/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201019.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, October 19, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 209

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Gann Suit Alleges Racial Discrimination in Employment
AIR CHINA LTD: Diaz Sues Over Shelved Flight, Seeks Refund
ALL CARE: Faces Nieto FLSA Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Fails to Reimburse Medical Costs, MSP Claims
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Schumann Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Schultz Appeals S.D. Fla. Ruling to 11th Cir.
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Kahn Swick Reminds of October 19 Deadline
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 19 Bid Deadline
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Animal Land Appeals Order in Anti-Steering MDL
AMERITALIA LLC: Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective Action Sought

ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Cole Sues over Mislabeled Alcohol Products
AR RESOURCES: Appeals D.N.J. Ruling in Kassin Suit to 3rd Circuit
AR RESOURCES: Bridges Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
ARDENT COMPANIES: Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling in Orozco to 9th Cir.
AT&T INC: Scott Sues Over Pension Plan's Reduced ERISA Benefit

AUSTIN, TX: Smith Appeals W.D. Texas Decision to Fifth Circuit
BACARDI USA: Marrache Appeals S.D. Fla. Decision to 11th Circuit
BED BATH: Court Dismisses Murtagh's Bumper Suit Without Prejudice
BLACKBAUD INC: Graifman Sues Over Data Breach
BLACKROCK INSTITUTIONAL: Baird Appeals Decision to Ninth Circuit

BLINK CHARGING: Kehoe Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
BOILING CRAB: Faces McDougall Suit Over Unjust Retention of Tips
BONAKEMI USA: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Romero Claims
BOQUERIA UES: Faces Nguyen TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Text Ads
CALIFORNIA: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Bernier Insurance Suit

CARDINAL RIDGE: Dexter Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
CENTURYLINK INC: Miller Appeals Order in Romero Suit to 8th Cir.
CHILDRENS HOSPITAL: NL Seeks Writ of Mandamus in Suit v. USDC-CALA
CITY NATIONAL: Seeks 4th Cir. Review of Decision in Noe Suit
CLAIRE'S HOLDINGS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Cota Alleges

COMMUNITY LOANS: Bynum Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
COMPASS GROUP: Appeals Decision in Bryant BIPA Suit to 7th Cir.
CONVERSE INC: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Decision in Madeira Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeals Decision in Nevarez Suit to 9th Circuit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Kimmel Appeals W.D. Wash. Decision to 9th Cir.

CRAFT BREW: Lindberg Appeals Order in Broomfield Suit to 9th Cir.
CRAFTSHACK INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Paguada Claims
CURADEN USA: Appeals E.D. Mich. Order in Lyngaas Suit to 6th Cir.
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Misclassifies Appraisers, Dixon Suit Claims
CVS PHARMACY: Breitenfeldt Sues Over Pharmacists' Unpaid OT Wages

DAY & ZIMMERMAN: Faces Darrough Employment Suit in D. Nevada
DIXIE BRANDS: Faces Cooperman Suit Alleging Violation of TCPA
EARTH ANIMAL: Beveridge Sues Over Rawhide Inclusion in Dog Chews
ECOM FITNESS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Paguada Alleges
EDUCATIONAL CREDIT: Files Appeal vs. USDC-CASD in Reyes Suit

ELNA SEFCOVIC: Lindauer Files Cert. Petition to Review Judgment
EURO STRUCTURE: Faces Adams Suit in New York Over Unpaid OT Wages
EXETER FINANCE: 10th Circuit Appeal Filed in Rivera TCPA Suit
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Abbink Appeals C.D. Cal. Order to 9th Cir.
FANTASY ACTIVEWEAR: Denial of Arbitration in Bautista Suit Affirmed

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS: Goors Appeals FCC Decision to 2nd Circuit
FOLGER COFFEE: Mawby MMPA Consumer Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
FOOD & BEYOND LLC: Hernandez Seeks Overtime Pay, Tip Credits
FORD MOTOR: Beaty Appeals W.D. Washington Ruling to 9th Circuit
FRED HAAS MOTORS: Seeks 5th Cir. Review of Ruling in Mendoza Suit

GARNEY COMPANIES: Hawkins Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Damages
GCI LIBERTY: Rosner Files Declaration in Fund's Securities Suit
GEICO GENERAL: Appeals S.D. Fla. Ruling in Roth Suit to 11th Cir.
GENIUS BRANDS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 19 Bid Deadline
GENIUS BRANDS: Scott+Scott Attorneys Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline

GETTY IMAGES: Can Compel Arbitration in CixxFive Class Suit
GILEAD SCIENCES: Police Health Trust Slams HIV Meds Price-Rigging
GOL LINHAS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of November 10 Deadline
GREYSTAR REAL: Imposes Illegal Late Rent Penalties, Zeff Alleges
HAMDI INC: Pappas TCPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois

HARBORSIDE INC: Shahrohkimanesh Hits Share Price Drop
HEALTH INSURANCE: Seeks to Deny Belin's Class Certification Bid
HERZING UNIVERSITY: Nicolato Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
HOLMES COUNTY, OH: Underpays Correction Officers, Montgomery Says
ICONIX BRAND: Hayes Appeals Settlement Order in Securities Suit

INSTAGRAM LLC: Faces Conditi Suit Over Privacy Rights Violation
INTUIT INC: Appeals Decision in Dohrmann Suit to Ninth Circuit
JOE'S PIZZA: Faces Cruz Suit Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation
JOHNSON UTILITIES: Appeals Ruling in Castillo Suit to 9th Circuit
KEYPOINT GOVERNMENT: Brayman Amends Suit to Add Party & Claims

KINCAID INC: Portillo Appeals N.D. Texas Ruling to Fifth Circuit
KRAFT HEINZ: Mawby MMPA Consumer Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
LAN RAMEN: Resto Staff Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Withheld Tips
LAND'S END: Gorss Motels Appeals D. Conn. Ruling to 2nd Circuit
LASMILE LOGISTICS: Hunter Files Wage and Hour Suit in NJ

LEAFFILTER NORTH: Kammer Appeals N.D. Ohio Decision to 6th Cir.
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Lopez Seeks 9th Cir. Review of C.D. Calif. Ruling
LIBERTY TAX: IBEW Appeals Decision in Beland Suit to 2nd Circuit
LIVONGO HEALTH: Ormesher Challenges $18.5-Bil. Sale to Teladoc
LMS TRANSPORTATION: Jackson Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California

LOOP INDUSTRIES: Faces Tremblay Suit Over False Business Reports
LOUISIANA: 5th Cir. Appeal Filed in Little Civil Rights Suit
MALLINCKRODT PLC: S.D.N.Y. Appoints Lead Plaintiff in Strougo Suit
MANCHESTER GARDENS: Bid to Dismiss Second Amended Reyes Suit Denied
MARKETPRO HOMEBUYERS: Akselrod Sues Over Unsolicited Text Ads

MCDONALD'S CORP: Harris Files Ice Cream Mislabeling Suit
MIDCROWN PAVILION: Payne Appeals W.D. Texas Order to 5th Circuit
MINNESOTA: DHS & State Appeal Decision in Jensen Suit to 8th Cir.
MISTRAS GROUP: Price Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid Overtime Work
MONTAGE RESOURCES: Gordon Sues Over $204MM Sale to Southwestern

MORGAN STANLEY: Lucadano Appeals N.D. Cal. Ruling in Harvey Suit
NANO-X IMAGING: Levi & Korsinsky Alerts of Class Action Filing
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Files Cert. Petition in Ticket Antitrust Suit
NATURAL HEALTH: Yang Appeals C.D. Calif. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
NBA PLAYERS' PENSION: Abdul-Aziz Files Cert. Petition in ERISA Suit

NESTLE USA: Guyes Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA
NEVADA DINER: Faces Rosendo Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in E.D.N.Y.
NEW YORK: Board of Education Appeals S.D.N.Y. Ruling to 2nd Cir.
NEW YORK: Harley Balks at Overseas Voters' Disenfranchisement
NIKE RETAIL: Norvell Sues Over Denied Breaks, OT Pay, Refunds

NIKOLA CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action Filing
NORTH AMERICAN: Weaver Appeals N.D. Ohio's Order to 6th Circuit
NORTHERN TRUST: Banks Appeals C.D. California Ruling to 9th Cir.
ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Kendall Hits Share Drop from Cancer Med. Flop
ONESPAN INC: Kehoe Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims

PERKY JERKY: Faces Romero Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
PERRI BROTHERS: Espejo Seeks Overtime Pay for Construction Workers
PLASTIKOS CORP: Underpays Female Employees, Francis Suit Alleges
POWERHOUSE FOOD: Berrezueta Seeks Grocery Clerks' Unpaid OT Wages
PRECISION CASTPARTS: Summary Judgment Bid in Murphy Partly Granted

PROFESSIONAL STAFF: Martin Appeals S.D.N.Y.'s Order to 2nd Cir.
PTC INC: 401(K) Plan Members Slam Fund Mismanagement
QUALITY CARRIERS: Appeals Order in Salter Suit to Ninth Circuit
QUALITY FACILITY: Fails to Properly Pay OT Wages, Cayetano Claims
RIDE USA: Faces Fontana TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts

ROBINSON NURSING: Files Cert. Petition in Phillips Class Suit
SAFELITE GROUP: Romero Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
SALT RIVER: Dill Appeals D. Arizona Decision to Ninth Circuit
SAN FRANCISCO USD: Student A Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Appeals Decision in Norbert Prisoners Suit

SANBORN CHEVROLET: Faces Shockley Wage & Hour Suit in California
SCOTT ASNER: Icay Appeals Decision in Hengle Suit to 4th Circuit
SCOTT ASNER: Seeks 4th Circuit Review of Decision in Hengle Suit
SFC GLOBAL: Jackson ICFA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
SHIVRAM'S BAKERY: Faces Rogers Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.

SIG SAUER: Hartley Suit Settlement OK'd; $850K Counsel Fee Awarded
SKINNER SERVICES: Appeals Decision in Pineda Suit to 1st Circuit
SMILEDIRECTCLUB LLC: Sollinger Appeals S.D.N.Y. Order to 2nd Cir.
SPECIALTYCARE USA: Valdes FLSA Suit to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
STAAR SURGICAL: Vincent Wong Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline

STARBUCKS CORP: Troester Appeals C.D. Calif. Decision to 9th Cir.
SUPERIOR ENERGY: Valdez Appeals Decision in FLSA Suit to 5th Cir.
SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE: Riley Slams Emissions/Dust From Plant
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Mares Appeals Decision in Saucillo Suit
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Peck Appeals Decision in Saucillo Suit

SYNCTRUCK LLC: Workers Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Damages
SYSCO CORP: Hernandez Appeals N.D. Cal. Decision to Ninth Circuit
THAI VILLA: Faces Leon Labor Class Action in NY
THERANOS INC: Balwani Appeals D. Arizona Ruling to 9th Circuit
THIRTY INC: Houser Seeks to Recover Correct OT Pay for Employees

THOMAS COLICCHIO: Morales Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
TINDER INC: Troia Appeals E.D. Missouri Ruling to Eighth Circuit
TIVITY HEALTH: Appeals Decision in Weiner Class Suit to 6th Cir.
TOKIO MARINE: MSP Recovery Sues Over Unreimbursed Medical Expenses
TRANSDIGM GROUP: Hollywood Appeals N.D. Ohio Decision to 6th Cir.

TRINITY SERVICES: Castillo Remanded to Kern County Superior Court
TRUMAN MEDICAL: Court Tosses Invasion of Privacy Suit Filed by CJ
ULTRA PETROLEUM: Faces Bussom Suit Over 99% Drop in Share Price
UNITED STATES: Campbell Files Cert. Petition for Judgment Review
UNITED STATES: Federal Cir. Appeal Filed in Tapia Caregivers Suit

UNITED STATES: First Circuit Appeal Filed in Brito Detainee Suit
USAA LIFE: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Spegele Insurance Suit
USC: Joplin Sues Over Tuition and Fees Amid COVID-19 Closure
VENEZUELA: Retter Sues Over Unpaid Obligations Under Gov't Bonds
VICE CAPITAL: Solberg Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Messages

VIRGIN AMERICA: Appeals Decision in Bernstein Suit to 9th Circuit
WALGREEN CO: E.D. Calif. Stays Proceedings in Whittington Suit
WALGREENS BOOTS: Appeals D. Ariz. Order in B.P. Suit to 9th Cir.
WARNER MUSIC: Fails to Protect Customers' Data, Cimaglio Suit Says
WARNER MUSIC: Gutierrez Sues in Southern District of New York

WELLS FARGO: Appeals Decision in Hernandez Suit to Ninth Circuit
WINGS OVER: Carts Appeals M.D. Pa. Pennsylvania Order to 3rd Cir.

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Gann Suit Alleges Racial Discrimination in Employment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB D. GANN, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. 3M COMPANY D/B/A 3M, Case No. 6:20-cv-01605-LSC (N.D.
Ala., Oct. 13, 2020), is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Title VII of the Act of Congress known as the
Civil Rights Act of 1964.

According to the complaint, the Defendant discriminated against the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees based on race
and color. The Plaintiff, an African American, worked for the
Defendant as an operator since June 6, 2017. He applied for the
vacant positions in the maintenance department because these were
higher skilled jobs with better pay, and better advancement
opportunities. However, he was not selected for the job and the
available positions went to Caucasian applicants instead despite of
his longer work experience and better qualifications.

Mr. Gann says he complained to Geoffrey Stidham, one of the
interviewers; Jason Gann, Union President; and Matt Collins of
Human Resources Department about the result and he was told that an
investigation will be conducted, but he was later informed that no
evidence of discrimination was found. The Plaintiff believes that
his race is the reason why he was not considered for the promotion
and employment.

3M Company, d/b/a 3M, is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety,
health care, and consumer goods, with its principal place of
business located in Saint Paul, Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Joseph W. Graham, Esq.
         420 20th Street North, Suite 2200
         Birmingham, AL 35203
         Telephone: (205) 454-4317
         E-mail: Joe@BHMLawyer.com


AIR CHINA LTD: Diaz Sues Over Shelved Flight, Seeks Refund
----------------------------------------------------------
Maria Diaz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Air China Limited, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-07555,
(S.D. N.Y., September 15, 2020), seeks a full cash refund, an award
of reasonable attorney's fees and costs and such other and further
relief resulting from unjust enrichment, fraud and breach of
contract.

Air China is one of the major airlines of the People's Republic of
China and carries over 100 million domestic and international
passengers annually. Its business was disrupted as a result of
government-mandated restrictions on travel in response to the
COVID19 pandemic.

Ms. Diaz purchased two tickets for flights with Air China from New
York, New York to Beijing, China on April 9, 2020 and a return
flight from Beijing to New York City on April 23, 2020. However,
the flight was cancelled due to the coronavirus so she requested a
refund. She claims that Air China has yet to issue a refund. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq.
      Max S. Roberts, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      888 Seventh Avenue, Third Floor
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (646) 837-7150
      Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
      E-Mail: aobergfell@bursor.com
              mroberts@bursor.com

              - and -

      Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
      Walnut Creek, CA 94596
      Telephone: (925) 300-4455
      Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
      Email: ykrivoshey@bursor.com


ALL CARE: Faces Nieto FLSA Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, APRIL NIETO, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. ALL CARE PROFESSIONAL HEALTH, INC. and
CHRISTY VAN METER, individually, Case no. 3:20-cv-03067-B (N.D.
Tex., Oct. 7, 2020), arises from the Defendants' alleged willful
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a licensed
vocational nurse from July 13, 2019, through September 11, 2020.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff consistently worked more
than 40 hours per week without being paid overtime premiums at one
and one-half times his regular rate of pay for any hours worked
over 40 per workweek.

All Care Professional Health, Inc., and Christy Van Meter operate a
home health care company by providing patients with nursing care in
their homes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
          MORELAND VERRETT, PC
          700 West Summit Dr.
          Wimberly, TX 78676
          Tel: (512) 782-0567
          Fax: (512) 782-0605
          E-mail: doug@morelandlaw.com


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Fails to Reimburse Medical Costs, MSP Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, and MAO-MSO
RECOVERY II, LLC, SERIES PMPI, a segregated series of MAO-MSO II
LLC v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY AND ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE CO., Case No. 1:20-cv-24140-JAL (S.D. Fla., Oct. 9,
2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to meet the statutory
payment and reimbursement obligations of the Plaintiffs' assignors
and all others similarly situated under the Medicare Secondary
Payer provisions of the Social Security Act.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants fail to pay for or
reimburse medical expenses resulting from injuries sustained in
automobile and other accidents. As a result of the Defendants'
misconduct, those accident-related medical expenses were paid by
Medicare Advantage Organizations, as well as first tier and
downstream actors who ultimately paid for Medicare beneficiaries'
accident-related medical expenses pursuant to risk-sharing
agreements authorized under the law. Further, the Defendants have
also failed to reimburse the Plaintiffs and the class members for
accident-related medical expenses upon entering into settlements
with Medicare beneficiaries. As a result, the cost of those
accident-related medical expenses has been borne by Medicare and MA
Plans to the detriment of the Medicare Trust Funds and the public.

The Plaintiff and the class are entitled to be paid or reimbursed
at industry standard rates by the defendant primary payers, the
suit says.

The Plaintiff has established various designated series pursuant to
Delaware law in order to maintain various claims recovery
assignments separate from other company assets, and to account for
and associate certain assets with certain particular series.

The Defendants are auto and/or other liability insurers that
provide either no-fault or liability insurance to their customers,
including Medicare beneficiaries enrolled under Part C of the
Medicare Act.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Francesco Zincone, Esq.
          Eduardo Bertran Esq.
          J. Alfredo Armas, Esq.
          ARMAS BERTRAN PIERI
          4960 SW 72nd Avenue, Suite 206
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 661-2021
          E-mail: fzincone@armaslaw.com
                  ebertran@armaslaw.com
                  alfred@armaslaw.com

               - and -

          John H. Ruiz, Esq.
          MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
          2701 S. LeJeune Road, 10th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 614-2222
          E-mail: jruiz@msprecoverylawfirm.com

               - and -

          David M. Hundley, Esq.
          PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
          1100 Poydras Street, Suite 2505
          New Orleans, LA 70163
          Telephone: (312) 593-3354
          Facsimile: (504) 355-0089
          E-mail: dhundley@pbclawfirm.com


AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Schumann Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
CANAN SCHUMANN, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated v. AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Case No.
3:20-cv-01751-BR (D. Ore., Oct. 12, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants violated the Oregon Revised Statutes by failing to
compensate the Plaintiff and other employees all wages earned
during employment and failing to timely pay final wages at
termination.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an at-will employee
in Oregon from August 2019 until August 6, 2020.

Amazon.com, Inc., is an American multinational technology company
based in Seattle, Washington. Amazon.com Services LLC is a limited
liability company that offers Web service platforms, with its
principal place of business located in Seattle, Washington.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         David A. Schuck, Esq.
         Stephanie J. Brown, Esq.
         Karen A. Moore, Esq.
         SCHUCK LAW, LLC
         208 E. 25th Street
         Vancouver, WA 98663
         Telephone: (360) 566-9243
         Facsimile: (503) 575-2763
         E-mail: dschuck@wageclaim.org
                 sbrown@wageclaim.org
                 kmoore@wageclaim.org


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Schultz Appeals S.D. Fla. Ruling to 11th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Margaret Schultz filed an appeal from the District
Court's ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Margaret Schultz v.
American Airlines, Inc., Case No. 9:18-cv-80633-RKA (Filed May 14,
2018), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.

The appellate case is captioned as MARGARET SCHULTZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN
AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 20-10449, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

On May 14, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action
against American Airlines, alleging breach of contract and unjust
enrichment.

On Jan. 2, 2020, District Judge Roy K. Altman entered an Order
granting the Defendant's Sealed Motion for Summary Judgment.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, the Court ordered
and adjudged that judgment is entered in favor of the Defendant and
against the Plaintiff on all counts of the Plaintiff's Third
Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff shall take nothing from the
Defendant, and this action is dismissed, the Court said.

American Airlines is a major American airline headquartered in Fort
Worth, Texas, within the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex.[BN]

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Mason Kerns, Esq.
          MASON KERNS LAW, PA
          1814 SW 22nd ND Ave., Ste. 6
          Miami, FL 33145
          Telephone: 305 725-8300

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          Michael E. Bern, Esq.
          James E. Brandt, Esq.
          Elizabeth Marks, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP
          555 11th St. NW, Ste. 1000
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: 202 637-2200

               - and -

          Humberto H. Ocariz, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, PA
          333 SE 2nd Ave., Ste. 4400
          MIAMI, FL 33131
          Telephone: 305-579-0590


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Kahn Swick Reminds of October 19 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the following securities class action
lawsuits:

Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (COG)
Class Period: 10/23/2015 - 6/12/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: October 13, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-cog/    


American Electric Power, Inc. (AEP)
Class Period: 11/2/2016 - 7/24/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: October 19, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-aep/

Coty, Inc. (COTY)
Class Period: 10/3/2016 - 5/28/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 3, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-coty/

If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.

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

                           About KSF

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

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

Contact:

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 19 Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Sept. 21 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of American
Electric Power Company, Inc. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

American Electric Power Company, Inc. (NYSE: AEP)

AEP Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 2, 2016
- July 24, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/american-electric-power-company-inc-information-request-form?prid=9427&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, American
Electric Power Company, Inc. made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the
Company covertly participated in the "the largest public corruption
case in Ohio history"; (2) the Company secretly funneled
substantial funds to Ohio political organizations and politicians
to bribe politicians to pass Ohio House Bill 6 ("HB6"), which
benefited the Company and its coal-fired generation assets; (3) the
Company partially funded a massive, misleading advertising campaign
in support of HB6 and in opposition to a ballot initiative to
repeal HB6 by passing substantial sums through a web of dark money
entities and front companies in order to conceal the Company's
involvement; (4) the Company aided in subverting a citizens' ballot
initiative to repeal HB6; (5) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' statements regarding the Company's regulatory and
legislative efforts were materially false and misleading; 6) as a
result of the foregoing, the Company would face increased scrutiny;
(7) the Company was subject to undisclosed risk of reputational,
legal, and financial harm; (8) the bribery scheme would jeopardize
the benefits the Company sought brought by HB6; (9) as opposed to
the its repeated public statements regarding a move to clean
energy, the Company sought a dirty energy bailout; (10) as opposed
to the Company's repeated public statements regarding protection of
its customers' interests, the Company sought an extra and
state-mandated surcharge on its customers' bills; and (11) as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

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

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

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


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Animal Land Appeals Order in Anti-Steering MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Animal Land, Inc., Cohen Rese Gallery, Inc., IL Forno,
Inc., IL Forno, Inc., Italian Colors Restaurant, Jasa, Inc., Jasa,
Inc., LaJolla Auto Tech, Inc., Lopez-Dejonge, Inc., Plymouth Oil
Corp. and Qwik Lube LLC filed an appeal from the District Court's
Memorandum and Order dated Jan. 14, 2020, entered in the
multidistrict litigation titled In Re: American Express
Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 11-md-2221, in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
(Brooklyn).

On Jan. 14 2020, the District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis entered an
order granting Amex's motion to compel arbitration and granting
motion to dismiss as to the Non-Amex Class.

The appellate case is captioned as Walgreen Co.; Firefly Air
Solutions, LLC; Meijer, Inc.; Publix Super Markert, Inc.; Rookies,
Inc.; Raley's; Bar Hama LLC; Supervalu Inc.; CVS Pharmacy, Inc.;
Bi-Lo, LLC; H.E.B Grocery Company; The Kroger Co.; Safeway Inc.;
Ahold U.S.A. Inc.;  Albertson's LLC; Hy-Vee, Inc.; The Great
Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company Inc.; Treehouse, Inc.; National
Supermarkets Association, Inc., on behalf of its membership, and
all other similarly situated persons; The Marcus Corporation; Bill
McCauley; Read McCaffrey; Hillary Jaynes; Anthony Oliver;
Bernadette Martin; Bryan Huey; James Eaton; Paul Kashishian; Gianna
Valdes; Chad Tintrow; Matthew Moriarty; Andrew Amend; Igor Gelman;
Zachary Draper; Shawn O'Keefe; Francisco Robleto,, Jr.; Thomas
Michael Reid; Plymouth Oil Corparation; Clam Lake Partners LLC;
Rite Aid Corporation; and Rite Aid Headquarters Corp., the
Plaintiffs; and Animal Land, Inc.; Lopez-Dejonge, Inc.; Italian
Colors Restaurant; Cohen Rese Gallery, Inc.; Jasa, Inc., on behalf
of themselves and all similarly situated persons; IL Forno, Inc.;
Plymouth Oil Corp.; LaJolla Auto Tech, Inc.; Qwik Lube LLC; and IL
Forno, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. American Express Travel
Related Services Company, Inc., and American Express Company,
Defendants-Appellees; Susan Burdette, Defendant; and Circuit City
Liquidating Trust; The RSH Liquidating Trust; Holiday Companies;
Gander Mountain Company; Commonwealth Hotels, Inc.; and Keila
Ravelo, Intervenors, Case No. 20-580, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Plaintiffs brought claims against Defendants American Express
Company and American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc.
(together, "Amex") on behalf of two putative classes: (1) a class
of merchants who accept Amex cards pursuant to a Card Acceptance
Agreement ("CAA") with Amex (the "Amex Class"); and (2) a class of
merchants who do not accept Amex cards and who have no contract
with Amex (the "Non-Amex Class").

This action challenges non-discrimination provisions contained in
the CAAs. The Plaintiffs allege that the Anti-Steering Rules
unreasonably restrain interbrand price competition among general
purpose credit and charge card networks.

The American Express Company, also known as Amex, is an American
multinational financial services corporation headquartered at 200
Vesey Street in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
          HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
          310 Clifton Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55403
          Telephone: 612-338-4605

               - and -

          Michael David Hausfeld, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006

               - and -

          Mark Reinhardt, Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          E1250 First National Bank Building
          322 Minnesota Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: 651-287-2100

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Peter T. Barbur, Esq.
          Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
          Worldwide Plaza
          825 8th Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: 212-474-1000

               - and -

          David John Hanus, Esq.
          Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
          100 East Wisconsin Avenue
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: 414-225-4807

               - and -

          Damien J. Marshall, Esq.
          Alanna Cyreeta Rutherford, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
          55 Hudson Yards
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: 212-446-2300


AMERITALIA LLC: Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective Action Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY MARTINEZ AND
DESIDERIO ROMERO SARMIENTO, Individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated current and former employees, v. AMERITALIA,
LLC, d/b/a Coco's Italian Market and Restaurant, a Tennessee
Limited Liability Company, COCO'S FINEZZA ITALIAN, LLC, a Tennessee
Limited Liability Company, and CHARLES "CHUCK" CINELLI,
individually, Case No. 3:20-cv-00410 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a collective action of:

      "all current and former hourly-paid kitchen employees who
      were employed at any time during the applicable
      limitations period";

   2. authorizing this action to proceed as a Fair Labor
      Standards Act collective action for the Defendants’
      overtime compensation violations at any time during the
      applicable limitations period (two years for FLSA
      violations and three years for willful violations);

   3. directing the Defendants to immediately provide the
      Plaintiffs' counsel a computer-readable file containing
      the names (last names first), last known physical
      addresses, last known email addresses, social security
      numbers, dates of employment, and last known telephone
      numbers of all putative class members;

   4. providing that Court-approved notice be posted at the
      Defendants' restaurant, enclosed with the Defendants'
      currently-employed putative class members' next regularly-
      scheduled paychecks or stubs, and be mailed and emailed to
      putative class members so they can timely assert their
      claims as part of this litigation;

   5. tolling the putative class' statute of limitations as of
      the date this Motion is fully briefed; and

   6. deeming opt-in plaintiffs' Consent Forms to be "filed" on
      the dates they are postmarked.

Ameritalia operates a casual pizza and pasta restaurant with a
small grocery selling imported foodstuffs & prepared meals.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification
dated Oct. 15, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/31irV4B at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert E. Turner, Esq.
          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
          Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT,
          OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com
                  rmorelli@jsyc.com
                  nbishop@jsyc.com

               - and -

          Nina H. Parsley, Esq.
          MICHAEL D. PONCE & ASSOCIATES
          400 Professional Park Drive
          Goodlettsville, TN 37072
          Telephone: (615) 851-1776
          Facsimile: (615) 859-7033
          E-mail: nina@poncelaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lucas E.W. Jerkins, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSHUA OFFUTT & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          2323 21st Avenue South, Suite 306
          Nashville, TN 37212
          Telephone: (615) 802-8912
          Facsimile: (615) 334-8259

ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Cole Sues over Mislabeled Alcohol Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
TERRI COLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, LLC, Case 2:20-cv-08545 (C.D. Cal.,
Sept. 17, 2020), is a consumer protection class action arising out
of the Defendant's false and misleading advertising of its Ritas
Margarita, Mojito, Rose, and Sangria beverages sold in enclosed
packages.

According to the complaint, nowhere on the front, sides, or top
panel of the packaging, the consumer facing panels, does the
Defendant state that the Products do not have distilled liquor or
wine, or that the Products are actually just flavored beers that
taste like margaritas, mojitos or wines. Instead, the bottom panel
of the packaging, where no reasonable consumer would look prior to
purchase, contains a small font statement indicating that the
Products are malt beverages

The false belief created by the Defendant's Products' packaging is
a material factor in influencing consumer purchase decisions
because it relates to the contents of the Products, the Plaintiff
contends. The Plaintiff adds that to the detriment of consumers,
the Defendant's packaging entices consumers to pay for what they
believe are beverages containing tequila, rum, or wine, when they
do not.

Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC produces and distributes alcoholic
beverages. The Company offers beer, rum, alcoholic mixed drinks,
malt beverages, and wines.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
          Joshua Nassir, Esq.
          Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256-2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
          E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com
                  jnassir@faruqilaw.com
                  rglezakos@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Timothy J. Peter, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1550
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 277-5770
          Facsimile: (215) 277-5771
          E-mail: tpeter@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Aubry Wand, Esq.
          THE WAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          400 Corporate Pointe, Suite 300
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Telephone: (310) 590-4503
          Facsimile: (310) 590-4596
          E-mail: awand@wandlawfirm.com


AR RESOURCES: Appeals D.N.J. Ruling in Kassin Suit to 3rd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant AR Resources filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit styled Rafael Kassin v. AR Resources Inc., Case No.
3-16-cv-04171 (Filed July 11, 2016), in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey.

On Feb. 11, 2020, District Judge Tonianne Bongiovannie entered an
order in favor of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class. The Court
granted an amount of $1,500 to the Plaintiff and $4,700 to the
Plaintiff class (exclusive of attorneys' fees and costs) based on
and as set forth in the stipulation of the parties.

The appellate case is captioned as RAFAEL KASSIN, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
AR RESOURCES INC., Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 20-1527, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
The Plaintiff received a debt collection letter from ARR in an
attempt to collect a debt. Subsequent to the receipt of the debt
collection letter, the Plaintiff filed a complaint, in which he
alleges that the letter is in violation of two separate sections of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, i.e., Section 1692g and
Section 1692e.

AR Resources is a national debt collection company that specializes
in collection solutions for business to business, consumer,
property management and healthcare debt recovery.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee RAFAEL KASSIN, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated. is represented by:

          Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: 732 695-3282

Defendant-Appellant AR RESOURCES INC. is represented by:

          Mark R. Fischer, Jr., Esq.
          HIGH SWARTZ
          40 East Airy Street
          Norristown, PA 19404
          Telephone: 610-275-0700


AR RESOURCES: Bridges Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
ODERIA BRIDGES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AR RESOURCES, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No.
1:20-cv-04058-LMM-CMS (N.D. Ga., Sept. 30, 2020), seeks damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief arising from the Defendants'
violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

According to the complaint, some time prior to March 13, 2020, the
Defendants allegedly incurred a debt to Atlantic Cod Emergency
Physicians in the amount of $995. The alleged obligation arose out
of a transaction involving an alleged debt incurred by the
Plaintiff in which money, property, insurance or services were
primarily for personal, family or household purposes, to wit,
personal medical services.

The Defendants collect and attempt to collect debts incurred or
alleged to have been incurred for personal, family or household
purposes to the Plaintiff through a letter, according to the
complaint. The letter sent by the Defendants included the notices
required in an initial collection letter allowing the Plaintiff 30
days to dispute the debt which forces the consumer to choose to
immediately settle before properly considering the ability to
dispute the debt.

The Plaintiff contends that the urgent demand for the consumer to
immediately call in to avoid harm, i.e., before "this settlement
offer may be canceled," pressures the consumer to call in and pay
rather than dispute the debt. As a result of the Defendants'
deceptive, misleading, and unfair debt collection practices, the
Plaintiff has been damaged, the suit says.

AR Resources, Inc., is a Pennsylvania-based debt collection company
that specializes in collection solutions for business to business,
consumer, property management and healthcare debt recovery.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Misty Oaks Paxton, Esq.
          3315 Charleston Court
          Decatur, GA, 30034
          Telephone: (404) 725-5697
          Facsimile: (775) 320-3698
          E-mail: attyoaks@yahoo.com


ARDENT COMPANIES: Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling in Orozco to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Ardent Companies filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled EDGAR OROZCO, an individual, for
himself and those similarly situated v. ARDENT COMPANIES, INC., a
Louisiana corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
2:18-cv-02763-GW-SS (Filed April 3, 2018), in the U.S. District
Court for the for the Central District of California (Los
Angeles).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Apr. 16,
2020, the Hon. Judge George W. Hu of the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California dismissed with prejudice the
Orozco class suit. Pursuant to the Order dated Feb. 3, 2020
adopting its tentative ruling as the Court's final ruling and
thereby granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement, Attorneys' Fees, and Service Award, the parties
will comply with the terms of the Settlement as approved.

The appellate case is captioned as EDGAR OROZCO, an individual, for
himself and those similarly situated v. ARDENT COMPANIES, INC., a
Louisiana company, Case No. 20-55144, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Ardent Companies, LLC operates as a real estate investment and
asset management firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff-Appellee is represented by:

          Aris Edmund Karakalos, Esq.
          Michael Strauss, Esq.
          STRAUSS & STRAUSS, APC
          121 N. Fir Street, Suite F
          Ventura, CA 93001
          Telephone: 805-641-6600

The Defendant-Appellant is represented by:

          Joshua D. Kienitz, Esq.
          Perry K. Miska, Jr, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415-399-8451


AT&T INC: Scott Sues Over Pension Plan's Reduced ERISA Benefit
--------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY SCOTT, PATRICIA GILCHRIST, KAREN FISHER, GERALD KLEIN,
HELEN MALDONADO-VALTIERRA, and DAN KOVAL, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. AT&T INC., AT&T SERVICES,
INC., and the AT&T PENSION BENEFIT PLAN, Case No. 3:20-cv-07094
(N.D. Cal., Oct. 12, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have denied the
Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated participants of the
AT&T Pension Benefit Plan their full ERISA-protected pension
benefits. Specifically, the Plaintiffs and Class members are
deprived of their vested accrued benefits if they retire before age
65 and/or receive their pension benefit in the form of a Joint and
Survivor Annuity. This is because the AT&T Plan's terms reduce
these alternative forms of benefits using "Early Retirement
Factors" and "Joint and Survivor Annuity Factors" which result in
Plan participants receiving less than the actuarial equivalent of
their vested accrued benefit, contrary to ERISA.

The Plaintiffs contend that Defendant AT&T Services, as the Plan
Administrator, breached its fiduciary duties to the Plan and its
participants by disloyally reducing the Plaintiffs and Class
members' pension benefits through application of Early Retirement
Factors and Joint and Survivor Annuity Factors, disloyally
providing inaccurate and misleading information to them, failing to
act prudently when determining benefits owed to Plan participants,
and following Plan terms despite violating ERISA's requirements.

AT&T Inc. is a provider of telecommunications, media and technology
services globally, with its principal place of business located in
Dallas, Texas. AT&T Services, Inc. is a company that provides
telecommunication services based in Dallas, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Michelle C. Yau, Esq.
         Mary J. Bortscheller, Esq.
         Daniel J. Sutter, Esq.
         COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
         1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor
         Washington, DC 20005
         Telephone: (202) 408-4600
         Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
         E-mail: myau@cohenmilstein.com
                 mbortscheller@cohemilstein.com
                 dsutter@cohenmilstein.com

                - and –

         Todd Jackson, Esq.
         Nina Wasow, Esq.
         FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW, LLP
         2030 Addison Street, Suite 500
         Berkeley, CA 94704
         Telephone: (510) 269-7998
         Facsimile: (510) 269-7994
         E-mail: todd@feinbergjackson.com
                 nina@feinbergjackson.com


AUSTIN, TX: Smith Appeals W.D. Texas Decision to Fifth Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Amy Smith, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled as Amy Smith, et al. v. City of
Austin, et al., Case No. 1:18-CV-505, in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Texas (Austin).

The appellate case is captioned as AMY SMITH, JULIE ANN NITSCH,
MARINA CONNER, EMILY BORCHARDT, ANGELA FIELDING, HEATHER SIN, SARAH
JONES, and ANISHA ITUAH, By and Through her Legal Guardian Angela
McKay, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
CITY OF AUSTIN; MARGARET MOORE, Travis County District Attorney;
ROSEMARY LEHMBERG, Former Travis County District Attorney; BRIAN
MANLEY, Austin Police Chief; ART ACEVEDO, Former Austin Police
Chief; and TRAVIS COUNTY, Case No. 20-50197, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The docket states Nature of suit Other Civil Rights.

Austin is the state capital of Texas, an inland city bordering the
Hill Country region. Austin is home to the University of Texas
flagship campus.[BN]

The Plaintiff-Appellants are represented by:

          Jennifer R. Ecklund, Esq.
          THOMPSON & KNIGHT, L.L.P.
          1722 Routh Street
          1 Arts Plaza
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: 214 969-1700

Defendants-Appellees CITY OF AUSTIN; BRIAN MANLEY, Austin Police
Chief; and ART ACEVEDO, Former Austin Police Chief, are represented
by:

          Hannah Vahl, Esq.
          P.O. Box 1546
          Austin, TX 78767-1546
          Telephone: 512 974-2346

Defendants-Appellees MARGARET MOORE, ROSEMARY LEHMBERG, and TRAVIS
COUNTY are represented by:

          Anthony J. Nelson, Esq.
          ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
          COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          P.O. Box 1748
          Austin, TX 78767
          Telephone: 512 854-9513


BACARDI USA: Marrache Appeals S.D. Fla. Decision to 11th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Uri Marrache filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit styled Uri Marrache v. Bacardi U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-23856-RNS, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

On January 28, 2020, the District Judge Robert N. Scola entered an
order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

The appellate case is captioned as URI MARRACHE, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v.
BACARDI U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation, d.b.a. The Bombay
Spirits Company U.S.A.; and WINN-DIXIE, d.b.a. Winn Dixie Liquors
SUPERMARKETS, INC., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-10677, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Uri Marrache commenced the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act class action against Bacardi and Winn-Dixie, alleging
that one of the products made by Bacardi and sold by Winn-Dixie,
the Bombay Sapphire gin, contains a botanical the use of which is
prohibited under Florida law.  The botanical is called grains of
paradise, and it is identified in a Florida Statute enacted in 1868
that criminalizes the adulteration of liquor. Marrache does not
allege that the bottle of gin he bought containing grains of
paradise caused him any health issues or other harm. He instead
alleges that the product was "worthless" because it was adulterated
with grains of paradise.  Marrache brings the class action
complaint against Bacardi and Winn-Dixie due to his purchase of the
"valueless" gin.

