/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201030.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, October 30, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 218

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Austin Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS
3M COMPANY: Cristiano Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS
3M COMPANY: Etter Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS
3M COMPANY: Eyer Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS
3M COMPANY: Fisher Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS

3M COMPANY: Hart Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS
3M COMPANY: Hudson Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS
3M COMPANY: Iacozza Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS
3M COMPANY: King Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS
3M COMPANY: Kolisz Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS

AHRC HEALTH: Onate Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & OT Under FLSA
APPLE INC: Larsen Sues Over Illegal Gambling Games on App Store
ARCH INSURANCE: Parker Suit Transferred to Mo. Dist. Ct.
BALLREICH SNACK: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
BANK OF AMERICA: Blann Files Suit in Kansas

BETTER MADE SNACK: Romero Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
BEVMO: California Appeals Court Upholds Judgment in Liang Suit
BILLY GOAT: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BLACKBAUD INC: Faces Carpenella Class Action Suit Over Data Breach
BOMBARDIER MASS: Villalva Sues Over Inaccurate Wage Statements

BOUTON CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Millan Suit Claims
CENTRUS ENERGY: Health Dept. Wins Bid to Quash Subpoena in McGlone
CHOCOLATE CHOCOLATE: Paguada Suit Asserts ADA Breach
CHRISTOPHER ELBOW: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Bar Owners Sue Over Denied COVID-19 Claims

CJS SOLUTIONS: Court Denies Renewed Settlement Motion in Gray Suit
COAST TO COAST: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA/AMWA, Tenorio Says
DZINE INC: Cota Files Suit for ADA Violation
ECHELON FITNESS: Bishop Suit Asserts ADA Breach
EMERSON COLLEGE: Porter Seeks Tuition Fee Refunds Due to COVID-19

EPION BRANDS: Delacruz Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York
EPROMOS PROMOTIONAL: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA
FORMAGGIO KITCHEN: Romero Alleges Violation of ADA in New York
G4S SECURE: Asks Court to Deny Xiong's Bid for Class Certification
GEICO INDEMNITY: Perez Files Suit in Ca. Over Insurance Policy

GLOBAL CREDIT: Duarte Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
GUITTARD CHOCOLATE: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HANOR LAW FIRM: Bauer-Robertson Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Virginia
HARDY STORAGE: Jones Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia
HB USA HOLDINGS: Linarte Brings Fraud Class Action in Ca.

HOME CAPTAIN: Pappas Files TCPA Suit in New York
HURRICANE EXPRESS: Turpin Files FLSA Suit in Oklahoma
I.C. SYSTEMS: George Alleges Violation under FDCPA
IMPROVED DATA: De La Cruz Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. New York
JO CAT BAKERY: Ramirez Files Labor Class Action in New York

JP MORGAN: Court Dismisses Abbas Class Suit With Prejudice
KAISER FOUNDATION: Smith Must File Amended Bid for Settlement OK
KEVIN O BRIEN: Thomas Files Class Action Over Debt Collection
KEY HEALTH: Edwards Suit Removed to South Carolina Dist. Ct.
LESSEREVIL LLC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

MALLERY & ZIMMERMAN: Niemann Brings FDCPA Suit in Wisconsin
MARKET HOUSE MEATS: Romero Suit Asserts ADA Breach
MIKE-SELL'S POTATO: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MONARCH RECOVERY: Alagna Files FDCPA Suit in Illinois
NATIONAL GRID: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Nightingale Class Suit

NETSHOES (CAYMAN): Securities Suit Settlement Gets Prelim. Approval
NEW YORK: Deutsch, et al. Files Class Action v. Election Board
NICK'S LLC: Paguada Files ADA Class Action in New York
NUTREX HAWAII:  Violates ADA, Bishop Suit Asserts
OLYMPUS AMERICA: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA

OWASSO, OK: Faces Jurisdictional Class-Action Lawsuit
PROCOLLECT INC: Kale Files Suit in  Tennessee Under FDCPA
REDWOOD WELLNESS: Bishop Files Suit for ADA Breach
ROUTE 11 POTATO CHIPS: Romero Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
SAN FRANCISCO SCHOOL: Hord Files Suit in California

SAN JOAQUIN HOSP.: Court Tosses 9 Counts in Franklin w/o Prejudice
SANTA MONICA-MALIBU: Students with Special Needs File Class Suit
SAXELBY'S CHEESEMONGERS: Romero Asserts Breach of ADA
SIGMA CORP: Romero Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act
SIMM ASSOCIATES: Heyman Files FDCPA Suit in Ohio

SKIN PS BRANDS: Suris Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
STEAK N SHAKE: Faces Winegard ADA Class Action in New York
STERZING FOOD: Romero Suit Alleges ADA Violation
STUBHUB: Owner Looks to Dodge COVID-19 Ticket Refund Suit
TAZA CHOCOLATE: Paguada Files Suit v. Cafe for ADA Violation

TOYOTA: Soy Wiring Class Action Lawsuit Resurrected
TRANSURBAN: Class Action Launched Against Toll Fees
UNITED CAR SALES: Davidson Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia
UNITED STATES: Court Partly Grants Certification Bid in Samma Suit
WALWORTH COUNTY, SD: Agard, et al. Seek to Certify Prisoners Class

WARNER MUSIC: Hart Files Suit in S.D. New York
WEATHERFORD U.S.: Granillo Files Suit in California
WEAVER NUT COMPANY: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Bryant Case Consolidated With 3 Other Cases
WORLD WRESTLING: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA

XPO LOGISTICS: Asks Court to Reconsider Sept. 16 Class Cert. Order

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AM Best Estimates $100BB Insurers' Asbestos Losses
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Compass Fined for Breaches at Holyoke Medical
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fireman's Fund Wins Reinsurance Reimbursement


                            *********

3M COMPANY: Austin Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS
-------------------------------------------------------
JOHN CHARLES AUSTIN v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03709-RMG (D.S.C., October
21, 2020), seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the
Plaintiff and by those similarly situated resulting from exposure
to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Austin case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: 205-328-9200
          Facsimile: 205-328-9456
          E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com


               - and -

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 25442
          Telephone: 843-546-2408
          Facsimile: 843-546-9604
          E-mail: ebell@edbelllaw.com

