates during the month of September. All currently
       scheduled, non-party depositions are not subject to this
       stay. This stay does not impact any dates or deadlines in
       the Fourth Amended Case Management Order or any other
       discovery deadlines.

Richard Dale Snyder is an American politician, business executive,
venture capitalist, lawyer and accountant who served as the 48th
governor of Michigan from 2011 to 2019.[CC]



ROOSEVELT UNIVERSITY: Felix Wants Refunds After COVID-19 Closure
----------------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR FELIX, on behalf of himself and other individuals similarly
situated v. ROOSEVELT UNIVERSITY; and other affiliated entities and
individuals, Case No. 1:20-cv-04793 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 14, 2020),
seeks refund of the tuition and fees paid for the Spring 2020
academic semester at the University, which moved to online learning
due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and those
similarly situated who paid, or will pay, tuition and/or fees to
attend Roosevelt University for an in-person, hands on education
for the Spring 2020 semester, Summer 2020 semester, and any future
semester, and had their coursework moved to online learning as a
result of the Defendant's response to COVID-19.

The Plaintiff contends that he and the class did not receive the
benefit and services that they bargained for when they provided
payment for tuition and various mandatory student fees (the
Mandatory Fees). On March 12, 2020, Roosevelt University canceled
all in-person education and in-person educational services, then
transitioned to complete online education.

Despite the University's failure to provide the services and
experiences as bargained for, the Defendant has not offered any
refund of the tuition or Mandatory Fees that the Plaintiff and the
Class paid, even though it ceased in-person learning since March
12, 2020, according to the complaint. In short, as to tuition, the
Plaintiff and the members of the Class have paid tuition for a
first-rate education and educational experience, with all the
appurtenant benefits offered by a first-rate university, and were
provided a materially deficient and insufficient alternative, which
alternative constitutes a breach of the contracts entered into by
Plaintiff and the Class with the University.

As to the Mandatory Fees, Plaintiff and the Class have paid fees
for services and facilities which were simply not provided; this
failure also constitutes a breach of the contracts entered into by
the Plaintiff and the Class with the University.

The Plaintiff seeks, for himself and Class members, the
University's disgorgement and return of the pro-rated portion of
its tuition and Mandatory Fees proportionate to the decrease in
benefit contracted for when the University switched to online
distance learning. The return of such pro-rated amounts would
compensate Plaintiff and the Class members for damages sustained by
way of the Defendant's breach.

Oscar Felix was a full-time graduate student in a human resources
management program during the Spring 2020 semester. Roosevelt
University charged plaintiff approximately $6,500.00 in tuition and
Mandatory Fees during the Spring 2020 semester. The Plaintiff paid
tuition and Mandatory Fees for in-person educational services,
experiences, opportunities, commencement exercises, and other
related collegiate services for the entire semester.

Roosevelt University is a private university with campuses in
Chicago, Peoria, and Schaumburg, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          Nicholas R. Lange, Esq.
          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          111 West Washington Street, Suite 1240
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          E-mail: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com
                  nlange@carlsonlynch.com
                  glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                  eciolko@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          Jeremy Francis, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
          85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
          Telephone: (854) 705-9460
          E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550
          E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
                  mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
                  bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com


RYDER SYSTEM: Putative Securities Class Suit in Florida Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ryder System, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative
securities class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

On May 20, 2020, a putative class action on behalf of purchasers of
the company's securities who purchased or otherwise acquired their
securities between July 23, 2015 and February 13, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), was commenced against the company and certain
of its current and former officers in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
misrepresented the Company's depreciation policy and residual value
estimates for its vehicles during the Class Period in violation of
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks to recover, among
other things, unspecified compensatory damages and attorneys' fees
and costs.

In addition, on June 26, 2020, a shareholder derivative complaint
purportedly on behalf of the Company was filed in the Circuit Court
of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida,
against the company as nominal defendant and certain of its current
and former officers and its current directors, relating to the
allegations set forth in the securities class action complaint and
alleging breaches of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff, on the company's behalf, is seeking an award of
monetary damages and restitution to the company's, improvements in
its corporate governance and internal procedures, and legal fees.

Ryder said, "We believe the claims asserted in the complaints are
without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously."

Ryder System, Inc., commonly known as Ryder, is an American
provider of transportation and supply chain management products,
and is especially known for its fleet of rental trucks. Ryder
specializes in fleet management, supply chain management, and
dedicated contracted carriage.


SANTANDER BANK: Pokrovski Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
KIRA POKROVSKI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SANTANDER BANK, N. A., Case No. 1:20-cv-03831
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 20, 2020) arises from the Defendant's violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, brings this complaint to: (1) stop the Defendant's
practice of placing calls using an "automatic telephone dialing
system" ("ATDS") to the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide
without their prior express written consent; (2) enjoin the
Defendant from continuing to place autodialed telephone calls using
an artificial or prerecorded voice to consumers, who did not
provide their prior express written consent to receive them, and
(3) obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct.

The unlawful calls placed to the Plaintiff are part of the
Defendant's pattern of practice of calling consumers on their
cellular telephones using ATDS who have no direct relationship with
the Defendant, and are not the proper subjects of the Defendant's
calls, according to the complaint.

Santander Bank, N. A., is a Boston, Massachusetts-based retail
banking company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
          Max S. Roberts, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: jarisohn@bursor.com
                  mroberts@bursor.com


SCRIPPS MEDIA: Suris Alleges Violation under ADA
------------------------------------------------
Scripps Media, Inc. doing business as: WPTV is facing a class
action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities
Act. The case is styled as Yaroslav Suris, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Scripps Media, Inc.
doing business as: WPTV, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03777 (E.D.
N.Y., Aug. 18, 2020).

WPTV-TV, virtual channel 5, is an NBC-affiliated television station
licensed to West Palm Beach, Florida, United States, serving the
Gold and Treasure Coasts of South Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SERVICE CORP: Appeal in Moulton Class Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International (SCI) said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the appeal in the class
action suit entitled, Karen Moulton, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service
Corporation International and others, Case No. 2013-5636; in the
Civil District Court Parish of New Orleans, Louisiana, is still
pending.

Karen Moulton, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service Corporation
International and others; Case No. 2013-5636; in the Civil District
Court Parish of New Orleans, Louisiana.