Bacardi markets alcoholic beverages. The Company offers products
including spirits such as rum, whiskey, amaretto, and vodka.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant URI MARRACHE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Roniel Rodriguez, IV, Esq.
          RONIEL RODRIGUEZ IV, PA
          12555 Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 915
          North Miami, FL 33181
          Telephone: 305-773-4875

               - and -

          Maury L. Udell, Esq.
          BEIGHLEY MYRICK UDELL & LYNNE, PA
          150 W Flagler St., Ste. 1800
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: 305-349-3930

Defendants-Appellees BACARDI U.S.A., INC.; and WINN-DIXIE
SUPERMARKETS, INC., are represented by:

          Melissa Linn Levitt, Esq.
          BILZIN SUMBERG BAENA PRICE & AXELROD, LLP
          1450 Brickell Ave., Fl. 23
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: 305-350-2376

               - and -

          David B. Massey, Esq.
          Martin Steinberg, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US, LLP
          600 Brickell Ave., Ste. 2700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: 305-459-6500


BED BATH: Court Dismisses Murtagh's Bumper Suit Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Christine Arguello of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado affirmed and adopted the Recommendation of
Magistrate Judge Nina Wang for the approval of the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss in Sean Murtagh's class action complaint against
Bed Batch & Beyond Inc.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's claims are dismissed without
prejudice, Judge Arguello ordered, a copy of which is available at
https://bit.ly/3lWkVm6 from Leagle.com.

The case is Sean Murtagh, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BED BATH & BEYOND, INC., and
LEVTEX HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No.
19-cv-03487-CMA-NYW (D. Colo.).

The case stems from a civil action commenced by Sean Murtagh in
December 2019 on behalf of himself and a class of similarly
situated individuals, seeking certification of a nationwide class
and Colorado class of persons who purchased Bumpers from BBB store
and/or manufactured by Levtex from 2008 to present.

Plaintiff Murtagh purchased a set of Levtex's crib Bumpers, which
is a product designed for baby cribs to prevent babies from being
trapped between the crib's slats and cushion, from a BBB store in
Colorado in 2019.  According to him, despite the Defendants'
representations that Bumpers are safe, numerous studies and
prominent agencies have declared Bumpers unsafe and have linked
Bumpers to infant injuries and fatalities, leading to several
states banning the sale of Bumpers.  The Plaintiff alleges the
Defendants were aware of the safety concerns yet continued to sell
and market Bumpers to unsuspecting parents without regard to the
numerous and documented safety issues.  Mr. Murtagh alleges he
purchased the Bumpers believing they were safe for his infant
child, but later sought to return them and was "rejected."
     
Mr. Murtagh asserted seven claims against Defendants for: (1)
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, on behalf of the
Plaintiff and the nationwide class ("Claim 1"); (2) violation of
the Colorado Consumer Protection Act ("CCPA"), on behalf of the
Plaintiff and the Colorado class ("Claim 2"); (3) breach of implied
warranty, on behalf of the Plaintiff and the nationwide and
Colorado classes ("Claim 3"); (4) negligence, on behalf of the
Plaintiff and the nationwide and Colorado classes ("Claim 4"); (5)
unjust enrichment, on behalf of the Plaintiff and the nationwide
and Colorado classes ("Claim 5"); (6) fraud, on behalf of the
Plaintiff and the nationwide and Colorado classes ("Claim 6"); and
(7) declaratory judgment for the Plaintiff and the nationwide and
Colorado classes ("Claim 7").

The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss in February 2020.

Magistrate Judge Wang reviewed the case and made a recommendation
that (i) the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be granted; or (ii) in
the alternative, to the extent that the presiding Judge finds that
the Amended Complaint survives Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, be granted in part and denied in part as follows: (a)
Claim 1 remains, (b) Claim 2 be dismissed, (c) Claim 3 remains as
modified, (d) Claim 4 remains as modified, (e) Claim 5 remains, (f)
Claim 6 be dismissed, (g) Claim 7 be dismissed, (h) Plaintiff's
claims accruing prior to Dec. 20, 2016 remains, and (i) the
Plaintiff's request for punitive damages be stricken.

A copy of Judge Wang's July 3, 2020 Recommendation is available at
https://bit.ly/3k27Kzp from Leagle.com.

Magistrate Judge Wang finds that even given the liberal standard
for notice pleading pursuant to Rule 8, the Plaintiff has failed to
adequately give the Defendants notice of the claims.  First and
foremost, the Plaintiff fails to identify the specific product that
he purchased.  There is no allegation that Defendants only offer
one crib bumper, or even one type of crib bumper.  Nor are there
factual allegations regarding the descriptions associated with the
particular product purchased by the Plaintiff.  Furthermore, the
Plaintiffs seek to bring claims not only for himself but on behalf
of a nationwide class, against both BBB and Levtex without
distinguishing between the two.  


BLACKBAUD INC: Graifman Sues Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------
Brian Graifman, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Blackbaud Inc., Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-07600 (S.D. N.Y., September 16, 2020), seeks actual damages,
compensatory damages, statutory damages and statutory penalties, an
award of punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs and any other
expense, including expert witness fees, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded and such other and
further relief resulting from negligence, invasion of privacy, and
breach of express/implied contract.

Blackbaud manages, maintains, and provides cybersecurity for the
data obtained by schools and non-profit companies, including the
Manhattan School of Music, which maintained Graifman's private
information. In May of 2020, ransomware attack and data breach of
several schools, healthcare, non-profit companies and other
organizations whose data and servers were managed, maintained and
secured by Blackbaud compromised sensitive and personal data from
students, patients, donors and other individual users. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
      KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
      747 Chestnut Ridge Road
      Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
      Telephone: (845) 356-2570
      Facsimile: (845) 356-4335
      Email: memert@kgglaw.com

             - and -

      Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
      P. Camille Guerra, Esq.
      CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP
      110 Laurel Street
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 238-1811
      Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
      Email: gmb@cglaw.com
             camille@cglaw.com


BLACKROCK INSTITUTIONAL: Baird Appeals Decision to Ninth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the
lawsuit styled Charles Baird, et al. v. BlackRock Institutional
Trust, et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-01892-HSG, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (Oakland).

On Feb. 11, 2020, the Hon Judge Haywood S. Gilliam entered an order
sealing of order on motion for class certification, motion to
strike, daubert motion, and motions to file under seal.

The appellate case is captioned as Charles Baird, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. BlackRock Institutional Trust Company,
N.A., et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-80044, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

BlackRock operates as an investment management company. The Company
offers asset management, ETFs, risk analysis, valuations,
investment strategies, financial planning, and advisory services.
BlackRock Institutional Trust serves customers worldwide.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners CHARLES BAIRD and LAUREN SLAYTON,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and
on behalf of the BlackRock Retirement Savings Plan, is represented
by:

          Karen L. Handorf, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN
          1100 New York Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: 202-408-4600

               - and -

          Todd Franklin Jackson, Esq.
          FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW LLP
          2030 Addison Street, Suite 500
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Telephone: 510-269-7998

Defendants-Respondents BLACKROCK INSTITUTIONAL TRUST COMPANY, N.A.;
THE BLACKROCK, INC. RETIREMENT COMMITTEE; CATHERINE BOLZ; CHIP
CASTILLE; PAIGE DICKOW; DANIEL A. DUNAY; ANNE ACKERLEY; NANCY
EVERETT; JOSEPH FELICIANI, Jr.; ANN MARIE PETACH; MICHAEL
FREDERICKS; CORIN FROST; DANIEL GAMBA; KEVIN HOLT; CHRIS JONES;
PHILIPPE MATSUMOTO; JOHN PERLOWSKI; BLACKROCK, INC.; ANDY PHILLIPS;
KURT SCHANSINGER; TOM SKROBE; AMY ENGEL; MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT &
COMPENSATION COMMITTEE OF THE BLACKROCK, INC. BOARD OF DIRECTORS;
KATHLEEN NEDL; MARC COMERCHERO; JOEL DAVIES; JOHN DAVIS; MILAN
LINT; and LARAINE MCKINNON, are represented by:

          Brian D. Boyle, Esq.
          Randall W. Edwards, Esq.
          Adam Kaplan, Esq.
          Meaghan McLaine VerGow, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          1625 Eye Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: 202-383-5327


BLINK CHARGING: Kehoe Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential securities claims
on behalf of investors of Blink Charging Company ("Blink Charging,"
"Blink," or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BLNK) to determine whether the
Company engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business
practices.

Blink Charging investors who purchased, or otherwise acquired, the
Company's common stock between March 6, 2020 and August 19, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), and suffered losses greater than
$50,000 are encouraged to complete Kehoe Law Firm's Securities
Class Action Questionnaire or contact Kevin Cauley, Director,
Business Development, (215) 792-6676, Ext. 802,
kcauley@kehoelawfirm.com, securities@kehoelawfirm.com, to discuss
the securities investigation or potential legal claims.

According to the class action complaint, throughout the Class
Period, the Blink Charging 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. According to the complaint, the Blink Defendants failed
to disclose that (1) many of Blink's charging stations are damaged,
neglected, non-functional, inaccessible; (2) Blink's purported
partnerships and expansions with other companies were overstated;
(3) the purported growth of the Company's network has been
overstated; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and materially misleading at all relevant
times.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., with offices in New York and Philadelphia, is
a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to
protecting investors from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary
duties, and corporate misconduct.  Combined, the partners at Kehoe
Law Firm have served as Lead Counsel or Co-Lead Counsel in cases
that have recovered more than $10 billion on behalf of
institutional and individual investors.   

This press release may constitute attorney advertising. [GN]


BOILING CRAB: Faces McDougall Suit Over Unjust Retention of Tips
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH McDOUGALL and AUSTIN WALLACE, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated individuals v. THE BOILING CRAB VEGAS, LLC,
Case No. 2:20-cv-01867-RFB-NJK (D. Nev., Oct. 7, 2020), is brought
to challenge the Defendant's alleged unlawful tip pool policy that
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs, who worked for the Defendant as servers, allege
that the Defendant required them and other similarly situated
tipped employees that all customer tips received by them be placed
in a Tip Pool to share with non-tipped employees. As a result of
unjust retention of tips, the Plaintiffs assert that they and the
putative Class members suffered damages equivalent to the amount of
tips unlawfully taken.

The Boiling Crab Vegas, LLC, is a full service restaurant located
at 4025 S. Decatur Blvd., in Las Vegas, Nevada.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher W. Carson, Esq.
          Trent L. Richards, Esq.
          SAGEBRUSH LAWYERS
          112 S. Water St., Suite 104
          Henderson, NV 89015
          Tel: (702) 800-7634
          Fax: (702) 800-7635
          E-mail: ccarson@sagebrushlawyers.com
                  trichards@sagebrushlawyers.com

                - and –

          T. Christopher Tuck, Esq.
          Robert S. Wood, Esq.
          T.A.C. Hargrove, II, Esq.
          RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC
          1037 Chuck Dawley Blvd., Bldg. A
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Tel: (843) 727-6500
          Fax: (843) 216-6509
          E-mail: ctuck@rpwb.com
                  bwood@rpwb.com
                  thargrove@rpwb.com


BONAKEMI USA: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Romero Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSUE ROMERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BONAKEMI USA, INCORPORATED, Case No. 1:20-cv-07658
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2020), alleges violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www1.bona.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the ADA. 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.

Bonakemi USA, Incorporated was founded in 1981. The Company's line
of business includes the wholesale distribution of paints,
varnishes, and wallpaper products.[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


BOQUERIA UES: Faces Nguyen TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Text Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
TARA NGUYEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. BOQUERIA UES LLC and BOQUERIA OPERATIONS LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-08324 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 6, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants for their alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants sent unsolicited
invasive marketing text messages to the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated consumers by using an automated telephone
dialing system. Prior to receiving a text message from the
Defendants, the Plaintiff has dined at the Defendants' Upper East
Side location, but did not provided her contact information and
never gave consent to receive automated text messages.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants' unwanted texts have
invaded her privacy, disturbed her solitude, and diminished her
enjoyment of her phone.

Boqueria UES LLC and BOQUERIA OPERATIONS LLC operate a chain of
restaurants as a single integrated enterprise under the trade name
"Boqueria" throughout the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Tel: 212-465-1188
          Fax: 212-465-1181


CALIFORNIA: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Bernier Insurance Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Rejeanne Bernier and Hans S. Croteau filed an appeal
from the District Court's Order dated February 10, 2020, entered in
the lawsuit styled Rejeanne Bernier, et al. v. Ricardo Lara, et
al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00046-MMA-BLM (Filed Jan. 7, 2020), in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego).

On February 10, 2020, the District Judge entered an order
dismissing the Plaintiffs' causes of action and directing the Clerk
of the Court to strike complaint and terminate the action.

The appellate case is captioned as REJEANNE BERNIER and HANS S.
CROTEAU, as individuals, and as members of a similarly situated
class v. RICARDO LARA, in his capacity as California Insurance
Commissioner; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE; and DOES, 1
Through 10 inclusive, Case No. 20-55160, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The California Department of Insurance, established in 1868, is the
agency charged with overseeing insurance regulations, enforcing
statutes mandating consumer protections, educating consumers, and
fostering the stability of insurance markets in California.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants appear pro se.[BN]


CARDINAL RIDGE: Dexter Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Janet Dexter, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Cardinal Ridge Residential Care, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01441 (E.D. Wisc., September 15, 2020),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime and other compensation, interest
thereon, liquidated damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorney
fees pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws.

Cardinal Ridge Residential Care is a privately-owned assisted
living company headquartered in Green Bay, Wisconsin where Dexter
worked as a certified nursing assistant. She claims to have
frequently worked in excess of forty hours per workweek without
being paid overtime premiums. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James A. Walcheske, Esq.
      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: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
             sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com


CENTURYLINK INC: Miller Appeals Order in Romero Suit to 8th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Movants Edwin Miller, Patrick West, and Vonita Taylor filed an
appeal from the District Court's Order dated Jan. 24, 2020, entered
in the lawsuit styled Victor Romero and Pamela Romero, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, and Edwin Miller,
Patrick West, and Vonita Taylor, the Movant-Appellants v.
CenturyLink, Inc., et al., Case No. 0:17-md-02795-MJD, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota.

On Jan. 24, 2020, the District Judge Michael J. Davis entered an
order granting motion for approval of Settlement in case
0:17−md−02795−MJD−KMM.

The appellate case is captioned as Edwin Miller, et al., v.
CenturyLink, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-1294, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

CenturyLink is an American multinational telecommunication company
headquartered in Monroe, Louisiana, that offers communications,
network services, security, cloud solutions, voice, and managed
services. The Company is a member of the S&P 500 index and the
Fortune 500.[BN]

The Plaintiff-Appellees are represented by:

          Carolyn Glass Anderson, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN & REED
          1100 IDS Center
          80 S. Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-4123
          Telephone: 612-341-0400

               - and -

          Francois M. Blaudeau, Esq.
          SOUTHERN MED LAW
          2224 First Avenue, N.
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: 205-547-5525

               - and -

          Roxanne Barton Conlin, Esq.
          ROXANNE BARTON CONLIN & ASSOCIATES
          319 Seventh Street, Suite 600
          Des Moines, IA 50309-0000
          Telephone: 515-283-1111

               - and -

          Mark John Geragos, Esq.
          GERAGOS & GERAGOS
          644 S. Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: 213-625-3900

               - and -

          Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
          Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN & REED
          1100 IDS Center
          80 S. Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-4123
          Telephone: 612-341-0400

               - and -

          Richard M. Hagstrom, Esq.
          HELLMUTH & JOHNSON
          8050 W. 78th Street
          Edina, MN 55439
          Telephone: 612-619-3134

               - and -

          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON & GLUEK
          120 S. Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-0000
          Telephone: 612-333-8844

               - and -

          Charles J. Hodge, Esq.
          Timothy R. Langley, Esq.
          HODGE & LANGLEY
          229 Magnolia Street
          Spartanburg, SC 29306
          Telephone: 864-585-3873

              - and -

          James F. McDonough, III
          HENINGER & GARRISON
          3621 Vinings Slope, Suite 4320
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: 678-485-6291

               - and -

          Benjamin Jared Meiselas, Esq.
          GERAGOS & GERAGOS
          644 S. Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: 213-625-3900

               - and -

          Mark M. O'Mara, Esq.
          O'MARA LAW GROUP
          221 N.E. Ivanhoe Boulevard, Suite 200
          Orlando, FL 32804
          Telephone: 407-898-5151

Movants-Appellants Edwin Miller, Patrick West, and Vonita Taylor
are represented by:

          Jared D. Shepherd, Esq.
          HOFF & BARRY
          100 Prairie Center Drive, Suite 200
          Eden Prairie, MN 55344-0000
          Telephone: 952-746-2714

Defendants-Appellees CenturyLink, Inc., et al., are represented
by:

          David M. Aafedt, Esq.
          William McNab, Esq.
          Joseph Michael Windler, Esq.
          WINTHROP & WEINSTINE
          225 S. Sixth Street, Suite 3500
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-0000
          Telephone: 612-604-6447

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gutkin, Esq.
          Douglas P. Lobel, Esq.
          David A. Vogel, Esq.
          COOLEY & GODWARD
          One Maritime Plaza, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3404
          Telephone: 703-456-8000


CHILDRENS HOSPITAL: NL Seeks Writ of Mandamus in Suit v. USDC-CALA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff N. L. filed a petition for writ of mandamus from the
District Court's Memorandum entered in the lawsuit styled N.L. v.
USDC-CALA, Case No. 2:15-cv-07200-AB-FFM, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles).

The appellate case is captioned as N. L., a minor, by and through
his Guardian ad litem and all others similarly situated Guardian Ad
Litem Jacqueline Arce, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES, Respondent,
Case No. 20-70588, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner N. L., a minor, by and through his Guardian ad
litem and all others similarly situated Guardian Ad Litem
Jacqueline Arce, is represented by:

          Stephen Darden Daner, Esq.
          Shawn Allen McMillan, Esq.
          Adrian Michael Paris, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF SHAWN A. MCMILLAN, A.P.C.
          4955 Via Lapiz
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: 858-646-0069

Real Party in Interest CHILDRENS HOSPITAL LOS ANGELES is
represented by:

          David P. Pruett, Esq.
          CARROLL, KELLY, TROTTER, FRANZEN, MCBRIDE & PEABODY
          111 W. Ocean Boulevard, 14th Floor
          P.O. Box Box 22636
          Long Beach, CA 90801-5636
          Telephone: 562-432-5855

               - and -

          Robert L. McKenna, III, Esq.
          KJAR, MCKENNA & STOCKALPER, LLP
          7711 Center Avenue, Suite 670
          Huntington Beach, CA 92647
          Telephone: 657-237-7533


CITY NATIONAL: Seeks 4th Cir. Review of Decision in Noe Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the
lawsuit styled Brenda Noe v. City National Bank of WV, Case No.
3:19-cv-00690, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of West Virginia (Huntington).

On February 19, 2020, the Hon. Judge Robert C. Chambers entered an
order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss, motion to stay,
and to strike Class Action Allegations.

The appellate case is captioned as BRENDA C. NOE, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v.
CITY NATIONAL BANK OF WEST VIRGINIA, Defendant-Appellant, Case No.
20-1230, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit.

The putative class action arises out of the Defendant's routine
practice of assessing more than one non-sufficient funds ("NSF")
fee for a single attempted transaction. Distinct from an overdraft
fee, an NSF fee is assessed where a bank rejects an attempted
transaction because of the insufficient balance of a customer's
checking account. The particular practice challenged in the case is
not the assessment of NSF fees as a whole, but rather the practice
of charging multiple NSF fees for one attempted purchase. The issue
stems from certain retailers' policies of re-submitting
transactions to the Defendant for approval--without a customer's
knowledge--after it has already been rejected for a single
purchase.

City National Bank is a bank headquartered at City National Plaza
in Los Angeles, California.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee BRENDA C. NOE, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated is represented by:

          Graham Bordas, III, Esq.
          Jason Edward Causey, Esq.
          BORDAS & BORDAS, PLLC
          1358 National Road
          Wheeling, WV 26003-0000
          Telephone: 304-242-8410

The Defendant-Appellant CITY NATIONAL BANK OF WEST VIRGINIA is
represented by:

          Dallas Floyd Kratzer, III, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC
          41 South High Street
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: 614-458-9827

               - and -

          Ancil Glenn Ramey, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC
          825 3rd Avenue
          Huntington, WV 25701
          Telephone: 304-526-8133


CLAIRE'S HOLDINGS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Cota Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JULISSA COTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CLAIRE'S HOLDINGS LLC; CLAIRE'S STORES, INC.; and DOES
1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-01833-CAB-NLS (S.D. Cal.,
Sept. 16, 2020), alleges violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

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

Claire's Holdings LLC is an American retailer of accessories,
jewelry, and toys primarily aimed toward girls, tweens and
teens.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Thiago Coelho, 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


COMMUNITY LOANS: Bynum Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHANNEL BYNUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. COMMUNITY LOANS OF AMERICA, INC., d/b/a Wisconsin Auto
Title Loans, and WISCONSIN AUTO TITLE LOANS, INC., Case No.
20-cv-1564 (E.D. Wis., Oct. 12, 2020), seeks relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 for the Defendants' unlawful policies
and practices.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants denied her and the
putative class members of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
in given workweeks at the applicable overtime premium rate mandated
by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 as well Wisconsin law. She
further asserts that the Defendants violated Wisconsin law by
failing to pay her and the class members at their agreed-upon rates
of pay for all hours worked.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendants, who worked as
an hourly manager at several of the Defendants' area locations in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, since June 2016.

Community Loans of America, Inc. operates various
entities--including Wisconsin Auto Title Loans, Inc. in
Wisconsin--making up 1,000 consumer lending locations that provide
short-term consumer loans and other financial products in 25
states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
          Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
          Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL S.C.
          222 East Erie Street, Suite 210
          PO Box 442
          Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
          Telephone: (414) 271-8650
          Facsimile: (414) 271-8442
          E-mail: tmaynard@hq-law.com
                  smurshid@hq-law.com
                  ljohnson@hq-law.com


COMPASS GROUP: Appeals Decision in Bryant BIPA Suit to 7th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant filed an appeal from the District Court's Order
entered in the lawsuit styled Christine Bryant v. Compass Group
U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-06622, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Apr. 6,
2020, Judge Virginia M. Kendall of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the
Plaintiff's motion to remand the Bryant BIPA case to the Circuit
Court of Cook County for lack of Article III standing.

Ms. Bryant filed the putative class action in the Chancery Division
of Cook County Circuit Court on Aug. 23, 2019. In her complaint,
the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Compass Group violated her
statutory rights under two sections of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") when it required her to provide a
fingerprint scan prior to purchasing items from its vending
machine.

The Plaintiff first alleges that the Defendant violated Section
15(b) of BIPA by collecting her biometric data at one of its
SmartMarket vending machines without obtaining her written consent.
She alleges that the fingerprint collection also violated Section
15(a) of BIPA because the Defendant obtained her fingerprint
without establishing a written retention schedule and destruction
guidelines for possession of biometric data. The Plaintiff does not
allege that the Defendant collected her biometric data without the
Plaintiff's knowledge, shared her data with any third party, or
created a risk that her data would fall into the hands of an
unauthorized third party.

The appellate case is captioned as CHRISTINE BRYANT, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated, known and
unknown, Plaintiff-Appellee v. COMPASS GROUP U.S.A., INCORPORATED,
Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 20-1443, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Compass Group retails prepared foods and drinks for on-premise
consumption. The Company offers catering, dining, and support
services for foodservice events.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee CHRISTINE BRYANT, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, is represented
by:

          Zachary Flowerree, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 W. Washington Street
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312 520-3136

               - and -

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          77 W. Washington Street
          Chicago, IL 60602-0000
          Telephone: 312 419-1008

Defendant-Appellant COMPASS GROUP U.S.A., INCORPORATED, is
represented by:

          Molly K. McGinley, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          70 W. Madison Street
          Chicago, IL 60602-4207
          Telephone: 312 807-4419

               - and -

          Joseph C. Wylie, II, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          70 W. Madison Street
          Chicago, IL 60602-4207
          Telephone: 312 372-1121


CONVERSE INC: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Decision in Madeira Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the
lawsuit styled Bryan Madeira v. Converse, Inc., Case No.
5:19-cv-00154-CJC-SP, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Riverside).

On March 4, 2020, District Judge Cormac J. Carney declined to
transfer the case to his calendar for the following reasons: "The
cases do not arise from the same or closely related transactions,
happenings, or events, do not call for determination of the same or
substantially related or similar questions of law and fact, and
would not entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by
different judges."

The appellate case is captioned as BRYAN MADEIRA, an individual,
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Respondent v.
CONVERSE, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Petitioner, Case
No. 20-80059, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

Converse is an American shoe company that designs, distributes, and
licenses sneakers, skating shoes, lifestyle brand footwear,
apparel, and accessories.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent BRYAN MADEIRA, an individual, and on behalf of
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Mikael H. Stahle, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: 310-531-1900

Defendant-Petitioner CONVERSE, INC., a Delaware corporation, is
represented by:

          Michael Afar, Esq.
          Jon D. Meer, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: 310-207-9301


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeals Decision in Nevarez Suit to 9th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Silverio Nevarez, et al. v.
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-03454-SVW-SK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Los Angeles).

Following a hearing on Feb. 24, 2020, the District Court granted
the Plaintiff's dismissal of claims One, Two, Three, Four, Five,
and Six in the First Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff's only
remaining claim is under California's PAGA. The District Court
concludes that it no longer possesses Class Action Fairness Act
jurisdiction over this lawsuit, since only the PAGA claims remain,
declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims,
and remands this case to state court. This case was removed to
federal court on April 26, 2019, when Defendant Costco Wholesale
Corporation removed it on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under
CAFA. The District Court then denied Plaintiff's motion for class
certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

On March 9, 2020, District Judge Stephen V. Wilson, entered an
order remanding remaining Private Attorneys General Act claims to
state court.

The appellate case is captioned as SILVERIO NEVAREZ and EFREN
CORREA, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Respondents v. COSTCO WHOLESALE
CORPORATION, Defendant-Petitioner, and DOES, 1 through 25,
Defendants, Case No. 20-80056, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Costco is an American multinational corporation, which operates a
chain of membership-only warehouse clubs.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents SILVERIO NEVAREZ and EFREN CORREA, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Michael A. Gould, Esq.
          Aarin Zeif, Esq.
          GOULD & ASSOCIATES
          17822 East 17th Street
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Telephone: 714 669-2850

               - and -

          Steven M. Tindall, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 1110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: 510 350-9700

Defendant-Petitioner COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION is represented
by:

          James M. Harris, Esq.
          David D. Kadue, Esq.
          Kiran A. Seldon, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: 310 201-1580


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Kimmel Appeals W.D. Wash. Decision to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the
lawsuit styled KIMMEL, CARTER, ROMAN, PELTZ & O'NEILL, P.A., on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION and the COSTCO EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
PROGRAM, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00741-TSZ, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle).

On Feb. 11, 2020, District Judge Thomas S. Zilly entered an order
(1) granting the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with prejudice;
striking as moot the Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from the
Deadline for Seeking Class Certification; and (3) dircting the to
enter judgment consistent with this Order, to CLOSE thes case, and
to send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record.

The appellate case is captioned as KIMMEL CARTER ROMAN PELTZ &
O'NEILL PA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant, and ASHLI N. GERLACH, Plaintiff, v. COSTCO
WHOLESALE CORPORATION and COSTCO EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PROGRAM,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-35192, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 30,
2019, the Plaintiff seeks a judicial declaration that the terms of
the Costco Employee Benefits Program--and, more particularly, those
terms that purportedly operate to extinguish or nullify the rights
of the Plaintiff, and of absent class members, to recovery under
the common fund doctrine and the doctrine of quantum meruit--are
unlawful, unenforceable, void against public policy, and of no
effect as applied to the proposed class.

The Costco Employee Benefits Program consists of or includes a
self-funded benefits plan under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act. Kimmel Carter represents Ashli Gerlach, a Delaware
personal injury claimant employed by defendant Costco Wholesale
Corporation. Ms. Gerlach is alleged to have suffered injuries in a
January 30, 2017 accident. On or about July 15, 2017, acting at the
direction or request of her employer, Costco Wholesale Corporation,
Ms. Gerlach executed the Costco Employee Benefits Program's
Reimbursement Agreement (the "Reimbursement Agreement").

The Defendants contend that unless Kimmel Carter becomes a
signatory to and agrees to be bound by the Reimbursement Agreement,
the Costco Employee Benefits Program will (i) refuse to pay medical
bills arising from Ms. Gerlach's accident-related medical
treatment, and (ii) refuse to recognize Kimmel Carter's rights to
compensation for its legal services under the common fund doctrine
and the doctrine of quantum meruit.

Kimmel Carter contends that (i) if Kimmel Carter becomes a party to
the Reimbursement Agreement, it will thereby have violated (or
risked violation) the Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional
Conduct and the American Bar Association's Model Rules of
Professional Conduct; (ii) by conditioning payment of Ms. Gerlach's
accident-related medical bills on Kimmel Carter's signing the
Reimbursement Agreement, the defendants are unlawfully interfering
with Kimmel Carter's attorney-client relationship with Ms. Gerlach;
(iii) the Defendants' conduct threatens to unlawfully restrict or
impair the public's access to its choice of counsel in personal
injury cases; and (iv) the defendants' conduct unlawfully threatens
the rights of personal injury lawyers to recover for legal services
rendered under the common fund doctrine and the doctrine of quantum
meruit, says the complaint.

Kimmel Carter is a professional association incorporated in
Delaware, and one of that state's plaintiffs' personal injury law
firms.

Costco funds, operates and administers (or oversees the
administration of) the Costco Employee Benefits Program.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant KIMMEL CARTER ROMAN PELTZ & O'NEILL PA, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, is represented
by:

          John Sheehan Spadaro, Esq.
          JOHN SHEEHAN SPADARO, LLC
          54 Liborio Lane
          P.O. Box 627
          Smyrna, DE 19977
          Telephone: 302-235-7745

Defendants-Appellees COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION and COSTCO
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PROGRAM are represented by:

          Michael Paul Monaco, Esq.
          SONG MONDRESS PLLC
          720 Third Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: 206-398-1500


CRAFT BREW: Lindberg Appeals Order in Broomfield Suit to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Eric Michael Lindberg filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled Theodore Broomfield, et al. v. Craft
Brew Alliance, Inc., Case No. 5:17-cv-01027-BLF, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose).

The appellate case is captioned as THEODORE BROOMFIELD,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellee; and ERIC MICHAEL LINDBERG, Objector-Appellant
v. CRAFT BREW ALLIANCE, INC., DBA as Kona Brewing, Co., DBA Kona
Brewing Co., the Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 20-15416, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Craft Brew is a beer brewing company that originally was composed
of five beer and cider brands: Redhook Ale Brewery, founded by
Gordon Bowker and Paul Shipman in 1981 in Seattle, Washington.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee THEODORE BROOMFIELD, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
          Timothy J. Peter, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: 424 256-2884

               - and -

          Aubry Wand, Esq.
          THE WAND LAW FIRM
          400 Corporate Pointe, Suite 300
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Telephone: 310-590-4503

Objector-Appellant ERIC MICHAEL LINDBERG is represented by:

          David Alan Makman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. MAKMAN
          90 New Montgomery Street Suite 1015
          San Francisco, CA 94105

               - and -

          Sam Andrew Miorelli, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SAM MIORELLI, P.A.
          4715 N. Harbor City Boulevard
          Melbourne, FL 32935

Defendant-Appellee CRAFT BREW ALLIANCE, INC., DBA as Kona Brewing,
Co., DBA Kona Brewing Co., is represented by:

          Naoki Stephen Kaneko, Esq.
          John K. Sherk, III, Esq.
          Tammy Beth Webb, Esq.
          SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP
          5 Park Plaza, Suite 1600
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: 949 475-1500


CRAFTSHACK INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Paguada Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
DILENIA PAGUADA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CRAFTSHACK, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-08485 (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 12, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff asserts that she most recently visited the
Defendant's Web site, https://craftshack.com/, in September 2020 to
browse and potentially make a purchase. Despite her efforts,
however, she 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 her from
being able to enjoy the privileges and benefits of the Defendant's
public accommodation.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's actions constitute
willful intentional discrimination on the basis of a disability,
thus seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies and procedures so that its Web site
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers.

CraftShack, Inc., is a craft beer distribution 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


CURADEN USA: Appeals E.D. Mich. Order in Lyngaas Suit to 6th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant and Cross-Appellee Curaden USA, Incorporated, filed an
appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Brian
Lyngaas v. Curaden AG, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-10910, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit).

On Jan. 30, 2020, District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith entered an order
in favor of Lyngaas against Curaden USA, in the amount of $1,000
for statutory damages under 27 U.S.C. section 227(b)(3)(B), and in
favor of the class against Curaden USA, in an amount to be
determined through the course of a claims administration process.

The appellate case is captioned as BRIAN LYNGAAS, D.D.S.,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons, Plaintiff-Appellee Cross-Appellant v. CURADEN AG
and JOHN DOES, 1-12, Defendants; and CURADEN USA, INCORPORATED,
Defendant-Appellant Cross-Appellee, Case No. 20-1199, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Plaintiff Brian Lyngaas, D.D.S., brought the present action against
Defendants on behalf of himself and the following class:

   "All persons who were successfully sent one or more
   facsimiles in March 2016 offering the Curaprox '5460 Ultra
   Soft Toothbrush' for '.98 per/brush' to 'dental professionals
   only.'"

Curaden is an oral care company.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Cross-Appellant BRIAN LYNGAAS, D.D.S.,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons is represented by:

          Phillip Andrew Bock, Esq.
          David Max Oppenheim, Esq.
          BOCK & HATCH
          134 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312 658-5500

Defendant-Appellant Cross-Appellee CURADEN USA, INCORPORATED is
represented by:

          Brian S. Sullivan, Esq.
          DINSMORE
          255 E. Fifth Street, Suite 1900
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: 513-977-8200


CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Misclassifies Appraisers, Dixon Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
DIMITRI DIXON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-07001 (N.D.
Cal., Oct. 7, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its
alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff, who worked for the Defendant as an Appraiser from
September 2007 to December 10, 2018, accuses the Defendant of
improperly misclassifying the Appraisers as exempt employees,
thereby, failing to pay them all overtime wages at one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay for work performed in excess of 40
hours in a workweek.

As a result of the Defendant's misclassification of its Appraisers,
the Defendant failed to record, report, credit, and/or compensate
them and failed to make, keep, and preserve records to determine
the wages and hours worked by its Appraisers, according to the
complaint.

Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., is a commercial real estate services
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laura L. Ho, Esq.
          Beth Holtzman, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO
          300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Tel: (510) 763-9800
          Fax: (510) 835-1417
          E-mail: lho@gbdhlegal.com
                  bholtzman@gbdhlegal.com


CVS PHARMACY: Breitenfeldt Sues Over Pharmacists' Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL E. BREITENFELDT, on behalf of himself and all those
similarly situated v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., CVS RX SERVICES INC.,
Case No. 2:20-cv-01941-MTL (D. Ariz., Oct. 6, 2020), is brought
against the Defendants for their alleged unlawful pay practice in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Arizona wage law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to properly
compensate the Plaintiff and other similarly situated pharmacists'
overtime at the rates required by the FLSA. Despite regularly
working more than 40 hours in a workweek and even required by the
Defendant to work off the clock, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated pharmacists did not receive proper overtime wages,
according to the complaint. Additionally, the Defendants failed to
maintain accurate records of its Pharmacists' time and payroll.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt and
hourly-paid Pharmacist from March 2016 until February 2018.

CVS Pharmacy, Inc. and CVS RX Services, Inc., sell prescription
drugs and a wide assortment of general merchandise, including
over-the-counter drugs, and provide pharmacy services to long-term
care facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ty D. Frankel, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          2325 e. Camelback Road, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Tel: (602) 274-1100
          Fax: (602) 798-5860

                - and –

          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101


DAY & ZIMMERMAN: Faces Darrough Employment Suit in D. Nevada
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Day & Zimmerman,
Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Gene Darrough v. Day &
Zimmerman, Inc.; SOC LLC; and SOC-SMG, Inc., Case No. A-20-822215-C
(D. Nev., Sept. 30, 2020).

The lawsuit arises from employment contract-related issues.

SOC LLC offers security management services to its clients. The
Company staffs and trains military, police, and corporate
personnel. SOC LLC also provides services including base operation,
camp engineering and construction, vehicle and aircraft
maintenance, supply management, facility repair, port and airfield
operations, and communication support.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Evan Gizer, Esq.
          EARLY SULLIVAN WRIGHT GIZER & MCRAE LLP
          601 South Seventh Street, 2nd Floor
          Las Vegas, NV 89101
          Telephone: (702) 331-7593
          Facsimile: (702) 331-1652


DIXIE BRANDS: Faces Cooperman Suit Alleging Violation of TCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dixie Brands Inc., et
al. The case is captioned as Marcie Cooperman and Richard Komaiko,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Dixie
Brands Inc.; Euflora; Mile High Green Cross; Native Roots Cannabis
Company; and Starbuds, Case No. 1:20-cv-02955-NRN (D. Colo., Sept.
30, 2020).

The Plaintiffs filed the case under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act for restrictions of use of telephone equipment.

A scheduling conference set for December 15, 2020, before
Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter.

Dixie Brands, Inc., provides cannabis products. The Company
distributes chocolates, synergy, drops, mints, tarts, and other
cannabis products. Dixie Brands serves customers in the Unites
States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jordan D. Factor, Esq.
          Brenton L. Gragg, Esq.
          James S. Helfrich, Esq.
          ALLEN VELLONE WOLF HELFRICH & JORDAN PC
          1600 Stout Street, Suite 1900
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 534-4499
          Facsimile: (303) 893-8332
          E-mail: jfactor@allen-vellone.com
                  bgragg@allen-vellone.com
                  jhelfrich@allen-vellone.com

               - and -

          Daniel Kennedy Calisher, Esq.
          Steven J. Wienczkowski, Esq.
          FOSTER GRAHAM MILSTEIN & CALISHER, LLP
          360 South Garfield Street, Suite 600
          Denver, CO 80209
          Telephone: (303) 333-9810
          Facsimile: (303) 333-9786
          E-mail: calisher@fostergraham.com
                  swienczkowski@fostergraham.com


EARTH ANIMAL: Beveridge Sues Over Rawhide Inclusion in Dog Chews
----------------------------------------------------------------
LAURA BEVERIDGE, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. EARTH ANIMAL VENTURES INC., EARTH ANIMAL
VENTURES, LLC, and PONY EXPRESS FOODS, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-01539
(D. Conn., Oct. 12, 2020), arises from the Defendants'
misrepresentations and deceptive claims on the packaging, labels,
and marketing of their Alleged No-Hide dog chews.

According to the complaint, the inclusion of rawhide, defined as a
hide or animal skin that has not been exposed to tanning, does not
conform to and directly contradicts the labels, packaging,
advertising, and representations made to consumers throughout the
United States by the Defendants about their alleged No-Hide Chews.
The Defendants purposefully named and marketed their products to
represent to reasonable consumers, like the Plaintiff and the
class, that the products were not manufactured with any rawhide.

The Defendants' wrongful conduct caused injury to the Plaintiff by
providing false and misleading information upon which any
reasonable consumer would rely in making his or her purchasing
decisions, the Plaintiff contends. The Defendants further caused
injury to the Plaintiff and the class by identifying and labeling
the alleged No-Hide Chews as something other than what they truly
were, the suit says.

The Defendants formulate, develop, manufacture, label, distribute,
market, advertise, and sell alleged No-Hide Chews to distributors
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
          Oren Faircloth, Esq.
          IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 0610
          Telephone: (860) 493-6292
          Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
          E-mail: mkindall@ikrlaw.com
                  ofaircloth@ikrlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: rapeterson@locklaw.com
                  rkshelquist@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Kenneth Wexler, Esq.
          Kara Elgersma, Esq.
          Michelle Perkovic, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
          E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
                  kae@wexlerwallace.com
                  mp@wexlerwallace.com


ECOM FITNESS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Paguada Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
DILENIA PAGUADA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ECOM FITNESS PLATFORM LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-08481
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff contends that she most recently visited the
Defendant's Web site, https://www.spri.com/, in September 2020 to
browse and potentially make a purchase. Despite her efforts,
however, she 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 her from
being able to enjoy the privileges and benefits of the Defendant's
public accommodation.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's actions constitute
willful intentional discrimination on the basis of a disability,
thus seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies and procedures so that its Web site
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers.