3M COMPANY: Cristiano Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS
----------------------------------------------------------
DAVE ALLEN CRISTIANO v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03746-RMG (D.S.C., October
26, 2020), seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the
Plaintiff and those similarly situated resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Cristiano case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: 205-328-9200
          Facsimile: 205-328-9456
          E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com


               - and -

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 25442
          Telephone: 843-546-2408
          Facsimile: 843-546-9604
          E-mail: ebell@edbelllaw.com

3M COMPANY: Etter Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS
------------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG RICHARD ETTER v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03755-RMG (D.S.C., October
26, 2020), seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the
Plaintiff and by those similarly situated resulting from exposure
to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Etter case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: 205-328-9200
          Facsimile: 205-328-9456
          E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com


               - and -

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 25442
          Telephone: 843-546-2408
          Facsimile: 843-546-9604
          E-mail: ebell@edbelllaw.com

3M COMPANY: Eyer Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS
-----------------------------------------------------
CHARLES ELMER EYER v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03756-RMG (D.S.C., October
26, 2020), seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the
Plaintiff and those similarly situated resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Eyer case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: 205-328-9200
          Facsimile: 205-328-9456
          E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com


               - and -

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 25442
          Telephone: 843-546-2408
          Facsimile: 843-546-9604
          E-mail: ebell@edbelllaw.com

3M COMPANY: Fisher Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS
-------------------------------------------------------------
TODD MATTHEW FISHER v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03757-RMG (D.S.C., October
26, 2020), seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the
Plaintiff and those similarly situated resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Fisher case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: 205-328-9200
          Facsimile: 205-328-9456
          E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com


               - and -

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 25442
          Telephone: 843-546-2408
          Facsimile: 843-546-9604
          E-mail: ebell@edbelllaw.com

3M COMPANY: Hart Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS
-----------------------------------------------------
DAVID TAYLOR HART v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03758-RMG (D.S.C., October
26, 2020), seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the
Plaintiff and by those similarly situated resulting from exposure
to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Hart case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: 205-328-9200
          Facsimile: 205-328-9456
          E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com


               - and -

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 25442
          Telephone: 843-546-2408
          Facsimile: 843-546-9604
          E-mail: ebell@edbelllaw.com

3M COMPANY: Hudson Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS
-------------------------------------------------------
WALLACE BOYCE HUDSON v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03759-RMG (D.S.C., October
26, 2020), seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the
Plaintiff and those similarly situated resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Hudson case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: 205-328-9200
          Facsimile: 205-328-9456
          E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com


               - and -

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 25442
          Telephone: 843-546-2408
          Facsimile: 843-546-9604
          E-mail: ebell@edbelllaw.com

3M COMPANY: Iacozza Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS
--------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER IACOZZA v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03760-RMG (D.S.C., October
26, 2020), seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the
Plaintiff and those similarly situated resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Iacozza case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: 205-328-9200
          Facsimile: 205-328-9456
          E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com


               - and -

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 25442
          Telephone: 843-546-2408
          Facsimile: 843-546-9604
          E-mail: ebell@edbelllaw.com

3M COMPANY: King Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS
-----------------------------------------------------
KEVIN ANTHONY KING v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03762-RMG (D.S.C., October
26, 2020), seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the
Plaintiff and those similarly situated resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The King case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: 205-328-9200
          Facsimile: 205-328-9456
          E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com


               - and -

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 25442
          Telephone: 843-546-2408
          Facsimile: 843-546-9604
          E-mail: ebell@edbelllaw.com

3M COMPANY: Kolisz Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS
-------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND CHARLES KOLISZ v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03763-RMG (D.S.C., October
26, 2020), seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the
Plaintiff and those similarly situated resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Kolisz case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: 205-328-9200
          Facsimile: 205-328-9456
          E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com


               - and -

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 25442
          Telephone: 843-546-2408
          Facsimile: 843-546-9604
          E-mail: ebell@edbelllaw.com

AHRC HEALTH: Onate Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & OT Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO ONATE, JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. AHRC HEALTH CARE, INC. and CARE DESIGN NY, LLC, Case
No. 1:20-cv-08292 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 5, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants have engaged in illegal and improper wage practices that
have deprived hourly employees of millions of dollars in wages and
overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff contends that these practices include: (a) improperly
penalizing hourly employees by configuring the time clocks in the
Defendants' facilities to round down and artificially reducing the
amount of time hourly employees are credited with performing work
as well as compensating based only upon their scheduled hours
rather than the actual time they clocked in and out; and (b)
automatically deducting time for meal breaks when employees are
performing work during that time.

Furthermore, the Defendants failed to provide hourly employees with
appropriate pay rate acknowledgement forms and weekly wage
statements, the Plaintiff alleges.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and other
hourly employees to recover unpaid wages, overtime compensation,
damages, penalties and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the McKinney's Labor Law.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendants. Mr. Onate was
employed by Defendants at their Bronx, New York location on a
full-time basis from January 27, 2014 through November 6, 2019. Mr.
Onate was employed as an hourly employee and paid an hourly rate of
$25.

The Defendants provide services to persons with intellectual and
developmental disabilities, including Medicare and Medicaid
services, throughout the State of New York. AHCR provides services
to persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities,
including Medicare and Medicaid services, throughout the State of
New York. Care Design provides similar services to persons with
intellectual and developmental disabilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lee S. Shalov, Esq.
          Brett R. Gallaway, Esq.
          Jason S. Giaimo, Esq.
          McLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP
          260 Madison Ave.
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 448-1100
          E-mail: lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com
                  bgallaway@mclaughlin.com
                  jgiaimo@mclaughlinstern.com

APPLE INC: Larsen Sues Over Illegal Gambling Games on App Store
---------------------------------------------------------------
TERESA LARSEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. APPLE, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01652-AMM (N.D. Ala.,
Oct. 21, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and the
Alabama citizens against the Defendant, seeking to recover money
lost to illegal gambling pursuant to Section 8-1-150 of the Code of
Alabama, 1975.

According to the complaint, Apple promotes, enables, and profits
from games downloaded from its App Store and played by numerous
Alabama residents that constitute illegal gambling under the
statutory law and the strong public policy of the state of Alabama.


Teresa Larsen is an adult resident citizen of the state of Alabama,
residing in Shelby County, Alabama.

Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company
headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops and
sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Frank Davis, Esq.
          John E. Norris, Esq.
          Wesley W. Barnett, Esq.
          Dargan M. Ware, Esq.
          DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP
          2154 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 930-9900
          Facsimile: (205) 930-9989
          E-mail: fdavis@davisnorris.com
                  jnorris@davisnorris.com
                  wbarnett@davisnorris.com
                  dware@davisnorris.com

ARCH INSURANCE: Parker Suit Transferred to Mo. Dist. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Earl Parker, individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Arch Insurance and Out
of Towne doing business as: Red Sky Travel Insurance, Defendants,
was transferred from the District of Utah with the assigned Case
No. 2:20-cv-00377 to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri (Kansas City)) on Oct. 6, 2020, and assigned
Case No. 4:20-cv-00798-BCW.

The cause of the case is stated as Diversity-Insurance Contract.

Arch Insurance offers global insurance and risk management
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Lindy W. Hamilton, Esq.
   Gridley Ward & Hamilton
   635 25TH ST
   Ogden, UT 84401
   Tel: (801) 621-3317
   Email: efiling@gwhlaw.net

     - and -

   Robert W. Gibbons, Esq.
   GRIDLEY WARD & HAMILTON
   635 25TH ST
   OGDEN, UT 84401
   Tel: (801) 621-3317
   Email: rgibbons@gwhlaw.net


BALLREICH SNACK: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ballreich Snack Food Company, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ballreich Snack Food Company, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-08533 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 13, 2020).

Ballreich Snack Food Company, LLC is a Food manufacturer in Tiffin,
Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal



BANK OF AMERICA: Blann Files Suit in Kansas
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bank of America N.A.
The case is styled as Rhonda L. Blann, individually and on behalf
of other similarly situated persons v. Bank of America N.A., Case
No. 2:20-cv-02527-KHV-ADM (D. Kan., Oct. 23, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Bank of America, National Association operates as a bank. The Bank
offers saving and current account, investment and financial
services, online banking, and mortgage and non-mortgage loan
facilities, as well as issues credit card and business loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rhonda L. Blann, Esq.
          Paul D. Snyder, Esq.
          SNYDER LAW FIRM, LLC
          10995 Lowell Avenue, Suite 710
          Overland Park, KS 66210
          Phone: (913) 685-3900
          Fax: (913) 440-0724
          Email: ksnyder@snyderlawfirmllc.com
                 psnyder@snyderlawfirmllc.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Owens, Esq.
          EDGAR LAW FIRM, LLC - KC
          2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 440
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Phone: (816) 531-0033
          Fax: (816) 531-3322
          Email: owens@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Bradley Wilders, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL FNASON, LLP - KC
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Phone: (816) 714-7100
          Fax: (816) 714-7101
          Email: wilders@stuevesiegel.com


BETTER MADE SNACK: Romero Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Better Made Snack Foods Incorporated is facing a class action
lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The
case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Better Made Snack Foods
Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-08534 (S.D. N.Y., Oct.
13, 2020).

Better Made Snack Foods, Inc., is a Detroit-based maker of potato
chips and popcorn that also sells pretzels, tortilla chips, pork
rinds, and beef jerky under its brand name.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal




BEVMO: California Appeals Court Upholds Judgment in Liang Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEPHANIE LIANG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BEVMO!,
Defendant and Respondent, Case No. B296874 (Cal. App.), a
three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals of California for the
Second District, Division Two, affirmed a trial court order
granting BevMo's (i) motion for summary adjudication, and (ii)
parallel motion pursuant to Civil Code section 1781, subdivision
(c)(3).

Liang filed a class action alleging statutory and common law causes
of action asserting, inter alia, that Bevmo displays misleading
in-store signs.  In Liang's first amended complaint (FAC), she
alleged class causes of action for: (1) violation of the CLRA; (2)
violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; (3)
violation of Business and Professions Code section 17500; (4)
negligent misrepresentation; and (5) declaratory relief as to
whether BevMo violated the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") and
Business and Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500.

Liang complained that BevMo engaged in a bait and switch scheme
online and in its stores.  With respect to the in-store practices,
the FAC alleged BevMo posts display signage in its stores in front
of wine bottles that describe particular wines as having a high
numerical rating.  But instead of filling the displays behind the
signage with the wine described in the signage, BevMo fills these
displays with wines from different vintages that do not have the
same high ratings and are not of the same quality.  These practices
have misled the Plaintiff and the public.

The FAC identified two classes.  Class one was all Californians who
purchased wine from BevMo's online store.  Class two was all
Californians who purchased wine from BevMo's retail stores.

To establish herself as a class representative, Liang alleged that
she purchased two bottles of 2011 Longhand Cabernet Sauvignon from
BevMo's online store on Dec. 17, 2014.  The next day, she went to
BevMo's Santa Monica store and was given two bottles from a
different year. During the same trip, she spotted a sign that
advertised a certain group of wine as the Longhand Cabernet
Sauvignon from 2011.  She relied upon that sign and took two
bottles from that section and purchased them.  After she purchased
these bottles, she realized that while the bottles were Longhand
Cabernet Sauvignon, they were not from 2011 but from a different
year.

In March 2016, BevMo filed a motion for summary adjudication
regarding all causes of action as they related to Liang's in-store
signs, and a motion under Civil Code section 1781 for a
determination that the CLRA claim lacked merit as to the in-store
signs.  BevMo supported its motions with a declaration from Sarah
Hartle, who had served as the District Manager for Los Angeles
since 2011.  She submitted exemplars of the signs BevMo used in all
its stores, and each one of them contained the disclaimer.

In her opposition papers, Liang declared that she did "not believe"
that BevMo's signage exemplars were the same signs she saw in 2014.
In response to the opposition, BevMo tasked David Bock, one of its
corporate consultants, to recreate the wine tags/signs for the 2011
Longhand Cabernet Sauvignon from the closest print queue date prior
to Dec. 18, 2014.  He was able to do so.