This case was filed as a class action in June 2013 against an SCI
subsidiary in connection with SCI's acquisition of Stewart
Enterprises, Inc. The plaintiffs allege that SCI aided and abetted
breaches of fiduciary duties by Stewart Enterprises and its board
of directors in negotiating the combination of Stewart Enterprises
with a subsidiary of SCI.

The plaintiffs seek damages concerning the combination.

The company filed exceptions to the plaintiffs' complaint that were
granted in June 2014. Thus, subject to appeals, SCI will no longer
be party to the suit. The case has continued against the company's
subsidiary Stewart Enterprises and its former individual directors.


However, in October 2016, the court entered a judgment dismissing
all of plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal.


Service Corporation said, "Given the nature of this lawsuit, we are
unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or ranges of loss,
if any."

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

Service Corporation International is an American provider of
funeral goods and services as well as cemetery property and
services. It is headquartered in Neartown, Houston, Texas. SCI
operates more than 1500 funeral homes and 400 cemeteries in 43
states, eight Canadian provinces, and Puerto Rico.


SERVICE CORP: Continues to Defend Taylor Class Suit in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a
class action suit entitled, Nancy Taylor, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. Service Corporation International and
others, Case No. 20-cv-60709; in the United States District Court
Southern District of Florida Fort Lauderdale Division.

This case was filed in April 2020 as a Florida class action
alleging that the allocation of prices among certain of our
cremation service contracts and cremation merchandise contracts,
and the related preneed trust funding, and the failure to disclose
commissions paid and sales practices associated with the sale of
third-party travel protection plans, violate the Florida Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act and constitute unjust enrichment.

Plaintiff seeks refunds, general, actual, compensatory and
exemplary damages, civil penalties, interest, and attorney fees.

Service Corporation said, "Given the nature of this lawsuit, we are
unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or ranges of loss,
if any."

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

Service Corporation International is an American provider of
funeral goods and services as well as cemetery property and
services. It is headquartered in Neartown, Houston, Texas. SCI
operates more than 1500 funeral homes and 400 cemeteries in 43
states, eight Canadian provinces, and Puerto Rico.


SKI DATA: Navarro Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ALVARO NAVARRO, an
individual; ARELIZ NAVARRO, an individual; JINA HOWELL, an
individual; SEVINDZH GASANOVA, an individual; CRISTIAN RODRIGUEZ,
an individual; LEILANI ROSS, an individual; on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. SKI DATA, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, et al., Case No. 20STCV15143 (Filed April 17, 2020),
was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on Aug. 14, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-07370 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs assert various causes of action related to the
alleged use of license plate images captured in parking structures
at Los Angeles tourist hubs in Beverly Hills, Century City, Miracle
Mile, Santa Monica, and similar destinations, including Century
City Westfield Mall, the Third Street Promenade Mall, the Grove at
Farmer's Market, Fig at 7th and Beverly Center Mall.

The other Defendants are STEFAN SCHAFNER, an individual; WESTFIELD
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company;
SENTRY CONTROL SYSTEMS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company;
WESTFIELD, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; PARK ASSIST,
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; FEDERAL REALTY
INVESTMENT TRUST, a California Trust; BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES RETAIL,
INC., dba BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES RETAIL GROUP, a Delaware
Corporation; BROOKFIELD PROPERTY REIT, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; GLENDALE I MALL ASSOCIATES, LP, a Delaware Limited
Liability Partnership; GGP-GLENDALE, LLC, Delaware Limited
Liability Company; TAUBMAN CENTERS, INC. A Michigan Corporation;
TAUBMAN COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; TAUBMAN
REALTY GROUP LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company with California Partners; SIMON PROPERTY GROUP, INC., a
Delaware Corporation; SIMON PROPERTY GROUP, L.P., a Delaware
Limited Partnership; CARUSO AFFILIATED HOLDINGS, LLC, a California
limited liability company; THE AMERICANA AT BRAND, LLC, a
California limited liability company; and DOES 1-100.[BN]

Defendant Park Assist is represented by:

          Jacob M. Harper, Esq.
          Spencer Persson, Esq.
          Matt Onyett, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          865 South Figueroa Street, 24th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566
          Telephone: (213) 633-6800
          Facsimile: (213) 633-6899
          E-mail: jacobharper@dwt.com
                  spencerpersson@dwt.com
                  mattonyett@dwt.com


SKY SOLAR: Schall Law Firm Reminds of September 15 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Aug. 11 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Sky Solar Holdings, Ltd. ("Sky" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: SKYS)
for violations of the federal securities laws.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between July 6,
2020 and July 17, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 15, 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. Documents issued in support of Sky's
merger with a group (the "Offeror Group") were inadequate in
multiple ways. The Company's documents failed to meet disclosure
obligations under Rule 13e-3 about transaction fairness and the
valuation performed by the Offeror Group. The documents also failed
to meet Rule 13e-3 requirements on availability of appraisal rights
or other shareholder rights. The Company claimed there would be no
appraisal rights because a short-form merger under Cayman law does
not require a shareholder vote. Based on these facts, the Company's
public statements were false and materially misleading throughout
the class period. When the market learned the truth about Sky,
investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

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


SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Hedges Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
DONNA HEDGES, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. THE SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-06076 (S.D.N.Y., August 4, 2020) is a civil rights
action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people, thus denying Plaintiff and
other persons similarly situated, of full and equal access to its
website, a violation under the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA") and Section 504 of The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("RA").

Because Defendant's website, https://www.sckans.edu/, is not
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired prospective
students, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired prospective
students.

This discrimination is particularly acute during the current
COVID-19 global pandemic. According to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, Americans living with disabilities are at
higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19 and, therefore, are
recommended to shelter in place throughout the duration of the
pandemic. This underscores the importance of access to online
retailers, such as Defendant, for this especially vulnerable
population.

The Southwestern College is a private Methodist college in
Winfield, Kansas. The College operates the Southwestern College
online university as well as the Southwestern College website and
advertises, markets, and/or operates in the State of New York and
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Petition for Review in St. Lucie Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Southwestern Energy Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the company's petition for review of the
trial court's decision in the putative class action suit initiated
by St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension Trust, with
the Texas Supreme Court remains pending.

