/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200930.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, September 30, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 196 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Abbott Suit Removed to Eastern District of Washington ABM INDUSTRIES: Class Discovery Ongoing in Consolidated Bucio Suit ACUITY BRANDS: Appeals Ruling in Securities Suit to 11th Circuit ADESA CALIFORNIA: Chamu Employment Suit Moved to C.D. California ALLEN DISTRIBUTION: Ugale Class Suit Removed to E.D. California ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Lee Files FCRA Class Suit in C.D. California ANTHEM COMPANIES: Court Denies Class Status Bid in Garner Case ARCADIA RECOVERY: Vasquez Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ARIZONA: Shinn Files Cert. Petition in Parsons Prisoner Suit ARTEX RISK: Dodges Class Action Bullet BHP GROUP: Appeal in Samarco Bondholders' Suit Still Pending BHP GROUP: Unit Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit in Australia BIG LOTS: Wage & Hour Class Suits in California Ongoing BMG RIGHTS: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York BP AMERICA: Zermay Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Text Messages BROADLEAF MARKETING: Perrong Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Calls BURGERIM: Sued Over Deceptive Sales Practices CAMP COLLECTION: Olsen Sues in E.D. New York Over ADA Violation CASABELLA: Jaquez Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA CELESTRON ACQUISITION: Monopolizes Telescope Market, Riley Claims CHENAULT CONSULTING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Martinez Claims CINTAS CORP: Southwest Uniforms Cause Health Issues, Bearup Says CMR CONSTRUCTION: Shinn TCPA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida CNA FINANCIAL: Misclassifies Adjusters & Denies OT Pay, Mann Says COLONY CREDIT: Bragar Eagel Announces Securities Class Action CONTAINER STORE: NFB Appeals Order in ADA Suit to First Circuit COTY INC: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Suit CREATIVE IMPACT: Faces Chavez Dancers Suit Alleging Tip Skimming CUSTOMMADE INC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York DIALOGDIRECT INC: Perez Sues in E.D. Michigan Over TCPA Violation DIAMOND T SERVICES: Youker Sues Over Improperly Paid Overtime Pay DOMO INC: Bid to Dismiss Patton Securities Class Suit Pending DOMO INC: Bid to Nix Volonte Securities Class Action Pending ECO SCIENCE: Raschke Putative Class Suit in NJ Remains Stayed ENERGY RECOVERY: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Class Action ENERGY RECOVERY: Schall Law Firm Announces Securities Class Action FASTLY INC: Habib Sues Over False Statements & Securities Losses FIC RESTAURANTS: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought FORDHAM FINANCIAL: Bongiorno Sues Over Fraudulent Stock Offerings GLOBAL AIRCRAFT: Grant Files Request for Judicial Intervention GOL LINHAS: Portnoy Law Announces Securities Class Action GOLDBELY INC: Faces Winegard ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York GOLDMAN SACHS: Laidlaw Class Suit Pending in New Jersey GREAT AU PAIR: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Besera Suit Alleges GREEN MESSENGERS: Sanchez Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California GUIDANT GLOBAL: Ward Seeks to Certify Employees Class GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Class Action HARBORSIDE INC: Schall Law Firm Announces Securities Class Action HDFC BANK: Rosen Law Reminds of Nov. 2 Deadline HEALTHTRUST WORKFORCE: Rivera Seeks Unpaid OT Pay for Recruiters INFORMATION RESOURCES: Santiago Sues Over Gender Discrimination J SCHENKMAN LANDSCAPE: Palma Seeks Unpaid Wages for Landscapers JEAN DOUSSET: Jariwala Sues in S.D. California Over ADA Violation KIMCO FACILITY: Hays Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay & Retaliation KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Graziano Class Suit Moved to E.D. Wisconsin LEXINFINTECH HOLDINGS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 9 Deadline LIMITLESS POSSIBILITIES: Seckel Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages LINDBLAD EXPEDITIONS: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D.N.Y. LITTLE PASSPORTS: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Paguada Claims LLOYD'S LONDON: Gio Pizzeria Suit Moved From N.Y. to S.D. Florida LPS SERVICES: Underpays Security Officers, Alleman Suit Alleges M-I LLC: Last Suit Removed to Eastern District of California MARY JANE'S CBD: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation MCCOY CORPORATION: Paguada Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York MEI PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Oct. 9 Deadline MELT COSMETICS: Zanca Seeks Blind Buyers' Equal Access to Website MIDTOWN FOOD: Rojas Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages MPC HOLDINGS: Morris Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages NATIONAL CONSUMER: Trepeta Seeks to Certify Class of Consumers NATIONAL GENERAL: Suits Over AllState Corp. Merger Deal Ongoing NATURAL ESSENTIALS: Underpays Employees, Savanich FLSA Suit Says NAVISTAR INT'L: Appeal in MaxxForce Advanced EGR Suit Pending NAVISTAR INT'L: Still Defends MaxxForce Engine EGR Suits in Canada NET 1 UEPS: New York Securities Class Suit Concluded NEW BROAD STREET: Morocho Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Pay NIKOLA CORPORATION: Pomerantz Law Firm Probes Claims OLE HENRIKSEN: Faces Jaquez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site PERFORMANT FINANCIAL: Stein Balks at Wrong Stock Split Vote Count PETROLEUM & GEOLOGY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Gonzales Claims PORTLAND GENERAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action POSTMATES INC: Faces Randolph Wage-and-Hour Suit in California PRANA TRANSPORT: Zielinski Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & IWPCA QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Sacchi HIPAA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey QUTOUTIAO INC: Faces Brown Suit Over 65.43% Drop in IPO ADS Price R & D DELICATESSEN: Chantes Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York REAL GREEN: Faces Paulus Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls RELIEFBAND TECHNOLOGIES: Blind Can't Access Web Site, Romero Says REV GROUP: Consolidated Suit Over 2017 IPO Ongoing RH: Settlement in Securities Litigation Wins Final Approval SILVERADO SENIOR: Zamiatowski-Powell Seeks Nurses' Unpaid OT Pay SMITHFIELD PACKAGED: Canas Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA SOCAL PERMANENTE: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Coffey Says SPOTIFY USA: Elias Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California STARWEST BOTANICALS: Jaquez Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York STECKER MACHINE: Faces Smeester Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages STUART WEITZMAN: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Cota Suit Says T-MAXX @ AMSTERDAM: Faces Nunez Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages TERMINIX INT'L: Faces Carranza Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages THEMAGIC5 INC: Paguada Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site TIKTOK INC: M.G. BIPA Suit Alleges Unlawful Use of Biometric Info TOYBOX LABS: Faces Paguada Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site TRUE NORTH ENERGY: Misclassifies Store Managers, Glazier Claims TYCHE & ISET: Faces Angeles Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site UMPQUA BANK: Camenisch Sues Over Casey Ponzi's Scheme Involvement UNITED COLLECTION: Ausch Says Debt Collection Letter Is Deceptive UNITED STATES: Parmeley Prisoner Suit Moved to W.D. Arkansas UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS: Keegan WARN Suit Removed to C.D. California VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action VERTICAL FITNESS: Faces McClain Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls WALGREEN CO: President Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California WARRIOR CUSTOM GOLF: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York WELLS FARGO: Healy Suit Removed From Cir. Ct. to S.D. California WOMEN'S LEAGUE: Fails to Pay Asst. Managers' OT Wages, Ohana Says YAYYO INC: Faces Koch Suit Over 92.88% Decline in IPO Share Price YAYYO INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Securities Class Action ZACHARY HOLDINGS: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Blackmon Suit Says ZUMIEZ INC: Bid for Class Status in Herrera Case Due April 2021 ********* 3M COMPANY: Abbott Suit Removed to Eastern District of Washington ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case titled AARON ABBOTT, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 20201365-32, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Spokane, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on August 26, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-00307 to the proceeding. 3M Company conducts operations in electronics, telecommunications, industrial, consumer and office, health care, safety, and other markets. The Company businesses share technologies, manufacturing operations, marketing channels, and other resources. 3M serves customers worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Ray Nelson, Esq. FOSTER GARVEY P.C. 618 W. Riverside, Ste. 300 Spokane, WA 99201 E-mail: john.nelson@foster.com ABM INDUSTRIES: Class Discovery Ongoing in Consolidated Bucio Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2020, that class discovery is ongoing in the consolidated cases of Bucio and Martinez v. ABM Janitorial Services filed on April 7, 2006, pending in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. The Bucio case is a class action pending in San Francisco Superior Court that alleges that the company failed to provide legally required meal periods and make additional premium payments for such meal periods, pay split shift premiums when owed, and reimburse janitors for travel expenses. There is also a claim for penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). On April 19, 2011, the trial court held a hearing on plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. At the conclusion of that hearing, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. On May 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider, which was denied. The plaintiffs appealed the class certification issues. The trial court stayed the underlying lawsuit pending the decision in the appeal. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, heard oral arguments on November 7, 2017. On December 11, 2017, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order denying class certification and remanded the matter for certification of a meal period, travel expense reimbursement, and split shift class. The case was remitted to the trial court for further proceedings on class certification, discovery, dispositive motions, and trial. On September 20, 2018, the trial court entered an order defining four certified subclasses of janitors who were employed by the legacy ABM janitorial companies in California at any time between April 7, 2002 and April 30, 2013, on claims based on alleged previous automatic deduction practices for meal breaks, unpaid meal premiums, unpaid split shift premiums, and unreimbursed business expenses, such as mileage reimbursement for use of personal vehicles to travel between worksites. On February 1, 2019, the trial court held that the discovery related to PAGA claims allegedly arising after April 30, 2013 would be stayed until after the class and PAGA claims accruing prior to April 30, 2013 had been tried. The parties engaged in mediation in July 2019, which did not result in settlement of the case. On October 17, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the trial court to certify additional classes based on an alleged failure to maintain time records, an alleged failure to provide accurate wage statements, and an alleged practice of combining meal and rest breaks. The trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify additional classes on December 26, 2019. The case was re-assigned to a new judge on January 6, 2020. The parties are currently engaged in class discovery. The class action claims accruing prior to April 30, 2013 are set for trial on January 19, 2021, but this date may be delayed as a result of the Pandemic. Prior to trial, we will have the opportunity to, among other things, seek decertification of the classes or engage in further mediation if the company deems such actions appropriate. ABM said, "We may engage in one or more such activities in upcoming quarters." ABM Industries Incorporated is a facility services contractor. The Company provides air conditioning, engineering, janitorial, lighting, parking, security, and other outsourced facility services to the commercial, industrial, and institutional customers across North America. The company is based in New York, New York. ACUITY BRANDS: Appeals Ruling in Securities Suit to 11th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Acuity Brands, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled IN RE ACUITY BRANDS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-02140-MHC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 15, 2020, Acuity Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2020, for the quarterly period ended February 29, 2020, that the Company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, In re Acuity Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-02140-MHC (N.D. Ga.). On January 3, 2018, a shareholder filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against the company and certain of its officers on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired its stock between June 29, 2016 and April 3, 2017. On February 20, 2018, a different shareholder filed a second class action complaint in the same venue against the same parties on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's stock between October 15, 2015 and April 3, 2017. The cases were transferred on April 30, 2018, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and, subsequently, were consolidated as In re Acuity Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-02140-MHC (N.D. Ga.). On October 5, 2018, the court-appointed lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action complaint, which supersedes the initial complaints. The Consolidated Complaint is brought on behalf of all persons who purchased our common stock between October 7, 2015 and April 3, 2017 and alleges that the company and certain of its current officers and one former executive violated the federal securities laws by making false or misleading statements and/or omitting to disclose material adverse facts that (i) concealed known trends negatively impacting sales of the company's products and (ii) overstated the company's ability to achieve profitable sales growth. The Plaintiffs seek class certification, unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. The Company disputes the allegations in the complaints and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint. On August 12, 2019, the court entered an order granting the company's motion to dismiss in part and dismissing all claims based on 42 of the 47 statements challenged in the Consolidated Complaint but also denying the motion in part and allowing claims based on five challenged statements to proceed to discovery. The appellate case is captioned as Acuity Brands, Inc., et al. v. Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, Case No. 20-90018, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Respondent PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MISSISSIPPI, on its own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, is represented by: Naumon A. Amjed, Esq. Joshua E. D'Ancona, Esq. Ryan T. Degnan, Esq. Samuel C. Feldman, Esq. Nathan A. Hasiuk, Esq. Evan R. Hoey, Esq. Kimberly A. Justice, Esq. Johnston de Forest Whitman, Jr., Esq. Andrew L. Zivitz, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Rd. Radnor, PA 19087-5108 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 E-mail: namjed@ktmc.com jdancona@ktmc.com rdegnan@ktmc.com sfeldman@ktmc.com nhasiuk@ktmc.com ehoey@ktmc.com jwhitman@ktmc.com azivitz@ktmc.com - and - Michael A. Caplan, Esq. Jarred Alexander Klorfein, Esq. CAPLAN COBB, LLP 75 14th St. NE, Ste. 2750 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 596-5600 E-mail: mcaplan@caplancobb.com jklorfein@caplancobb.com - and - John J. Esmay, Esq. James W. Johnson, Esq. Philip J. Leggio, Esq. Michael H. Rogers, Esq. Margaret Schmidt, Esq. Irina Vasilchenko, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW, LLP 140 Broadway, Fl. 34 New York, NY 10005-1108 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 E-mail: jesmay@labaton.com jjohnson@labaton.com pleggio@labaton.com mrogers@labaton.com mschmidt@labaton.com ivasilchenko@labaton.com - and - Jason M. Kirschberg, Esq. GADOW TYLER PO Bx 30309 511 E Pearl St. Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 355-0654 E-mail: jason@gadowtyler.com - and - P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq. ROSENTHAL MONHAIT & GODDESS, PA 919 N Market St., Ste. 1401 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 656-4433 E-mail: brad@deleeuwlaw.com Defendants-Petitioners ACUITY BRANDS, INC., VERNON J. NAGEL, RICHARD K. REECE, and MARK A. BLACK are represented by: Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Esq. Joshua N. Mitchell, Esq. KING & SPALDING, LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Ste. 200 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 737-0500 E-mail: jbucholtz@kslaw.com jmitchell@kslaw.com - and - Cheri A. Grosvenor, Esq. Benjamin Lee, Esq. Michael R. Smith, Esq. KING & SPALDING, LLP 1180 Peachtree St. NE, Ste. 1600 Atlanta, GA 30309-3521 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 E-mail: cgrosvenor@kslaw.com blee@kslaw.com mrsmith@kslaw.com ADESA CALIFORNIA: Chamu Employment Suit Moved to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as JASMINE CHAMU, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ADESA CALIFORNIA, LLC; KAR AUCTION SERVICES; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV28957, 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 September 17, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-08533 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code, including failure to pay overtime and minimum wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay all wages owed upon termination of employment, failure to provide accurate wage statements and unfair competition. ADESA California, LLC, is a provider of wholesale vehicle auction solutions with its headquarters located at 12085 Hamilton Crossing Boulevard, in Carmel, Indiana. KAR Auction Services, Inc., is a provider of whole car auction services in North America, with its principal place of business in Carmel, Indiana.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Margaret Rosenthal, Esq. Vartan S. Madoyan, Esq. Nicholas D. Poper, Esq. Joseph S. Persoff, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509 Telephone: (310) 820-8800 Facsimile: (310) 820-8859 E-mail: mrosenthal@bakerlaw.com vmadoyan@bakerlaw.com npoper@bakerlaw.com jpersoff@bakerlaw.com ALLEN DISTRIBUTION: Ugale Class Suit Removed to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as JANET UGALE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALLEN DISTRIBUTION, LP; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2020-0005807, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Joaquin to the U.S. District Court for the District of Eastern District of California on August 26, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 1:20-at-00629 to the proceeding. Allen Distribution provides logistics services. The Company offers warehousing, distribution, transportation, freight consolidation, custom packaging, and logistics management services. Allen Distribution serves customers throughout the United States.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Matthew B. Golper, Esq. Nolan Mccready, Esq. GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP 2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 900 Irvine, CA 92612-6507 Telephone: (949) 271-3324 Facsimile: (949) 271-3399 E-mail: mgolper@goldbergsegalla.com nmccready@goldbergsegalla.com ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Lee Files FCRA Class Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alltran Financial, LP, et al. The case is styled as Kyungnan Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Alltran Financial, LP and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:20-cv-08560 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 18, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Alltran Financial, LP, operates as an accounts receivable management company. The Company offers collection services for credit card, retail, commercial, and deficiency loan industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN STIEGLITZ 11845 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Phone: (323) 979-2063 Fax: (323) 488-6748 Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com ANTHEM COMPANIES: Court Denies Class Status Bid in Garner Case -------------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as LYNN GARNER, et al., v. THE ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00900-CHB-CHL (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Claria Horn Boom entered an order: 1. directing the Defendant to show cause why this case should not be remanded due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 23, 2020; 2. directing the Plaintiffs to file their Response (if any) by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 7, 2020, after which the matter shall stand submitted to the Court; 3. denying the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class without prejudice and with leave to re-file, dependent on this Court finding it has jurisdiction over this case. The Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that the class size is less than 100 class members. They also assert that the parties' initial understanding of the class size was about 41 class members, and the Defendant only reached 97 potential class members by adding to the class list certain employees from a separate segment in the company who were never intended to be part of the class. The Plaintiffs also contend that the Defendant tried to include more employees who do not meet the class definition to "gerrymander the scope of the class" a second time. The Court says a class size of 97 is decidedly a class of "less than 100," to which Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) explicitly does not apply. Therefore, the Court questions whether it has federal subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA. Additionally, the Court questions whether the Defendant's efforts to meet the jurisdictional threshold by including hypothetical future employees is a proper basis to satisfy CAFA's requirements. Anthem, Inc., is a provider of health insurance in the United States. It is the largest for-profit managed health care company in the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZNHcd1 at no extra charge.[CC] ARCADIA RECOVERY: Vasquez Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARCADIA RECOVERY BUREAU LLC, et al. The case is styled as Braulio Vasquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ARCADIA RECOVERY BUREAU LLC, JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 5:20-cv-04585-EGS (E.D. Pa., Sept. 18, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Arcadia Recovery Bureau is a debt collection law office and is a partner to clients nationwide, with a presence in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert P. Cocco, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT P. COCCO PC 1500 Walnut St., Ste. 900 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (215) 351-0200 Fax: (215) 922-3874 Email: rcocco@rcn.com ARIZONA: Shinn Files Cert. Petition in Parsons Prisoner Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Defendants David Shinn, et al., filed with the Supreme Court of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled David Shinn, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al., Petitioners v. Shawn Jensen, et al., Case No. 20-360. Mr. Shinn is sued in his official capacity as director of the Arizona Department of Corrections. Response is due on October 19, 2020. Defendants David Shinn, et al., filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the consolidated appellate cases, VICTOR ANTONIO PARSONS; SHAWN JENSEN; STEPHEN SWARTZ; SONIA RODRIGUEZ; CHRISTINA VERDUZCO; JACKIE THOMAS; JEREMY SMITH; ROBERT CARRASCO GAMEZ, JR.; MARYANNE CHISHOLM; DESIREE LICCI; JOSEPH HEFNER; JOSHUA POLSON; ARIZONA CENTER FOR DISABILITY LAW; CHARLOTTE WELLS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. CHARLES L. RYAN, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections; RICHARD PRATT, Interim Division Director, Division of Health Services, Arizona Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellants; VICTOR ANTONIO PARSONS; SHAWN JENSEN; STEPHEN SWARTZ; SONIA RODRIGUEZ; CHRISTINA VERDUZCO; JACKIE THOMAS; JEREMY SMITH; ROBERT CARRASCO GAMEZ, JR.; MARYANNE CHISHOLM; DESIREE LICCI; JOSEPH HEFNER; JOSHUA POLSON; CHARLOTTE WELLS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; ARIZONA CENTER FOR DISABILITY LAW, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. CHARLES L. RYAN, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections; RICHARD PRATT, Interim Division Director, Division of Health Services, Arizona Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellants; and VICTOR ANTONIO PARSONS; SHAWN JENSEN; STEPHEN SWARTZ; SONIA RODRIGUEZ; CHRISTINA VERDUZCO; JACKIE THOMAS; JEREMY SMITH; ROBERT CARRASCO GAMEZ, JR.; MARYANNE CHISHOLM; DESIREE LICCI; JOSEPH HEFNER; JOSHUA POLSON; CHARLOTTE WELLS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and ARIZONA CENTER FOR DISABILITY LAW, Plaintiff v. CHARLES L. RYAN, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections; RICHARD PRATT, Interim Division Director, Division of Health Services, Arizona Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees, Case Nos. 18-16358, 18-16365, 18-16368, 18-16424. The opinion addressed four consolidated appeals. First, Defendants appeal from the Contempt Order (the Contempt Appeal, No. 18-16358). Second, Defendants and Plaintiffs cross-appeal from the Attorneys' Fees Order (the Attorneys' Fees Appeals, Nos. 18-16365 & 18-16424). Finally, Defendants appeal from the following orders related to the ongoing enforcement of the Stipulation (the Medical Needs Appeal, No. 18-16368): the Termination Order, the HNR-Box Order, the Millar-Plan Order, the Millar-Appointment Order, the Compliance-Expert Order, the Stern-Appointment Order, the Stern-Terms of Engagement Order, the Stern-Standard of Care Order, and the Abplanalp-Appointment Order. The Panel affirmed in part, reversed in part, and dismissed in part, in consolidated appeals in a comeback case involving eleven district court orders, arising from a class action by Arizona state prisoners against Defendant Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) senior officials, challenging the ADC's provision of healthcare. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 12, 2019, District Court Judge Roslyn O. Silver ordered the parties to select from the following three options regarding the future course of case: (i) enforcement of stipulation, (ii) new settlement, and (iii) trial. In October 2014, the parties, apparently in good faith, entered into a stipulation to settle the litigation. That stipulation required the Defendants to "comply with the health care performance measures" the parties agreed upon. The stipulation did not contemplate perfect compliance with each performance measure but it did require that, as of two years after the stipulation's effective date, the Defendants would comply with every performance measure at least 85% of the time.[BN] Defendants-Petitioners David Shinn, et al., are represented by: Nicholas D. Acedo, Esq. STRUCK LOVE BOJANOWSKI & ACEDO, PLC 3100 West Ray Road Suite 300 Chandler, AZ 85226 E-mail: nacedo@strucklove.com ARTEX RISK: Dodges Class Action Bullet -------------------------------------- Jay Adkisson at Forbes reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled on September 9, 2020, that a group of plaintiffs who had failed risk-pooled 831(b) captive insurance companies (a/k/a microcaptives) could not maintain a class action arbitration against their captive manager, Artex Risk Solutions, Inc., and associated outside professionals. The upshot is that each plaintiff must now pursue their own independent and separate arbitration cases against Artex, et al. I previously wrote about this class action in my article of December 10, 2018, and subsequent dismissal by the U.S. District Court in my article of August 8, 2019, and will not repeat the substance of those articles here. Suffice it to say that a group of plaintiffs sued Artex, et al., for negligence and a bunch of other things in connection with their microcaptives gone bad, and Artex, et al., was able to get the class action dismissed on the grounds that the plaintiffs had signed arbitration agreements with Artex and could not sue in federal court because they had agreed to be restricted to arbitrating all their disputes. You can read the Ninth Circuit's opinion for yourself here, and listen to the oral argument in the case here. The Ninth Circuit made four major points in its opinion, which I shall elaborate on below. First, the Court rejected the plaintiffs' claim that the arbitration agreements were not enforceable against them because Artex, et al., had allegedly breached its fiduciary duties in not explaining the arbitration clause to the plaintiffs, and that the agreements had already terminated. The Court basically held that the plaintiffs were "big boys", i.e., sophisticated parties who should have understood the import of the arbitration clauses themselves, and Arizona law imposed no duty upon Artex, et al., to explain the clauses to the plaintiffs. This is sort of a different way of saying caveat emptor, or caveat emptor tectumque tributum (buyer beware the tax shelter) if you prefer. Second, the Court held that all of the plaintiffs' claims were encompassed by the arbitration clause under Arizona contract law. Although a party can only be forced to arbitrate the particular issues that it had agreed to arbitrate, here the agreement was pretty clear that it applied to all disputes between the parties. Third, the Court held that because the arbitration clauses were silent on the issue of class action arbitration, they did not permit such an action. There are lots of gnarly issues involved here, such as who decides the availability of class actions between the arbitrator and the court. The Ninth Circuit decided in favor of the court, and further held that where the arbitration agreement lacks a specific reference to class action arbitration then that is unavailable to the parties. Fourth, and finally, the Court held that under the theory of alternative estoppel under Arizona law, even the defendants who were not signatories to the agreements containing the arbitration clauses could compel arbitration under the circumstances. The reasoning here is that these other defendants (actuaries, underwriters, tax advisers, financial advisers, etc.) were so intertwined with Artex that they should also get the benefit of the arbitration provision. Analysis This opinion definitely represents a win for microcaptive managers and other professionals, insofar as class actions are a nuclear weapon that threatens to wipe out all defendants entirely, whereas now those defendants will only have to face independent arbitrations by each of these plaintiffs individually. It is a win for the microcaptive industry in the sense that this opinion will likely apply with equal fervor to other captive managers who had arbitration clauses in their agreements (and all but the dumbest did) and their associated professionals. What this opinion does is allows the managers to escape one deep cut, but still exposes them to potentially dying from numerous smaller cuts. Sometimes defendants want class actions and even force plaintiffs into them occasionally because they are efficient from a litigation perspective, as opposed to having dozens if not hundreds of individual cases out there being worked. The downside to class actions is, of course, the potential for one huge award; it is much like putting all of one's chips on either red or black at roulette, instead of spreading the chips (and the risk) around the table. Those in the industry can think of it as "litigation risk distribution". Or, think of it this way: If you were an accountant or actuary for one of these captive managers under a promoter audit, with a class action you might have been deposed once for a week but now you might be deposed 200 times for a day. This probably isn't a big deal for Artex, which has the deep pocket to afford the legal fees, but it might be a big deal for the numerous other individual defendants who might be quickly overcome with their own legal expenses. The real losers here are the plaintiffs' lawyers who lost the chance to use the threat of an enormous award to leverage an early settlement for relatively little work, but now have to grind it out client-by-client in individual arbitration proceedings and really earn their pay. It is entirely possible that at the end of the day their clients will actually recover more than they would have through a class action, but on a per-hour basis the plaintiffs' lawyers aren't going to be nearly as happy. No, you don't get the 80-year long bomb one-play drive, but instead you get the grind-it-out three yards at a time between the tackles drive. As far as the individual plaintiffs go, the Ninth Circuit is right: They were sophisticated parties, or at who least held themselves out to be big boys looking for a big boy tax shelter deal, and they should have known what they were signing when it came to the arbitration agreements. So if they want to know why this isn't going to be easy, they just need to look in the mirror for their answer. Arbitration clauses in documents may be boilerplate, and nobody cares about them when they think that nothing could go wrong, but things do go wrong and boilerplate exists because the courts long ago showed that they would enforce those provisions like any others. And big boys should know that. [GN] BHP GROUP: Appeal in Samarco Bondholders' Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ BHP Group Plc said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2020, that plaintiff's appeal on the court's denial of the motion for reconsideration and for leave to amend its complaint, is still pending On 30 October 2019, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and for leave to amend its complaint. On 14 November 2016, a putative class action complaint (Bondholder Complaint) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Samarco Mineracao S.A's (Samarco's) 10-year bond notes due 2022–2024 between 31 October 2012 and 30 November 2015. The Bondholder Complaint was initially filed against Samarco and the former chief executive officer of Samarco. The Complaint asserted claims under the U.S. federal securities laws and indicated that the plaintiff will seek certification to proceed as a class action. The Bondholder Complaint was subsequently amended to include BHP Group Limited, BHP Group Plc, BHP Billiton Brasil Ltda, Vale S.A. and officers of Samarco, including four of Vale S.A. and BHP Billiton Brasil Ltda’s nominees to the Samarco Board. On 5 April 2017, the Plaintiff discontinued its claims against the individual defendants. The amount of damages sought by the putative class is unspecified. On 7 March 2018, the District Court granted a joint motion from the remaining corporate defendants to dismiss the Bondholder Complaint. A second amended Bondholder Complaint was also dismissed by the Court on 18 June 2019. On 9 July 2019, the plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of that decision or for leave to file a third amended complaint. On 30 October 2019, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and for leave to amend its complaint. The plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal of both of those orders. This appeal remains pending before the Court of Appeals. BHP Group Plc operates as a resource mining company. The Company focuses on minerals, metals, petroleum products, and oil and gas extraction and processing activities, as well as provides marketing services. BHP Group serves customers worldwide. BHP GROUP: Unit Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit in Australia ----------------------------------------------------------------- BHP Group Plc said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2020, that a subsidiary continues to defend a shareholder class action suit in the Federal Court of Australia BHP Group Limited is named as a defendant in a shareholder class action in the Federal Court of Australia on behalf of persons who acquired shares in BHP Group Ltd on the Australian Securities Exchange or shares in BHP Group Plc on the London Stock Exchange and Johannesburg Stock Exchange in periods prior to the Samarco dam failure. The amount of damages sought in the consolidated action is unspecified. BHP filed an application for a temporary stay of the class action pending resolution of certain Brazilian criminal proceedings. On 17 March 2020, the Court declined to order the temporary stay. Instead, the Court ordered that interlocutory steps in the class action be considered on a case by case basis and allowed to proceed only if any prejudice in connection with the Brazilian criminal proceedings does not outweigh the other interests of justice. On 12 May 2020, BHP Group Ltd filed an application seeking declaratory relief which, if successful, would narrow the group of claimants in the class action. This application was scheduled to be heard on 7-8 September 2020. BHP Group Plc operates as a resource mining company. The Company focuses on minerals, metals, petroleum products, and oil and gas extraction and processing activities, as well as provides marketing services. BHP Group serves customers worldwide. BIG LOTS: Wage & Hour Class Suits in California Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------- Big Lots, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2020, that the company continues to defend numerous purported wage and hour class actions in California. The company is currently defending several purported wage and hour class actions in California. The cases were brought by various current and/or former California associates alleging various violations of California wage and hour laws. During the first quarter of 2019, upon consideration of these matters, including outcomes of cases against other retailers, the company determined a loss from these matters was probable and the company increased its accrual for litigation by recording a $7.3 million charge as its best estimate for these matters in aggregate. Big Lots said, "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against the allegations levied in the remaining lawsuits." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Big Lots, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a community retailer in the United States. Big Lots, Inc. was founded in 1967 and is headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. BMG RIGHTS: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BMG Rights Management (US) LLC. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. BMG Rights Management (US) LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-04384-SJF-ARL (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. BMG's parent enterprise is BMG Rights Management GmbH, a limited liability company according to German law. The Company's objective is "the marketing of music, as well as its development and delivery" for use in media, at concerts and for other purposes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC 105-13 Metropolitan Avenue Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com BP AMERICA: Zermay Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------------- ZACHARY ZERMAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BP AMERICA INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-08555 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 17, 2020), arises from the Defendant's illegal actions in transmitting unsolicited, autodialed SMS or MMS text messages to the Plaintiff's cellular device and the cellular devices of numerous other individuals nationwide, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The complaint alleges that the Defendants intentionally sent or transmitted, or intentionally caused to be sent or transmitted on their behalf, the same or substantially the same unsolicited text messages that the Plaintiff received to thousands of phone numbers, many of which had a Los Angeles area code. The Defendants' text messages were unsolicited advertisements for discounts on gasoline and oil change services, and the Defendants operate numerous gas stations and convenience stores throughout California. Neither the Plaintiff nor any members of the proposed class provided their "prior express written consent" to the Defendant to permit the transmission of text messages to the Plaintiff's number or to any of the class' telephone numbers using an "automatic telephone dialing system," the Plaintiff asserts. BP America Inc. is a Houston, Texas-headquartered company, which produces and retails oil and natural gas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com - and - Michael R. Parker, Esq. Kevin Cole, Esq. PARKER COLE, P.C. 6700 Fallbrook Ave, Suite 207 West Hills, CA 91307 Telephone: (818) 292-8800 Facsimile: (818) 292-8337 E-mail: michael@parkercolelaw.com kevin@parkercolelaw.com BROADLEAF MARKETING: Perrong Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Perrong, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. BROADLEAF MARKETING & SEO, LLC, Case No. 9:20-cv-81698-DMM (S.D. Fla., Sept. 18, 2020), arises from the Defendant's campaign to market its services through the use of pre-recorded telemarketing calls, in plain violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendant also sent multiple calls to residential telephone numbers that are registered on the National Do Not Call List, which is a separate and additional violation of the TCPA, according to the complaint. The recipients of the Defendant's illegal calls, which include the Plaintiff and the proposed classes, are entitled to damages under the TCPA and because the technology used by the Defendant makes calls en masse, the appropriate vehicle for their recovery is a class action lawsuit, the Plaintiff contends. Plaintiff Andrew Perrong is an individual citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Broadleaf Marketing & SEO, LLC is a Florida limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com rachel@kaufmanpa.com BURGERIM: Sued Over Deceptive Sales Practices --------------------------------------------- Jonathan Maze at Restaurant Business Online reports that a would-be franchisee of Burgerim, who lost nearly $500,000 investing in a location in Florida that was never allowed to open, has sued the company in part to stop it from selling any more franchises in the state. The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in Florida, names Burgerim, the company's founder Oren Loni, as well as Mark Bastorous, who was the area representative in the state. It accuses them of violating various Florida laws regarding deceptive business practices as well as the state's franchise regulations. The lawsuit seeks class action status. "There are still a lot of folks out there that invested in this franchise," Adam Wasch, an attorney with the Florida-based law firm Wasch Raines, said in an interview. "They're hurting. They've been shut down or they're filing for bankruptcy. No one is taking the reins and fighting back. My client authorized me to do that." Burgerim, listed just a year earlier as the fastest-growing restaurant chain in the U.S., abruptly shut down its headquarters late last year after Loni left town and fled to Israel. With communications shut off, a successor company operated by a different person, Michel Buchbot, told franchisees the company was considering a bankruptcy filing. Loni's departure revealed a mess, as detailed in a Restaurant Business investigation in January. The company sold franchises to hundreds of people, convincing them to hand over at least $10,000 for the right to operate a franchise, frequently with promises of a money-back guarantee. Most of those who bought into the franchise had no experience. Many who ended up opening a restaurant closed after a few months, unable to make a profit. Some didn't even make it that far. Alex Damas, the franchisee filing the Florida lawsuit, invested nearly $500,000 to open a Florida restaurant. According to the lawsuit, Damas lost the restaurant when Burgerim failed to pay a substantial amount of past-due rent, leading the landlord to cancel the lease. "Burgerim vanished and could not be contacted by the landlord," the lawsuit said, resulting in Damas's eviction. In an interview, Wasch said the immediate goal is to keep Burgerim from selling franchises in Florida. The company has continued to sell franchises even as numerous stores closed. At least six states, including Indiana in July, have ordered the company to stop selling franchises in those states. U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate. "This is not the typical franchisee lawsuit that you're looking to bark up a tree and see what you can get," Wasch said. "We're not really expecting to get much out of Burgerim. What we are expecting is to have other Burgerim franchisees know that someone is trying to fight back." Burgerim used high-pressure sales tactics to push franchisees to send in their upfront franchise fees immediately, so sales representatives can collect their commissions. The company took anyone, regardless of net worth or financial health or experience. Many franchisees were given verbal assurances of how much they would make running a restaurant even though the company does not provide a detailed accounting of operator finances on its franchise disclosure documents. The result led hundreds of people to sign up for a franchise, while the company did little to support operators in the system. Burgerim collected $45 million in franchise fees between 2016 and 2018, according to the company's franchise documents. The lawsuit says Burgerim violated Florida law in making "intentional misrepresentations" regarding the chances for one of the restaurant's success. [GN] CAMP COLLECTION: Olsen Sues in E.D. New York Over ADA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Camp Collection Inc. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Camp Collection Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-04401 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. CAMP Collection designs and sells clothing items.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170-1830 Phone: (212) 764-7171 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com CASABELLA: Jaquez Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Casabella, LLC. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Casabella, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-07731 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Casabella L.L.C. operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells house furnishings products such as blankets, bedspreads, sheets, table clothes, towels, and shower curtains.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com CELESTRON ACQUISITION: Monopolizes Telescope Market, Riley Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- JIM RILEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CELESTRON ACQUISITION, LLC, NANTONG SCHMIDT OPTO-ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD., NINGBO SUNNY ELECTRONIC CO. LTD. OLIVON MANUFACTURING CO. LTD., OLIVON USA, LLC, SKY-WATCHER CANADA, SKY-WATCHER USA, SUZHOU SYNTA OPTICAL TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., SW TECHNOLOGY CORP., SYNTA CANADA INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISES LTD., and SYNTA TECHNOLOGY CORP. OF TAIWAN, Case No. 5:20-cv-06527 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 17, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for engaging in a conspiracy to unlawfully fix prices, allocate the market and customers, and unlawful monopolistic conduct in the United States for consumer telescopes. The complaint alleges that the consumers in the U.S., including the Plaintiff and the class members, have collectively paid hundreds of millions of dollars in illegal overcharges for telescopes since 2005 as a result of the Defendants' long-running conspiracy to gain an unlawful monopoly in the country for telescopes, causing the prices of telescopes to be raised beyond competitive levels. The Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendants for violation of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. The Plaintiff also seeks compensatory damages to be trebled in accordance with antitrust laws, injunctive relief, and costs of suit, including attorneys' fees. The Defendants manufacture, market, and/or sold telescopes that were sold and purchased throughout the United States during the Class Period.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dennis J. Stewart, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 600 B Street, 17th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595-3299 E-mail: dstewart@gustafsongluek.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Michelle J. Looby, Esq. Joshua J. Rissman, Esq. Daniel J. Nordin, Esq. Mary M. Nikolai, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com mlooby@gustafsongluek.com jrissman@gustafsongluek.com dnordin@gustafsongluek.com mnikolai@gustafsongluek.com - and - David S. Corwin, Esq. CORWIN LAW GROUP, LLC 1034 S. Brentwood Blvd., Suite 1490 St. Louis, MO 63117 Telephone: (314) 685-8849 Facsimile: (314) 287-4583 E-mail: dcorwin@corwinlawgroup.com CHENAULT CONSULTING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Martinez Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Freddie Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Chenault Consulting Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00954-KRS-GJF (D.N.M., Sept. 18, 2020), is brought against the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act to recover unpaid overtime pay. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek or approximately 80 hours of weekly work for the Defendant. However, regardless of whether the Plaintiff was paid a day rate or an hourly rate of pay, the Defendant allegedly fails to pay the Plaintiff time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each and every workweek. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a pipeline inspector from July 2005 until January 2019. Chenault Consulting, Inc., is a New Mexico corporation specializing primarily in oil and gas related project management and maintenance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 621-2277 Facsimile: (713) 621-0993 E-mail: marbuckle@eeoc.net rprieto@eeoc.net CINTAS CORP: Southwest Uniforms Cause Health Issues, Bearup Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS BEARUP Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CINTAS CORP., Case No. 3:20-cv-05844 (W.D. Wash., Aug. 21, 2020), is brought on behalf of a class working for Southwest Airlines and who have been required to wear defective company-branded uniforms manufactured by Cintas Corporation. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that since the introduction of the Uniforms in 2017, Southwest employees, including the Plaintiff, immediately began suffering a myriad of health problems from the uniforms, including itchiness, rashes, hives, coughing, trouble breathing, tightness of the chest, hair loss, ear pain, blurry vision, anxiety, and lethargy. According to the complaint, the reactions to the Uniforms have become so severe that many Southwest employees are forced to miss work and seek medical attention. Other Southwest employees fear reprimand and are hesitant to complain about their Uniforms, instead choosing to suffer in silence. It is estimated that over 20,000 flight attendants, customer-service agents, and operations agents wear pieces from the Uniform collection manufactured by the Defendant. Cintas Corporation designs, manufactures, and implements corporate identity uniform programs. The Company also provides entrance mats, restroom supplies, promotional products, document management, fire protection, and first aid and safety services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maggie Diefenbach, Esq. GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL 520 Pike Street, Suite 2350 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 676-7539 Facsimile: (206) 676-7575 E-mail: mdiefenbach@gth-law.com - and - Kent T. Brandmeyer, Esq. Yuk K. Law, Esq. Trevor C. Wong, Esq. L&B LAW GROUP 2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 820 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 304-9500 Facsimile: (626) 243-4799 E-mail: kent@pasadenalawfirm.com chuck@pasadenalawfirm.com trevor@pasadenalawfirm.com - and - Keith Griffin, Esq. GIRARDI & KEESE 1126 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 977-0211 Facsimile: (213) 481-1554 E-mail: kgriffin@girardikeese.com CMR CONSTRUCTION: Shinn TCPA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as RYAN SHINN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CMR CONSTRUCTION AND ROOFING, LLC, Case No. CACE-20-012923, was removed from the Florida Circuit Court for Broward County to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on September 17, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned Case No. 0:20-cv-61891-RAR to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited text messages to the cellular phone numbers of the Plaintiff and Class members using an automatic telephone dialing system. CMR Construction and Roofing, LLC is a company that provides roofing, siding, and sheet metal services and installation, with its principal place of business located in St. Ann, Missouri.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Alan S. Feldman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ALAN S. FELDMAN, P.A. 10396 West State Road 84, Suite 106 Davie, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 465-7655 E-mail: afeldman@alanfeldmanlaw.com CNA FINANCIAL: Misclassifies Adjusters & Denies OT Pay, Mann Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- LORI MANN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CNA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-02839 (D. Colo., Sept. 18, 2020), alleges that the Plaintiff was improperly classified by the Defendant as independent contractor, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Colorado Wage Claim Act. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant in September 2017 as an adjuster. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and the class members have been denied overtime pay for hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek as a result of the Defendant's misclassification of its employees. CNA Financial Corporation is a Colorado-based insurance company that sells various insurance products to companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com COLONY CREDIT: Bragar Eagel Announces Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of investors that purchased Colony Credit Real Estate, Inc. (: CLNC) common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with the combination of Colony NorthStar, Inc. ("Colony NorthStar") and NorthStar Real Estate Income Trust, Inc. ("NorthStar I") and NorthStar Real Estate Income II, Inc. ("NorthStar II") on or about February 1, 2018 (the "Merger"). Investors have until November 9, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. The Company's common stock was registered with the SEC in connection with the Merger. Following the Merger, Colony Credit's common stock was listed on the New York Stock Exchange ("") without an initial public offering: stockholders of NorthStar I received 0.3532 shares of the Company's Class A common stock for each share of NorthStar I common stock they owned; and stockholders of NorthStar II received 0.3511 shares of the Company's Class A common stock for each share of NorthStar II common stock they owned. On August 8, 2019, Colony Credit issued a press release to report its second quarter 2019 financial results, in which it reported a $119 million provision for loan losses. On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.00 per share, or more than 12%, over two consecutive trading sessions to close at $14.05 per share on August 12, 2019. On November 8, 2019, the Company announced a portfolio bifurcation of certain assets and disclosed a $127 million provision for loan losses. On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.50 per share, or nearly 18%, to close at $11.75 per share on November 8, 2019. As of the date of the filing of this complaint, Colony Credit's shares last closed at $5.40 per share, representing a more than 78% decline from the $25 book value per share valued at the time of the Merger. The complaint, filed on September 10, 2020, alleges that the Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and omitted to state: (i) that the credit quality of certain of the Company's assets had deteriorated prior to the Merger and were continuing to deteriorate at the time of the Merger; (ii) that certain of the Company's loans, including four loans of approximately $261 million related to a New York hotel, were substantially impaired, there was insufficient collateral to secure the loans, and it was unlikely that the loans would be repaid; (iii) that, as a result, the valuation attributed to certain of the Company's assets was overstated; (iv) that certain of the assets contributed as part of the Merger were of substantially lower value than reflected in the Company's financial statements and the Registration Statement; (v) that, as a result, the Company's financial condition, including its book value, was materially overstated; and (vi) that, as a result of the foregoing, the positive statements in the Registration Statement about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased Colony Credit common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection with the Merger, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker, Melissa Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] CONTAINER STORE: NFB Appeals Order in ADA Suit to First Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs National Federation of the Blind, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated August 18, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND, on behalf of their members and themselves, MARK CADIGAN, MIKA PYYHKALA, LISA IRVING, ARTHUR JACOBS, JEANINE KAY LINEBACK, and HEATHER ALBRIGHT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. THE CONTAINER STORE GROUP, INC., Case No. 15-CV-12984-NMG, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 12, 2019, Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied the Plaintiffs' motion for entry of judgment and writ of enforcement. The dispute arises out of a decision of the First Circuit Court of Appeals to affirm the Court's denial of the Container Store's motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the terms of its Loyalty Program. Following that decision in 2018, the Plaintiffs moved for entry of final judgment and injunctive relief with respect to the subject arbitration provision. In 2015, the National Federation of the Blind ("NFB") and Mika Pyyhkala, Lisa Irving, Jeanine Lineback, Arthur Jacobs, Mark Cadigan and Heather Albright filed a complaint against the Container Store, alleging a violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and other state discrimination statutes. In response, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration and enforce class action waivers, pursuant to the terms of its Perfectly Organized Perks ("POP!") Loyalty Program against all individual plaintiffs except Cadigan and Albright. The Court denied that motion. The Container Store sought interlocutory review under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), which provides a statutory exception for interlocutory appeal where final judgment has not been certified by the district court. In late 2018, the First Circuit affirmed the Court's order denying the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. It held that for the plaintiffs who enrolled in the Loyalty Program at the store (Pyyhkala, Irving and Jacobs), there was no contract formation with respect to the arbitration clause because those in-store plaintiffs lacked actual or constructive notice of the arbitration clause at the time of their acceptance. Following the First Circuit's decision, the Plaintiffs moved for entry of final judgment with respect to the arbitration provision of the Loyalty Program under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) and national injunctive relief under the All Writs Act. They allege that final judgment is warranted because both the Court and the First Circuit have held that the terms of the Loyalty Program are illusory. They further submit that national injunctive relief is appropriate because 1) the Defendant continues to use the illusory terms in its Loyalty Program agreement and 2) it will ensure the protection of the rights of current customers in the Loyalty Program, including the Plaintiffs. The Defendant rejoins that the denial of its motion to compel does not implicate Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) because 1) the motion to compel arbitration is an embedded proceeding, not a final decision and 2) interlocutory review of a denial of a motion to compel under the FAA does not completely dispose of any claims. It further contends that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to injunctive relief under the All Writs Act because 1) no justiciable controversy exists, 2) the Plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief on behalf of the unnamed Plaintiffs, 3) the Plaintiffs have failed to meet the requirements for injunctive relief under the All Writs Act and 4) the issue is moot because the Defendant is in the process of amending the terms of its Loyalty Program. Judge Gorton finds that although the First Circuit's decision resolves the issue of whether the Defendant can compel arbitration, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they have satisfied the finality requirement with respect to the additional relief they are seeking. Nor have the Plaintiffs persuasively demonstrated why final judgment should be entered. Moreover, there is no evidence that the Defendant has attempted to enforce arbitration on the Plaintiffs' claims underlying the lawsuit, thus mitigating any claim that final judgment must be entered immediately. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion for entry of final judgment under Rule 54(b) will be denied. With respect to the prospective injunctive relief that the Plaintiffs seek, the Judge finds that the All Writs Act does not apply. That Act is used sparingly and only in the most "critical and exigent circumstances". Only where the legal rights at issue are "indisputably clear" and relief is necessary or appropriate in aiding the Court's jurisdiction will courts consider providing injunctive relief. Because the Defendant is not attempting to enforce the arbitration provision and is in the process of revising the contract terms, the Plaintiffs can only suggest the hypothetical harm of future arbitration. Such a hypothetical harm does not rise to the level of "critical" or "exigent circumstances" and should such harm become likely, the Plaintiffs may then seek injunctive relief again. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion for writ of enforcement under the All Writs Act will be denied. For these reasons, Judge Gorton denied the Plaintiffs' motion for entry of judgment and writ of enforcement. On September 23, 2019, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment based on the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint. The Defendant's motion for summary judgment has been fully briefed. The court recommends that the Defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted. The appellate case is captioned as NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND, on behalf of their members and themselves; MARK CADIGAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; MIKA PYYHKALA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; LISA IRVING, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; ARTHUR JACOBS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; HEATHER ALBRIGHT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; JEANINE KAY LINEBACK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. THE CONTAINER STORE, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 20-1894, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND, on behalf of their members and themselves; MARK CADIGAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; MIKA PYYHKALA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; LISA IRVING, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; ARTHUR JACOBS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; HEATHER ALBRIGHT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; JEANINE KAY LINEBACK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jana Eisinger, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JANA EISINGER, PLLC 4610 South Ulster Street, Suite 150 Denver, CO 80237 Telephone: (303) 209-0266 Facsimile: (303) 353-0786 E-mail: jeisinger@eisingerlawfirm.com - and - Jeremy Y. Weltman, Esq. HERMES, NETBURN, O'CONNOR & SPEARING, P.C. 265 Franklin Street, Seventh Floor Boston, MA 02110-3113 Telephone: (617) 728-0050 Facsimile: (617) 728-0052 E-mail: jweltman@hermesnetburn.com - and - Scott C. LaBarre, Esq. LABARRE LAW OFFICE, P.C. 1660 S. Albion Street, Suite 918 Denver, CO 80222 Telephone: (303) 504-5979 Facsimile: (303) 757-3640 E-mail: slabarre@labarrelaw.com - and - Timothy Elder, Esq. TRE LEGAL PRACTICE 1155 Market Street, 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone: (415) 873-9199 Facsimile: (415) 952-9898 E-mail: telder@trelegal.com - and - Albert Elia, Esq. TRE LEGAL PRACTICE 4226 Castanos Street Fremont, CA 94536 Telephone: (415) 873-9199 E-mail: aelia@trelegal.com - and - Karla Gilbride, Esq. PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C. 1620 L St. NW, Suite 630 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 797-8600 E-mail: kgilbride@publicjustice.net Defendant-Appellee The Container Store, Inc. is represented by: Gregory F. Hurley, Esq. Michael J. Chilleen, Esq. SHEPPHARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 650 Town Center Drive, 4th Floor Costa Mesa, FL 92626 Telephone: (714) 513-5100 E-mail: ghurley@sheppardmullin.com mchilleen@sheppardmullin.com - and - Howard E. Stempler, Esq. James A. Vevone, Jr., Esq. SEDER & CHANDLER 339 Main Street, Suite 300 Worcester, MA 01608 Telephone: (508) 757-7721 E-mail: hstempler@sederlaw.com jvevone@sederlaw.com COTY INC: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Coty Inc. ("Coty" or "the Company") (NYSE: COTY) for violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between October 3, 2016 and May 28, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before November 3, 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. Despite being no stranger to beauty brand acquisitions, Coty did not have adequate processes and procedures in place to assess and properly value the P&G Specialty Beauty Business and Kylie Cosmetics acquisitions. As a result, the Company overpaid for the P&G Specialty Beauty Business and Kylie Cosmetics. 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 Coty, 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. [GN] CREATIVE IMPACT: Faces Chavez Dancers Suit Alleging Tip Skimming ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXIA CHAVEZ; DAPHNE HAWKINS; KINNLYN NOICE; and GRACIELA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CREATIVE IMPACT, INC., dba BANDAIDS SHOW LOUNGE; JAMES ZANZUCCHI; MARK CUMMING; DOE MANAGERS 1-3; and DOES 4-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01652-CDB (D. Ariz., Aug. 22, 2020), is brought on behalf of dancers accusing the Defendants of charging illegal kickbacks and illegally absconding with the Plaintiffs' tips. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as dancers. They also accuse the Defendants of evading the mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Creative Impact, Inc., dba Bandaids Show Lounge, is a night club that provides a range of adult entertainment activities.[BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 - Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77066 Telephone: (713) 554-2377 E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com - and - Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq. KRISTENSEN LLP 12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90066 Telephone: 310-507-7924 E-mail: jesenia@kristensenlaw.com CUSTOMMADE INC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Custommade, Inc. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Custommade, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-04385-WFK-AKT (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. CustomMade is an online custom jeweler. Until 2015, the business operated as an online marketplace connecting customers with independent artisans, who produce custom-designed furniture, jewelry, home decor, and other personalized items. CustomMade is the world's first and largest online seller of custom products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC 105-13 Metropolitan Avenue Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com DIALOGDIRECT INC: Perez Sues in E.D. Michigan Over TCPA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DialogDirect, Inc. The case is styled as Manuel Perez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DialogDirect, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-12562-LVP-APP (E.D. Mich., Sept. 18, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for restrictions of use of telephone equipment. DialogDirect, Inc. provides marketing services. The Company offers campaign management, customer engagement, data analytics, e-commerce, and direct marketing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com DIAMOND T SERVICES: Youker Sues Over Improperly Paid Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jordan Youker, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. DIAMOND T SERVICES, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00069 (W.D. Tex., Sept. 18, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff proper overtime compensation for all hours that the Plaintiff worked. The Plaintiff regularly worked over forty hours in a one-week period but the Plaintiff and other Senior Operators were not paid overtime wages for hours worked over forty per week, according to the complaint. The Defendant has deprived the Plaintiff and other Senior Operators of overtime compensation for all of the hours worked over 40 per week. The Defendant knew or showed reckless disregard for whether its actions violated the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant first as an Operations Manager, and then as a Senior Operator. The Defendant is a foreign, for-profit corporation and maintains a website at https://diamondtservices.com/.[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 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com DOMO INC: Bid to Dismiss Patton Securities Class Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Domo, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the securities class action suit entitled, Patton v. Domo, Inc., et. al, Case No. 2:19-cv-00781-DAK-EJF, is pending. In October 2019, a securities class action complaint captioned Patton v. Domo, Inc., et. al, Case No. 2:19-cv-00781-DAK-EJF, was filed by a stockholder of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah against the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors alleging violations of securities laws and seeking unspecified damages. On April 7, 2020, the court granted EXKAE Ltd.'s motion for appointment as lead plaintiff. On May 22, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in connection with the Company's June 2018 initial public offering and during a purported class period from June 28, 2020 through September 5, 2019. On July 8, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The motion will not be fully briefed until September 18, 2020, and a hearing has not yet been scheduled. The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the case vigorously. Domo, Inc. operates a cloud-based platform in the United States. Its platform digitally connects chief executive officer to the frontline employee with the people, data, and systems in an organization, giving them access to real-time data and insights, and allowing them to manage business from smartphones. The Company was formerly known as Domo Technologies, Inc. and changed its name to Domo, Inc. in December 2011. Domo, Inc. was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in American Fork, Utah. DOMO INC: Bid to Nix Volonte Securities Class Action Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Domo, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2020, that the defendants' motion to dismiss the securities class action suit entitled, Volonte v. Domo, Inc., et. al, Case No. 19-04-01778, is pending. In November 2019, a securities class action complaint captioned Volonte v. Domo, Inc., et. al, Case No. 19-04-01778, was filed by a stockholder of the Company in the Fourth Judicial District Court for the County of Utah in the State of Utah against the Company, certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters of the Company's June 2018 initial public offering alleging violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the Company's initial public offering and seeking unspecified damages. In January 2020, the defendants filed a motion to stay the Volonte action in favor of the Patton action. On July 22, 2020, the court denied the defendants' motion to stay. On August 19, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Volonte complaint. The motion will not be fully briefed until September 9, 2020 and a hearing has not yet been scheduled. The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the case vigorously. Domo, Inc. operates a cloud-based platform in the United States. Its platform digitally connects chief executive officer to the frontline employee with the people, data, and systems in an organization, giving them access to real-time data and insights, and allowing them to manage business from smartphones. The Company was formerly known as Domo Technologies, Inc. and changed its name to Domo, Inc. in December 2011. Domo, Inc. was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in American Fork, Utah. ECO SCIENCE: Raschke Putative Class Suit in NJ Remains Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------- Eco Science Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2020, that the purported class action suit initiated by Richard Raschke is still stayed. On February 1, 2019, the lead plaintiff, Mr. Richard Raschke, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed an amended consolidated class action complaint against the Company, the Taylors, and Mr. Gannon Giguiere in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Class Action arises out of alleged materially false and misleading statements or omissions from SEC filings and/or public statements by or on behalf of Company. The Class Action asserts claims against all defendants for violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act"), violation of Section 20(a) of the Act against the Taylors and Giguiere and Violation of Section 20(b) against Mr. Giguiere. The Class Action seeks (1) certification of the purported class of plaintiffs, (2) compensatory damages in favor of the class and (3) an award of reasonable costs and expenses. Defendants have moved to stay this action. By consent of the parties, the Court has agreed to suspend this matter pending resolution of the consolidated derivative action in Hawaii. Eco Science Solutions, Inc., a bio and software technology-focused company, provides solutions for the health, wellness, and alternative medicine industry. Its services include business location, localized communications between consumers and business operators, social networking, inventory management/selection, and payment facilitation and delivery. Eco Science Solutions, Inc. was founded in 2009 and is headquartered in Makawao, Hawaii. ENERGY RECOVERY: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Energy Recovery, Inc. 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. Energy Recovery, Inc. (NASDAQ:ERII) Class Period: August 2, 2017 - June 29, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 21, 2020 The ERII lawsuit alleges that Energy Recovery, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company had different strategic perspectives regarding commercialization of the Company's VorTeq technology than Schlumberger Technology Corp., which had exclusive rights to the use of VorTeq (ii) these differences created substantial risk of early termination of the Company's exclusive licensing agreement with Schlumberger; (iii) accordingly, the revenue guidance and expectations of future license revenue was false and lacked reasonable basis; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted material facts. Learn about your recoverable losses in ERII: http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/energy-recovery-inc-loss-submission-form?id=9220&from=1 Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages provided. J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. J. Klein, Esq. Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 616-4899 Fax: (347) 558-9665 E-mail: jk@kleinstocklaw.com [GN] ENERGY RECOVERY: Schall Law Firm Announces Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class-action lawsuit against Energy Recovery, Inc. ("Energy Recovery" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:ERII) for violations of 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission." Investors who purchased the Company's securities between August 2, 2017 and June 29, 2020 inclusive (the "Class Period") are encouraged to contact the firm before September 21, 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. Energy Recovery and Schlumberger Technology Corp. ("Schlumberger") had differing strategies with regards to the future of the VorTeq technology. This strategic difference created a considerable risk of early termination of the Company's licensing agreement with Schlumberger. The disagreement resulted in the Company's guidance on future license revenues to be false and lacking a reasonable basis. 