Prior to the hearing on the motions, the parties appeared before
the trial court to discuss how to proceed with the new evidence.
The counsel for BevMo stated that he planned to withdraw its
motions and refile them.  To avoid delay, the counsel for Liang
stipulated to allowing BevMo to file additional evidence and then
file its reply as previously scheduled.  The court agreed to the
procedure.  Subsequently, BevMo submitted Bock's declaration.  It
had two exhibits.  Exhibit A was an 8.5 × 11 sign and Exhibit B
was a shelf sign.  BevMo filed its reply brief.  Liang chose not to
file any responsive papers.

On April 13, 2017, the parties convened for oral argument.  After
hearing from the parties, the trial court granted the motions.  It
found that the in-store signs were not misleading and granted
BevMo's motion for summary adjudication, and also its parallel
motion pursuant to Civil Code section 1781, subdivision (c)(3) for
a determination that Liang's CLRA claim lacked merit.

Months later, Liang asked the trial court to dismiss her online
claims with prejudice.  On Jan. 30, 2019, the court signed and
filed a dismissal of the online claims.  Subsequently, on March 28,
2019, Liang filed a Notice of Appeal of Decision and Order of the
Court Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Adjudication and
Motion for No-Merits Determination.  It provided that Liang appeals
to the Court of Appeal from Los Angeles Superior Court Judge John
Shepherd Wiley Jr.'s April 13, 2017 order granting BevMo's motions
for summary adjudication and for a no-merits determination.  Also,
the notice stated that the trial court's Jan. 30, 2019, order
dismissing the online claims is appealable.

Liang contends that the motion for summary adjudication was
procedurally defective because: (1) It did not seek to dispose of
entire causes of action; and (2) BevMo did not reference the
relevant in-store signs in the separate statement. We perceive no
procedural basis to reverse.

Every cause of action alleges wrongful conduct pertaining to online
and in-store advertising but the motion for summary adjudication
did not address the online claims.  As a result, Liang argues that
the motion did not comport with the requirement in Code of Civil
Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f) that a motion for summary
adjudication must dispose of an entire cause of action.  But, at
Liang's request, the online claims were dismissed with prejudice.


The Panel holds that a reversal would revive only the in-store
claims.  Thus, as to the online claims, it cannot afford Liang any
relief and those claims are moot.  As to the in-store claims, there
would be no miscarriage of justice, i.e., no reasonable probability
of a different result absent the alleged error, unless there are
triable issues and the claims should go to trial.  Regardless, the
online claims and in-store claims represent different causes of
action under Lilienthal & Fowler v. Superior Court.  Though they
were pleaded together in every cause of action, they involve
separate and distinct wrongful acts, damages and classes.
Consequently, the trial court was permitted to summarily adjudicate
the in-store claims.

Liang adverts to the holding in United Community Church v. Garcin,
that if it is not set forth in the separate statement, it does not
exist.  Then she argues that the trial court violated the rule when
it considered the evidence of the in-store signs that she agreed
BevMo could use to supplement its motion because that evidence was
not referenced in the original separate statement.

The argument must be rejected on multiple grounds, the Appellate
Court finds.  First, United Community Church is not binding on the
Court, and it concludes that the more reasonable rule is that a
trial court has discretion, within the bounds of due process, to
consider new evidence not in the separate statement.  Second, if
there was error, Liang is estopped from arguing it because she
induced BevMo and the trial court to rely on her agreement to allow
the new evidence.  Third, she waived any objection by not asserting
it.

Liang then contends that there is a triable issue as to whether
BevMo's in-store signs are misleading, to which the Panel
disagrees.  Typically, whether consumers are likely to be deceived
is a question of fact.  But the issue can be decided as a matter of
law if no reasonable consumer would be misled.

Liang contends that whether the in-store signs are misleading is a
question of fact.  In other words, she contends that it is
impossible to say that no reasonable consumer would be misled.  The
argument is not sufficiently developed to be cognizable because
Liang has failed to identify whether the reasonable consumer the
Court should analyze is part of the general public or a targeted
group.  It has no responsibility to develop an the Appellant's
argument.

Assuming that the reasonable consumer the Court must analyze is a
member of the general public, Liang has not shown that there is a
triable issue.  She does not contend that wine bottles are
mislabeled, and that the vintage of particular wines is not clearly
stated on their labels.  Rather, she essentially contends that the
disclaimer language is so small that it is hidden for all intents
and purposes, that the signs falsely describe the wines being sold,
and that consumers will, for example, rely on a sign representing
that a wine is a 2011 vintage even though its label clearly states
it is a 2012 vintage.

Liang posits that the disclaimer language is inconspicuous in
context and it is unreasonable to expect a consumer to see the
language.  She draws the Court's attention to Tomek v. Apple Inc.,
a case in which the plaintiff sued for fraud and violation of both
the CLRA and California's unfair competition law, claiming that
Apple engaged in misleading advertising.   

Tomek offers the Panel no guidance because the court did not reach
the issue of whether the advertising was misleading. As it has
explained, the case against BevMo does not involve a misleading
brand name, and it does not involve mixed packaging messages about
a product's content.

Based on the foregoing, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial
court's judgment.  BevMo will recover its costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's Aug. 4, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3vxhgxd from Leagle.com.

Law Offices of Scott C. Glovsky, Scott C. Glovsky and Ari Dybnis
for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, Sean M. SeLegue --
sean.selegue@arnoldporter.com -- Douglas A. Winthrop --
douglas.winthrop@arnoldporter.com -- and Alex Beroukhim --
alex.beroukhim@arnoldporter.com -- for Defendant and Respondent.


BILLY GOAT: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Billy Goat Chip
Company LLC. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. The Billy Goat Chip
Company LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-08917 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2020).

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

Billy Goat Chip Company offers locally made, artisan potato chips
in Saint Louis, Missouri, United States.[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



BLACKBAUD INC: Faces Carpenella Class Action Suit Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM CARPENELLA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. BLACKBAUD, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-03658-RMG
(D.S.C., Oct. 19, 2020), alleges that the Defendant is responsible
for its failure to use statutorily required or reasonable
cybersecurity measures to protect the Plaintiff and class members'
personal information from a data breach.