On October 17, 2016, the St. Lucie County Fire District
Firefighters' Pension Trust filed a putative class action in the
61st District Court in Harris County, Texas, against the Company,
certain of its former officers and current and former directors and
the underwriters on behalf of itself and others that purchased
certain depositary shares from the Company's January 2015 equity
offering, alleging material misstatements and omissions in the
registration statement for that offering.

The Company removed the case to federal court, but after a decision
by the United States Supreme Court in an unrelated case that these
types of cases are not subject to removal, the federal court
remanded the case to the Texas state court.

The Texas trial court denied the Company's motion to dismiss, and
in February 2020, the court of appeals declined to exercise
discretion to reverse the trial court's decision.

The Company filed a petition to review the trial court's decision
with the Texas Supreme Court, and the Court requested a response
from the plaintiff.

The Company carries insurance for the claims asserted against it
and the officer and director defendants, and the carrier has
accepted coverage. The Company denies all allegations and intends
to continue to defend this case vigorously.

Southwestern said, "The Company does not expect this case to have a
material adverse effect on the results of operations, financial
position or cash flows of the Company after taking insurance into
account. Additionally, it is not possible at this time to estimate
the amount of any additional loss, or range of loss, that is
reasonably possible."

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

Southwestern Energy Company, an independent energy company, engages
in the exploration, development, and production of natural gas and
oil in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Exploration and Production, and Midstream. Southwestern Energy
Company was founded in 1929 and is headquartered in Spring, Texas.


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Class Suits Over Accounting Review Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended July 2, 2020, that the company continues to defend
three separate private securities class action lawsuits related to
accounting review.

On February 10, 2020, February 24, 2020, and March 24, 2020, three
separate private securities class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma, its Chief Executive Officer, Tom Gentile III,
former chief financial officer, Jose Garcia, and former controller
(principal accounting officer), John Gilson.

On April 20, 2020, the Class Actions were consolidated by the court
(the "Class Action"), and on July 20, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Class Action Complaint which added Shawn Campbell, the
Company's former Vice President for the 737NG and 737 Max program,
as a defendant.

Allegations in the Consolidated Class Action include (i) violations
of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against
all defendants, (ii) violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act against the individual defendants, and (iii) violations of
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder against the Company and Messrs. Gentile, Garcia and
Gilson.

On June 11, 2020, a shareholder derivative lawsuit (the "Derivative
Action") was filed against the Company (as nominal defendant), all
members of the Company’s Board of Directors, and Messrs. Garcia
and Gilson. Allegations in the Derivative Action include (i) breach
of fiduciary duty, (ii) abuse of control, and (iii) gross
mismanagement.

The facts underlying the Consolidated Class Action and Derivative
Action relate to the accounting process compliance independent
review (the "Accounting Review") discussed in the Company's January
30, 2020 press release and described under Management's Discussion
and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations -
Accounting Review of the 2019 Form 10-K and its resulting
conclusions.  

The Company voluntarily reported to the SEC the determination that,
with respect to the third quarter of 2019, the Company did not
comply with its established accounting processes related to
potential third quarter contingent liabilities received after the
quarter-end.  

On March 24, 2020, the Staff of the SEC Enforcement Division
informed the Company that it had determined to close its inquiry
without recommending any enforcement action against Spirit.  

In addition, the facts underlying the Consolidated Class Action and
Derivative Action relate to the Company's disclosures regarding the
B737 MAX grounding and Spirit's production rate (and related
matters) after the grounding.

The Company and individual defendants deny the allegations in the
Consolidated Class Action and the Derivative Action.

Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
designs, manufactures, and supplies commercial aero structures
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Fuselage Systems,
Propulsion Systems, and Wing Systems. Spirit AeroSystems Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Wichita, Kansas.


SPSG PARTNERS: Whiteside Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHON WHITESIDE, as
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SPSG
PARTNERS, an Unincorporated Joint Venture; SPSG PARTNERS, LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company; SUKUT CONSTRUCTION, INC., a
California Corporation; SUKUT CONSTRUCTION, LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company; GOODFELLOWS BROS. CALIFORNIA, LLC., a
California Limited Liability Company; PACIFIC STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTRACTORS, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Case No. 20CV00090 (Filed Jan. 13, 2020), was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Butte to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on Aug. 14, 2020.

The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-01643-TLN-DMC to the proceeding.

The complaint pled causes of action for alleged wage and hour
violations under the California Labor Code on a class and
representative basis. The Plaintiff averred claims for failure pay
overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to provide
meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to provide
accurate itemized statements; and waiting time penalties.

Sukut Construction is a Heavy Civil General Engineering Contractor
with 50 years of performance on residential, public, commercial and
industrial projects in the Western Region. SPSG is a joint venture
between: Sukut Construction, Pacific States Environmental
Contractors, Inc., and Goodfellow Bros.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Scott K. Dauscher, Esq.
          Mia A. Lomedico, Esq.
          ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO
          12800 Center Court Drive South, Suite 300
          Cerritos, CA 90703-9364
          Telephone: (562) 653-3200
          Facsimile: (562) 653-3333
          E-mail: SDauscher@aalrr.com
                  Mia.Lomedico@aalrr.com


TAILORED INDUSTRY: Olsen Allges Violation under ADA
---------------------------------------------------
Tailored Industry, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tailored Industry, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03779 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 18, 2020).

Tailored Industry offers on-demand manufacturing and 3D
knitting.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
   New York, NY 10170
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: doug@lipskylowe.com



TRANS WORLD: Suit Over VIP Backstage Pass Memberships Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trans World Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended May 2, 2020, that the company continues to defend a
putative class action suit in Massachusetts related to its Loyalty
Memberships and Magazine Subscriptions.

On November 14, 2018, three consumers filed a punitive class action
complaint against the Company and Synapse Group, Inc. in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston
Division (Case No.1:18-cv-12377-DPW) concerning enrollment in the
Company's Backstage Pass VIP loyalty program and associated
magazine subscriptions.  

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company's
"negative option marketing" misled consumers into enrolling for
membership and subscriptions without obtaining the consumers'
consent.  

The complaint sought to represent a nationwide class of "all
persons in the United States" who were enrolled in and/or charged
for Backstage Pass VIP memberships and/or magazine subscriptions,
and to obtain statutory and actual damages on their behalf.

On April 11, 2019, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their
lawsuit.  