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 Energy Recovery, 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. [GN] FASTLY INC: Habib Sues Over False Statements & Securities Losses ---------------------------------------------------------------- RAMI HABIB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FASTLY, INC., JOSHUA BIXBY, and ADRIEL LARES, Case No. 5:20-cv-06454 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 15, 2020), challenges the Defendants' alleged violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements to conceal a material risk that would adversely impact Fastly's business. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have made a false and/or misleading statements on May 8, 2020, when they filed a Form 10-Q quarterly report for the period ended March 31, 2020, which was signed by the Individual Defendants. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose that Fastly's main customer was ByteDance, operator of TikTok, which was known to have serious security risks and was under intense scrutiny by the U.S. officials. The truth was revealed by Defendant Bixby when Fastly hosted an earnings call for its Q2 results. As a result of Defendant Bixby's news, Fastly's share price has declined to $89.64 per share on August 6, 2020. Additionally, on that same day, when President Trump issued an executive order that prohibit any U.S. company or person from transacting with ByteDance, Fastly's shares continued to drop to close at $79.33 per share on August 7, 2020. The Plaintiff was one of those who acquired Fastly securities between May 6, 2020, and August 5, 2020. Fastly, Inc., provides edge cloud platform.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Ave., 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Tel: (310) 405-7190 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and – Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexaner Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Ave., 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 661-1100 Fax: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and – Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle St., Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (312) 377-1181 Fax: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and – Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRITZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd St., Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 697-6484 Fax: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com FIC RESTAURANTS: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as BRITTANI KIRBY, KAREEM SULLIVAN, AND JENNIFER PARK Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. FIC RESTAURANTS, INC., Case No. 5:19-cv-01306-FJS-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order granting final approval of the revised settlement of this class action, along with an award for professional fees and costs and service awards, and such other relief the Court sees fit. The Revised Settlement Agreement creates a fund of $750,000 to settle this action on behalf of tipped servers and non-server hourly employees who worked at Friendly's restaurants in New York at any point from October 18, 2013, through the date of the Court's Order, and tipped servers and non-server hourly employees who worked at Friendly's restaurants in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Virginia, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania at any point from October 18, 2016 through the date of the Court's Order. * * * Senior Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. granted the Motion for final approval of class action settlement during the fairness hearing held September 24. Written order to follow. The Court on June 29 entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement. A fairness was previously scheduled but had to be adjourned. The Court was present on that date in the event any class members appeared. No class members appeared. FIC Restaurants, Inc. is a restaurant company that operates under an iconic brand name (Friendly's).[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class are: James Emmet Murphy, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 - and - Frank S. Gattuso, Esq. GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC 7030 E. Genesee Street Fayetteville, NY 13066 Telephone: (315) 314-8000 - and - Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq. Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 FORDHAM FINANCIAL: Bongiorno Sues Over Fraudulent Stock Offerings ----------------------------------------------------------------- DR. WILLIAM BONGIORNO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. WILLIAM BAQUET, FRANK M. DELAPE, CHARLES GIORDANO, PHYLLIS HENDERSON, BOB SAGARINO, BRUCE INGLIS AND REMCHAND BEHARRY individually and in their respective corporate capacities, FORDHAM FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT INC., FORDHAM HOLDINGS GROUP INC., SIX DIAMONDS RESORTS INTERNATIONAL INC., SIX DIAMONDS RESORTS INTERNATIONAL S.A., LANDBRIDGE HOLDINGS INTERNATIONAL, S.A., and THINKEQUITY, a Division of FORDHAM FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, Case No. 1:20-cv-07288 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2020), arises from the Defendants' acts in violation of the Securities Exchange Act, the Investment Company Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970, including the dissemination of materially false and misleading information for fraudulent securities offerings. The lawsuit is a federal class action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of persons, who purchased the securities of the Fordham Holdings Group, Inc., Fordham Financial Management Inc. and Six Diamonds Resorts International Inc., and who were allegedly scammed into providing certain bridge loans ostensibly collateralized by Panamanian land or were otherwise enticed to invest in a Panamanian version of a Florida swampland speculators scam. According to the complaint, the Defendants' class period representations were materially false and misleading because the Defendants: (a) made a series of fraudulent securities offerings and/or continuing false representations concerning those offerings involving a series of cumulative dividend preferred stock; (b) falsely promised cumulative dividends to be paid yearly which they misrepresented to investors would pay "cumulative annual interest" creating the impression that these series of preferred stock were a dependable species of secured debt; (c) falsely represented that such loans were collateralized and promised that they would eventually be paid; (d) sold ostensibly safe securities, such as serial preferred stock to a myriad of investors. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, as well as common law fraud, conversion and breach of fiduciary duties and seeks disgorgement of ill-gotten plus prejudgment interest and financial penalties. Fordham Financial Management, Inc. is a New York City-based registered broker-dealer and member of the National Association of Securities Dealers. Fordham is owned by Fordham Holdings Group Inc. ThinkEquity LLC, a division of Fordham Financial Management, is a U.S. investment banking firm focusing on performing IPO's, secondaries, at-the-market (ATM) programs, selected private placements, PIPEs, Debt Placements and M&A Advisory services. Six Diamonds Resorts International, S.A., is a Panamanian Society Company, which attempts to develop world class real estate resorts and communities in Panama for tourism and retirement destinations. Six Diamonds is a subsidiary of Six Diamonds Resorts International, Inc. Landbridge Holdings International, S.A. is a company incorporated in Panama on July 25, 2007.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph R. Bongiorno, Esq. JOSEPH R. BONGIORNO & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 250 Mineola Boulevard Mineola, NY 11501 Telephone: (516) 741-2405 GLOBAL AIRCRAFT: Grant Files Request for Judicial Intervention -------------------------------------------------------------- A request for judicial interference was filed on September 8, 2020, in the case styled as BESANTE FITZGERALD GRANT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. GLOBAL AIRCRAFT DISPATCH INC., Case No. 720074/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., Sept. 8, 2020). The case type is stated as E-Filed Contract. The case is assigned to Judge Donna Golia. Global Aircraft Dispatch is a full service aviation management company with a broad based range of service in the United States and abroad.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Ave. Queens Village, NY 11427 Telephone: (718) 740-1000 The Defendant is represented by: JACKSON LEWIS LLP 58 South Service Rd., Ste. 410 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 247-0404 GOL LINHAS: Portnoy Law Announces Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of GOL Linhas Aereas Inteligentes S.A. ("GOL" or "the Company") (NYSE: GOL) investors that acquired securities between March 14, 2019 and July 22, 2020. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone 310-692-8883 or email. On July 23, 2020, GOL announced it had fired its auditor, KPMG Auditores Independentes, which had issued an audit dated June 29, 2020 that concluded "the Company has a negative net working capital and has a net capital deficiency that raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern." On this news the Company's shares fell sharply in value. Please visit our website to review more information and submit your transaction information. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] GOLDBELY INC: Faces Winegard ADA Class Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Goldbely Inc. The case is styled as Jay Winegard, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Goldbely Inc. doing business as: www.goldbelly.com, Case No. 1:20-cv-04409 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Goldbely, Inc. provides online marketplace services. The Company lists food items from various restaurants, creating an online marketplace to connect eaters and regional food establishments.[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 Phone: (516) 415-0100 Fax: (516) 706-6631 Email: msegal@segallegal.com GOLDMAN SACHS: Laidlaw Class Suit Pending in New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------- Goldman Sachs BDC, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the company is facing a purported stockholder class action suit entitled, Laidlaw v. Ardila, et al., Docket No. EF-169565. On June 11, 2020, Goldman Sachs BDC, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("GSBD"), entered into an Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger (as amended, the "Merger Agreement") with Goldman Sachs Middle Market Lending Corp. ("MMLC"), Evergreen Merger Sub Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of GSBD ("Merger Sub"), and Goldman Sachs Asset Management, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership and investment adviser to each of GSBD and MMLC ("GSAM"). The Merger Agreement provides that, subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into MMLC, with MMLC continuing as the surviving company and as a wholly-owned subsidiary of GSBD, and, immediately thereafter, MMLC will merge with and into GSBD, with GSBD continuing as the surviving company (the "Merger"). On August 17, 2020, a purported stockholder class action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, Hudson County, against GSBD, the members of the Board of Directors of GSBD (the "GSBD Board"), as well as against GSAM, entitled Laidlaw v. Ardila, et al., Docket No. EF-169565 (the "Merger Litigation"). The complaint alleges that the members of the GSBD Board breached their fiduciary duties of good faith, loyalty, fair dealing and due care in connection with GSBD's entry into the Merger Agreement. The complaint further alleges that GSBD and the members of the GSBD Board breached their fiduciary duties through making materially inadequate disclosures and material omissions in GSBD's definitive proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") pursuant to Rule 497 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), on August 4, 2020 and mailed to stockholders of GSBD on or about August 11, 2020 (the "Proxy Statement"). Finally, the complaint alleges that GSAM aided and abetted GSBD and the members of the GSBD Board in breaching their fiduciary duties to plaintiff and GSBD's other shareholders. The complaint seeks to enjoin the closing of the Merger until trial or until GSBD makes corrective and complete disclosures as well as certain other equitable relief, including compensatory and/or rescissory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. The defendants believe that GSBD has previously disclosed all information required to be disclosed to ensure that its stockholders can make an informed vote at the Special Meeting and that the additional disclosures requested by the plaintiff are immaterial. Accordingly, defendants believe these claims are without merit. However, in order to reduce the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, GSBD has determined to voluntarily supplement the Proxy Statement. GSBD and the GSBD Board specifically deny all allegations in the Merger Litigation that any additional disclosure was or is required. A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at https://bit.ly/3iZuwaL. Goldman Sachs BDC, Inc. operates as a non-diversified, closed-end management investment company. The Company invests primarily in middle-market companies in the United States. GREAT AU PAIR: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Besera Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- MARIETA BESERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GREAT AU PAIR, LLC; MARC HOM; and MARIE LOUISE HOM, Case No. 1:20-cv-03862 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 21, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the proposed class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Besera was employed by the Defendants as caregiver and housekeeper. Great Au Pair, LLC, provides job matching service used by families to find caregivers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Felix Q. Vinluan, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF FELIX VINLUAN 6910 Roosevelt Ave., 2nd Floor Woodside, NY 11377 Telephone: (718) 478-4488 Facsimile: (718) 478-4588 E-mail: fqvinluan@yahoo.com - and - Manuel B. Quintal, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MANUEL QUINTAL, PC 291 Broadway, Suite 1501 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212)-732-0055 Facsimile: (212) 587-8933 E-mail: quintallaw@aol.com GREEN MESSENGERS: Sanchez Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as HANS SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. GREEN MESSENGERS, INC.; AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20CV369262, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on September 17, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-06538 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code, including failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to indemnify for necessary business expenses, failure to provide accurate written wage statements, failure to pay all final wages, and unfair competition. Green Messengers, Inc. is a company that provides courier and delivery services based in Santa Ana, California. Amazon.com Services, LLC is a company that offers Web service platforms, with its corporate headquarters and principal place of business located in Seattle, Washington.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: John S. Battenfeld, Esq. Max Fischer, Esq. Brian D. Fahy, Esq. Karen Y. Cho, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, Twenty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Telephone: (213) 612-2500 Facsimile: (213) 612-2501 E-mail: john.battenfeld@morganlewis.com max.fischer@morganlewis.com brian.fahy@morganlewis.com karen.cho@morganlewis.com GUIDANT GLOBAL: Ward Seeks to Certify Employees Class ----------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM WARD, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. GUIDANT GLOBAL, INC. d/b/a BARTECH GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-10283-GAD-APP (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. granting conditional certification of and authorizing notice be sent to: "all hourly Bartech employees who were paid straight time for overtime at any time during the past 3 years (the "Straight Time Employees")"; 2. approving the Notice and Consent forms; 3. approving the phone, email, and text message scripts; 4. directing Bartech to produce to Class Counsel the contact information for each Straight Time Employee within 10 days; 5. authorizing a 60-day notice period for the Straight Time Employees to join this case; 6. authorizing an identical reminder notice halfway through the notice period; and 7. authorizing Class Counsel to contact certain Straight Time Employees by telephone if their mailed or emailed Notice forms return as undeliverable to obtain updated contact information. The Bartech Group, Inc. provides staffing services. The Company provides engineering, information technology, and administrative staffing, as well as offers related outsourcing services and solutions. A copy of Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iIONB5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taylor A. Jones, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Taylor A. Jones, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 E-mail: mjoesphson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com tjones@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com - and - Jennifer L. McManus, Esq. FAGAN MCMANUS, PC 25892 Woodward Avenue Royal Oak, MI 58067-0910 Telephone: 248-542-6300 E-mail: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Guidewire Software, Inc. 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. Guidewire Software, Inc. (NYSE:GWRE) Class Period: March 6, 2019 - March 4, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 23, 2020 During the class period, Guidewire Software, Inc. allegedly made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) that the Company's transition to the cloud was not going well; (2) that Guidewire's cloud-based products needed to be improved to meet customer needs and catch up with rival systems; (3) that the Company's failed transition to the cloud was also hurting Guidewire's traditional on-premise business; and (4) as a result, Guidewire's revenue guidance, including guidance principally based on significantly increasing demand for the Company's cloud-based products, was baseless and unattainable. Learn about your recoverable losses in GWRE: http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/guidewire-software-inc-loss-submission-form?id=9220&from=1 Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages provided. J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. J. Klein, Esq. Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 616-4899 Fax: (347) 558-9665 E-mail: jk@kleinstocklaw.com [GN] HARBORSIDE INC: Schall Law Firm Announces Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Harborside Inc. ("Harborside" or "the Company") (OTC PINK:HSDEF) for violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between July 2, 2019 and August 12, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before November 9, 2020. [GN] HDFC BANK: Rosen Law Reminds of Nov. 2 Deadline ----------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of HDFC Bank Limited (NYSE: HDB) between July 31, 2019 and July 10, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important November 2, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for HDFC Bank investors under the federal securities laws. To join the HDFC Bank class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1922.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 to investors that: (1) HDFC Bank had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (2) as a result, HDFC Bank maintained improper lending practices in its vehicle-financing operations; (3) accordingly, earnings generated from HDFC Bank's vehicle-financing operations were unsustainable; (4) all the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on HDFC Bank's financial condition and reputation; and (5) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 2, 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-1922.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. Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com [GN] HEALTHTRUST WORKFORCE: Rivera Seeks Unpaid OT Pay for Recruiters ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nikki Rivera, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated v. HEALTHTRUST WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02840 (D. Colo., Sept. 18, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and other physician recruiters were paid a salary with no overtime compensation when working more than 40 hours a week, according to the complaint. The Defendant's pay practice violates the FLSA because it paid non-exempt employees a salary with no overtime. Ms. Rivera was employed by HealthTrust as a physician recruiter from September 2017 until October 2018. She brings this lawsuit to recover the unpaid overtime and other damages the Defendant owes to her and to the other recruiters like her. HealthTrust provides nationwide medical staffing solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq. N. Chase Teeples, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC 2021 Richard Jones Road, Suite 310-A Nashville, TN 37215 Email: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. William R. Liles, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com INFORMATION RESOURCES: Santiago Sues Over Gender Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------- Krystal Santiago and Scarlett Osorio, individually and on behalf of similarly situated female employees v. INFORMATION RESOURCES INC., and JEFF NEUMAN, Case No. 1:20-cv-07688 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020), is brought to redress the alleged unlawful employment practices committed against the Plaintiffs, including the Defendants' discriminatory treatment towards them due to their gender and/or race. The Plaintiffs also seek redress for unlawful retaliation due to their complaints of discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. As one of the original innovators in big data, IRI is part of an elite cadre of professional services firms that influence industry standards and practices, according to the complaint. But rather than use its vast resources to stamp out gender discrimination, IRI actively perpetuates it, the Plaintiffs allege. They note that women are conspicuously absent from IRI's leadership. Among the 10 members of IRI's executive team, only one, IRI's Chief Legal Officer, is female. Similarly, of the ten members of the board of directors, none, or 0% are female. According to the complaint, IRI's gender hierarchy is all the more jarring considering women have entered into the consulting industry in record numbers for decades. As an employee of IRI, women and other minorities, fare far worse than the industry average. The above makes it clear that while white male, female, or people of color ("POC") may begin their careers on roughly equal flooring, their paths sharply diverge as they ascend up the hierarchy, particularly at IRI. At IRI, discrimination is not always so subtle, according to the complaint. High performing female managers are viewed as interlopers by their male managers, as threats by their male peers, and as individuals unworthy of respect by their male subordinates. As soon as these women come within reach of management, they are suddenly--without warning or provocation--chastised and removed from the promotion track before they can infiltrate IRI's "good old boys" network. By contrast, male employees who "have an issue working with women" (including the Individual Defendant) effortlessly ascend through the ranks at IRI. In the aftermath of the racist murder of George Floyd, the Defendants began a discussion about initiatives to allow employees to talk about their feelings concerning IRI and the inherent sexism and racism of the Company, according to the complaint. It is no surprise that the Defendants would announce these initiatives during a moment which has been described as "a turning point in race relations." These measures would appear, on their face, to be genuine efforts to talk about diversity and inclusion at IRI but they fail to put into practice any substantive measures to help promote women, or POCs. Unfortunately, the Plaintiffs contend, time and time again, IRI has utterly failed when it has had to actually look itself in the mirror and decide whether it wants to truly address its deep-seated, racially unjust policies that have resulted in alarmingly low and disproportionate numbers of female and POCs amongst its ranks, and in particular, its executive ranks. Rather than seriously examine its own role in perpetuating inequalities in hiring, pay and promotion, and in fostering toxic workplace cultures, IRI has instead repeatedly stopped short of any meaningful major overhauls during this opportunity for change, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs suffered discrimination in pay, denial of promotional opportunities, discrimination as a result of race/gender, and a hostile work environment. IRI is part of an elite cadre of professional services firms that influence industry standards and practices. Information Resources, Inc. provides big data and predictive analytics solutions. The Company offers market tracking information and insights, forecasting, and data management software for retail executives. Information Resources serves manufacturing, retail, health care, and pharmaceutical companies worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amit Kumar, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO 108 West 39th Street, Suite 602 New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 583-7400 Email: AKumar@Cafaroesq.com J SCHENKMAN LANDSCAPE: Palma Seeks Unpaid Wages for Landscapers --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE ARGUETA PALMA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. J. SCHENKMAN LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS, INC.; and JOEL SCHENKMAN, Case No. 7:20-cv-06715 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 21, 2020), seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Palma was employed by the Defendants as landscaper. J. Schenkman Landscape Contractors, Inc. provides variety of lawn and garden services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Stein, Esq. SAMUEL & STEIN 38 West 32 nd Street, Suite 1110 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 563-9884 E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com JEAN DOUSSET: Jariwala Sues in S.D. California Over ADA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jean Dousset Jewelry LLC, et al. The case is styled as Krishna Jariwala, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jean Dousset Jewelry LLC, a California limited liability company; DOES 1 to 10, inclusive; Case No. 3:20-cv-01860-LAB-LL (S.D. Cal., Sept. 18, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Jean Dousset Jewelry LLC (trade name Jean Dousset Diamonds) is in the jewelry, precious stones and precious metals business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com KIMCO FACILITY: Hays Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay & Retaliation ---------------------------------------------------------------- MISTI HAYS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KIMCO FACILITY SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-05467 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 15, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the overtime and anti-retaliation provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff, who was hired by the Defendant as a non-exempt Cleaner in May 2017 up to the present, alleges that the Defendant had a practice of altering employees' timesheets to make it appear as though they worked fewer hours than they had in fact worked and recorded, thereby, failing to pay them their lawfully earned overtime for all hours they worked in excess of 40. Although the Plaintiff tried to complain several times about the incorrect paycheck that she and other similarly situated employees received, inaccurate wages, as well as their altered timesheets, the Defendant consistently failed to take any action, according to the complaint. Instead, she was being removed from the AT&T site despite consistently receiving excellent reviews from the store manager, and his hours and compensation were significantly reduced. Kimco Facility Services, LLC offers cleaning and maintenance services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq. Madeline K. Engel, Esq. Katherine Stryker, Esq. CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD. 224 N. Michigan Ave., Ste. 300 Chicago, IL 60604 Tel: (312) 763-6880 E-mail: acaffarelli@caffarelli.com mengel@caffarelli.com kstryker@caffarelli.com - and – Shaun Hanschen, Esq. Diedre Peters, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BLANTON, NICKELL, COLLINS, DOUGLAS & HANSCHEN, LLC 219 S Kingshighway Sikeston, MO 63801 Tel: 573-471-1000 E-mail: shanschen@blantonlaw.com dpeters@blantonlaw.com KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Graziano Class Suit Moved to E.D. Wisconsin -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled JENNA GRAZIANO, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals v. KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC.; and KOHL'S CORPORATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-01315-NJ, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on August 26, 2020. The Eastern District of Wisconsin Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-01315 to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon. Pamela Pepper. Kohl's Department Stores Inc. retails merchandise. The Company focuses on apparel, shoes, accessories, decorations, electronic, pet accessories, and house wares targeting middle income customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Michelle Cassorla, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com mcassorla@llrlaw.com - and - Richard E. Hayber, Esq. HAYBER MCKENNA & DINSMORE 221 Main Street, Suite 502 Hartford, CT 06106 Telephone: (860) 522-8888 Facsimile: (860) 218-9555 E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com LEXINFINTECH HOLDINGS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 9 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP: To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Lexinfintech Holdings, Ltd. ("Lexinfintech") (NASDAQ: LX) between April 30, 2019 and August 24, 2020. You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. To get more information go to: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/lexinfintech-holdings-ltd-information-request-form?prid=9218&wire=5 or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is no cost or obligation to you. The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) LexinFintech reported artificially low delinquency rates by giving borrowers in default new funds to make payments; (2) the Company's business model exposes shareholders to enormous losses by prioritizing Chinese lenders for off-balance sheet loans; (3) the Company exaggerated its user base; (4) the Company was facilitating direct peer to peer lending contrary to Chinese law; (5) the Company engaged in undisclosed related party transactions; (6) the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and (7) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you suffered a loss in Lexinfintech you have until November 9, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] LIMITLESS POSSIBILITIES: Seckel Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Chanda Seckel, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. LIMITLESS POSSIBILITIES LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01462 (E.D. Wis., Sept. 18, 2020), seeks to recover, under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws, unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and declaratory and injunctive relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant operated (and continues to operate) an unlawful compensation system that deprived Plaintiff and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees of their wages earned for all compensable work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Specifically, the Defendant's unlawful compensation system failed to include all forms of non-discretionary compensation, such as monetary bonuses, incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and payments, in all current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees' regular rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee in the position of Direct Service Professional/Caregiver. The Defendant is a privately-owned company headquartered in Appleton, Wisconsin, that provides residential care, supportive home care, daily living skills training, respite care, and psychosocial rehabilitation to adults with behavioral healthcare needs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott S. Luzi, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304 Brookfield, WI 53005 Phone: (262) 780-1953 Fax: (262) 565-6469 Email: sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com LINDBLAD EXPEDITIONS: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lindblad Expeditions, LLC. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Lindblad Expeditions, LLC d/b/a Expeditions.com, Case No. 2:20-cv-04386 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lindblad Expeditions is a ecotourism company that offers about 50 small-ship cruises to Antarctica, Alaska, Egypt, Galapagos, and other remote corners of the Earth.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC 105-13 Metropolitan Avenue Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com LITTLE PASSPORTS: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Paguada Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- DILENIA PAGUADA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. LITTLE PASSPORTS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-07695-LGS (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to design and operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff recently visited the Defendant's Web site, http://www.littlepassports.com/,in September 2020 to browse and potentially make a purchase. Despite his efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a user experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the Web site's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred Plaintiff from being able to enjoy the privileges and benefits of the Defendant's public accommodation. Due to the inaccessibility of the Defendant's Web site, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination, violating their rights under the ADA. Little Passports, Inc. is a kids monthly gift subscription company that owns and operates the Web site, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services which the Company ensures the delivery of throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC 10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (929) 324-0717 E-mail: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com LLOYD'S LONDON: Gio Pizzeria Suit Moved From N.Y. to S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled GIO PIZZERIA & BAR HOSPITALITY, LLC; and GIO PIZZERIA BOCA, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NUMBERS ARP-74910-20 and ARP-75209- 20, Case No. 2:20-cv-01315-NJ, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on August 26, 2020. The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:20-cv-61741-RS to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Rodney Smith. The Plaintiff is represented by: Greg G. Gutzler, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC 444 Madison Avenue, Fourth Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (646) 933-1000 E-mail: ggutzler@dicellolevitt.com - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. Daniel R. Ferri, Esq. Mark Hamill, Esq. Laura E. Reasons, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com dferri@dicellolevitt.com mhamill@dicellolevitt.com - and - Mark A. DiCello, Esq. Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq. Mark Abramowitz, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC 7556 Mentor Avenue Mentor, OH 44060 Telephone: (440) 953-8888 E-mail: madicello@dicellolevitt.com kabbarno@dicellolevitt.com mabramowitz@dicellolevitt.com - and - Mark Lanier, Esq. Alex Brown, Esq. Skip McBride, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM PC 10940 West Sam Houston Prkwy. North, Suite 100 Houston, TX 77064 Telephone: (713) 659-5200 E-mail: WML@lanierlawfirm.com alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com skip.mcbride@lanierlawfirm.com - and - Evan Janush, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM PC 126 East 56th Street, Sixth Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 421-2800 E-mail: WML@lanierlawfirm.com alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com - and - Timothy W. Burns, Esq. Jeff J. Bowen, Esq. Jesse J. Bair, Esq. Freya K. Bowen, Esq. BURNS BOWEN BAIR LLP One South Pinckney Street, Suite 930 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 286-2302 E-mail: tburns@bbblawllp.com jbowen@bbblawllp.com jbair@bbblawllp.com fbowen@bbblawllp.com - and - Douglas Daniels, Esq. DANIELS & TREDENNICK 6363 Woodway, Suite 700 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 917-0024 E-mail: douglas.daniels@dtlawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Armando Pedro Rubio, Esq. Fields Howell, Esq. 9155 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1012 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (786) 870-5600 E-mail: arubio@fieldshowell.com - and - Peter Joseph Fazio, Esq. AARONSON RAPPAPORT FEINSTEIN & DEUTSCH, LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 593-5458 LPS SERVICES: Underpays Security Officers, Alleman Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- SASHA ALLEMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated persons v. LPS SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-04830-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio, Sept. 15, 2020), challenges the Defendant's alleged unlawful policies and practices that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Ohio Wage Laws. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to compensate her and other similarly situated security officers for the 10 minutes pre-shift work that was required to them by the Defendant prior to their start time to allow for proper change of shift procedures. Consequently, the Defendant failed to pay them their lawfully earned overtime at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid and non-exempt security officer providing oilfield security for approximately 6 months until August 2020. LPS Services, LLC provides "full-service private security" in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, and Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGRES DRAHER LLC 34 N. High St., Ste. 502 Columbus, OH 43215 Tel: (614) 824-5770 Fax: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com - and – Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. 7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Tel: (330) 470-4428 Fax: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com M-I LLC: Last Suit Removed to Eastern District of California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case titled DONOVIN LAST, individually and of all others similarly situated v. M-I, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. BCV-20-101210, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Kern to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on August 26, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-01205-DAD-JL to the proceeding. M-I LLC provides services to the oil & gas industry. The Company services include supplying drilling and completion fluid systems and services, solids control equipment, and waste management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Heather D. Hearne, Esq. THE KULLMAN FIRM, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 4605 Bluebonnet Blvd., Suite A Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 906-4245 Facsimile: (225) 906-4230 E-mail: hdh@kullmanlaw.com MARY JANE'S CBD: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mary Jane's CBD Dispensary, Inc. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Mary Jane's CBD Dispensary, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-07700 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mary Jane's CBD Dispensary is a retail chain of CBD Dispensaries across the US.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com MCCOY CORPORATION: Paguada Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against McCoy Corporation. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. McCoy Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-07701 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. McCoy Corporation of United States was founded in 1966. The Company's line of business includes the selling of lumber and other building materials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com MEI PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Oct. 9 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of MEI Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: MEIP) between August 2, 2017 and July 1, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important October 9, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for MEI Pharma investors under the federal securities laws. To join the MEI Pharma class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1919.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) MEI Pharma overstated Pracinostat's potential efficacy as an acute myeloid leukemia ("AML"), treatment for the target population; (2) consequently, the Phase 3 Pracinostat Trial was unlikely to meet its primary endpoint of overall survival; (3) all the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on MEI Pharma's financial condition and prospects for Pracinostat; and (4) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 9, 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-1919.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] MELT COSMETICS: Zanca Seeks Blind Buyers' Equal Access to Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- DEBRA ZANCA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MELT COSMETICS, Case No. 1:20-cv-07669-VEC (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2020), is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law, New York State Civil Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has discriminated against the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated blind and visually impaired consumers by denying them full and equal access to its website, http://www.meltcosmetics.com/. According to the complaint, the Defendant's website contains access barriers that hinder visually impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, to fully use it like sighted individuals do. These barriers include, but not limited to: (1) lack of alternative text or a text equivalent on graphical images which prevents screen readers from accurately vocalizing a description of the graphics; (2) empty links that contain no text which causes the function or purpose of the link to not be presented to the user; and (3) redundant links where adjacent links go to the same Uniform Resource Locator (URL) address which results in additional navigation and repetition for keyboard and screen-reader users. As a result of the Defendant's failure and refusal to remove these access barriers to its website, the Plaintiff and visually-impaired persons have been and are still being denied equal access to the website, and the numerous goods and services and benefits offered to the public through it. Melt Cosmetics is a cosmetic products manufacturer and retail company that owns and operates the website.[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 Facsimile: (929) 575-4195 E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal MIDTOWN FOOD: Rojas Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Odilon Hernandez Rojas and Iturbide Policarpio, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. MIDTOWN FOOD CORP. (D/B/A KOSHER DELUXE), JOSHUA SCHWARTZ, ISIS DOE, NORMAN DOE, and AARON DOE, Case No. 1:20-cv-07737 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The lawsuit is also brought for violations of the New York Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hour's compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over 10 hours a day. The Plaintiffs were employed as meat cutters, salad preparers, a busboy, and a counter dispatcher at the restaurant. They also allege that the Defendants repeatedly failed to pay them wages on a timely basis. They add that the Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring them to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations. The Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a kosher restaurant, located in the City of New York under the name "Kosher Deluxe."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 MPC HOLDINGS: Morris Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marcus Morris, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. MPC HOLDINGS, INC. D/B/A PLATTE RIVER INSPECTION SERVICES, Case No. 1:20-cv-02840 (D. Colo., Sept. 18, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and the Day Rate Inspectors regularly worked for the Defendant in excess of 40 hours each week, according to the complaint. But the Defendant did not pay them overtime. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, Platte improperly paid the Plaintiff and the Day Rate Inspectors a daily rate with no overtime compensation. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a horizontal directional drilling inspector. Platte provides inspection services to the oil and gas industry. Platte's services include the inspection of pipeline and facility construction, maintenance and operations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Carl A. Fitz, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com cfitz@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com NATIONAL CONSUMER: Trepeta Seeks to Certify Class of Consumers -------------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT S. TREPETA, on behalf himself and all other similarly situated individuals, v. NATIONAL CONSUMER TELECOM AND UTILITIES EXCHANGE, INC. and EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-00405-MSD-LRL (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a class of consumers defined as follows: "all natural persons residing in the Fourth Circuit (a) who requested their consumer disclosures from Equifax, (b) within the two years preceding the filing of this action and during its pendency (the "Equifax Class Period"), (c) for whom, at the time of the request, NCTUE had credit files, and (d) who received consumer disclosures from Equifax that did not include any information from the consumers' NCTUE credit file or the sources of information in the consumers’ NCTUE credit file." Excluded from the class definition are any employees, officers, or directors of Equifax, any attorney appearing in this case, and any judge assigned to hear this action. NCTUE is a credit reporting agency. Equifax provides data solutions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2E8EG9B at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leonard A. Bennett, Esq. Craig C. Marchiando, Esq. Amy Austin, Esq. Kevin Dillon, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com craig@clalegal.com - and - Matthew J. Erausquin, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1800 Diagonal Road, Ste. 600 Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: (703) 273-7770 Facsimile: (888) 892-3512 E-mail: matt@clalegal.com - and - Jeffrey A. Breit, Esq. Kevin Biniazan, Esq. BREIT CANTOR GRANA BUCKNER, PLLC Towne Pavilion Center II 600 22nd Street, Suite 402 Virginia Beach, VA 23451 Telephone: (757) 622-6000 Facsimile: (757) 670-3939 E-mail: jeffrey@breitcantor.com kbiniazan@breitcator.com NATIONAL GENERAL: Suits Over AllState Corp. Merger Deal Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- National General Holdings Corp. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated September 22, 2020, that the company is defending against suits, including a class action, related to its merger with The Allstate Corporation. On July 7, 2020, National General Holdings Corp., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), The Allstate Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("Parent"), and Bluebird Acquisition Corp, a Delaware corporation and an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which Merger Sub will be merged with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent. The transaction is expected to close in early 2021, subject to regulatory approvals and other customary closing conditions. On August 26, 2020, the Company filed and commenced mailing its definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A (the "Proxy Statement"). In connection with the Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby, a purported class action complaint and two individual complaints have been filed by purported stockholders of the Company against the Company and members of the board of directors of the Company in the United States District Courts for the District of Delaware and the Southern District of New York. The three complaints are captioned as follows: Post v. National General Holdings Corp., et al, Case 1:20-cv-01069 (D. Del), Murray v. National General Holdings Corp., et al., Case 1:20-cv-06549 (S.D.N.Y) and Wang v. National General Holdings Corp., et al., Case:120-cv-06867 (S.D.N.Y.). The complaints are substantially identical and allege violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, as well as, in the case of the individual defendants, the control person provisions of the Exchange Act, because the Proxy Statement allegedly omitted material information with respect to the Merger, thus rendering the Proxy Statement false and misleading. The complaints seek to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with the Merger, rescission of the Merger or rescissory damages if the Merger is consummated, a declaration that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9, and awards of the plaintiffs' costs of the action, including attorneys' and experts' fees. The Company believes that no further disclosure is required to supplement the Proxy Statement under applicable laws; however, to avoid the risk that the litigations may delay or otherwise adversely affect the consummation of the Merger and to minimize the expense of defending such actions, the Company wishes to voluntarily make supplemental disclosures related to the Merger. The Company specifically denies all allegations in the lawsuits that any additional disclosure was or is required. A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at https://bit.ly/3mM0OYV. National General Holdings Corp., a specialty personal lines insurance holding company, provides various insurance products and services in the United States, Bermuda, Luxembourg, and Sweden. The company was formerly known as American Capital Acquisition Corporation. National General Holdings Corp. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in New York, New York. NATURAL ESSENTIALS: Underpays Employees, Savanich FLSA Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- RUSTY SAVANICH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NATURAL ESSENTIALS, INCORPORATED, Case No. 5:20-cv-02088-SL (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 16, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid and non-exempt manufacturing employee between April 2020 and July 2020, alleges that the Defendant failed to compensate him and other similarly situated manufacturing employee for the time spent performing work for the Defendants amounted to approximately 15 to 30 minutes per day, including the time spent changing into and out of personal protective equipment. Additionally, the Defendant unlawfully docked the Plaintiff and other similarly situated manufacturing employees' daily hours by 15 minutes. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful practice, the Plaintiff says he and other similarly situated manufacturing employees were not appropriately paid by the Defendant for all the time they worked, including all of the overtime hours they worked over 40 each workweek. Natural Essentials, Incorporated, is a cosmetics manufacturer and supplier of natural ingredients to its customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Chastity L. Christy, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Noreland Hills, OH 44022 Tel: 216-696-7005 Fax: 216-696-7005 E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com chastity@lazzarofirm.com anthony@lazzarofirm.com NAVISTAR INT'L: Appeal in MaxxForce Advanced EGR Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Navistar International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2020, that the appeal taken by intervening class members from the court's denial of their request for exclusion from a class action settlement remans pending. On July 7, 2014, Par 4 Transport, LLC filed a putative class action lawsuit against Navistar, Inc. (NI) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Par 4 Action"). Subsequently, 17 additional putative class action lawsuits were filed in various United States district courts, (together with the Par 4 Action, the "U.S. Actions"). Some of the U.S. Actions named both International Corporation (NIC) and NI, and alleged matters substantially similar to the Canadian Actions. More specifically, one or more of the Canadian Actions and the U.S. Actions (collectively, the "EGR Class Actions") seek to certify a class of persons or entities in Canada or the United States who purchased and/or leased a ProStar or other Navistar vehicle equipped with a model year 2008-2013 MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine. In substance, the EGR Class Actions allege that the MaxxForce Advanced EGR engines are defective and that the Company and NI failed to disclose and correct the alleged defect. The EGR Class Actions assert claims based on theories of contract, breach of warranty, consumer fraud, unfair competition, misrepresentation and negligence. The EGR Class Actions seek relief in the form of monetary damages, punitive damages, declaratory relief, interest, fees, and costs. In December 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Panel") issued an order consolidating before Judge Joan B. Gottschall of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois all of the U.S. Actions, as well as certain non-class action MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine lawsuits that were pending on October 3, 2014 (the "MDL Action"). On May 11, 2015, lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the MDL Action filed a consolidated complaint, which was subsequently amended multiple times. In May 2019, the parties completed negotiation of a settlement agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") to resolve the U.S. Actions. The plaintiffs submitted the Settlement Agreement to the court for preliminary approval on May 28, 2019. The Settlement Agreement class consists of entities and natural persons who owned or leased a 2011-2014 model year vehicle equipped with a MaxxForce 11 or 13 liter engine certified to meet EPA 2010 emissions standards without selective catalytic reduction technology, provided that the vehicle was purchased or leased in the U.S. Among other things, the Settlement Agreement requires that (1) the parties establish a non-reversionary common fund consisting of cash (the "Cash Fund") and rebates (the "Rebate Fund") with a total value of $135 million (the "Settlement Fund"); (2) NIC and NI contribute $85 million to the Cash Fund, which will be used to pay all settlement fees and expenses, service awards, attorneys" fees and costs, and cash payments to members of the settlement class; (3) NI commit to make available rebates with a face value in the aggregate of $50 million to the Rebate Fund; and (4) the settlement class release NIC and NI and their affiliates from all claims and potential claims arising from or related to the allegations in the U.S. Actions, except for claims for personal injury or damage to third-party property. The Settlement Agreement further provides that dollars or value remaining in either the Cash Fund or the Rebate Fund after claims are processed will be used to pay approved claims from the other fund if the other fund is oversubscribed (the "Waterfall"). The Settlement Agreement states that NIC and NI deny all claims in the U.S. Actions, deny wrongdoing, liability or damage of any kind, and deny that NIC and NI acted improperly or wrongfully in any way. On February 3, 2020, NIC and NI funded $85 million to the Cash Fund. Any Waterfall from the Rebate Fund to the Cash Fund is capped at $35 million. The company is waiting for the final adjudication of the claims by the administrator. It is possible that a Waterfall from the Rebate Fund to the Cash Fund could occur, Navistar said. On June 12, 2019, the court preliminarily approved the settlement. Members of the class were provided notice of the Settlement Agreement and an opportunity to object or opt out. Any members of the class who opted out will not receive any benefit from the Settlement Agreement or be bound by it. Four class members filed a consolidated objection to the Settlement Agreement on October 10, 2019. On January 3, 2020, the court entered an order rejecting the objection and finding the settlement to be "fair, reasonable, and adequate." The court also granted the motion of lead counsel for the class plaintiffs for approval of an award of attorneys' fees and costs. On January 21, 2020, the court entered an Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Final Order and Judgment. In February 2020, three class members intervened in the MDL Action and filed motions asking the court to exclude them from the settlement or to permit them to opt out after the opt out deadline. In April and June 2020, the court denied these motions. In May 2020, two of the intervening class members appealed the court's April 2020 order. The Company's opposition brief was filed on August 19, 2020. Navistar International Corporation, through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells commercial and military trucks, diesel engines, school and commercial buses, and service parts for trucks and diesel engines worldwide. Navistar International Corporation was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in Lisle, Illinois. NAVISTAR INT'L: Still Defends MaxxForce Engine EGR Suits in Canada ------------------------------------------------------------------ Navistar International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2020, that the company, together with Navistar, Inc. (NI), Navistar Canada Inc., and Harbour International Trucks, continues to defend class action suits related to MaxxForce Engine EGR Warranty. On June 24, 2014, N&C Transportation Ltd. ("N&C") filed a putative class action lawsuit against Navistar International Corporation (NIC), Navistar, Inc. (NI), Navistar Canada Inc., and Harbour International Trucks in Canada in the Supreme Court of British Columbia (the "N&C Action"). Subsequently, seven additional, similar putative class action lawsuits have been filed in various courts in Canada, including Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec (together with the N&C Action, the "Canadian Actions"). On November 16, 2016, the Supreme Court of British Columbia certified a Canada-wide class comprised of persons who purchased heavy-duty trucks equipped with Advanced EGR MaxxForce 11, MaxxForce 13, and MaxxForce 15 engines designed to meet 2010 EPA regulations. On August 1, 2018, the appellate court affirmed the November 2016 decision and certified three additional narrow issues on whether misrepresentations were made in Navistar's advertising materials. The next step will be an attendance before the case management judge regarding the details of the notice of certification to be given to the class. No date for this attendance has been set. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Navistar International Corporation, through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells commercial and military trucks, diesel engines, school and commercial buses, and service parts for trucks and diesel engines worldwide. Navistar International Corporation was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in Lisle, Illinois. NET 1 UEPS: New York Securities Class Suit Concluded ---------------------------------------------------- Net 1 UEPS Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2020, that the putative securities class action suit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has been concluded. On December 5, 2019, a putative securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, or the Court, against the company and Herman G. Kotze, the company's chief executive officer and Alex M.R. Smith, the company's chief financial officer. The complaint sought damages based on alleged material misrepresentations and omissions concerning our internal control over financial reporting, classification of an investment in Cell C Proprietary Limited, and our consolidated financial statements for fiscal 2018. The complaint asserted claims for violations of Sections 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The proposed class period was September 12, 2018, through November 8, 2018, inclusive. On March 25, 2020, the Court appointed the lead plaintiff and approved his selection of lead counsel. Their motions had been unopposed. Thereafter, the company negotiated a schedule for the filing of an amended complaint and its response thereto with the plaintiff. On June 3, 2020, the company and the lead plaintiff filed a stipulation and proposed order of dismissal whereby the lawsuit would be dismissed as against all defendants with prejudice on behalf of the lead plaintiff, and without prejudice with respect to any unnamed plaintiffs or other class members. On June 4, 2020, the Court so ordered the stipulation and proposed order of dismissal. The action is thus terminated. Net 1 UEPS Technologies, Inc. holds a non-exclusive worldwide license to the Universal Electronic Payment System (UEPS). The Company commercializes the smart card based service through alliances with banks, card services, and retail organizations. The company is based in Johannesburg, South Africa. NEW BROAD STREET: Morocho Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------------- Galo Morocho; Jose Estrada and Luis Zambrano, and other similarly situated employees v. New Broad Street Automotive, Inc.; and Michael Masi, Case No. 7:20-cv-07738 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law to recover from the Defendants unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation. The lawsuit also seeks to recover unpaid "spread of hours: premium for each day they worked in excess of 10 hours; damages for failure to give required notices and wage statements; liquidated damages on those amounts and civil penalties pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act; prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not paying the Plaintiffs either the federal or New York State minimum wage, the FLSA overtime rate (of time and one-half), and the New York State overtime rate (of time and one-half), in direct violation of the FLSA and New York Labor Law and the supporting federal and New York State Department of Labor Regulations, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants. The Defendants run a mechanic automobile body shop in the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 3rd Avenue, Suite 1810 New York, NY Phone: (718) 669-0714 Email: mgangat@gangatllc.com NIKOLA CORPORATION: Pomerantz Law Firm Probes Claims ---------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of Nikola Corporation ("Nikola" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NKLA). Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980. The investigation concerns whether Nikola and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. On September 10, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report entitled "Nikola: How to Parlay An Ocean of Lies Into a Partnership With the Largest Auto OEM in America" (the "Hindenburg Report"). The Hindenburg Report suggested that the firm had gathered extensive evidence on false statements made by Nikola's founder Trevor Milton, including that Milton misrepresented, inter alia, the Company's battery, and fuel cell technology and the size of the Company's order book. The Hindenburg Report further claimed that Milton used these misrepresentations to substantially grow the Company and secure partnerships with top auto companies. On this news, Nikola's stock price fell $4.80 per share, or 11.33%, to close at $37.57 per share on September 10, 2020. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com. Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP Tel No: 888-476-6529 ext. 7980 E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN] OLE HENRIKSEN: Faces Jaquez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. OLE HENRIKSEN OF DENMARK, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-07722-JPO (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act as a result of its failure to maintain and operate its website in a way to make it fully accessible for the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Upon visiting the Defendant's website, http://www.olehenriksen.com/,the Plaintiff quickly became aware of Defendant's failure to maintain and operate its website in a way to make it fully accessible for himself and for other blind or visually-impaired people, according to the complaint. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the ADA. The Plaintiff is visually impaired and legally blind, in that he has visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant is a skin care production company that owns and operates the website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (732) 695-3282 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com PERFORMANT FINANCIAL: Stein Balks at Wrong Stock Split Vote Count ----------------------------------------------------------------- SHIVA STEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated stockholders of PERFORMANT FINANCIAL CORPORATION v. PERFORMANT FINANCIAL CORPORATION, LISA C. IM, BRADLEY M. FLUEGEL, WILLIAM D. HANSEN, JAMES LACAMP, and ERIC YANAGI, Case No. 2020-0791- (Del. Ch., Sept. 17, 2020), seeks to remedy the alleged erroneous tabulation of stockholders' votes with respect to the reverse split proposal in conformity with the Defendants' disclosures in the proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. According to the complaint, the members of the board of directors of Performant had miscounted the stockholder votes on a proposal to approve an amendment to the Company's certificate of incorporation to authorize a reverse stock split at a ratio ranging from 1 share-for-5 shares up to a ratio of 1 share-for-20 shares. After the Director Defendants told stockholders, including the Plaintiff, that uninstructed shares would have the effect of votes against the reverse split proposal, it instead counted uninstructed shares as "For" votes, thereby, swinging the outcome of the vote. The Plaintiff alleges that the Director Defendants failed to fulfill their fiduciary duties by allowing uninstructed shares to be purportedly "cast" as votes "For" the proposal notwithstanding their unambiguous statement in the proxy that uninstructed shares would be recorded as broker non-votes, which would have the same effect as votes against the reverse split proposal. By telling stockholders that inaction would result the recording of broker non-votes and allowing broker representatives to purportedly vote uninstructed shares, the Director Defendants breached their fiduciary duties, the suit says. Performant Financial Corporation provides technology-enabled audit, recovery, outsourced services, and related analytic services in the United States. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 N. Market St., 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-0300 E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com - and - Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq. Samuel J. Adams, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 E-mail: gfbruckner@pomlaw.com sadams@pomlaw.com - and - William J. Fields, Esq. Christopher J. Kupka, Esq. Samir Shukurov, Esq. FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP 1370 Broadway, 5th Floor, #5100 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 231-1500 E-mail: wfields@fksfirm.com ckupka@fksfirm.com sshukurov@fksfirm.com PETROLEUM & GEOLOGY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Gonzales Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- CORNELIO GONZALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PETROLEUM & GEOLOGY ENERGY, INC. and OMAR PIMENTAL, Case No. 4:20-cv-03207 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 15, 2020), arises from the Defendants' alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, including failure to pay overtime wages. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid and non-exempt chemical advisor from June 2019 to July 2020. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was not compensated by the Defendants for all hours he worked in excess of 40 per week at a rate not less than one and one-half times his regular rate of pay as required by the FLSA. Despite working more than 40 hours, the Defendants paid him on a day-rate basis only without overtime. Additionally, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate time and pay records for the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, and post and keep posted the notice required by the law. Petroleum & Geology Energy, Inc., is an oilfield services company. Omar Pimental supervised or controlled P&G Energy employee schedules or conditions of employment, determined the rate or method of payment, and maintained employee records.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana St., Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002-1063 Tel: (713) 222-6775 Fax: (713) 222-6739 E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net curt@mooreandassociates.net PORTLAND GENERAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Portland General Electric Company (NYSE: POR) between April 24, 2020 and August 24, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for PGE investors under the federal securities laws. To join the PGE class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1938.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) PGE downplayed risks with its trading activity in wholesale electricity markets; (2) PGE's wholesale energy trading activity would result in at least $127 million of realized and unrealized losses; (3) as a result, PGE would need to significantly cut its per-share guidance; (4) as opposed to defendants' statements, PGE was not focused on and achieving low operating expenses; (5) PGE had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting; and (6) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 2, 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-1938.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. View source version on businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200911005512/en/ Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40thFloor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com [GN] POSTMATES INC: Faces Randolph Wage-and-Hour Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------------- RICK RANDOLPH v. POSTMATES, INC., Case No. 37-2020-00032793-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., Sept. 17, 2020), alleges that the Defendant violated the Private Attorney General Act of California Labor Code by misclassifying the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated couriers as independent contractors. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a courier since March 2020. The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendant failed to reimburse them for all reasonably necessary expenditures incurred in performing couriers' duties, to ensure that they receive the applicable state minimum wage for all hours worked, impermissibly counting customers' tips toward their minimum wage obligations, and to pay the appropriate overtime premium for all overtime hours worked beyond 40 hours per week. Postmates, Inc. is an American company that offers local delivery of restaurant-prepared meals and other goods, headquartered in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Michael T. Houchin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com mike@consumersadvocates.com PRANA TRANSPORT: Zielinski Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & IWPCA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jerzy Zielinski and Scott Clark, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Prana Transport, LLC; Daniel Katz; RDX, LLC; Case No. 1:20-cv-05577 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 19, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid wages as a result of the Defendants' violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Despite the Plaintiffs being contractually identified as employees by the Defendants and despite being controlled by the Defendants, they were misclassified by the Defendants as independent contractors for payment purposes, according to the complaint. The Defendants inform their drivers, upon hire, that, for their wages, they will be paid 75% of the "load." Furthermore, without informing the Plaintiffs, the Defendants made unauthorized "below the line" deductions from the Plaintiffs' wages for various items, including the following deductions: "Truck Payment," "Maintenance," "2290," "IFTA," Insurance," "Plates," "Trailer," "Pre- Pass," "Cash-Adv," "fedex charge," "elog," "Tire Fine," and "Chains." According to the complaint, the deductions are taken by the Defendants from the Plaintiffs' wages without informing the Plaintiffs beforehand about the deductions and without providing any support or explanation. These deductions were made in contravention of the Defendants' agreement to pay their drivers 75% of the "freight." These deductions were not agreed to in writing by the Defendants' drivers as required by the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. In fact, the Plaintiffs were not informed in any manner about the deductions until after they were taken from their pay. The Plaintiffs were employed as truck drivers for the Defendants. Prana Transport LLC is a freight shipping and trucking company located in Lincolnwood, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Fradin, Esq. 8401 Crawford Ave., Ste. 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Phone: 847-986-5889 Fax: 847-673-1228 Email: mike@fradinlaw.com QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Sacchi HIPAA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as JOHN SACCHI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, RAMONA WELDON, GITA "DOE" and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. MON-L-1503-20, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, Monmouth County Vicinage to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on September 17, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-12804 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 and the HIPAA Privacy Rule by refusing to provide the Plaintiff and Class members with required Protected Health Information within 30 days of request, deliberately refusing to repair Quest's lab test notification system and refusing to change its company-wide policy that refuses to provide Protected Heath Information to patients, and breaching the statutory duty they owe to the Plaintiff and Class members. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated is an American clinical laboratory company based in Secaucus, New Jersey.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Michael T. Hensley, Esq. BRESSLER, AMERY & ROSS, P.C. 325 Columbia Turnpike Florham Park, NJ 07932 Telephone: (973) 514-1200 QUTOUTIAO INC: Faces Brown Suit Over 65.43% Drop in IPO ADS Price ----------------------------------------------------------------- HOWARD BROWN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. QUTOUTIAO INC., ERIC SILIANG TAN, LEI LI, JINGBO WANG, XIAOLU ZHU, SHAOQING JIANG, JIANFEI DONG, and OLIVER YUCHENG CHEN, Case No. 1:20-cv-07717 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020), seeks to recover compensable damages under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the Defendants' issuance of false and misleading statements resulting to the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of persons and entities that: (a) purchased or otherwise acquired Qutoutiao American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's September 2018 initial public offering; and/or (b) purchased or otherwise acquired Qutoutiao securities between September 14, 2018, and July 15, 2020, inclusive. On September 14, 2018, the Company filed its prospectus on Form 424B4 with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which forms part of the Registration Statement. In the IPO, the Company sold 13.8 million ADSs at a price of $7.00 per share. The Company received proceeds of approximately $85.8 million from the offering, net of underwriting discounts and commissions. On December 10, 2019, Wolfpack Research published a report, alleging, among other things, that the Company had overstated its revenues by recording nonexistent advances from advertising customers. On July 15, 2020, hosts of a consumer rights gala stated that Qutoutiao had allowed ads on its platform promoting exaggerated or impossible claims from weight-loss products. A couple of days after, Chinese media reported that Qutoutiao's app had been removed from domestic Android app stores. By the commencement of this action, Qutoutiao's ADSs last closed at $2.42 per share on September 17, 2020, representing a 65.43% decline from the $7.00 per share IPO price. The complaint alleges that the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose to investors the material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects: (i) that Qutoutiao replaced its advertising agent with a related party, thereby bypassing third-party oversight of the content and quality of the advertisements; (ii) that the Company placed advertisements on its mobile app for products whose claims could not be substantiated and thus were considered false advertisements under applicable regulations; (iii) that, as a result, the Company would face increasing regulatory scrutiny and reputational harm; (iv) that, as a result, the Company's advertising revenue was reasonably likely to decline; and (v) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Qutoutiao Inc. offers a mobile application called Qutoutiao that aggregates articles and short videos from professional media and freelancers and presents customized feeds to users.