Between February 7, 2020 and May 20, 2020, cyber criminals
orchestrated a ransomware attack and infiltrated inadequately
protected computer networks maintained by Blackbaud, a software
company based in Charleston County, South Carolina, that manages,
maintains, and provides cybersecurity for several schools,
healthcare, non-profit companies, and other organizations. The
Clients' data that was accessed contained personally identifiable
information (PII) and protected health information (PHI), from
students, patients, donors, and other individual users, including
the Plaintiff. The cyber criminals gained access to systems, which
were incompetently secured by Blackbaud, and removed, among other
things, personal information from breach victims.

As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and other Class
members suffered ascertainable losses and may also be required to
incur out-of-pocket costs for, among other things, purchasing
credit monitoring services, credit freezes, credit reports, or
other protective measures to remedy or mitigate the effects of the
attack, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff seeks actual damages, statutory damages, and punitive
damages, with attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and asserts
claims for negligence; intrusion upon seclusion; negligence per se;
breach of express contract; breach of implied contract; and
violations of state data breach statutes.

The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Palm Beach Gardens,
Florida, in Palm Beach County. He relied on the Defendant's
promises of data security and privacy in agreeing to provide his
personal information to the Defendant.

The Defendant is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business located on Daniel Island, Charleston County, South
Carolina. The Defendant manages, maintains, and provides
cybersecurity for the data obtained by its Clients who are schools
and non-profit companies, including Stetson University, which
maintained the Plaintiff's personal information.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jodi Westbrook Flowers, Esq.
          Temitope O. Leyimu, Esq.
          Andrew P. Arnold, Esq.
          C. Ross Heyl, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          28 Bridgeside Boulevard
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 216-9000
          Facsimile: (843) 216-9027
          E-mail: jflowers@motleyrice.com
                  aarnold@motleyrice.com
                  tleyimu@motleyrice.com
                  rheyl@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Geller, Esq.
          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
          E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com
                  sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Mark A. Wites, Esq.
          THE WITES LAW FIRM
          4400 North Federal Highway
          Lighthouse Point, FL 33064
          Telephone: (954) 933-4400
          E-mail: mwites@witeslaw.com

BOMBARDIER MASS: Villalva Sues Over Inaccurate Wage Statements
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARK VILLALVA and BOBBY JASON YELVERTON, on behalf of themselves
and all others, v. BOMBARDIER MASS TRANSIT CORPORATION, and DOES 1
through 50, Case No. 34-2020-00037831-CU-WT-CTL (Cal. Super., San
Diego Cty., Oct. 19, 2020), is a class action complaint against the
Defendants for failure to pay compensation at the time of
termination and failure to provide accurate itemized statement of
wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiffs allege that they made formal complaints to
Bombardier's Human Resources department and spoke with its head,
Sabrina Patterson, in an effort to determine why they were not paid
and the other 12 employees were. The other 12 employees who worked
"on call" time for about a year and half, were paid a total of
$215,062.88, yet they were paid nothing for the restricted "on
call" time that they had worked for a year and a half. On November
27, 2017, when they went to the HR Department to inquire as to why
they were not paid for their on call time, but the HR did not
provide explanation.

Bombardier is the subcontractor for North County Transit District
(NCTD), in the operation and maintenance of the Coaster and
Sprinter Trains in San Diego County. The Plaintiffs were Chief
Dispatchers who worked in the Escondido office.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clarice J. Letizia, Esq.
          LETIZIA LAW FIRM
          4560 A venida Privado
          Oceanside, CA 92057
          Telephone: (760) 231-6545
          Facsimile: (760) 231-6784
          E-mail: clariceletizia@att.net

BOUTON CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Millan Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
BLADIMIR LOPEZ MILLAN on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. BOUTON CONSTRUCTION, INC., a California corporation,
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2OCV371719 (Cal. Super.,
Santa Clara Cty., Oct. 19, 2020), is a class action complaint
against the Defendants, alleging violation of the California Labor
Code for failure to pay lawful wages, failure to provide lawful
meal periods and rest periods or compensation in lieu, failure to
timely pay wages, and failure to reimburse employee expenses.

The Plaintiff alleges that he and Class Members were not allowed to
punch in for work until arriving at the designated job site. The
work performed prior to the official start of their shift was not
compensated. As such, they performed work off the clock while under
the Defendants' control during their work shifts for which they
were not compensated, he adds.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from 2017 through June
15, 2020. During his employment, he occupied a non-exempt, hourly
position. His job duties included landscape type work, planting
plants, digging holes to install pipes, clean-up and hauling.

Bouton Construction Inc. is located in Campbell, California, and is
part of the Wholesale Sector Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Isandra Fernandez, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          988o Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387 7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387 6676
          E-mail: iames@iameshawkinsaplc.com
                  isandra@iameshawkinsaplc.com

CENTRUS ENERGY: Health Dept. Wins Bid to Quash Subpoena in McGlone
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, URSULA McGLONE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CENTRUS ENERGY
CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-2196 (S.D. Ohio), Chief
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted
the Motion to Quash filed by non-party Ohio Department of Health
("ODH").

The putative class action asserts claims for violations of the
Price-Anderson Act and CERCLA, seeks declaratory judgment as to
class rights and status, and asserts state law claims as to
hazardous substances/wastes.  The allegations of the Second Amended
Complaint pertain to uranium enrichment operations at the
3,777-acre Portsmouth Site located in Pike County, Ohio.
Plaintiffs Julia Dunham, Jason McGlone, Ursula McGlone, Adam Rider,
and Brittani Rider allege that these operations have expelled air
laden with radioactive material and other metals that have been
carried by wind throughout the area and can be found deposited in
soils and buildings in and around Piketon, Ohio.

The Plaintiffs served a subpoena on ODH seeking cancer data from
ODH's database in order to study reported cases of cancer near the
nuclear uranium enrichment facility.  The ODH database, the Ohio
Cancer Incidence Surveillance System ("OCISS"), is the central
cancer registry for the State of Ohio.

By way of background, ODH has submitted a declaration from Lynn
Giljahn, the OCISS Registry Manager responsible for the OCISS.  The
declaration explains the genesis of the OCISS and explains its
search processes.  

Ms. Gillian states that under Ohio law, with limited exceptions,
certain healthcare providers are required to report cancer cases to
ODH.  The information maintained in the OCISS.  The data are
collected and housed in software made available from the CDC.  The
databased contains protected health information ("PHI") as defined
in Ohio Revised Code Section 3701.17(A)(2), the confidentiality of
which ODH is required to protect.  The method ODH has developed to
ensure protection against an improper release of PHI is a
"Disclosure Limitation Standard."  Under said standard, if a query
is too small, and the confidentiality of personal health
information is at risk, the data cannot be disclosed.