On May 8, 2019, two of the plaintiffs from the dismissed lawsuit
filed a similar punitive class action in Massachusetts state court
(Civ. Act. No. 197CV00331, Mass. Super. Ct. Hampden Cty.), based on
the same allegations, but this time seeking to represent only a
class of "FYE customers in Massachusetts" who were charged for VIP
Backstage Pass Memberships and/or magazine subscriptions.  

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the plaintiffs'
claims and, if the new case is not dismissed in full, the Company
intends to vigorously defend the action.

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

Trans World Entertainment Corporation is a music retailer
thatoperates stores in the United States. The Company operates
mall-based stores and freestanding stores under the names Camelot
Music, Record Town, The Wall, F.Y.E., Coconuts Music and Movies,
Strawberries Music, Spec's, and Planet Music. Trans World also
operates an electronic commerce music and entertainment Web site.
The company is based in Albany, New York.


UNITED PARCEL: Garvey Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, JOHN GARVEY, an individual, and all others similarly
situated pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), Plaintiff v. UNITED
PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-20089-JLK (S.D.
Fla., July 31, 2020) arises from Defendant's alleged violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was hired by Defendant as a Package Handler from October
23, 2019 to January 9, 2020.

Plaintiff claims that Defendant did not compensate him for multiple
hours worked during his employment despite his repeated complaints
to Defendant about it and despite Defendant's promises to pay him.

The complaint asserts that Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and
all similarly situated individual minimum wage as required by
federal law for one or more weeks of work.

United Parcel Service, Inc.  is an American multinational package
delivery and supply chain management company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nolan K. Klein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
          5550 Glades Rd., Ste 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Tel: (954) 745-0588
          Emails: klein@nklegal.com
                  amy@nklegal.com


VBI VACCINES: Dec. 3 Preliminary Hearing in Suit v. SciVac
----------------------------------------------------------
VBI Vaccines Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the next preliminary hearing is scheduled to be
held on December 3, 2020, in the putative class action suit
initiated against SciVac Ltd. (SciVac), a company subsidiary in
Israel.

On September 13, 2018, two actions were brought in the District
Court of the central district in Israel naming the company's
subsidiary SciVac Ltd. (SciVac) as a defendant.

In one claim, two minors, through their parents, allege among other
things, defects in certain batches of Sci-B-Vac discovered in July
2015; that Sci-B-Vac was approved for use in children and infants
in Israel without sufficient evidence establishing its safety; that
SciVac failed to provide accurate information about Sci-B-Vac to
consumers and that each child suffered side effects from the
vaccine.

The claim was filed together with a motion seeking approval of a
class action on behalf of 428,000 children vaccinated with
Sci-B-Vac in Israel from April, 2011 and seeking damages in a total
amount of NIS 1,879,500,000 (not in thousands) ($542,268).

The second claim is a civil action brought by two minors and their
parents against SciVac and the Israel Ministry of Health alleging,
among other things, that SciVac marketed an experimental,
defective, hazardous or harmful vaccine; that Sci-B-Vac was
marketed in Israel without sufficient evidence establishing its
safety; and that Sci-B-Vac was produced and marketed in Israel
without approval of a western regulatory body.

The claim seeks damages for past and future losses and expenses as
well as punitive damages.

SciVac believes these matters to be without merit and intends to
defend these claims vigorously.

The District Court has accepted SciVac's motion to suspend reaching
a decision on the approval of the class action pending the
determination of liability under the civil action. Preliminary
hearings for the trial of the civil action began on January 15,
2020, with a second preliminary hearing held on May 13, 2020 to
discuss document disclosure.  

The next preliminary hearing is scheduled to be held on December 3,
2020.

VBI Vaccines Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, develops and sells
vaccines to address unmet needs in infectious disease and
immuno-oncology in Israel and internationally. The company was
formerly known as SciVac Therapeutics Inc. and changed its name to
VBI Vaccines Inc. in May 2016. The company is headquartered in
Cambridge, Massachusetts.


VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action has been filed on
behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the common stock of
Velocity Financial. ("Velocity" or the "Company") (NYSE: VEL)
issued in connection with Velocity's January 2020 IPO (the
"Offering Materials").  The lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California alleges
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

If you purchased Velocity securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Velocity Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at
(877) 779-1414 or [email protected].

According to the lawsuit, the Registration Statement featured false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that a
significantly higher proportion of its loan portfolio had become
non-performing loans; and (2) any information regarding the onset
of the coronavirus, including whether the coronavirus was adversely
impacting the real estate market or the Company's business,
operations or financial condition.

On May 13, 2020 Velocity issued a release and investor presentation
and held an earnings call providing the Company's financial and
operational results for the first quarter of 2020.  The Company
stated that its net income decreased 50% sequentially during the
quarter to just $2.6 million.  The Company also confirmed that the
suspension of loan origination would continue for an indeterminate
amount of time, effectively halting all potential growth in the
Company's loan portfolio.  In addition, the Company stated that its
proportion of non-performing loans had accelerated to $174 million,
nearly double the unpaid principal amount year over year, and
constituted 8.17% of the Company's total portfolio, 252 basis
points over the prior year.  Velocity's portfolio yield also fell
32 basis points sequentially to 8.57% due in substantial part to
the rising number of non-performing loans.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 28, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Velocity securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/velocityfinancial-vel-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-287/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
[email protected].

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

VELOCITY INVESTMENTS: Bailey Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------------------
LATASHA BAILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VELOCITY INVESTMENTS LLC, Global Credit &
Collection Corp and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-03768 (E.D. Pa., August 3, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged violation of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff has an alleged debt incurred
to creditor Kabbage some time prior to June 16, 2020. Allegedly,
Kabbage sold the debt to Defendant Velocity, who contracted with
Defendant Global, who sent a collection letter to Plaintiff on or
about June 16, 2020 in an attempt to collect the alleged debt.
However, although it proposes various settlement offers, the letter
was misleading and deceptive because it failed to disclose to
Plaintiff that there is a distinction between principal and
interest in regards to IRS requirements.

