/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201022.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, October 22, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 212

                            Headlines

A&L HOME CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Clark et al. Claim
AIR PRODUCTS: Camcara Inc. Sues over Arbitrary Surcharges
ALASKA NATIVE: Morrison & Foerster Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
AMERICAN HONDA: MacDougall Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Circuit
ANAPLAN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 23 Motion Deadline

ANNA MARIA COLLEGE: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ARBITERSPORTS LLC: Quezada Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
ARCH INSURANCE: Staley Suit Goes to W.D. Missouri
ASH SOUNDS: Settles Falls Festival Crowd Crush Class Action
AUSTIN BRIDGE: Misclassifies Field Office Managers, Davis Alleges

AUSTRALIA: Minister for Environment Faces Climate Change Lawsuit
BANK OF AMERICA: Cota Files ADA Suit in S.D. California
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Blankenship Alleges Spoofing of Metals Futures
BAY POWER: Faces Dahl FLSA Suit Over Failure to Properly Pay OT
BETTER MORTGAGE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Dominguez Says

BIOLA UNIVERSITY: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BLACKBAUD INC: Faces Cohen Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
BLINK CHARGING: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Oct. 23 Motion Deadline
BRASKEM SA: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Oct. 26 Motion Deadline
CALIFIA FARMS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

CAPIO PARTNERS: Scurlark Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
CHARTWELL RETIREMENT: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Failures
CHICAGO CITY, IL: Cannon Files RICO Class Action
CLARUS DIRECT: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
COTY INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of Nov. 3 Motion Deadline

COTY INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 3 Motion Deadline
CREDIBLE BEHAVIORAL: Starr Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
CULTURAL CARE: Improperly Paid Au Pairs, Morales Suit Alleges
DAYTONA BR-GD: Faces Jones Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE: Hildebrandt Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois

ELNA SEFCOVIC: Gonzalez Seeks High Court Review of Judgment
EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Faces Sholtz Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Class Action Over Defective Door Panels
FLORIDA: Court Grants Summary Judgment in Hep C Class Action
FLUIDIGM CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Nov. 20 Motion Deadline

GENERALI GLOBAL: Cooper Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
GOHEALTH INC: Bernstein Liebhard Alerts of Class Action Filing
GOHEALTH INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of Nov. 20 Motion Deadline
GOL LINHAS: Bragar Eagel Alerts of Class Action Filing
GOOGLE: Decision to Remove Paytm from Play Store Raises Questions

HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN: Berry Files Civil Rights Suit
IBM: Age Discrimination Class Action Ongoing
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Johnson Fistel Investigates Gilead Sale
INFORMA BUSINESS: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ITRON, INC: Tomko Wage Suit Moved to E.D. Wash.

KETTLE MORAINE SCHOOL: Crumble Files Civil Rights Suit in Wisconsin
KIA MOTORS: Kondash Appeals Ruling in Class Suit to 6th Circuit
LA FAMILIA: Mejia Seeks Unpaid Wages for Deli Grocery Staff
LAST RESORT: Mills Sues Over Sexual Discrimination, Retaliation
LESSING'S INC: Vasquez Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.

LEXINFINTECH HOLDINGS: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Class Suit Filing
MAPLEBEAR INC: Faces Dixon Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in California
MARTINS POTATO: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MEDIANEWS GROUP: Faces Tejada Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
MEDTRONIC INC: Le Sues Over Improper Background Check

MO HOTTA: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MONSANTO COMPANY: Lewis PI Suit Transferred to N.D. California
MOVIN' IRON: Fails to Properly Pay Minimum Wages, Harlow Claims
NANO-X IMAGING: Kaskela Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: McClintock Injury Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois

NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Preisler Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
NEBRASKA: Stanko Appeals Order in Prisoners Suit to 8th Circuit
NIKOLA CORP: Kirby McInerney Reminds Class Action Filing
NORIEGA FURNITURE: Cota Files ADA Suit in S.D. California
OATLY INC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Levi & Korsinsky Alerts of Class Suit Filing
OLD VIENNA: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OVATION CREDIT: Faces Fabricant Suit Over Unsolicited Text Message
PANHANDLE GETAWAYS: Sanford Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Florida
PINE CLUB: Church Suit Seeks to Certify Tipped Servers Class

REATA PHARMACEUTICALS: Patel Says Drug Trial Reports Misleading
RECON360 LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carrillo Suit Says
SAINT FRANCIS: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SAMFORD UNIVERSITY: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SIMM ASSOCIATES: Fantacone FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. New York

SOCIETY INSURANCE: RSV Enterprises Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
STATE FARM: Baker Suit Seeks to Certify Class
SUNCOKE ENERGY: Cohn Appeals Order in Securities Suit to 3rd Cir.
SUPPORT COLLECTORS: Irving Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
T & M GREENCARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Correa et al. Claim

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz LLP Alerts of Class Action Filing
TEXAS LAW: Appeals Opinion in Crowley Suit to State Supreme Court
UC GLOBAL: Journalists Not Interested to Join Class Action
ULTRA PETROLEUM: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 2 Motion Deadline
UNITED SPECIALTY: Mueller Suit Moved From E.D.N.Y. to N.D. Cal.

UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
USCC SERVICES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Grantham et al Claim
VANGUARD UNIVERSITY: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VARIAN MEDICAL: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
VAXART INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Oct. 23 Motion Deadline

VIDHAN BHATT: Condo Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
WECOMPETE INC: Robinson Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York
WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action

                            *********

A&L HOME CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Clark et al. Claim
------------------------------------------------------------
BROOKE CLARK; LARRY HOLDER; CALVIN MARCUM; and JESSICA VANWINKLE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. A&L HOME CARE AND TRAINING CENTER, LLC; NILA IRBY;
DAWNETTA ABBETT; and RUTHIE LUCAS, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-00757-TSB (S.D. Ohio, Sept. 21, 2020) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages, overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as home health
aides.

A&L Home Care And Training Center, LLC provides home health care
services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
          Carrie J. Dyer, Esq.
          Rhiannon M. Herbert, Esq.
          MANSELL LAW, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Telephone: (614) 610-4134
          Facsimile: (614) 547-3614
          E-mail: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
                  Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com
                  Rhiannon@MansellLawLLC.com


AIR PRODUCTS: Camcara Inc. Sues over Arbitrary Surcharges
---------------------------------------------------------
CAMCARA, INC. D/B/A AST WATERJET, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01271-UNA (D. Del., Sep. 22,
2020) alleges that the Defendant assessed surcharges arbitrarily,
discriminatorily, and without regard to increases in its production
or delivery costs, in breach of the agreements and its good-faith
obligations to the Plaintiff and Class.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sells its gases pursuant
to standard-form Product Supply Agreements, Microbulk Product
Supply Agreements, or similar standard-form documents, such as Air
Products General Conditions of Sale.

In the Agreements, the Defendant imposed Other Charges in addition
to the Price for Product. These Other Charges include "Hazmat
Charges," "Delivery Charges," and customer-specific fees and
expenses unique to a particular purchaser. One of the Other Charges
is identified as "Surcharges."

The Defendant assessed the Surcharges not with reference to any
particular Agreement, but often on an across-the-board basis
without regard to when the Agreement may have been entered into,
and without regard to whether its production and delivery costs
related to a particular Agreement had increased. Rather, the
Defendant arbitrarily assessed Surcharges on a routine basis simply
to generate additional revenue.

Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. produces industrial atmospheric
and specialty gases and performance materials and equipment. The
Company's products include oxygen, nitrogen, argon, helium,
specialty surfactants and amines, polyurethane, epoxy curatives,
and resins. Air Products and Chemicals products are used in the
beverage, health, and semiconductors fields. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 364-3601
          Facsimile: (302) 364-3610
          E-mail: Greg.Varallo@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          William H. Narwold, Esq.
          Mathew P. Jasinski, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          20 Church Street, 17th Floor
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 882-1676
          Facsimile: (860) 882-1682
          E-mail: bnarwold@motleyrice.com
                  mjasinski@motleyrice.com


ALASKA NATIVE: Morrison & Foerster Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Sigel, Esq. -- jsigel@mofo.com -- and Adam Sorensen, Esq. --
asorensen@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster LLP, in an article for
JDSupra, "examine one Ninth Circuit decision exploring the extent
to which the deprivation of information and statutorily-conferred
powers can satisfy Article III's injury-in-fact requirement, and a
second declining to extend the Supreme Court's decision in Janus to
former union-members asserting First Amendment right not to pay
agreed-upon dues."

SOUTHCENTRAL FOUNDATION v. ANTHC

The Court holds that a board of director's alleged delegation of
decision-making authority to an executive committee, and a
confidentiality policy that allegedly restricted the flow of
information to board members, sufficed to confer Article III
standing under a statute entitling plaintiff to a voting
representative on the board of directors.

Panel: Judges Gould, Bea, and Murguia, with Judge Murguia writing
the opinion.

Key highlight: "Because we conclude that Section 325 [of the
Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
of 1998] conferred governance and participation rights to
[plaintiff], which necessarily includes an entitlement to
information necessary to effectively exercise those rights, we
reverse the district court's dismissal of [plaintiff]'s complaint
for lack of Article III standing."

Background: Congress created the Alaska Native Tribal Health
Consortium ("the Consortium") under Section 325 of the Department
of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act of 1998 to
provide health services at the Alaska Native Medical Center in
Anchorage, Alaska. Southcentral Foundation ("Southcentral") is a
nonprofit regional tribal health organization that provides health
care to some 65,000 Alaska Natives as a member of the Consortium.
Section 325 provides in relevant part that the Consortium "shall be
governed by a 15-member Board of Directors, which shall be composed
of one representative of" each of 13 regional tribal health
organizations, including Southcentral, and two tribal
representatives. The statute also provides that "[e]ach member of
the Board of Directors shall be entitled to cast one vote.
Decisions of the Board of Directors shall be made by consensus
whenever possible, and by majority vote in the event that no
consensus can be reached."

Southcentral alleged that the Consortium's board, over
Southcentral's objection, created an executive committee authorized
to take actions without ratification by the full board. The
executive committee then allegedly approved lucrative employment
contracts for Consortium executives without disclosing the terms of
those contracts to the full board. A few years later, the board
also adopted a strict confidentiality policy that allegedly gave
unidentified Consortium personnel absolute discretion to restrict
information from being shared even with the Board of Directors,
with a rebuttable presumption against disclosure. Southcentral
sought declaratory relief that the Consortium violated Section 325
when it: (1) formed the Executive Committee and delegated the
authority of the full board, and (2) erected informational barriers
to board member decision-making. The district court dismissed the
suit, concluding that Southcentral failed to allege an injury in
fact sufficient to confer Article III standing.

Result: The Ninth Circuit reversed. The Court began by laying out
the now-familiar requirements for Article III injury-in-fact: to
confer standing, an injury must be particularized ("affect[ing] the
plaintiff in a personal and individual way") and concrete ("'de
facto'; that is, it must actually exist."). Applying that standard,
the Court first addressed Southcentral's executive committee claim.
The statutory language conferring governance and participation
rights on representatives of each member health organization made
clear that Southcentral's alleged injury was particularized and
concrete, the Court reasoned, because the creation of the executive
committee deprived Southcentral of precisely those express
statutory powers. The Court was not convinced by the Consortium's
argument that Section 325's participation rights only applied to
providing health care, not management decisions, or its argument
that Section 325 grants governance rights only to individual
directors, rather than the organizations they represent. Because
Congress endowed each specified regional health entity with the
right to have a "representative" on the Board that stands in the
shoes of the designating entity by acting on its behalf,
Southcentral had alleged sufficient injury to its statutory
decision-making power.

As for the confidentiality policy, the Court reached a similar
conclusion. Because the Consortium's policy allegedly restricted
information necessary to make decisions called for by the statute,
the Court said Southcentral had adequately alleged Article III
injury. In so holding, the Court rejected the Consortium's argument
that to satisfy Article III, an alleged "informational injury" must
stem from an express statutory right to receive such information.
Making informed decisions requires having information, the Court
reasoned. Because Southcentral's informational injury was
"inextricably tied to its interest in exercising its governance and
participation rights" under the statute, the Court concluded that
Southcentral had alleged sufficient injury-in-fact. The case was
remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

BELGAU v. INSLEE

The Court holds that former union members who had agreed to allow
their employer, the State of Washington, to deduct union dues even
if they terminated their union membership had no First Amendment
claim when that agreement was enforced.

Panel: Judges McKeown, Christen, and Harpool (W.D. Mo.), with Judge
McKeown writing the opinion.

Key Highlight: "We join the swelling chorus of courts recognizing
that Janus does not extend a First Amendment right to avoid paying
union dues."

Background: Plaintiffs were Washington state employees who had
joined a union (WSFE) shortly after starting work. They had signed
contracts allowing the state to deduct union dues from their
paychecks. They subsequently agreed to revised contracts making
their consent to the deduction of such dues irrevocable for one
year.

In Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Muni
Employees, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018), the Supreme Court overturned
longstanding precedent and held that public employers cannot
automatically deduct union fees from the paycheck of nonunion
employees because such deductions compel nonmembers to subsidize
union speech. After Janus was issued, the plaintiffs notified their
union that they no longer wanted to be members, and the union
terminated their memberships. The state, however, continued to
deduct their union dues until the irrevocable one-year terms for
dues payment had expired.

In response, the plaintiffs filed a putative class action against
various state officials and the union, pressing First Amendment
claims. The district court granted summary judgment to the
defendants.

Result: The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Court began by holding that
the plaintiffs' constitutional claims against the union failed for
lack of state action. First, the Court reasoned, the plaintiffs
could not establish that the "claimed constitutional deprivation
resulted from the exercise of some right or privilege created by
the State or by a rule of conduct imposed by the state or by a
person from whom the State is responsible"; rather, the source of
their harm was their contract with the union, not any state statute
or policy. Second, and in any event, the plaintiffs also could not
establish that "the party charged with the deprivation could be
described in all fairness as a state actor": the union was plainly
a private entity, and it had not been coerced or overseen by the
state in shaping or entering the challenged agreements, nor had it
acted in concert with the state. As the Court declared, "Providing
a machinery for implement the private agreement by performing an
administrative task does not render Washington and the [union]
joint actors."

The Court next turned to the plaintiffs' claims against the state,
holding that these likewise failed. The Court first addressed
whether it had jurisdiction to consider this issue, given that the
plaintiffs had sought only prospective relief and the state was no
longer deducting fees from their paychecks. It determined that
these claims satisfied the "capable of repetition yet evading
review" exception to mootness, as the one-year period of
fees-deductions was too short to allow full litigation, and other
similarly situated employees might confront the same issue.

On the merits, the Court rejected the plaintiffs' contention that
the state had violated their First Amendment rights. As the Court
explained, plaintiffs complained of obligations that were
self-imposed rather than imposed by the State, and the "First
Amendment provides [no] right to "disregard promises that would
otherwise be enforced under state law." Although Janus had
"condemned the practice of automatically deducting agency fees from
nonmembers who were not asked and not required to consent before
the fees are deducted," the plaintiffs here had "experienced no
such compulsion." They had voluntarily joined the union and
accepted the benefits of membership, and thus had "agreed to bear
the financial burdens of membership." The First Amendment, the
Court held, does not prevent the State from honoring that
agreement. [GN]


AMERICAN HONDA: MacDougall Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Dennis MacDougall, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled DENNIS MACDOUGALL, et al. v.
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., et al., Case No.
8:17-cv-01079-JGB-DFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Santa Ana.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 11,
2019, the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order certifying these
Classes and naming indicated class representatives:

   1. California Class:

      All persons or entities who purchased or leased a model
      year 2012 Touring and Touring Elite Honda Odysseys with
      VINs in the range 5FNRL5H . . . CB053446 through
      5FNRL5H . . . CB148157, model year 2013 Touring and Touring
      Elite Honda Odysseys, and model year 2014-16 Honda Odysseys
      ("Class Vehicle") in California from American Honda Motor
      Company or through an American Honda Motor Company
      dealership ("California Class").

      The California Class seeks class certification of claims
      for:

      (a) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ.
          Code Section 1750, et seq.;

      (b) violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. &
          Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq.;

      (c) breach of the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty
          Act;

      (d) breach of implied warranty under state law;

      (e) breach of express warranty under state law;

      (f) unjust enrichment under state law; and

      (g) injunctive and declaratory relief under the Declaratory
          Judgment Act and state law.

      The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Ray Seow and
      Bryan Lentz as the class representatives for the California
      Class;

   2. Pennsylvania Class:

      All persons or entities who purchased or leased a Class
      Vehicle in Pennsylvania from American Honda Motor Company
      or through an American Honda Motor Company dealership
      ("Pennsylvania Class").