Ecom Fitness Platform LLC is a fitness training service 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


EDUCATIONAL CREDIT: Files Appeal vs. USDC-CASD in Reyes Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Educational Credit Management Corporation filed an appeal
from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled AJ REYES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Case No.
3:15-cv-00628-BAS-AGS, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California (San Diego).

The appellate case is captioned as EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO, Respondents; and A. J.
REYES and BEHESHTA MAHBOOB, Real Party in Interest, Case No.
20-70657, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California is one of four federal district courts in
California.[BN]

Plaintiffs A. J. REYES and BEHESHTA MAHBOOB, Real Parties in
Interest, are represented by:

          Kas Gallucci, Esq.
          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: 619 696-9006

               - and -

          Daniel Guinn Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: 619 222-7429

Defendant-Petitioner EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION is
represented by:

          David J. Kaminski, Esq.
          Charles Messer, Esq.
          Martin Schannong, Esq.
          CARLSON & MESSER LLP
          5901 W. Century Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: 310 242-2200


ELNA SEFCOVIC: Lindauer Files Cert. Petition to Review Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs-Petitioners Ivo Lindauer, et al., filed with the Supreme
Court of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the
matter styled IVO LINDAUER; SIDNEY LINDAUER; RUTH LINDAUER; DIAMOND
MINERALS, LLC, Petitioners v. ELNA SEFCOVIC, LLC; WHITE RIVER
ROYALTIES, LLC; JUHAN, LP; and ROY ROYALTY, INC., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated; and TEP ROCKY MOUNTAIN,
LLC, Respondents, Case No. 20-469.

Response is due on November 9, 2020.

Petitioners Ivo Lindauer, et al., petition for a writ of certiorari
to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit in the case titled Ivo Lindauer, et al.,
Petitioners v. Elna Sefcovic, LLC, et al., Case No. 19-1121. The
Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment approving a
class action settlement and expressly retained continuing
jurisdiction to enforce the judgment as essential to the
performance of its judicial functions.

The questions presented are: 1. Is the state court's jurisdiction
exclusive and ancillary under this Court's decision in Kokkonen v.
Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994), thereby
precluding the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction by the federal
district court to enforce and modify the state court settlement and
judgment? 2. Does comity require the federal court to abstain from
seizing concurrent jurisdiction and ousting the state court's
jurisdiction to enforce the settlement and judgment which the state
court had approved and over which it retained jurisdiction?

In 2006, a class of Plaintiffs filed suit ("Lindauer litigation")
in Colorado state court, alleging that TEP had underpaid royalties
on various royalty instruments. In 2008, TEP and the Lindauer class
entered into a settlement agreement ("Lindauer SA") purporting to
resolve all class claims relating to past calculation of royalties
and to establish certain rules to govern future royalty payments.
The Lindauer SA categorized members of the class into 13 separate
categories based on the specific terms of their royalty
instruments, and set forth different royalty calculation methods
for each category.

Terra Energy Partners, LLC purchased the entity previously known as
Williams in 2016 and renamed it TEP. In 2017, the Sefcovic Class
Representatives filed suit in the District Court in and for the
City and County of Denver, Colorado, claiming, on behalf of only
four of the thirteen Lindauer lease categories, that TEP had
breached the terms of the Lindauer Settlement. After conducting
informal discovery, and prior to any filings regarding class
certification or the merits of the case, TEP and the Sefcovic Class
Representatives reached a settlement. Following preliminary
approval by the Magistrate, notice of the settlement was mailed to
members of the putative Sefcovic Class.

After receiving notice of the Sefcovic Settlement, Petitioners
filed a Motion to Intervene and a Motion to Dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. The Magistrate struck the Motion to
Dismiss as "improvidently docketed" and denied the Motion to
Intervene as moot, but nevertheless examined subject matter
jurisdiction under the court's "independent obligation," and
dismissed the Sefcovic Case without prejudice, on jurisdictional
grounds.

Thereafter, Petitioners filed a Renewed Motion to Intervene,
asserting the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction
because: (1) Lindauer remains pending, without dismissal, and under
Colorado law that court retains exclusive jurisdiction over the
parties and the subject matter; (2) the state court's retained
jurisdiction is exclusive, precluding concurrent jurisdiction of
other courts; (3) the Lindauer Settlement includes a binding forum
selection clause providing that the state court is the exclusive
forum in which to enforce the Lindauer Judgment and Settlement; and
(4) the Younger abstention doctrine precludes the federal court
from exercising jurisdiction over claims to enforce the Lindauer
Judgment. The Magistrate subsequently denied the Renewed Motion as
moot, having delayed ruling on that motion until entry of the Order
Approving Final Settlement.

The Petitioners appealed and the Tenth Circuit affirmed the
Magistrate's holding that comity authorized the court to seize
concurrent jurisdiction and oust the Lindauer Court from its
original and retained continuing, exclusive and ancillary
jurisdiction to enforce its own judgment. Without any substantive
analysis of comity or the state court's exclusive and ancillary
jurisdiction, the Tenth Circuit simply stated that it is "beyond
reasoned dispute that the district court had subject matter
jurisdiction in this case" because Congress enacted the Class
Action Fairness Act (CAFA).[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners IVO LINDAUER; SIDNEY LINDAUER; RUTH
LINDAUER; and DIAMOND MINERALS, LLC are represented by:

          Lyndon Wesley Vix, Esq.
          FLEESON, GOOING, COULSON & KITCH, L.L.C.
          1900 Epic Center, 301 N. Main
          Wichita, KS 67202
          Telephone: (316) 267-7361
          E-mail: lvix@fleeson.com


EURO STRUCTURE: Faces Adams Suit in New York Over Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FIDEL ADAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. EURO STRUCTURE LLC (D/B/A EURO STRUCTURE), STRUCTURAL
PRESERVATION SYSTEMS, LLC (D/B/A STRUCTURAL), STRUCTURAL GROUP,
INC. (D/B/A STRUCTURAL), JOHN CRIGLER, GARRY NAUGHTON, PETER
H.EMMONS, AND MAREK WNOROWSKI, Case No. 1:20-cv-04630 (E.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 29, 2020), seeks relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law for the Defendants' unlawful practices.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants maintained a policy and
practice of requiring him and all similarly situated employees to
work in excess of 40 hours a week without paying them appropriate
overtime compensation and spread of hours pay as required by the
federal and state laws. The Plaintiff further asserts that the
Defendants purposefully failed to comply with the recordkeeping
requirements of the FLSA and NYLL to avoid having to pay him and
the class members for all hours worked.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a construction,
concrete and scaffolding worker from June 15, 2016, to April 27,
2020.

The Defendants own, operate, and control construction companies in
Hawthorne, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan F. Harlow, Esq.
          GLASS HARLOW & HOGROGIAN LLP
          30 Broad Street, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 537-6859


EXETER FINANCE: 10th Circuit Appeal Filed in Rivera TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the
lawsuit styled Rivera v. Exeter Finance Corp., Case No.
1:15-CV-01057-PAB-MEH, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado (Denver).

On Nov. 19, 2019, District Judge Philip A. Brimmer entered an order
denying the Plaintiff's amended motion for reconsideration of the
denial of plaintiff's second motion for class certification.

The appellate case is captioned as EDGAR RIVERA, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. EXETER FINANCE CORP.,
Case No. 20-1031, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
filed the instant class action lawsuit alleging a violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Plaintiff contends
that he and others similarly situated received debt collection
telephone calls on their cell phones when, in fact, those calls
were intended not for them but for the prior subscriber of their
cell telephone number.

The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff's ability to prevail
depends on the definition of an "automatic telephone dialing
system" (or ATDS) under the TCPA, and on whether the statute
supports liability for calls to reassigned telephone numbers. The
Defendant further contends that both these issues were addressed by
the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) latest Declaratory
Ruling and Order (Ruling), and that the Ruling has been appealed to
the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Exeter provides automobile financing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          David McDevitt, Esq.
          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP
          5235 East Southern Avenue, Suite D106-618
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Telephone: 602-845-5969

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          John Robert Chiles, Esq.
          Brent D. Hitson, Esq.
          BURR & FORMAN
          350 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1420
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954 414-6203

               - and -

          Austin Evans Smith, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS
          2000 South Colorado Blvd.
          Tower 3, Suite 900
          Denver, CO 80222
          Telephone: 303-764-6800


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Abbink Appeals C.D. Cal. Order to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the
lawsuit styled Bryce Abbink v. Experian Information Solutions, et
al., Case No. 8:19-cv-01257-JFW-PJW (Filed June 21, 2019), in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Santa
Ana).

The appellate case is captioned as BRYCE ABBINK, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; LEND TECH LOANS, INC., a
California corporation; and UNIFIED DOCUMENT SERVICES, LLC, a
California Limited Liability, Defendants-Appellees, Case No.
20-55253, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

On December 5, 2019, this Court granted Defendant Experian Motion
to Dismiss. On January 29, 2020, this Court granted Plaintiff Bryce
Abbink's for Default Judgment Against Lend Tech Loans, Inc. and
Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment Against Unified Document
Services, LLC. The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

On Feb. 6, 2020, District Judge John F. Walter entered judgment
dismissing complaint with prejudice with respect to the claims
asserted against Experian; directing Lend Tech to pay $2,000 in
damages to Plaintiff and $400 in attorneys' fees to Plaintiff's
counsel pursuant to the Court's January 29, 2020 Order; and
directing UDS to pay $1,000 in damages to Plaintiff and $300 in
attorneys' fees to Plaintiff's counsel.

Experian operates as an information services company.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant BRYCE ABBINK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Aaron Aftergood, Esq.
          THE AFTERGOOD LAW FIRM
          1875 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067

Defendant-Appellee EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., an Ohio
corporation is represented by:

          Richard Joseph Grabowski, Esq.
          Ryan Ball, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
          Irvine, CA 92612-4408
          Telephone: 949 553-7514


FANTASY ACTIVEWEAR: Denial of Arbitration in Bautista Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, issued an
Opinion affirming the Trial Court's Orders denying the Defendants'
Petitions to Compel Arbitration in the cases captioned SAUL G.
BAUTISTA, Plaintiff and Respondent v. FANTASY ACTIVEWEAR, INC., et
al., Defendants and Appellants; and APOLINAR LUZ GARCIA, Plaintiff
and Respondent v. FANTASY DYING AND FINISHING, INC., et al.,
Defendants and Appellants, Case Nos. B297070, B299768 (Cal. App.).

Fantasy Activewear, Inc. (AW), Fantasy Dyeing and Finishing, Inc.
(DF), and Anwar Gajiani appeal from orders denying petitions to
compel arbitration in two actions involving substantially similar
wage and hour allegations filed by Saul G. Bautista against AW and
Gajiani and Apolinar Luz Garcia against DF and Gajiani. AW, DF, and
Gajiani are collectively referred to as Fantasy. Gajiani owns and
operates both AW and DF.

Plaintiffs Bautista and Garcia both signed settlement agreements
with Fantasy in 2014 in connection with a case called Guerra v.
Fantasy Activewear, Inc. (Super. Ct. L.A. County, Case No.
BC517633) containing the arbitration clauses at issue in this
appeal. In 2018, Bautista and Garcia filed class action complaints
alleging a variety of wage and hour causes of action against AW,
DF, and Gajiani, and amended them to allege causes of action under
the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA).
Fantasy filed petitions to compel arbitration in each action based
on the 2014 settlement agreements. Bautista and Garcia dismissed
their class allegations.

In each case, the trial court denied the petition to compel
arbitration based on, among other independent grounds, their
conclusions that the arbitration clauses' predispute waivers of
representative actions were unenforceable under Iskanian v. CLS
Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348 [173
Cal.Rptr.3d 289, 327 P.3d 129] and Julian v. Glenair, Inc. (2017)
17 Cal.App.5th 853 [225 Cal.Rptr.3d 798] (Julian).

Fantasy contends here that the question of whether Bautista and
Garcia's waivers of representative actions were enforceable is a
question of arbitrability that, pursuant to the terms of Fantasy's
arbitration agreements with Bautista and Garcia, must be left for
the arbitrator to decide.

Disposition

The Appellate Court concludes, however, that Bautista and Garcia
were not acting as agents of the Labor and Workforce Development
Agency (LWDA) when they entered into their settlement agreements
with AW and DF. Consequently, their agreements with AW and DF were
not entered into on behalf of the LWDA, and Fantasy has alleged the
existence of no arbitration agreement existing between it and the
LWDA--the real party in interest here.

Accordingly, the Appellate Court affirms the trial court's denials
of Fantasy's petitions to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs Bautista
and Garcia are awarded costs on appeal.

Justice Victoria Gerrard Chaney wrote the Opinion. Rothschild, P.
J., and Bendix, J., concurred.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' June 25, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybhbwpr5 from Leagle.com.

Jenkins Kayayan, Jonathan M.
Jenkins--jjenkins@jklitigators.com--and Lara
Kayayan--lkayayan@jklitigators.com, for Defendants and Appellants.

Bokhour Law Group and Mehrdad Bokhour, at 1901 Avenue of the Stars,
in Los Angeles, California; Hatan Law, Inc. and Farzin Hatanian,
Hatan Law, at 1875 Century Park East., in Century City, California,
for Plaintiffs and Respondents.


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS: Goors Appeals FCC Decision to 2nd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioners Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley, Gorss Motels, Inc., and
Roger H. Kaye filed an appeal from the Federal Communications
Commission Agency's Decision and Order dated March 17, 2020,
entered in their Petitions for Reconsideration and/or Declaratory
Ruling and Retroactive Waiver of 47 CFR section 64.1200(a)(4)(iv)
Regarding the Commission's Opt-Out Notice Requirement for Faxes
Sent with the Recipient's Prior Express Permission, Case No. FCC
20-29.

The appellate case is captioned as Gorss Motels, Inc.; Bais Yaakov
of Spring Valley; and Roger H. Kaye, MD PC, Petitioners v. Federal
Communications Commission, Respondent, Case No. 20-1075, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Federal Communications Commission is an independent agency of
the United States government that regulates communications by
radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable across the United
States.[BN]

Petitioners Gorss Motels, Inc.; Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley; and
Roger H. Kaye, MD PC, are represented by:

          Yehoshua Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          50 Main Street, Suite 1000
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: 914 358-5345

Respondent Federal Communications Commission is represented by:

          Benjamin H. Torrance, Esq.
          ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
          UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR
          THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
          86 Chambers Street
          New York, NY 10007


FOLGER COFFEE: Mawby MMPA Consumer Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as SHAREL MAWBY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. THE FOLGER COFFEE COMPANY, Case
No. 2016-CV17873, was removed from the Missouri Circuit Court,
Jackson County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Missouri on October 13, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:20-cv-00822-FJG to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) by making false,
misleading, and unfair representations about the number of coffee
cups that Folgers Coffee Canisters can make.

The Folger Coffee Company is a coffee manufacturer headquartered in
Orrville, Ohio.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

         Andrew D. Ryan, Esq.
         SANDBERG PHOENIX & von GONTARD P.C.
         600 Washington Avenue, 15th Floor
         St. Louis, MO 63101-1313
         Telephone: (314) 231-3332
         Facsimile: (314) 241-7604
         E-mail: aryan@sandbergphoenix.com

                - and –

         Ronald Y. Rothstein, Esq.
         Sean H. Suber, Esq.
         WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
         35 W. Wacker Drive
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Telephone: (312) 558-5600
         Facsimile: (312) 558-5700
         E-mail: rrothste@winston.com
                 ssuber@winston.com

                - and –

         Megan L. Whipp, Esq.
         Janelle A. Li-A-Ping, Esq.
         WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
         333 S. Grand Avenue
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
         Telephone: (213) 615-1700
         Facsimile: (213) 615-1750
         E-mail: mwhipp@winston.com


FOOD & BEYOND LLC: Hernandez Seeks Overtime Pay, Tip Credits
------------------------------------------------------------
Moises Hernandez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Food & Beyond LLC, Barnabas Y. Woo, Jimmy
Kim, Kevin Choi, and Hyun Park, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-07705
(E.D. N.Y., September 18, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
and overtime wages and spread-of-hours pay pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a deli, located at 419 Park
Avenue, New York, under the name "Bread and Butter" where Hernandez
was employed as a delivery worker. He claims to have generally
worked in excess of 40 hours a week without overtime for hours in
excess of 40 hours per workweek and denied spread-of-hours premium
for workdays exceeding 10 hours. Bread and Butter claimed tip
credit for all hours worked despite requiring Hernandez to work
non-tipped duties for hours exceeding 20% of the total hours worked
each workweek, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff also claims to have
never received wage statements. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FORD MOTOR: Beaty Appeals W.D. Washington Ruling to 9th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the
lawsuit styled Jacob Beaty, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, Case No.
3:17-cv-05201-RBL, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington (Tacoma).

The appellate case is captioned as JACOB BEATY; JESSICA BEATY, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee,
Case No. 20-35141, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

Jessica Beaty purchased a 2013 Ford Escape with a panoramic glass
sun roof ("PSR") in September 2012. She claims her Escape's PSR
spontaneously shattered while she was driving on the freeway in
February 2017, due to a manufacturing defect common to a wide range
of Ford vehicles. She claims that Ford PSRs' tempered glass is too
thin, leading to failure. She sued, seeking to represent a class of
purchasers of such vehicles. She asserts claims fraudulent
concealment and breach of Washington's Consumer Protection Act,
based on her allegation that Ford knew about and concealed the
defect.

On Feb. 11, 2020 District Judge Ronald B. Leighton entered an order
granting Ford's motion for summary judgment. Judge Leighton
concludes that Beaty cannot establish the elements of her
fraudulent concealment or Washington CPA claims against Ford as a
matter of law: she cannot show that Ford knew of and failed to
disclose a material defect. She cannot establish that any such
failure caused her benefit-of-the-bargain damage. For these
reasons, the Judge granted Ford's Motion for Summary Judgment and
dismissed with prejudice Beaty's fraudulent concealment and CPA
claims. The Judge denied as moot all other pending motions.

Ford Motor Company, commonly known as Ford, is an American
multinational automaker that has its main headquarters in Dearborn,
Michigan, a suburb of Detroit. It was founded by Henry Ford and
incorporated on June 16, 1903.[BN]


FRED HAAS MOTORS: Seeks 5th Cir. Review of Ruling in Mendoza Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Fred Haas Motors, Limited, filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit Manuel Mendoza v. Fred Haas Motors,
Limited, Case No. 4:19-CV-4119, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas (Houston).

The appeal arises from a class action suit alleging violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Fred Haas Motors, Ltd. moved
to compel arbitration pursuant to the agreement signed by Manuel
Mendoza. The district court denied the motion.

The appellate case is captioned as MANUEL MENDOZA, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v.
FRED HAAS MOTORS, LIMITED, a Texas Corporation,
Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 20-20123, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
accuses the Defendant of violating the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by making unsolicited prerecorded telemarketing
calls that infringe consumers' privacy rights.

The Defendant knew that it was prohibited by the TCPA from
contacting consumers on their cellular telephones with prerecorded
calls, without their prior express consent. Nevertheless, in a
failed attempt to circumvent the TCPA, the Defendant did just that
by utilizing "ringless" voicemail technology to place calls to the
Plaintiff and members of the Class to promote its products and
services, says the complaint.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to hold the Defendant
accountable for its violations of the TCPA, and for violating the
privacy of hundreds or thousands of consumers. The Plaintiff, for
himself and a Class of similarly situated individuals, seeks
injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's unlawful conduct.

Fred Haas retails automobile vehicles. The Company sells cars,
vans, auto parts, and accessories, as well as provides auto
financing services.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee MANUEL MENDOZA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated is represented by:

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          KOZONIS & KLINGER, LIMITED
          227 W. Monroe Street
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 773-545-9607

               - and

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
          14 N.E. 1st Avenue
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: 305-479-2299

Defendant-Appellant FRED HAAS MOTORS, LIMITED, a Texas Corporation
is represented by:

          Kurt Lance Krolikowski,. Esq.
          LOCKE LORD, L.L.P.
          JPMorgan Chase Tower
          600 Travis Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: 713-226-1595


GARNEY COMPANIES: Hawkins Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ramar I. Hawkins, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Garney Companies, Inc. and
Garney Holding Company, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00408 (E.D.
Tenn., September 15, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, as well as
interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate a water and wastewater construction company
where Hawkins worked as construction pipe layer/operator. He
routinely worked in excess of forty hours per week without overtime
pay. He claims to be deducted a thirty minute meal period during
each work shift irrespective of whether or not he worked through
them. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
      J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
      Robert E. Turner, Esq.
      Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
      JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
      262 German Oak Drive
      Memphis, TN 38018
      Tel: (901) 754-8001
      Fax: (901) 759-1745
      Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
             rturner@jsyc.com
             nbishop@jsyc.com
             rbryant@jsyc.com


GCI LIBERTY: Rosner Files Declaration in Fund's Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned HOLLYWOOD FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND and WEST
PALM BEACH FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. GCI LIBERTY, INC., JOHN C. MALONE,
GREGORY B. MAFFEI, GREGG L. ENGLES, SUE ANN HAMILTON, RONALD A.
DUNCAN, DONNE F. FISHER, and RICHARD R. GREEN, Case No. 2020-0880
(Del. Ch.), Jason Rosner submitted unsworn verification and
declaration pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules 23(aa) in
connection with the filing of a verified class action complaint for
declaratory and injunctive relief.

Mr. Rosner is the chairman of the Board of Trustees of the
Hollywood Firefighters' Pension Fund. He attests that he made the
unsworn declaration under penalty of perjury and that facts alleged
in the verified complaint are true and correct to the best of his
knowledge, information, and belief.

Mr. Rosner further discloses that he had not received, been
promised or offered and will not accept any form of compensation,
directly or indirectly, for prosecuting or serving as a
representative party in the action except for: (a) such fees, costs
or other payments as the court expressly approves to be paid to or
on behalf of the fund; or (b) reimbursement, paid by his attorneys,
of actual and reasonable out-of-pocket expenditures incurred
directly in connection with the prosecution of the action.[BN]


GEICO GENERAL: Appeals S.D. Fla. Ruling in Roth Suit to 11th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant GEICO General Insurance Company filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled KERRY ROTH, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. GEICO GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 0:16-cv-62942-WPD, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The Plaintiff filed a putative state court class action against
GEICO in Florida state court on August 30, 2016, which she replaced
on November 8, 2016 with an Amended Class Action Complaint, and
which she replaced on November 16, 2016 with a Second Amended Class
Action Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint alleged two counts:
Count I for breach of contract, and Count II for declaratory
relief. The Defendant removed the case to federal court on December
14, 2016, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.

On May 4, 2018, the District Judge William P. Dimitrouleas entered
an order granting certification class of Class consisting of the
following:

  "all persons insured by GEICO General Insurance Company under
   a Florida insurance policy for private passenger auto ("PPA")
   physical damage who suffered a first-party total loss of a
   covered leased vehicle at any time during the 5 years prior
   to the filing of this lawsuit, whose claim was adjusted by
   GEICO General as a total loss claim, whose claim resulted in
   payment by GEICO General of a covered claim, and who was not
   paid the full total loss vehicle value (TLVV) sales tax or
   title transfer fees."

The appellate case is captioned as Kerry Roth v. GEICO General
Insurance Company, Case No. 20-10465, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Geico operates as an insurance company. The Company offers vehicle,
property, motorcycle, boat, homeowners, flood, mobile home, general
liability, and pet insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiff-Appellee is represented by:

          Christopher B. Hall, Esq.
          Andrew Lampros, Esq.
          HALL & LAMPROS, LLP
          1230 Peachtree St. NE, Ste. 950
          ATLANTA, GA 30309
          Telephone: 404-876-8100

               - and -

          Christopher J. Lynch, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. LYNCH, PA
          6915 SW 57 Ave., Ste. 208
          Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: 305-443-6200

               v- and -

          Tracy Lynne Markham, Esq.
          SOUTHERN ATLANTIC LAW GROUP, PLLC
          2800 N 5th St., Ste. 302
          Saint Augustine, FL 32033
          Telephone: 904-794-7005

               - and -

          Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
          Jacob Phillips, Esq.
          NORMAND, PLLC
          3165 McCrory PL, Ste. 175
          Orlando, FL 32803
          Telephone: 407-603-6031

               - and -

          Bradley Wilkes Pratt, Esq.
          PRATT CLAY, LLC
          4401 Northside Pkwy., Ste. 520
          Atlanta, GA 30327
          Telephone: 404-949-8118

The Defendant-Appellant is represented by:

          Alexander Fuchs, Esq.
          Kymberly Kochis, Esq.
          Amelia Toy Rudolph, Esq.
          EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US)LLP
          1114 Avenue of the Americas FL 40
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: 212-389-5000


GENIUS BRANDS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 19 Bid Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Sept. 20 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Genius Brands
International, Inc. Shareholders interested in serving as lead
plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court.
Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

Genius Brands International, Inc (NASDAQ:GNUS)

GNUS Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 17, 2020 -
July 5, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/genius-brands-international-inc-information-request-form?prid=9421&wire=1

According to the Genius Brands lawsuit defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
information regarding: (i) Nickelodeon's purported broadcast
expansion of Genius's Rainbow Rangers cartoon; (ii) subscription
fees for the Kartoon Channel!; and (iii) the Company's growth
potential and overall prospects as a company.

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

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

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


GENIUS BRANDS: Scott+Scott Attorneys Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international
securities and consumer rights litigation firm, reminds investors
that it has filed a securities class action lawsuit against Genius
Brands International, Inc. ("Genius") (NASDAQ: GNUS) and Chief
Executive Officer Andy Heyward (collectively, "Defendants").  If
you purchased Genius securities between March 17, 2020 and July 5,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and lost more than $250,000
on your investment, you are encouraged to contact Scott+Scott
attorney Joe Pettigrew for additional information at (844) 818-6982
or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com.

Genius is a multimedia company that licenses entertainment content
for children.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated provisions of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading
statements concerning Genius's Rainbow Rangers intellectual
property, the Kartoon Channel! app that Genius launched in June of
2020, as well as its joint venture relating to intellectual
property associated with Marvel creator Stan Lee.

On July 6, 2020, after Genius announced the creation of a joint
venture with POW! Entertainment regarding the intellectual property
Stan Lee created following his tenure at Marvel Entertainment,
Genius's share price declined over 25% to close at $2.66 per
share.

What You Can Do

If you purchased Genius securities between March 17, 2020 and July
5, 2020, and have lost more than $250,000 on your investment, or if
you have questions about this notice or your legal rights, you are
encouraged to contact attorney Joe Pettigrew at (844) 818-6982 or
jpettigrew@scott-scott.com.  The lead plaintiff deadline is October
19, 2020.

             About Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and consumer rights actions throughout the
United States.  The firm represents pension funds, foundations,
individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices in New York,
London, Amsterdam, Connecticut, California, Ohio, and Virginia.

CONTACT:

Joe Pettigrew
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
230 Park Ave, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10169
(844) 818-6982
jpettigrew@scott-scott.com [GN]


GETTY IMAGES: Can Compel Arbitration in CixxFive Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CIXXFIVE CONCEPTS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. GETTY IMAGES,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. C19-386-RSL (W.D. Wash.), Judge
Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, granted (1) Defendant Getty Images
(US), Inc.'s Renewed Motion to Compel Arbitration, Dismiss Class
Claims and Stay Proceedings; and (2) Defendants Getty Images, Inc.
and License Compliance Services, Inc. ("LCS")'s Renewed Motion to
Compel Arbitration, Dismiss Class Claims and Stay Proceedings.

Plaintiff CixxFive, a Texas-based digital media marketing company,
brings the putative class action against Defendants Getty Images US
and LCS.  Getty Images is a Seattle-based global licensor of
photographs and other digital content.  Defendant Getty Images,
Inc. is the parent company of Defendant Getty Images US.  Getty
Images, Inc. also owns Defendant LCS.  The Plaintiff alleges that
LCS conducts enforcement activities for Getty Images.  According to
the Defendants, LCS ceased business operations in 2017.

Getty Images US utilizes rights-managed licensing, selling licenses
for one-time use of a photograph or as part of an annual
subscription licensing agreement.  In June 2017, the Plaintiff
entered into a Premium Access Agreement with Getty Images US, and
accordingly became a subscription licensing customer.  The Premium
Access subscription allowed the Plaintiff to download a certain
number of photographs for a flat monthly fee.  On May 25, 2018, it
purchased a license for one-time use of a photograph, which it
alleges was in the public domain.  Because the photo ("Highsmith
License") was not available to the Plaintiff within its Premium
Access subscription, the Plaintiff had to pay a fee to separately
purchase the license.

The Plaintiff brought the action against the Defendants on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, alleging that the
Defendants unlawfully license images that are in the public domain.
It alleges (1) violations of the Racketeering Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Practices ("RICO") Act, (2) unjust
enrichment, (3) breach of contract, and (4) violations of the
Washington Consumer Protection Act ("WCPA"), and seeks declaratory
judgment and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201, 2202.


The Defendants move to compel arbitration of the Plaintiff's claims
on an individual basis.  They assert that the May 25, 2018
transaction was subject to the March 2017 Getty Images Content
License Agreement.  Section 10.d of the Content License Agreement
provides the Governing Law/Arbitration.

The Plaintiff acknowledges the existence of the arbitration
provision in the Content License Agreement, but asserts that it
cannot be used to compel arbitration because the Content License
Agreement as a whole is unsupported by consideration and is
therefore invalid.  In addition, it raises a lack of assent
challenge to the Content License Agreement.

Judge Lasnik holds that the Plaintiff's challenge to the validity
of the Content License Agreement as a whole is improperly before
the Court and must be made to the arbitrator.  The Judge also
rejects the Plaintiff's lack of assent challenge, and concludes
that the Section 10.d of the Content License Agreement constitutes
a valid agreement to arbitrate.  

Count III of the Plaintiff's FAC alleges breach of contract and
clearly falls within the scope of the arbitration provision in the
Content License Agreement.  The Judge further finds that Count I,
alleging RICO Act violations, falls within the scope of the
arbitration agreement.  Counts II and IV allege state law claims
for unjust enrichment and violations of WCPA, which the Judge finds
relate to the agreement and fall under the broad language of the
arbitration clause.  Finally, Counts V and VI, seeking declaratory
judgment and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. Section 2201, 2202
related to Getty Images' photo licenses fall within the scope of
the arbitration agreement.  The Judge finds each of the Plaintiff's
six claims is arbitrable under the broad arbitration clause set
forth in Section 10.d of the Content License Agreement.

Although the Plaintiff does not dispute that its claims arise out
of its May 25, 2018 purchase of the Highsmith License, after
attempting to disclaim the Content License Agreement governing that
transaction, it alleges that the earlier Premium Access Agreement
between the parties governs the arbitrability of its claims, and
asserts that it may "opt-out" of arbitration under that contract.

The Judge is not persuaded by the Plaintiff's contention that the
Entirety Clause renders the terms of the subsequent Content License
Agreement invalid.  As the Defendants point out, the plain language
of the Entirety Clause prohibits licensees from unilaterally
imposing conflicting contract terms.  The Plaintiff is the
licensee, and its misleading assertion that it unilaterally "sent"
the Content License Agreement to Getty Images US when it initiated
the separate Highsmith License transaction contravenes the facts of
the case.  The Plaintiff provides no convincing authority for the
interpretation that it advances, and the Court is aware of none.

Judge Lasnik has concluded that the Plaintiff assented to the terms
of the Content License Agreement during the May 25, 2018
transaction, and he agrees with the Defendants that the Content
License Agreement contains a separate, valid arbitration agreement
between the parties.  Moreover, he has found that arbitration
agreement enforceable and has concluded that the Plaintiff's claims
fall within its scope.  Finally, even if the Plaintiff had
convincingly identified some ambiguity as to the arbitrability of
its claims, controlling federal law instructs that any doubts
concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in
favor of arbitration.  The Judge will compel arbitration of the
Plaintiff's claims under the enforceable arbitration agreement in
the Content License Agreement.

Defendants Getty Images, Inc. and LCS move separately in support of
Getty Images US' Motion to Compel Arbitration.  Although Getty
Images, Inc. and LCS are not parties to the Content License
Agreement, they seek to enforce the arbitration agreement contained
therein.  The Plaintiff concedes that, as the parent company of
Getty Images US, Getty Images, Inc. can utilize an enforceable
arbitration agreement between Getty Images US and the Plaintiff to
compel arbitration of its claims.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiff's allegations state that LCS is
believed to have conducted these enforcement activities on behalf
of Getty Images, Inc. and/or Getty Images US, and on behalf of
third party owners of image libraries.  Its conclusory allegations
indicate that LCS took these actions against other entities, but
not against it.  In its sole concrete allegation against LCS, the
Plaintiff asserts that LCS took unlawful enforcement action by
sending a letter to photographer Carol Highsmith, a non-party to
the case.  The Judge holds that the Plaintiff fails to show that it
has suffered any injury in fact or asserted any injury that is
fairly traceable to the actions of LCS.  Accordingly, it lacks
standing to bring its claims against LCS.  Those claims are
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Having concluded that the Plaintiff's claims against Defendants
Getty Images US and Getty Images, Inc. are subject to arbitration,
the Judge must determine whether class arbitration is available, or
whether the Plaintiff must proceed to arbitration with its
individual claims.  He finds no evidence in the arbitration
agreement indicating that the parties agreed to class arbitration.
Moreover, the Plaintiff does not argue that such evidence exists.
Instead, it fails to respond to the Defendants' argument that it
may not arbitrate on a classwide basis.  Pursuant to the
arbitration agreement between the parties, the Judge compels
arbitration of the Plaintiff's claims against Getty Images US and
Getty Images, Inc. on an individual basis, and dismisses the
Plaintiff's class claims.

As a final matter, the Judge may either stay the action or dismiss
it outright when, as in the case, he determines that all of the
claims raised in the action are subject to arbitration.  He finds
that arbitration is the proper forum for all of the Plaintiff's
viable claims.  Moreover, the Plaintiff has not asked the Court to
stay the proceedings.  Therefore, the Judge dismisses the
Plaintiff's remaining claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(3) in favor of arbitration, and without prejudice.

For all the foregoing reasons, Judge Lasnik granted the Defendants'
Motions to Compel Arbitration, Dismiss Class Claims and Stay
Proceedings.  The Judge dismissed the laintiff's claims against LCS
without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.  The Judge dismissed
the Plaintiff's putative class claims against the Defendants and
the Plaintiff will proceed to arbitrate its claims on an individual
basis.  The matter is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3).

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 7, 2020 Order is
available at https://bit.ly/2HbPtRB from Leagle.com.


GILEAD SCIENCES: Police Health Trust Slams HIV Meds Price-Rigging
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacksonville Police Officers and Fire Fighters Health Insurance
Trust, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., Cipla Ltd., Cipla USA Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-06522 (N.D. Cal., September 17, 2020),
seeks relief under state antitrust and consumer protection laws
including for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the
Cartwright Act and California's Unfair Competition Law.

Gilead is the holder of New Drug Applications for Truvada (R) and
Atripla (R) tablets. Truvada reduces the risk of sexually-acquired
HIV infection in adults at high risk.

Gilead Sciences, Inc. allegedly paid generic drug manufacturer
Cipla Ltd. and Cipla USA Inc. not to compete against the drug
Truvada by selling a co-packaged drug containing the active
ingredients in Truvada. This payment likely came in the form of a
license to produce another drug, Atripla, a license to produce
drugs for Hepatitis C in India, or both. Such an arrangement with
Cipla kept the price of Truvada at anticompetitive levels, asserts
the complaint.

Jacksonville Police Officers and Fire Fighters Health Insurance
Trust is a health insurance trust. It has spent approximately
$15,000 on Truvada for the benefit of its members. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS LLP
      1 Sansome Street, 35th Floor PMB #131
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Tel: (619) 308-5034
      Fax: (888) 341-5048
      Email: amansfield@whatleykallas.com

             - and -

      Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq.
      Edith M. Kallas, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      152 W. 57th Street, 41st Floor
      New York, NY 10019
      Tel: (212) 447-7060
      Fax: (800) 922-4851
      Email: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com
             ekallas@whatleykallas.com

             - and -

      Henry C. Quillen, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      159 Middle Street, Suite 2C
      Portsmouth, NH 03801
      Tel: (603) 294-1591
      Fax: (800) 922-4851
      Email: hquillen@whatleykallas.com


GOL LINHAS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of November 10 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith on Sept. 14 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes S.A. ("Gol" or the "Company") (NYSE:
GOL) securities between March 14, 2019 and July 22, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Gol investors have until November 10, 2020 to
file a lead plaintiff motion.

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

On June 16, 2020, Gol stated that it could not timely file its
fiscal 2019 annual report. The Company also disclosed that its
independent auditor's report on Gol's internal control over
financial reporting would "probably include one or more material
weaknesses" and that the report "will probably include an emphasis
paragraph regarding the [Company's] ability to continue as a going
concern."

On this news, the Company's shares fell $0.27, or 3.5%, to close at
$7.30 per share on June 16, 2020, thereby injuring investors.

Then, on June 29, 2020, after the market closed, Gol filed its
fiscal 2019 annual report. Therein, Gol's auditor raised
significant concerns about the Company's accounting, including that
Gol lacked "(i) effective policies and procedures related to the
identification and disclosure of material uncertainties in the
going concern analysis and (ii) effective review of financial
statement information, and related presentation and disclosure
requirements."

On this news, the Company's shares fell $0.14, or 2%, to close at
$6.78 per share on June 30, 2020, thereby injuring investors
further.

Then, on July 23, 2020, Gol announced the termination of KPMG
Auditores Independentes as its external auditor.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.55, or 7%, to close
at $7.25 per share on July 23, 2020, thereby injuring investors
further.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) Gol had material weaknesses in its internal controls; (2)
there was substantial doubt as to the Company's ability to continue
to exist as a going concern because of negative net working capital
and net capital deficiency; and (3) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased Gol securities, have information or would like to
learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of
Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at
(888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or
visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com.

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


GREYSTAR REAL: Imposes Illegal Late Rent Penalties, Zeff Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ZACHARY ZEFF, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC,
Case No. 3:20-cv-07122 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 13, 2020), is brought
against the Defendant for unjust enrichment and violation of the
California Civil Code and California's Unfair Competition Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in an illegal
scheme of collecting excessive late penalty fees from the Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated tenants. The Defendant imposed a
$100 late penalty whenever rent payment is even a minute late and
regardless of whether that minimal tardiness actually cost the
Defendant anything or damaged it in any way. Moreover, Greystar
squeezes additional illegal profits at the end of all tenancies by
systematically taking illegal deductions from tenant security
deposits.

Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC, is a company that operates
apartments and student housing in the U.S., with its main
headquarters in Charleston, South Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
         Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
         Ethan T. Litney, Esq.
         NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
         225 Broadway, 19th Floor
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 325-0492
         Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
         E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
                 atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
                 elitney@nicholaslaw.org


HAMDI INC: Pappas TCPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as GEORGE PAPPAS, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated v. HAMDI INC., DPPPMG LLC, PITA PITA
PREP LLC, PITA PITA HOFFMAN ESTATES LLC, PITA PITA LOMBARD LLC,
Case No. 2020-CH-05489, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court
for Cook County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on October 12, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-06067 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited text
messages to the cellular telephones of the Plaintiff and Class
members using automatic telephone dialing system.

Hamdi Inc. is a restaurant business located in San Mateo,
California. DPPPMG LLC is a limited liability company that operates
Pita Pita restaurant in Chicago, Illinois.