Defendants Velocity Investments LLC and Global Credit & Collection
Corp are debt collectors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Antranig Garibian, Esq.
          GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Tel: (215) 326-9179
          Email: ag@garibianlaw.com


WALGREEN CO: Robinson et al. Claim Acetaminophen Label Misleading
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DENISE ROBINSON and DAVID STIGALL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. WALGREEN CO.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-50288 (N.D. Ill., August 4, 2020) is a
putative class action on behalf of Plaintiffs and all others
similarly situated, against Defendant pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332 (CAFA).

According to the complaint, Defendant's advertisements, marketing
representations, and placement of the Infants' Dye-Free Pain &
Fever Acetaminophen - Walgreens and Children's Dye-Free Pain &
Fever Acetaminophen - Walgreens in its stores are misleading,
untrue, and likely to deceive reasonable consumers. Defendant
purposely packages Infants' Products with distinctive bright yellow
lettering of the word "infants'" on the product's front-label,
while packaging Children's Products with distinctive bright yellow
lettering of the word "Children's" on the product's front-label.
Accordingly, Defendant distributes, markets, and sells the Products
in a manner which deceives reasonable consumers into thinking that
infants cannot safely take Children's Products.

Acetaminophen, the active ingredient in the Products, can be
dangerous, and perhaps even fatal, if taken in large doses. The
potential risks associated with an acetaminophen overdose terrifies
parents and caregivers and causes them to be extra careful when
buying medicine for their children. Defendant exploits this fear by
misleading consumers.

Furthermore, despite the fact that the Products contain the same
exact amount of acetaminophen in the same dosage amounts, Defendant
markets and sells Infants' Products to consumers, such as
Plaintiffs, at a substantially higher price than Children's
Products. In stores, the Infants' Products cost approximately three
times as much per ounce than Children's Products for the same
amount of medicine.

Walgreen Co. is an American company that operates as the
second-largest pharmacy store chain in the United States, with
principal place of business in Deerfield, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
          Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 389-0600
          Facsimile: (612) 389-0610
          E-mail: mweiner@pswlaw.com
                  jbourne@pswlaw.com

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

               - and -

          Rachel Dapeer, Esq.
          DAPEER LAW, P.A.
          300 S. Biscayne Blvd, #2704
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 610-5523
          E-mail: Rachel@dapeer.com

WHITEFEATHER HOLDINGS: Faces French Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cati French, an individual; Ivoryonna L. Dean-Davis, an individual;
and Alexia Chavez, an individual, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Whitefeather Holdings, LLC;
Whitefeather Ventures, LLC; and Corey Owens, an individual, Case
No. 4:20-cv-00349-LAB (D. Ariz., Aug. 14, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants evaded the mandatory minimum wage and overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, charged illegal
kickbacks and illegally absconded with the Plaintiffs' tips.

As a result of the Defendants' violations, the Plaintiffs seek to
recover all tips kept by the Defendants, liquidated damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the FLSA.

The Plaintiffs are employed by the Defendants as
dancers/entertainers and categorized as "independent contractors."

The Defendants operate an adult-oriented entertainment facility
located at 1104 S. Craycroft Road, in Tucson, Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel R. Randall, Esq.
          RANDALL LAW PLLC
          4742 N. 24th Street, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 328-0262
          E-mail: srandall@randallslaw.com

               - and -

          John P. Kristensen, Esq.
          KRISTENSEN LLP
          12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
          Los Angeles, CA 90066
          Telephone: 310-507-7924
          E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com


WILLIS TOWERS: Supreme Court Asked to Weigh in on Janvey Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that certain plaintiffs have
petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn approval of the
settlement in the Janvey and Troice lawsuits related to the
collapse of The Stanford Financial Group.

The Company has been named as a defendant in 15 similar lawsuits
relating to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group
('Stanford'), for which Willis of Colorado, Inc. acted as broker of
record on certain lines of insurance. The complaints in these
actions generally allege that the defendants actively and
materially aided Stanford's alleged fraud by providing Stanford
with certain letters regarding coverage that they knew would be
used to help retain or attract actual or prospective Stanford
client investors.

The complaints further allege that these letters, which contain
statements about Stanford and the insurance policies that the
defendants placed for Stanford, contained untruths and omitted
material facts and were drafted in this manner to help Stanford
promote and sell its allegedly fraudulent certificates of deposit.

The 15 actions are:

     * Troice, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
3:9-CV-1274-N, was filed on July 2, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings
plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and a Willis associate, among others.
On April 1, 2011, plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended
Class Action Complaint individually and on behalf of a putative,
worldwide class of Stanford investors, adding Willis Limited as a
defendant and alleging claims under Texas statutory and common law
and seeking damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and
costs.

On May 2, 2011, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint, arguing, inter alia, that the
plaintiffs' claims are precluded by the Securities Litigation
Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ('SLUSA').

On May 10, 2011, the court presiding over the Stanford-related
actions in the Northern District of Texas entered an order
providing that it would consider the applicability of SLUSA to the
Stanford-related actions based on the decision in a separate
Stanford action not involving a Willis entity, Roland v. Green,
Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-0224-N ('Roland').

On August 31, 2011, the court issued its decision in Roland,
dismissing that action with prejudice under SLUSA.

On October 27, 2011, the court in Troice entered an order (i)
dismissing with prejudice those claims asserted in the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint on a class basis on the grounds set
forth in the Roland decision discussed above and (ii) dismissing
without prejudice those claims asserted in the Third Amended Class
Action Complaint on an individual basis.

Also on October 27, 2011, the court entered a final judgment in the
action.

On October 28, 2011, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a notice of
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Subsequently, Troice, Roland and a third action captioned Troice,
et al. v. Proskauer Rose LLP, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-01600-N,
which also was dismissed on the grounds set forth in the Roland
decision discussed above and on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit, were consolidated for purposes of briefing
and oral argument.

Following the completion of briefing and oral argument, on March
19, 2012, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the actions. On
April 2, 2012, the defendants-appellees filed petitions for
rehearing en banc. On April 19, 2012, the petitions for rehearing
en banc were denied.

On July 18, 2012, defendants-appellees filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the United States Supreme Court regarding the Fifth
Circuit's reversal in Troice. On January 18, 2013, the Supreme
Court granted the company's petition. Opening briefs were filed on
May 3, 2013 and the Supreme Court heard oral argument on October 7,
2013. On February 26, 2014, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth
Circuit's decision.

On March 19, 2014, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a Motion to Defer
Resolution of Motions to Dismiss, to Compel Rule 26(f) Conference
and For Entry of Scheduling Order.