      The Pennsylvania Class seeks class certification of claims
      for:

      (a) breach of implied warranty under state law;

      (b) breach of express warranty under state law;

      (c) unjust enrichment under state law; and

      (d) injunctive and declaratory relief under the Declaratory
          Judgment Act and state law.

      The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Dennis
      MacDougall as the class representative for the Pennsylvania
      Class;

   3. New Jersey Class:

      All persons or entities who purchased or leased a Class
      Vehicle in New Jersey from American Honda Motor Company or
      through an American Honda Motor Company dealership ("New
      Jersey Class").

      The New Jersey Class seeks class certification of claims
      for:

      (a) violation of New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act ("CFA"),
          N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -20;

      (b) breach of implied warranty under state law;

      (c) breach of express warranty under state law;

      (d) unjust enrichment under state law; and (e) injunctive
          and declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgment
          Act and state law.

      The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Prabhanjan
      Kavuri as the class representative for the New Jersey
      Class; and

   4. Florida Class:

      All persons or entities who purchased or leased a Class
      Vehicle in Florida from American Honda Motor Company or
      through an American Honda Motor Company dealership
      ("Florida Class").

      The Florida Class seeks class certification of claims for:

      (a) violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Practices
          Act ("FDUPA"), Fla. Stat. Sections 501.201-501.23
          (2016);

      (b) breach of implied warranty under state law;

      (c) breach of express warranty under state law;

      (d) unjust enrichment under state law; and

      (e) injunctive and declaratory relief under the Declaratory
          Judgment Act and state law.

      The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Joseph Ryan
      Parker as the class representative for the Florida Class.

The Plaintiffs also move for the appointment of these firms as
Class Counsel for all certified classes: Whitfield Bryson & Mason
LLP; Berger & Montague P.C.; and Bronstein Gewirtz & Grossman.

The appellate case is captioned as Dennis MacDougall, et al. v.
American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 20-56060, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellants Prabhanjan Kavuri, Bryan Lentz, Dennis
      MacDougall, Joseph Ryan Parker and Ray Seow Mediation
      Questionnaire is due on October 22, 2020;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by November 9, 2020;

   -- Transcript is due on December 7, 2020;

   -- Appellants Prabhanjan Kavuri, Bryan Lentz, Dennis
      MacDougall, Joseph Ryan Parker and Ray Seow opening
      brief is due on January 19, 2021;

   -- Appellee American Honda Motor Co., Inc. answering
      brief is due on February 18, 2021; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days
      after service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants DENNIS MACDOUGALL, RAY SEOW, PRABHANJAN
KAVURI, JOSEPH RYAN PARKER, and BRYAN LENTZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com

               - and -

          Shimon Yiftach, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 1990
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 322-0322
          E-mail: shimony@bgandg.com   

Defendant-Appellee AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. is represented
by:

          Livia M. Kiser, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          353 N Clark Street, 12th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 995-6333
          E-mail: lkiser@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Michael B. Shortnacy, Esq.
          KING AND SPALDING LLP
          633 W. 5th Street, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-4344
          E-mail: mshortnacy@kslaw.com

ANAPLAN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 23 Motion Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Sept. 23 disclosed that class action
lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of Anaplan 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.

Anaplan Inc. (NYSE:PLAN)

PLAN Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 21,
2019 - February 26, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 23, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/anaplan-inc-information-request-form?prid=9532&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Anaplan
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was undergoing sales
organization and execution challenges; (2) these organizational
challenges were causing the Company to miss on closing very
important large deals; and (3) as a result, Anaplan's financial
guidance for "calculated billings growth" was baseless and
unattainable. Further, while in possession of this material
non-public information, Anaplan insiders dumped approximately $30
million worth of Anaplan stock at artificially inflated prices.

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]


ANNA MARIA COLLEGE: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anna Maria College.
The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Anna Maria College, Case No.
1:20-cv-08636 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2020).

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

Anna Maria College is a four-year, private, co-ed, Catholic
institution accredited by the New England Association of Schools
and Colleges.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


ARBITERSPORTS LLC: Quezada Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARBITERSPORTS, LLC.
The case is styled as Victor Rodriguez Quezada, Brendan Monaghan,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
ARBITERSPORTS, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-05193 (E.D. Pa., Oct. 19,
2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Arbitersports, LLC provides game management solutions. The Company
offers tools and technology that helps assigners, coordinators,
athletic directors, and officials to manage all aspects of their
responsibilities.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott H. Wolpert, Esq.
          Christine M. Gordon, Esq.
          TIMONEY KNOX LLP
          400 Maryland Dr., PO Box 7544
          Fort Washington, PA 19034-7544
          Phone: (215) 540-2656
          Email: swolpert@timoneyknox.com
                 cgordon@timoneyknox.com



ARCH INSURANCE: Staley Suit Goes to W.D. Missouri
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHANCE STALEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, and OUT OF
TOWNE, LLC, d/b/a RED SKY TRAVEL INSURANCE, Case No. 1:20-cv-02223,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri on October 15, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:20-cv-00833-BCW to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of contract by
refusing to reimburse or refund the Plaintiff and Class members for
the loss of use of their ski passes insured by the Defendant as a
result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Arch Insurance Company offers property, casualty and specialty
insurance.  Its principal place of business is located at 300 Plaza
Three, Jersey City, New Jersey.

Red Sky Travel Insurance, d/b/a Out of Towne, LLC, is an insurance
provider with its principal place of business located at 6 Juniper
Trail, Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                    
         
         Christopher D. Lindstrom, Esq.
         POTTS LAW FIRM, LLP
         3737 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 1900
         Houston, TX 77098
         Telephone: (713) 963-8881
         Facsimile: (713) 583-5388
         E-mail: clindstrom@potts-law.com

ASH SOUNDS: Settles Falls Festival Crowd Crush Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kimberley Price, writing for The Standard, reports that a group of
festival goers who were involved in a crowd crush at the Falls
Music and Arts Festival in Lorne in 2016 will receive a share in
almost $7 million.

The Victorian Supreme Court approved the settlement reached between
the group of 77 people, including a handful of Warrnambool
residents and the defendant, Ash Sounds Pty Ltd.

Maddens Lawyers principal lawyer Kathryn Emeny said the class
action began in early 2017 and many of the group members suffered
life-altering injuries.

"The lead plaintiff Michela Burke and each of the participating
group members have demonstrated great tenacity and persistence to
achieve this outcome," she said.

"Maddens Lawyers are proud to have secured this result which will
see each participant compensated for the vast majority of the value
of their claim. The settlement will provide certainty to group
members and we hope that it will also assist them in moving forward
with their ongoing recovery."

Nineteen people were taken to hospital with broken bones and other
serious injuries and dozens more were hurt when a stampede broke
out between acts in the Grand Theatre at the music festival.

Ms Burke suffered a significant brachial plexus injury in the
stampede and she welcomed the settlement approval.

"I am relieved that the matter is close to finalisation and we can
finally begin to put the crowd crush behind us," she said. [GN]


AUSTIN BRIDGE: Misclassifies Field Office Managers, Davis Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VICKI DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AUSTIN BRIDGE & ROAD, LP, Defendant, Case
No. 5:20-cv-01208 (W.D. Tex., October 12, 2020) is a collective
action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a salaried employee
from October 1988 to September 2020, as a Field Office Manager
until February or March 2020, and as a Senior Field Office Manager
from February or March 2020 until September 2020.

According to the complaint, the Defendant classified the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated Field Office Managers as exempt from
the overtime requirements of the FLSA. As a result, despite
regularly working in excess of 40 hours per week, the Plaintiff and
other Field Office Managers were deprived by the Defendant of
overtime compensation for all the hours they worked over 40 per
week.

Austin Bridge and Road, LP provides building and construction
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AUSTRALIA: Minister for Environment Faces Climate Change Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bella Burgemeister, in a letter to the editor submitted to The
Islander, states that summer to me used to mean fresh air while
riding in the car and playing "I spy" with music in the background,
on the way to the beach.

"But last summer you couldn't go two songs without constant, scary
interruptions of 'watch and act' bushfire warnings. The smell of
smoke was overwhelming and, sometimes, it was hard to see through
the smoke haze.

"I live in Bunbury in regional Western Australia. It's a small
coastal paradise with nearby bushland, but we always seem to be
under constant threat of bushfires, rising sea levels and mining.

"To combat climate change, our city has installed seawalls and the
world's first inflatable reef to stop waves crashing on the sand
and destroying our coastline. Every year there are devastating
bushfires that, in the past, have destroyed whole towns and ended
lives.

"All of this is coupled with reduced rainfall and streamflow into
our groundwater resources, due to hotter and longer summers.

"We have also seen native animals only found in this region added
to the critically endangered list, and mining companies come in to
take people's land for fracking.

"I remember being about 10 years old, standing with my community to
defend our land from fracking companies. It's scary to think about
how they're able to come onto people's land, right into their
backyards, poison it and destroy our water sources - this same land
where we play sport and go to school.

"As a young person, I don't get a say in who becomes our leaders; I
can't vote or stand for election, so I need to find other ways to
make my voice heard.

"That's why I'm bringing the class action Sharma v Minister for
Environment in the Federal Court with seven other young people.

"This case is about stopping the climate impacts of the Vickery
coal mine extension project in northern NSW.

"Our federal government is still approving coal mines knowing they
are fuelling the climate crisis. It is time our federal government
put our futures before fossil fuels.

"This case argues the environment minister has a duty of care to
protect young people from these impacts.

"Anyone under 18, worldwide, can join this class action, so
register now.

"You can also join School Strikes 4 Climate, with hundreds of
actions taking place around Australia on Friday, September 25."

"Bella Burgemeister, 14, is organising Bunbury's School Strike 4
Climate event on September 25 and leading the class action Sharma v
Minister for Environment." [GN]


BANK OF AMERICA: Cota Files ADA Suit in S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bank of America
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Julissa Cota,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bank
of America Corporation, a Delaware corporation; DOES 1 to 10,
inclusive; Case No. 3:20-cv-02047-JM-JLB (S.D. Cal., Oct. 16,
2020).

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

The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational
investment bank and financial services holding company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, with central hubs in
New York City, London, Hong Kong, Dallas, and Toronto.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 381-9988
          Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Blankenship Alleges Spoofing of Metals Futures
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY BLANKENSHIP, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA; SCOTIA
CAPITAL (USA) INC.; SCOTIA HOLDINGS (US) INC.; THE BANK OF NOVA
SCOTIA TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK; COREY FLAUM; and JANE/JOHN DOES
1-50, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-12998 (D.N.J., Sept. 21, 2020),
is brought against the Defendants for their unlawful and
intentional manipulation of precious metals futures contracts
through unlawful spoofing.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants
manipulated the prices of Precious Metals Futures by employing a
classic manipulative device known as "spoofing," whereby the
Defendants placed orders for Precious Metals Futures to send false
and illegitimate supply and demand signals to these markets and
then canceled those orders before execution. As a result, the
Defendants caused Precious Metals Futures prices to be artificial
throughout the Class Period in order to financially benefit their
trading positions at the expense of other investors, like the
Plaintiff and the Class.

The Defendants repeated the scheme throughout the Class Period and
successfully manipulated Precious Metals Futures prices to
artificial levels throughout the Class Period.

The Bank of Nova Scotia, operating as Scotiabank, is a Canadian
multinational banking and financial services company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Karen M. Lerner, Esq.
          David E. Kovel, Esq.
          Anthony E. Maneiro, Esq.
          KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
          250 Park Avenue, Suite 820
          Telephone: (212) 371-6600
          E-mail: dkovel@kmllp.com
                  klerner@kmllp.com
                  amaneiro@kmllp.com

BAY POWER: Faces Dahl FLSA Suit Over Failure to Properly Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
DANA DAHL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BAY POWER, INC., a California Corporation,
and DONNA BUTCHER, an individual, Defendants, Case No.
5:20-cv-07062 (N.D. Cal., October 9, 2020) is a collective action
complaint arising from the Defendants' failure of properly paying
overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an Inside Sales
Representative from January 2017 to June 2020.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours per week during her employment with the
Defendants. However, the Defendants inaccurately paid the
Plaintiff's overtime because it failed to include the value of the
commissions that the Defendants provided to the Plaintiff in
determining the regular rate of pay for the computation of the
overtime.

Bay Power, Inc. provides electrical products and solutions for
industrial, commercial, & residential applications. Donna Butcher
is a principal, director, officer, and/or owner of Bay Power. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rory Quintana, Esq.
          Ramsey Hanafi, Esq.
          QHP LAW, LLP
          870 Market St., Suite 819
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Tel: (415) 504-3121
          Fax: (415) 233-8770
          E-mail: rory@qhplaw.com
                  ramsey@qhplaw.com

                - and –

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


BETTER MORTGAGE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Dominguez Says
------------------------------------------------------------
LORENZO DOMINGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BETTER MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case 8:20-cv-01784 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 18, 2020) is an
action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the
class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week.

Plaintiff Dominguez was employed by the Defendant as mortgage
underwriter.

Better Mortgage Corporation operates as a online mortgage lender.
The Company offers mortgage and re finance services. Better
Mortgage serves customers in the State of New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
          Daniel S. Brome, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
          235 Montgomery St., Suite 810
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 277-7235
          Facsimile: (415) 277-7238
          E-mail: Helland@nka.com
                  dbrome@nka.com

               - and -

          Jason Christopher Marsili, Esq.
          ROSEN MARSILI RAPP LLP
          3600 Wilshire Blvd., Suite I 800
          Los Angeles, CA 90010-2622
          Telephone: (213) 389-6050
          Facsimile: (213) 389-0663
          E-mail: jmarsili@rmrllp.com


BIOLA UNIVERSITY: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Biola University,
Inc. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Biola University, Inc.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-08637 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2020).

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

Biola University is a private evangelical Christian university in
La Mirada, California. Founded in 1908 in Los Angeles, the
university has over 150 programs of study in nine schools.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


BLACKBAUD INC: Faces Cohen Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL COHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLACKBAUD, INC.; THE PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS
OF HARVARD COLLEGE; BANK STREET COLLEGE OF EDUCATION; and LOWER
EAST SIDE TENEMENT MUSEUM, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01388-JCC
(W.D. Wash., Sept. 21, 2020) is an action by the Plaintiff seeking
to recover damages on behalf of a Class of persons whose personal
information, confidential charitable activities, and other
sensitive and confidential personal information ("Private
Information") was accessed without authorization by criminals as a
result of the Defendants' unreasonable and deficient data security
practices (the "Data Breach").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that because of the
Defendants' unreasonable lack of oversight and lax security
measures, sometime prior to May 2020, hackers accessed the
Plaintiff's and the other Class members' confidential Private
Information without authorization, extracted and downloaded the
information, and stored and maintained the information in
unsecured, vulnerable, and untraceable locations for extended
periods of time.

The Defendants failed to properly monitor the computer network and
systems that housed the Private Information; failed to implement
appropriate policies; and failed to properly train employees
regarding cyberattacks. Had the Defendants properly monitored their
networks, security, and communications, they would have prevented
the Data Breach or would have discovered it sooner.

As a direct and foreseeable result of the Data Breach, the
Defendants' inadequate security measures, and the Defendants'
unjustified delay in notification, the Plaintiff and the other
Class members have incurred injury in fact and sustained actual
damages from the exposure and misuse of their Private Information,
and reasonable attempts to safeguard their Private Information,
mitigate their risk to identity theft and fraud, and remedy the
effects of the Data Breach, the suit says.

Blackbaud, Inc. provides software and related services designed
specifically for non-profit organizations. The Company's products
and services enable non-profit organizations to increase donations,
reduce fundraising costs, improve communication with constituents,
manage their finances, and optimize internal operations. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carl J. Marquardt, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CARL J. MARQUARDT PLLC
          1126 34th Avenue, Suite 311
          Seattle, WA 98122
          Telephone: (206) 388-4498
          E-mail: carl@cjmlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
          JAVITCH LAW OFFICE
          480 S. Ellsworth Avenue
          San Mateo, CA 94401
          Telephone: (650) 781-8000
          Facsimile: (650) 648-0705

               - and -

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440-0020
          Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
          E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com


BLINK CHARGING: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Oct. 23 Motion Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Blink Charging Company
(NASDAQ: BLNK). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to
petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional
information about each case can be found at the link provided.

Blink Charging Company (NASDAQ: BLNK)

Class Period: March 6, 2020 to August 19, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 23, 2020

On August 19, 2020, analyst Culper Research issued a report on
Blink Charging, contending that "the Company has vastly exaggerated
the size of its EV charging network in order to siphon money from
the pockets of investors to insiders. Blink claims that ‘EV
drivers can easily charge at any of its 15,000 charging stations'
but we estimate the Company's functional public charging station
network consists of just 2,192 stations, a mere 15% of this claim."
Culper continued that its "investigators confirmed what Blink's
financials already suggest: almost no one uses Blink's charging
stations, many of which are in utterly decrepit condition."