The OCISS database includes nearly 1.5 million records.  Its data
are downloaded and analyzed using statistical software and results
are frequently presented as a cross-tabulation of categorical
variables in tabular form with multiple dimensions, i.e., cells.
As the number of cells increases, the raw data in each cell is
smaller.  Eventually, if the data in a cell meets the Disclosure
Limitation Standard, that information becomes PHI and its
disclosure is a violation of Ohio Revised Code Section
3701.17(A)(2).

The criteria in the Plaintiffs' requested search are census tracts
in 11 counties (131), primary cancer site (26), two time periods
(2), eleven age ranges (11) gender (2).  The number of cells
generated by the search would be 149,864.  To generate, the
Plaintiffs requested tables would take between 24 and 48 hours of
an ODH employee's working hours.  Before releasing the data in the
Plaintiffs' requested format, ODH would review each cell for
compliance with the Disclosure Limitation Standard.  The time to
complete the work is difficult for ODH to estimate but the time
commitment would increase exponentially.

ODH moves to quash the subpoena on two grounds: (1) the requested
data is not found in a currently existing document and (2) a
subpoena is unnecessary because secure, non-public access to the
data is available to Plaintiffs by other means.  In short, ODH
explains that the subpoena is really a "detailed search request"
and an "attempt to circumvent" the ODH procedures for obtaining
secure access as outlined above.

There is no dispute here that the information the Plaintiffs seek
does not currently exist in the format requested.  There also is no
question that ODH cannot be required to produce a document that
does not exist.  However, courts also have held that a requested
search requiring a party to query an existing database to produce
reports for opposing parties does not equate to requiring the
creation of a new document.  The question then is whether requiring
ODH to perform the Plaintiffs' requested search is the same as
requiring ODH to create a new document.  

The record before the Court on the issue is not particularly
detailed.  However, the caselaw suggests that ODH's compliance with
the subpoena would not require the creation of a new document.  ODH
further explains, however, that its responsibility does not end
upon completion of the search.  

Rather, ODH asserts that, at that point, it must manually apply the
required application of the Disclosure Limitation Standard to
determine whether information contained in each cell constitutes
PHI.  ODH does not explain how this step serves to create a new
document and the Court is not otherwise convinced that it does.
Accordingly, Judge Preston declines to conclude, on this very
limited record, that responding to the subpoena will require ODH to
create a document that currently does not exist.  Accordingly, the
motion to quash will not be granted on this ground.

ODH's second argument is that the motion to quash should be granted
because the Plaintiffs have the ability to undertake the requested
search themselves using the IRB application process.  In short, it
contends that the subpoena should be quashed because the
information sought is otherwise available to the Plaintiffs.
Although not particularly well articulated, ODH appears to be
relying on Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i) as a basis for quashing
the Plaintiffs' subpoena.

As she understands ODH's position, the Judge holds that privacy
concerns are only part of the issue.  ODH also expresses concern
over the amount of employee time that will be required to comply
with the Plaintiffs' subpoena -- time that ODH suggests should not
be required to be expended by an ODH employee when a procedure
exists whereby Plaintiffs could undertake the very same search.
The Plaintiffs appear to dismiss this particular concern.

Equally unpersuasive to the Judge is the Plaintiffs' argument that
because the IRB application process ultimately may lead back to the
Court, it is more efficient to simply enforce the subpoena now.
Simply stated, the Plaintiffs chose to forego an established
process designed to allow non-public, secure database access and
they bear the consequences of that decision.  However, at this
point, the Judge is not unmindful of the Plaintiffs' concerns
regarding IRB approval and timeframe.  

Accordingly, the Judge directed the Plaintiffs and ODH to meet and
confer in an effort to address these issues and report back to the
Court on the progress of their discussions.  Should those
discussions prove unproductive, a conference with the Court may be
sought at that time.

For all of these reasons and based on the current record, Judge
Preston granted ODH's Motion to Quash.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 4, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y55f53on from
Leagle.com.


CHOCOLATE CHOCOLATE: Paguada Suit Asserts ADA Breach
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chocolate Chocolate
Chocolate Company. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Chocolate Chocolate
Chocolate Company, Case No. 1:20-cv-08919 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 25,
2020).

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

Chocolate Chocolate Chocolate Company is an award-winning 2nd
generation chocolate company.[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


CHRISTOPHER ELBOW: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Christopher Elbow
Chocolates L.L.C. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Christopher Elbow
Chocolates L.L.C., Case No. 1:20-cv-08918 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 25,
2020).

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

Christopher Elbow Chocolates has been bringing modern culinary
artistry together with a craftsman-like work ethic to create
beautiful, decadent expressions of flavors from around the world
and producing hand-crafted chocolates, bon bons and
confections.[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


CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Bar Owners Sue Over Denied COVID-19 Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
2105-09 S. STATE, LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability Company;
REGGIE'S BAR & GRILL, LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability Company;
REGGIE'S MUSIC CLUB, LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability Company, v.
THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation, Case No.
1:20-cv-06278 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 22, 2020), is a class action seeking
a rebate of premium on behalf of a nationwide class against the
Defendant.

The Plaintiffs assert claims for business interruption insurance
coverage under "all-risk" commercial property insurance issued and
sold to them by the Defendant Cincinnati in connection with the
COVID-19 pandemic. Under longstanding and bedrock principles of
insurance law, the Plaintiffs are entitled to payment under those
policies for business income losses suffered as a direct result of
state, municipal and local executive shutdown orders and
restrictive executive reopening orders ("Closure Orders") that
caused direct physical loss or damage to their properties by
physically impairing, detrimentally altering, and rendering them
nonfunctional or only partially functional as the businesses and
institutions they were formerly, the Plaintiff allege.