Pita Pita Prep LLC is a limited liability company that operates
Pita Pita restaurant in Chicago, Illinois. Pita Pita Hoffman
Estates LLC is a limited liability company that operates Pita Pita
restaurant in Chicago, Illinois. Pita Pita Lombard LLC is a limited
liability company that operates Pita Pita restaurant in Chicago,
Illinois.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

         Charles A. Silverman, Esq.
         CHARLES AARON SILVERMAN PC
         8800 Bronx Ave., #100-F
         Skokie, IL 60077
         Telephone: (312) 526-3201
         E-mail: Chsilvlaw@yahoo.com


HARBORSIDE INC: Shahrohkimanesh Hits Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------
Rihanna Shahrohkimanesh, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Harborside Inc., Peter Bilodeau,
Andrew Berman, Keith Li, Adam Szweras and Matthew Hawkins,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01551 (D. Or., September 8, 2020), seeks
to recover compensable damages caused by violations of federal
securities laws.

Harborside is a vertically-integrated cannabis company based in
Oakland, California. Shahrohkimanesh claims that Harborside had
insufficient financial controls and did not file their financials
on time thus resulting in its Canadian stock trading being
suspended. On this news, shares of Harborside fell 5% per share on
August 13, 2020, damaging investors including Shahrohkimanesh who
acquired Harborside securities. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey S. Ratliff, Esq.
      RANSON, GILBERTSON, MARTIN AND RATLIFF LLP
      8401 NE Halsey St., Suite 208
      Portland, OR 97220
      Tel: (503) 226-3664
      Fax: (503) 243-6716
      Email: rgmr1500@gmail.com


HEALTH INSURANCE: Seeks to Deny Belin's Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH E. BELIN, et
al., v. HEALTH INSURANCE INNOVATIONS, INC., et al., Case No.
0:19-cv-61430-AHS (S.D. Fla.), Health Insurance Innovations, Inc.
(HII), Health Plan Intermediaries Holdings, LLC (HPIH), and Michael
Kosloske move the Court to deny the Plaintiff's request to certify
a class consisting of:

   "a nationwide class of consumers who purchased fixed
   indemnity insurance plans and other ancillary products from
   one of two independent marketing agencies -- Simple Health
   Plans, LLC (Simple Health) and Nationwide Health Advisors
   (Nationwide Health) -- who are not parties to this action.

The Defendants contend that class certification should be denied
because the Plaintiffs cannot withstand the "rigorous analysis"
that this Court must conduct under Rule 23. Comcast Corp. v.
Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426, 1432 (2013) (certification is proper only
if the trial court finds that all of the elements of Rule 23(a) are
satisfied after conducting a "rigorous analysis," and the same
analytical principals govern Rule 23(b)(3), which "is even more
demanding than Rule 23(a)"). Each of the first five counts are
predicated upon alleged oral misrepresentations during telephone
calls between hundreds of thousands of individual consumers and
hundreds of salespersons employed by independent marketing
companies that are not parties to this action.

The Plaintiffs allege that both of these marketing companies
defrauded consumers about the nature of the plans and products
through the extensive use of "standardized sales scripts” by
hundreds of sales persons in over 267,000 telephone calls with
consumers. The Defendants HII and HPIH served as the third-party
administrator of the purchased plans and products.

The Plaintiffs claim that but for the alleged misrepresentations
and omissions made by the independent marketing companies,
Plaintiffs would have purchased Affordable Care Act (ACA)
--compliant comprehensive health care plans that would have covered
all of their respective medical expenses and not subjected them to
a potential tax penalty under the ACA.

HII owns HPIH and is a third party administrator for health
insurance plans issued by carriers and distributed by independent
marketing companies.

A copy of the Defendant's motion to deny class certification dated
Oct. 15, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2T3mbHo at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Defendants, Health Insurance Innovations, Inc.,
Health Plan Intermediaries Holdings, LLC, and Michael Kosloske,
are:

          Garry W. O'Donnell, Esq.
          Aaron T. Williams, Esq.
          Sherine Marder, Esq.
          GREENSPOON MARDER LLP
          200 E Broward Blvd STE 1800
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-1949
          E-mail: garry.odonnell@gmlaw.com
                  aaron.williams@gmlaw.com
                  Sherine.Marder@gmlaw.com

HERZING UNIVERSITY: Nicolato Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Alexis Nicolato, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Herzing University, Ltd., Case No.
2020-CA-008174, was removed from the Florida Circuit Court for the
County of Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida on September 30, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 6:20-cv-01793-WWB-DCI to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually and as a putative
class representative to recover damages on behalf of all persons,
who paid tuition and fees to Herzing for the March 2020 term
(and/or subsequent terms) but who, allegedly, did not receive the
full benefits of tuition and fees paid. The Plaintiff contends
Herzing failed to provide the on-campus educational services and
experiences its students paid for when it ceased on-campus
activities because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Herzing University is a private university with its headquarters in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and several locations throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Amy L. Drushal, Esq.
          William A. McBride, Esq.
          TRENAM, KEMKER, SCHARF, BARKIN, FRYE, O'NEILL
          & MULLIS, P.A.
          101 E. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 2700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-7474
          Facsimile: (813) 229-6553
          E-mail: adrushal@trenam.com
                  wmcbride@trenam.com

               - and -

          William R. Bay, Esq.
          Christopher M. Hohn, Esq.
          THOMPSON COBURN, LLP
          One U.S. Bank Plaza, Suite 2700
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 552-6000
          Facsimile: (314) 552-7000
          E-mail: wbay@thompsoncoburn.com
                  chohn@thompsoncoburn.com


HOLMES COUNTY, OH: Underpays Correction Officers, Montgomery Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARGARET MONTGOMERY, for herself and all others similarly situated
v. THE HOLMES COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Case No. 5:20-cv-02267 (N.D.
Ohio, Oct. 7, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its
alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Correction Officer
from January 16, 2020, until September 6, 2020.

The Plaintiff asserts these claims: the Defendant failed to provide
her bona fide lunch periods because she was required to eat while
performing her duties whenever she had a chance; and the Defendant
failed to compensate her for a 15-minute mandatory pre-shift
meetings, thereby, failing to pay her 1.25 hours overtime for all
hours worked in excess of 40 each workweek.

Moreover, when the Plaintiff complained about the Defendant's
failure to pay its Corrections Officers for time spent in the
pre-shift meetings, the Plaintiff was told by the Defendant that it
refuses to pay Corrections Officers for that time spent.
Consequently, the Plaintiff submitted her notice of resignation.

The Holmes County Sheriff's Office operates the Holmes County Jail,
a full-service detention center, located in Holmes County,
Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
          Carrie J. Dryer, Esq.
          MANSELL LAW, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Tel: 614-610-4134
          Fax: 614-547-3614
          E-mail: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
                  Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com


ICONIX BRAND: Hayes Appeals Settlement Order in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Objector James J. Hayes filed an appeal from the District Court's
Judgment dated Jan. 23, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled In re:
Iconix Brand Group, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-4860, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

On Jan. 23, 2020, the Hon. Judge Paul G. Gardephe entered a
judgment approving the Settlement in the securities lawsuit set
forth in the Stipulation, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. This judgment incorporates and makes part of
(a) the Stipulation; and (b) the Notice of Pendency and Proposed
Settlement of Class Action, both filed with the Court on September
17, 2019.

The appellate case is captioned as City of Atlanta Police Officers'
Pension Fund; City of Atlanta Firefighters' Pension Fund, Gene
Niksich, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated; Lorenzo Lazaro, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated; Haverhill Retirement System, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees v.
Iconix Brand Group, Inc.; Warren Clamen; David K. Jones; Jeff
Lupinacci; F. Peter Cuneo; Neil Cole; Seth Horowitz and David
Blumberg, Defendants-Appellees; BDO USA, LLP, the Defendant; and
James J. Hayes, Objector-Appellant, Case No. 20-747, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Iconix is an American brand management company that licenses brands
to retailers and manufacturers primarily in the apparel, footwear,
and apparel accessory industries. Its brands are available in such
stores as Kohl's, Kmart, Sears, Macy's, Target and JC Penney.

Objector-Appellant James J. Hayes appears pro se.

Plaintiff-Appellee Gene Niksich, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, appears pro se.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees City of Atlanta Police Officers' Pension Fund;
and City of Atlanta Firefighters' Pension Fund are represented by:

          David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: 619-231-1058

Plaintiff-Appellee Lorenzo Lazaro, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 212-661-1100

Plaintiff-Appellee Haverhill Retirement System, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: 212-907-0853

Defendants-Appellees Iconix Brand Group, Inc.; Warren Clamen; David
K. Jones; Jeff Lupinacci; F. Peter Cuneo; and Neil Cole, are
represented by:

          Jay B. Kasner, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          4 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: 212-735-3000

Defendant-Appellee Seth Horowitz is represented by:

          Adrienne M. Ward, Esq.
          OLSHAN FROME WOLOSKY LLP
          1325 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: 212-451-2300

Defendant-Appellee David Blumberg is represented by:

          Eric O. Corngold, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN KAPLAN SEILER & ADELMAN LLP
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: 212-833-1100


INSTAGRAM LLC: Faces Conditi Suit Over Privacy Rights Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTANY CONDITI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. INSTAGRAM, LLC; and FACEBOOK, INC., Case No.
3:20-cv-06534-AGT (N.D. Cal., Sept. 17, 2020), alleges violation of
the privacy rights of the Plaintiff and the Class.

According to the complaint, Instagram claims to only access users'
smartphone cameras with user permission, such as when a user is
interacting with the Instagram application's (also referred to as
an "app") camera feature. However, the Defendants are constantly
accessing users' smartphone camera feature while the app is open
and monitors users without permission, i.e., when users are not
interacting with Instagram's camera feature.

This access goes beyond the services that Instagram promises to
provide, according to the complaint. Instagram has no legitimate
reason for accessing users' smartphone cameras when they are not
using the Instagram camera feature. By doing so, the Defendants
have been able to monitor users' most intimate moments, including
those in the privacy of their own homes, in addition to collecting
valuable insight and market research on its users. The Defendants
engage in this conduct for one main reason: to collect lucrative
and valuable data on its users that it would not otherwise have
access to. By obtaining extremely private and intimate personal
data on their users, including in the privacy of their own homes,
the Defendants are able to increase their advertising revenue by
targeting users more than ever before.

Instagram, Inc., provides mobile phone-based photography sharing
services. The Company offers mobile application that enables users
to take photos, add effects, and share content online and over
various social networks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark N. Todzo, Esq.
          LEXINGTON LAW GROUP
          503 Divisadero Street
          San Francisco, CA 94117
          Telephone: 415-913-7800
          Facsimile: 415-759-4112
          E-mail: mtodzo@lexlawgroup.com

               - and -

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

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


INTUIT INC: Appeals Decision in Dohrmann Suit to Ninth Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the
lawsuit styled Andrew Dohrmann, et al. v. Intuit, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:19-cv-02546-CRB, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco).

The Plaintiffs have brought a putative class action against Intuit
Inc., alleging that Intuit fooled a class of consumers into paying
for its tax preparation services when they were entitled to use its
free filing option.

Intuit thinks the Plaintiffs are bound by the arbitration agreement
in the Intuit Terms of Service for TurboTax Online Tax Preparation
Services, which the Plaintiffs ostensibly agreed to every time they
signed in to use Intuit's tax preparation software.

On March 12, 2020, District Judge Charles R. Breyer entered an
order denying motion to compel arbitration. The Court finds that
the Plaintiffs did not agree to the arbitration provision. The
Court therefore need not decide whether questions of arbitrability
or claims for equitable relief were delegated to the arbitrator.

The appellate case is captioned as ANDREW DOHRMANN, JOSEPH BROUGHER
and MONICA CHANDLER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. INTUIT, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant; and H&R BLOCK, INC.; HRB DIGITAL LLC; and HRB
TAX GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 20-15466, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Intuit is an American business and financial software company that
develops and sells financial, accounting, and tax preparation
software and related services for small businesses, accountants,
and individuals.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Appellees ANDREW DOHRMANN, JOSEPH BROUGHER and
MONICA CHANDLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Norman Siegel, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: 415-981-4800

The Defendant-Appellant INTUIT, INC. is represented by:

          Rodger Ryan Cole, Esq.
          Armen Nercess Nercessian, Esq.
          Tyler Griffin Newby, Esq.
          Crystal Ada Nwaneri, Esq.
          Laurence F. Pulgram, Esq.
          FENWICK & WEST LLP
          801 California Street
          Mountain View, CA 94041
          Telephone: 650 988-8500


JOE'S PIZZA: Faces Cruz Suit Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO CRUZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated employees v. JOE'S PIZZA BEDFORD LLC d/b/a JOE'S PIZZA,
PINO POZZUOLI a/k/a JOE POZZUOLI, PINO JR. POZZUOLI a/k/a JOE JR.
POZZUOLI and PINO VITALE, Case No. 1:20-cv-04889 (E.D.N.Y., Oct.
12, 2020), arises from the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law as well as the supporting New
York State Department of Labor Regulations for unlawful labor
policies and practices.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants fail to pay him
applicable statutory minimum wage and overtime or straight time
compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week,
fail to provide notice of his hourly and overtime rates of pay,
fail to timely pay minimum and overtime wages, and fail to provide
accurate wage statements.

As a direct result of the Plaintiff's request for overtime
compensation, the Defendants unlawfully retaliated against the
Plaintiff by immediately terminated his employment with the
Defendants, the suit says.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook for
approximately five years, from November 2015 to September 30,
2020.

Joe's Pizza Bedford LLC is a pizza restaurant that has been
featured as a top 10 listing in restaurant guides and publications
such as Time Out New York and New York Magazine. New York Magazine
named Joe's Pizza "Best of New York" and in subsequent reviews
referred to it as "the quintessential New York slice." In 2009, GQ
Magazine listed Joe's Pizza as one the "Best 25 Pizzas on
Earth."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Israel Klein, Esq.
          PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA, LLP
          950 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 213-8511
          Facsimile: (347) 897-0094
          E-mail: Israel@pnlawyers.com


JOHNSON UTILITIES: Appeals Ruling in Castillo Suit to 9th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the
lawsuit styled Tisha Castillo, et al. v. George Johnson, et al.,
Case No. 2:17-cv-04688-DLR, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona (Phoenix).

On Feb. 26, 2020, District Judge Douglas L. Rayes entered an order
granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class.

The Plaintiffs have moved the Court to certify the following
class:

   "all Johnson Utilities customers who paid for water and/or
    wastewater services between October 2011 and the date
    judgment is entered in this lawsuit."

The appellate case is captioned as TISHA CASTILLO, KAREN CHRISTIAN,
and STEVE PRATT, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Respondents v. GEORGE HARRY JOHNSON and JANA
JOHNSON, a married couple; and GEORGE H. JOHNSON AND JANA S.
JOHNSON REVOCABLE TRUST DATED JULY 9, 1987; ULTRA MANAGEMENT LLC;
HUNT MGT LLC; ROADRUNNER TRANSIT LLC; CHRIS JOHNSON; JANE DOE
JOHNSON, husband and wife; BARBARA JOHNSON; JOHN DOE JOHNSON, wife
and husband; PINETOP TRUST II; DECEMBER COMPANIES, INC., an Arizona
corporation; BARJO LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; BAJ
LIVING TRUST; JOHNSON UTILITIES LLC; JOHNSON INTERNATIONAL, INC.;
and JAMES FRANKLIN NORTON, Defendants-Petitioners, Case No.
20-80051, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Respondents TISHA CASTILLO, KAREN CHRISTIAN, and STEVE
PRATT, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Jeffrey J. Goulder, Esq.
          Stefan M. Palys, Esq.
          STINSON MORRISON HECKER, LLP
          1850 N Central Avenue
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-4584
          Telephone: 602 212-8531

               - and -

          Clinton A. Krislov, Esq.
          KRISLOV LAW
          20 North Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312-606-0500

               - and -

          Brandon R. Nagy, Esq.
          STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP
          1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: 602-212-8537

Defendants-Petitioners GEORGE HARRY JOHNSON and JANA JOHNSON, a
married couple; and GEORGE H. JOHNSON AND JANA S. JOHNSON REVOCABLE
TRUST DATED JULY 9, 1987; ULTRA MANAGEMENT LLC; HUNT MGT LLC;
ROADRUNNER TRANSIT LLC; CHRIS JOHNSON; JANE DOE JOHNSON, husband
and wife; BARBARA JOHNSON; JOHN DOE JOHNSON, wife and husband;
PINETOP TRUST II; DECEMBER COMPANIES, INC., an Arizona corporation;
BARJO LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; and BAJ LIVING
TRUST, are represented by:

          Mark C. Dangerfield, Esq.
          Mark Andrew Fuller, Esq.
          Hannah Porter, Esq.
          Gallagher & Kennedy, P.A.
          2575 East Camelback Road, Suite 1100
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: 602-530-8000

The Defendants-Petitioners JOHNSON UTILITIES LLC and JOHNSON
INTERNATIONAL, INC., are represented by:

          Christian C.M. Beams, Esq.
          Daniel E. Fredenberg, Esq.
          FREDENBERG BEAMS
          4747 N. 7th Street, Suite 402
          Phoenix, AZ 85014
          Telephone: 602-595-9299

Defendant-Petitioner JAMES FRANKLIN NORTON is represented by:

          William F. King, Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC
          2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: 602-274-1100


KEYPOINT GOVERNMENT: Brayman Amends Suit to Add Party & Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint has been filed in the case, RACHEL BRAYMAN, on
behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v.
KEYPOINT GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 18-cv-0550-WJM-NRN (D. Colo.) on July
9, 2020.

This development came as Judge William J. Martinez of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado adopted in part and
rejected in part Magistrate Judge Neureiter's Report and
Recommendation dated March 17, 2020, which recommended that the
Court grants Brayman's Opposed Motion for Leave to Amend the
Complaint to Add Party and Claims.

Plaintiff Brayman commenced the action in March 2018 against
Defendant KeyPoint for alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").  Brayman's FLSA claim concerns KeyPoint's
alleged failure to properly compensate a certain class of employees
known as "Investigators" for overtime hours worked, and an alleged
policy of unlawfully prohibiting overtime in certain circumstances.


Brayman moved for FLSA conditional collective action certification
on April 6, 2018. The Court granted FLSA conditional collective
action certification on Nov. 1, 2018.  Normally that would have set
in motion the process of sending notice, but KeyPoint soon after
filed a motion for reconsideration.

The Court resolved that motion on Aug. 7, 2019.  Brayman's counsel
then began transmitting notices to the potential opt-in Plaintiffs,
and the notice period ended on Nov. 22, 2019.  Not long after, the
Court issued a third ruling, this one regarding the effects of an
exception to the arbitration agreement that some KeyPoint employees
signed.

The end of the notice period triggered the parties' duty to propose
an amended scheduling order with dates for, among other things,
joinder of parties and amendment of pleadings.  The parties
submitted the proposed amended scheduling order on Dec. 4, 2019,
proposing a Jan. 13, 2020 deadline for joinder and amendment.
Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter adopted the proposal, making it
a part of the Amended Scheduling Order.

On Jan. 13, 2020 (the joinder/amendment deadline), Brayman filed
the Motion to Amend.  She proposed adding a new named Plaintiff:
Adriana Ponce, who worked for KeyPoint in California from
approximately June 2014 to October 2016.  Brayman also proposed
adding five causes of action, all arising under California
statutes, regulations, and/or administrative orders: (i) failure to
pay overtime wages (Claim 2); (ii) failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements (Claim 3); (iii) failure to provide rest
breaks and meal periods (Claim 4); (iv) failure to pay final wages
to those who have left KeyPoint's employ (Claim 5); and (v) unfair
competition, by engaging in the acts and practices all of the
previous claims (Claim 6).  Finally, Brayman proposed a Rule 23
class action for all California-based "Investigators" for KeyPoint,
with Ponce acting as class representative.

Judge Martinez found that the proposed California state-law claims
may raise new factual issues (such as regarding wage statements),
but they do not arise out of a subject matter different from what
was set forth in the original complaint.  With that understanding,
he finds that the new claims are not so different as to create
prejudice on that account.  He also found KeyPoint's arguments
mostly nonspecific, and otherwise unpersuasive.  Finally, as for
additional motion practice, some of that is within KeyPoint's
control.  Nothing compels it to move to dismiss, for example.  But
even if KeyPoint feels obligated to move to dismiss, again, the
Judge sees no undue prejudice.  For these reasons, Judge Martinez
adopted this portion of the Recommendation.

Judge Martinez further found it is in the interest of justice to
permit Brayman to add McCarthy as another named Plaintiff, as
proposed in Brayman's pre-Recommendation reply brief.

Brayman's new claims may substantially lengthen this case because
of the motion practice that will likely follow.  However, the Judge
is not convinced that the new claims will substantially
predominate.  Further, the case will already explore the factual
basis for the new claims (KeyPoint's alleged policies that,
according to Brayman, caused KeyPoint employees to work overtime
hours without overtime pay).  Splitting that inquiry across two
lawsuits would not serve the interests of judicial economy, the
Court noted.

In sum, Judge Martinez adopted in part and rejected in part the
March 17, 2020 Recommendation.  He overruled KeyPoint's Objection,
and granted Brayman's Opposed Motion for Leave to Amend the
Complaint to Add Party and Claims. The portion of KeyPoint's
Objection titled Motion to Compel Arbitration is stricken without
prejudice to re-raising the same arguments at an appropriate time
and in an appropriate format.

A full-text copy of Judge Martinez's July 7, 2020 Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3lTDTcU from Leagle.com.


KINCAID INC: Portillo Appeals N.D. Texas Ruling to Fifth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Alondra Portillo filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled Alondra Portillo v. Kincaid Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:18-CV-1759, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas (Dallas).

On Feb. 10, 2020, District Judge Sam R. Cummings entered an order
that Plaintiff Alondra Portillo, as awarded by the Jury, have and
recover from the Defendants the amount of $20,577.27 and attorneys
fees and costs in amount of $34,292.06.

The appellate case is captioned as ALONDRA PORTILLO, and all others
similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216 (b), the Plaintiff-Appellant
v. KINCAID INCORPORATED; CAMPUZANO MIDLOTHIAN L.L.C.; and CAMPUZANO
CEDAR HILL L.L.C., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-10219, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Mr. Portillo
alleges that the Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to
pay the Plaintiff overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Kincaid, Inc., is a company that regularly transacts business
within Dallas County. Campuzano Midlothian, L.L.C. is a company
that regularly transacts business within Ellis County and Dallas
County. Campuzano Cedar Hill, L.L.C. is a company that regularly
transacts business within Dallas County. Brian Harding is a
corporate officer, owner or manager of the Defendant Companies.

The Defendant Companies are joint enterprises as the related
activities between them, performed through unified operation and/or
common control, are being done for a common business purpose. The
Defendant Companies operate various "Campuzano" Mexican
restaurants.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ALONDRA PORTILLO, and all others similarly
situated under 29 U.S.C. 216 (b), is represented by:

          Jamie Harrison Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.C.
          6310 Lyndon B. Johnson Freeway
          Dallas, TX 75240
          Telephone: 972-233-2264

Defendants-Appellees KINCAID INCORPORATED; CAMPUZANO MIDLOTHIAN
L.L.C.; and CAMPUZANO CEDAR HILL L.L.C., are represented by:

          James P. Moon, Esq.
          101 Vintage Drive
          Red Oak, TX 75154
          Telephone: 800-214-0639


KRAFT HEINZ: Mawby MMPA Consumer Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as SHAREL MAWBY, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY, Case No.
2016-CV17878, was removed from the Missouri Circuit Court, Jackson
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri on October 13, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:20-cv-00827-SRB to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) by making false,
misleading, and unfair representations about the number of coffee
cups that Kraft Heinz's Maxwell House coffee canisters can make.

Kraft Heinz Foods Company is a food and beverage company based in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

         Brian C. Fries, Esq.
         LATHROP GPM LLP
         2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 2200
         Kansas City, MO 64108-2618
         Telephone: (816) 292-2000
         Facsimile: (816) 292-2001
         E-mail: brian.fries@lathropgpm.com


LAN RAMEN: Resto Staff Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Withheld Tips
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wei Jun Ji and Hsi Chieh Chen, individually and on behalf of all
other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Lan Ramen, Inc.,
Duo Jia Xiao and "Kenny" Doe, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-12813 (D.
N.J., September 17, 2020), seeks unpaid overtime compensation,
unpaid minimum wages, recovery of illegally-withheld tips,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law including monetary damages and
other relief.

Defendants operate a restaurant, "Lan Ramen," located in Princeton,
New Jersey. Ji was hired as a waiter from May 1, 2018 to October
15, 2019 and then from November 1, 2019 to December 15, 2019. Chen
was hired as a fry wok cook, from May 15, 2018 to February 15,
2020. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Qinyu Fan, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Tel: (718)353-8588
      Fax: (718) 353-6288
      Email: qfan@hanglaw.com


LAND'S END: Gorss Motels Appeals D. Conn. Ruling to 2nd Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Gorss Motels Inc. filed an appeal from the District Court
ruling and order on motion for summary judgment, dated Jan, 16,
2020, entered in the lawsuit styled GORSS MOTELS, INC., a
Connecticut corporation, individually and as the representative of
a class of similarly situated persons v. LAND'S END, INC., a
Wisconsin corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 3:17-cv-00010
(Filed January 4, 2017), in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut (New Haven).

The District Court denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification entered January 16, 2020. The Judgment in favor of
the Defendant Land's End, Inc., is entered January 17, 2020.

The appellate case is captioned as Gorss Motels Inc., a Connecticut
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. Land's End, Inc., a Wisconsin
corporation, and John Does, 1-5, Case No. 20-589, in the United
States Court of Appeals for Second Circuit.

The Plaintiff challenges the Defendants' alleged practice of
sending unsolicited facsimiles in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

LAND'S END, INC., http://www.landsend.com/,sells classic clothes
for the family featuring high-performance outerwear.[BN]

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Ryan Michael Kelly, Esq.
          Brian J. Wanca
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: 847-368-1500
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com
                  bwanca@andersonwanca.com

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          Christopher L. Jefford, Esq.
          BONNER KIERNAN TREBACH & CROCIATA, LLP
          44 Capitol Avenue
          Hartford, CT 06106
          Telephone: 800-840-5087


LASMILE LOGISTICS: Hunter Files Wage and Hour Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------
Nathaniel Hunter, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Lasmile Logistics, LLC and Kalyan Seshan, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-12819, (D. N.J., September 18, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
wages for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime
premium pay, redress for missed breaks, liquidated damages and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of this action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and under the New Jersey Wage Payment Law and
the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.

Hunter was assigned by Lasmile Logistics to deliver packages on
behalf of Amazon, Inc. at its Belmont, New Jersey warehouse. He
claims to have regularly worked for Defendants more than 40 hours
per workweek without overtime pay. Lasmaile also automatically
deducted/deducts a half-hour from Plaintiff's pay for an unpaid
meal break despite working though them, assert the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Manali Arora, Esq.
      Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
      SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
      1101 Kings Highway N, Ste. 402
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
      Telephone: (856) 685-7420
      E-mail: marora@swartz-legal.com
              mmiller@swartz-legal.com


LEAFFILTER NORTH: Kammer Appeals N.D. Ohio Decision to 6th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Lineker Kammer filed an appeal from the District Court's
Opinion and Order entered in the lawsuit styled LINEKER KAMMER,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
LEAFFILTER NORTH, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-01861, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland).

The appellate case is captioned as LINEKER KAMMER, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff-Appellant
v. LEAFFILTER NORTH, LLC and LEAFFILTER NORTH OF MASSACHUSETTS,
LLC, the Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-3198, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 18,
2020, the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division, issued an Opinion and Order on Dec. 16,
2020, granting the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Complaint, or in the Alternative, Compel Arbitration in the Kammer
case.

The Plaintiff filed a putative collective and class action
complaint against Leaffilter North, LLC and Leaffilter North of
Massachusetts, LLC, asserting Fair Labot Standards Act claim and
three state-law claims. The Plaintiff alleges that he was an
employee of LeafFilter, LLC who worked 70 hours per week during his
6-month stint, but was only paid for 40 hours of work per week. The
Plaintiff asserts that Leaffilter North misclassified him as an
independent contractor when he was in fact treated like an
employee.

LeafFilter provides gutter protection solutions. The Company
manufactures, sells, and installs gutter guards for homeowners.
LeafFilter North serves customers in North America.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant LINEKER KAMMER, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Chasity Lynn, Esq.
          CHRISTY LAW OFFICES
          614 W. Superior Avenue, Suite 920
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone:: 216-696-5000

Defendants-Appellees LEAFFILTER NORTH, LLC and LEAFFILTER NORTH OF
MASSACHUSETTS, LLC are represented by:

          Corey D. Clay, Esq.
          Benesch Friedlander, Esq.
          200 Public Square, Suite 2300
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: 216-363-4158


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Lopez Seeks 9th Cir. Review of C.D. Calif. Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the
lawsuit styled Trinidad Lopez v. LMIC, et al., Case No.
2:14-cv-05576-AB-JC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Los Angeles).

The appellate case is captioned as TRINIDAD LOPEZ, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Petitioner v.
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF
AMERICA; and GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Defendants-Respondents, Case No. 20-80043, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

This case arises from the Defendants' alleged policy of
misclassifying California-based claims adjusters as
administratively exempt under California's Labor Code. The
Plaintiffs assert that members of the class were denied overtime
compensation and meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiffs sought to certify a class of:

   "all persons who are, have been, or will be employed during
   the 'Class Period' by the Defendants in the State of
   California, as an exempt non-management claims handler,
   including SUI investigators."

The Plaintiffs also sought to certify a subclass of:

   "[a]ll Class Members who are former employees of Defendants
   and, having not received all wages due to them upon
   resignation or termination within the period prescribed under
   California law, are eligible for waiting time penalties."

On September 24, 2018, the Court certified the class and waiting
time penalties subclass as to all claims except the accurate wage
statement claim. The Court further divided the class into five
subclasses, including: (1) Bodily Injury Claims Handlers, (2)
Workers' Compensation Claims Handlers, (3) Property Claims
Handlers, (4) SUI Investigators, and (5) Claims Handlers Who
Managed Litigated Files."

On Feb 11, 2020, District Judge Andre Birotte Jr. granted the
Defendants' motion to decertify the class and subclasses, and
granting the Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiffs' PAGA claims.

Liberty Mutual is an American diversified global insurer and the
third-largest property and casualty insurer in the United States.
Safeco is an American insurance company. Golden Eagle provides
commercial property and casualty insurance coverage.[BN]

The Plaintiff-Petitioner TRINIDAD LOPEZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Daniel Joseph Koes, Esq.
          Allan Shenoi, Esq.
          SHENOI KOES LLP
          175 South Lake Avenue, Suite 202
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: 626-792-2300

               - and -

          Aidan C. McGlaze, Esq.
          Michael Seplow, Esq.
          SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS AND HOFFMAN LLP
          11543 W. Olympic Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: 310-396-0731

               - and -

          Michael Rapkin, Esq.
          Scott Rapkin, Esq.
          RAPKIN & ASSOCIATES, LLP
          723 Ocean Front Walk
          Venice, CA 90291
          Telephone: 310-319-5465

The Defendants-Respondents LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; SAFECO
INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA; and GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE
CORPORATION, are represented by:

          Mark D. Campbell, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L. L. P.
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 3000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: 424-324-3412

               - and -

          David Ryan Carpenter, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 West 5th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: 213-896-6679


LIBERTY TAX: IBEW Appeals Decision in Beland Suit to 2nd Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund filed an appeal from the
District Court's Memorandum and Order entered in the lawsuit styled
Patrick Beland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Liberty Tax, Inc., Edward L. Brunot, John T. Hewitt and
Kathleen E. Donovan, Case No. 17-cv-7327 (Filed Dec. 15, 2017), in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
(Central Islip).

On Jan. 17, 2020 the District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis entered an
order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for failure to state a
claim.

The appellate case is captioned as Patrick Beland, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff; and IBEW
Local 98 Pension, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Liberty Tax, Inc.;
Kathleen E. Donovan; John T. Hewitt; and Edward L. Brunot,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-652, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Lead Plaintiff IBEW brought this action against the Defendants
alleging that Liberty and its officers violated federal securities
law by making a series of false and misleading statements and by
omitting material facts pertaining to the company's internal
controls, compliance efforts, and compensation paid to Hewitt. The
cruces of the Plaintiffs' allegations are that Liberty, Hewitt, and
Donovan fraudulently covered up Hewitt's wide-ranging misconduct as
CEO and that this misconduct eventually caused Liberty's stock
price to plummet.

The Defendants allegedly failed to disclose that Liberty Tax's
former CEO, John Hewitt created an inappropriate tone at the top
that led to ineffective entity level controls over the
organization, says the complaint. On this news, shares of Liberty
Tax fell $0.80 per share or over 6% from its previous closing price
to close at $11.15 per share on December 11, 2017, damaging
investors.

Liberty Tax provides tax preparation services and solutions in the
United States and Canada with 212 tax offices in New York.

Plaintiff-Appellant IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund is represented by:

          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: 202-408-4600

Defendants-Appellees Liberty Tax, Inc.; Kathleen E. Donovan; and
Edward L. Brunot are represented by:

          Robert Alexander Fumerton, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          4 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: 212-735-3902

               - and -

          Tariq Mundiya, Esq.
          WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
          787 7th Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: 212-728-8565

Defendant-Appellee John T. Hewitt is represented by:

          Harris N. Cogan, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          1271 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: 212-885-5000


LIVONGO HEALTH: Ormesher Challenges $18.5-Bil. Sale to Teladoc
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Ormesher, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. LIVONGO HEALTH INC., CHRISTOPHER BISCHOFF, SANDRA
FENWICK, KAREN L. DANIEL, PHILIP D. GREEN, HEMANT TANEJA, GLEN E.
TULLMAN, and ZANE BURKE, Case No. 5:20-cv-07105 (N.D. Cal., Oct.
13, 2020), is brought against Livongo and the members of its Board
of Directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and to enjoin
the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Livongo will
be acquired by Teladoc Health, Inc. through Teladoc's wholly owned
subsidiary Tempranillo Merger Sub, Inc.

On August 5, 2020, Livongo and Teladoc issued a joint press release
announcing that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger dated August 5, 2020, to sell Livongo to Teladoc. Under the
terms of the Merger Agreement, each holder of Livongo common stock
will receive (i) 0.5920 of a share of Teladoc common stock, and
(ii) $4.24 in cash for each share of Livongo common stock they own
(the "Merger Consideration"). The Proposed Transaction is valued at
approximately $18.5 billion.

On September 15, 2020, Livongo filed a Schedule 14A Definitive
Proxy Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The
Plaintiff alleges that the Proxy Statement, which recommends that
Livongo stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction,
omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other
things: (i) the Company's and Teladoc's financial projections as
well as the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation
analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by the
Company's financial advisor, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC; and (ii)
Morgan Stanley's potential conflicts of interest. Defendants
authorized the issuance of the false and misleading Proxy Statement
in violation of the Exchange Act.

In short, the Plaintiff contends, unless remedied, Livongo's public
stockholders will be irreparably harmed because the Proxy
Statement's material misrepresentations and omissions prevent them
from making a sufficiently informed voting or appraisal decision on
the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the
stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until such
Exchange Act violations are cured.

The Plaintiff is a continuous stockholder of Livongo.

Livongo is pioneering a new category in healthcare, called Applied
Health Signal.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Phone: 310/208-2800
          Facsimile: 310/209-2348

               - and -

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: (212) 682-3025
          Fax: (212) 682-3010


LMS TRANSPORTATION: Jackson Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Worren Jackson, on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. LMS
Transportation LLC; Greg Southern formerly known as: Doe 1; Andrea
Southern; and Does 3 through 100, Case No. BC635316, 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 29, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-08939-GW-E to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from employment-related issues.

LMS Transportation LLC is a licensed and bonded freight shipping
and trucking company running freight hauling business from
Inglewood, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Thomas Mara, Esq.
          Jill Marie Vecchi, Esq.
          William David Turley, Esq.
          THE TURLEY LAW FIRM APLC
          7428 Trade Street
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234-2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4048
          E-mail: dmara@maralawfirm.com
                  jvecchi@maralawfirm.com

               - and -

          Matthew Evan Crawford, Esq.
          MARA LAW FIRM PC
          2650 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 205
          San Diego, CA 92018
          Telephone: (619) 234-2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4048
          E-mail: mcrawford@maralawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew Charles Kane, Esq.
          Amy E. Beverlin, Esq.
          Kerri Sakaue, Esq.
          Remy J Kessler, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 315-8200
          Facsimile: (310) 315-8210
          E-mail: mkane@mcguirewoods.com
                  abeverlin@mcguirewoods.com
                  ksakaue@mcguirewoods.com
                  rkessler@mcguirewoods.com


LOOP INDUSTRIES: Faces Tremblay Suit Over False Business Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
OLIVIER TREMBLAY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LOOP INDUSTRIES, INC., DANIEL SOLOMITA, and
NELSON GENTILETTI, Case No. 1:20-cv-08538 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 13,
2020), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission about Loop Industries' business, operations, and
prospects in order to attract investors and artificially inflate
prices of Loop securities between September 24, 2018, and October
12, 2020. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Loop scientists were encouraged to misrepresent
the results of Loop's purportedly proprietary process; (2) that
Loop did not have the technology to break PET down to its base
chemicals at a recovery rate of 100%; (3) that, as a result, the
Company was unlikely to realize the purported benefits of Loop's
announced partnerships with Indorama and Thyssenkrupp; and (4)
that, as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On October 13, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report
alleging that Loop's scientists, under pressure from chief
executive officer (CEO) Daniel Solomita, were tacitly encouraged to
lie about the results of the Company's process internally. The
report also stated that Loop's previous claims of breaking PET down
to its base chemicals at a recovery rate of 100% were technically
and industrially impossible, according to a former employee.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.78, or over 32%, to
close at $7.83 per share on October 13, 2020, thereby, damaging
investors, including the Plaintiff.

Loop Industries, Inc. is a manufacturer of polyethylene
terephthalate plastics, with its principal executive offices
located in Quebec, Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
         GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
         230 Park Ave., Suite 530
         New York, NY 10169
         Telephone: (212) 682-5340
         Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
         E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com

                - and –

         Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
         Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
         Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
         GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
         1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 201-9150
         Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
         E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

                - and –

         Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
         1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 914-5007


LOUISIANA: 5th Cir. Appeal Filed in Little Civil Rights Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Edward Little and Sheila Ann Murphy filed an appeal from
a court ruling entered in their lawsuit styled Edward Little, et
al. v. Thomas Frederick, et al., Case No. 6:17-CV-724, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (Lafayette).

The lawsuit is a civil rights action brought by Plaintiffs Edward
Little and Shelia Ann Murphy against the Defendants Thomas
Frederick, Commissioner of the Fifteenth Judicial District Court,
and Judge Kristian Earles, former Chief Judge of the Fifteenth
Judicial District Court.

The Plaintiffs contend that Defendants violated the Fourteenth
Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses by the
application of policies that result in the jailing of persons
because of their inability to make a monetary payment. The
Plaintiffs further contend that Defendants violated Plaintiffs'
fundamental rights to pretrial liberty by placing and keeping them
in jail because they cannot afford to pay the monetary bail amount
set, without inquiry into and findings concerning ability to pay or
non-financial alternative conditions.

On Feb. 7, 2020, the District Judge entered a judgment in favor of
the Defendants and against Plaintiffs on procedural due process
claims, on equal protection claim, and as substantive due process
claim.