On this news, Blink's stock price fell from its August 18, 2020
closing price of $10.23 per share to an August 20, 2020 closing
price of $7.94. This represents a two day drop of approximately
22.4%.

The complaint, filed on August 24, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) many of Blink's charging
stations are damaged, neglected, non-functional, inaccessible, or
non-accessible; (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 misleading at
all relevant times.

For more information on the Blink class action go to:
https://bespc.com/BLNK

                About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

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

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


BRASKEM SA: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Oct. 26 Motion Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Braskem S.A. (NYSE: BAK).
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.

Braskem S.A. (NYSE: BAK)

Class Period: May 6, 2016 to July 8, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 26, 2020

On April 2, 2019, media sources and, later, Braskem, disclosed that
the Company had been sued by local authorities in connection with a
geological event it had purportedly caused in the state of Alagoas,
Brazil.  Specifically, Braskem disclosed, in relevant part, that
the Company "ha[d] become aware, through the media, of a lawsuit
filed against it by the Public Prosecutor's Office and the Public
Defender's Office, both of the State of Alagoas."  The Company also
disclosed that the lawsuits were "requesting the freezing of
amounts and assets in a total of approximately R$6.7 billion to
guarantee any potential damages owed to the general public affected
by the geological phenomenon which occurred in districts near the
rock salt extraction area in Maceió."

On this news, Braskem's American Depositary Share ("ADS") price
fell $1.60 per share over two trading days, or 5.98%, to close at
$25.14 per share on April 3, 2020.

On July 9, 2020, Braskem disclosed that authorities in northeastern
Brazil had advised the Company that the geological damage from its
salt mining operations was more widespread than initial estimates.
Specifically, among other things, 1,918 properties needed to be
evacuated because of the geological event associated with Braskem's
mining operations, and Braskem estimated that moving the residents
would cost the Company an additional R$850 million in possible
payments to those residents, with another additional R$750 million
in expenses to "definitively" shut down Braskem's salt mining
operations.

On this news, Braskem's ADS price fell $0.59 per share, or 6.20%,
to close at $8.93 per share on July 9, 2020.

The complaint, filed on August 25, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational, and
compliance policies.  Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Braskem's
salt mining operations were unsafe and presented a significant
danger to surrounding areas, including nearly two thousand
properties; (ii) the foregoing foreseeably increased the risk that
Braskem would be subjected to remedial liabilities, including, but
not limited to, increased governmental and/or regulatory oversight
or enforcement, significant monetary and reputational damage,
and/or the permanent closure of one or more of its salt mining
operations; (iii) accordingly, earnings generated from Braskem's
salt mining operations were unsustainable; (iv) Braskem downplayed
the true scope and severity of the Company's liability with respect
to its salt mining operations; and (v) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

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

                About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

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

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


CALIFIA FARMS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Califia Farms, LLC.
The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Califia Farms, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-08662 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2020).

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

Califia Farms LP was founded in 2011. The company's line of
business includes the canning of fruits, vegetables, and fruit and
vegetable juices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


CAPIO PARTNERS: Scurlark Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capio Partners LLC.
The case is styled as Eural Scurlark, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Capio Partners LLC, Case No.
3:20-cv-03153-S (N.D. Tex., Oct. 16, 2020).

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

Capio Partners is a medium-sized debt collection agency that is
located in Duluth, Georgia, and headquartered in Sherman,
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 575-8181
          Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com


CHARTWELL RETIREMENT: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Failures
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Carter, writing for The Star, reports that a retirement home
operator wants to stop quarantining new residents.

Chartwell, the company in question and the largest in the field,
has a very bad COVID-19 record.

A class-action suit against Chartwell Retirement Residences and
Long Term Care Homes is being filed by Neinstein LLP for their
alleged failures in outbreak planning, precaution and responses
relating to COVID-19, which resulted in preventable resident deaths
and unnecessary suffering for their family members.

There was inadequate testing of residents, staff and visitors,
insufficient staff levels, failure to transport patients to
hospital, inadequate PPE. The list goes on.

Profits and the bottom line obviously come before the lives of
residents. Then we learn there is a new job classification, and
only a minimum public school education will now be required to care
for people in these homes.

The day the Star article appeared, I received a glossy ad in the
mail from Chartwell, with a picture of a laughing senior couple
having a lovely time, presumably in a Chartwell home, and the
slogan "Life is better, TOGETHER."

I shall not be booking my virtual or on-site tour.

I would rather die at home than become a human gold mine for
profiteers. [GN]


CHICAGO CITY, IL: Cannon Files RICO Class Action
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chicago City, et al.
The case is styled as People of United States of America Republic
and United States of America Republic President Christopher-Cannon;
BEY on behalf of themselves and a class and subclass of similarly
situated persons v. Chicago City; Lori Lightfoot, City of Chicago
Mayor; David O Brown, Chicago Police Chief; Thomas Dart, Sheriff;
J.B. Pritzker, Illinois Governor; Jesse White, Illinois Secretary
of State; Toni Preckwinkle, Cook County Board President; Karen
Yarbrough, Cook County Clerk; Brendan F Kelly, Director Illinois
State Police; Guzman, Chicago Police Officer; Connie Lawson,
Indiana Secretary of State; Jamie Dimon, JP Morgan Chase Bank
President; Tom Dart, Cook County Sheriff; Thomas Carroll, Judge,
Markham Court Court Room 204; Thaddeus L Wilson, Cook County Court
Room 404; Chicago, IL City of Police; C. McVey, Officer; J Curtain,
Officer; A Flores, Office; Officer Sanchez; Chicago Police;
Illinois State Police; Other Unknown; Georgia State Patrol; Ohio
Police Department; Illinois Police Department; Merrillville IN
Police Dept.; Gary IN City of; Other Unknown Police Officers;
Calumet City, IL Police Dept.; Robert Dyckman; Supervisor Auto
Pound 6, City of Chicago Dept of Streets and Sanitation; Case No.
2:20-cv-00373-JTM-JEM (N.D. Ind., Oct. 19, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Commerce ICC Rates, Etc. for the
Racketeering (RICO) Act.

The City of Chicago covers an area of 60,000 hectares and sits 176
meters (578 feet) above sea level on the southwestern shore of Lake
Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se:

       People of United States of America Republic and
       United States of America Republic President
Christopher-Cannon
       1499 Martin Luther King Drive
       Gary, IN 46401
       Phone: (202) 569-0506
       PRO SE


CLARUS DIRECT: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clarus Direct, LLC.
The case is styled as Jay Winegard, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Clarus Direct, LLC doing business as:
www.shopsmarter.com, Case No. 1:20-cv-04996 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 17,
2020).

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

Clarus Direct is the parent company that owns ShopSmarter and
FreeShipping.com which offer online shopping programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell Segal, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL P.C.
          1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 208
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 415-0100
          Fax: (516) 706-6631
          Email: msegal@segallegal.com

COTY INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of Nov. 3 Motion 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:

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/

GoHealth, Inc. (GOCO)
Class Period: Shares issued in connection with the July 2020
initial public stock offering
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 20, 2020
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-goco/

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]


COTY INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 3 Motion Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP disclosed that class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Coty 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.

Coty Inc. (NYSE:COTY)

COTY Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 3, 2016
- May 28, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 3, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/coty-inc-information-request-form?prid=9564&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Coty
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) despite being no stranger to beauty
brand acquisitions, Coty did not have adequate processes and
procedures in place to assess and properly value the P&G Specialty
Beauty Business and Kylie Cosmetics acquisitions; (2) as a result,
Coty had overpaid for the P&G Specialty Beauty Business and Kylie
Cosmetics; (3) Coty did not have adequate infrastructure to
smoothly integrate and support the beauty brands that it acquired
from P&G, including an adequate supply chain; (4) as a result of
its inadequate infrastructure, Coty was not successfully
integrating the beauty brands it acquired from P&G and not
delivering synergies from the acquisition; and (5) as a result of
the foregoing, Coty's financial statements and Defendants'
statements about Coty's business, operations, and prospects, 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
www.zlk.com [GN]


CREDIBLE BEHAVIORAL: Starr Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARC STARR, ANDREW ROSEN, KELLY LEWIS, and VU LEE, Individually and
on Behalf of All Similarly Situated Employees v. CREDIBLE
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SOFTWARE, INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-02986-PJM (D.
Md., Oct. 15, 2020) seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated
damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law,
and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant refused to pay them
overtime wages for working over 40 hours a week, which constituted
a willful violation of the FLSA and applicable state wage laws. The
Plaintiffs also contend that the Defendant classified them as
exempt salaried employees not entitled to overtime pay despite the
fact that their duties were clerical in nature.

The Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were employed by the
Defendant as partner services coordinators.

Based in Rockville, Maryland, Credible Behavioral Health Software,
Inc. supplies behavioral health technology and practice management
software to various healthcare providers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
          Kelly A. Burgy, Esq.
          Scott E. Nevin, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
          36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 244-7005
          E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com
                  kburgy@nicholllaw.com
                  snevin@nicholllaw.com

CULTURAL CARE: Improperly Paid Au Pairs, Morales Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
KAREN MORALES POSADA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CULTURAL CARE, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-11862-IT (D. Mass., October 15, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of California Labor
Code and New York Labor Law by failing to compensate the Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated au pairs appropriate minimum
wages and overtime pay for all hours worked, failure to provide
accurate wage statements, unfair business practices under
California Business and Professions Code and deceptive trade
practice pursuant to New York General Business Law.

The Plaintiff worked for Cultural Care as an in-home childcare
worker or an au pair in New York and California since January
2019.

Cultural Care, Inc. is a provider of childcare services, with its
principal place of business in Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
       
         
         David H. Seligman, Esq.
         Alexander N. Hood, Esq.
         TOWARDS JUSTICE
         PO Box 371680
         PMB 44465
         Denver, CO 80237-5680
         Telephone: (720) 441-2236
         E-mail: David@TowardsJustice.org

                  - and –

         Peter Rukin, Esq.
         RUKIN HYLAND & RIGGIN LLP
         1939 Harrison Street, Suite 290
         Oakland, CA 94612

                  - and –

         Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
         NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
         235 Montgomery Street, Suite 810
         San Francisco, CA 94104

                  - and –

         H. Clara Coleman, Esq.
         NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
         4700 IDS Center, 80 S. 8th St.
         Minneapolis, MN 55402

DAYTONA BR-GD: Faces Jones Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, NANCY JONES, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAYTONA BR-GD, INC., a Florida
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 6:20-cv-01891 (M.D. Fla., October
13, 2020) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by making multiple
telemarketing calls that are registered on the National Do Not Call
(DNC) registry.

The Plaintiff claims that he received numerous solicitation phone
calls from the Defendant to his phone number, which was registered
on the DNC on September 14, 2019, in an attempt to solicit her to
trade in her car and purchase a new car from the Defendant. Despite
his request to the Defendant to stop the calls, the calls continued
over a series of months.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant's unauthorized
solicitation telephone calls have harmed him in the form of
annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of privacy, and disturbed the use
and enjoyment of her phone.

Daytona BR-GD, LLC d/b/a Daytona Toyota Group is a car dealership
that sells new and used vehicles and provides car servicing. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Tel: (877) 333-9427
          Fax: (888) 498-8946
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com

                - and –

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Tel: (305) 469-5881
          E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com


DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE: Hildebrandt Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Robert C.
Hildebrandt, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-06168
(N.D. Ill., Oct. 16, 2020).

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

Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc. is a mortgage subservicing company in
the United States specializing in servicing loans on behalf of
commercial banks, credit unions, mortgage banking companies and
state and local housing finance agencies nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Scott Davidson, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          105 South Roselle Road, Suite 203
          Schaumburg, IL 60193
          Phone: (630) 460-7655
          Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com


ELNA SEFCOVIC: Gonzalez Seeks High Court Review of Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs-Petitioners Charles D. Gonzalez, et al., filed with the
Supreme Court of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari
in the matter styled CHARLES D. GONZALEZ; SUSANNAH GONZALEZ; TED.
L. VAUGHAN; and HILDA VAUGHAN, Petitioners, vs. 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. 20-492.

Response is due on November 16, 2020.

Petitioners Charles D. Gonzalez, et al., filed a writ of certiorari
to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit in the case titled Charles D. Gonzalez, et al.,
Petitioners vs. Elna Sefcovic, LLC, et al., Case No. 19-1120. The
Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's use of pro forma
boilerplate language rather than conducting any rigorous analysis
of the requirements for certification of the settlement class,
including adequacy of representation, and then compounded that
error by failing to address the core concerns of adequacy of
representation and equitable treatment of subgroups in connection
with the settlement itself, notwithstanding the express
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2)(A) and
(D).

The following questions are presented:

     1. Did the district court and the court of appeals improperly
apply obsolete standards for approval of settlement class actions
under prior case law rather than the current standard set out in
the 2018 amendments to Rule 23(e)(2)?

     2. When the settlement class was certified in the same order
approving the settlement, and objections and evidence of inadequate
representation and intra-class conflict of interest were before the
district court and court of appeals, did the court of appeals
improperly fail to require rigorous analysis and adequate findings
by the district court as required by Rule 23(a) and 23(e)(2)?

     3. When the objectors repeatedly asserted that the interests
of a subclass were wrongfully "sacrificed" by the Class
Representatives, did the court of appeals improperly decline to
reach the issue of adequate representation on the grounds that it
had been waived?

     4. When the district court failed to analyze or make fact
findings evidencing the exercise of its discretion, did the court
of appeals improperly affirm approval of the class settlement based
on its own fact findings and conclusions regarding the release
given by the Class Representatives on behalf of the class?

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 23,
2020, Judge Carolyn B. McHugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's approval of a class
settlement agreement over the objections of four class members.

Appellee-Defendant TEP operates wells that produce natural gas in
Colorado. These wells are subject to various leases or royalty
agreements under which the owners of such instruments receive a
share of profits from the sale of natural gas.

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.

Approximately eight years passed, seemingly free of incident. But
on July 18, 2017, Elna Sefcovic, LLC, White River Royalties, LLC,
Juhan, LP, and Roy Royalty, Inc., individually and on behalf of a
subset of royalty owners who were party to the Lindauer SA
("Sefcovic class"), initiated the action against TEP in Colorado
state court, alleging that TEP had calculated and paid royalties in
a manner inconsistent with the Lindauer SA and contrary to the
underlying royalty agreements.  TEP removed the case to federal
court on August 17, 2017, and subsequently asserted a counterclaim
against the Sefcovic class for an offset of ad valorem taxes owing
to any repayment of royalties by TEP.  The parties engaged in
discovery and ultimately reached a proposed class settlement
("Sefcovic SA").

The Sefcovic SA creates four subclasses composed of four of the 13
categories created by the Lindauer SA. These subclasses sort class
members according to the rights their royalty instruments grant TEP
with respect to deductions from royalty payments. The Lindauer
categories that comprise the Sefcovic subclasses are categories
two, three, five, and eleven. Category two agreements allow
"deduction of transporting gas from the mouth of the well to the
point of sale, or customary transportation costs, or all
transportation charges." Category three agreements allow deduction
of third party transportation costs from the mouth of the well to
the point of sale. Category five agreements calculate royalty
payments based on, for example, market value at the well, proceeds
at the well, market value, or proceeds. And category eleven
agreements calculate royalty payments based on gross proceeds.

On Aug. 16, 2018, the district court issued an order preliminarily
approving the settlement and permitting notice to be mailed to the
Sefcovic class members. On Nov. 6, 2018, appellants Charles
Gonzales, Susannah Gonzales, Ted Vaughn, and Hilda Vaughn
("Objectors") filed various objections to approval of the proposed
Sefcovic SA, including that the proposed settlement sacrificed the
interests of certain class members, that the notice to class
members was insufficient, and that the settlement's release of
claims was overly broad.

The Objectors each own royalty instruments falling in category two
of the Lindauer SA and are therefore members of Subclass 1, as
defined by the Sefcovic SA.  The Lindauer SA treated category two
royalty instruments differently than other categories. Although the
Lindauer SA provided compensation to category two and category
three owners for disputed past deductions, it did not clarify which
deductions would be permitted prospectively under category two and
category three leases. Instead, the Lindauer SA left the issue
unresolved. The Sefcovic SA resolves the dispute in TEP's favor,
declaring that TEP is entitled to deduct from Subclass 1 members a
proportionate share of those members' gathering and fuel costs.

On Feb. 20, 2019, the court held a final fairness hearing on the
proposed Sefcovic settlement. It heard extensive testimony from the
class members, the potential class members who opted out of the
settlement, accounting experts, and the Objectors' counsel.
Relevant in the case, the court also heard testimony from Susan
Jerman, the owner of Subclass 1 representative White River
Royalties, LLC.