On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and the Janvey, et al. v.
Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al. action discussed below stipulated
to the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes
under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

On March 28, 2014, the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and,
thus, consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under
Rule 42(a).

On September 16, 2014, the court (a) denied the plaintiffs' request
to defer resolution of the defendants' motions to dismiss, but
granted the plaintiffs' request to enter a scheduling order; (b)
requested the submission of supplemental briefing by all parties on
the defendants' motions to dismiss, which the parties submitted on
September 30, 2014; and (c) entered an order setting a schedule for
briefing and discovery regarding plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, which schedule, among other things, provided for the
submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification
(following the completion of briefing and discovery) on April 20,
2015.

On December 15, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss. On January 30, 2015, the
defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint.

On April 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification, the defendants filed their opposition to plaintiffs'
motion, and the plaintiffs filed their reply in further support of
the motion. Pursuant to an agreed stipulation also filed with the
court on April 20, 2015, the defendants on June 4, 2015 filed
sur-replies in further opposition to the motion. The Court has not
yet scheduled a hearing on the motion.

On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. On
November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew the motion.

On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions
entered into a settlement in principle that is described in more
detail below.

     * Ranni v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9-22085,
was filed on July 17, 2009 against Willis Group Holdings plc and
Willis of Colorado, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan
and other South American Stanford investors and alleges claims
under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder) and Florida statutory and common law and
seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial. On October 6,
2009, Ranni was transferred, for consolidation or coordination with
other Stanford-related actions (including Troice), to the Northern
District of Texas by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (the 'JPML').

The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Ranni.

On August 26, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of the action without prejudice.

     * Canabal, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 3:9-CV-1474-D, was filed on August 6, 2009 against Willis Group
Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis
associate named as a defendant in Troice, among others, also in the
Northern District of Texas.

The complaint was filed individually and on behalf of a putative
class of Venezuelan Stanford investors, alleged claims under Texas
statutory and common law and sought damages in excess of $1
billion, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

On December 18, 2009, the parties in Troice and Canabal stipulated
to the consolidation of those actions (under the Troice civil
action number), and, on December 31, 2009, the plaintiffs in
Canabal filed a notice of dismissal, dismissing the action without
prejudice.

     * Rupert, et al. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2009C115137, was
filed on September 14, 2009 on behalf of 97 Stanford investors
against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the
same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Bexar
County).

The complaint alleges claims under the Securities Act of 1933,
Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks
special, consequential and treble damages of more than $300
million, attorneys' fees and costs.

On October 20, 2009, certain defendants, including Willis of
Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rupert to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the
pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the action
pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be
transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or
coordination with the other Stanford-related actions.

On April 1, 2010, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the
transfer of Rupert to the Northern District of Texas. On January
24, 2012, the court remanded Rupert to Texas state court (Bexar
County), but stayed the action until further order of the court.

On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay,
which motion was denied by the court on September 16, 2014. On
October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of
their motion to lift the stay to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit.

On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with
the appeal in the Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al. action, and
the consolidated appeal, was fully briefed as of March 24, 2015.
Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was held on September 2,
2015. On September 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The
defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Rupert.

     * Casanova, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 3:10-CV-1862-O, was filed on September 16, 2010 on behalf of
seven Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis
Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate,
among others, also in the Northern District of Texas.

The complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law
and seeks actual damages in excess of $5 million, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.

On February 13, 2015, the parties filed an Agreed Motion for
Partial Dismissal pursuant to which they agreed to the dismissal of
certain claims pursuant to the motion to dismiss decisions in the
Troice action discussed above and the Janvey action discussed
below.

Also on February 13, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group
Holdings plc answered the complaint in the Casanova action. On June
19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs have not
opposed the motion.

     * Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2011CI2585,
was filed on March 11, 2011 on behalf of two Stanford investors,
individually and as representatives of certain trusts, against
Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of
Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas
state court (Bexar County).

The complaint alleges claims under Texas and Colorado statutory law
and Texas common law and seeks special, consequential and treble
damages of more than $37 million and attorneys' fees and costs.

On April 11, 2011, certain defendants, including Willis of
Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rishmague to the Western District of
Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related
action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination
by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern
District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other
Stanford-related actions.

On August 8, 2011, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the
transfer of Rishmague to the Northern District of Texas, where it
is currently pending. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs joined
with the plaintiffs in the Rupert action in their motion to lift
the court's stay of the Rupert action.

On September 9, 2014, the court remanded Rishmague to Texas state
court (Bexar County), but stayed the action until further order of
the court and denied the plaintiffs’ motion to lift the stay. On
October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of
their motion to lift the stay to the Fifth Circuit.

On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with
the appeal in the Rupert action, and the consolidated appeal was
fully briefed as of March 24, 2015. Oral argument on the
consolidated appeal was held on September 2, 2015. On September 16,
2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The defendants have not yet
responded to the complaint in Rishmague.

     * MacArthur v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2013-07840, was filed
on February 8, 2013 on behalf of two Stanford investors against
Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of
Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas
state court (Harris County).

The complaint alleges claims under Texas and Colorado statutory law
and Texas common law and seeks actual, special, consequential and
treble damages of approximately $4 million and attorneys' fees and
costs.

On March 29, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas,
Inc. (i) removed MacArthur to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas and (ii) notified the JPML of the
pendency of this related action.

On April 2, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas,
Inc. filed a motion in the Southern District of Texas to stay the
action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should
be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation
or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions.

Also on April 2, 2013, the court presiding over MacArthur in the
Southern District of Texas transferred the action to the Northern
District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other
Stanford-related actions. On September 29, 2014, the parties
stipulated to the remand (to Texas state court (Harris County)) and
stay of MacArthur until further order of the court (in accordance
with the court's September 9, 2014 decision in Rishmague (discussed
above)), which stipulation was 'so ordered' by the court on October
14, 2014. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in
MacArthur.

     * Florida suits: On February 14, 2013, five lawsuits were
filed against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited and Willis
of Colorado, Inc. in Florida state court (Miami-Dade County),
alleging violations of Florida common law.