The appellate case is captioned as EDWARD LITTLE, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant; and
SHEILA ANN MURPHY, the Intervenor Plaintiff-Appellant v. THOMAS
FREDERICK, MARK GARBER, and KRISTIAN EARLES, Defendants-Appellees,
Case No. 20-30159, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant EDWARD LITTLE, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated; and and Intervenor Plaintiff-ppellant
SHEILA ANN MURPHY, are represented by:

          Charles Gerstein, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          910 17th Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: 202-670-4809

The Defendants-Appellees THOMAS FREDERICK, MARK GARBER, and
KRISTIAN EARLES are represented by:

          James Garrison Evans, Esq.
          LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          1885 N. 3rd Street
          Baton Rouge, LA 70802
          Telephone: 225-326-6360


MALLINCKRODT PLC: S.D.N.Y. Appoints Lead Plaintiff in Strougo Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
issued an Opinion and Order granting the Canadian Elevator Industry
Pension Trust Fund's motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff in
the case captioned BARBARA STROUGO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. MALLINCKRODT PUBLIC LIMITED
COMPANY, MARK C. TRUDEAU, BRYAN M. REASONS, GEORGE A. KEGLER, and
MATTHEW K. HARBAUGH, Case No. 19 Civ. 7030 (ER) (S.D.N.Y.).

Background

On July 26, 2019, this putative class action was brought under the
federal securities laws against Mallinckrodt Public Limited Company
("Mallinckrodt" or the "Company") and its top officers. Plaintiff
Barbara Strougo ("Strougo") claims to represent a class of all
persons, who purchased or otherwise acquired Mallinckrodt
securities between February 28, 2018, and July 16, 2019 (the "Class
Period"), and seeks to recover damages caused by the defendants'
alleged violations of federal securities laws.

Mallinckrodt markets its branded products to physicians,
pharmacists, pharmacy buyers, hospital procurement departments,
ambulatory surgical centers, and specialty pharmacies. Among other
products, Mallinckrodt's portfolio includes H.P. Acthar Gel
("Acthar"), an injectable drug for various indications, such as
rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, infantile spasms,
systemic lupus erythematosus, polymyositis, and others. During the
Class Period, Acthar was in a study designed to assess its efficacy
and safety as an investigational treatment for amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis ("ALS").

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding Mallinckrodt's business, operational, and compliance
policies. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Defendants
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that:
(i) Acthar posed significant safety concerns that rendered it a
non-viable treatment for ALS; (ii) and accordingly, Mallinckrodt
overstated the viability of Acthar as an ALS treatment.

On July 16, 2019, Mallinckrodt announced that it was permanently
discontinuing the PENNANT Trial assessing Acthar's safety and
efficacy as an ALS treatment. Mallinckrodt stated that it decided
"to halt the trial after careful consideration of a recent
recommendation by the study's independent Data and Safety
Monitoring Board," which "was based on a specific concern for
pneumonia, which occurred at a higher rate in the ALS patients
receiving Acthar Gel compared to those on placebo," and that "the
board also mentioned other adverse events specific to this patient
population."

On this news, Mallinckrodt's stock price declined by approximately
7.8%, to close at $7.56 per share on July 17, 2019. The complaint
alleges that as a result of the Defendants' misstatements and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of
Mallinckrodt securities, the class has suffered significant
losses.

Ruling

District Judge Edgardo Ramos grants the Pension Trust Fund's motion
to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the action, and to appoint as
lead counsel its law firm, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Judge Ramos notes that the Pension Trust Fund is entitled to a
presumption that it is the "most adequate plaintiff" to serve as
lead plaintiff. Judge Ramos states that that presumption stands
unrebutted, because no other class member has come forth with proof
that the Pension Trust Fund "will not fairly and adequately protect
the interests of the class" or is subject to "unique defenses" that
render it incapable of adequately representing the class.

Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), the
Pension Trust Fund is presumed to have the greatest financial stake
in the litigation. Judge Ramos also states that the Pension Trust
Fund has retained competent and experienced counsel, Robbins
Geller, with extensive experience in these types of securities
class actions.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 25, 2020 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybbcg3zp from
Leagle.com.


MANCHESTER GARDENS: Bid to Dismiss Second Amended Reyes Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROSA MARIA REYES, Plaintiff, v. MANCHESTER GARDENS
CONDOMINIUM, et. al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 8:19-cv-02643-PX
(D. Md.), Judge Paula Xinis of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland ruled on several Motions to Dismiss.

The Court specifically:

(1) denied as moot the motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint
     filed by Defendant Linowes and Blocher LLP ("L&B"), and
     Defendant Lerch Early & Brewer Chartered ("LEB");

(2) granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss the
     Second Amended Complaint filed by L&B;

(3) denied the motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
     filed by Defendant Manchester Gardens Condominium
     ("Manchester");

(4) denied the motion to strike the Second Amended Complaint
     filed by LEB;

(5) denied in part and grants in part the motion to dismiss the
     Second Amended Complaint filed by LEB

(6) denied the motion to strike filed by L&B;

(7) denied the motion to strike the Amended Complaint filed by
     EJF Real Estate Services, Inc. ("EJF")

(8) denied in part and granted in part the motion to dismiss the
     Second Amended Complaint filed by EJF;

(9) granted the motion to withdraw as Manchester's attorney; and

(10) denied Plaintiff's motion for leave to file supplemental
     briefing.

Since 2013, Plaintiff Rosa Maria Reyes has been engaged in a heated
dispute with her condominium association, Manchester Gardens,
regarding the nonpayment of her homeowner association ("HOA") fees.
Although Reyes is required to pay HOA fees under Manchester's
Declaration and by-laws, she claims that since 2016, Manchester has
ignored her repeated requests to provide her with accounting
statements showing the HOA fees and other charges owed.

On March 4, 2019, Manchester Gardens' new property management
company, EJF Real Estate Services, Inc., notified Reyes in writing
that she was delinquent on her HOA fees and that she owed $22,525.
EJF urged Reyes to pay the full account balance. Reyes, in
response, enclosed a check for $320 for her March 2019 payment, and
argued that Manchester continuously failed to provide her with
"regular notices and statements."  She also requested that EJF
provide her with a complete accounting of all outstanding fees
purportedly owed.  According to Reyes, EJF never responded to the
request, but she nonetheless started paying her monthly HOA fees to
Manchester through EJF.

On June 10, 2019, Reyes received a written notice of intent to lien
("NOIL) from Steven Dunn, an attorney at L&B, to recover unpaid HOA
fees owed to Manchester.  L&B included an accounting statement,
which showed that from July 2016 to June 2019, Reyes had accrued a
total balance of $13,456.83 in the form of unpaid HOA fees, late
fees, process server fees, interest, and attorney's fees.  

The NOIL stated that the total account balance of $13,456.83 would
either be subject to a lien/suit if initiated.  L&B further advised
that unless the delinquency in the amount of $13,456.83 is paid
within 30 days after the date the notice has been served, the
Association intends to record a Statement of Lien.  L&B would only
accept full payment on behalf of Manchester and warned Reyes that
collection efforts will continue until full payment is made.  L&B
then instructed Reyes to make checks payable to L&B and to address
payment to Vanessa Phillips, a legal assistant at L&B.  In
conclusion, L&B encouraged Reyes to contact Ms. Phillips with
questions and provided her contact information.  Reyes does not
specify whether she ever contacted or made payments through L&B.

On June 22, 2019, Reyes received a second NOIL regarding her HOA
fees, this time from LEB.  LEB stated in the NOIL that the total
account balance was $15,151.59, of which $8,904 was subject to a
lien.  LEB advised Reyes that if she failed to pay the $8,904
within thirty days, LEB would file a statement of lien against her
property in the Montgomery County land records.  LEB instructed
Reyes to make checks or money orders payable to Manchester.

After receiving these notices, Reyes filed suit against the named
Defendants on June 26, 2019, in the Montgomery County Circuit
Court.  Reyes next amended her complaint while the case was still
pending in circuit court.  On Sept. 11, 2019, with the consent of
the other defendants, LEB removed the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1446(b)(2)(A).  Reyes then filed a Second Amended Complaint
on Oct. 2, 2019.

In the Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges not only
that Manchester lacks "probable cause" to file a statement of lien
against her property, but also that the other named Defendants
engaged in "unfair and deceptive" debt collection practices in
violation of state and federal law.  As a result, the Plaintiff
brings a number of claims both individually and on behalf of seven
putative classes.

As a threshold matter, Judge Xinis addressed the Defendants' motion
to strike the Second Amended Complaint.  The Defendants contend
Reyes is not entitled as a matter of law to amend the complaint,
since she already amended it once in state court.  The Second
Amended Complaint is largely identical to the earlier complaint in
all material respects.  Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15, which states that the Court must "freely grant" amendment to
permit full resolution of claims on the merits, the Judge will
permit amendment.  The motions to strike are denied and the
operative complaint is the Second Amended Complaint.

The Judge next turns to the legal sufficiency of the Plaintiffs'
allegations.  Reyes, individually and on behalf of two putative
classes, claims EJF violated the following debt collection laws:
the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA"); the Maryland
Consumer Debt Collection Act ("MCDCA"); and the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").  The Plaintiff also brings an
unjust enrichment claim against EJF.  EJF moves to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint due to insufficient service of process and
for failure to state a claim.

The Judge finds that Reyes erred in not treating EJF as a
non-dissolved corporation for purposes of effectuating service,
even though EJF's resident agent was publicly available on SDAT's
website.  Service was therefore improper.  However, because EJF had
actual notice of the litigation, the Judge will instead quash
service and give Reyes an opportunity to effectuate proper service
on EJF if it does not otherwise waive service in the interests of
efficiency.

Even if service is properly effectuated, and all but one of the
claims against EJF must be dismissed.  Viewing the single EJF
letter to Reyes that is at the heart of her claim, EJF cannot be
held liable under the FDCPA on the theory.  The EJF letter makes no
threats to take any action of any kind.   Rather, the letter
notified Reyes of her delinquency and encouraged her to pay her
outstanding balance to Manchester.  The FDCPA claim must therefore
be dismissed.

With respect to Counts II and III, Reyes' remaining theories fail
as a matter of law.  In sum, Reyes has plausibly shown that EJF
engaged in unlicensed collection activity in violation of the MCPA,
and the MCDCA.  All other theories supporting her FDCPA, MCDCA, and
MCPA claims are dismissed.

As to EJF's purported profits, the court fails to discern Reyes'
legal theory of entitlement.  Even if EJF may be construed as a
"collection agency" that did not obtain proper licensure, this fact
does not erase Manchester's rights to collect on the debt.  And, by
extension, if EJF authored a "please pay" letter on Manchester's
behalf, the content of which was otherwise lawful, then EJF has not
been improperly paid for that service.  The unjust enrichment claim
as to EJF is therefore dismissed.

The Judge next turns to the Plaintiff's claims against L&B for
violations of the MCDCA (Count II) and the FDCPA (Count III).  The
Plaintiff offers multiple theories of relief, often in support of
both her MCDCA and FDCPA claims.  Among other things, she finds
that the Plaintiff's MCDCA and FDCPA claims may proceed on the
theory that L&B threatened to take action prohibited by law when it
informed Reyes that failure to pay the entirety of her unpaid
balance, including debt outside the two-year limitations period,
would result in L&B filing a property lien.  Otherwise, the
entirety of Reyes' MCDCA and FDCPA claims against L&B are dismissed


As for LEB, Reyes alleges similar theories of liability that are
best treated separately.  The Judge finds that Reyes has plausibly
alleged MCDCA and FDCPA claims based on LEB's threat to file a
statement of lien, which included time-barred dues.  As for the
remaining allegations of fraud or deception, Reyes' efforts to
flyspeck LEB's NOIL are unavailing.  Nor can Reyes' attempt to
bootstrap her otherwise unsuccessful claims into an action somehow
sounding in fraud.  The Plaintiff's claims against LEB, other than
the narrow dispute regarding the scope of future debt collection as
applied to time barred-fees, Reyes claims otherwise fail.

Finally, pursuant to the Maryland Contract Lien Act ("MCLA"), Reyes
challenges whether Manchester has "probable cause" to establish a
lien on her property.  Manchester has moved to dismiss the claims
against it (Count I).  The Judge finds dismissal at this stage
premature.  Under the MCLA, once a debtor timely files a valid
complaint, the debtor is entitled to a hearing, if one is
requested, to determine whether probable cause exists.  More
importantly, particularly where two parties separately notified
Reyes in June 2019 and represented that two different amounts were
owed, Reyes has raised valid concerns about the exact amount that
can be subject to a lien under Maryland law.  Manchester's motion
to dismiss is therefore denied.

Reyes is offered as the named representative party for seven
putative classes.  For defendants EJF, L&B, and LEB, the Plaintiff
identifies a putative class (to represent Maryland debtors
asserting state law violations) and a subclass (the subgroup also
bringing FDCPA claims).  The Plaintiff has also put forward an
additional class against LEB titled "LEB Moco Class" in connection
with the Plaintiff's claim that LEB collected consumer debts on
behalf of community associations not registered with the Montgomery
Commission on Common Ownership Communities.

The Judge finds that as for her function as a class representative
for claims otherwise dismissed against her individually, Reyes has
offered no plausible theory of relief to support class claims apart
from her insufficient allegations.  Thus, those claims fail as a
matter of law regarding any putative class in the same way they do
against Reyes.

A final word on whether the claims dismissed are with or without
prejudice.  When filing the Second Amended Complaint, Reyes had the
benefit of the Defendants' initial motions to dismiss, which were
substantially similar to the motions challenging the Amended
Complaint.  Reyes, therefore, had ample opportunity to correct the
deficiencies in the pleading, if possible.  She did not.  The Judge
sees no reason to allow further amendment at this time.  The claims
dismissed are with prejudice.  In the unlikely event that discovery
allows Reyes to resurrect any of the claims, she may seek for good
cause shown further amendment of the complaint.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 7, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://bit.ly/3dz8Gc2 from Leagle.com.


MARKETPRO HOMEBUYERS: Akselrod Sues Over Unsolicited Text Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
GUSTAVE AKSELROD, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. MARKETPRO HOMEBUYERS LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02966-CCB
(D. Md., Oct. 13, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's transmission of telemarketing
text messages to the cellular telephones of the Plaintiff and Class
members using an automated telephone dialing system.

According to the complaint, the plain text of the messages received
by the Plaintiff demonstrates that the message was sent for the
purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in,
property, goods, or services, as it seeks to have him sign up for
the Defendant's home listing agreement. The Plaintiff's cellular
telephone number has been listed on the National Do Not Call
Registry and he did not provide his prior express written consent
to receive such telemarketing messages.

Marketpro Homebuyers LLC is a real estate company with its
principal place of business located at 15245 Shady Grove Rd., in
Rockville, Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         John McGowan, Esq.
         KINNER & MCGOWAN, PLLC
         434 6th St. NE
         Washington, DC 20002
         Telephone: (202) 838-7033
         E-mail: jmcgowan@kinnermcgowan.com

                - and –

         Anthony Paronich, Esq.
         PARONICH LAW, P.C.
         350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
         Hingham, MA 02043
         Telephone: (617) 485-0018
         E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com


MCDONALD'S CORP: Harris Files Ice Cream Mislabeling Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Eugina Harris, individually, and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. McDonald's Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-06533 (N.D. Cal., September 17, 2020), seeks injunctive
relief resulting from violations of Section 17200 of the California
Business and Professions Code and the Consumers Legal Remedies
Act.

McDonald's Corporation operates a global fast food chain. It
manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells "Vanilla Cone"
in its stores. Harris disputes McDonald's claim that its soft serve
ice cream are flavored only with vanilla. Harris says these contain
non-vanilla flavors which imitate and extend vanilla but are not
derived from the vanilla bean. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
      SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      505 Northern Blvd., Ste. 311
      Great Neck NY 11021-5101
      Tel: (516) 303-0552
      Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
      Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com

             - and -

      Scott C. Borison, Esq.
      BORISON FIRM, LLC
      1900 S. Norfolk St., Ste. 350
      San Mateo CA 94403
      Telephone: (301) 620-1016
      Facsimile: (301) 620-1018
      Email: scott@borisonfirm.com

MIDCROWN PAVILION: Payne Appeals W.D. Texas Order to 5th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Don Albert Payne and Gloria Jean Payne filed an appeal
from a court ruling entered in their lawsuit styled Don Payne, et
al. v. City of San Antonio, Texas, et al., Case No. 5:19-CV-407, in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (San
Antonio).

On March 6, 2020, District Judge Fred Biery affirmed order denying
the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.

The appellate case is captioned as v. DON ALBERT PAYNE and GLORIA
JEAN PAYNE, Individually and on Behalf of all Other Persons
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. MIDCROWN PAVILION
APARTMENTS; SAN ANTONIO HOUSING AUTHORITY; and AMY CARRILLO,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-50213, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

San Antonio is a major city in south-central Texas with a rich
colonial heritage. The Alamo, an 18th-century Spanish mission
preserved as a museum, marks an infamous 1836 battle for Texan
independence from Mexico.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants DON ALBERT PAYNE and GLORIA JEAN PAYNE,
Individually and on Behalf of all Other Persons Similarly Situated,
appear pro se.[BN]

Defendant-Appellee MIDCROWN PAVILION APARTMENTS is represented by:

          Robert David Fritsche, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF R. DAVID FRITSCHE
          921 Proton Road
          San Antonio, TX 78258-4203
          Telephone: 210-227-2726

Defendants-Appellees SAN ANTONIO HOUSING AUTHORITY; and AMY
CARRILLO are represented by:

          Stephen Taylor Dennis, Esq.
          Clark Hill Strasburger, Esq.
          2301 Broadway Street
          San Antonio, TX 78215-1157
          Telephone: 210 250-6000

               - and -

          Benjamin V. Lugg, Esq.
          THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO
          818 S. Flores
          San Antonio, TX 78204
          Telephone: 210 477-6027


MINNESOTA: DHS & State Appeal Decision in Jensen Suit to 8th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Minnesota Department of Human Services and the State of
Minnesota filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the
lawsuit styled James Jensen, et al. v. MN Dept. of Human Services,
et al., Case No. 0:09-cv-01775-DWF, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota.

On February 13, 2020, District Judge Donovan W. Frank entered an
order that the Defendants must engage Dr. Gary LaVigna to conduct
an external review of the Forensic Mental Health Program and Anoka
Metro Regional Treatment Center.

The appellate case is captioned as James Jensen; Lorie Jensen, as
parents, guardians and next friends of Bradley J. Jensen and others
similarly situated Representation Mark R. Azman; James Brinker;
Darren Allen, as parents, guardians and next friends of Thomas M.
Allbrink and others similarly situated; and Elizabeth Jacobs, as
parent, guardian and next friend of Jason R. Jacobs and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. Minnesota Department of
Human Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota; and State of
Minnesota, the Defendants-Appellants; and Director, Minnesota
Extended Treatment Options, a program of the Minnesota Department
of Human Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota; Clinical
Director, the Minnesota Extended Treatment Options, a program of
the Minnesota Department of Human Services, an agency of the State
of Minnesota; Douglas Bratvold, individually, and as Director of
the Minnesota Extended Treatment Options, a program of the
Minnesota Department of Human Services, an agency of the State of
Minnesota; and Scott TenNapel, individually, and as Clinicial
Director of the Minnesota Extended Treatment Options, a program of
the Minnesota Department of Human Services, an agency of the State
of Minnesota, Defendants, Case No. 20-1399, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Minnesota Department of Human Services helps people meet their
basic needs so they can live in dignity.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees James Jensen; Lorie Jensen, as parents,
guardians and next friends of Bradley J. Jensen and others
similarly situated Representation Mark R. Azman; James Brinker;
Darren Allen, as parents, guardians and next friends of Thomas M.
Allbrink and others similarly situated; and Elizabeth Jacobs, as
parent, guardian and next friend of Jason R. Jacobs and others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Mark R. Azman, Esq.
          Shamus Patrick O'Meara, Esq.
          O'MEARA & LEER
          7401 Metro Boulevard, Suite 600
          Minneapolis, MN 55439-3034
          Telephone: 952-831-6544

Defendants-Appellants Minnesota Department of Human Services, an
agency of the State of Minnesota and State of Minnesota are
represented by:

          Scott Hiromi Ikeda, Esq.
          Anthony R. Noss, Esq.
          Aaron Edward Winter, Esq.
          ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
          445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1400
          Saint Paul, MN 55101-2127
          Telephone: 651-296-9412


MISTRAS GROUP: Price Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid Overtime Work
------------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Price, individually, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mistras Group, Inc.
and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20LBCV00408
(Cal. Super., September 18, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
pay and redress for failure to provide meal and rest breaks,
failure to provide itemized wage statements, interest thereon at
the statutory rate, actual damages, all wages due terminated
employees, reimbursement of business expenses, costs of suit,
prejudgment interest and such other and further relief pursuant to
the California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare
Commission wage orders.

Mistras Group is a provider of technology-enabled asset protection
solutions used to evaluate the structural integrity and reliability
of critical energy, industrial and public infrastructure where
Price was employed as a non-exempt employee. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
      Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
      Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
      Nicholas J. De Blouw, Esq.
      BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
      2255 Calle Clara
      La Jolla, CA 92037
      Telephone: (858) 551-1223
      Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
      Website: www.bamlawca.com


MONTAGE RESOURCES: Gordon Sues Over $204MM Sale to Southwestern
---------------------------------------------------------------
JASON GORDON, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
MONTAGE RESOURCES CORPORATION, RANDALL ALBERT, MARK BURROUGHS, GENE
DAVIS, DOM DIMITRIEVICH, RICHARD PATERSON, D. MARTIN PHILLIPS, JOHN
REINHART, DOUGLAS SWANSON, ROBERT ZORICH, and SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY
COMPANY, Case No. 654850/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Sept. 30,
2020), is brought for breaches of fiduciary duty arising from the
Defendants' efforts to sell the Company to Southwestern Energy as a
result of an unfair process for an unfair price, and to enjoin an
upcoming stockholder vote on an all stock proposed transaction
valued at approximately $204.3 million.

The Plaintiff brings this stockholder class action on behalf of
himself and all other public stockholders of Montage Resources
Corporation.

The terms of the proposed transaction were memorialized in an
August 12, 2020 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Form 8-K attaching the definitive agreement and plan
of merger. Under the terms of the agreement, Montage will become an
indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent, a subsidiary of the
Southwestern Energy. Montage public stockholders will receive, in
exchange for each share of Montage common stock they own, 1.8656
shares of Southwestern Energy. This implies a per share value of
$5.67 for Montage based on Southwesters Energy's closing price on
August 11, 2020, of $3.04 per share.

On September 16, 2020, Southwestern Energy filed a registration
statement with the SEC in support of the proposed transaction.
Significantly, the Plaintiff alleges, the registration statement
describes an insufficient sales process in which the Board rushed
through an inadequate "sales process" in which only a handful of
other potentially interested third parties were contacted.

In further violation of their fiduciary duties, the Defendants
caused to be filed the materially deficient registration statement
in an effort to solicit stockholders to vote their Montage shares
in favor of the proposed transaction, according to the complaint.
The registration statement is materially deficient, deprives
Montage stockholders, including the Plaintiff, of the information
they need to make an intelligent, informed and rational decision of
whether to vote their shares in favor of the proposed transaction,
and is, thus, in breach of the Defendants' fiduciary duties.

Montage Resources Corporation is an exploration and production
company with approximately 195,000 net effective core undeveloped
acres currently focused on the Utica and Marcellus Shales of
Southeast Ohio, West Virginia, and North Central Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          240 Mineola Boulevard
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 741-4977
          Facsimile: (561) 741-0626


MORGAN STANLEY: Lucadano Appeals N.D. Cal. Ruling in Harvey Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Mathew Lucadano filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled Brandon Harvey, et al. v. Morgan
Stanley Smith Barney LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-02835-WHO, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco).

The lawsuit involves a proposed $10.2 million class action
settlement between plaintiff Brandon Harvey and defendant Morgan
Stanley Smith Barney LLC (MSSB) to resolve allegations that MSSB
routinely refused to cover work-related expenses for California
Financial Advisors ("FAs").

On Mar 3, 2020, the Hon Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California entered
judgment and granted final approval of the Class and Aggrieved
Employees Settlement and find that it is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and satisfies the heightened standards for final approval
of a pre-class certification settlement under federal law. The
Parties shall fulfill the terms of the settlement.

The classes covered by this Order are defined as follows:

   Class Members:

   "all individuals employed by MSSB within the State of
   California from May 14, 2014, through the date of Preliminary
   Approval, September 5, 2019, who worked as Financial Advisors
   and/or Private Wealth Advisors"; and

   Aggrieved Employees:

   "all current and former Financial Advisors who were employed
   by MSSB within the State of California at any time during
   April 23, 2013 through the date of Preliminary Approval,
   September 5, 2019."

The appellate case is captioned as Brandon Harvey, et al. v. Morgan
Stanley Smith Barney LL, Case No. 20-15509, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC operates as a brokerage firm and
investment advisor. The Company buys and sells securities such as
stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and other investment products, as well
as manages investment portfolios and financial planning
services.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee BRANDON HARVEY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          James F. Clapp, Esq.
          Marita Murphy Lauinger, Esq.
          CLAPP & LAUINGER
          701 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300
          Carlsbad, CA 92011
          Telephone: 760 209-6565

               - and -

          Jeffrey K. Compton, Esq.
          David S. Markun, Esq.
          MARKUN ZUSMAN & COMPTON, LLP
          17383 West Sunset Boulevard
          Pacific Palisades, CA 90272-4181
          Telephone: 310 454-5900

               - and -

          George Nemiroff, Attorney, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH C. ABSALOM
          220 Montgomery Street, Suite 905
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415 392-5040

               - and -

          Edward Wynne, Esq.
          WYNNE LAW FIRM
          80 E. Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, Suite 3G
          Larkspur, CA 94939
          Telephone: 415 461-6400

Objector-Appellant MATHEW LUCADANO is represented by:

          Mark Humenik, Esq.
          HABER POLK KABAT, LLP
          423 S. Estate Drive
          Orange, CA 92869
          Telephone: 949 636-5754

               - and -

          Christopher McNerney, Esq.
          Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 212 245-1000

               - and -

          Laura Sullivan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LAURA SULLIVAN
          423 South Estate Drive
          Orange, CA 92869
          Telephone: 714 744-1522

Defendant-Appellee MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLCis represented
by:

          Lynne C. Hermle, Esq.
          Andrew Livingston, Esq.
          Katie Elizabeth Briscoe, Esq.
          ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP
          1000 Marsh Road
          Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
          Telephone: 650 614-7400


NANO-X IMAGING: Levi & Korsinsky Alerts of Class Action Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Sept. 20 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Nano-X Imaging
Ltd. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have
until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details
about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no
cost or obligation to you.

Nano-X Imaging Ltd. (NASDAQ:NNOX)

NNOX Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased August 21, 2020
- September 15, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 16, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/nano-x-imaging-ltd-information-request-form?prid=9421&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Nano-X
Imaging Ltd. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Nano-X's commercial agreements
and its customers were fabricated; (2) Nano-X's statements
regarding its "novel" Nanox System were misleading as the Company
never provided data comparing its images with images from
competitors' machines; (3) Nano-X's submission to the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration admitted the Nanox System was not original; and
(4) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially
false and/or misleading at all relevant times.

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

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

CONTACT:

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


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Files Cert. Petition in Ticket Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Petitioners filed with the Supreme Court of the United States a
petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled National
Football League, et al., Petitioners v. Ninth Inning, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 19-1098.

The District Court case is titled IN RE: NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE'S
SUNDAY TICKET ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 2:15-ml-02668-BRO-JEM,
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The Petitioners petition for a writ of certiorari to review the
judgment dated August 13, 2019, of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case titled NINTH INNING,
INC., DBA The Mucky Duck; 1465 THIRD AVENUE RESTAURANT CORP., DBA
Gael Pub; ROBERT GARY LIPPINCOTT, JR.; MICHAEL HOLINKO, an
individual, for himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. DIRECTV, LLC; DIRECTV HOLDINGS, LLC;
NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, INC.; NFL ENTERPRISES, LLC; ARIZONA
CARDINALS, INC.; ATLANTA FALCONS FOOTBALL CLUB LLC; BALTIMORE
RAVENS, LP; BUFFALO BILLS, INC.; PANTHERS FOOTBALL, LLC; CHICAGO
BEARS FOOTBALL CLUB, INC.; CINCINNATI BENGALS, INC.; CLEVELAND
BROWNS, LLC; DALLAS COWBOYS FOOTBALL CLUB, LTD.; DETROIT LIONS,
INC.; GREEN BAY PACKERS, INC.; HOUSTON NFL HOLDINGS, LP;
INDIANAPOLIS COLTS, INC.; JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS, LTD.; KANSAS CITY
CHIEFS FOOTBALL CLUB, INC.; MIAMI DOLPHINS, LTD.; MINNESOTA VIKINGS
FOOTBALL CLUB, LLC; NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS, LP; NEW ORLEANS LOUISIANA
SAINTS, LLC; NEW YORK FOOTBALL GIANTS, INC.; NEW YORK JETS FOOTBALL
CLUB, INC.; OAKLAND RAIDERS, LP; PHILADELPHIA EAGLES FOOTBALL CLUB,
INC.; PITTSBURGH STEELERS SPORTS, INC.; SAN DIEGO CHARGERS FOOTBALL
CO.; SAN FRANCISCO FORTY NINERS, LTD.; THE RAMS FOOTBALL COMPANY,
LLC; BUCCANEERS, LP; TENNESSEE FOOTBALL, INC.; WASHINGTON FOOTBALL,
INC.; FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC; DENVER BRONCOS FOOTBALL CLUB,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-56119.

The panel reversed the district court's dismissal for failure to
state a claim of an antitrust action brought by a putative class of
residential and commercial subscribers to DirecTV's NFL Sunday
Ticket, a bundled package of all NFL games available exclusively to
subscribers of DirecTV's satellite television service.

Each NFL team entered into a "Teams-NFL Agreement" with the NFL to
pool their telecasting rights and give the NFL the authority to
exercise those rights. Acting on behalf of its teams, the NFL
entered into two additional agreements licensing the teams'
telecast rights. Under the "NFL-Network Agreement," CBS and Fox
coordinate to create a single telecast for every Sunday-afternoon
NFL game, and the NFL permits CBS and Fox to broadcast a limited
number of what are known as local games through free, over-the-air
television. Under the "NFL-DirecTV Agreement," the NFL allows
DirecTV to obtain all of the live telecasts produced by CBS and
Fox, package those telecasts, and deliver the bundled feeds to NFL
Sunday Ticket subscribers.

The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants' interlocking agreements
work together to suppress competition for the sale of professional
football game telecasts in violation of sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act. The panel held that plaintiffs stated a section 1
claim under the rule of reason because they adequately alleged (1)
a contract, combination, or conspiracy among two or more persons or
business entities; (2) by which the persons or entities intended to
harm or restrain trade; (3) and which actually injured competition;
and (4) antitrust standing.

The first and second elements were undisputed. As to the third
element, the panel held that, under Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
v. Bd. Of Regents of Univ. of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85 (1984),
plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the interlocking agreements
caused injury to competition. As to the fourth element, it was
undisputed that plaintiffs had standing to challenge the Teams-NFL
Agreement and the NFL-DirecTV Agreement.

The panel held that plaintiffs also had standing to challenge the
Teams-NFL Agreement because they alleged that their injury was
caused by a single conspiracy. The panel concluded that Illinois
Brick, limiting the standing of indirect purchasers, did not apply.
The panel held that the plaintiffs stated a claim under section 2
of the Sherman Act in alleging that, by entering into interlocking
agreements, the defendants conspired to monopolize the market for
professional football telecasts and have monopolized it.

Judge N.R. Smith dissented from Part III(C) of the majority's
opinion, addressing antitrust standing. Judge Smith disagreed with
the majority's conclusion that, because plaintiffs alleged a
conspiracy among defendants to limit output, the direct purchaser
rule of Illinois Brick did not apply to plaintiffs' damages claim
related to the Teams-NFL Agreement.BN]

Petitioners National Football League, et al., are represented by:

          Gregg H. Levy, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          850 Tenth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          E-mail: glevy@cov.com


NATURAL HEALTH: Yang Appeals C.D. Calif. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Xia Yang filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
the lawsuit styled as DANIEL KAUFFMAN, Plaintiff; and XIA YANG,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant v. NATURAL HEALTH TRENDS CORP.; TIMOTHY S.
DAVIDSON; and CHRIS T. JESSIE, Defendants-Appellees, Case No.
2:19-cv-00163-MWF-JPR, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Los Angeles).

The appellate case is captioned Xia Yang, et al. v. Natural Health
Trends Corp., et al., Case No. 20-55180, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

According to the Complaint, the Defendants allegedly made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Natural Health Trends was operating as a pyramid scheme in China,
which is contrary to Chinese law; (2) consequently, Natural Health
Trends was not in compliance with applicable Chinese law; and (3)
as a result, the Defendants' statements about Natural Health
Trends' business, operations, and prospects were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On May 3, 2019, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff
and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint on June 3.
The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended Complaint on
September 7. On December 20, the Court issued an Order granting
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs were given leave to amend
the Complaint.

On January 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed a "Notice of Intent Not to
File Second Amended Complaint. On January 17, 2020, the District
Court entered an order dismissing the case with prejudice.

Natural Health develops and operates businesses which promote human
wellness. The Company markets a line of natural and
over-the-counter homeopathic pharmaceutical products. Natural
Health Trends utilizes a network of independent associates to offer
a line of natural health and beauty care products. The Company is
also developing a natural health information Web site.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant XIA YANG, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jacob Alexander Goldberg, Esq.
          Gonen Haklay, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
          Jenkintown, PA 19046

Defendants-Appellees NATURAL HEALTH TRENDS CORP.; TIMOTHY S.
DAVIDSON; and CHRIS T. JESSIE are represented by:

          Angela Dunning, Esq.
          Patrick Edward Gibbs, Esq.
          Jessie LaGoy, Esq.
          Craig TenBroeck, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          3175 Hanover Street
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: 650-843-5855


NBA PLAYERS' PENSION: Abdul-Aziz Files Cert. Petition in ERISA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Zaid Abdul-Aziz filed with the Supreme Court of United
States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled
ZAID ABDUL-AZIZ, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Petitioner v. NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION PLAYERS'
PENSION PLAN, Respondent, Case No. 19-1007.

The Petitioner petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the
judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit in the case titled Zaid v. National Basketball Association
Players' Pension Plan, Case No. 19-782-cv. The Court of Appeals
affirmed the District Court's order on November 12, 2019, equally
holding that the July 2001 scheduled end date for the actuarial
equivalent provided sufficient notice to start the accrual of New
York's six-year breach of contract statute of  limitations, even
though the "accrued benefit" at issue had not arisen under the
pension contract--thus had not yet legally accrued--for purposes of
New York's breach of contract statute of limitation and despite the
plan's statutory obligation under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act to continuously recalculate retirement benefits during
any player's natural life upon the accrual of any "accrued
benefit," even for those retired players, who elected to receive an
actuarial equivalent instead of a life annuity option.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted the defendant-respondent National Basketball Players'
Pension Plan's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss, dismissing with prejudice plaintiff-petitioner Zaid
Abdul-Aziz's ERISA denial-of-benefits claim. Mr. Abdul-Aziz filed
an ERISA claim for unpaid additional retirement benefits that arose
from an "accrued benefit," i.e., cost-of-living adjustments
("COLAs") to the defined monthly benefit for all retired basketball
players, which accrued after receipt of his actuarial equivalent.
The District Court held that Mr. Abdul-Aziz should have known to
file a lawsuit for COLAs that might or might not arise after
receiving his actuarial equivalent because the actuarial equivalent
was scheduled to end in July 2001. The court ruled that the
six-year statute of limitations under New York's law for breach of
contract began to run in July 2001, because Mr. Abdul-Aziz's
actuarial equivalent was scheduled to end in July 2001. (Zaid v.
National Basketball Association Players' Pension Plan, Case No.
1:17-cv-08901, Southern District of New York, judgment entered
March 20, 2019)

The question presented is:

   Did the Second Circuit legally err in its application of
   ERISA--not only deviating from its own decision in Esden v.
   Bank of Boston, 229 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2000), but more
   importantly simultaneously creating a split in ERISA
   jurisprudence with its sister circuits as well--by holding
   the following in a summary opinion order involving retired
   professional basketball players of the National Basketball
   Association?

Under ERISA, the National Basketball Association's retirement plan
has a statutory obligation to continuously recalculate retirement
benefits during a player's natural life upon the accrual of any
"accrued benefit," even for those retired players who elected to
receive an actuarial equivalent instead of a life annuity.

According to the petition, the Second Circuit's ruling utilized
state statute of limitations to substantively eliminate three
fundamentally important ERISA statutory protections, not just for
Mr. Abdul-Aziz and the putative class of former NBA players who
unwittingly elected to receive a far less valuable actuarial
equivalent, but now for all retirees--nationwide--due to the
erroneous precedential effect of the Second Circuit's ruling:

   (1) the ruling eliminates a beneficiary's right to an
       "accrued benefit" that arises during his or her natural
       life and after receipt of the actuarial equivalent merely
       because of scheduled end date for the actuarial
       equivalent;

  (2) the ruling eliminates a beneficiary's non-forfeitable
      right to a benefit of equivalent dollar value, i.e., the
      same monetary benefit as a life annuity option, because of
      the substantive effects of state statute of limitations;
      and

   (3) the ruling eliminates the protections afforded by ERISA's
       anti-cutback rule, which provides that no plan shall take
       away a beneficiary's "accrued benefit" through changes to
       the plan documents, much less letters or correspondence,
       except for now the plan need only identify the scheduled
       end date of the actuarial equivalent to effectuate a
       major cutback.

Zaid Abdul-Aziz played professional basketball with the National
Basketball Association from 1968 through 1978. During his career,
he earned eight years of credited service towards retirement. This
case arises from the NBA's denial of "accrued benefits" he earned
during his NBA career.

The National Basketball Association Players' Pension Plan is an
association that provides retirement benefits for those who played
in the National Basketball Association.[BN]

The Plaintiff-Petitioner is represented by:

          Jason L. Melancon, Esq.
          MELANCON RIMES, LLC
          6700 Jefferson Highway, Bldg. 6
          Baton Rouge, LA 70806
          Telephone: (225) 303-0455
          Facsimile: (225) 303-0459
          E-mail: Jason@MelanconRimes.com

               - and -

          Mark D. Plaisance, Esq.
          PLAISANCE LAW, LLC
          P.O. Box 1123
          Prairieville, LA 70769
          Telephone: (225) 775-5297
          Facsimile: (888) 620-6375
          E-mail: Mark@Plaisancelaw.com


NESTLE USA: Guyes Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA
------------------------------------------------------------------
LORIE M. GUYES, individually, and as representative of a Class of
Participants and Beneficiaries of the Nestle 401(k) Savings Plan v.
NESTLE USA, INC., and BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF NESTLE USA, INC., and
JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-30, Case No. 20-cv-1560 (E.D. Wis., Oct. 9,
2020), is brought against the Defendants for breaches of their
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974.

The Plaintiff asserts that during the putative Class Period, the
Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the ISO 401(k) Savings and Employee
Stock Ownership Plan, breached the duties they owed to the plan, to
the Plaintiff, and to the other participants of the plan by, among
other things: (1) authorizing the plan to pay unreasonably high
fees for recordkeeping and administration ("RK&A"); (2) authorizing
the plan to pay unreasonably high fees for managed account
services; and (3) engaging in self-dealing with regard to
administration of the plan.

The complaint alleges that the objectively unreasonable RK&A and
managed account fees, as well as the self-dealing, cannot be
justified. Prudent fiduciaries of 401(k) plans continuously monitor
fees against applicable benchmarks and peer groups to identify
objectively unreasonable and unjustifiable fees. The Defendants did
not engage in a prudent decision-making process, as there is no
other explanation for why the plan paid these objectively
unreasonable fees for RK&A and managed account services, the suit
says.

Nestle USA, Inc., produces and distributes nutritious food and
beverage products. The Company is composed of seven operating
companies: Nestle USA, Nestle Waters North America, Nestle Purina,
Gerber, Nestle Health Science, Nestle Professional, and
Nespresso.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          Paul M. Secunda, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780-1953
          Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
          E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                  psecunda@walcheskeluzi.com


NEVADA DINER: Faces Rosendo Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
GUSTAVO ROSENDO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. NEVADA DINER INC. (D/B/A GEORGIA DINER), JUDY JULIUS,
and DIMITRIOS KALOIDIS, Case No. 1:20-cv-04897 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 12,
2020), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

The lawsuit arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to
compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
restaurant employees applicable minimum hourly rate, failure to pay
overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek,
failure to pay spread-of-hours premium, failure to provide wage
notice and accurate wage statements, and failure to timely pay
wages during employment.