Ms. Jerman, who has worked in the oil and gas industry for forty
years, testified that the deduction allowance provision in her
category two agreement was weak as compared to the instruments in
other subclasses, and thus, she believed the Sefcovic SA was "a
fair settlement." Having read and considered all submissions in
connection with the Sefcovic SA, the district court approved the
settlement and incorporated its terms into the court's final
order.

The Objectors assert on appeal that (1) the settlement is not fair;
(2) Subclass 1 representatives did not adequately represent the
rights of absent Subclass 1 members; (3) notice of the class
settlement was inadequate; and (4) the settlement agreement's
release of claims is too broad.

The Tenth Circuit analyzes each matter in turn and concludes that
(1) the district court did not exceed its discretion in deeming the
settlement fair; (2) Objectors did not preserve their challenge to
the adequacy of Subclass 1 representatives; (3) notice of the
proposed settlement was adequate; and (4) the released claims share
a factual predicate with the claims asserted in the complaint.

On Oct. 15, 2020, the Petitioners petition for a writ of certiorari
to review the judgment of the Tenth Circuit to address the
significant erosion of the due process rights of absent class
members that frequently occurs when settlement class certification
and settlement approval are addressed simultaneously in a truncated
fashion that does not include any rigorous analysis of adequacy of
representation, which should be mandatory for both class
certification and settlement approval.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners Charles D. Gonzalez; Susannah Gonzalez; Ted.
L. Vaughan; and Hilda Vaughan are represented by:

          Nathan Allen Keever, Esq.
          DUFFORD WALDECK LAW
          744 Horizon Court, Suite 300
          Grand Junction, CO 81506
          Telephone: (970) 241-5500
          E-mail: keever@dwmk.com

EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Faces Sholtz Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
CELIA SHOLTZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EMERGENCY MEDICAL TRANSPORT, INC., LIFETIME
EMS, INC., and KENNETH JOSEPH, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-02328
(N.D. Ohio, October 13, 2020) brings this collective action
complaint against the Defendants for their alleged willful and
intentional violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
the statutes and law of the State of Ohio.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately
June 2018 to August 2020 as a medic.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked more
than 40 hours each workweek. However, the Defendant paid the
Plaintiff straight time hourly rates and regularly split payments
for hours worked between the company entities. As a result, the
Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff at least the lawful minimum
wage rate for all hours worked each workweek, and failed to pay the
him his lawfully earned overtime at one and one-half times his
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek.

Moreover, the Defendants failed to keep accurate records of hours
and overtime worked by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees.

Emergency Medical Transport, Inc. and Lifetime EMS, Inc. provide
pe-hospital medical emergency care and patient transport. Kenneth
Joseph had an operational control over significant aspects of both
Corporate Defendants' day-to-day functions, including the
compensation of employees. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
          Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
          Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
          SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Caxton Building
          812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Tel: (216) 916-2221
          Fax: (216) 350-6313
          E-mail: jscott@ohiowageslawyers.com
                  rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
                  kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com


FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Class Action Over Defective Door Panels
------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that Chrysler
300 and Dodge Charger door panels are coming off and warping to the
point a class action lawsuit alleges the automaker should pay the
damages.

The lawsuit includes all consumers who currently own or lease, or
formerly owned or leased, 2014-2021 Chrysler 300, Dodge Charger or
Dodge Daytona cars.

The owner or lessee must have either paid out-of-pocket to repair
the panels, or they must have surrendered the vehicle.

Fiat Chrysler (FCA US) allegedly sold the cars while knowing since
2015 the door trim panels would warp or come off. The automaker
also allegedly knew owners and lessees would be stuck paying
hundreds or possibly thousands of dollars for repairs.

Even if repairs are performed under warranty, the class action
alleges Chrysler uses the same defective door panels for
replacement parts.

According to the door panel lawsuit, the warped panels cause
problems with the side airbags, door locks, anti-theft mechanisms
and heating and cooling systems.

Chrysler 300s, Dodge Chargers and Dodge Daytonas lose their values
due to the door panels coming off, and owners claim cosmetically
the warped panels make the cars look terrible.

The plaintiffs who filed the door panel lawsuit allege the front
interior door panels separate and rise next to the windows.
However, even the rear door panels can be affected by warping.

Smaller panels also allegedly come off from the center console
areas between the front seats, and the dashboards allegedly pull
away from the windshields.

Chrysler has allegedly done nothing to fix the door panel problems
which are caused during manufacturing. The automaker allegedly
continues to conceal defects with the door panels to continue
marketing and selling the vehicles.

The door panel class action alleges customers are forced to wait
months for replacement panels and repairs, and the plaintiffs claim
this is an intentional act by Chrysler.

  "Defendant's goal in refusing to make repairs in a reasonably
prompt fashion is obvious: some customers will forgo the repairs,
have the repair completed elsewhere, or neglect the repair until
their warranties expire, thus saving Defendant the cost of making
the in-warranty repairs." - Chrysler door panel lawsuit

According to one of the plaintiffs, she bought a 2016 Chrysler 300C
in April 2019, but in February 2020 the front interior door panel
lifted up. She initially thought this problem was the result of
vandalism and even filed a police report.

When she took the car to Enterprise Car Sales where she purchased
the Chrysler 300, she was allegedly told that the door panel
problem was common in her model.

She was told the car was outside its warranty, but she says she was
able to convince Enterprise to replace the door panel as a one-time
courtesy.

Two weeks later all four of her door panels allegedly starting
coming off and separating from the frame, even the panel that was
just repaired.

She called her insurance company for help, but a Chrysler dealer
told the insurance company it would cost thousands of dollars to
repair the car and the insurance company denied the plaintiff
coverage.

The Chrysler 300 owner says she called Chrysler and was told the
automaker wouldn't pay anything, and since then the door panels are
still coming off.

According to the plaintiff, the door panels coming off have allowed
hot streams of air to come from the interior door cavity and
directly into the car. This allegedly makes the interior car
temperatures a pain to regulate, and the plaintiff isn't able to
transport her daughter to medical appointments.

The plaintiff says the warped Chrysler 300 door panels have caused
her to drive as little as possible.

The Chrysler 300, Dodge Charger and Dodge Daytona warped door panel
lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California: Johnson, et al., v. FCA US, LLC.

The plaintiffs are represented by Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP, and
Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC. [GN]


FLORIDA: Court Grants Summary Judgment in Hep C Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Elliot Mincberg, writing for People for the American Way, reports
that Trump Eleventh Sixth Circuit judge Kevin Newsom wrote a 2-1
decision reversing a district court order that required the Florida
Department of Corrections (DOC) to provide antiviral medication to
all incarcerated people suffering from Hepatitis C - a progressive
disease that impairs liver function and can cause other disease and
death. The August 2020 case is Hoffer v. Secretary, Florida Dept of
Corrections.

Although there is no vaccine for the deadly disease of Hepatitis C,
a class of drugs called direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) has
recently proven to be an effective treatment, although its cost is
high.  As of 2017, the Florida DOC was not providing DAA treatment
to any of the thousands of incarcerated people with Hepatitis C in
the state.  In May 2017, Carl Hoffer (who has since died of the
disease) and three other individuals filed a class action
contending that DOC was violating the Eighth Amendment by being
"deliberately indifferent" to the "serious medical needs" of those
with Hepatitis C because it declined to provide effective DAA
treatment. In response to the suit, the DOC adopted a plan that
provided DAAs to people with advanced Hepatitis C with liver
scarring but continued to deny it to most such infected
individuals.

The district court proceeded to hold a five-day evidentiary
hearing. After granting a preliminary injunction to require DAA
treatment for some additional Hepatitis C victims, the court later
granted summary judgment mandating such treatment for all. As the
court explained, DOC had "not put forth any medical reason" to
withhold DAA treatment from those with currently less severe but
progressing Hepatitis C, and the "only reason why" was cost, which
reflects "deliberate indifference." DOC appealed.

In a 2-1 decision written by Trump judge Newsom, the Eleventh
Circuit reversed the district court. Newsom extensively discussed
the expert testimony at the hearing. He concluded that there was
"good-faith disagreement" between the experts as to whether the
care that was being provided to individuals with less severe
Hepatitis C was adequate, especially since the DOC plan called for
monitoring all those with the disease in case it progressed. Newsom
maintained that this showed that DOC's refusal to provide DAAs to
all those with Hepatitis C was not "reckless and
conscience-shocking", as he claimed must be shown to prove
deliberate indifference. Nothing in previous precedent, Newsom
asserted, "precludes prison authorities" from considering "the cost
of treatment in making medical decisions."

Judge Beverly Martin strongly dissented. She began by stating that
even though the Supreme Court has long recognized that "prison
officials must ensure" that incarcerated people, who have "no
access to outside aid," "receive adequate . . . .  medical care,"
this and other recent 11th Circuit rulings "undermine the rights of
our incarcerated citizens to maintain their health and safety while
they serve their sentence."

Specifically, she explained that the majority had improperly
re-interpreted the experts' testimony, which actually showed that
they agreed that "all" people with Hepatitis C should be treated
with DAAs. The record demonstrated, she continued, that delaying or
denying such treatment for those currently with less advanced
Hepatitis C risks liver damage and other types of debilitating
disease, as well as death as shown in the case of plaintiff Carl
Hoffer.  Newsom was wrong in suggesting that cost could justify not
providing DAAs, Martin went on, because case law was clear that
cost cannot justify the failure to provide "constitutionally
adequate medical care," and that authorities should be considered
"deliberately indifferent" when "non-medical reasons" like cost are
the reason it is not provided.

As in another recent case in which a Trump judge provided the
deciding vote to deny DAA treatment to incarcerated people in
Tennessee with Hepatitis C, Newsom's opinion will harm many such
individuals in Florida. In addition, as Judge Martin pointed out,
it is part of a pattern of recent Eleventh Circuit decisions, in
which Trump judges have also been involved, that improperly
threaten the health and safety of incarcerated people. [GN]


FLUIDIGM CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Nov. 20 Motion Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP disclosed that a federal
securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
investors who purchased Fluidigm Corporation ("Fluidigm" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: FLDM) securities between February 7, 2019 and
November 5, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

All investors who purchased shares of Fluidigm Corporation and
incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the shares of Fluidigm Corporation,
you may, no later than November 20 , 2020, request that the Court
appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class.   Please contact
Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in
the shares of Fluidigm Corporation.

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

   * that Fluidigm was experiencing longer sales cycles;

   * that, as a result, Fluidigm's revenue was reasonably likely to
decline; and

   * that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
was materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On August 1, 2019, Fluidigm reported second quarter 2019 revenue of
$28.2 million, well below analysts' expectations of $32 million,
citing weakness in its microfluidics segment. On this news, the
Company's share price fell $4.10, or 34%, to close at $8.05.

Then, on November 5, 2019, after the market closed, Fluidigm
reported that third quarter 2019 revenue declined 8.5%
year-over-year primarily due to mass cytometry instrument sales. On
this news, the Company's share price fell $2.60, or 51%, to close
at $2.51 per share on November 6, 2019.

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

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

Contact:

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Kevin Cooper, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, kcooper@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 [GN]


GENERALI GLOBAL: Cooper Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GENERALI GLOBAL
ASSISTANCE, INC., (A.K.A CSA TRAVEL SERVICES), et al. The case is
styled as Martha Cooper and Daniel Cooper, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. GENERALI GLOBAL ASSISTANCE,
INC., (A.K.A CSA TRAVEL SERVICES); GENERALI U.S. BRANCH, (A.K.A
GENERALI ASSICRAZIONI GENERALI S.P.A (U.S. BRANCH)); Case No.
CGC20587185 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Oct. 16, 2020).

The case type is stated as "BUSINESS TORT".

Generali Global Assistance, Inc. provides insurance services. The
Company offers travel insurance, identity theft protection,
beneficiary companion, travel assistance, and risk management
services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by Gordon Wayne Renneisen, Esq.


GOHEALTH INC: Bernstein Liebhard Alerts of Class Action Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, on Sept. 23 disclosed that a securities class action has been
filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired GoHealth
Inc. ("GoHealth" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GOCO) Class A common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement
issued in connection with GoHealth's July 2020 initial public
offering (the "IPO"). The lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleges
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

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

The registration statement for the IPO was negligently prepared
and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact,
omitted material facts necessary to make the statements contained
therein not misleading, and failed to make necessary disclosures
required under the rules and regulations governing its preparation.
Specifically the registration statement failed to disclose that at
the time of the IPO: (i) the Medicare insurance industry was
undergoing a period of elevated churn, which had begun in the first
half of 2020; (ii) GoHealth suffered from a higher risk of customer
churn as a result of its unique business model and limited carrier
base; (iii) GoHealth suffered from degradations in customer
persistency and retention as a result of elevated industry churn,
vulnerabilities that arose from the Company's concentrated carrier
business model, and GoHealth's efforts to expand into new
geographies, develop new carrier partnerships and worsening product
mix; (iv) GoHealth had entered into materially less favorable
revenue sharing arrangements with its external sales agents; and
(v) these adverse financial and operational trends were internally
projected by GoHealth to continue and worsen following the IPO.

Shortly after the IPO, the price of GoHealth Class A common stock
suffered significant price declines and by September 15, 2020,
GoHealth Class A common stock closed at just $12.35 per share -
over 40% below the $21 per share price investors paid for the stock
in the IPO less than two months previously.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 20, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased GoHealth Class A Common Stock, and/or would like
to discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/gohealthinc-goco-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-310/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

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

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


GOHEALTH INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of Nov. 20 Motion 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:

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/

GoHealth, Inc. (GOCO)

Class Period: Shares issued in connection with the July 2020
initial public stock offering

Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 20, 2020

MISLEADING PROSPECTUS

To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-goco/

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]


GOL LINHAS: Bragar Eagel Alerts of Class Action Filing
------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Gol Linhas Aereas
Inteligentes S.A. (NYSE: GOL). Stockholders have until the
deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff.
Additional information about each case can be found at the link
provided.

Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes S.A. (NYSE: GOL)

Class Period: March 14, 2019 to July 22, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 10, 2020

In mid-June 2020, Gol's auditor, KPMG, raised significant concerns
about Gol during the accounting firm's first annual audit of the
Company after being hired in 2019, stating that it had an "adverse
opinion" on the strength of Gol's internal controls regarding the
preparation of financial statements, adding that there was
"substantial doubt" about the airline's ability to exist a year
from now. KPMG's adverse opinion prompted Gol to carry out a review
of its financial reporting procedures.

On July 23, 2020, GOL announced that it had dismissed KPMG as the
Company's registered auditing firm.

On this news, shares of GOL fell $.055 per share, or 7%, to close
at $7.25 per share on July 23, 2020

The complaint, filed on September 11, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose 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)
as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations,
and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

For more information on the Gol class action go to:
https://bespc.com/GOL

               About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

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

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


GOOGLE: Decision to Remove Paytm from Play Store Raises Questions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Venkatesh Ganesh, writing for The Hindu Business Line, reports that
Google's decision to remove Paytm from the Play Store has raised
questions around the search giant's neutrality, considering its
dominant position.

"To say that big tech platforms are also gatekeepers for apps and
hold a responsibility to ensure legal compliance as well is a
tricky balance," said Akriti Gaur, technology lawyer and
independent policy advisor.

Both Paytm and Google compete in the digital banking segment.
Google operates Google Pay in India, similar to Paytm. So, in
effect Google could be abusing its position of power, which impacts
competition, opine legal experts.

'Conflict of interest'

Android enjoys a 90 per cent share in India. "Such a conflict of
interest is not healthy and requires constant attention from the
Competition regulator," said Santosh Pai, Honorary Fellow at the
Institute of Chinese Studies.

Udai Singh Mehta, Deputy Executive Director, CUTS International, a
think tank, is of the view that it raises questions about platform
neutrality in the payments ecosystem.

On September 18, Google removed Paytm for a few hours, citing that
the latter, with its Paytm First Games, had violated its policies
pertaining to gambling. Google said in a blog post that it did not
allow online casinos or support any unregulated gambling apps that
facilitate sports betting. Subsequently, Paytm removed an offer
that gave its users stickers, for payments and money transfers,
which could then be used to redeem cashbacks, and was reinstated.

This, however, raises broader questions such as the one raised by
Paytm founder Vijay Shekhar Sharma who has pointed out that the
search giant is the 'judge, jury and executioner.'

These issues resurfaced in August when Google was hit with a
class-action antitrust lawsuit in the US for alleged abuse of its
market power, including the exclusion of competition, the stifling
of innovation, the inhibition of consumer choice, and Google's
imposition of a 30 per cent transaction fee on Play Store
transactions on app developers.

Owner's right?

So, as a platform owner, does Google not have the rights to impose
certain policies?