The five suits are: (1) Barbar, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings
Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05666CA27, filed on
behalf of 35 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in
excess of $30 million; (2) de Gadala-Maria, et al. v. Willis Group
Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05669CA30,
filed on behalf of 64 Stanford investors seeking compensatory
damages in excess of $83.5 million; (3) Ranni, et ano. v. Willis
Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No.
13-05673CA06, filed on behalf of two Stanford investors seeking
compensatory damages in excess of $3 million; (4) Tisminesky, et
al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case
No. 13-05676CA09, filed on behalf of 11 Stanford investors seeking
compensatory damages in excess of $6.5 million; and (5) Zacarias,
et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al.,
Case No. 13-05678CA11, filed on behalf of 10 Stanford investors
seeking compensatory damages in excess of $12.5 million.

On June 3, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. removed all five cases to
the Southern District of Florida and, on June 4, 2013, notified the
JPML of the pendency of these related actions. On June 10, 2013,
the court in Tisminesky issued an order sua sponte staying and
administratively closing that action pending a determination by the
JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern
District of Texas for consolidation and coordination with the other
Stanford-related actions.

On June 11, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. moved to stay the other
four actions pending the JPML's transfer decision. On June 20,
2013, the JPML issued a conditional transfer order for the transfer
of the five actions to the Northern District of Texas, the
transmittal of which was stayed for seven days to allow for any
opposition to be filed. On June 28, 2013, with no opposition having
been filed, the JPML lifted the stay, enabling the transfer to go
forward.

On September 30, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
remand in Zacarias, and, on October 3, 2014, the court denied the
plaintiffs’ motions to remand in Tisminesky and de Gadala Maria.
On December 3, 2014 and March 3, 2015, the court granted the
plaintiffs' motions to remand in Barbar and Ranni, respectively,
remanded both actions to Florida state court (Miami-Dade County)
and stayed both actions until further order of the court.

On January 2, 2015 and April 1, 2015, the plaintiffs in Barbar and
Ranni, respectively, appealed the court’s December 3, 2014 and
March 3, 2015 decisions to the Fifth Circuit. On April 22, 2015 and
July 22, 2015, respectively, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the Barbar
and Ranni appeals sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction. The
defendants have not yet responded to the complaints in Ranni or
Barbar.

On April 1, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc
filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky and
de Gadala-Maria. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed
motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de
Gadala-Maria for lack of personal jurisdiction.

On July 15, 2015, the court dismissed the complaint in Zacarias in
its entirety with leave to replead within 21 days. On July 21,
2015, the court dismissed the complaints in Tisminesky and de
Gadala-Maria in their entirety with leave to replead within 21
days.

On August 6, 2015, the plaintiffs in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de
Gadala-Maria filed amended complaints (in which, among other
things, Willis Group Holdings plc was no longer named as a
defendant). On September 11, 2015, the defendants filed motions to
dismiss the amended complaints. The motions await disposition by
the court.

     * Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:13-CV-03980-D, was filed on October 1, 2013 also in the Northern
District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis
Limited, Willis North America Inc., Willis of Colorado, Inc. and
the same Willis associate.

The complaint was filed (i) by Ralph S. Janvey, in his capacity as
Court-Appointed Receiver for the Stanford Receivership Estate, and
the Official Stanford Investors Committee (the 'OSIC') against all
defendants and (ii) on behalf of a putative, worldwide class of
Stanford investors against Willis North America Inc.

Plaintiffs Janvey and the OSIC allege claims under Texas common law
and the court's Amended Order Appointing Receiver, and the putative
class plaintiffs allege claims under Texas statutory and common
law. Plaintiffs seek actual damages in excess of $1 billion,
punitive damages and costs.

As alleged by the Stanford Receiver, the total amount of collective
losses allegedly sustained by all investors in Stanford
certificates of deposit is approximately $4.6 billion.

On November 15, 2013, plaintiffs in Janvey filed the operative
First Amended Complaint, which added certain defendants
unaffiliated with Willis. On February 28, 2014, the defendants
filed motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which
motions, other than with respect to Willis Group Holding plc's
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, were granted
in part and denied in part by the court on December 5, 2014.

On December 22, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend the court's
December 5 order to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth
Circuit, and, on December 23, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend
and, to the extent necessary, reconsider the court's December 5
order. On January 16, 2015, the defendants answered the First
Amended Complaint. On January 28, 2015, the court denied Willis's
motion to amend the court's December 5 order to certify an
interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit. On February 4, 2015, the
court granted Willis's motion to amend and, to the extent
necessary, reconsider the December 5 order.

On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and Janvey stipulated to
the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes under
Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 28,
2014, the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and, thus,
consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule
42(a).

On January 26, 2015, the court entered an order setting a schedule
for briefing and discovery regarding the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, which schedule, among other things, provided
for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery)
on July 20, 2015.

By letter dated March 4, 2015, the parties requested that the court
consolidate the scheduling orders entered in Troice and Janvey to
provide for a class certification submission date of April 20, 2015
in both cases. On March 6, 2015, the court entered an order
consolidating the scheduling orders in Troice and Janvey, providing
for a class certification submission date of April 20, 2015 in both
cases, and vacating the July 20, 2015 class certification
submission date in the original Janvey scheduling order.

On November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew its motion
to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions
entered into a settlement in principle that is described in more
detail below.

     * Martin v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No.
201652115, was filed on August 5, 2016, on behalf of one Stanford
investor against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis
of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate in Texas state
court (Harris County).

The complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law
and seeks actual damages of less than $100,000, exemplary damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.

On September 12, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
which added five more Stanford investors as plaintiffs and seeks
damages in excess of $1 million. The defendants have not yet
responded to the amended complaint in Martin.

     * Abel, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
3:16-cv-2601, was filed on September 12, 2016, on behalf of more
than 300 Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc,
Willis Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis
associate, also in the Northern District of Texas.

The complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law
and seeks actual damages in excess of $135 million, exemplary
damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

On November 10, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
which, among other things, added several more Stanford investors as
plaintiffs. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint
in Abel.

The plaintiffs in Janvey and Troice and the other actions above
seek overlapping damages, representing either the entirety or a
portion of the total alleged collective losses incurred by
investors in Stanford certificates of deposit, notwithstanding the
fact that Legacy Willis acted as broker of record for only a
portion of time that Stanford issued certificates of deposit. In
the fourth quarter of 2015, the Company recognized a $70 million
litigation provision for loss contingencies relating to the
Stanford matters based on its ongoing review of a variety of
factors as required by accounting standards.