The Plaintiff was employed as a dishwasher at Georgia Diner from
October 1, 2014, until October 9, 2020.

Nevada Diner Inc. is a company that owns and operates a Greek diner
located at 8026 Queens Boulevard, in Elmhurst, New York, under the
name Georgia Diner.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEW YORK: Board of Education Appeals S.D.N.Y. Ruling to 2nd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
entered in the lawsuit styled Elsa Gulino, Mayling Ralph, Peter
Wilds, and Nia Greene, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. New York State Education Department, Case No.
96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

The Plaintiffs originally filed a class action complaint on
November 8, 1996, alleging that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII.
The Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in
the New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant,
the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of
New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. Section 2000e, et seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass
certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to
obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools.

The appellate case is captioned as Mary White, Plaintiff- Appellee
v. Board of Education of the City School District of the City of
New York, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 20-928, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The New York City Department of Education is the department of the
government of New York City that manages the city's public school
system. The City School District of the City of New York is the
largest school system in the United States, with over 1.1 million
students taught in more than 1,800 separate schools.[BN]

The Plaintiff-Appellee is represented by

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: 212-806-1245

The Defendant-Appellant is represented by:

          James Edward Johnson, Esq.
          CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: 212 356 2500


NEW YORK: Harley Balks at Overseas Voters' Disenfranchisement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mathew Harley, Damali L'Elie, Michael Maniates, Emily McGrath,
Susan Lahey, N.H. Quaide Williams, Jessica Roitman, Katie Von
Holzen, Benjamin Cole and Ryan Burruss, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Peter S. Kosinski, Andrew
Spano, and Douglas Kellner in their official capacities as
Commissioners of the New York State Board of Elections, Todd D.
Valentine and Robert A. Brehm in their official capacities as
Co-Executive Directors of the New York State Board of Elections;
Kathy Boockvar in her official capacity of Secretary of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Jonathan Marks in his official
capacity as Deputy Secretary for Elections and Commissions, and
Jessica Mathis in her official capacity as Director of the Bureau
of Election Services; Frank LaRose in his official capacity as
Secretary of the State of Ohio; Ruth Hughes in her official
capacity as Secretary of State of Texas; Albert Benjamin Chandler
in his official capacity as Chairman of the Kentucky Board of
Elections, and Michael Adams in his official capacity as Kentucky
Secretary of State; Ann S. Jacobs in her official capacity as Chair
of Wisconsin Elections Commission, Mark L. Thomsen in his official
capacity as Vice Chair of the Wisconsin Elections Commission, Marge
Bostelmann in her official capacity as Secretary of the Wisconsin
Elections Commission; and Julie Glancey, Dean Knudson, and Robert
Spindell, Jr in their official capacities as Commissioners of the
Wisconsin Elections Commission; and Brad Raffensperger in his
official capacity as the Secretary of State of Georgia, Case No.
1:20-cv-04664-BMC (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 30, 2020), arises from the
Plaintiffs being at risk of disenfranchisement, of their votes not
being transmitted, received in time, or counted in the November 3,
2020 U.S. election, as a result of the acts and omissions of the
Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are U.S. citizens registered to vote in various
American States and living overseas (that group, "Overseas
Americans"), who risk being disenfranchised, in derogation of
Constitutional and statutory rights.

According to the complaint, the confluence of the COVID-19
pandemic, restrictive laws, and a lack of institutional will on the
part of the Defendants to take action completely within their
control to meet the current challenges, as well as actions on the
part of some Defendants specifically delaying or failing to carry
out their duties regarding absentee ballots, leaves untold voters
with literally no way of voting, and even more with no reliable way
of voting in the November election.

The complaint further alleges that despite constant and assertive
lobbying, the Defendants, who are fully aware of various obstacles
faced by Overseas Americans, have been slow to modernize--or at
least provide temporary alternatives to--their traditional but
unavailable voting methods. The guaranteed disenfranchisement of
several million Overseas Americans outweighs the minimal potential
cyber risks that would follow from allowing these voters to
exercise their right via email-just as a majority of States already
allow.

The Defendants are election officials from U.S. states, including
New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, Kentucky, Wisconsin and
Georgia, who send thousands of ballots through John F. Kennedy
International Airport to voters abroad, of which thousands of
ballots return through JFK.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


NIKE RETAIL: Norvell Sues Over Denied Breaks, OT Pay, Refunds
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chatney Norvell, in a Representative capacity, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, v. Nike
Retail Services, Inc. and Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 37-2020-00031338 (Cal. Super., September 8, 2020), seeks
redress for failure to provide required meal/rest periods, overtime
and minimum wages, failure to pay all wages due to discharged and
quitting employees, failure to maintain and furnish accurate
itemized wage statements and failure to indemnify employees for
necessary expenditures incurred in discharge of duties under
California's Unfair Competition Law, California Labor Code and
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

Nike Retail Services is a shoe and apparel retail store based in
Oregon with operations in San Diego where Norvell worked from July
17, 2019 to November 2019. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      William B. Sullivan, Esq.
      Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq.
      William G. Anderson, Esq.
      SULLIVAN LAW GROUP, APC
      2330 Third Avenue
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 702-6760
      Fax: (619) 702-6761
      Email: helen@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
             yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
             ganderson@sullivanlawgroupapc.com


NIKOLA CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Sept. 20 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Nikola
Corporation. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff
have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further
details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There
is no cost or obligation to you.

Nikola Corporation, f/k/a VectoIQ Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ:NKLA)

NKLA Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 3, 2020 -
September 15, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 16, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/nikola-corporation-f-k-a-vectoiq-acquisition-corp-information-request-form?prid=9421&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Nikola
Corporation, f/k/a VectoIQ Acquisition Corp. made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
VectoIQ did not engage in proper due diligence regarding its merger
with Nikola; (2) Nikola overstated its "in-house" design,
manufacturing, and testing capabilities; (3) Nikola overstated its
hydrogen production capabilities; (4) as a result, Nikola
overstated its ability to lower the cost of hydrogen fuel; (5)
Nikola founder and Executive Chairman, Trevor Milton, tweeted a
misleading "test" video of the Company's Nikola Two truck; (6) the
work experience and background of key Nikola employees, including
Mr. Milton, had been overstated and obfuscated; (7) Nikola did not
have five Tre trucks completed; and (8) as a result, defendants'
public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all
relevant times.

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

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

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


NORTH AMERICAN: Weaver Appeals N.D. Ohio's Order to 6th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Gregory P. Weaver filed an appeal from the District
Court's Opinion and Order entered in the lawsuit styled GREGORY P.
WEAVER, individually and On behalf of a class of those persons
similarly situated v. NORTH AMERICAN POWER & GAS LLC, Case No.
1:19-cv-01339, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio (Cleveland).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Dan
Polster of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division, issued an Opinion and Order granting
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case.

Plaintiff Gregory P. Weaver commenced a class action against North
American on June 10, 2019, alleging violations of Ohio's Consumer
Sales Practices Act, breach of contract, and breach of implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealings.

NAPG filed a motion to dismiss in August 2019, arguing that the
Public Utilities Commission of Ohio ("PUCO") has exclusive
jurisdiction over Weaver's claims, that Weaver's claims under the
CSPA fail as a matter of law, and that Weaver's claims for breach
of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing
fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The appellate case is captioned as GREGORY P. WEAVER, individually
and on behalf of a class of those persons similarly situated v.
NORTH AMERICAN POWER & GAS LLC, Case No. 20-3137, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

North American Power is a retail energy supplier based in Norwalk,
Connecticut. The company provides electricity and natural gas to
residential and commercial customers in 12 deregulated states.[BN]

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Keith L. Gibson, Esq.
          JASZCZUK
          311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 1775
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312-551-9003

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          Gregory D. Brunton, Esq.
          GORDON & REES
          41 S. High Street, Suite 2495
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: 614-917-1950


NORTHERN TRUST: Banks Appeals C.D. California Ruling to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Lindie L. Banks and Erica LeBlanc filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Lindie Banks, et al. v.
Northern Trust Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-09141-JFW-JC,
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Los Angeles).

Northern filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, contending that
the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA)
prohibited state-law claims from proceeding in federal court. Over
Banks' objection, the District Court agreed with Northern and
dismissed the First Amended Complaint without leave to amend. The
court reasoned that the allegedly imprudent investments were in
connection with the purchase or sale of covered securities and
featured material misrepresentations or omissions. The court
concluded that SLUSA precluded Banks from bringing state-law
fiduciary duty claims as a class action in federal court.

According to the FAC, Northern invested the trust's assets in
Northern's own affiliated "Funds Portfolio," rather than seeking
superior investments outside its financial umbrella. This practice
allegedly led to the trust suffering suboptimal returns, which
would not have happened if Northern prioritized the interests of
the trust beneficiaries.

Banks is the beneficiary of the irrevocable Lindstrom Trust,
created under California law. As trustee, Northern has sole
discretion on how to manage the trust's assets; Banks cannot
participate in, direct, or be involved in those decisions.

The District Court has dismissed the fee, elder law, and unfair
competition claims without directly addressing the Plaintiffs.

The appellate case is captioned as LINDIE L. BANKS and ERICA
LEBLANC, on their own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. NORTHERN TRUST CORPORATION and
NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-55297, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Appellants LINDIE L. BANKS and ERICA LEBLANC, on
their own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Thomas John Brandi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS J. BRANDI
          354 Pine St., Third Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415 989-1800

               - and -

          Derek G. Howard, Esq.
          DEREK G. HOWARD LAW FIRM, INC.
          42 Miller Avenue
          Mill Valley, CA 94941

               - and -

          Brian J. Malloy, Esq.
          BRANDI LAW FIRM
          354 Pine Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415 989-1800

The Defendants-Appellees NORTHERN TRUST CORPORATION and NORTHERN
TRUST COMPANY are represented by:

          Amanda Amert, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          353 N. Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312 222-9350

               - and -

          Brienne Letourneau, Esq.
          Craig C. Martin, Esq.
          David Singer, Esq.
          Daniel Weiss, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          353 N. Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312 222-9350


ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Kendall Hits Share Drop from Cancer Med. Flop
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Kendall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Odonate Therapeutics, Inc., Kevin C. Tang,
Michael Hearne and John G. Lemkey, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01828
(N.D. Cal., June 4, 2020), seeks to recover compensable damages
caused by violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Odonate is a pharmaceutical company that develops therapeutics for
the treatment of cancer including Tesetaxel, an orally administered
chemotherapy agent. Tesetaxel is in a Phase 3 clinical study for
patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Odonate
allegedly failed to disclose that Tesetaxel's commercial viability
as a cancer treatment was overstated, with laboratory tests showing
emergent adverse events.

On this news, Odonate's stock price fell $15.21 per share, or
45.35%, to close at $18.33 per share on August 24, 2020. Kendall
owns Odonate securities. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90024
      Telephone: (310) 405-7190
      E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

             - and -

      Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
      HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
      1200 Ashford Parkway, Suite 410
      Atlanta, GA 30338
      Tel: (770) 392-0090
      Fax: (770) 392-0029
      Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com


ONESPAN INC: Kehoe Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential securities claims
on behalf of investors of OneSpan, Inc. ("OneSpan" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: OSPN) to determine whether the Company engaged
in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices.

Investors who purchased, or otherwise acquired, OneSpan's common
stock between May 9, 2018 and August 11, 2020, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"), and suffered losses greater than $50,000 are
encouraged to complete Kehoe Law Firm's Securities Class Action
Questionnaire or contact Kevin Cauley, Director, Business
Development, (215) 792-6676, Ext. 802, kcauley@kehoelawfirm.com,
securities@kehoelawfirm.com, to discuss the securities
investigation or potential legal claims.

According to a class action complaint filed on August 20, 2020 in
United States District Court, during the Class Period, the OneSpan
defendants, allegedly, made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that (1) OneSpan had inadequate
disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over
financial reporting; (2) as a result, OneSpan overstated its
revenue relating to certain contracts with customers involving
software licenses in its financial statements spread out over the
quarters from the first quarter of 2018 to the first quarter of
2020; (3) as a result, it was foreseeably likely that the Company
would eventually have to delay one or more scheduled earnings
releases, conference calls, and/or financial filings with the SEC;
(4) OneSpan downplayed the negative impacts of errors in its
financial statements; (5) all the foregoing, once revealed, was
foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the
Company's financial results and reputation; and (6) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

On August 11, 2020, OneSpan filed a "Notification of Late Filing"
with the SEC, which, among other things, stated that OneSpan " . .
. has determined that it is unable to file its Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2020 . . . by August 10,
2020, . . . because it requires additional time to complete its
financial statements. As previously announced, the Company
identified immaterial errors related to certain contracts with
customers involving term-based software licenses. The net contract
assets that originated from a portion of these contracts in prior
periods were not properly accounted for in subsequent periods,
which caused overstatements of revenue." [Emphasis added.]

OneSpan reported that "[t]he cumulative overstatements of revenue
total $2.2 million over the period from the first quarter in the
year ended December 31, 2018 to the quarter ended March 31, 2020 .
. .."

Additionally, the Company announced that "[r]evenue for the second
quarter of 2020 was $55.0 million, a decrease of 2% from $56.2
million for the second quarter of 2019."

On this news, OneSpan's stock price dropped approximately 40% on
August 12, 2020, thereby injuring investors.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., with offices in New York and Philadelphia, is
a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to
protecting investors from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary
duties, and corporate misconduct.  Combined, the partners at Kehoe
Law Firm have served as Lead Counsel or Co-Lead Counsel in cases
that have recovered more than $10 billion on behalf of
institutional and individual investors.   

This press release may constitute attorney advertising. [GN]


PERKY JERKY: Faces Romero Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. PERKY JERKY, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-08530-JGK (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 13, 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.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its website, https://perkyjerky.com/, and therefore
denial of its products and services offered thereby and in
conjunction with its physical location, is a violation of the
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 his
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 a jerky manufacturing company, and 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
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Email: Joseph@cml.legal


PERRI BROTHERS: Espejo Seeks Overtime Pay for Construction Workers
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL R. ESPEJO, and other similarly situated individuals v. PERRI
BROTHERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. and MICHELLE PERRI, Case No.
1:20-cv-24068-MGC (S.D. Fla., Oct. 6, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a construction worker
from July 2008 to August 14, 2020. The Plaintiff alleges that he
was not properly compensated by the Defendants at the rate of not
less than one and one-half times the regular rate despite working
approximately an average of 50 hours per week.

Perri Brothers & Associates, Inc., is a construction company owned
and operated by Michelle Perri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tanesha W. Blye, Esq.
          Aron Smukler, Esq.
          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
          20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Tel: (305) 503-5131
          Fax: (888) 270-5549
          E-mail: tblye@saenzanderson.com
                  asmukler@saenzanderson.com
                  msaenz@saenzanderson.com


PLASTIKOS CORP: Underpays Female Employees, Francis Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMIE FRANCIS and JAMIE AYER, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. PLASTIKOS CORPORATION d/b/a MULTI-FORM
PLASTICS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00792-MRB (S.D. Ohio, Oct. 6,
2020), is brought against the Defendant for its alleged
discriminatory pay practices in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Ohio Equal Pay Act.

The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendants as Machine
Operators, allege that the Defendant paid its female employees less
than their male coworkers despite performing work, which required
equal skill, effort, and responsibility under similar conditions.
When the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated female employees
raise their complaint, the Defendant callously responded by posting
a memorandum stating that everyone in their employ was overpaid.

Plastikos Corporation manufactures a custom thermoforming.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen E. Imm, Esq.
          Matthew S. Okiishi, Esq.
          FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
          4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225
          Cincinnati, OH 45245
          Tel: (513) 943-5678
          Fax: (513) 943-6669
          E-mail: stephen@finneylawfirm.com


POWERHOUSE FOOD: Berrezueta Seeks Grocery Clerks' Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELIECER BERREZUETA, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. POWERHOUSE FOOD CORP. D/B/A HOLIDAY FARMS and
DAVID MANDELL, Case No. 2:20-cv-04920 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2020), is
brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to compensate the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees overtime pay
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek and to
provide accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff was employed as a grocery clerk at the Defendant's
supermarket in New York from approximately 2002 until May 18,
2019.

Powerhouse Food Corp., d/b/a Holiday Farms, is a company that
operates a supermarket/grocery store located at 374 Roslyn Road, in
Roslyn Heights, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
        
         Steven John Moser, Esq.
         MOSER LAW FIRM, P.C.
         5 E. Main Street
         Huntington, NY 11743
         Telephone: (631) 824-0200
         E-mail: smoser@moseremploymentlaw.com


PRECISION CASTPARTS: Summary Judgment Bid in Murphy Partly Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KEVIN MURPHY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PRECISION CASTPARTS CORP., MARK
DONEGAN, and SHAWN R. HAGEL, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00521-SB
(D. Or.), Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Oregon:

   (i) denied the Lead Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary
       judgment,

  (ii) granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion
       for summary judgment, and

(iii) denied the Defendants' motion to exclude the expert
       testimony of Chad Coffman.

AMF Pensionsforsakring AB and the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and
Retirement System ("Lead Plaintiffs") filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws on behalf of
all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
publicly traded securities of Precision Castparts Corp. ("PCC")
between May 9, 2013 and Jan. 15, 2015, seeking remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA").  

The Lead Plaintiffs allege that PCC, PCC's Chairman and CEO Mark
Donegan, and PCC's Executive VP and CFO Shawn Hagel, violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

PCC is an Oregon corporation headquartered in Portland.  Operating
approximately 160 plants, PCC is a leading supplier of metals and
parts for the aerospace, energy, military, and general industrial
sectors.

The Lead Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made 44 statements
during the Class Period that were materially false and misleading,
primarily with respect to PCC's earnings guidance for Fiscal Year
2016 ("FY16").  Their theory of liability is that the Defendants
always knew that the FY16 earnings guidance was unattainable
because their financial projections were based on unrealistic
assumptions, and the Defendants knew throughout the Class Period
that PCC was failing to achieve the organic growth necessary to
meet the target in part because PCC's practice of pulling in sales
to earlier quarters was unsustainable and a large customer was
continuing to destock its inventory.  The Lead Plaintiffs allege
that the Defendants nevertheless made statements throughout the
Class Period misrepresenting that PCC was achieving anticipated
benchmarks en route to its FY16 target, which created an impression
of a state of affairs materially different from the one that
existed.

In denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss earlier in the case,
the Court held that the PSLRA's Safe Harbor for forward-looking
statements does not protect all of the Defendants' statements
because not all of the statements were forward-looking in their
entirety.  

The Lead Plaintiffs and the Defendants filed cross motions for
summary judgment pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 56.  The Defendants
argue that the Court should grant their motion for summary judgment
on the ground that 42 of the 44 statements are protected by one of
the prongs of the Safe Harbor for forward-looking statements.  They
assert that 42 of the 44 statements are forward-looking (all but
Statements 8 and 37), and that all but Statements 12, 18, and 19
were accompanied by meaningful cautionary language.

Judge Beckerman agrees in part.  The Judge holds that the mixed
statements (Statements 11, 15, 22, 24, 34, and 39) are not
forward-looking, and that Statements 26 ("the framework is intact")
and 36 ("we've been able to stay on that continuum") also fall in
the same category of mixed statements not subject to Safe Harbor
protection.

Three other Challenged Statements contain present facts combined
with forward-looking statements: Statement 9 (including statements
about current as well as future destocking); Statement 14 ("we're
seeing good demand from large commercial"); and 25 ("My contracts
are in place. I got share. I know what it is. The build rates are
announced.").  These statements similarly do not qualify for Safe
Harbor protection.  

The Judge also finds that Statements 7, 9, 11, 14-15, 22-26, 28,
34, 36, 39, and 42 are not forward-looking when viewed as a whole
and are therefore not protected by the Safe Harbor.

The Judge agrees with the Defendants that the statements
reaffirming the FY16 Target that do not also reflect PCC's current
position, as well as the statements predicting that destocking was
only temporary (i.e., will end in the future), are entitled to Safe
Harbor protection as forward-looking statements, regardless of
whether the speaker believed the statements to be true at the time.
Hence, the following statements are forward-looking when viewed as
a whole: 1-6, 10, 13, 20-21, 27, 29-33, 35, 38, 40-41, and 43-44.
Accordingly, she enters summary judgment in favor of the Defendants
with respect to Statements 1-6, 10, 13, 20-21, 27, 29-33, 35, 38,
40-41, and 43-44.

The Defendants move for summary judgment on Statements 1-7, 11-17,
19-31, 34-36, 38-39, and 44, arguing that they are non-actionable
puffery or mere statements of opinion.  Of those statements, the
only that remain at issue are Statements 7, 11-12, 14-17, 19,
22-26, 28, 34, 36, and 39.  The Judge finds that Statements 7, 14,
and 16-17 are so vague that they are nonactionable, and therefore
she enters summary judgment for the Defendants on those statements.
The remaining statements contain sufficiently specific factual
information that is capable of objective verification.

Of the 18 Challenged Statements that remain at issue (Statements
8-9, 11-12, 15, 18-19, 22-26, 28, 34, 36-37, 39, and 42), the Lead
Plaintiffs argue that there are no material issues of disputed fact
with respect to the falsity, materiality, or scienter relating to
Statements 11, 15, 19, 22, 24, 26, 28, 34, and 39, and the
Defendants argue that the Lead Plaintiffs have not established
falsity, materiality, or scienter with respect to any of the
statements at issue.  The Judge finds that there remain disputed
factual issues with respect to the FY16 Target, pull-in sales, and
destocking, and therefore a jury must determine falsity,
materiality, and scienter with respect to the remaining 18
statements.

The Defendants also seek summary judgment on the ground that the
Lead Plaintiffs cannot prove loss causation or quantify damages.
The Lead Plaintiffs counter that to prevail at summary judgment,
the Defendants must establish that, as a matter of undisputed fact,
the depreciation in the value of PCC stock could not have resulted
from the alleged false statement or omission of the Defendant, and
the Defendants do not even attempt to prove that stock declines on
the corrective disclosure dates were unrelated to their
misstatements.

In their motion to exclude Coffman's expert testimony, the
Defendants argue that Coffman's opinions do not "fit" the Lead
Plaintiffs' claims, and that his methodologies for determining loss
causation and damages are unreliable.

Judge Beckerman disagrees.  The Judge agrees with the Lead
Plaintiffs that courts have consistently accepted the general
methodologies Coffman applies in the case, including the "event
study," statistical regression, and "out of pocket" damages models
-- as reliable methods to determine loss causation and damages.
Coffman's methodologies and opinions are consistent with proof of
loss causation and damages requirements set by the Supreme Court
and the Ninth Circuit, and the Judge finds that Coffman's testimony
will be helpful to the jury.

Judge Beckerman therefore denies the Defendants' motion to exclude
Coffman's testimony.  Accordingly, there remains a genuine dispute
of material fact regarding whether the Defendants' alleged
misrepresentations were the proximate cause of the decline in PCC's
stock price and, if so, the amount of damages the class members
suffered.  As a result, the Judge denies the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment on the issues of loss causation and damages.

Both the Lead Plaintiffs and the Defendants move for summary
judgment on Hagel's Rule 10b-5(b) and Section 20(a) liability.  The
Lead Plaintiffs argue that Hagel has admitted that she had ultimate
authority or control over the Defendants' statements concerning the
FY16 Target, and therefore Hagel was a "maker" of the statements on
which the Lead Plaintiffs move for partial summary judgment.  The
Defendants respond that because each of the FY16 Statements was an
unscripted, oral statement by Donegan, and the Lead Plaintiffs have
not established that Hagel somehow used Donegan as a mouthpiece to
deliver her own messages to the market, Hagel is not a "maker"
under Rule 10b-5(b).

Important to the Judge's analysis of Hagel's liability, all of the
18 statements that remain at issue (Statements 8-9, 11-12, 15,
18-19, 22-26, 28, 34, 36-37, 39, and 42), are Donegan's oral
statements on quarterly earnings calls or at investor conferences.

The Judge holds that the maker of a statement is the person or
entity with ultimate authority over the statement, including its
content and whether and how to communicate it.  Although Hagel
helped prepare Donegan for earnings calls, the Supreme Court in
Janus rejected the argument that a Rule 10b-5(b) "maker" is someone
significantly involved in preparing a statement.  Even if Hagel
assisted in developing the message that Donegan shared during
earnings calls, the content of Donegan's statement was entirely
within his control.  Accordingly, the Judge grants the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment, and denies the Lead Plaintiffs' motion
for partial summary judgment, on the issue of whether Hagel is a
"maker" subject to liability under Section 10(b) or Rule 10b-5(b).

The Defendants also move for summary judgment on the Lead
Plaintiffs' Section 20(a) claim against Hagel, arguing that Hagel
is not a control person under Section 20(a) because statements
attributable to a specific individual are presumed to be actions of
that individual only.  Although Hagel assisted Donegan in preparing
for the earnings calls, the evidence does not support a conclusion
that she had any meaningful control over what words came out of
Donegan's mouth during those calls.  Accordingly, the Court denies
the Lead Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, and
grants the Defendants' motion for summary judgment, with respect to
Hagel's Section 20(a) liability.

Finally, the Defendants seek summary judgment on the issue of
whether their stock sales during the Class Period support an
inference of scienter.  The Lead Plaintiffs argue that a reasonable
jury could find that the Defendants' stock sales support the Lead
Plaintiffs' theory of scienter.  The Judge finds that Donegan's
trading history does not support an inference of scienter, and will
therefore be excluded at trial.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Beckerman concludes that the Safe
Harbor protects 22 of the 4 statements, and four additional
statements are not actionable because they are vague statements of
puffery.  Of the remaining eighteen statements, all are Donegan's
unscripted oral statements, which absolves Hagel of liability.
However, there are disputed issues of material fact regarding
whether Donegan's statements were materially false and misleading,
whether he knew his statements were false and misleading, and
whether his statements caused economic loss to class members.
Those are questions a jury must resolve, and therefore the Judge
will deny the cross motions for summary judgment with respect to
those 18 statements.

In sum, Judge Beckerman (i) denied the Lead Plaintiffs' Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment, (ii) granted in part and denied in part
the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, (iii) granted the
Defendants' Requests for Judicial Notice, and (iv) denied the
Defendants' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Chad Coffman.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 3, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://bit.ly/2HdvIsS from Leagle.com.


PROFESSIONAL STAFF: Martin Appeals S.D.N.Y.'s Order to 2nd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Bruce Martin and David Seidemann filed an appeal from
the District Court's opinion and order, dated Jan. 10, 2020,
entered in the lawsuit styled David Seidemann and Bruce Martin,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Professional Staff Congress Local 2334; American Federation of
Teachers AFL-CIO; American Federation of Labor and Congress of
Industrial Organizations; American Association of University
Professors Collective Bargaining Congress; and New York State
United Teachers, Case No. 18-cv-9778 (Filed Oct. 24, 2018), in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge
Katherine Polk Failla of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss.

Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Janus v. American
Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, the
Plaintiffs were required to pay agency shop fees to the unions that
represented their respective places of employment, in compliance
with New York Civil Service Law section 208 and as authorized by
Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. The Plaintiffs now allege that
they are entitled to the return of all agency shop fees previously
paid, raising constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
and common-law claims for conversion and unjust enrichment.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment stating
that both compulsory agency shop fees and New York State laws that
authorize them are unconstitutional, as well as an injunction
against the collection of those fees.

The appellate case is captioned as Seidemann v. Professional Staff
Congress Local, Case No. 20-460, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Professional Staff Congress (PSC) is a union that represents
staff and faculty at the City University of New York (CUNY) and
CUNY Research Foundation. Founded in 1972, the PSC is a local
branch (Local 2334) of the American Federation of Teachers and is
also affiliated with the AFL-CIO.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Gregory N. Longworth, Esq.
          CLARK HILL, PLC
          200 Ottawa Avenue, NW
          Grand Rapids, MI 49503
          Telephone: 616 608-1104

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Irwin Bluestein, Esq.
          MEYER, SUOZZI, ENGLISH & KLEIN, P.C.
          1350 Broadway
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: 212 239-4999

               - and -

          Michael James Del Piano, Esq.
          Edward J. Greene, Jr., Esq.
          ASSOCIATE SENIOR COUNSEL
          NEW YORK STATE UNITED TEACHERS
          52 Broadway
          NewYork, NY 10004
          Telephone: 212 228-3382

               - and -

          Hanan B. Kolko, Esq.
          COHEN, WEISS AND SIMON LLP
          900 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: 212 563-4100

               - and -

          Charles Moerdler, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: 212-806-5648

               - and -

          David M. Slutsky, Esq.
          LEVY RATNER, P.C.
          80 8th Avenue
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: 212-627-8100


PTC INC: 401(K) Plan Members Slam Fund Mismanagement
----------------------------------------------------
Kristal M. Khan, Michelle R. Ballinger and George A. Craan,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. PTC Inc., The Board of Directors of PTC Inc., The
Investment Committee of PTC Inc. and John Does 1-30, Defendants,
Case No. 20-cv-11710 (D. Mass., September 17, 2020), seek equitable
and injunctive relief for breach of the fiduciary duties of
prudence and loyalty and for violation of Sections 409 and 502 of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

PTC develops and delivers technology solutions, comprised of
software and services. The Board of Directors of PTC managed the
PTC 401(k) Savings Plan. Plaintiffs are former employees of PTC who
are participants of the defined contribution retirement plan. They
allege that Defendants, acting as "fiduciaries" of their Plan,
failed to review the Plan's investment portfolio and maintained
certain funds in the Plan despite the availability of identical or
similar investment options with lower costs and/or better
performance histories and failed to utilize the lowest cost share
class for many of the mutual funds within the Plan, and failed to
consider available collective trusts as alternatives to the mutual
funds in the Plan, despite their lower fees. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Freya Allen Shoffner, Esq.
      SHOFFNER & ASSOCIATES
      800 Boylston Street, Suite 1600
      Boston, MA 02199
      Phone: (617) 369-0111
      Email: fashoffner@shoffnerassociates.com

             - and -

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

             - and -

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


QUALITY CARRIERS: Appeals Order in Salter Suit to Ninth Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Quality Carriers, Inc., and Quality Distribution, Inc.,
filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated March 12,
2020, entered in the lawsuit styled Clayton Salter v. Quality
Carriers, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00479-JFW-JPR, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Los
Angeles).

The U.S. District Judge John F. Walter entered the Order granting
the Plaintiff's motion to remand Case to Los Angeles Superior
Court.

The appellate case is captioned as CLAYTON SALTER,
Plaintiff/Respondent v. QUALITY CARRIERS, INC., and QUALITY
DISTRIBUTION, INC., Defendants/Petitioners, Case No. 20-80060, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On October 3, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint
against the Defendants in Los Angeles Superior Court, alleging
causes of action for: (1) failure to provide required meal periods;
(2) failure to provide required rest periods; (3) failure to pay
overtime wages; (4) failure to pay minimum wages; (5) failure to
pay all wages due to discharged or quitting employees; (6) failure
to maintain required records; (7) failure to provide accurate
itemized statements; (8) failure to indemnify employees for
necessary expenditures incurred in discharge of duties; (9)
unlawful deductions from wages; and (10) unfair and unlawful
business practices.

On February 10, 2020, Plaintiff Clayton Salter filed a Motion to
Remand Case to Los Angeles Superior Court. On February 14, 2020,
the Defendants filed their Opposition. On February 24, 2020,
Plaintiff filed a Reply.

Quality Carriers, Inc., is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Quality
Distribution, LLC. Quality Distribution, LLC is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Quality Distribution, Inc. Quality Distribution, Inc.
is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Gruden Acquisition, Inc. No
publicly-held corporation owns 10% or more of any of these
entities' stock.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent CLAYTON SALTER, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated is represented by:

          Taras Kick, Esq.
          THE KICK LAW FIRM
          815 Moraga Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90049
          Telephone: 310 395-2988

Defendants-Petitioners QUALITY CARRIERS, INC., an Illinois
Corporation; and QUALITY DISTRIBUTION, INC., a Florida Corporation,
are represented by:

          Christopher James Eckhart, Esq.
          Christopher Chad McNatt, Jr., Esq.
          SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
          10 West Market Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: 317 637-1777


QUALITY FACILITY: Fails to Properly Pay OT Wages, Cayetano Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH CAYETANO, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class v. QUALITY FACILITY SOLUTIONS CORP d/b/a QUALITY
FLOORSHINE d/b/a QFS, and ESTHER FALKOWITZ, Case No. 1:20-cv-04777
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 6, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for
their alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

On behalf of all current and former non-exempt employees, who were
employed and unjustly compensated by the Defendants, the Plaintiff
brings this complaint alleging that the Defendants failed to pay
proper overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours each week and spread of hours premium, failed to provide
proper wage statements, and failed to properly provide wage and
hours notices upon hiring.

Quality Facility Solutions Corp. provides trusted cleaning services
to government and commercial facilities. Esther Falkowitz is the
Chief Executive Officer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RIDE USA: Faces Fontana TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
------------------------------------------------------------------
STEFANO FONTANA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RIDE USA, LLC, d/b/a RIDENOW POWERSPORTS, Case No.
CACE-20-016542 (Fla. Cir., Oct. 7, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for its alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that on August 30, 2020, the Defendant sent
him an unsolicited text messages by using an automatic telephone
dialing system (ATDS) without obtaining his express written
consent. The Defendant allegedly engages in unsolicited text
messaging in an attempt to promote its services with no regard for
consumers' privacy rights.

Ride USA, LLC, provides motor vehicle hardware and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROBINSON NURSING: Files Cert. Petition in Phillips Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Petitioners filed with the Supreme Court of United States a
petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled ROBINSON
NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC, D/B/A ROBINSON NURSING AND
REHABILITATION CENTER; CENTRAL ARKANSAS NURSING CENTERS, INC.;
NURSING CONSULTANTS, INC.; AND MICHAEL MORTON, the Petitioners v.
ANDREW PHILLIPS, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF
DOROTHY PHILLIPS, AND ON BEHALF OF THE WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES
OF DOROTHY PHILLIPS, AND ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Respondents, Case No. 19-1154.

The Petitioners, Robinson Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC;
Central Arkansas Nursing Center, Inc.; Nursing Consultants, Inc.;
and Michael Morton, petition for a  writ of certiorari to review
the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arkansas in this case. The
order of the Supreme Court of Arkansas denying rehearing is
unreported. The October 19, 2017 order of the Circuit Court of
Pulaski County, Arkansas denying the Motions to Compel Arbitration
is unreported. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Arkansas was
entered on October 31, 2019. That court denied rehearing on
December 19, 2019.

The questions presented are:

   1. Whether the FAA preempts a state-law contract rule that
      singles out arbitration agreements for invalidation
      because they were signed by family members or other
      persons for the benefit of the third-party residents now
      bringing the claims.

   2. Whether the FAA preempts a state-law contract rule
      singling out arbitration agreements by imposing a
      "mutuality of obligation" requirement to them that is not
      a requirement for other contracts.

   3. Whether the FAA preempts a state-law contract rule that
      singles out arbitration agreements due to lack of
      "mutuality of assent" because they were not signed by the
      party seeking to enforce it, when Arkansas law allows
      other contracts to be valid and enforceable without a
      signature based on other factors including actual
      performance.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 6,
2020, the Supreme Court of Arkansas issued an Opinion reversing in
part and affirming in part a trial court order denying the
Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned
ROBINSON NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC, D/B/A ROBINSON
NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER; CENTRAL ARKANSAS NURSING
CENTERS, INC.; NURSING CONSULTANTS, INC.; AND MICHAEL MORTON,
Appellants v. ANDREW PHILLIPS, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
ESTATE OF DOROTHY PHILLIPS, AND ON BEHALF OF THE WRONGFUL DEATH
BENEFICIARIES OF DOROTHY PHILLIPS; AND ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellees, Case No. CV-18-45
(Ark.).

In this interlocutory appeal, Robinson Nursing and Rehabilitation
Center LLC, et al., appealed from the Pulaski County Circuit
Court's order denying motions to compel arbitration of the class
action complaint commenced by Andrew Phillips, on behalf of the
estate of Dorothy Phillips, and others.

On September 4, 2015, Phillips filed a first amended class action
complaint against Robinson alleging claims that Robinson had
breached its admissions and provider agreements, violated the
Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA), committed
negligence and civil conspiracy, and has been unjustly enriched.
Phillips filed an amended motion for class certification on
September 10, 2015, requesting that a class be certified of all
residents and estates of residents who resided at Robinson from
June 11, 2010 to the present.[BN]

The Petitioners are represented by:

          Philip S. Goldberg, Esq.
          SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP
          1800 K Street, NW Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20006
          E-mail: pgoldberg@shb.com


SAFELITE GROUP: Romero Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
------------------------------------------------------------
Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SAFELITE GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-08536 (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 13, 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.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its website, https://www.safelite.com/, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical location, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Because the Defendants' 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 his
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 a car window repair company, and 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
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Email: Joseph@cml.legal


SALT RIVER: Dill Appeals D. Arizona Decision to Ninth Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Robert Dill, William Ellis, Robert Gustavis and Edward
Rupprecht filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the
lawsuit styled William Ellis, et al. v. Salt River Project, Case
No. 2:19-cv-01228-SMB, in the U.S. District Court for the District
for Arizona (Phoenix).

On Jan. 10, 2020, the Hon. Judge Susan M. Brnovich of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona granted in part the
District's Motion to Dismiss and Request for Judicial Notice.

The appellate case is captioned as WILLIAM ELLIS, EDWARD RUPPRECHT,
ROBERT DILL, and ROBERT GUSTAVIS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. SALT RIVER
PROJECT AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT AND POWER DISTRICT,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 20-15301, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The case arises out of the District's adoption of a new rate
structure for its sale of electricity, which includes additional
fees and different rates for residential customers, like the
Plaintiffs, who self-generate some of their electricity through
solar energy systems.  In 2014, the District proposed the new rate
structure ("Standard Electric Price Plans" or "SEPPs"), which
includes a new E-27 price plan required for self-generating solar
customers, that its Board of Directors approved in 2015.  The E-27
price plan applies to customers who began self-generating solar
power after Dec. 8, 2014.  The Plaintiffs' claims relate to their
financial injuries caused by the SEPPs.

The Salt River Project is the umbrella name for two separate
entities: the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power
District, an agency of the state of Arizona that serves as an
electrical utility for the Phoenix metropolitan area, and the Salt
River Valley Water Users' Association, a utility cooperative that
serves as the primary water provider for much of central Arizona.
It is one of the primary public utility companies in Arizona.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants WILLIAM ELLIS, EDWARD RUPPRECHT, ROBERT DILL,
and ROBERT GUSTAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: 612-333-8844

               - and -

          Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED
          14646 N. Kierland Blvd.
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254

Defendant-Appellee SALT RIVER PROJECT AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT AND
POWER DISTRICT is represented by:

          Christopher Babbitt, Esq.
          Daniel Volchok, Esq.
          WILMERHALE
          1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: 202-663-6681

               - and -

          Eric Dell Gere, Esq.
          JENNINGS STROUSS & SALMON, PLC
          One East Washington Street
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-2554
          Telephone: 602-262-5944


SAN FRANCISCO USD: Student A Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs filed an appeal from the District Court's order
dismissing with prejudice their lawsuit styled Student A, et al. v.
San Francisco Unified School District, et al., Case No.
3:19-cv-03101-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco).

The appellate case is captioned as STUDENT A, by and through Parent
A, her Guardian; STUDENT B, by and through Parent B, his Guardian;
STUDENT C, by and through Parent C, his Guardian; STUDENT D, by and
through Parent D, her Guardian; and STUDENT E, by and through
Parent E, her Guardian, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT; and VINCENT MATTHEWS, In his Official Capacity as
the Superintendent for the San Francisco Unified School District,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-15386, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 6,
2020, the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California dismissed the Student ADA
Suit, with prejudice.