"Every platform owner is free to impose policies for the use of its
platform. Google Play policies for real money gambling, games and
contests (which include fantasy sports) require such apps to be in
compliance with local laws. Google is well aware that, having a
dominant position in India, if it arbitrarily restricts
applications providing competing services from the Play Store,
without a compelling reason, then such action could be challenged
as anti-competitive," stated Anupam Shukla, Counsel, Pioneer
Legal.

In India, fantasy sports are considered "games-of-skill" and not
"games-of-chance" and are therefore not prohibited as per Centre's
gambling laws. Also, gambling is a State subject.

This also raises questions on consumer rights, and will more apps
get removed? Buzz in the industry is that some other high profile
apps, in the ongoing IPL, are under Google's scanner. "Such issues
will continue to play up, considering that every business forays
into each other's terrains," said Lloyd Mathias, an angel investor
and former head of marketing of HP. [GN]


HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN: Berry Files Civil Rights Suit
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hennepin County, et
al. The case is styled as Patrick Berry, Henrietta Brown, Nadine
Little, Dennis Barrow, Virginia Roy, Joel Westvig, Emmett Williams,
ZACAH, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly-situated
individuals v. Hennepin County; City of Minneapolis; Jacob Frey,
Minneapolis Mayor; Medaria Arradondo, Minneapolis Chief of Police;
Al Bangoura, Superintendent of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation
Board; Jason Ohotto, Park Police Chief at the Minneapolis Park and
Recreation Board; John Does; Jane Does; David Hutchinson, Hennepin
County Sheriff; in their individual and official capacity; Case No.
0:20-cv-02189-WMW-LIB (D. Minn., Oct. 19, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil
Rights Act.

Hennepin County is a county in the U.S. state of Minnesota. As of
the 2010 census, the population was 1,152,425. It is the most
populous county in Minnesota and the 32nd-most populous county in
the United States; more than one in five Minnesotans live in
Hennepin County.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clare A. Diegel, Esq.
          Isabella Salomao Nascimento, Esq.
          Teresa J Nelson, Esq.
          ACLU of MINNESOTA
          P.O. Box 14720
          Minneapolis, MN 55414
          Phone: (612) 670-5030
          Email: cdiegel@aclu-mn.org
                 inascimento@aclu-mn.org
                 tnelson@aclu-mn.org

               - and -

          Dorinda L Wider, Esq.
          LGEAL AID SOCIETY OF MINNEAPOLID
          430 1st Ave N Ste 300
          Mpls, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 746-3762
          Fax: (612) 334-5755

               - and -

          Justin H Perl, Esq.
          Rebecca Stillman, Esq.
          MID-MINNESOTA LEGAL AID
          111 North Fifth Street, Suite 100
          Minneapolis, MN 55403
          Phone: (612) 746-3727
          Email: jperl@mylegalaid.org
                 rstillman@mylegalaid.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christiana Martenson, Esq.
          Kelly K. Pierce, Esq.
          HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          300 South 6th Street, Ste. A2000
          Minneapolis, MN 55487
          Phone: (612) 348-5518
          Fax: (612) 348-8299
          Email: christiana.martenson@hennepin.us
                 kelly.pierce@hennepin.us

               - and -

          Sarah C S McLaren, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE MINNEAPOLIS CITY ATTORNEY
          350 South Fifth Street, Room 210
          Mpls, MN 55415
          Phone: (612) 673-2183
          Fax: (612) 673-3362
          Email: sarah.mclaren@minneapolismn.gov


IBM: Age Discrimination Class Action Ongoing
--------------------------------------------
Sheila Callaham, writing for Forbes, reports that after a lengthy
investigation, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) has confirmed what was already known by many: IBM leaders
directed managers to replace older workers with early career hires.
In the determination letter sent to the charging parties, the EEOC
reported resource actions analyzed between 2013 and 2018 showed
more than 85 percent of redundancies impacted older employees.

"Other than the Texas Roadhouse case in 2017, this is the first age
discrimination case the EEOC has gone the distance on in a long
time," said Peter Gosselin, who, with Ariana Tobin, broke the story
of the tech giant's flagrant disregard for age protections in March
2018. "The EEOC is a small agency, and investigations are expensive
and lengthy. There are few cases of any kind it pursues, but they
took on IBM and confirmed what we already knew -- there was a
deliberate pattern of systemic age discrimination."

While workers age 40 and over have been a protected category since
the passage of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) in
1967, age has not generally been at the forefront of U.S. diversity
and inclusion strategy. Instead, ageism has become the most
acceptable "ism" in the workplace.

Now older workers are increasingly calling attention to ageism in
hiring, promotions, development opportunities and redundancy.
Company leaders have a responsibility to set expectations for
inclusion and equity -- and it doesn't stop at race and gender.

"During 50 years of increasing sensitivity when it comes to race,
gender and sexual orientation, it has made little impact on
changing biased attitudes toward age," said Gosselin. "We've got a
long fight ahead before we see real change. It takes people earlier
in their careers to see the writing on the wall."

Two months after the 2018 ProPublica report, the EEOC's New York
district office began consolidating complaints from across the
country. By September, Boston-based labor attorney Shannon
Liss-Riordan filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of three former
IBM employees who say the tech giant discriminated against them
based on their age when the company fired them.

The suit now represents more than 150 former IBM employees, and
Liss-Riodan continues to invite former employees to come forward.
According to the lawsuit, IBM allegedly laid off at least 20,000
employees over the age of 40 between 2012 and the present.

Rooting Out Age Bias

Twenty years ago, IBM was considered a best practice benchmark for
diversity and inclusion. Now the company is a case study for what
not to do - ignore legal protections put in place to prevent
workplace discrimination.

While it's hard to pinpoint when the slow decay of leadership
accountability for employee protections began, the class action
lawsuit is turning up clues. ProPublica reported in January 2019
that Catherine A. Rodgers, a senior executive with IBM, claimed she
was fired in 2017 after warning her superiors "the company was
leaving itself open to allegations of age discrimination. In sworn
testimony as part of a class-action lawsuit against IBM, the former
executive says she was ordered not to comply with a federal
agency's request that the company disclose the names of employees
over 50 who'd been laid off from her business unit."

In February 2018, IBM slammed a restraining order and sued its
chief diversity officer and vice president of human resources,
Lindsay-Rae McIntyre, after she accepted the same role at
Microsoft. In the lawsuit, the company claimed McIntyre, who had
been in the chief diversity officer's position since 2015,
possessed highly confidential and sensitive information about IBM's
diversity strategies, hiring targets, technologies and
innovations."

Gosselin argues there was little evidence of IBM executives having
any sense of business strategy. "If you look at the early strategy
documents we talk about in the investigation, there was little
discussion as to what the strategy would be in the coming period,"
he said. "Instead, there was discussion about getting young people
in and getting rid of the older ones, as if that might provide some
secret sauce for finding their place in an increasingly competitive
business environment."

Although IBM and McIntyre settled within a few weeks, she was
delayed from stepping into Microsoft's chief diversity role for
several months, where she remains today.

The EEOC investigation of documents between 2013 and 2018
determined "top-down messaging from IBM's highest ranks directing
managers to engage in an aggressive approach to significantly
reduce the headcount of older workers to make room for early
professional hires."

Seven years of documented, prescribed age bias and discrimination
from company leaders create a work culture insidiously rooted in
bad behavior directed at older employees.

"Age bias is so deeply seeded in IBM and American corporate
culture, that it's questionable whether the EEOC determination and
eventual payout, will change things," said Gosselin.

In a recent conversation with an IBM senior executive responsible
for talent acquisition and development for North America, Helen
Hirsh Spence got the impression that age wasn't even on the radar.
When Hirsh Spence, Founder and CEO of Top Sixty Over Sixty,
inquired what IBM was doing in the inclusion space around aging,
the executive told her age wasn't an issue since IBM had older
people in senior roles.

"I remember feeling very disheartened and disappointed in the lack
of recognition of age bias and its complexity," said Hirsh Spence.

When leaders don't see a reason to consider age inclusion, no one
does. For IBM, this is the beginning of a long journey to reset a
cultural mindset.

Why Age Equity Is An Imperative

Talent management strategy needs to make age an imperative. Aside
from being an overlooked protected category, age is a factor in all
diversity categories, creating double- and triple-bias threats when
left unchecked. For example, women of color over 50 have the
highest unemployment rates.

The notion of retirement is passe. The majority of people need to
work for financial reasons or emotional and mental health.

"We would like the idea of retirement to evaporate, and people just
to do myriad things at all stages of their life," said Jonathan
Collie at The Age of No Retirement. Fueling an initiative that
challenges aging narratives in the workplace and beyond, Collie
wants to highlight the social and economic value of all-age
thinking.

"Why should we just invest in the future of those embarking on
their first career when people at the age of 55 have another 20 to
30 years of healthy life expectancy? Why can't we invest at least a
portion of that effort in their future too?"

Change begins with an acknowledgment of the issues. Only then can
people sit down at the table to implement change.

"You could make up for a world of sins if only the hiring market
offered people like me an opportunity to work," said Gosselin. "You
have older people who work hard, have a good record and can perform
the required tasks, but once they're laid off, forced into
retirement or take a leave of absence, it's the death knell."

Now that the EEOC has thrown down the gauntlet on age
discrimination against employees, Gosselin hopes it will also focus
on discriminatory hiring practices.

"Hiring is terribly distorted by age. If older workers can't get
hired, we're screwed. I hope the EEOC pursues this vigorously."
[GN]


IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Johnson Fistel Investigates Gilead Sale
---------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP has launched an
investigation into whether the board members of Immunomedics Inc.
(NASDAQ: IMMU) ("Immunomedics" or the "Company") breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed sale of the
Company to Gilead Sciences, Inc.  

On September 13, 2020, Immunomedics announced that it had entered
into a definitive merger agreement with Gilead. Under the terms of
the acquisition agreement, the Company's shareholders will receive
$88 per share in cash.

The investigation concerns whether the Immunomedics board failed to
satisfy its duties to the Company shareholders, including whether
the board adequately pursued alternatives to the acquisition and
whether the board obtained the best price possible for Immunomedics
shares of common stock.

If you are a shareholder of Immunomedics and believe the proposed
buyout price is too low or you're interested in learning more about
the investigation, please contact lead analyst Jim Baker
(jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please
include a phone number.

                   About Johnson Fistel, LLP

Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York, and Georgia. The
firm represents individual and institutional investors in
shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For
more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
https://www.johnsonfistel.com. Attorney advertising. Past results
do not guarantee future outcomes.

Contact:

Johnson Fistel, LLP
Jim Baker, 619-814-4471
jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]


INFORMA BUSINESS: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Informa Business
Media, Inc. The case is styled as Jay Winegard, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Informa Business
Media, Inc. doing business as:
www.restaurant-food.informaconnect.com, Case No. 1:20-cv-04997
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 17, 2020).

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

Informa Business Media, Inc. provides publishing services. The
Company provides listings of charter companies, fuel suppliers,
ground transportation, maintenance, and catering services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell Segal, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL P.C.
          1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 208
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 415-0100
          Fax: (516) 706-6631
          Email: msegal@segallegal.com


ITRON, INC: Tomko Wage Suit Moved to E.D. Wash.
-----------------------------------------------
The case styled SHAWN TOMKO, on behalf of himself and similarly
situated employees v. ITRON, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01170, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Washington on October 15, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Washington assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-00375-SMJ to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act by
failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated implementation managers overtime pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek and failing to maintain
accurate time records.

Itron, Inc. is an American technology company that offers products
and services related to the delivery of infrastructure services,
with its headquarters located at 2111 N. Molter Road, Liberty Lake,
Washington. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                    
         
         Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
         THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP, LLC
         100 First Avenue, Suite 650
         Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1514
         Telephone: (412) 227-0763
         Facsimile: (412) 774-1994
         E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com

KETTLE MORAINE SCHOOL: Crumble Files Civil Rights Suit in Wisconsin
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kettle Moraine School
District, et al. The case is styled as Ebony Crumble, Individually
and on behalf of SQ and other similarly situated individuals v.
Kettle Moraine School District, Kettle Moraine High School, Kettle
Moraine Middle School, Case No. 2:20-cv-01585 (E.D. Wis., Oct. 16,
2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Education Civil Rights.

Kettle Moraine School District is a highly rated, public school
district located in Wales, Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          B'Ivory LaMarr, Esq.
          THE LAMARR FIRM PLLC
          5100 W Heimer Rd-Ste 200
          Houston, TX 77056
          Phone: (800) 679-4600
          Fax: (800) 679-4600
          Email: blamarr@lamarrfirm.com


KIA MOTORS: Kondash Appeals Ruling in Class Suit to 6th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Tom Kondash filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled TOM KONDASH, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.,
and KIA MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00506-MWM,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter Oct. 12, 2020, the Hon.
Judge Matthew W. McFarland entered an order:

   1. denying Kondash's Motion to Certify Class consisting of:

      "all persons and entities who purchased or leased a "Class
      Vehicle" in Ohio. "Class Vehicles" include the following
      Kia models equipped with PSRs: 2011-2015 Sorento, 2011-
      2015 Sportage, 2011-2015 Optima (including hybrid), and
      the 2014-2015 Cadenza";

   2. granting Kia's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Expert
      Hannemann;

   3. granting Kia's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Expert
      Read;

   4. denying as moot Kia's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of
      Expert Gaskin;

   5. denying as moot Kia's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of
      Expert Weir; and

   6. denying as moot Kondash's Motion to Exclude the Testimony
      of Expert Strombom.

The Court said, "Kondash has failed to demonstrate that the most
important factual question in this case -- whether the Class
Vehicles have a common defect -- is capable of class-wide
resolution. As courts across the country have routinely found when
faced with similar circumstances, this Court finds that Kondash has
failed to meet his burden of 'affirmatively demonstrating' that
common questions predominate over individual issues. In sum,
without the expert testimony of Hannemann and Read, there is no
evidence of a class-wide defect. And without evidence of a
class-wide defect, there is nothing that ties the class together in
order to satisfy predominance."

Kondash seeks to certify this class action based on an alleged
common design defect of certain Kia vehicles' panoramic sunroofs
(PSRs). He alleges this "systematic" design defect causes Kia PSRs
to spontaneously shatter. Kondash contends that certifying this
class action is appropriate because "classwide proof can speak to
the main issues in this case: that there's a defect, that it's
dangerous, and that Kia continued to manufacture and sell the
vehicles while concealing the danger from drivers."

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Ohio Consumer
Sales Practices, the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the
Florida Deceptive & Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Louisiana
Redhibition Law, and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

In July 2015, while driving his 2012 Kia Optima on the highway with
his wife, the Kondash suddenly heard a loud noise as his panoramic
sunroof burst, causing glass to rain into his car. The wind whipped
the sunshade awning around and dumped broken glass over Kondash and
his wife, causing small cuts and glass splinters to their arms and
legs. As it turns out, Kondash was not the only Kia owner who
experienced their panoramic sunroof to spontaneously shatter.
Shortly thereafter, Kondash filed this prospective class action
lawsuit against Kia.

The appellate case is captioned as TOM KONDASH, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Petitioner v.
KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., and KIA MOTORS CORPORATION,
Defendants-Respondents, Case No. 20-304, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner TOM KONDASH, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Matthew W.H. Wessler, Esq.
          Urja Mittal, Esq.
          GUPTA WESSLER PLLC
          1900 L Street, NW, Suite 312
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 888-1741
          E-mail: matt@guptawessler.com

               - and -
       
          Greg Coleman, Esq.
          Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  adam@gregcolemanlaw.com   

               - and -

          Eric Gibbs, Esq.
          David Stein, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (800) 254-9493
          E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
                  ds@classlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Kim Stephens, Esq.
          Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
          Cecily C. Shiel, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
          1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101-4416
          Telephone: (206) 682-5600
          E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
                  jdennett@tousley.com
                  cshiel@tousley.com

LA FAMILIA: Mejia Seeks Unpaid Wages for Deli Grocery Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL MEJIA ROSARIO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LA FAMILIA DELI MARKET CORP. (D/B/A LA
FAMILIA DELI MARKET), RAFAEL SOTO, EDWARD PIMENTEL, and SOCRATES
DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-08617 (S.D.N.Y., October 15,
2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including
failure to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated employees appropriate minimum wages and overtime pay for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failure to
provide a written wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage
statements.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook and deli man
at La Familia Deli Market located at 281 E. 170th Street, Bronx,
New York, from approximately June 9, 2019 until on or about October
11, 2020.