On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement in
principle for $120 million relating to this litigation, and
increased its provisions by $50 million during that quarter.

The settlement is contingent on a number of conditions, including
court approval of the settlement and a bar order prohibiting any
continued or future litigation against Willis related to Stanford,
which may not be given. Therefore, the ultimate resolution of these
matters may differ from the amount provided for. The Company
continues to dispute the allegations and, to the extent litigation
proceeds, to defend the lawsuits vigorously.

Settlement

On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement in
principle, as reflected in a Settlement Term Sheet, relating to the
Stanford litigation matter. The Company agreed to the Settlement
Term Sheet to eliminate the distraction, burden, expense and
uncertainty of further litigation. In particular, the settlement
and the related bar orders, if upheld through any appeals, would
enable the Company (a newly-combined firm) to conduct itself with
the bar orders' protection from the continued overhang of matters
alleged to have occurred approximately a decade ago. Further, the
Settlement Term Sheet provided that the parties understood and
agreed that there is no admission of liability or wrongdoing by the
Company. The Company expressly denies any liability or wrongdoing
with respect to the matters alleged in the Stanford litigation.

On or about August 31, 2016, the parties to the settlement signed a
formal Settlement Agreement memorializing the terms of the
settlement as originally set forth in the Settlement Term Sheet.
The parties to the Settlement Agreement are Ralph S. Janvey (in his
capacity as the Court-appointed receiver (the 'Receiver') for The
Stanford Financial Group and its affiliated entities in
receivership (collectively, 'Stanford')), the Official Stanford
Investors Committee, Samuel Troice, Martha Diaz, Paula
Gilly-Flores, Punga Punga Financial, Ltd., Manuel Canabal, Daniel
Gomez Ferreiro and Promotora Villa Marina, C.A. (collectively,
'Plaintiffs'), on the one hand, and Willis Towers Watson Public
Limited Company (formerly Willis Group Holdings Public Limited
Company), Willis Limited, Willis North America Inc., Willis of
Colorado, Inc. and the Willis associate referenced above
(collectively, 'Defendants'), on the other hand.

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the parties agreed to
settle and dismiss the Janvey and Troice actions (collectively, the
'Actions') and all current or future claims arising from or related
to Stanford in exchange for a one-time cash payment to the Receiver
by the Company of $120 million to be distributed to all Stanford
investors who have claims recognized by the Receiver pursuant to
the distribution plan in place at the time the payment is made.

The Settlement Agreement also provides the parties' agreement to
seek the Court's entry of bar orders prohibiting any continued or
future litigation against the Defendants and their related parties
of claims relating to Stanford, whether asserted to date or not.
The terms of the bar orders therefore would prohibit all
Stanford-related litigation, and not just the Janvey and Troice
actions, but including any pending matters and any actions that may
be brought in the future. Final Court approval of these bar orders
is a condition of the settlement.

On September 7, 2016, Plaintiffs filed with the Court a motion to
approve the settlement. On October 19, 2016, the Court
preliminarily approved the settlement. Several of the plaintiffs in
the other actions objected to the settlement, and a hearing to
consider final approval of the settlement was held on January 20,
2017, after which the Court reserved decision. On August 23, 2017,
the Court approved the settlement, including the bar orders.

Several of the objectors appealed the settlement approval and bar
orders to the Fifth Circuit. Oral argument on the appeals was heard
on December 3, 2018, and, on July 22, 2019, the Fifth Circuit
affirmed the approval of the settlement, including the bar orders.


On August 5, 2019, certain of the plaintiff-appellants filed a
petition for rehearing by the Fifth Circuit en banc (the
'Petition'). On August 19, 2019, the Fifth Circuit requested a
response to the Petition. On August 29, 2019, the Receiver filed a
response to the Petition. On December 19, 2019, the Fifth Circuit
granted the Petition (treating it as a petition for panel
rehearing), withdrew its July 22, 2019 opinion, and substituted a
new opinion that also affirmed the approval of the settlement,
including the bar orders.

On January 2, 2020, certain of the plaintiff-appellants filed
another petition for rehearing by the Fifth Circuit en banc (the
'Second Petition'), in which the other plaintiff-appellants joined.
On January 21, 2020, the Fifth Circuit denied the Second Petition.


On June 19, 2020, the plaintiff-appellants filed petitions for writ
of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, which are
currently pending.

Willis Towers said, "The Company will not make the $120 million
settlement payment until the settlement is not subject to any
further appeal."

Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an
advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human
Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan
design, and administrative services for traditional pension and
retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and
administration services for health and group benefit programs; and
benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London,
England.


WINCO HOLDINGS: Castanon Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ESMERALDA CASTANON and JOHN
DURON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
WINCO HOLDINGS, INC., an Idaho Corporation, doing business as WINCO
FOODS; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 34-2020-00278994 (Filed
May 19, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Sacramento, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California on Aug. 17, 2020.

The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-at-00819 to the proceeding.

The complaint alleged causes of action for failure to pay all wages
owed, including overtime pay; failure to provide lawful meal
periods; failure to authorize and permit rest periods; failure to
timely pay wages owed upon separation from employment; failure to
furnish accurate itemized wage statements; and violation of the
unfair competition law.

Winco operates as a holding company. The Company, through its
subsidiaries, retails bulk food, meat, deli, seafood, and bakery
products.[BN]

Defendant Winco is represented by:

          Michael Kopp, Esq.
          Sophia Kwan, Esq.
          Phillip J. Ebsworth, Esq.
          Alfred L. Sanderson Jr., Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
          Sacramento, CA 95814-4428
          Telephone: (916) 448-0159
          Facsimile: (916) 558-4839
          E-mail: mkopp@seyfarth.com
                  skwan@seyfarth.com
                  pebsworth@seyfarth.com
                  asanderson@seyfarth.com


ZZOUNDS MUSIC: Calcano Alleges Violation under ADA
--------------------------------------------------
Zzounds Music, L.L.C. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Zzounds Music, L.L.C., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-06577 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 18, 2020).

Zzounds Music, L.L.C. was founded in 2001. The company's line of
business includes the retail sale of musical instruments, sheet
music, and similar supplies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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




                            *********

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 ***