In the case, five current or former San Francisco Unified School
District ("SFUSD") students sue SFUSD and its Superintendent
Vincent Matthews for systemic violations and failures to provide
students with disabilities with a non-discriminatory and free
appropriate public education ("FAPE") in violation of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), and the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA").

Four of the Plaintiffs are current or former SFUSD elementary
school students and one is a current SFUSD middle school student.
The Plaintiffs have been diagnosed with specific learning
disabilities ("SLDs") of dyslexia, autism, and speech and language
impairments. These five students challenge the implementation of
SFUSD's duties imposed by the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA.

The Plaintiffs do not challenge official policies of SFUSD;
instead, they challenge alleged practices of SFUSD that result in
SFUSD failing to meet its responsibilities under the IDEA. Their
claims are not limited to alleged failures with respect to specific
grades, ages, school types, or to alleged failures of SFUSD with
respect to students with particular types of disability. Instead,
they are brought on behalf of every disabled student in San
Francisco because the "special education program" at SFUSD is
broken and, therefore, the Plaintiffs seek a total restructuring of
the entire education system as it applies to students with
disabilities in San Francisco.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants STUDENT A, by and through Parent A, her
Guardian; STUDENT B, by and through Parent B, his Guardian; STUDENT
C, by and through Parent C, his Guardian; STUDENT D, by and through
Parent D, her Guardian; and STUDENT E, by and through Parent E, her
Guardian, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly
Situated, are represented by:

          Alexis Michelle Alvarez, Esq.
          Jinny Kim, Esq.
          LEGAL AID AT WORK
          180 Montgomery Street, Suite 600
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415-593-0068

               - and -

          Mark T. Johnson, Esq.
          Guy B. Wallace, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: 415-421-7100

               - and -

          Shawna Parks, Esq.
          Law Office of Shawna L. Parks
          4470 W. Sunset Blvd., Ste. 107-347
          Los Angeles, CA 90027

Defendants-Appellees SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; and
VINCENT MATTHEWS, In his Official Capacity as the Superintendent
for the San Francisco Unified School District, are represented by:

          Mark Saul Posard, Esq.
          GORDON REES LLP
          275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: 415-986-5900


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Appeals Decision in Norbert Prisoners Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants City and County of San Francisco filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Kenyon Norbert, et al.
v. City & County of San Francisco, et al., Case No.
3:19-cv-02724-SK, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco).

On Feb. 28, 2020, the District Judge entered an order dismissing
all Eighth Amendment claims by pretrial detainees, deeming them
redundant with respect to these Plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment
Claims.

The appellate case is captioned as KENYON NORBERT, JOSE POOT,
MARSHALL HARRIS, ARMANDO CARLOS, MICHAEL BROWN, MONTRAIL BRACKENS,
and TROY MCALLISTER, on behalf of themselves individually and
others similarly situated, as a class and Subclass,
Plaintiffs-Appellees v. SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; VICKI
HENNESSY, San Francisco Sheriff; PAUL MIYAMOTO, San Francisco Chief
Deputy Sheriff; JASON JACKSON; and MCCONNELL, the Defendants; and
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendants-Appellants, Case No.
20-15341, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

On May 20, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed this case in the Northern
District of California seeking to represent a class of prisoners
subjected to unconstitutional conditions in San Francisco county
jails; more specifically, those having been confined in their cells
for up to 23.5 hours per day with total denial of access to direct
sunlight or outdoor recreation. The Plaintiffs sued the Defendants
for being directly involved in designing and implementing the
policies that led to deprivations of constitutional and statutory
rights.

San Francisco, officially the City and County of San Francisco and
colloquially known as The City, SF, or Frisco and San Fran, is the
cultural, commercial, and financial center of Northern
California.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees KENYON NORBERT, JOSE POOT, MARSHALL HARRIS,
ARMANDO CARLOS, MICHAEL BROWN, MONTRAIL BRACKENS, and TROY
MCALLISTER, on behalf of themselves individually and others
similarly situated, as a class and Subclass, are represented by:

          Yolanda Huang, Esq.
          P.O. Box 5475
          Berkeley, CA 94705
          Telephone: 510 329-2140

Defendant-Appellant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO is represented
by:

          Margaret W. Baumgartner, Esq.
          Dennis J. Herrera, Esq.
          DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
          SAN FRANCISCO CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          1390 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: 415 554-3859

               - and -

          Carlton B. Goodlett Place
          City Hall, Room 234
          San Francisco, CA 94102-4682
          Telephone: 415 554-4748


SANBORN CHEVROLET: Faces Shockley Wage & Hour Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY SHOCKLEY, on behalf of himself and all other employees
similarly situated v. SANBORN CHEVROLET, INC.; KINI SANBORN; and
DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2020-0008611 (Cal.
Super., San Joaquin Cty., Oct. 13, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code.

The alleged violations include failure to pay minimum wages and
overtime pay, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to
provide and maintain accurate records, waiting time penalties, and
unfair business practices.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an auto-mechanic from
2014 to April 20, 2020.

Sanborn Chevrolet, Inc., is an automobile dealer with its principal
place of business located at 1210 S. Cherokee Lane, in Lodi,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Justin Toobi, Esq.
         724 S. Spring St., Suite 201
         Los Angeles, CA 9001
         Telephone: (310) 435-9407


SCOTT ASNER: Icay Appeals Decision in Hengle Suit to 4th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Sam Icay, Amber Jackson, Aimee Jackson-Penn, Iris
Picton, Kathleen Treppa, Sherry Treppa and Tracey Treppa filed an
appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled George
Hengle, et al. v. Scott Asner, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00250-DJN,
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
(Richmond).

On Feb. 20, 2020, District Judge David J. Novak entered an order
granting the Defendants motion and amending its January 9, 2020
order to certify the order for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1292(b) on the question of whether enforcement of
the Choice-of-Law Provision would violate Virginia's compelling
public policy against unregulated usurious lending.

The appellate case is captioned as SHERRY TREPPA, Chairperson of
the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake Executive Counsil, in her
official capacity; TRACEY TREPPA, Vice-Chairperson of the
Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake Executive Council; in her official
capacity; KATHLEEN TREPPA, Treasurer of the Habematolel Pomo of
Upper Lake Executive Council, in her official capacity; and IRIS
PICTON, Secretary of the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake Executive
Council, in her official capacity; SAM ICAY, Member-At-Large of the
Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake Executive Council, in her official
capacity; AIMEE JACKSON-PENN, Member-At-Large of the Habematolel
Pomo of Upper Lake Executive Council, in her official capacity; and
AMBER JACKSON, Member-At-Large of the Habematolel Pomo of Upper
Lake Executive Council, in her official capacity, Petitioners v.
GEORGE HENGLE, SHERRY BLACKBURN, WILLIE ROSE, ELWOOD BUMBRAY,
TIFFANI MYERS, STEVEN PIKE, SUE COLLINS, and LAWRENCE MWETHUKU, on
behalf of themselves and all individuals similarly situated,
Respondents, Case No. 20-164, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners SHERRY TREPPA, et al., are represented by:

          Rakesh Nageswar Kilaru, Esq.
          James Miller Rosenthal, Esq.
          Kosta S. Stojilkovic, Esq.
          Beth Ann Wilkinson, Esq.
          WILKINSON WALSH, LLP
          2001 M Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: 202-847-4046

Plaintiffs-Respondents GEORGE HENGLE, SHERRY BLACKBURN, WILLIE
ROSE, ELWOOD BUMBRAY, TIFFANI MYERS, STEVEN PIKE, SUE COLLINS, and
LAWRENCE MWETHUKU, on behalf of themselves and all individuals
similarly situated Representation, are represented by:

          Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
          Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq.
          Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: 757-930-3660

               - and -

          Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
          Casey Shannon Nash, Esq.
          KELLY GUZZO PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: 703-424-7576

               - and -

          James Wilson Speer, Esq.
          VIRGINIA POVERTY LAW CENTER
          919 East Main Street
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: 804-782-9430


SCOTT ASNER: Seeks 4th Circuit Review of Decision in Hengle Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Scott Asner and Joshua Landy filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled George Hengle, et al. v.
Scott Asner, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00250-DJN, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond).

On Jan. 10, 2020, District Judge David J. Novak entered an denying
the Defendants' Motions to Compel Arbitration; granting in part and
denying in part the Tribal Officials' Motion to Dismiss; denying
Asner and Landy's Renewed Motion to Dismiss; and dismissing without
prejudice Count Five of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Count
Seven to the extent that it seeks to enjoin future lending
activities by the Tribal Lending Entities and to the extent that
Bumbray, Blackburn and Collins seek to enjoin future collection of
any outstanding loans.

The appellate case is captioned as SCOTT ASNER and JOSHUA LANDY,
Petitioners v. GEORGE HENGLE, WILLIE ROSE, ELWOOD BUMBRAY, TIFFANI
MYERS, STEVEN PIKE, and SHERRY BLACKBURN, SUE COLLINS, and LAWRENCE
MWETHUKU, on behalf of themselves and all individuals similarly
situated, Respondents, Case No. 20-161, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents GEORGE HENGLE, WILLIE ROSE, ELWOOD BUMBRAY,
TIFFANI MYERS, STEVEN PIKE, and SHERRY BLACKBURN, SUE COLLINS, and
LAWRENCE MWETHUKU, on behalf of themselves and all individuals
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
          Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq.
          Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: 757 930-3660

               - and -

          Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
          Casey Shannon Nash, Esq.
          KELLY GUZZO PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: 703-424-7576

               - and -

          James Wilson Speer, Esq.
          VIRGINIA POVERTY LAW CENTER
          919 East Main Street
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: 804-782-9430

Defendants-Petitioners SCOTT ASNER and JOSHUA LANDY are represented
by:

          Matthew E. Price, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK, LLP
          1099 New York Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: 202-639-6873


SFC GLOBAL: Jackson ICFA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as JAMIE JACKSON and TRENTON MCDONALD,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated current
Illinois citizens v. SFC GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAIN, INC., Case No.
20-L-0678, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court for St.
Clair County to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Illinois on October 12, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-01072-GCS to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, breach of express warranty, and unjust
enrichment.

SFC Global Supply Chain, Inc. is a fruit and vegetable processing
company based in Minnesota.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

         Neal F. Perryman, Esq.
         Michael L. Jente, Esq.
         LEWIS RICE LLC
         600 Washington Avenue, Suite 2500
         St. Louis, MO 63101
         Telephone: (314) 444-7600
         E-mail: nperryman@lewisrice.com
                 mjente@lewisrice.com

                - and –

         Stephen P. Safranski, Esq.
         Geoffrey H. Kozen, Esq.
         Amira A. ElShareif, Esq.
         ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
         800 LaSalle Avenue
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Telephone: (612) 349-8500
         Facsimile: (612) 339-4181
         E-mail: ssafranski@robinskaplan.com
                 gkozen@robinskaplan.com
                 aelshareif@robinskaplan.com


SHIVRAM'S BAKERY: Faces Rogers Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY J. ROGERS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. SHIVRAM'S BAKERY INC. (D/B/A SHIVRAM'S BAKERY), KRISHNA
SHIVRAM and TARA SHIVRAM, Case No. 1:20-cv-04881 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 9,
2020), arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor policies and
practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay applicable
minimum wage, failed to pay overtime compensation at a rate of one
and one-half times the regular rate of pay for each hour worked in
excess of 40 hours in a work week, failed to pay an additional
hour's pay for each day spread of hours exceeded 10 hours, failed
to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, failed to
provide accurate wage statements, made unlawful deductions from
wages, and failed to pay wages on a timely basis.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a baker from
approximately November 2018 until May 2020.

Shivram's Bakery Inc. owns, operates, or controls a bakery located
in Richmond Hill, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SIG SAUER: Hartley Suit Settlement OK'd; $850K Counsel Fee Awarded
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri,
Western Division, issued an order granting final approval of the
parties' class action settlement agreement in the case captioned as
DAVID HARTLEY, and TIMOTHY DELISLE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SIG SAUER, INC., Case No.
4:18-cv-00267-SRB (W.D. Mo.).

The Court grants final certification for purposes of settlement to
the proposed Settlement Classes, defined as:

   * Category I Settlement Class:

     All current owners of a P320 Original Design Pistol whose
     pistols have not previously experienced a Cartridge Failure
     Event;

   * Category II Settlement Class:

     All individuals who previously returned their P320 Pistol to
     SIG Sauer after experiencing a Cartridge Failure Event and
     were told that their pistol could not be repaired; and

   * Category III Settlement Class:

     All individuals who previously returned their P320 Pistol to
     SIG Sauer after experiencing a Cartridge Failure Event and
     were charged any amount, including shipping costs, for the
     repair and return of the pistol.

Excluded from the Settlement Classes are: (a) persons who are
neither citizens nor residents of the United States or its
territories; (b) any Judge or Magistrate Judge presiding over the
action and members of their families; (c) governmental and law
enforcement agency purchasers; (d) Sig Sauer, Inc. and any of its
employees, parents, subsidiaries and affiliates.

District Judge Stephen R. Bough notes that there are no class
members, who made timely and valid requests for exclusion.

The Court reaffirms the appointment of Plaintiffs David Hartley,
Timothy DeLisle and David Porter as Class Representatives. The
Court grants the Plaintiffs' request for service awards in the
amount of $2,800 to Plaintiff David Hartley, $2,800 to Plaintiff
Timothy DeLisle, and $1,400 to Plaintiff David Porter.

The Court also reaffirms the appointment of Bonner C. Walsh, Esq.,
of Walsh PLLC, Tim E. Dollar, Esq., of Dollar Burns & Becker, L.C.,
and Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq., of Sauder Schelkopf LLC as counsel
for the Settlement Class ("Class Counsel"). The Court awards Class
Counsel the full amount of $850,000 for fees and expenses as
requested.

Judge Bough ruled that this Action (and any and all claims asserted
herein at any time) is dismissed in its entirety, on the merits,
with prejudice and without leave to amend, with each Party to bear
his/her/its own costs and attorneys' fees (except as otherwise
expressly provided), and all Settlement Class Members, who did not
timely and properly execute and submit a Request for Exclusion are
deemed to have completely released and forever discharged the
Released Persons.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 25, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7b77pdq from Leagle.com.


SKINNER SERVICES: Appeals Decision in Pineda Suit to 1st Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Elber Diniz, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled JOSE PINEDA, JOSE MONTENEGRO, MARCO
LOPEZ, and JOSE HERNANDEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. SKINNER SERVICES, INC., d/b/a SKINNER
DEMOLITION, THOMAS SKINNER DAVID SKINNER, ELBER DINIZ, and SANDRO
SANTOS, Case No. 1:16-cv-12217-FDS, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts (Boston).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court issued a Memorandum Order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification in the case.

This case concerns claims by manual laborers against their
employers, Skinner Services, Inc. d/b/a Skinner Demolition
(Skinner), and supervisors Thomas Skinner, David Skinner, Elber
Diniz, and Sandro Santos, for violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and Massachusetts wage laws.

The appellate case is captioned as JOSE PINEDA, JOSE MONTENEGRO,
MARCO LOPEZ, and JOSE HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly v. SKINNER SERVICES, INC., d/b/a Skinner
Demolition; THOMAS SKINNER DAVID SKINNER; ELBER DINIZ; and SANDRO
SANTOS, Case No. 20-1141, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit.

Skinner Services specializes in land clearing and leveling, land
development/preparation, lot clearing, and debris removal for
residential and for residential and commercial clients.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          Nathan P. Goldstein, Esq.
          Jasper Jacob Groner, Esq.
          Nicole Hera Horberg Decter, Esq.
          Paige Walker McKissock, Esq.
          Carey Shockey, Esq.
          Alexander Sugerman-Brozan, Esq.
          SEGAL ROITMAN LLP
          33 Harrison Ave., 7th Flr
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: 617-742-0208

The Defendants-Appellants are represented by:

          Gregory J. Aceto, Esq.
          Michael Brandon Cole, Esq.
          Ian Philip Gillespie, Esq.
          ACETO BONNER & COLE PC
          1 Liberty Sq., Ste. 410
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: 617-728-0888


SMILEDIRECTCLUB LLC: Sollinger Appeals S.D.N.Y. Order to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Taylor Sollinger filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled Sollinger v. SmileDirectClub, LLC,
Case No. 19-cv-5977, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (New York City).

On Feb. 18, 2020, District Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an order
granting the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and denying
the Plaintiff's motion for oral argument.

The appellate case is captioned as Taylor Sollinger, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v.
SmileDirectClub, LLC, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 20-965, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Plaintiff Taylor Sollinger brings this putative class action
against Defendant SmileDirectClub, LLC, a company that sells custom
aligners to straighten teeth. Sollinger claims that
SmileDirectClub's aligners caused him tooth damage. Accordingly,
Sollinger brings claims under state and federal law.
SmileDirectClub, in turn, has moved to compel arbitration.

SmileDirectClub is a company that offers remote home dentistry
services, including the sale of custom aligners for straightening
teeth. One of its customers is Plaintiff Taylor Sollinger, who
began using SmileDirectClub's aligners in 2017.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Taylor Sollinger, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Justin Aaron Kuehn, Esq.
          MOORE KUEHN, PLLC
          30 Wall Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: 212-709-8245

Defendant-Appellee SmileDirectClub, LLC, is represented by:

          Nicholas Secco, Esq.
          BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP
          71 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312-212-4949


SPECIALTYCARE USA: Valdes FLSA Suit to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abel Garcia Valdes, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Specialtycare USA, Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 20-cv-23841 (S.D. Fla., September 16, 2020), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, and
reasonable attorneys' fees of this action under the provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Specialtycare manages medical facilities throughout the United
States, where Valdes worked as a non-exempt surgical assistant.
Specialtycare allegedly failed to pay time and one-half wages for
all of the actual overtime hours worked by Valdes. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jose Teurbe-Tolon, Esq.
      XANDER LAW GROUP, P.A.
      1 NE 2 AVE, Suite 200
      Miami, FL 33132
      Telephone: (305) 767-2001
      Email: Jose@Xanderlaw.com


STAAR SURGICAL: Vincent Wong Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Sept. 20 disclosed that class
actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Staar
Surgical Company. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Staar Surgical Company (NASDAQ:STAA)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/staar-surgical-company-loss-submission-form?prid=9422&wire=1

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020

Class Period: February 26, 2020 - August 10, 2020

Allegations against STAA include that: the Company was overstating
and/or mischaracterizing: (1) its sales and growth in China; (2)
its marketing spend; (3) its research and development expenses; and
that as a result of the foregoing, (4) Defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]


STARBUCKS CORP: Troester Appeals C.D. Calif. Decision to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the
lawsuit styled Douglas Troester v. Starbucks Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 2:12-cv-07677-CJC-PJW, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District Court of California (Los Angeles).

On Sept. 25, 2018, the District Court granted summary judgment in
favor of Defendant Starbucks Corporation and against
Plaintiff-Appellant Douglas Troester on his putative class claims
for violation of the California Labor Code on the grounds that "the
de minimis defense applies here and prevents Plaintiff from
surviving Defendant's motion for summary judgment." The District
Court ruled that the time Troester was engaged in tasks after
clocking out of the timekeeping system was not compensable because
such work was "de minimis."

The appellate case is captioned as DOUGLAS TROESTER, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION,
Washington corporation, and DOES, 1-50 inclusive, Case No.
20-80032, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

Starbucks is an American multinational chain of coffeehouses and
roastery reserves headquartered in Seattle, Washington. As the
world's largest coffeehouse chain, Starbucks is seen to be the main
representation of the United States' second wave of coffee
culture.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner Douglas Troester is represented by:

          Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          315 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 315
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: 310 888-7771

Defendant-Appellee Starbucks Corporation is represented by:

          Rex S. Heinke, Esq.
          Gregory William Knopp, Esq.
          Jonathan P. Slowik, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6022
          Telephone: 310-229-1000


SUPERIOR ENERGY: Valdez Appeals Decision in FLSA Suit to 5th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Armando Crespo, Joshua Merril, Omar Rodriguez, Adan
Valdez and Karlos Villarreal filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled Adan Valdez, et al. v. Superior
Energy Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-CV-144, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Corpus
Christi).

The appellate case is captioned as ADAN VALDEZ, JOSHUA MERRIL,
KARLOS VILLARREAL, OMAR RODRIGUEZ, and ARMANDO CRESPO, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. SUPERIOR ENERGY SERVICES, INCORPORATED,
doing business as SPC Rentals; and WARRIOR ENERGY SERVICES
CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-40182, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

On March 26, 2015, the Plaintiff Adan Valdez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, brought this Fair Labor
Standards Act suit against the Defendants. The Plaintiff contends
that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff, and those similarly
situated, in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Specifically, the Plaintiff was not paid time-and-one-half of his
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek.

Superior Energy serves the drilling, completion and
production-related needs of oil and gas companies worldwide through
a diversified portfolio of specialized oilfield services and
equipment that are used throughout the economic life cycle of oil
and gas wells.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants ADAN VALDEZ, JOSHUA MERRIL, KARLOS
VILLARREAL, OMAR RODRIGUEZ, and ARMANDO CRESPO, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, are represented by:

          Jimmy Derek Braziel, Esq.
          LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
          1801 N. Lamar Street
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: 214 749-1400

Defendants-Appellees SUPERIOR ENERGY SERVICES, INCORPORATED, doing
business as SPC Rentals; and WARRIOR ENERGY SERVICES CORPORATION,
are represented by:

          Lawrence D. Smith, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          112 E. Pecan Street
          Weston Centre
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Telephone: 210 354-1300


SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE: Riley Slams Emissions/Dust From Plant
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirk Edward Riley and Ray Posey, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Superior Ready Mix
Concrete, L.P., Defendant, Case No. 37-2020-00032965 (Cal. Super.,
September 18, 2020), seeks compensatory damages, injunctive relief,
including prejudgment and post-judgment interest resulting from
public and private nuisance, negligence/gross negligence and
trespass.

Superior Ready Mix Concrete produces and delivers concrete,
aggregate and asphalt at its facility located in San Diego,
California. Plaintiffs allege that this facility releases noxious
off-site odors and fugitive dust. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mike Arias, Esq.
      Arnold C. Wang, Esq.
      ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP
      6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1400
      Los Angeles, CA 90045
      Telephone: (310) 844-9696
      Facsimile: (310)861-0168
      Email: mike@aswtlawyers.com
             arnold@aswtlawyers.com

             - and -

      Steven D. Liddle, Esq.
      Laura L. Sheets, Esq.
      Matthew Z. Robb, Esq.
      LIDDLE & DUBIN, P.C.
      975 E. Jefferson Avenue
      Detroit, MI 48207
      Telephone: (313) 392-0015
      Facsimile: (313) 392-0025
      Email: info@LDclassaction.com



SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Mares Appeals Decision in Saucillo Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Sadashiv Mares filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit styled GILBERT SAUCILLO and JAMES R. RUDSELL, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees; JOHN BURNELL and JACK POLLOCK, Plaintiffs;
and SADASHIV MARES, Objector-Appellant v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION
COMPANY OF ARIZONA, LLC, an Arizona corporation; SWIFT
TRANSPORTATION COMPANY INCORPORATED and DOES, Case No.
5:10-cv-00809-VAP-OP (Filed June 2, 2010), in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California (Riverside).

On Feb. 10, 2020, the District Court entered an order in favor of
the Defendant Swift Transportation Company of Arizona, LLC. The
Court ruled that the Plaintiffs and the certified class, except
those members who timely and validly requested exclusion, shall
take nothing from the Defendant except in accordance with the
approved settlement and the Court's January 9, 2020 order.

The appellate case is captioned as Sadashiv Mares, et al. v. Swift
Transportation Company of Arizona, LLC, et al., Case No. 20-55159,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Defendants provide transportation services offering logistics,
convention facilities, heavy hauling, trans loading, and trucking
services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Gregory Mauro, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: 949 387-7200

               - and -

          Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
          MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
          29800 Agoura Road
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301

The Objector-Appellant Sadashiv Mares is represented by

          Joseph Clapp, Esq.
          AIMAN-SMITH & MARCY
          7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1150
          Oakland, CA 94621
          Telephone: 510 817-2665

The Defendants are represented by:

          Paul Scott Cowie, Esq.
          John Ellis, Esq.
          Robert Mussig, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          4 Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4106
          Telephone: 415 774-3182


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Peck Appeals Decision in Saucillo Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Lawrence Peck filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit styled GILBERT SAUCILLO and JAMES R. RUDSELL, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellees; JOHN BURNELL and JACK POLLOCK, Plaintiffs;
LAWRENCE PECK, Objector-Appellant v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
OF ARIZONA, LLC, an Arizona corporation, Defendant-Appellee; and
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY INCORPORATED and DOES, Defendants,
Case No. 5:10-cv-00809-VAP-OP, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (Riverside).

On Jan. 9, 2020, District Judge Virginia A. Phillips entered an
order granting in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for order granting
final approval of class action settlement. The Court granted the
motion for final approval of class settlement. The court granted in
part and denied in part the motion for approval of award of
attorneys' fees and costs and class representative enhancement.
Class counsel's request for attorneys' fees in the amount of
$2,416,666.67 is denied. Instead, the court approves attorneys'
fees for class counsel of no more than $1,812,500.00. The parties'
request for a $5,000.00 incentive payment to the named plaintiffs
is granted.

The appellate case is captioned as Lawrence Peck, et al., v. Swift
Transportation Company, et al., Case No. 20-55119, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Swift Transportation is a Phoenix, Arizona-based American truckload
motor shipping carrier, part of Knight-Swift. With over 23,000
trucks, it is the largest common carrier in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Gregory Mauro, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: 949 387-7200

               - and -

          Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
          MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
          29800 Agoura Road
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301

Objector-Appellant LAWRENCE PECK is represented by:

          Neal Jordan Fialkow, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NEAL FIALKOW
          215 N. Marengo Avenue
          Pasadena, CA 91101

Defendant-Appellee Swift Transportation is represented by:

          Paul Scott Cowie, Esq.
          John Ellis, Esq.
          Robert Mussig, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          4 Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4106
          Telephone: 415 774-3182


SYNCTRUCK LLC: Workers Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Roy Huskey III and Sabrina Dennis, individually and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Amazon.com, LLC,
Amazon Logistics, Inc. and Synctruck LLC, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-01869 (E.D. Pa., September 16, 2020), seeks unpaid overtime
compensation and unpaid wages and prejudgment interest, liquidated
and statutory damages, litigation costs, expenses and attorneys'
fees and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and California labor laws.

Huskey and Dennis work for Synctruck, a "Delivery Service Provider"
delivering packages to Amazon customers, as delivery associates.
They claim that they were unable to take rest breaks and routinely
worked through their meal periods. Delivery associates had to use
their own personal smartphone for navigation and communication
purposes during their delivery routes but were not reimbursed for
this. They also regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, five
to six days per week without the proper overtime premiums, says the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
      2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
      Emeryville, CA 94608
      Tel: (415) 421-7100
      Fax: (415) 421-7105
      Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com

             - and -

      Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
      Michaela Wallin, Esq.
      Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
      Krysten Connon, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      Email: sschalman-bergen@bm.net
             crodriguez@bm.net
             kconnon@bm.net
             mwallin@bm.net

             - and -

      Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq.
      WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON
      1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 656-3600
      Facsimile: (215) 567-2310
      Email: rhancock@wwdlaw.com


SYSCO CORP: Hernandez Appeals N.D. Cal. Decision to Ninth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff-Petitioner filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled Henry Hernandez v. Sysco Corporation,
et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-06723-JSC, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California (San Francisco).

The appellate case is captioned as HENRY HERNANDEZ, individually
and acting on behalf of a class of similarly situated employees v.
SYSCO CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; and SYSCO SAN FRANCISCO,
INC., a California Corporation, Case No. 20-80035, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiff Henry Hernandez brought this state law wage and hour
claims against his former employer Sysco Corporation on behalf of
himself and a putative class. The Plaintiff insists that Defendants
failed to provide rest and meal breaks, failed to pay minimum wages
for all hours worked, and failed to comply with requirements to
provide accurate itemized wage statements and final pay.

On Feb. 3, 2020, District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an
order granting inn part and denying in part the motion for class
certification. The Court denies the motion as to Plaintiff's meal
and rest break claims as individualized issues predominate those
claims. The Court grants certification of a narrowed off-the-clock
claim for individuals who worked during their unpaid meal breaks as
well as the derivative failure to pay wages at the end of
employment and failure to provide accurate paystubs claims.

Sysco is in the business of selling, marketing and distributing
food products to restaurants, healthcare and educational
facilities, lodging establishments and other customers who prepare
meals away from home. Its family of products also includes
equipment and supplies for the foodservice and hospitality
industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff-Petitioner, HENRY HERNANDEZ, individually and acting
on behalf of a class of similarly situated employees, is
represented by:

          Liliana Garcia, Esq.
          Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
          Hector Martinez, Esq.
          MALLISON & MARTINEZ
          1939 Harrison Street
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: 510-832-9999

The Defendants-Respondents are represented by:

          Margaret Rosenthal, Esq.
          Sabrina L. Shadi, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
          Telephone: 310-820-8800


THAI VILLA: Faces Leon Labor Class Action in NY
-----------------------------------------------
Juvenal Juarez Leon, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Thai Villa, Norapol Youngphitak and Jane
Doe Youngphitak, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-07718 (S.D. N.Y.,
September 18, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime
wages and spread-of-hours pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a Thai restaurant, located New
York City under the name "Thai Villa" where Leon was employed as a
delivery worker. He claims to have generally worked in excess of 40
hours a week without overtime for hours in excess of 40 hours per
workweek and denied spread-of-hours premium for workdays exceeding
10 hours. Thai Villa claimed tip credit for all hours worked
despite requiring Leon to work non-tipped duties for hours
exceeding 20% of the total hours worked each workweek. He also
claims to have never received wage statements. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


THERANOS INC: Balwani Appeals D. Arizona Ruling to 9th Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Ramesh Balwani filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the consolidated lawsuit styled In re: Arizona THERANOS,
INC., Litigation, Case No. 2:16-cv-02138-HRH, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix).

On March 23, 2020, District Judge H. Russel Holland granted the
Plaintiffs' motion and hereby unseals the March 6, 2020, order
granting class certification. The Plaintiffs have filed an
unopposed motion to unseal the court's order of March 6, 2020,
granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs
represent that Defendants Walgreens, Ramesh Balwani, and Elizabeth
Holmes do not oppose the request.

The appellate case is captioned as B.P., R.G., S.J., A.R., S.L.,
B.B., and D.L., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Respondents v. RAMESH BALWANI, Case No.
20-80057, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Respondents B.P., R.G., S.J., A.R., S.L., B.B., and
D.L., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Roger N. Heller, Esq.
          Michael Sobol, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: 415 956-1000

               - and -

          Mark Dudley Samson, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
          3101 North Central Avenue
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: 602 230-6323

               - and -

          Linda Marie Fong, Esq.
          Laurence David King, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          350 Sansome Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415 772-4700

               - and -

          Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED
          14646 N. Kierland Blvd.
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254

Defendant-Petitioner RAMESH BALWANI is represented by:

          Frederick B. Burnside, Esq.
          Stephen M. Rummage, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98104-1610


THIRTY INC: Houser Seeks to Recover Correct OT Pay for Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC HOUSER, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees,
v. THIRTY, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-05087 (E.D. Pa., Oct. 14, 2020),
is a class/collective action lawsuit against Thirty, Inc., seeking
all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff contends that the defendant failed to use the correct
overtime rate in paying tipped employees. For example, during the
pay period ending August 15, 2020, he worked 5.5 overtime hours,
and Defendant utilized a $4.42/hour tip credit. Thus, the Defendant
was required to pay him a base hourly wage of $6.455 ($10.875 minus
$4.42) for each of his 5.5 overtime hours. The Defendant failed to
do so. Instead, it paid him a base wage of only $4.25 for each
overtime hour, he adds.

The FLSA and PMWA entitle employees to overtime premium pay
calculated at 150% of their "regular rate" of pay for hours worked
over 40 per week. In determining the overtime premium pay owed to
employees for whom a tip credit is utilized, the regular rate
includes the amount of the tip credit and extends up to the minimum
wage.

The Plaintiff resides in Lancaster, Pennsylvania (Lancaster
County).

The Defendant -- https://www.edenresort.com/ -- owns and operates
the Eden Resort & Suites complex located in Lancaster,
Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com

THOMAS COLICCHIO: Morales Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Esteban Morales, Alejandro Molina, Andres Rosario, Carlos Romero,
Carmen Simon, Domingo Rosario, Hernan Alberto Cano Cadavid, Roman
Cruz (a.k.a. Ramiro Roman Rojas), Johnny Lapaix, Jose Romero,
Julian Guzman, Miguel Paulino , Pedro Canizares, Ramon Estrella
Infante, Antonio Martinez, Jorge Raymundo Rivera, Maria Buestan
Aguaiza, Maria Camas Lucero, Maria Cecilia Buestan Paredez, Maung
Soe, Vincent Elliot, Alejandra Simon and Carlos Peri, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. THOMAS COLICCHIO,
SISHA ORTUZAR AND JEFFREY ZUROFSKY, Case No. 1:20-cv-08519
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2020), is brought for unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for the
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
minimum wage compensation for the hours per week that they worked.
The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the
Plaintiffs to work without providing the minimum wage and overtime
compensation required by federal and state law and regulations. The
Defendants employed and accounted for the Plaintiffs as delivery
workers in their payroll, but in actuality their duties required
greater or equal time spent in non-tipped, non-delivery duties.
Regardless, the Defendants paid these the Plaintiffs at the
tip-credit rate.

The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of unlawfully
appropriating the Plaintiffs' tips and made unlawful deductions
from the Plaintiffs' wages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendants, who were
employed as delivery workers.

The Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a chain of health
food delis in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


TINDER INC: Troia Appeals E.D. Missouri Ruling to Eighth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum
and Order dated Feb. 10, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled Vinny
Troia v. Tinder, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-01647-RLW, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St.
Louis).

On Feb. 10, 2020, The District Court entered an order that the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or Alternatively Stay, and to Compel
Individual Arbitration is granted. The Court compels arbitration of
the parties' dispute and dismisses the lawsuit.

The appellate case is captioned as Vinny Troia, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tinder, Inc.; Match
Group, Inc.; Match Group, LLC; and Does 1-10, Case No. 20-1347, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

The Plaintiff brought this Class Action Complaint alleging that
Tinder's unfair and illegal age discriminatory pricing schedule and
use of unconscionable contract provisions violate the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA").

Tinder is a matchmaking mobile app, which connects with users'
Facebook profiles to provide pictures and ages for other users to
view. Using GPS technology, users can set a specific radius, and
they will have the option to match with anyone that is within that
distance.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Vinny Troia, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Daniel F. Harvath, Esq.
          HARVATH LAW GROUP
          75 W. Lockwood, Suite 1
          Webster Groves, MO 63119
          Telephone: 314-550-3717

Defendants-Appellees Tinder, Inc.; Match Group, Inc.; Match Group,
LLC; and Does 1-10 are represented by:

          Glennon P. Fogarty, Esq.
          HUSCH & BLACKWELL
          190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
          Saint Louis, MO 63105-3441
          Telephone: 314-480-1500

               - and -

          Jason Husgen, Esq.
          HUSCH & BLACKWELL
          190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
          Saint Louis, MO 63105-3441
          Telephone: 314-480-1500


TIVITY HEALTH: Appeals Decision in Weiner Class Suit to 6th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Glenn Hargreaves, Adam Holland, Tivity Health, Inc., and
Donato Tramuto filed an appeal from the District Court's Order
certifying a class in the lawsuit styled ERIC WEINER, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. TIVITY HEALTH,
INC., DONATO TRAMUTO, GLENN HARGREAVES and ADAM HOLLAND, Case No.
3:17-cv-01469 (Filed Nov. 20, 2017), in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 3,
2020, the Lead Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class is granted, and
Judge Crenshaw certified a class consisting of all those who
purchased or otherwise acquired Tivity common stock between March
6, 2017, and Nov. 6, 2017, inclusive. Further, and without
objection from Tivity, the Court appointed the Oklahoma
Firefighters Pension and Retirement System as the class
representative, and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC as the class
counsel.

The appellate case is captioned as ERIC WEINER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated; and OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS
PENSION & RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiffs-Respondents v. TIVITY
HEALTH, INC.; DONATO TRAMUTO; GLENN HARGREAVES; ADAM HOLLAND,
Defendants-Petitioners, Case No. 20-501, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The questions presented are:

   -- In a case alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, must a defendant present
      evidence demonstrating that putative class members had
      actual knowledge of publicly available information
      revealing the alleged fraud prior to the alleged
      corrective disclosure to defeat class certification on the
      basis that individual inquiries into investor knowledge
      predominate over common issues?

   -- Did the District Court abuse its discretion in certifying
      a class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) despite Defendants
      presenting evidence demonstrating that (i) information
      revealing the "truth" of the alleged fraud was within the
      public domain before the alleged corrective disclosure,
      and (ii) in light of that information, it was likely that
      at least some investors knew of the alleged fraud prior to
      the corrective disclosure?

This case arose out of UHC's decision to offer its own fitness
program, Optum Fitness Advantage, that would compete with
SilverSneakers in select markets. Although UHC has continued to
contract with Tivity to offer SilverSneakers to UHC insureds in the
bulk of U.S. markets, UHC began operating Optum in January 2017 to
certain insureds in two states, Washington and New Jersey. Then, on
November 6, 2017, UHC issued a press release
announcing that it would be expanding Optum to nine additional
states in 2018.

Tivity's stock price dropped following UHC's November 6th press
release, and this action was filed shortly thereafter. Lead
Plaintiff alleges that Tivity was aware of the forthcoming Optum
rollout and that it issued public statements that were misleading
because they failed to disclose that UHC would compete with
SilverSneakers. The Plaintiff further alleges that UHC's November
6, 2017 press release revealed the truth of the Defendants' fraud
and that investors were damaged by the drop in Tivity's stock
price.

Tivity is a publicly traded company with no parent corporation. No
publicly held company owns ten percent or more of Tivity's
outstanding shares.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent ERIC WEINER, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          James A. Holifield, Jr., Esq.
          JAMES A. HOLIFIELD LAW OFFICE
          11907 Kingston Pike, Suite 201
          Knoxville, TN 37934
          Telephone: 865-566-0115

               - and -

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY
          30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: 212-363-7500

Plaintiff-Respondent OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND RETIREMENT
SYSTEM is represented by:

          Alice Buttrick, Esq.
          COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL
          88 Pine Street, Fourteenth Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: 212-838-0979

               - and -

          Benjamin Andrew Gastel, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: 615-254-8801

Defendants-Petitioners TIVITY HEALTH, INC.; DONATO TRAMUTO; GLENN
HARGREAVES; and ADAM HOLLAND are represented by:

          Jessica Perry Corley, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING
          1180 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 1700
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: 404-572-4600

               - and -

          Wallace W. Dietz, Esq.
          BASS, BERRY & SIMS
          150 Third Avenue, S., Suite 2800
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: 615-742-6200


TOKIO MARINE: MSP Recovery Sues Over Unreimbursed Medical Expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------
MSP Recovery Claims Series, LLC ("MSPRC"), and MSPA Claims 1, LLC
("MSPAC"), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. TOKIO MARINE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, PHILADELPHIA
INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, PURE INSURANCE COMPANY, SAFETY
NATIONAL CASUALTY CORPORATION, PRIVILEGE UNDERWRITERS RECIPROCAL
EXCHANGE, Case No. 1:20-cv-24199-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 13, 2020),
seeks redress for the Defendants' flagrant and systematic failure
to comply with the MSP Law by failing to pay for or reimburse
medical expenses resulting from injuries sustained in automobile
and other accidents.