La Familia Deli Market Corp. owns and operates a deli grocery under
the name La Familia Deli Market located at 281 E. 170th Street,
Bronx, 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

LAST RESORT: Mills Sues Over Sexual Discrimination, Retaliation
---------------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL MILLS, KEELA SINGLETON, ALLISON BARROW, ALLYSSA PEACE, ALEXA
ARMSTRONG, ALMA KAEMPF, BRIANNA HEAD, KENNETH MARTINEZ, and MADISON
McDEARIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. LAST RESORT GRILL, INC. and STANLEY WALKER,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00115-CDL (M.D. Ga., October 15, 2020)
is a class action against the Defendants under Title VII for quid
pro quo discrimination, hostile work environment discrimination
and/or retaliation; and under Georgia law for the torts of
intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy,
battery and negligent hiring/retention.

According to the complaint, Defendant Walker constantly, severely,
and explicitly harassed, propositioned and, if rebuffed, punished
female employees based upon their gender. The Plaintiffs allege
Defendant Walker sexually harassed them at work by making comments
about their bodies, touching them, and constantly asking them to
meet him after work hours and/or go home with him. If they rebuffed
him, he would punish them by giving them less valuable shifts,
reducing or altering their work shifts, belittling their concerns,
telling them that they were weak, unequally disciplining them, and
sabotaging their work justifying his termination of their
employment.

As a result of Defendant Walker's misconduct, the Plaintiffs have
suffered lost compensation, emotional distress, inconvenience,
humiliation, and other indignities.

The Plaintiffs are all former employees of the Defendants employed,
at various times, from November 2017 through June 2020. They are
all female who worked as hosts/server assistants, servers, and
bartenders at the Last Resort Grill restaurant in Athens, Georgia,
except for Kenneth Martinez, a male, who worked as a cook.

Last Resort Grill, Inc. is a restaurant owner and operator based in
Athens, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
              
         Peter H. Steckel, Esq.
         STECKEL LAW, L.L.C.
         54 South Main Street
         Watkinsville, GA 30677
         Telephone: (404) 717-6220
         E-mail: peter@SteckelWorkLaw.com

LESSING'S INC: Vasquez Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LESSING'S INC. The
case is styled as Jose Vasquez, Olivin Reyes, and Benigno Reyes
Canales, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. LESSING'S INC., AND ALL RELATED ENTITIES, Case No. 619324/2019
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Oct. 16, 2020).

The case type is stated as "E-FILED CONTRACT CASE".

Lessings, Inc. owns and operates restaurants. The Company offers
prepared foods, snacks, and drinks for on-premises and off-premises
consumption.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          825 VETERANS HWY, STE B
          HAUPPAUGE, NY 11788
          Phone: (631) 257-5588

The Defendant is represented by:

          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          58 SOUTH SERVICE RD, STE 250
          MELVILLE, NY 11747
          Phone: (631) 247-0404


LEXINFINTECH HOLDINGS: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Class Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon on behalf of those who acquired LexinFintech
Holdings Ltd. ("LexinFintech" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LX)
securities during the period from December 18, 2017 through August
24, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until November 9,
2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) LexinFintech reported artificially low delinquency rates
by giving borrowers in default new funds to make payments; (2) the
Company's business model exposes shareholders to enormous losses by
prioritizing Chinese lenders for off-balance sheet loans; (3) the
Company exaggerated its user base; (4) the Company was facilitating
direct peer to peer lending contrary to Chinese law; (5) the
Company engaged in undisclosed related party transactions; (6) the
Company lacked adequate internal controls; and (7) as a result,
defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

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

Kirby McInerney is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney's website: www.kmllp.com.

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

Contacts

Kirby McInerney LLP
Thomas W. Elrod, Esq., (212) 371-6600
investigations@kmllp.com
www.kmllp.com [GN]


MAPLEBEAR INC: Faces Dixon Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JENISE DIXON, individually and on behalf of all other aggrieved
employees, Plaintiff v. MAPLEBEAR INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN
CALIFORNIA AS INSTACART, JOHN DOE, and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV39633 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., October 15, 2020) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Private Attorneys General Act of
California Labor Code including willful misclassification of the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees as
independent contractors, failure to pay legally required overtime
and minimum wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods,
failure to keep and provide accurate itemized wage statements,
failure to pay split shift premiums, failure to timely pay wages
during employment and upon termination, failure to provide basic
information upon hiring, failure to reimburse necessary
business-related expenses and costs, and failure to provide notice
of paid sick time and accrual.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as an Instacart personal
shopper on or about March 20, 2020 until the termination of her
employment on March 30, 2020.

Maplebear Inc., d/b/a Instacart, is an American company that
operates a grocery delivery and pick-up service in the United
States and Canada, with its principal place of business in San
Francisco, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                  
                  
         Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
         Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
         Kevin Crough, Esq.
         HAIG B. KAZANDJ1AN LAWYERS, APC
         801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
         Glendale, CA 91203
         Telephone: (818) 696-2306
         Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
         E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com
                 cathy@hbklawyers.com
                 kevin@hbklawyers.com

MARTINS POTATO: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Martins Potato Chips
Inc. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Martins Potato Chips Inc., Case
No. 1:20-cv-08657 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2020).

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

Martin's Potato Chips is a manufacturer of potato chips, popcorn,
and other salted snack foods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


MEDIANEWS GROUP: Faces Tejada Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
MONICA TEJADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MEDIANEWS GROUP, INC., and DOES 1–10, inclusive, Case
No. 3:20-cv-07222 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 15, 2020) arises from the
Defendants' violation of the California law by maintaining policies
and practices that systematically fail to provide employees with
the protections of California's Labor Code.

The complaint alleges that due to the Defendants' policies and
practices, the Defendants had violated numerous provisions of the
California Labor Code, including but not limited to, failing to
compensate class members for all hours worked, failing to
compensate piece rate employees for rest and recovery periods and
other nonproductive time, failure to provide class members with
meal periods and rest periods, failure to provide class members
with minimum and overtime wages, failing to maintain accurate and
complete employment records, failure to provide class members with
accurate, itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse class
members for business expenses, and failure to timely pay all wage
earned. The Plaintiff also contends that these acts, which violate
the California Labor Code, constitute unlawful and unfair business
practices in violation of the California Unfair Competition Laws.

The Plaintiff was employed by MNG as a newspaper carrier from
approximately 2015 to December 2016 around San Mateo, California.

MediaNews Group, Inc. is a media company distributing online and
print media, including The Mercury News, throughout the San
Francisco Bay Area in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Ottinger, Esq.
          THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C.
          535 Mission Street
          San Francisco, CA 94133
          Telephone: (415) 262-0096
          Facsimile: (212) 571-0505
          E-mail: robert@ottingerlaw.com

MEDTRONIC INC: Le Sues Over Improper Background Check
-----------------------------------------------------
LAN LE, individually and on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDTRONIC, INC.; COVIDIEN, L.P.;
and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-02040-BEN-BLM (C.D. Cal., October 15, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to make proper
disclosures and obtain proper authorization in connection with
their employment background check requirement. Specifically, as
part of the employment application, the Defendants required the
Plaintiff and Class members to sign a "Disclosure Regarding
Background Reports" and "Authorization to Obtain Background Check
Reports" form for the Defendants to perform a background check and
obtain consumer credit reports. This form is embedded with
extraneous information and surplusage pertaining to several state
law requirements, fails to provide all the requisite information
and contains a liability waiver. This document fails to meet the
"clear and conspicuous" requirement under California and federal
law in the United States. Furthermore, the Plaintiff alleges that
the Defendants failed to translate and provide the requisite
disclosures and authorizations in a language understandable to
employees or applicants with limited English reading proficiency.

Medtronic, Inc. is a medical device company with its headquarters
located at 710 Medtronic Parkway, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Covidien LP is a manufacturer of surgical appliances and supplies,
with its headquarters located at 15 Hampshire St., Mansfield,
Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         James R. Hawkins, Esq.
         Christina M. Lucio, Esq.
         JAMES HAWKINS APLC
         9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
         Irvine, CA 92618
         Telephone: (949) 387-7200
         Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
         E-mail: James@Jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 Christina@Jameshawkinsaplc.com

MO HOTTA: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mo Hotta - Mo Betta,
Inc. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Mo Hotta - Mo Betta, Inc.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-08654 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2020).

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

Mo Hotta Mo Betta is the Original Hot & Spicy Food Company since
1989. For 25 YEARS, Mo Hotta Mo Betta has been providing the hot
and spicy foods in kitchens across the country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Lewis PI Suit Transferred to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Stevenson Lewis v. Monsanto Company, Case No.
3:20-cv-00378-REP, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on Oct. 19, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-07323-VC to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury for Product
Liability.

The Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural
biotechnology corporation founded in 1901.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Thomas Anderson, Esq.
          KETTERER BROWNE & ANDERSON, LLC
          336 S. Main Street
          Bel Air, MD 21014
          Phone: (855) 522-5297
          Fax: (855) 572-4637
          Email: pete@kbaattorneys.com

               - and -

          J. Robert Bell, III, Esq.
          Joseph A. Osborne, Esq.
          OSBORNE & FRANCIS
          433 Plaza Real, Suite 271
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: (561) 293-2600
          Fax: (561) 923-8100
          Email: rbell@realtoughlawyers.com
                 josborne@realtoughlawyers.com


MOVIN' IRON: Fails to Properly Pay Minimum Wages, Harlow Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
TOBY HARLOW, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOVIN' IRON, INC., a domestic
corporation, JOHN M. HOLT, an individual, and TIM E. BRAGWELL, an
individual, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01597-HNJ (N.D. Ala.,
October 13, 2020) brings this complaint against the Defendants for
their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a driver.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to compensate him
and other similarly situated drivers at the federal minimum wages
for all hours worked for non-driving, and/or non-productive time,
and failed to reimburse them for the business expenses they
incurred performing job duties for the Defendants.

Movin' Iron, Inc. operates an inter-state transportation and
trucking business. John M. Holt and Tim E. Bragwell are officers
and/or directors of Movin' Iron. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward I. Zwilling, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF EDWARD I. ZWILLING, LLC
          4000 Eagle Park Corporate Drive
          Birmingham, AL 35242
          Tel: (205) 822-2701
          E-mail: edwardzwilling@zwillinglaw.com


NANO-X IMAGING: Kaskela Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
---------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC on Sept. 23 disclosed that a shareholder class
action lawsuit has been filed against Nano-X Imaging Ltd. ("Nano-X"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NNOX) on behalf of investors who
purchased Nano-X's securities between August 21, 2020 and September
15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Investors who purchased Nano-X's securities during the Class Period
and suffered an investment loss in excess of $100,000 are
encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at
(484) 258 – 1585, or by email at skaskela@kaskelalaw.com, to
discuss this action and their legal rights and options. Additional
information about this action may also be found at
http://kaskelalaw.com/case/nano-x-imaging-ltd/.

As detailed in the complaint, on September 15, 2020, Citron
Research ("Citron") published a report entitled "Nano-X Imaging
(NNOX) A Complete Farce on the Market – Theranos 2.0" (the
"Citron Report"). The Citron Report summarized Nano-X as "this $3
billion company is nothing more than a science project with a
simple rendering, minimal R&D, fake customers, no FDA approval, and
fraudulent claims that are beyond the realm of possibility." The
Citron Report also alleged that the Company's claims about its
customers with commercial agreements were false, that the Company
has not published any data comparing images from its machines with
other x-ray machines, and that Nano-X's statements that it was
creating a novel solution to medical imaging were false.

Following this news, shares of Nano-X's securities fell $12.41 per
share over two trading days, or over 25% in value, to close at
$36.80 per share on September 16, 2020, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the defendants
made a series of false and misleading statements to investors and
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
("FDA") 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.

IMPORTANT DEADLINE: Investors who purchased Nano-X's securities
during the Class Period may, no later than November 16, 2020, seek
to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative in the action.
Nano-X investors who suffered an investment loss in excess of
$100,000 are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC to discuss this
opportunity to participate in the action.

Kaskela Law LLC exclusively represents investors in securities
fraud, corporate governance, and merger & acquisition litigation.
For additional information about Kaskela Law LLC please visit
www.kaskelalaw.com.

CONTACT:
D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
KASKELA LAW LLC
18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
Newtown Square, PA 19073
(484) 258 – 1585
(888) 715 – 1740
www.kaskelalaw.com
skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN]


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: McClintock Injury Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Scott McClintock. individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:20-cv-02501, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Oct. 16,
2020.

The Northern District of Illinois District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-06144 to the proceeding.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Preisler Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Amir Preisler, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nationwide Credit,
Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No. 0:20-cv-62130-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct.
19, 2020).

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

Nationwide Credit, Inc. provides customer relationship and accounts
receivable management services. The Company offers outsourcing,
including contingency collections, first and third party, customer
relationship management, attorney network, and skip program
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
          ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
          3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
          Hollywood, FL 33024
          Phone and Fax: (754) 217-3084
          Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


NEBRASKA: Stanko Appeals Order in Prisoners Suit to 8th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Rudy Butch Stanko filed an appeal from the District
Court's Memorandum and Order dated October 8, 2020, and Judgment
dated October 8, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled Rudy Stanko
v. Jeff Brewer, Case No. 8:20-cv-00302-RGK, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha.

Jeff Brewer is sued in his official capacity as the Sheriff of
Sheridan County, Nebraska. The complaint against Brewer alleges the
Sheridan County Jail does not provide adequate legal resources for
self-represented litigants in violation of Stanko's rights under
the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the
United States.

On June 24, 2020, Plaintiff Rudy Stanko filed a complaint against
the Defendant in the District Court of Sheridan County, Nebraska.
He amended his complaint on or about June 29, 2020. The amended
complaint alleges Defendant interfered with Plaintiff's access to
counsel and the courts and subjected Plaintiff to unconstitutional
conditions of confinement.

The Defendant was served, and prior to filing any responsive
pleadings, he timely filed a notice to remove this action to
federal court. In his removal notice, the Defendant argued
Plaintiff's complaint raised a federal question and that this court
has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331.

The Plaintiff objected and claimed that removal to federal court is
inconvenient because there are no federal courthouses in the area
of western Nebraska where he resides (or claims to reside). He
additionally argued that the Nebraska state court had jurisdiction
over his claims and removal was therefore inappropriate.

The Magistrate Judge evaluated the jurisdictional issue, found the
court has subject matter jurisdiction, and overruled Plaintiff's
objections to the assigned trial location. The Magistrate Judge's
Findings and Recommendation were adopted in their entirety, and
Plaintiff's motion to remand was denied.

During the course of the parties' jurisdictional and trial location
dispute, the Defendant moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The parties briefed the
motion, and it was fully submitted on August 24, 2020. Thereafter,
on September 4, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint without leave of the court or the Defendant's consent.
Defendant moved to strike the second amended complaint.

On October 8, 2020, the Court ordered that the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss and Motion Strike are granted. The Plaintiff's complaint
is dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned as Rudy Stanko v. Jeff Brewer, Case
No. 20-3150, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit.

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

   -- Brief of Appellant Rudy Butch Stanko is due November 24,
2020; and

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues
the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.[BN]

Rudy Butch Stanko, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
prisoners, appears pro se.

Defendants-Appellees Jeff Brewer, individually, is represented by:

          Robert S. Keith, II, Esq.
          Alexis M. Wright, Esq.
          ENGLES & KETCHAM
          1350 Woodmen Tower
          1700 Farnam Street
          Omaha, NE 68102-0000
          Telephone: (402) 348-0900
          E-mail: rkeith@ekoklaw.com
                  awright@ekoklaw.com

NIKOLA CORP: Kirby McInerney Reminds Class Action Filing
--------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that that a
class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona on behalf of those who acquired Nikola
Corporation ("Nikola" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NKLA) securities
during the period from March 3, 2020 through September 20, 2020
(the "Class Period"). Investors have until November 16, 2020 to
apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/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. According to the
suit, these true details were disclosed by a market research firm.

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

Kirby McInerney is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney's website: www.kmllp.com.

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

Contacts

Kirby McInerney LLP
Thomas W. Elrod, Esq., (212) 371-6600
investigations@kmllp.com
www.kmllp.com [GN]


NORIEGA FURNITURE: Cota Files ADA Suit in S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Noriega Furniture, et
al. The case is styled as Julissa Cota, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Noriega Furniture, a California
corporation; DOES 1 to 10, inclusive; Case No.
3:20-cv-02045-AJB-KSC (S.D. Cal., Oct. 16, 2020).

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

Noriega Furniture began as a neighborhood furniture store in 1948
and has grown into the Bay Area's premier purveyor of high-end home
furnishings and design and offers design expertise and interior
design services in San Francisco and throughout the Bay Area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 381-9988
          Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com


OATLY INC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oatly Inc. The case
is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Oatly Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-08665 (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 16, 2020).

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

Oatly is a vegan food brand from Sweden that produces alternatives
to dairy products from oats.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Levi & Korsinsky Alerts of Class Suit Filing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Sept. 23 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Odonate
Therapeutics. 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.