To protect its businesses from risk, Plaintiffs purchased a
business owner's policy for commercial properties from Cincinnati.
This nearly 70-page Policy contract was authored and issued by
Defendant and contains numerous promises to pay Plaintiffs -- also
known as "coverages" -- for a broad range of losses that the
Plaintiffs might suffer including business interruption, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff contends that despite the fact that the Defendant has
accepted the Plaintiffs' insurance premium payments, the Defendant
has summarily denied Plaintiffs' claims for coverage arising from
government-ordered interruption and closure of its businesses, in
breach of the Defendant's contractual obligations under the
Policy.

The Plaintiffs seek reimbursement and indemnification of the
business losses they have sustained, as well as all damages arising
out of the Defendant's breach of contract and Defendant's bad faith
claims handling under 215 ILCS 5/155.

The Plaintiffs operate two adjacent establishments offering food,
drinks, and live music in the Chicagoland area that have been in
business for years, working hard to build up a patron base and
develop an excellent reputation for quality and service.

The Defendant is an insurance company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William E. Meyer, Jr., Esq.
          Lema A. Khorshid, Esq.
          Vincent P. Formica, Esq.
          FUKSA KHORSHID, LLC
          200 W. Superior, Suite 410
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312 266 2221
          Facsimile: 312 266 2224
          E-mail: williammeyer222@comcast.net
                  lema@fklawfirm.com
                  vince@fklawfirm.com

CJS SOLUTIONS: Court Denies Renewed Settlement Motion in Gray Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Shana Gray, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The CJS Solutions Group, LLC
d/b/a The HCI Group, Defendant, Case No. 19-1008 (PAM/DTS) (D.
Minn.), Judge Paul A. Magnuson of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's
Renewed Motion for Settlement Approval.

In 2017, individuals who had performed consulting work for
Defendant HCI filed three lawsuits against it.  These putative
collective and class-action lawsuits alleged that HCI misclassified
its consultants as independent contractors and, because of that
misclassification, failed to pay overtime for hours worked over 40
hours per week as state laws and the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") require.  The three lawsuits were ultimately
consolidated into Sanders v. CJS Solutions Grp., 1:17cv3809
(S.D.N.Y.).

The original Sanders complaint defined the putative FLSA collective
as "all individuals who were classified as independent contractors
while performing consulting work for HCI in the United States from
May 19, 2014 to the present."  The collective as finally certified
was "all individuals who performed work as a Consultant for HCI at
any time from May 19, 2014 through on or about May 31, 2017."  The
term "consultant" is not defined in either the pleadings or the
Sanders settlement agreement.

The parties settled Sanders in fall 2017 for $3.24 million.  Just
over 58 of the Sanders collective cashed a check under the
settlement and thereby released their federal claims.  Sanders also
raised claims under state law, for which a Rule 23 class was
certified.  All the putative class members in Sanders who did not
opt out, whether they cashed their settlement check or not, thus
released their state-law claims.  Only a handful of individuals
opted out.

Meanwhile, in May 2017, HCI reclassified certain consultants and
thereafter paid those individuals overtime for hours worked over 40
hours a week.  HCI did not, however, reclassify those consultants
who were medically trained.  It calls the subset of consultants
"Resident Activate Support Specialists," but they, like the
individuals involved in Sanders, were also referred to as
"at-the-elbow" consultants, or ATEs.  According to the briefing,
HCI classified only 120 individuals as Resident Activate Support
Specialists, and all of these individuals worked at the Mayo
Clinic.

In June 2018, the day before the Sanders parties filed a motion for
final approval of that settlement, Thomas Borup filed an action
against HCI -- Borup v. The CJS Solutions Grp., LLC, No. 18cv1647
(D. Minn. filed Jun. 13, 2018) -- asserting claims under FLSA and
Minnesota law.  Borup is a medical-school graduate who worked as a
consultant for HCI at the Mayo Clinic in April and May 2018.  His
lawsuit seeks to represent a collective of "all individuals who
were classified as independent contractors while performing
consulting work" for HCI, during the relevant limitations period.
Borup has not moved the Court for certification of the collective
action under FLSA and it appears that the time to do so has
passed.

Plaintiff Gray worked for HCI as an ATE before May 2017 and could
therefore have been part of the Sanders settlement.  She did not
cash her check, however, but rather filed her own lawsuit against
HCI in August 2018, two months after Borup.  Gray alleges a single
misclassification claim under FLSA.

Her Complaint defined the putative FLSA collective as "all
individuals who were classified as independent contractors by HCI
that currently work, or have worked, for HCI as an ATE or any other
similarly-titled, hourly-paid position, during the applicable
statute of limitations period and have not already released their
claims."

In fall 2018, Borup and HCI engaged in settlement discussions.  HCI
did not inform Borup of the pendency of another action purporting
to represent some of the same individuals that Borup sought to
represent.  It did not mention the Gray settlement in a conference
with the Court on Jan. 22, 2019.  Indeed, HCI did not inform Borup
or the Court about the Gray litigation until the end of January
2019, weeks after HCI and Gray had agreed to settle that matter.

In February 2018, Borup moved to intervene in Gray and asked the
Court in the Southern District of New York to transfer Gray to
Minnesota as related to his earlier-filed lawsuit.  Gray opposed
Borup's motion to transfer and moved for Court approval of the
settlement.  The Court granted Borup's motion and declined to
approve the settlement, noting that CJS' strategic decision to
cabin off this litigation from the Minnesota litigation may have
had an adverse impact on the valuation of the Gray case.

Shortly after, the Court received the transferred Gray lawsuit,
Gray once again sought Court approval of the settlement.  It denied
that motion without prejudice and ordered the consolidation of Gray
and Borup to resolve Borup's allegations that the settlement was a
reverse auction.  Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz oversaw
discovery related to Borup's reverse-auction allegation.  That
discovery is now complete, and Gray again asks the Court to approve
the settlement.

The Gray settlement agreement redefines the settlement collective
as "all Persons who held the position of Epic Activation Consultant
and worked for HCI from Aug. 14, 2015 until such time as the
position was eliminated in May 2017, and who have not released
their claims against HCI and/or did not participate in the
settlements of Sanders"  The proposed settlement collective
therefore does not include Borup, because he was not an Epic
Activation Consultant and worked for HCI in April and May 2018,
after the proposed Gray collective closed.

HCI agreed to settle the Gray collective's claims for $500,000.
The parties have agreed that Gray's attorneys will receive
$165,000, and there are slightly more than $18,000 in
administrative and other costs.  In addition, they seek a
representative award of $10,000 for Ms. Gray. All of these items
will be deducted from the $500,000 settlement fund.