The Defendants have systematically and uniformly failed to honor
their primary payer obligations under the Medicare Secondary Payer
provisions of the Social Security Act (the "MSP Law"), by failing
to pay for or reimburse medical expenses resulting from injuries
sustained in automobile and other accidents, according to the
complaint. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, those
accident-related medical expenses were paid by Medicare Advantage
Organizations, as well as first tier and downstream actors who
ultimately paid for Medicare beneficiaries' accident-related
medical expenses pursuant to risk-sharing agreements (these
Medicare Advantage payors are hereinafter referred to collectively
as "MA Plans").

The Defendants have also failed to reimburse the Plaintiffs and the
Class Members for accident-related medical expenses upon entering
into settlements with Medicare beneficiaries, the Plaintiffs
allege. As a result, they contend, the cost of those
accident-related medical expenses has been borne by Medicare and MA
Plans to the detriment of the Medicare Trust Funds and the public.
The Plaintiffs and the class are entitled to be paid or reimbursed
at industry standard rates by the defendant primary payers, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiffs' assignors are entities that have borne the costs of
Medicare benefits under the Medicare Advantage Program, otherwise
known as Part C of the Medicare Act.

The Defendants are auto and/or other liability insurers that
provide either no-fault or med-pay insurance to their customers,
including Medicare beneficiaries enrolled under Part C of the
Medicare Act.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John H. Ruiz, Esq.
          Michael O. Mena, Esq.
          MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
          2701 S. LeJeune Road, 10th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Phone: (305) 614-2222
          Email: jruiz@msprecoverylawfirm.com
                 mmena@msprecoverylawfirm.com
                 serve@msprecoverylawfirm.com

               - and -

          Francesco Zincone, Esq.
          Eduardo Bertran Esq.
          J. Alfredo Armas, Esq.
          ARMAS BERTRAN ZINCONE
          72nd 4960 SW Avenue, Suite 206
          Miami, FL 33155
          Phone: (305) 661-2021
          Email: fzincone@armaslaw.com
                 ebertran@armaslaw.com
                 alfred@armaslaw.com
                 barbi@armaslaw.com
                 nmarrero@armaslaw.com


TRANSDIGM GROUP: Hollywood Appeals N.D. Ohio Decision to 6th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff City of Hollywood, FL Firefighters' Pension Fund filed an
appeal from the District Court's Order entered in the lawsuit In
re: TransDigm Group Inc. Securities Lt., Case No. 1:17-cv-01677, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
(Cleveland).

The appellate case is captioned as CITY OF HOLLYWOOD FIREFIGHTERS'
PENSION FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant; and CITY OF WARREN, OH POLICE AND
FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, in Member Case 1:17cv1958, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSDIGM
GROUP, INC.; W. NICHOLAS HOWLEY; and TERRANCE PARADIE,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 20-3311, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

On August 10, 2017, the Plaintiff City of Hollywood Firefighters'
Pension Fund filed a Complaint against Defendants TransDigm Group,
Inc., W. Nicholas Howley and Terrance Paradie, on behalf of all
persons who purchased the securities of TransDigm Group, Inc.
between May 10, 2016 and January 19, 2017. Shortly thereafter, on
September 18, 2017, a second action was filed by the City of Warren
Police and Fire Retirement System on behalf of all persons who
purchased TransDigm's securities between May 10, 2016 and March 21,
2017.

On Feb. 19, 2020, District Judge Pamela A. Barker entered an order
granting the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and denying the
Plaintiff's request to seek leave to amend its Third Amended
Complaint. The case was terminated.

TransDigm develops, distributes and manufactures commercial and
military aerospace components, such as mechanical actuators and
ignition systems.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, FL FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION
FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
is represented by:

          Scott D. Simpkins, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES
          55 Public Square, Suite 1950
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: 216 621-8484

Defendants-Appellees TRANSDIGM GROUP, INC.; W. NICHOLAS HOWLEY; and
TERRANCE PARADIE are represented by:

          Daniel R. Warren, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER
          127 Public Square, Suite 2000
          Cleveland, OH 44114-1214
          Telephone: 216 861-7145


TRINITY SERVICES: Castillo Remanded to Kern County Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California remanded the case, ANDRE CASTILLO,
individually, on behalf of all other similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. TRINITY SERVICES GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01013-DAD-EPG (E.D. Cal.), to the Kern County Superior
Court.

Plaintiff Castillo initiated the putative class action in Kern
County Superior Court on May 28, 2019.  In the complaint, the
Plaintiff brings six causes of action alleging that his employer,
Defendant Trinity, violated California labor law by failing to pay
overtime wages, provide meal periods, permit rest breaks, provide
accurate itemized wage statements, and pay all wages due upon
termination.  The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendant
violated California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200,
et seq., by engaging in unfair and unlawful business practices.

In his complaint, the Plaintiff also alleges that he is a resident
of California, and he worked as a non-exempt employee for the
Defendant, which provides contracted food services for detention
centers across the country, including in California.  According to
him, the Defendant engaged in a systematic pattern of wage and hour
violations and systematically engaged in unlawful conduct, such as
failing to pay overtime and double time wages at the correct rate,
failing to provide meal periods and rest breaks or compensation in
lieu thereof, failing to furnish accurate wage statements, and
failing to pay all wages due and owing upon separation of
employment in a timely manner.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a proposed class defined as: All
California citizens currently or formerly employed by the
Defendants as non-exempt employees in the State of California
within four years prior to the filing of the action to the date the
class is certified.  His complaint defines a proposed "waiting
time" subclass as: All Class Members who separated their employment
with Defendants at any time within three years prior to the filing
of this action to the date the class is certified.

On July 25, 2019, the Defendant timely removed the action to the
California District Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act
(CAFA).  On March 3, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the pending motion
to remand the action to state court, contending that the Defendant
has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the
amount in controversy exceeds $5 million as required by CAFA.  On
April 21, 2020, the Defendant filed its opposition to the
Plaintiff's motion to remand and a declaration from Khadeeja Morse,
the Defendant's Chief People Officer.  On April 28, 2020, the
Plaintiff filed his reply to the Defendant's opposition.

On June 3, 2020, the Court ordered the parties to submit additional
evidence regarding the amount in controversy.  On June 17, 2020,
the Defendant filed a supplemental declaration from Ms. Morse in
support of its opposition, and the Plaintiff filed a supplemental
declaration from his counsel, Fawn F. Bekam, in support of his
motion to remand.

On June 18, 2020, the Defendant filed objections to the Bekam
Declaration.  On June 19, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a response to
the Defendant's objections, to which the latter file a reply.

Judge Drozd finds that the Supplemental Morse Declaration is
sufficient to support the employment data variables, such as hourly
rate and number of workweeks, used by the Defendant to calculate
the amount in controversy.  However, the Supplemental Morse
Declaration does not provide any evidence regarding the frequency
of violations with respect to each of the Plaintiff's claims or the
violation rate generally.  

As is common in wage-and-hour cases, the amount in controversy
turns on the frequency of the alleged violations of California
labor laws.  Because the Defendant has not submitted any evidence
regarding violation rates, the Judge evaluates whether the 100%
violation rate the Defendant relied upon to calculate the amount in
controversy is based on a chain of reasoning and reasonable
assumptions grounded in the allegations of the Plaintiff's
complaint.

He finds that the Defendant's use of a 100% violation rate to
calculate the amount in controversy for the Plaintiff's meal period
claims is not reasonable because it is not grounded in the
allegations in the Plaintiff's complaint.  Additionally, the
Defendant has not submitted any evidence as to the frequency of
violations, let alone evidence supporting the 100% violation rate
it employed in reaching its conclusion regarding the amount in
controversy.

Next, the Judge does not determine that a 50% violation rate is
appropriate in the case -- and need not do so -- because even
assuming arguendo that a 50% violation rate for the meal period
claims and rest period claims is reasonable, the resulting total
amount in controversy is less than the jurisdictional threshold.
Even were he to assume a 50% violation rate for the Plaintiff's
meal and rest period claims and a 100% violation rate for the wage
statement claims and waiting time claims, the Judge finds that the
subtotal amount in controversy is less than $5 million.  Thus,
unless a sufficient amount for attorneys' fees is included, the
jurisdictional threshold is not met.

Finally, the Judge finds that the Defendant has not made any effort
to meet its burden to prove the amount of attorneys' fees at stake
in the action by a preponderance of the evidence.  For example, the
Defendant has not provided counsel's hourly rates or anticipated
time expenditures from which an estimated lodestar could be
calculated.  Consistent with the Ninth Circuit's opinion in Fritsch
v. Swift Transp. Co. of Ariz., LLC, the Judge will not relieve the
Defendant of its evidentiary burden in this regard.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Drozd finds that the Defendant has
failed to meet its burden of showing by a preponderance of the
evidence that the amount in controversy in the case exceeds the
jurisdictional threshold.  In particular, it has submitted no
evidence regarding its amount for attorneys' fees and has assumed a
100% violation rate which is not reasonably grounded upon the
allegations of the Plaintiff's complaint.

Accordingly, Judge Drozd granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand.
The action is remanded to the Kern County Superior Court for all
further proceedings.  The Clerk of the Court is directed to close
the case.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 7, 2020 Order is
available at https://bit.ly/2T5b6FO from Leagle.com.


TRUMAN MEDICAL: Court Tosses Invasion of Privacy Suit Filed by CJ
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri issued
an order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case
captioned as C.J., a minor by and through his next friend JANICE
BRADY, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRUMAN
MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Case No. 4:20-CV-00261-DGK (W.D. Mo.).

The putative class-action lawsuit arises out of the theft of laptop
from Defendant Truman Medical Center, Inc.'s ("TMC") employee,
which purportedly contained Plaintiff C.J.'s and other class
members' personal information. The Plaintiff asserts that because
of the theft, TMC is liable for damages under seven state-law tort
and contract theories. The Plaintiff, who brought this lawsuit on
April 2, 2020, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, alleges negligence (Count I), invasion of
privacy (Count II), breach of express and implied contract (Counts
III and IV), negligence per se (Count V), breach of fiduciary duty
(Count VI), and violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices
Act ("MMPA") (Count VII) arising from the theft of TMC's laptop and
the potential disclosure of his personal, private information.

In lieu of an answer, TMC filed the instant motion to dismiss,
claiming this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear this
case.

District Judge Greg Kays dismissed the case without prejudice
stating that the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction
over this action.

According to the Order, a case may arise (among other reasons)
under federal law where "a federal issue is: (1) necessarily
raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of
resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state
balance approved by Congress." (summarizing the standard previously
outlined by the Supreme Court in Grable & Sons Metal Prods. v.
Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314 (2005)).

Judge Kays states that it is clear from the Plaintiff's complaint
that this case does not fall within the first category because
Plaintiff has pled no federal causes of action. Thus, the Court has
federal-question jurisdiction over this case only if it is one of
the "special and small category" of cases that meet the Grable/Gunn
standard. Judge Kays adds, among other things, that as to the
fourth factor, allowing these garden-variety, state-law claims
premised on the breach of some federal standard of care to proceed
in federal court would essentially federalize an entire category of
cases that Congress has not federalized, and it would also
circumvent the enforcement mechanisms of these statutes established
by Congress, greatly disturbing the balance between federal and
state judicial responsibilities.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 25, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ydzy9lw2 from Leagle.com.


ULTRA PETROLEUM: Faces Bussom Suit Over 99% Drop in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW BUSSOM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MICHAEL D. WATFORD; GARLAND R. SHAW; C. BRADLEY
JOHNSON; DAVID W. HONEYFIELD; and JERALD J. STRATTON, JR., Case No.
1:20-cv-02820 (D. Colo., Sept. 17, 2020), accuses the Defendants of
violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and
misleading statements resulting to the precipitous decline in the
market value of the Company's securities.

The lawsuit is a federal securities class action on behalf of a
class by the Plaintiff and the Class, who purchased or otherwise
acquired Ultra Petroleum Corp. securities between April 13, 2017,
and August 8, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, at the start of the Class Period, in
April 2017, Ultra exited a court-supervised reorganization under
Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. At the time, Ultra's
management hailed the Company's purportedly streamlined and
flexible financial profile, lower debt load, access to credit
lines, and production growth capabilities.

Ultra exited the bankruptcy purportedly in "growth mode." The
Defendants stated that the Company was poised to maximize the value
of its substantial oil and gas deposits (which they valued at $4.19
billion, including $1.5 billion of proved undeveloped reserves)
through ramped up production in 2017 and 2018. They likewise
claimed that Ultra was on track to produce between 290 and 300
billion cubic feet equivalent ("Bcfe") in 2017, with 25% production
growth over these figures in 2018. The Defendants represented that
the Company had the financial and production flexibility to weather
even a low-commodity-price environment and was set to ramp up well
development with ten rigs operating by 2018 on the back of an
estimated $788 million capital budget.

These and similar statements to investors were materially false and
misleading when made, the Plaintiff alleges. Throughout the Class
Period, the Defendants allegedly, inter alia: (i) materially
overstated the value of Ultra's oil and gas reserves; (ii)
materially misrepresented the Company's ability to ramp up
production and its financial flexibility; (iii) failed to disclose
the Company's extreme sensitivity to even a modest decline in
natural gas prices; and (iv) concealed significant setbacks in the
Company's vaunted horizontal well drilling program.

Ultra stock has now been delisted, according to the complaint. In
May 2020, the Company was forced to enter bankruptcy proceedings
yet again to seek a court-ordered reorganization. This time,
however, the Company claimed its equity is worthless and that
shareholders should get nothing. The bankruptcy court approved the
Company's reorganization plan on August 21, 2020. The bankruptcy
court approved the Company's reorganization plan on August 21,
2020. The price of Ultra securities has plummeted 99% from its
Class Period high to a low of less than $0.01 per share, causing
investors in the Company to suffer tremendous losses.

Ultra Petroleum Corp. is an independent exploration and production
company. The Company focuses on developing its natural gas reserves
in the Green River Basin of Wyoming-the Pinedale and Jonah Fields
and is in the early exploration and development stages in the
Appalachian Basin of Pennsylvania.[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


UNITED STATES: Campbell Files Cert. Petition for Judgment Review
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs filed with the Supreme Court of the United States a
petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled CALLAN
CAMPBELL, KEVIN C. CHADWICK (INDIVIDUALLY AND THROUGH HIS
COURT-APPOINTED ADMINISTRATORS, JAMES H. CHADWICK AND JUDITH STRODE
CHADWICK), JAMES H. CHADWICK, JUDITH STRODE, CHADWICK, THE TYLER
JUNSO ESTATE (THROUGH KEVIN JUNSO, ITS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE),
NIKI JUNSO, AND KEVIN JUNSO, all on their own behalf and on behalf
of a class of all others similarly situated, Petitioners v. UNITED
STATES, Respondent, Case No. 19A890.

The Petitioners petition for a writ of certiorari to review the
judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit, in the case titled Callan Campbell, et al. v. United
States, Case No. 2018-2014.

The U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North
America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the
nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Petitioners are represented by:

          Robert H. Thomas, Esq.
          DAMON KEY LEONG KUPCHAK HASTERT
          1003 Bishop Street 1600 Pauahi Tower
          Honolulu, HI 96813-0000
          E-mail: rht@hawaiilawyer.com

The Respondent is represented by:

          Noel J. Francisco, Esq.
          SOLICITOR GENERAL
          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue
          NW Washington, DC 20530-0001
          E-mail: SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov


UNITED STATES: Federal Cir. Appeal Filed in Tapia Caregivers Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jennifer Crisostomo, Jennifer Wilmont, Kimberly Colon,
Mara Dunn, Melissa Larson, and Zamantha Tapia filed an appeal from
a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled ZAMANTHA TAPIA, MARA
DUNN, JENNIFER WILMONT, JENNIFER CRISOSTOMO, KIMBERLY COLON,
MELISSA LARSON, on behalf of themselves and all other individuals
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 1:19-cv-00108-MBH, in the U.S. Court
of Federal Claims.

On Dec. 16, 2019, District Judge Marian Blank Horn entered an order
granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction, and dismissing the Plaintiffs'
complaint.

The appellate case is captioned as MARA DUNN, JENNIFER WILMONT,
JENNIFER CRISOSTOMO, KIMBERLY COLON, AND MELISSA LARSON on behalf
of themselves and all other individuals similarly situated v. USA,
Case No. 20-1497, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit.

The case was filed by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and
other proposed class members as the "primary family caregivers" of
injured veterans. The Plaintiffs' complaint seeks compensation for
alleged wrongful determinations under the "Program of comprehensive
assistance for family caregivers" (Family Caregivers Program),
which is administered by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA)
of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The
Plaintiffs' complaint also seeks class certification to include
other primary family caregivers who have been affected by alleged
wrongful determinations by the VA under the Family Caregivers
Program. The Plaintiffs allege that they and other proposed class
members were wrongfully denied the appropriate caregiver assistance
for "family caregivers of eligible veterans."[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants ZAMANTHA TAPIA, KIMBERLY COLON, JENNIFER
CRISOSTOMO, JENNIFER WILMONT, MARA DUNN, and MELISSA LARSON, on
behalf of themselves and all other individuals similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Jason E. Perry, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JASON PERRY
          276 Crescent Circle
          Cheshire, CT 06410
          Telephone: 203-887-6967

Defendant-Appellee UNITED STATES is represented by:

          Shari A. Rose, Esq.
          DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          Director, Commercial Litigation Branch
          Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice
          PO Box 480
          Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 305-1265


UNITED STATES: First Circuit Appeal Filed in Brito Detainee Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants William P. Barr, Timothy S. Robbins, Matthew T. Albence,
Chad Wolf, James McHenry, Antone Moniz, Yolanda Smith, Steven
Souza, Christopher Brackett, and Lori Streeter filed an appeal from
a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Pereira Brito, et al.
v. Barr, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-11314-PBS, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston).

William Pelham Barr serves as United States Attorney General since
2019.

The nature of suit is stated as Habeas Corpus-Alien Detainee.

The appellate case is captioned as GILBERTO PEREIRA BRITO and JACKY
CELICOURT, Individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. CHAD WOLF, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security; WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, U.S. Department of
Justice; TIMOTHY S. ROBBINS, Acting Field Office Director,
Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; MATTHEW T. ALBENCE, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement; ANTONE MONIZ, Superintendent of the
Plymouth County Correctional Facility; YOLANDA SMITH,
Superintendent of the Suffolk County House of Corrections; STEVE
SOUZA, Superintendent of the Bristol County House of Corrections;
JAMES MCHENRY, Director, Executive Office of Immigration Review,
U.S. Department of Justice; CHRISTOPHER BRACKETT, Superintendent of
the Strafford County Department of Corrections; and LORI STREETER,
Superintendent of the Franklin County House of Corrections, Case
No. 20-1119, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit.

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is a federal law
enforcement agency under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
ICE's stated mission is to protect America from the cross-border
crime and illegal immigration that threaten national security and
public safety.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          Gilles R. Bissonnette, Esq.
          ACLU OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
          18 Low Ave.
          Concord, NH 03301-0000
          Telephone: 603-333-2081

               - and -

          Susan J. Cohen, Esq.
          Ryan T. Dougherty, Esq.
          Susan M. Finegan, Esq.
          Jennifer J. Mather, Esq.
          Mathilda McGee-Tubb, Esq.
          Andrew N. Nathanson, Esq.
          MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY & POPEO PC
          1 Financial Ctr.
          Boston, MA 02111-0000
          Telephone: 617-348-4468

               - and -

          SangYeob Kim, Esq.
          Henry R. Klementowicz, Esq.
          ACLU OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
          18 Low Ave.
          Concord, NH 03301-0000
          Telephone: 603-333-2081

               - and -

          Adriana Lafaille, Esq.
          Daniel Louis McFadden, Esq.
          Matthew R. Segal, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MASSACHUSETTS
          211 Congress St., 3rd Flr.
          Boston, MA 02110-2485
          Telephone: 617-482-3170

               - and -

          Michael King Thomas Tan, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          125 Broad St., 18th Flr.
          New York, NY 10004-0000
          Telephone: 347-714-0740

The Defendants-Appellants are represented by:

          Rayford A. Farquhar, Esq.
          Huy Le, Esq.
          Donald Campbell Lockhart, Esq.
          US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          1 Courthouse Way, Ste. 9200
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: 617-748-3100

               - and -

          Carlton Frederick Sheffield, Esq.
          J. Max Weintraub, Esq.
          U.S. DEP'T OF JUSTICE
          PO Box 878
          Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044-0878
          Telephone: 202-532-4737


USAA LIFE: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Spegele Insurance Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant USAA Life Insurance Company filed an appeal from a Court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ROY C. SPEGELE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. USAA LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 5:17-CV-967, in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 7,
2020, the Plaintiff moved the Court for an order certifying the
case as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), 23(b)(3),
and/or 23(c)(4):

   "all persons who own or owned a Universal Life 3 and/or a
   Universal Life 4 life insurance policy issued or administered
   by USAA Life Insurance Company, or its predecessors in
   interest, that was active as of March 1999.

Alternatively, the Plaintiff sought certification of a class of:

   "all persons who own or owned a New York-issued Universal Life
   3 and/or a Universal Life 4 life insurance policy issued or
   administered by USAA Life Insurance Company, or its
   predecessors in interest, that was active as of March 1999."

   Excluded from the alternative class are: USAA; any entity in
   which USAA has a controlling interest; any of the officers,
   directors, or employees of USAA; the legal representatives,
   heirs, successors, and assigns of USAA; anyone employed with
   Plaintiff's counsel's firms; and any Judge to whom this case is
   assigned, and his or her immediate family. Also excluded from
   the Class are policies issued by USAA Life Insurance Company of
New York.

The appellate case is captioned as Roy Spegele v. USAA Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 20-90039, in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent Roy C. Spegele, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          GIRARD, GIBBS & DEBARTOLOMEO
          601 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94108-0000
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com

               - and -

          Ethan M. Lange, Esq.
          STUEVE, SIEGEL & HANSON, L.L.P.
          460 Nichols Road
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 590-9307
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: lange@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Larry R. Veselka, Esq.
          SMYSER KAPLAN & VESELKA, L.L.P.
          717 Texas Avenue
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 221-2325
          Facsimile: (713) 221-2320
          E-mail: lveselka@skv.com

Defendant-Petitioner USAA Life Insurance Company is represented
by:

          Robert Nathan Hochman, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN, L.L.P.
          1 S. Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-7000
          E-mail: rhochman@sidley.com


USC: Joplin Sues Over Tuition and Fees Amid COVID-19 Closure
------------------------------------------------------------
SONJA JOPLIN, ROBERT CALVERT, and CHILE AGUINIGA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. UNIVERSITY OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a California nonprofit corporation; and DOES 1
through 10 inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-09338 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 9,
2020), seeks redress for the Defendants' breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, acts amounting to the action of money had and received,
and violations of the California's Unfair Competition Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have shut down all of
its campus facilities, discontinued all live in-classroom
instruction of all courses at any of the Defendants' campuses and
schools, and instead moved all instruction to virtual online
pre-recorded and/or live streaming video instruction. While these
actions are attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic and the
shelter-in-place order in effect in the State of California, the
Defendants have continued holding the Plaintiffs and all students
liable for the full pre-shutdown tuition and fee obligations,
despite the fact that the Defendants are unable to provide, and are
not providing, the services and facilities that the students
bargained for and are being billed for as part of their tuition and
fees-fees and tuition costs that easily amount to thousands of
dollars per student but less than $75,000 each at this time.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants has breached its
agreement with students by continuing to charge and demand full
tuition and fees, even though they are not providing any in-person
classroom instruction at any of their campuses and not making
campus facilities available for students.

The Plaintiffs are current graduate and undergraduate students at
the University of Southern California.

University of Southern California is a private university
incorporated in the state of California with an enrollment of
approximately 48,500 students, with approximately 20,500
undergraduate students and 28,000 graduate and professional
students.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carney R. Shegerian, Esq.
          Anthony Nguyen, Esq.
          Cheryl A. Kenner, Esq.
          SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          145 South Spring Street, Suite 400
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: (310) 860-0770
          Facsimile: (310) 860-0771
          E-mail: CShegerian@Shegerianlaw.com
                  ANguyen@Shegerianlaw.com
                  CKenner@Shegerianlaw.com


VENEZUELA: Retter Sues Over Unpaid Obligations Under Gov't Bonds
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL RETTER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA, Case No.
1:20-cv-08495 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2020), is a class action against
the Defendant for breach of contract.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay the
Plaintiff and Class members outstanding principal and accrued
interest currently due and owing on Venezuela Government
International Bonds issued by the Defendant pursuant to a Fiscal
Agency Agreement (FAA) dated July 25, 2001, as amended by Amendment
No. 1 on September 19, 2003, Amendment No. 2 on March 25, 2005, and
Amendment No. 3 on December 17, 2007. Pursuant to the FAA and
bonds' prospectus contract, the Defendant was to pay them interest
on the bonds semiannually at a fixed rate, as well as outstanding
principal due on the bonds in full on the bonds' maturity date.

As a result of the Defendant's actions, the Plaintiff and Class
members were caused to suffer and continue to suffer damages, the
Plaintiff contends.

Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is a country on the northern coast
of South America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Gregory A. Nahas, Esq.
         PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA, LLP
         950 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Telephone: (212) 213-8511
         Facsimile: (347) 897-0094
         E-mail: Greg@pnlawyers.com


VICE CAPITAL: Solberg Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN SOLBERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VICE CAPITAL EXTRACTION, LLC d/b/a LOTUS GOLD
DISPENSARY, Case No. 5:20-cv-01039-G (W.D. Okla., Oct. 13, 2020),
is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent telemarketing text
messages to the cellular telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and
Class members using an automatic telephone dialing system. The
Plaintiff's and Class members' cellular telephone numbers have been
listed on the National Do Not Call Registry and they did not
provide their prior express written consent to receive such
telemarketing messages.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek injunction to halt the
Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of
privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of their daily
lives.

Vice Capital Extraction, LLC, d/b/a Lotus Gold Dispensary, is a
medical marijuana dispensary in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
         SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
         14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
         Miami, FL 33132
         Telephone: (305) 479-2299
         E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


VIRGIN AMERICA: Appeals Decision in Bernstein Suit to 9th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the
lawsuit styled Julia Bernstein, et al. v. Virgin America, Inc., et
al., Case No. 4:15-cv-02277-JST, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (Oakland).

On Jan. 16, 2019, the District Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order
granting in part Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on
damages. The Court will award Plaintiffs' proposed amount, with two
exceptions. First, the Court holds that Plaintiffs are not entitled
to prejudgment interest on their meal period and rest break claims
under California Labor Code section 218.6. Accordingly, the Court
subtracts $60,518.78 in prejudgment interest from the proposed
total as of October 25, 2018, and $52.16 in the per-day prejudgment
interest following that date. Second, the Court exercises its
discretion under California Labor Code section 2699(e)(2) to reduce
the remaining PAGA penalties by 25 percent, from $33,308,200 to
$24,981,150. In sum, the Court awards Plaintiffs: (1)
$45,337,305.29 in damages and restitution; (2) $3,552.71 per day in
continuing prejudgment interest after October 25, 2018; (3)
$6,704,810 in statutory penalties; and (4) $24,981,150 in PAGA
civil penalties.

The appellate case is captioned as JULIA BERNSTEIN; ESTHER GARCIA;
LISA MARIE SMITH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs–Appellees v. VIRGIN AMERICA, INC.; ALASKA
AIRLINES, INC., Defendants–Appellants, Case No. 20-15186, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The case is a wage-and-hour class action brought by flight
attendants who work or have worked for Defendants Virgin America,
Inc. and Alaska Airlines, Inc. in California. The Plaintiffs allege
that Virgin violated various California labor laws regarding
payment for hours worked, wage amounts, wage documentation, and the
provision of meal and rest breaks. The Court certified a class of
certain Virgin flight attendants, which it later decertified in
part. Virgin alleges that some members of the class have waived
their claims through a voluntary buyout program, Career Choice
Program, in which they released all employment-related claims in
exchange for a lump-sum payment and travel privileges. Virgin first
raised "Waiver/Release" as an affirmative defense in its answer on
May 19, 2015.

Virgin America was an American airline that operated between 2007
and 2018, when it was integrated into Alaska Airlines. The airline
primarily focused on operating low-fare service between cities on
the West Coast and other major metropolitan areas, with higher
quality service.[BN]


WALGREEN CO: E.D. Calif. Stays Proceedings in Whittington Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
issued a Memorandum and Order granting the Defendant's Motion to
Stay Proceedings in the case styled CHARLES WHITTINGTON,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
WALGREEN CO., an Illinois corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00600 WBS CKD (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Charles Whittington filed this action individually, and
on behalf of other similarly situated, against Defendants Walgreen
Co. and Does 1 through 50, alleging several wage and hour claims
under the California Labor Code.

On November 6, 2018, a wage and hour class action lawsuit was filed
against Defendant Walgreen, entitled Lucas Mejia v. Walgreen Co.,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00218-WBS-AC, which is also currently pending
before this Court. The Mejia action alleges the following wage and
hour claims: (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay
overtime wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to
authorize and permit rest periods; (5) failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements; (6) failure to timely pay all wages after
separation of employment; and (7) unlawful business practices, Cal.
Bus. & Profs. Code. Plaintiff Mejia alleged his claims individually
and on behalf of current and former non-exempt employees, who have
worked in defendant's distribution centers.

Over a year later, on January 24, 2020, Plaintiff Whittington--a
former employee, who worked in one of the Defendant's California
distribution centers--filed this wage and hour class action against
the Defendants alleging the following claims: (1) failure to
provide required meal periods; (2) failure to provide required rest
periods; (3) failure to pay overtime wages; (4) failure to pay
minimum wages; (5) failure to pay all wages due to discharged and
quitting employees; (6) failure to maintain required records; (7)
failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; (8) failure
to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures incurred in
discharge of duties; (9) unfair and unlawful business practices,
Cal. Bus. & Profs. Code Sections 17200, et seq.; and (10) penalties
under the Private Attorneys General Act. Like the Mejia action,
this action seeks to represent the same putative class comprised of
all current and former non-exempt employees of the Defendants, who
work or worked at its distribution centers in California.

The Defendant now moves to stay the present action pending the
resolution of Mejia.

Discussion

"The first-to-file rule allows a district court to transfer, stay,
or dismiss an action when a similar complaint has already been
filed in another federal court." Kohn Law Grp., Inc. v. Auto Parts
Mfg. Miss., Inc., 787 F.3d 1237, 1239 (9th Cir. 2015). The rule "is
intended to serve[ ] the purpose of promoting efficiency well and
should not be disregarded lightly."

Here, the Plaintiff does not contest (1) that the Mejia action was
filed before the present action, (2) that the Defendant and
proposed putative classes in the Mejia and the instant action are
the same, and (3) that the issues and claims involved in both
actions are substantially similar, District Judge William B. Shubb
notes. The Plaintiff argues only that the claims alleged in both
actions are not identical.

Judge Shubb opines that because only two of the Plaintiff's 10
claims do not overlap with the Mejia action, the court finds that
there is "'substantial overlap' between the two suits" and that the
issues are, therefore, substantially similar, citing Kohn Law Grp.,
787 F.3d at 1241 (quoting Harris Cty., Tex. v. CarMax Auto
Superstores Inc., 177 F.3d 306, 319 (5th Cir. 1999)).

Because this action meets all three requirements of the
first-to-file rule, the Court will exercise its discretion to stay
the proceedings, Judge Shubb states. Therefore, the Defendants'
motion to stay is granted. The Clerk is instructed to
administratively close the file in this case, subject to its being
reopened upon application of any party after final disposition of
the case in Mejia v. Walgreen Co., No 2:19-cv-00218 WBS-AC.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 25, 2020 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y86epc8n from
Leagle.com.


WALGREENS BOOTS: Appeals D. Ariz. Order in B.P. Suit to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., et al., filed an appeal
from the District Court's Order entered in the lawsuit styled B.P.,
et al. v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:16-cv-02138-HRH, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona (Phoenix).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge H.
Russel Holland of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' request
to dismiss the Plaintiffs' second amended consolidated class action
complaint ("SAC").

The appellate case is captioned as B.P., D.L., R.G., S.J., A.R.,
S.L., and B.B., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Respondents v. WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.
and WALGREENS ARIZONA DRUG COMPANY, Defendants-Petitioners, Case
No. 20-80058, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

Walgreens Boots is an American holding company headquartered in
Deerfield, Illinois, that owns Walgreens, Boots, and a number of
pharmaceutical manufacturing, wholesale, and distribution
companies.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents B.P., D.L., R.G., S.J., A.R., S.L., and
B.B., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Roger N. Heller, Esq.
          Michael Sobol, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: 415-956-1000

               - and -

          Mark Dudley Samson, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
          3101 North Central Avenue
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: 602-230-6323

               - and -

          Linda Marie Fong, Esq.
          Laurence David King, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          350 Sansome Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415-772-4700

               - and -

          Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED
          14646 N. Kierland Blvd.
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254

Defendants-Petitioners WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC. and WALGREENS
ARIZONA DRUG COMPANY are represented by:

          David Ryan Carpenter, Esq.
          Lawrence Fogel, Esq.
          Robert N. Hochman, Esq.
          Kara Lynn McCall, Esq.
          Kristen R. Seeger, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 West 5th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: 213-896-6679


WARNER MUSIC: Fails to Protect Customers' Data, Cimaglio Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS CIMAGLIO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. WARNER MUSIC GROUP CORPORATION, Case No.
1:20-cv-08085-PGG (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 30, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' failure to properly safeguard the personal financial
data of customers, including the Plaintiff and class members, who
purchase merchandise through the Defendant's operated Web sites.

According to the complaint, between April 25, 2020, and August 5,
2020, the Defendant was the subject of a data breach. This data
breach was conducted through a prolonged, Magecart-style skimming
attack across numerous Web sites operated by the Defendant. The
hackers implanted virtual software on the checkout pages of the
Defendant's Web sites, which allowed the unauthorized third party
to acquire a copy of the personal identifying information ("PII")
entered by customers in the Web sites.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant's breach of its duties has
directly and proximately injured the Plaintiff and members of the
classes, including by foreseeably causing them to expend time and
resources investigating the extent to which their PII has been
compromised, taking reasonable steps to minimize the extent to
which the breach puts their credit, reputation, and finances at
risk, and taking reasonable steps (now or in the future) to redress
fraud, identity theft, and similarly foreseeable consequences of
unauthorized and criminal access to their PII.

Warner Music Group Corporation is one of the "big three" recording
companies and the third largest in the global music industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          Max S. Roberts, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue, Third Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
                  mroberts@bursor.com


WARNER MUSIC: Gutierrez Sues in Southern District of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Warner Music Group Corp. The
case is captioned as Ali Gutierrez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated; and Ashley Foster, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Warner Music Group
Corp., Case No. 1:20-cv-08117-PGG (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 30, 2020).

The lawsuit arises from personal property-related issues. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Paul G. Gardephe.

Warner Music Group Corp. is an American multinational entertainment
and record label conglomerate headquartered in New York City. It is
one of the "big three" recording companies and the third largest in
the global music industry, after Universal Music Group and Sony
Music Entertainment.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin Gilbert Cooper, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Ave.
          New York, NY 11217
          Telephone: (212) 545-4717
          E-mail: kcooper@whafh.com


WELLS FARGO: Appeals Decision in Hernandez Suit to Ninth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Alicia Hernandez, et al. v.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-07354-WHA (Filed
Dec. 5, 2018), in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco).

On Jan. 29, 2020, District Judge William Alsup entered an order
granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification. The following class is certified:

   "all persons in the United States who between 2010 and 2018
   (i) qualified for a home loan modification or repayment plan
   pursuant to the requirements of government-sponsored
   enterprises (such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), the Federal
   Housing Administration (FHA), the U.S. Department of
   Treasury's Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP); (ii)
   were not offered a home loan modification or repayment plan
   by Wells Fargo due to excessive attorney's fees being
   included in the loan modification decisioning process; and
   (iii) whose home Wells Fargo sold in foreclosure."

According to the ruling, the class is certified only with respect
to the breach of contract claim. This class definition shall apply
for all purposes, including settlement. If further discovery is
needed as to plaintiff Campos or any other issue, the Court is
amenable to reopen discovery for a limited period.

The appellate case is captioned as ALICIA HERNANDEZ, DIANA TREVINO,
COSZETTA TEAGUE, YVONNE DEMARTINO, GEORGE FLOYD, TROY FRYE, RUSSELL
SIMONEAUX, TIFFANIE HOOD, ROSE WILSON, EMMA WHITE, CYNDI FLOYD,
JOHN DEMARTINO, KEITH LINDNER, BRENDA SIMONEAUX, DEBORA GRANJA, and
SANDRA CAMPOS, Plaintiff-Respondents, individually and on behalf of
all others, and IESHA BROWN, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
and WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, Respondents, Case No. 20-80033, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services company
headquartered in San Francisco, California, with central offices
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Respondents are represented by:

          Richard Monroe Paul, III,
          PAUL LLP
          601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: 816-984-8100

               - and -

          Michael L. Schrag, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 1110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: 510-350-9718

Defendant-Petitioners Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo &
Company are represented by:

          Amanda L. Groves, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          300 South Tryon Street, 16th Floor
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: 704-350-7745


WINGS OVER: Carts Appeals M.D. Pa. Pennsylvania Order to 3rd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Ty Carts, Lewis Grove, Colin Krieger, and Branden Ronald
filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled
Ty Carts, et al. v. Wings Over Happy Valley MDF, LLC, et al., Case
No. 4-17-cv-00915, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania.

The Hon. Judge Yvette Kane of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania has previously (i) denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23, but
(ii) granted the Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify a
collective class under the FLSA.

The appellate case is captioned as TY CARTS, COLIN KRIEGER, BRANDEN
RONALD, and LEWIS GROVE, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff-Petitioner v. WINGS OVER
HAPPY VALLEY MDF, LLC d/b/a/ Wings Over Happy Valley; STEVEN C.
MOREIRA; and WINGS OVER HAPPY VALLEY LLC, Defendants-Respondents,
Case No. 20-8022, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit.

The Plaintiffs filed the complaint in the Pennsylvania Court on May
24, 2017, seeking to represent a class of workers alleging that the
Defendants Wings Over Happy Valley and Steven C. Moreira violated
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and various state wage
and hour laws. They subsequently filed a motion for leave to file
an amended complaint removing Plaintiff Wilson and adding Wings
Over Happy Valley LLC as Defendant, which was granted on Feb. 12,
2019.

The Plaintiffs' claims stem from their allegation that the
Defendants operated an illegal tip pool for delivery drivers at the
Defendants' restaurant.  Specifically, the Plaintiffs argue that
the FLSA and Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act require employers to pay
employees a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, with the exception of
tipped employees, who may be paid at a rate below the minimum wage
so long as all tips received by such employee have been retained by
the employee.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants routinely required all
delivery drivers to provide a portion of their tips to kitchen
workers at the restaurant.  Plaintiffs note that the Defendants'
kitchen workers are not employees who customarily and regularly
receive tips and argue that, therefore, any practice that required
delivery drivers to share tips with kitchen workers operated in
violation of the FLSA and corollary state law.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner TY CARTS, COLIN KRIEGER, BRANDEN RONALD, and
LEWIS GROVE, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, are represented by:

          David B. Consiglio, Esq.
          David S. Gaines, Jr., Esq.
          MILLER KISTLER & CAMPBELL
          720 South Atherton Street
          State College, PA 16801
          Telephone: 814 234-1500

Defendants-Respondents WINGS OVER HAPPY VALLEY MDF, LLC d/b/a/
Wings Over Happy Valley; STEVEN C. MOREIRA; and WINGS OVER HAPPY
VALLEY LLC, are represented by:

          Philip K. Miles, Esq.
          MCQUAIDE BLASKO INC
          811 University Drive
          State College, PA 16801
          Telephone: 814 238-4926



                            *********

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 ***