Odonate Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:ODT)

ODT Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased December 7, 2017
- April 21, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 16, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/odonate-therapeutics-inc-information-request-form?prid=9532&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Odonate
Therapeutics, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's orally
administered chemotherapy agent, tesetaxel, was not as safe or
well-tolerated as the Company had led investors to believe; (ii)
consequently, tesetaxel's commercial viability as a cancer
treatment was overstated; and (iii) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and 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
www.zlk.com [GN]


OLD VIENNA: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Old Vienna, L.L.C.
The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Old Vienna, L.L.C., Case No.
1:20-cv-08655 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2020).

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

Old Vienna LLC is a food & beverages company based out of Fenton,
Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


OVATION CREDIT: Faces Fabricant Suit Over Unsolicited Text Message
------------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OVATION CREDIT SERVICES, INC., and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-09400
(C.D. Cal., October 13, 2020) is a class action complaint brought
against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent an unsolicited text
message to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in
-1083 in or about November 24, 2018 in an attempt to promote its
services. The Defendant allegedly used an "automatic telephone
dialing system" (ATDS) in transmitting the text message without
obtaining prior express consent from the Plaintiff to receive
unsolicited text message via ATDS.

Ovation Credit Services, Inc. provides financial services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PANHANDLE GETAWAYS: Sanford Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PANHANDLE GETAWAYS
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Angela Sanford, on behalf of
herself and those similarly situated v. PANHANDLE GETAWAYS LLC, A
GEORGIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; ANN SHANK, INDIVIDUALLY; Case
No. 5:20-cv-00282-RH-MJF (N.D. Fla., Oct. 19, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Panhandle Getaways has specialized in beach and gulf front vacation
rentals since 1992.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN PA - ORLANDO FL
          20 N Orange Ave., Ste. 1600
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Phone: (407) 420-1414
          Fax: (407) 425-8171
          Email: rmorgan@forthepeople.com


PINE CLUB: Church Suit Seeks to Certify Tipped Servers Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERRI CHURCH, et al. , for
herself and all others similarly situated, v. THE PINE CLUB, LLC,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00135-WHR (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the proposed Fair Labor Standards
      Act class (FLSA) consisting of;

      "all individuals currently or formerly employed by the
      Defendant in a tipped server position for which a tip
      credit was applied at any time between April 9, 2017 and
      the date the Court order conditionally certifying the
      class"; and

   2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
      Plaintiff's FLSA claim can be promptly sent to all
      potential opt-in plaintiffs.

The Plaintiff says she is similarly situated to the other Tipped
Servers who currently or formerly work for the Defendant since
April 9, 2017. The Plaintiff is similarly situated to the other
Tipped Servers because they were all subject to the Defendant's
same unlawful policy of the Defendant taking a tip credit without
Defendant notifying the Tipped Servers of the Tipped Notice
Requirements as required under 29 U.S.C. section 203(m), says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff began working as a server for the Defendant in a
tipped position in July 2011.

Founded in 1947, the Pine Club operates a steakhouse in Dayton,
Ohio.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional class
certification dated Oct. 19, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35i0V6L at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradley L. Gibson, Esq.
          Angela J. Gibson, Esq.
          GIBSON LAW, LLC
          9200 Montgomery, Rd., Suite 11A
          Cincinnati, OH 45242
          Telephone: 513-834-8254
          Facsimile: 513-834-8253
          E-mail: brad@gibsonemploymentlaw.com
                  angela@gibsonemploymentlaw.com

REATA PHARMACEUTICALS: Patel Says Drug Trial Reports Misleading
---------------------------------------------------------------
TOSHIF PATEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REATA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., J. WARREN HUFF,
and MANMEET S. SONI, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00796 (E.D. Tex.,
October 15, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding Reata Pharmaceuticals'
business, operational, and compliance policies in order to attract
investors and artificially inflate prices of Reata securities
between October 15, 2019 and August 7, 2020. Specifically, the
Defendants failed to disclose that: (i) the MOXIe Part 2 study
results were insufficient to support a single study marketing
approval of omaveloxolone for the treatment of Friedreich's ataxia
(FA) in the U.S. without additional evidence; (ii) as a result, it
was foreseeable that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would
not accept marketing approval of omaveloxolone for the treatment of
FA in the U.S. based on the MOXIe Part 2 study results; and (iii)
as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 10, 2020, during pre-market hours, Reata issued a press
release announcing its second quarter 2020 financial results,
wherein it disclosed that the FDA is not convinced that the MOXIe
Part 2 results of the Company's study assessing omaveloxolone for
the treatment of FA will support a single study approval without
additional evidence that lends persuasiveness to the results. On
this news, Reata's stock price fell $51.79 per share, or 33.16%, to
close at $104.41 per share on August 10, 2020.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical
company, with principal executive offices located at 5320 Legacy
Drive, Plano, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
              
         Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
         THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
         12700 Park Central Drive, Suite 520
         Dallas, TX 75251
         Telephone: (972) 521-6868
         Facsimile: (281) 254-7789
         E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.co

                  - and –

         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

RECON360 LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carrillo Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS HUMBERTO CARRILLO DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RECON360, LLC; and DOES 1
thru 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20CV370603 (Cal. Super.,
Santa Clara Cty., Sept. 22, 2020) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, and reimburse necessary
business expenses.

The Plaintiff Carrillo was employed by the Defendants staff.

Recon360, LLC provides in-house design with reconstruction,
roofing, painting and maintenance divisions dedicated exclusively
for homeowner association communities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
          Kelsey M. Szamet, Esq.
          David Keledjian, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura B1vd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990-2903
          E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
                  kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com
                  davidk@kingsleykingsley.com

               - and -

          Emil Davtyan, Esq.
          DAVTYAN LAW FIRM, INC.
          880 E. Broadway
          Glendale, CA 91205
          Telephone: (818) 875-2008
          Facsimile: (818) 722-3974
          E-mail: emil@davtyanlaw.com


SAINT FRANCIS: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Saint Francis
University. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Saint Francis
University, Case No. 1:20-cv-08664 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2020).

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

Saint Francis University is a private Catholic liberal arts
university in Loretto, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


SAMFORD UNIVERSITY: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Samford University.
The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Samford University, Case No.
1:20-cv-08715 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 19, 2020).

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

Samford University is a private Christian university in Homewood,
Alabama. In 1841, the university was founded as Howard
College.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


SIMM ASSOCIATES: Fantacone FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Joseph Fantacone, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Simm Associates, Inc., John and
Jane Does 1-10, Case No. 005262/2020, was removed from the NYS
Supreme Court - County of Onondaga, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of New York on Oct. 16, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-01277-DNH-ML to
the proceeding.

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

SIMM Associates is a family owned and operated financial services
business assisting clients as accounts receivable management
specialists.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Simon Goldenberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SIMON GOLDENBERG PLLC
          818 East 16 Street, Ste. Ground Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11230
          Phone: (347) 640-4357
          Email: simon@goldenbergfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Adam Marshall, Esq.
          Brett A. Scher, Esq.
          KAUFMAN DOLOWICH & VOLUCK, LLP
          135 Crossways Park Dr., Ste. 201
          Woodbury, NY 11797
          Phone: (516) 283-8731
          Fax: (516) 681-1101
          Email: amarshall@kdvlaw.com
                 bscher@kdvlaw.com



SOCIETY INSURANCE: RSV Enterprises Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as RSV Enterprises, Inc. doing business as: Drake
Diner; MJPD Ventures, LLC doing business as: Winestyles of Ankeny;
On behalf of theselves and others similarly situated v. Society
Insurance, Case No. 4:20-cv-00256, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Iowa to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Oct. 16,
2020.

The Northern District of Illinois District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-06154 to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract.

Society Insurance is a business insurance carrier headquartered in
Fond du Lac, Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian P Galligan, Esq.
          GALLIGAN & REID PC
          300 Walnut Street, Suite Five
          Des Moines, IA 50309-2239
          Phone: (515) 282-3333
          Email: bgalligan@galliganlaw.com

               - and -

          Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
          WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
          865 S. Dixie Dr.
          Vandalia, OH 45377
          Phone: (937) 435-7500
          Email: rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Guy R. Cook, Esq.
          Laura Nicole Martino, Esq.
          GREFE & SIDNEY PLC
          500 E. Court Avenue, Suite 200
          Des Moines, IA 50309
          Phone: (515) 245-4300
          Status: (515) 245-4452
          Email: gcook@grefesidney.com
                 lmartino@grefesidney.com


STATE FARM: Baker Suit Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RASHAD BAKER, RACHAEL
LEONARD, and ZELMA STOVALL, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00014-CDL (M.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class consisting of:

      "all persons issued a Georgia vehicle insurance policy by
      State Farm who -- based on loss dates between December 7,
      2017 and the date of certification -- made physical damage
      claims under their policies that were assigned
      comprehensive or collision cause of loss codes 312, 332,
      334, 390, 392, 394-397, 400, or 403";

   2. appointing the Plaintiffs Baker and Stovall as class
      representatives; and

   3. appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel.

State Farm is a large group of insurance companies throughout the
United States with corporate headquarters in Bloomington,
Illinois.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Oct.
19, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2FN9Fcj at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jerry A. Buchanan
          BUCHANAN LAW FIRM, PC
          Post Office Box 2848
          Columbus, GA 31902
          Telephone: (706) 323-2848
          E-mail: jab@thebuchananlawfirm.com- and -

               - and -

          E. Adam Webb, Esq.
          Matthew C. Klase, Esq.
          WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
          1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (770) 444-9325
          E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com
                  Matt@WebbLLC.com

SUNCOKE ENERGY: Cohn Appeals Order in Securities Suit to 3rd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Michael Cohn filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit styled IN RE SUNCOKE ENERGY PARTNERS, L.P., Case No.
1-19-cv-00693, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 15,
2020, Judge Colm F. Connolly of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Consolidated Class Action Complaint.

The case is a consolidation of three related actions: Marks v.
Suncoke Energy Partners, L.P., 19-cv-00693-CFC; Zolotarev v.
Suncoke Energy Partners, L.P., 19-cv-01055-CFC; and Cohn v. Suncoke
Energy Partners, L.P., 19-cv-01107-CFC. Lead Plaintiff Michael Cohn
was a unitholder of SunCoke Energy Partners, L.P. ("SXCP"), a
Delaware limited partnership. The sole general partner of SXCP was
SunCoke Energy Partners, G.P. LLC (SXCP GP), a Delaware limited
liability company.

Section 7.9(c) of the partnership agreement that governs SXCP
contains the "safe harbor" provision. The partnership agreement
requires that the Conflicts Committee be comprised of two or more
directors who have no affiliation with or ownership interest in
SXCP GP or SXCP GP's affiliates.

On Feb. 5, 2019, SunCoke Energy, Inc. and SXCP announced an
agreement for SunCoke to acquire all outstanding common units of
SXCP not already owned by SunCoke in a stock-for-unit merger
transaction. The merger was approved by SXCP's Board of Directors
and a majority of the members of the Conflicts Committee.  It was
also approved by holders of a majority of the outstanding SunCoke
common shares and SXCP common units.  SunCoke indirectly owned a
sufficient percentage of the SXCP common units to approve the
transaction on behalf of the holders of SXCP common units.  The
merger closed on June 28, 2019.

The Plaintiffs allege in their Complaint that the Defendants'
actions taken in connection with the merger violated federal
securities laws, the Defendants' obligations under the SXCP
partnership agreement, and Delaware state laws.

The appellate case is captioned as Michael Cohn v. SunCoke Energy
Partners LP, et al., Case No. 20-3069, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant MICHAEL COHN, Individually and on behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI
          3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 201
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 482-3182
          E-mail: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com    

Defendants-Appellees SUNCOKE ENERGY PARTNERS LP, SUNCOKE ENERGY
INC., MICHAEL G. RIPPEY, ALVIN BLEDSOE, P. MICHAEL HARDESTY, JOHN
W. SOMERHALDER, II, FAY WEST, KATHERINE T. GATES, MARTHA CARNES,
JOHN W. ROWE, PETER B. HAMILTON, JAMES E. SWEETNAM, SUSAN R.
LANDAHL, ROBERT A. PEISER, and SUNCOKE ENERGY PARTNERS GP LLC are
represented by:

          Paul R. Elliott, Esq.
          BAKER BOTTS
          910 Louisiana, One Shell Plaza, 37th Floor
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 229-1226
          E-mail: paul.elliott@bakerbotts.com  

               - and -

          Alan R. Silverstein, Esq.
          Peter J. Walsh, Jr., Esq.
          POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON
          1313 North Market Street
          Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor, P.O. Box 951
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 984-6096
          E-mail: asilverstein@potteranderson.com
                  pwalsh@potteranderson.com

               - and -

          S. Mark Hurd, Esq.
          Thomas P. Will, Esq.
          MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL
          1201 North Market Street, 16th Floor
          P.O. Box 1347
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: (302) 351-9354
          E-mail: shurd@mnat.com
                  twill@mnat.com

SUPPORT COLLECTORS: Irving Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Support Collectors
Inc. a.k.a. Summit Account Resolution, et al. The case is styled as
Jermia Irving, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Support Collectors Inc a.k.a. Summit Account
Resolution, John Does 1-25, Case No. 8:20-cv-02431 (M.D. Fla., Oct.
17, 2020).

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

Summit Account Resolution is a collection service located in
Champlin, MN.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
          ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
          3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
          Hollywood, FL 33024
          Phone and Fax: (754) 217-3084
          Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


T & M GREENCARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Correa et al. Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN CORREA; RONY ALBERTO SANCHEZ; OSMAN SOTO; JOSE FLORES; JESUS
ARTURITO MALDONADO; and FRANKLIN SOTO, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. T & M GREENCARE
INCORPORATED; and MARLON REYES, Defendants, Case No. 9:20-cv-04457
(E.D.N.Y., Sept. 22, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as laborers.

T & M Greencare Incorporated provides landscaping, tree service,
tree pruning, tree removal, stump grinding, and land clearing
services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
          675 3rd Avenue, Suite 1810
          Telephone: (718) 669-0714
          E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com


TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz LLP Alerts of Class Action Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Sept. 23 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited  ("Teva"
or the "Company") (NYSE: TEVA) and certain of its officers.   The
class action, filed in United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, and docketed under 20-cv-04660, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants
who purchased or otherwise, acquired Teva securities between
October 29, 2015 and August 18, 2020, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Teva securities during the
class period, you have until November 23, 2020, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com
or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Teva, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets,
and distributes generic medicines, specialty medicines, and
biopharmaceutical products in North America, Europe, and
internationally.

Among Teva's products is Copaxone (glatiramer acetate), a
prescription drug that is used to treat relapsing forms of multiple
sclerosis ("MS").  Throughout the Class Period, Teva consistently
described Copaxone as the Company's "leading specialty medicine,"
reporting Copaxone sales and revenues that consistently dwarfed the
same metrics for other Teva specialty products.  Teva attributed
Copaxone's commercial success to "having the right mix" of, among
other things, "a fantastic underlying demand," "patients hav[ing]
access to it," and an "unparalleled . . . track record of both
efficacy and safety."

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Teva had made substantial
illegal kickback payments to charitable foundations to cover
Medicare co-payment obligations of patients taking Copaxone; (ii)
accordingly, Teva's revenues derived from Copaxone were in part the
product of unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; (iii) the
foregoing misconduct subjected Teva to a foreseeable risk of
heightened regulatory scrutiny and enforcement, as well as
reputational harm when the truth became known; and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On August 18, 2020, the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ")
issued a press release announcing that it had filed a complaint
against Teva under the False Claims Act.  Specifically, "[t]he
government alleges that, from 2007 through 2015, Teva paid The
Assistance Fund (TAF) and Chronic Disease Fund (CDF) with the
intent and understanding that the foundations would use Teva's
money to cover the Medicare co-pays of patients taking Copaxone.
During the same period, Teva raised the price of Copaxone from
approximately $17,000 per year to over $73,000 per year."

On this news, Teva's American depositary receipt ("ADR") price fell
$1.11 per ADR from its previous close on August 17, 2020, or 9.6%,
to close at $10.48 per ADR on August 18, 2020, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

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

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980
www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN]


TEXAS LAW: Appeals Opinion in Crowley Suit to State Supreme Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Texas Law Shield, LLP, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled TEXAS LAW SHIELD, LLP,
WALKER & RICE, P.C., T. EDWIN WALKER AND DARREN R. RICE, Appellants
v. BRAD CROWLEY AND TERRILYN CROWLEY, Appellees, Case No.
14-18-00986-CV, in the Texas Fourteenth District Court of Appeals.

The issues presented are:

     1. Should the scope of Tex. Disciplinary Rules Prof. Conduct
R. 7.03 be informed by the elements in Disciplinary Rule 7.03(a),
which include the requirement of a particular occurrence or event?