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com R & D DELICATESSEN: Chantes Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against R & D Delicatessen Corp. The case is styled as Hugo Mendez Chantes, Silverio Mendez Chantes, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. R & D Delicatessen Corp. doing business as: Cypriana Cafe Pizzeria; JYCH, Inc. doing business as: Cypriana Cafe Pizzeria; Younsun Yi doing business as: Jenny; Chang Song Yi also known as: Jay; Joung Hee Yo doing business as: Jenny; Un Chil Yo also known as: Bruc;, Case No. 1:20-cv-04410 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 20, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act for denial of overtime compensation. Cypriana Cafe Pizzeria is a restaurant located in Long Island City, New York. The Plaintiffs appear pro se.[BN] REAL GREEN: Faces Paulus Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- RON VON PAULUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REAL GREEN SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-23819-RNS (S.D. Fla., Sept. 15, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has transmitted a prerecorded telemarketing message to his cellular telephone number ending in 3091 on September 2, 2020, without obtaining his prior express consent to be contacted with a prerecorded call. The Plaintiff was harmed and inconvenienced by the Defendant's unsolicited prerecorded call, including invasion of his privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion. Real Green Systems, LLC, sells, operates, and services service management software.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: 954-400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and – Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 120 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: 954-533-4092 E-mail: meisenband@eisenbandlaw.com RELIEFBAND TECHNOLOGIES: Blind Can't Access Web Site, Romero Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSUE ROMERO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. RELIEFBAND TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-07666 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to design its Web site to be fully accessible by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, during the Plaintiff's visits to the Defendant's Web site, http://www.reliefband.com/,the last occurring in September 2020, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him of full and equal access to the facilities, goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. The lawsuit further alleges that the Defendant's actions not only violated the ADA but also the New York State Human Rights Law and therefore the Plaintiff invokes his right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination. ReliefBand Technologies LLC is a nausea relieving products manufacturer and retail company, and owns and operates the Web site, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and which the Company ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[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 Facsimile: (929) 575-4195 E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal REV GROUP: Consolidated Suit Over 2017 IPO Ongoing -------------------------------------------------- REV Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action related to the company's January 2017 initial public offering (IPO). A consolidated federal putative securities class action and a consolidated state putative securities class action are pending against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. These actions collectively purport to assert claims on behalf of putative classes of purchasers of the Company's common stock in or traceable to its January 2017 IPO, purchasers in its secondary offering of common stock in October 2017, and purchasers from October 10, 2017 through June 7, 2018. The state action also names certain of the underwriters for the Company's IPO or secondary offering as defendants. The federal and state courts each consolidated multiple separate actions pending before them, the first of which was filed on June 8, 2018. The actions have alleged certain violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and, for the federal action, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The consolidated state action is currently stayed in favor of the consolidated federal action. Collectively, the actions seek certification of the putative classes asserted and compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. The underwriter defendants have notified the Company of their intent to seek indemnification from the Company pursuant to the IPO underwriting agreement regarding the claims asserted with respect to the IPO, and the Company expects the underwriters to do the same in regard to the claims asserted with respect to the October 2017 offering. Two purported derivative actions, which have since been consolidated, were also filed in federal court in Delaware in 2019 against the Company's directors (with the Company as a nominal defendant), premised on allegations similar to those asserted in the consolidated federal securities litigation. The Company and the other defendants intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously. REV Group said, "Additional lawsuits may be filed and, at this time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the lawsuits, the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of the lawsuits, or any potential effect that it may have on the Company or its operations." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. REV Group, Inc. designs, manufactures, and distributes specialty vehicles in the United States, Canada, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, the Caribbean, and internationally. It operates through three segments: Fire & Emergency, Commercial, and Recreation. REV Group, Inc. was formerly known as Allied Specialty Vehicles, Inc. and changed its name to REV Group, Inc. in November 2015. The company is headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. RH: Settlement in Securities Litigation Wins Final Approval ----------------------------------------------------------- RH said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2020, that a California court has granted final approval of the settlement in the consolidated suit entitled, In re RH, Inc. Securities Litigation. On February 2, 2017, City of Miami General Employees' & Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, against the Company, Gary Friedman, and Karen Boone. On March 16, 2017, Peter J. Errichiello, Jr. filed a similar class action complaint in the same forum and against the same parties. On April 26, 2017, the court consolidated the two actions. The consolidated action is captioned In re RH, Inc. Securities Litigation. An amended consolidated complaint was filed in June 2017 asserting claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). The complaint asserts claims purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of our common stock from March 26, 2015 to June 8, 2016. The alleged misstatements relate to statements regarding the roll out of the RH Modern product line and our inventory levels. The complaint seeks class certification, monetary damages, and other appropriate relief, including an award of costs and attorneys' fees. On March 21, 2019, the company and the individual defendants in the case entered into a binding memorandum of understanding to settle the case. The settlement amount is $50 million, which was funded entirely by our insurance carriers. On May 6, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement together with a settlement agreement executed by both parties. The settlement agreement was subject to customary conditions including court approval following notice to our shareholders, and a hearing at which time the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. On June 21, 2019, the court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement. The court granted final approval of the settlement on October 25, 2019. RH, together with its subsidiaries, operates as a retailer in the home furnishings. It offers products in various categories, including furniture, lighting, textiles, bathware, decor, outdoor and garden, tableware, and child and teen furnishings. The company was formerly known as Restoration Hardware Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to RH in January 2017. RH was founded in 1979 and is headquartered in Corte Madera, California. SILVERADO SENIOR: Zamiatowski-Powell Seeks Nurses' Unpaid OT Pay ---------------------------------------------------------------- PAMELA ZAMIATOWSKI-POWELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SILVERADO SENIOR LIVING MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01461-SCD (E.D. Wis., Sept. 17, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated licensed practical nurses overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws. The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant as a licensed practical nurse in Wisconsin since May 2019. Silverado Senior Living Management, Inc. is a privately-owned senior living management company with a principal address located at 6400 Oak Canyon, in Irvine, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com SMITHFIELD PACKAGED: Canas Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- DOUGLAS CANAS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. SMITHFIELD PACKAGED MEATS CORP., Case No. 1:20-cv-04937 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 21, 2020), seeks to recover overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as factory worker. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that when the Defendant's workers received the $5 per hour Responsibility Bonus, their overtime rate (the so called "regular rate") would also take this payment into account. However, the Plaintiff contends, the Defendant did not factor the Responsibility Bonus into the overtime rate and, therefore, substantially underpaid its workforce when they worked overtime. Smithfield Packaged Meats Corp. operates as a consumer packaged meat company. The Company offers frozen barbecues and chilies, peanuts, and pork products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Fish, Esq. John Kunze, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM P.C. 200 E 5th Ave., Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: (630)355-7590 SOCAL PERMANENTE: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Coffey Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DAMON COFFEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SOCAL PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 37-2020-00029409-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., Aug. 21, 2020), is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as staff. Socal Permanente Medical Group provides medical and surgical hospital services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Sullivan, Esq. Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq. Ryan T. Kuhn, Esq. William G. Anderson, Esq. SULLIVAN & YAECKEL LAW GROUP, APC 2330 Third Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 702-6760 Facsimile: (619) 702-6761 E-mail: helen@sullivanlawgroupapc.com yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com ryan@sullivanlawgroupapc.com ganderson@sullivanlawgroupapc.com SPOTIFY USA: Elias Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as MATTHEW ELIAS, an individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and aggrieved v. SPOTIFY USA INC., THE EXECUSEARCH GROUP, LLC; COURTNEY HOLT; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV24671, was removed from the Superior Court in the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on September 17, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-08530 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of California Labor Code including retaliation, wrongful discharge, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of employment contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and promissory estoppel. Spotify USA Inc. provides an entertainment software with its principal place of business located in New York City. The ExecuSearch Group, LLC is a professional recruitment and temporary staffing agency based in New York City.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Joseph C. Liburt, Esq. Annie H. Chen, Esq. Kayla D. Grundy, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 1000 Marsh Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 Telephone: (650) 614-7400 Facsimile: (650) 614-7401 E-mail: jliburt@orrick.com annie.chen@orrick.com kgrundy@orrick.com - and – Julie A. Totten, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000 Sacramento, CA 95814-4497 Telephone: (916) 447-9200 Facsimile: (916) 329-4900 E-mail: jatotten@orrick.com STARWEST BOTANICALS: Jaquez Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Starwest Botanicals, Inc. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Starwest Botanicals, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-07709 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Starwest Botanicals, Inc., manufacturers and distributes spices. The Company offers dried herbs, organic herbs, bulk spices, loose leaf organic teas, organic essential oils and aromatherapy supplies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com STECKER MACHINE: Faces Smeester Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- TODD SMEESTER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. STECKER MACHINE CO., INC., Case No. 20-cv-1457 (E.D. Wis., Sept. 17, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws. The complaint alleges that the Defendant operated an unlawful compensation system that failed to compensate the Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by: (1) shaving time from the Plaintiff's and all other hourly-paid, nonexempt employees' weekly timesheets for pre-shift, post-shift, and in-shift hours worked and/or work performed, to the detriment of said employees and to the benefit of the Defendant; and (2) failing to include all forms of non-discretionary compensation, such as monetary bonuses, incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and payments, in all regular rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes, both in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL. The Plaintiff was hired into the position of quality engineer working at the Defendant's Manitowoc, Wisconsin production facility from approximately 2013 to July 2020. Headquartered in Manitowoc, Wisconsin, Stecker Machine Co., Inc. is a privately-owned company that provides computer numerical control machining and related services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com STUART WEITZMAN: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Cota Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JULISSA COTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STUART WEITZMAN RETAIL STORES, LLC; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-01632-BEN-BGS (S.D. Cal., Aug. 21, 2020), alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' website, https://www.stuartweitzman.com/home/, 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, including the Plaintiff. Stuart Weitzman Retail Stores, LLC was founded in 2005. The Company's line of business includes providing various business services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago Coelho, Esq. Bobby Saadian, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com ADA@wilshirelawfirm.com T-MAXX @ AMSTERDAM: Faces Nunez Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS NUNEZ and ROANDY MENDEZ, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated v. T-MAXX @ AMSTERDAM INC., BEST SERVICE STATION INC. d/b/a BP on the Run, JUN XING QU, and LIN HAI QU, Case No. 1:20-cv-04347 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 16, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the new York State Wage Theft Prevention Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees the applicable minimum wages for all hours worked and the required overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs and the Class members "spread of hours" premium for each day they worked a shift in excess of 10 hours. The Defendants have also allegedly failed to keep true and accurate time and pay records for all hours worked by the Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members, and to provide accurate wage statements and wage notices as required by the law. T-Maxx @ Amsterdam Inc. and Best Service Station Inc. are single integrated enterprises owned and operated by the same owners, Lin Hai Qu and Ju Xing Qu.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 3rd Avenue, Suite 1810 Tel: (718) 669-0714 E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com TERMINIX INT'L: Faces Carranza Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages --------------------------------------------------------------- JAIME CARRANZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL COMPANY, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Case No. 3:20-cv-01819-JM-WVG (S.D. Cal., Sept. 15, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received an automated text messages to his cellular telephone number (760) 315-XXXX from the number 626-705-8944, that is allegedly owned by the Defendant, on February 8 & 11, 2019 and on April 19 & 22, 2019. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant did not obtain his prior express written consent to send text messages to his cellular telephone number by using an automatic telephone dialing system. Moreover, although the Plaintiff advised the Defendant to discontinue sending him emails and calls, the Plaintiff says he received yet another automated message from the Defendant on August 7, 2020, via a short code 710-96. The Plaintiff was annoyed from continuance messages from the Defendant because it drained his phone battery and caused Plaintiff additional electricity expenses, as well as wear and tear on his phone and battery. The Terminix International Company, Limited Partnership, provides termite and pest control services to residential and commercial customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yana A. Hart, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Tel: (619) 233-7770 Fax: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: yana@kazlg.com THEMAGIC5 INC: Paguada Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site ------------------------------------------------------------ Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. THEMAGIC5 INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-07698-ALC (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, http://www.themagic5.com/,and, therefore, denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to the complaint. Because the Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, the website violates the ADA. The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant is a custom fitted swimming goggles manufacturing company that owns and operates the website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC 10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (929) 324-0717 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com TIKTOK INC: M.G. BIPA Suit Alleges Unlawful Use of Biometric Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- M.G., through his father and legal guardian BARTOSZ GRABOWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TIKTOK INC.; and BYTEDANCE, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-05305 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 8, 2020), seeks damages to redress the Defendants' unlawful collection, storage, use, and disclosure of biometric identifiers and biometric information in violation of the Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants use the audio and visual features of their popular mobile application, TikTok App, to collect, store and use the "face templates" and "voiceprints" of their users, including the Plaintiff. The Defendants do this without notifying their users or making available any policies governing use or destruction of this immutable data, much less obtaining users' consent. The Defendants' use the "biometric identifiers" that they have collected to derive other personally identifying "biometric information" pertaining to their users, including age, gender, race, and emotional state, all of which is then linked with the user's name, e-mail address, and other unique identifiers in their database. The Plaintiff contends that he and the other Illinoisans, who have had their biometric data surreptitiously collected and stored by the Defendants, are entitled by law to have this sensitive data permanently destroyed. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks not only the damages available by law, but also restitution, and an injunction barring the Defendants from transferring their biometric data to any other entity. Plaintiff M.G. and his father and natural legal guardian Bartosz Grabowski are citizens of the State of Illinois. TikTok Inc. is a video-sharing social networking service owned by ByteDance, a Chinese company founded in 2012 by Zhang Yiming. It is used to create short dance, lip-sync, comedy and talent videos.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Dominick Larry, Esq. NICK LARRY LAW LLC 55 E Monroe St., Suite 3800 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (773) 694-4669 Facsimile: (773) 694-4691 E-mail: nick@nicklarry.law - and - Frank S. Hedin, Esq. David W. Hall, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com dhall@hedinhall.com - and - Scott A. Bursor, Esq. Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: scott@bursor.com jmarchese@bursor.com jarisohn@bursor.com pfraietta@bursor.com TOYBOX LABS: Faces Paguada Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TOYBOX LABS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-07696-MKV (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, https://shop.make.toys/, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered, thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to the complaint. Because the Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, the website violates the ADA. The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant is a 3D printed kids toys company that owns and operates the website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC 10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (929) 324-0717 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com TRUE NORTH ENERGY: Misclassifies Store Managers, Glazier Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- CHERYL GLAZIER, RANDI WRIGHT, AMANDA CAPE and KEELY ROBARE, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. TRUE NORTH ENERGY, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-12540-MFL-APP (E.D. Mich., Sept. 16, 2020), arises from the Defendant's alleged misclassification of its gas station/convenience store managers as exempt from overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated non-exempt store managers at Defendant's gas station and convenience stores were consistently and regularly working more than 40 hours per week because they were required by the Defendant to support their assigned store 24 hours per day and seven days per week. However, the Defendant deprived them of overtime compensation for all hours they worked in excess of 40 per week due to unlawful misclassification. True North Energy, LLC, is a for-profit company that operates a large chain of gas station/convenience stores in Illinois, Ohio and Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Noah S. Hurwitz, Esq. NACHTLAW, P.C. 101 N. Main Street, Suite 555 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Tel: (734) 663-7550 TYCHE & ISET: Faces Angeles Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. TYCHE & ISET LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-07689-JMF (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, http://www.tycheandiset.com/,and therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because the Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who requires screen reading software to read website content using her computer. 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. The Defendant is an eyewear company that owns and operates the Web site.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David P. Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com UMPQUA BANK: Camenisch Sues Over Casey Ponzi's Scheme Involvement ----------------------------------------------------------------- SHELA CAMENISCH; and DALE M. DEAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UMPQUA BANK, Case 3:20-cv-05905 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 21, 2020), alleges that the Defendant aid and abet in Ken Casey's Ponzi scheme. According to the complaint, for the last several decades, Ken Casey has offered investors safe, steady returns backed by Marin County commercial real estate. When Casey died suddenly in May, however, it quickly became apparent that his investment business was actually a long-running Ponzi scheme likely to cost investors more than $100 million. There was nothing particularly clever or original about Casey's Ponzi scheme, according to the complaint. It would have been obvious to anyone with access to Casey's financials. Casey was raising hundreds of millions of dollars from mostly local mom and pop investors, by promising returns that income from the properties couldn't cover. To make the promised interest payments and fund Casey's lavish lifestyle, the business was depositing money from new investors into company accounts and then using those funds to pay previous investors and for Casey's personal benefit. Mr. Casey's Ponzi scheme was so obvious that within a month of his death, the scheme was publicly exposed, the Securities and Exchange Commission had opened an investigation, and the business had to suspend monthly payments to existing investors due to inadequate funds, according to the complaint. Someone did have a clear view of Casey's financials far earlier--Umpqua Bank, the financial institution where Casey maintained every account he used to operate his multi-decade Ponzi scheme. But rather than expose Casey's fraudulent business, Umpqua chose to profit from it. The Plaintiffs were among those investors, who have lost their savings as a result of Casey's Ponzi scheme and Umpqua Bank's knowing participation in that scheme. Casey's investment companies are now in bankruptcy and will not be able to make full restitution. But on behalf of themselves and other investors like them, the Plaintiffs seek to hold Umpqua liable for aiding and abetting Casey's Ponzi scheme and require it to make amends to the scheme's victims. Umpqua Bank, an Oregon state-chartered bank, is engaged primarily in the business of commercial and retail banking and the delivery of retail brokerage services. The Bank provides asset management, mortgage banking and other financial services to corporate, institutional and individual customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Schrag, Esq. Linda Lam, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 505 14th Street, Suite 1110 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: mls@classlawgroup.com lpl@classlawgroup.com - and - Scott L. Silver, Esq. SILVER LAW GROUP 11780 W. Sample Road Coral Springs, FL 33065 Telephone: 954-755-4799 Facsimile: 954-755-4684 E-mail: ssilver@silverlaw.com UNITED COLLECTION: Ausch Says Debt Collection Letter Is Deceptive ----------------------------------------------------------------- ZALMEN AUSCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 1:20-cv-04356 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 16, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for their alleged deceptive, misleading and false debt collection practices in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has a debt that was allegedly incurred to Fifth Third Bank, N.A., who contracted with the Defendant to collect the alleged debt. Subsequently, the Defendant sent a collection letter to the Plaintiff on August 17, 2020, offering a settlement to resolve the full balance for less than the amount owed. However, the letter is deceptive and misleading because it has statement which implied that Internal Revenue Service regulations require that it report forgiveness of debt. The letter allegedly failed to disclose to the Plaintiff that there is a distinction between principal and interest in regards to IRS requirements. As a result, the Plaintiff has been damaged by the Defendant's unlawful debt collection practices, the Plaintiff asserts. United Collection Bureau, Inc. is a debt collector.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com UNITED STATES: Parmeley Prisoner Suit Moved to W.D. Arkansas ------------------------------------------------------------ The case is styled as Jason Parmeley, Marco Anthony Guirlando, On behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals v. Donald J. Trump, WILLIAM BARR, M. D. CARVAJAL, ADAM COHEN, Sgt. Williams, Warden, Captain Richard Mitcham, Case No. 1:20-cv-01290, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas on Sept. 18, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-01046-SOH-BAB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights. Donald John Trump is the 45th and current president of the United States. Plaintiff Jason Parmeley, who is currently incarcerated at Greenville Federal Correctional Institution, in Greenville, Illinois; and Plaintiff Marco Anthony Guirlando, who is currently incarcerated at Union County Criminal Justice Facility, in El Dorado, Arkansas, appear pro se.[BN] UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS: Keegan WARN Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as MIKE KEEGAN, WILLIE DAVIS, and MICHAEL WASHINGTON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS HOLDINGS, INC.; UNIVERSAL INTERMODAL SERVICES, INC.; ROADRUNNER INTERMODAL SERVICES, LLC; MORGAN SOUTHERN, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVDS2014389, 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 September 17, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-01937 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act by failing to provide the required 60-day notice written notice. Universal Logistics Holdings, Inc. is a full-service provider of customized transportation and logistics solutions based in Michigan. Universal Intermodal Services, Inc. is a provider of customized intermodal solutions based in Dallas, Texas. Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC is a company that provides transportation services based in Peachtree City, Georgia. Morgan Southern, Inc. is a company that offers trucking transportation, truck loading, warehousing, and consolidation services based in Conley, Georgia.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Christian Keeney, Esq. Alis M. Moon, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor 695 Town Center Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 800-7900 Facsimile: (714) 754-1298 E-mail: christian.keeney@ogletree.com alis.moon@ogletree.com VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Verrica Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Verrica" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:VRCA) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Verrica securities between September 16, 2019 and June 29, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/vrca. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's proprietary applicator used for VP-102 posed certain safety risks if the instructions were not properly followed; (2) as a result, Verrica would incorporate certain user features to mitigate the safety risk; (3) the addition of the user feature would require additional testing for stability supportive data; (4) as a result of the foregoing, regulatory approval for VP-102 was reasonably likely to be delayed; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On June 29, 2020, Verrica announced that it received a letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") as part of the FDA's ongoing review of the Company's New Drug Application for VP-102 (cantharidin 0.7% topical solution), Verrica's lead product candidate for the treatment of molluscum contagiosum. According to the Company, the letter cited deficiencies that preclude discussion of labeling and post-marketing equirements/commitments at this time. While Verrica stated that the letter did not specify any particular items, it noted that the FDA's periodic requests for additional information pertained to chemistry, manufacturing, and control aspects of the drug-device combination. The Company also stated that its ability to address the requests had been "significantly impacted" by COVID-19 disruptions. Following this announcement, Verrica's stock price fell $3.06 per share, or 21.75%, to close at $11.01 per share on June 30, 2020. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/vrca or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Verrica you have until September 14, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] VERTICAL FITNESS: Faces McClain Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- KENNITHA F. McCLAIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VERTICAL FITNESS GROUP, LLC d/b/a XPERIENCE FITNESS, Case No. 2:20-cv-01452-LA (E.D. Wis., Sept. 16, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff asserts that she received an unsolicited text message from the Defendant on July 17, 2018, in an attempt to collect payment on a cancelled gym membership. When the Plaintiff responded on July 18, 2018, to stop contacting her, the Defendant started placing harassing collection calls to her cellular phone. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's phone calls and text messages invaded her privacy and have caused her actual harm. Vertical Fitness Group, LLC, d/b/a Xperience Fitness, operates fitness clubs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq. Victor T. Metroff, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 S. Highland Ave., Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Tel: (630) 575-8181 E-mail: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com vmetroff@sulaimanlaw.com WALGREEN CO: President Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as KENNETH PRESIDENT, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated v. WALGREEN CO. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20CV368984, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on September 17, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-06530 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code, including failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay hourly and overtime wages, failure to indemnify, failure to provide accurate written wage statements, failure to timely pay all final wages, and unfair competition. Walgreen Co. is an American company that operates a pharmacy store chain in the United States with its principal place of business in Deerfield, Illinois.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Allison C. Eckstrom, Esq. Christopher J. Archibald, Esq. Sharlene Meno, Esq. Bernice E. Diaz, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1500 Irvine, CA 92612-4414 Telephone: (949) 223-7000 Facsimile: (949) 223-7100 E-mail: allison.eckstrom@bclplaw.com christopher.archibald@bclplaw.com sharlene.meno@bclplaw.com bernice.diaz@bclplaw.com WARRIOR CUSTOM GOLF: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Warrior Custom Golf, Inc. The case is styled as Jay Winegard, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Warrior Custom Golf, Inc. doing business as: www.warriorcustomgolf.com, Case No. 1:20-cv-04408 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Warrior Custom Golf, Inc., develops, manufactures, and markets custom golf clubs for golfers worldwide.[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 Phone: (516) 415-0100 Fax: (516) 706-6631 Email: msegal@segallegal.com WELLS FARGO: Healy Suit Removed From Cir. Ct. to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Patrick Healy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., DOES 1 through 5, Case No. 37-02020-00028238-CU-MC-NC, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on Sept. 18, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-01838-CAB-MSB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Wells Fargo & Company is an American multinational financial services company headquartered in San Francisco, California, with managerial offices throughout the United States and overseas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jared M. Hartman, Esq. SEMNAR & HARTMAN LLP 41707 Winchester Road, Suite 201 Temecula, CA 92590 Phone: (619) 500-4187 Fax: (888) 819-8230 Email: jared@sandiegoconsumerattorneys.com The Defendants are represented by: Jessica Rose Ellis Lohr, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 11682 El Camino Real, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92130 Phone: (858) 509-6000 Fax: (858) 509-6040 Email: jessica.lohr@troutmansanders.com WOMEN'S LEAGUE: Fails to Pay Asst. Managers' OT Wages, Ohana Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- SARA SARIT OHANA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. WOMEN'S LEAGUE COMMUNITY RESIDENCES, INC., Case No. 517456/2020 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., Sept. 17, 2020), arises from the Defendant's engagement in illegal and improper wage practices, including failure to pay proper overtime wages, in violation of the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant misclassified the Plaintiff and other assistant managers as exempt from the overtime laws and failed to pay overtime of time and one-half-their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a week. The Defendant also failed to provide the Plaintiff and the class members with an accurate statement with every payment of wages, listing accurate gross wages, deductions and accurate net wages as required by the NYLL. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from December 16, 2019, until April 22, 2020, as an assistant manager. Women's League Community Residences, Inc. is a New York-based company, which is part of the mental health and substance abuse services industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Ginsberg, Esq. THE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C. 1613 Northern Boulevard Roslyn, NY 11576 Telephone: (516) 625-0105 YAYYO INC: Faces Koch Suit Over 92.88% Decline in IPO Share Price ----------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM KOCH, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. YAYYO, INC., RAMY ELBATRAWI, JONATHAN ROSEN, KEVIN F. PICKARD, JEFFREY J. GUZY, CHRISTOPHER MIGLINO, HARBANT S. SIDHU, and PAUL RICHTER, Case No. 2:20-cv-08591 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 18, 2020), seeks to recover compensable damages under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the Defendants' issuance of false and misleading statements resulting to the trading of the Company's common stock significantly below the initial public offering price. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of persons or entities, who purchased or otherwise acquired YayYo common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and related prospectus issued in connection with YayYo's November 13, 2019 initial public offering. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and other class members have suffered significant losses and damages following the revelation of certain corrective disclosures. The most recent one was on April 28, 2020, where FirstFire Global Opportunities Fund, LLC filed a complaint against underwriters for the IPO in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. l:20-cv-03327. Among other things, FirstFire alleges that the Registration Statement used to conduct the IPO was materially false and misleading because it concealed Defendant El-Batrawi's ongoing control over the Company and its IPO process. FirstFire further alleges that when the underwriters for the IPO were unable to raise the full $10 million required by NASDAQ to close the IPO, Defendant El-Batrawi fabricated a $1.2 million commitment purportedly from a trust, which turned out to be a lie. FirstFire also alleges that the underwriters for the IPO and Defendant El-Batrawi solicited creditors and shareholders to invest more money to close the IPO, and "sought to sweeten the attraction of such further investment" by agreeing that YayYo would "immediately" pay them back from the IPO proceeds, an "unlawful act" that would "materially misrepresent the Offering and fraudulently mislead investors." Since the IPO, and as a result of the disclosure of material adverse facts omitted from the Company's Registration Statement, YayYo's stock price has fallen significantly below its IPO price, damaging Plaintiff and Class members, the lawsuit says. As of the filing of the complaint, YayYo's stock last closed at $0.285 per share on September 18, 2020, representing a 92.88% decline from the price the stock was offered at in the IPO. Additionally, because of the materially deficient Registration Statement, the Defendants have also violated their independent, affirmative duty to provide adequate disclosures about adverse conditions, risk, and uncertainties. YayYo, Inc. purports to, through its subsidiaries, operate an online peer-to-peer booking platform that rents standard passenger vehicles to self-employed ridesharing drivers and manages a fleet of standard passenger vehicles to be rented directly to drivers in the ridesharing economy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com YAYYO INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP ("Wolf Haldenstein") announces that a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased YayYo, Inc. ("YayYo" or the "Company") ( YAYO) securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering conducted on November 14, 2019 (the "IPO" or "Offering") in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. All investors who purchased shares of YayYo, Inc. and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional information concerning the action or join the case on our website, www.whafh.com. If you have incurred losses in the shares of YayYo, Inc., you may, no later than November 9, 2020, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. The filed complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: defendant El-Batrawi continued to exercise supervision, authority, and control over YayYo, and was intimately involved, on a day-to-day basis, with the business, operations, and finances of the Company, including assisting the Underwriter Defendants in marketing YayYo's IPO; defendant El-Batrawi never sold the 12,525,000 "Private Shares" and continued to own a controlling interest in YayYo despite the NASDAQ's insistence that he retain less than a 10% equity ownership interest in connection with the listing agreement; defendants promised certain creditors of YayYo that in exchange to their agreeing to purchase shares in the IPO in order to permit the Underwriter defendants to close the IPO YayYo would repurchase those shares after the IPO; defendants intended to repurchase shares purchased by creditors of YayYo in the IPO using IPO proceeds: YayYo owed its former President, CEO, and Director a half of million dollars at the time of the IPO; YayYo owed SRAX, Inc. (formerly Social Reality, Inc.) $426,286 in unpaid social media costs, most of which was more than a year overdue as payment had been delayed while YayYo attempted to complete its IPO; and that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. In November 2019, YayYo completed its initial public offering ("IPO"), in which it sold approximately 2.7 million shares of common stock at $4 per share. Then, on February 10, 2020, the Company announced that its Board of Directors had decided to delist YayYo's common stock from the NASDAQ. Since the IPO, the Company's shares have traded as low as $0.25, or 94% below the IPO price. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. Gregory Stone Kevin Cooper, Esq. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Director of Case and Financial Analysis Tel: (800) 575-0735 (212) 545-4774 Email: gstone@whafh.com kcooper@whafh.com [GN] ZACHARY HOLDINGS: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Blackmon Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES R. BLACKMON; JUSTIN M. ROZELLE; ERIC A. MYERS; and JARED MUNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ZACHARY HOLDINGS, INC.; CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF ZACHARY HOLDINGS, INC.; THE COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS COMMITTEE OF ZACHARY HOLDINGS, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-20, Case No. 5:20-cv-00988 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 21, 2020), alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the complaint, at all times during the Class Period, August 21, 2014, through the date of judgment, the ZHI 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan (the "Plan") had more than $482 million dollars in assets under management. At the end of 2017 and 2018, the Plan had over $766 million dollars and $753 million dollars, respectively, in assets under management that were entrusted to the care of the Plan's fiduciaries. The Plan's assets under management qualify it as a large plan in the defined contribution plan marketplace, and among the largest plans in the United States. As a large plan, the Plan had substantial bargaining power regarding the fees and expenses that were charged against participants' investments, the Plaintiffs assert. The Defendants, however, did not try to reduce the Plan's expenses or exercise appropriate judgment to scrutinize each investment option that was offered in the Plan to ensure it was prudent, the Plaintiffs allege. In many instances, the Defendants failed to utilize the lowest cost share class for many of the mutual funds within the Plan, and failed to consider certain collective trusts available during the Class Period as alternatives to the mutual funds in the Plan, despite their lower fees and materially similar investment objectives, the Plaintiffs add. Zachry Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, offers engineering, procurement and construction, plant operation, turnaround, and fabrication services. Zachry Holdings serves power, energy, chemical, manufacturing, and industrial markets in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig A. Harris, Esq. Natalie A. Sears, Esq. MUNSCH HARDT KOPF & HARR, P.C. 500 N. Akard St., Suite 3800 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 855-7500 Facsimile: (214) 855-7584 E-mail: charris@munsch.com nsears@munsch.com - and – James A. Ray, Esq. MUNSCH HARDT KOPF & HARR, P.C. 1717 W. 6th Street, Suite 250 Austin, TX 78703 E-mail: jray@munsch.com - and - Donald R. Reavey, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 2933 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 233-4101 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com ZUMIEZ INC: Bid for Class Status in Herrera Case Due April 2021 --------------------------------------------------------------- Zumiez Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2020, that court overseeing the case, Alexia Herrera, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, v. Zumiez Inc., has tentatively scheduled plaintiff's deadline for filing a motion for class certification to April 15, 2021. A putative class action, Alexia Herrera, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, v. Zumiez Inc., was filed against us in the Eastern District Count of California, Sacramento Division under case number 2:16-cv-01802-SB in August 2016. Alexandra Bernal filed the initial complaint and then in October 2016 added Alexia Herrera as a named plaintiff and Alexandra Bernal left the case. The putative class action lawsuit against the company alleges, among other things, various violations of California's wage and hour laws, including alleged violations of failure to pay reporting time. In May 2017 the company moved for judgment on the pleadings in that plaintiff's cause of action for reporting-time pay should fail as a matter of law as the plaintiff and the other putative class members did not "report for work" with respect to certain shifts on which the plaintiff's claims are based. In August 2017, the court denied the motion. However, in October 2017 the district court certified the order denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings for immediate interlocutory review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The company then filed a petition for permission to appeal the order denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which petition was then granted in January 2018. The company's opening appellate brief was filed on June 6, 2018 and the plaintiff's answering appellate brief was filed August 6, 2018. The company's reply brief to the Plaintiff's answering appellate brief was filed on September 26, 2018 and oral arguments were completed on February 4, 2019. On May 20, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the company's motion for leave to file a supplemental brief addressing new authority. On June 10, 2019, the plaintiff's supplemental answering brief was filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The company then filed its supplemental reply brief to the plaintiff's supplemental answering brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June 24, 2019. On March 19, 2020 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit published its opinion (i) affirming the District Court's denial of judgment on the pleadings on plaintiff's reporting time pay and minimum wage claims, (ii) reversing the District Court's denial of judgment on the pleadings on plaintiff's expense reimbursement claim and (iii) refusing to certify the reporting time pay question to the California Supreme Court. On April 2, 2020 the company filed a petition for rehearing en banc to certify the reporting time pay question to the California Supreme Court and on April 27, 2020 plaintiff filed a response to the company's petition for rehearing en banc. The company in turn filed a reply in support of its petition for rehearing en banc on May 1, 2020. On May 14, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the company's petition for rehearing en banc. The case was remanded to the Eastern District of California, Sacramento for further proceedings. The court has tentatively scheduled plaintiff's deadline for filing a motion for class certification on April 15, 2021, and Defendant's tentative deadline to file an opposition to the motion on June 15, 2021. Zumiez saids, "Given the current status of this case, we are unable to express a view regarding the ultimate outcome or, if the outcome is adverse, to estimate an amount, or range, of reasonably possible loss. We have defended this case vigorously and will continue to do so." Zumiez Inc., founded in 1978, is a mall-based specialty retailer providing sports-related apparel, footwear, equipment, and accessories. It also sells miscellaneous novelties and dvds aimed at young men and women between the ages of 12 and 24 and private-label apparel. In addition, it sells merchandise on its Web site, zumiez.com. The company is based in Everett, Washington. ********* 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 ***