     2. The presentation was made by an employee of Texas Law
Shield, a "legal service contract company" expressly permitted by
chapter 953 of the Texas Occupations Code to solicit customers. Are
nonlawyers subject to the attorney Disciplinary Rules about
improper solicitation?

     3. Should the Court resolve the ambiguity in Disciplinary Rule
7.03(a) regarding whether a lawyer may permissibly solicit a family
member of an existing client?

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that most concealed handgun license ("CHL") classes in
Texas include a pitch by a salesperson for Texas Law Shield. The
salesperson promotes Texas Law Shield as providing "peace of mind"
and encourages class attendees to become clients of Texas Law
Shield to the tune of approximately $130 per year.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action to recover damages for
themselves and those similarly situated regarding the Defendants'
barratry and wrongful solicitation for professional employment.

On August 20, 2020, the Court of Appeals inspected the record and
find the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment in
favor of appellee Brad Crowley and awarded him statutory damages of
$151.35 based on that summary judgment. The Court also finds that
the trial court erred when it awarded attorneys' fees to appellees
Brad Crowley and Terrilyn Crowley. The Court therefore order that
the portions of the judgment that (1) awarded appellee Brad Crowley
statutory damages of $151.35 based on the granting of Appellee Brad
Crowley's motion for partial summary judgment, and (2) awarded
appellees Brad Crowley and Terrilyn Crowley attorneys' fees, are
reversed and ordered severed, and remanded for proceedings in
accordance with the court's opinion.

The appellate case is captioned as TEXAS LAW SHIELD, LLP, WALKER &
RICE, P.C., T. EDWIN WALKER, AND DARREN R. RICE, Petitioners, v.
BRAD CROWLEY AND TERRILYN CROWLEY, Respondents, Case No. 20-0786,
in the Supreme Court of Texas.

Appellants-Petitioners TEXAS LAW SHIELD, LLP, WALKER & RICE, P.C.,
T. EDWIN WALKER, AND DARREN R. RICE are represented by:

          Roger D. Townsend, Esq.
          COKINOS YOUNG, P.C.
          Four Houston Center
          1221 Lamar Street, 16th Floor
          Houston, TX 77010
          E-mail: rtownsend@cokinoslaw.com

               - and -

          P. Kevin Leyendecker, Esq.
          Kelsi Stayart White, Esq.
          AHMAD ZAVITSANOS ANAIPAKOS ALAVI & MENSING P.C.
          1221 McKinney, Suite 2500
          Houston, TX 77010  
          E-mail: kleyendecker@azalaw.com
                  kwhite@azalaw.com

Appellees-Respondents BRAD CROWLEY AND TERRILYN CROWLEY are
represented by:

          David E. Wynne, Esq.
          Scott G. Burdine, Esq.
          Kenneth R. Wynne, Esq.
          BURDINE WYNNE LLP
          1415 Louisiana St., Suite 3900
          Wedge International Tower
          Houston, TX 77002
          E-mail: dwynne@burdinewynne.com
                  sburdine@burdinewynne.com
                  kwynne@burdinewynne.com

UC GLOBAL: Journalists Not Interested to Join Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Grenfell, writing for World Socialist Web Site, reports that
the response of the corporate media over the eleven months since El
Pais first revealed details of a vast spying operation against
WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange, while he was a United
Nations-recognised political refugee in Ecuador's London embassy,
has been decidedly muted.

The initial El Pais article in October last year has been followed
by a raft of damning information. This has established that the
surveillance, conducted by the UC Global security company in charge
of managing security at the embassy, included the illegal
interception of Assange's conversations with his lawyers, in a
flagrant breach of attorney-client privilege, menacing probes into
his partner and infant child, and discussions about the possibility
of kidnapping or even poisoning the WikiLeaks founder.

The mechanisms of the surveillance, which likely involved the US
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), have also become clearer. UC
Global chief David Morales, it is alleged, entered into a secret
agreement with emissaries of US intelligence to surveill Assange in
2015, and pass on all of the material gathered, in an operation
that extended until March, 2018.

The statements of former UC Global employees, and documentary
evidence, have indicated that the security company of Las Vegas
casino mogul and leading Trump donor Sheldon Adelson served as the
middle-man between Morales and US intelligence. The former Spanish
navy marine turned mercenary was raided and arrested by Spanish
police late last year, and faces the prospect of substantial
criminal charges.

In other words, the apparent lack of media interest is not for want
of information, or because the unprecedented surveillance of the
world's most famous persecuted journalist is not newsworthy.
Rather, it is a continuation of the alignment of the corporate
media with the US-led vendetta against Assange, bound up with their
close ties to the intelligence agencies and the official political
parties that have spearheaded his persecution, as well as their
broader support for an agenda of militarism and authoritarianism.

This was given striking confirmation in an article published by
investigative journalist Max Blumenthal on the Grayzone website.
Blumenthal's detailed report was based on the statements of an
anonymous WikiLeaks source, along with extensive comments from
Stefania Maurizi, an Italian journalist who has partnered with the
media organisation for the past decade. Hitherto unpublished
communications from Morales were also featured, further
establishing his and UC Global's secret collaboration with US
authorities.

Blumenthal noted the fact, already well-established, that the UC
Global spying eventually came to encompass all of Assange's
visitors. Among those targeted were Washington Post national
security reporter Ellen Nakashima, who visited the embassy in
December, 2017 to interview Assange, and Lowell Bergman, who has
worked for the New York Times and PBS.

Nakashima was subjected to the "standard" UC Global protocol for
Assange's visitors. She was compelled to leave her possessions at
the front desk, and they were then rifled through and photographed
by its staff. This included taking details of her phone, which
would enable it to be hacked, and an unsuccessful attempt by a UC
Global employee to steal her voice recorder.

What was new in Blumenthal's article, but not surprising, is that
the Washington Post and other leading publications have rebuffed
requests that they publish information of the espionage, which
clearly constituted an attack on press freedom and their own
reporters, and have refused to join a legal action that Maurizi is
seeking to launch in October. Blumenthal wrote:

Correspondents from a major US newspaper were presented with
detailed evidence of UC Global spying on Assange and his
associates, and documentation of the firm's relationship with the
CIA and Sheldon Adelson, a WikiLeaks source told The Grayzone.

Not only were the reporters initially uninterested in the spying
scandal, the WikiLeaks source said one correspondent justified the
CIA's surveillance on national security grounds. "He said, well,
that's what an intelligence service is supposed to [do]," the
source recalled, describing the experience as "crazy."

Nakashima herself has never mentioned the spying publicly or
responded to multiple requests for comment about it from Blumenthal
and others. Maurizi, who was also extensively spied on, explained
that she had not received a positive reply from a single corporate
US reporter, who she has asked to join a class action to be filed
in Spain's National Court on behalf of journalists who were caught
in the dragnet. Nakashima ignored her correspondence. Bergman said
he was not interested.

Randy Credico, a US comedian, activist and WikiLeaks supporter,
recounted a similar response, telling Blumenthal that he "went to
everybody," with information about the surveillance, which he was
also subjected to.

"I went to MSNBC, to the Wall Street Journal, CNN, to journalists I
knew, and I couldn't get anyone interested. I mean, all these
reporters hate Trump, and here you had [US Secretary of State]
Pompeo and Sheldon Adelson, the guy who finances Trump, breaking
the law. You would think this would be a big deal to these lean
forward progressives. And they haven't said shit. It's appalling
that they haven't come forward and said something about this."

The Grayzone report points to some of the obvious reasons for the
hostility of corporate publications to any exposure of the CIA's
activities. The Washington Post, for instance, is owned by Amazon,
which has multi-billion dollar contracts with the Pentagon.
Nakashima, when she visited Assange, listed her employer, not as
the Washington Post, but as "Amazon."

The major publications, moreover, including the New York Times,
function as the public mouthpieces of the intelligence agencies.
Press releases from the CIA are published almost verbatim, while
the word of "unnamed intelligence officials," whose unsubstantiated
assertions fill so much column space, is treated as the gospel
truth.

These publications, moreover, have for over a decade repeated the
lies and slanders concocted by the intelligence agencies to
undermine support for Assange and WikiLeaks.

This has included the endless promotion of the bogus Swedish
investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct against
Assange, the "preliminary" stage of which was discontinued for the
third and final time last year because of the absence of any
evidence, without Assange ever having been charged with a crime.
Also notable has been the immense coverage devoted to the
discredited conspiracy theory that WikiLeaks' 2016 exposure of
gross corruption on the part of the Democratic National Committee
was the product of some sort of "Russian plot."

In every instance, the aim has been to poison public opinion
against Assange, and divert attention away from the war crimes,
diplomatic conspiracies and political abuses that WikiLeaks has
exposed. The fact that Assange was the victim of a massive US
government spying operation, which violated innumerable
international laws and domestic legislation across multiple
jurisdictions, simply does not suit the official narrative.

There may be additional reasons for the reticence of the corporate
publications, however. Many of them featured material from
surveillance inside the embassy, before UC Global's operations
became public knowledge last year.

Footage of what appeared to be the sole occasion that Assange
momentarily stood on a skateboard was aired ad nauseum after his
expulsion from the Ecuadorian embassy and brutal arrest by the
British police. This served to justify the absurd claim that the
Ecuadorian government had illegally revoked Assange's asylum
because he was a "bad house guest," and not because it was one of
the conditions for massive international loans and closer ties with
the US.

The skateboard footage, and other films aimed at degrading Assange,
were probably shot with UC Global cameras. While it is likely the
material was leaked by the new Ecuadorian regime of President Lenin
Moreno, to justify its attack on Assange, it is doubtful that the
CIA would have objected.

The question inevitably arises: is it plausible that all of the
major corporate publications, and their staff, who enjoy the
closest relations with the US intelligence agencies and have
participated with glee in the campaign against Assange, did not
know of the UC Global spying as it was occurring? And if they did,
but chose not to report it at the time, does that not make them
complicit in major attacks on press freedom and the institution of
political asylum, which is protected by international law?

Meanwhile, Blumenthal's article put paid to UC Global head Morales'
lame denials that he was working for US intelligence. For instance
it cites messages from Morales to his employees, informing them in
May 2017, that he was travelling to Miami to provide "the agency of
the stars and stripes" with a budget for the installation of more
sophisticated surveillance equipment to spy on Assange.

Morales, apparently in reference to his ultimate employer, posted
cartoons of US President Donald Trump in response to further
inquiries from UC Global staff. [GN]


ULTRA PETROLEUM: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 2 Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Sept. 24 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of shareholders of Ultra
Petroleum Corp. 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.

Ultra Petroleum Corp. (OTC PINK:UPLCQ)

UPLCQ Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 3, 2017 -
August 8, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 2, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ultra-petroleum-corp-information-request-form?prid=9564&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Ultra
Petroleum Corp. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (a) Ultra's proved reserves were
materially overstated and, therefore, worth hundreds of millions of
dollars less than represented; (b) Ultra's proved undeveloped
reserves were of de minimis value because they contained low
quality deposits that lacked a commercially viable path to
development; (c) Ultra was unable to meet the production and
development estimates provided to investors and such estimates
lacked a reasonable basis; (d) Ultra was unable to withstand even a
modest downturn in the price of natural gas because, inter alia,
Ultra's business had less financial and production flexibility than
claimed; and (e) Ultra did not have the technical or financial
capabilities or available asset base to sustainably grow its oil
and natural gas production by any meaningful amount.

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]


UNITED SPECIALTY: Mueller Suit Moved From E.D.N.Y. to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LUKE MUELLER, on behalf of himself, and all others
similarly situated v. UNITED SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
2:20-cv-03407, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on October 15, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 4:20-cv-07241-YGR to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of contract by
refusing to reimburse or refund the Plaintiff and Class members for
the loss of use of their ski passes insured by the Defendant as a
result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

United Specialty Insurance Company is a property casualty insurance
company, with its principal place of business located at 1900 L.
Don Dodson Drive, Bedford, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                    
         
         Adam P. Slater Esq.
         SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP
         488 Madison Avenue, 20th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Telephone: (212) 481-7400

UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against University of La
Verne. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and
all other persons similarly situated v. University of La Verne,
Case No. 1:20-cv-08716 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 19, 2020).

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

The University of La Verne is a private not-for-profit university
located in La Verne, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


USCC SERVICES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Grantham et al Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
GRACE GRANTHAM and BRAD HALLOWELL, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. USCC SERVICES, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, d/b/a US CELLULAR, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-06079 (N.D. Ill., October 13, 2020) is a
collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged widespread, repeated, and consistent unlawful pay practice
in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendant as Store
Managers, claim they were required by the Defendant to regularly
work more than 40 hours in a workweek. However, they were not
compensated by the Defendant for overtime hours they worked at one
and one-half times their regular rat of pay. Additionally, the
Defendant failed to keep accurate records of hours worked by the
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated Store Managers.

USCC Services, LLC operates over 200 US Cellular retail store
locations in over 10 states, including Oklahoma, Illinois, Maine,
and West Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff are represented by:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Megan Shannon, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Tel: (312) 233-1550
          Fax: (312) 233-1560
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  mshannon@stephanzouras.com

              - and –

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Camar R. Jones, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          1515 S. Federal Highway
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Tel: (561) 447-8888
          Fax: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com


VANGUARD UNIVERSITY: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vanguard University
of Southern California. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on
behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v.
Vanguard University Of Southern California, Case No. 1:20-cv-08671
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2020).

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

Vanguard University of Southern California is a private Christian
university in Costa Mesa, California. It was the first-four year
college in Orange County and offers over 30 undergraduate degrees
and emphases in 15 different departments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


VARIAN MEDICAL: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP on Sept. 23 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, Case No. 4:20-cv-06266-YGR on
behalf of shareholders of Varian Medical Systems, Inc. ("Varian" or
the "Company") (NYSE:VAR) who have been harmed by Varian's and its
board of directors' (the "Board") alleged violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") in connection with the proposed merger of the
Company with Siemens Healthineers AG (the "Proposed Transaction").

On August 2, 2020, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger under which Varian shareholders stand
to receive $177.50 in cash for each share of Varian stock they
own.

The complaint alleges that the Form PREM14A Preliminary Proxy
Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
violates Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act because it
provides materially incomplete and misleading information about the
Company and the Proposed Transaction, including information
concerning the Company's financial projections and analysis, on
which the Board relied to recommend the Proposed Transaction as
fair to Varian shareholders.

If you wish to obtain information concerning this action, you can
do so by clicking here: www.faruqilaw.com/VAR.

Take Action

Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with
extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant
expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.  Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal
office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California,
Georgia, and Pennsylvania.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from the date of this notice.  Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this action,
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact:

Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330
E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
jwilson@faruqilaw.com [GN]


VAXART INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Oct. 23 Motion Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Vaxart, Inc. (NASDAQ: VXRT) between
June 25, 2020 to July 25, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of
the important October 23, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the case.
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Vaxart investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Vaxart class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1910.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
material information pertaining to the Company's business and
operations, which were known to Defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them. Specifically, Vaxart exaggerated the prospects
of its COVID-19 vaccine candidate, including its purported role or
involvement in Operation Warp Speed ("OWS"). Contrary to
defendants' statements, Vaxart's COVID-19 vaccine candidate had no
reasonable prospect for mass production and marketing and was not
among the companies selected to receive significant financial
support from OWS to produce hundreds of millions of vaccine doses.
Instead, Vaxart's COVID-19 vaccine candidate was merely selected to
participate in preliminary U.S. government studies to determine
potential areas for possible OWS partnership and support. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October
23, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1910.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

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

Contact Information:

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


VIDHAN BHATT: Condo Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE PEDRO CONDO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VIDHAN BHATT INC. (D/B/A AAHAR INDIAN
CUISINE); BOMBAY'S INDIAN CUISINE INC. (D/B/A BOMBAY'S INDIAN
CUISINE); PRASHANT BHATT; and SONAL VYAS, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-07793 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 22, 2020) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Condo was employed by the Defendants as delivery
worker.

Vidhan Bhatt Inc. owns, operates, and controls Indian Restaurants,
located at New York, NY, Aahar Indian Cuisine, and Bombay's Indian
Cuisine. [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


WECOMPETE INC: Robinson Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WeCompete, Inc. The
case is styled as Hugh Robinson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WeCompete, Inc. doing business as:
WeCompete Lenders, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-08691
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 19, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

WeCompete Lenders is the premiere company in the alternative
finance industry providing quick loans that empower merchants and
businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com


WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Sept. 23
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Wrap Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:
WRTC) between July 31, 2020 and September 23, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Wrap
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Wrap class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1953.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company had concealed the results of the LAPD
BolaWrap pilot program, which demonstrated that the BolaWrap was
ineffective, expensive, and sparingly used in the field; and (2) as
a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false
and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
23, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1953.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.

Contact Information:

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



                            *********

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 ***