Under the terms of the settlement, each of the 536 potential
collective members will receive an initial check for $25.  They
have 120 days to cash those checks; if they choose not to do so,
they will not waive their claims against HCI.  After the 120 days
have passed, the amount remaining will be divided by the total
number of hours over 40 worked by all members of the putative
collective, to determine an "overtime hour value" or overtime
hourly rate.  Each individual will then receive their pro rata
portion of the remaining amount based on the total number of
overtime hours they individually worked. HCI will keep any
settlement money remaining after the process is complete.

After deducting attorney's fees, costs, and the
class-representative award, the amount available to pay the class
damages is $306,625.  If all 536 individuals cash the initial $25
check, $293,225 will remain to be divided by the total number of
overtime hours the collective worked.  At the hearing, Gray's
counsel stated that the potential 536 collective members worked
approximately 49,000 overtime hours during the limitations period.
The "overtime hour value" for the collective is thus just under $6
per hour. Because the collective's members already received their
regular pay of an average of $22.37 for all hours worked, the
settlement results in an average overtime hourly wage of $28.37.

In evaluating the settlement, the terms of the Sanders settlement
are relevant.  The total amount of the Sanders settlement was $3.24
milion.  Each of the four class representatives received $10,000,
attorney's fees were $1.08 million, and costs and administrative
fees amounted to $60,000.  That left $2.08 million to be
distributed to a class approximately twice as large as the class.
If the amount had been divided evenly among the 1,174 collective
members who cashed their checks, each Sanders collective member
would have received $1,771.72.  The average collective member
worked 91.4 overtime hours, and if each participates in the
settlement, will receive approximately $571.57.  The Gray
settlement is thus less than one-third of the Sanders settlement in
terms of average value to each collective member.

As Gray argues, some reduction in value is to be expected between
her claims and those raised in Sanders, given the lack of any state
claims and that HCI reclassified the consultant position in 2017.
She further notes that the Gray settlement collective consists
entirely of individuals who chose not to participate in Sanders,
making this their second bite at the apple.  However, HCI's May
2017 reclassification of most of its consultants meant that Gray
had a high likelihood of prevailing in the litigation, and the
relatively low recovery does not reflect that likelihood of
success.

Finally, the settlement agreement's release purports to release any
claims the collective might have against HCI.  Courts frequently
deny approval for FLSA settlements with such broad releases.  Gray
does not explain why such a broad release is necessary or warranted
in the matter.

Judge Magnuson finds that discovery on the settlement revealed some
unusual conduct on the part of HCI.  One week before agreeing to
settle Gray, HCI contacted the law firm that had represented
plaintiffs in the Sanders litigation stating that HCI wanted to
explore a further settlement that wipes out all pending claims
relating to Sanders.  The email, in addition to HCI's failure to
inform Borup or the Court about the existence of the Gray
litigation until after it had agreed to resolve Gray's claim, are
potentially indicative of a reverse auction.  But any such finding
in that regard is unnecessary here, where the objective terms of
the settlement, the counsel against approval of the current
agreement.  The Judge therefore denied the Motion for Approval
without prejudice, so that the parties may more fully litigate the
related Borup claims, which may ultimately affect the value of the
Gray settlement.

Borup asks the Court not only to reject the settlement, but also to
dismiss Gray under the first-filed rule.  Gray contends that the
Court should ignore this request, arguing that it is improperly
made because Borup did not make a motion to dismiss.  But Borup is
not a party to Gray. Rather, Borup intervened in Gray for the
limited purposes of opposing the settlement and seeking to transfer
venue.  Borup could not properly have filed a motion to dismiss in
Gray.

Gray also argues that Borup is bringing the request too late,
because it is now nearly a year and a half since Gray was
transferred to the District of Minnesota.  And Gray contends that
dismissal is not appropriate where two actions are pending before
the same judge.  Borup has never sought collective certification.
Thus, the only members of Borup's collective are those who have
opted in.  Gray has not opted in to Borup, and thus she is not a
plaintiff in Borup.  And Borup is not part of the newly limited
Gray collective.  To the extent that the individuals who have opted
in to Borup fall within Gray's collective, they can choose not to
be part of Gray and remain in Borup.  The danger of duplicative
litigation therefore does not exist.  For these reasons, the Judge
denied Borup's request for dismissal of Gray.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 4, 2020 Memorandum &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y55drbe5 from
Leagle.com.


COAST TO COAST: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA/AMWA, Tenorio Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TERESA TENORIO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. COAST TO COAST CARPORTS, INC., and JORGE ZAVALA, Case
No. 2:20-cv-02193-PKH (W.D. Ark., Oct. 21, 2020), is a collective
action complaint brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants
for violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff contends that he and other hourly employees regularly
worked in excess of 40 hours per week throughout their tenure with
the Defendant. The Defendant paid him and other hourly employees
one and a half times their base hourly rate for the hours they
worked over 40 in a workweek. However, the Defendant did not
include the bonuses that were paid to him and other hourly
employees in their regular rates when calculating their overtime
pay even though he and other hourly employees received bonuses in
pay periods in which they also worked in excess of 40 hours per
week, the Plaintiff alleges.

The Defendants employed Mr. Tenorio as an hourly-paid welder from
July of 2020 to October of 2020. He worked at the Defendants' shop
in Knoxville.

Coast to Coast Carports, Inc. is a steel building manufacturing
company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Courtney Lowery, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (601) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (688) 787-2040
          E-mail: courtney@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

DZINE INC: Cota Files Suit for ADA Violation
--------------------------------------------
DZINE, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Julissa
Cota, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. DZINE, Inc., a California corporation and DOES 1 to
10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-02003-JLS-BLM (S.D.
Cal., Oct. 13, 2020).

DZINE, Inc. offers Modern & Contemporary European Furniture.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



ECHELON FITNESS: Bishop Suit Asserts ADA Breach
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Echelon Fitness
Multimedia LLC. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Echelon Fitness
Multimedia LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-08955 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 26, 2020).

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

Echelon Fitness offers a professional, studio quality fitness
experience that clients can do on their time and in their own
home.[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


EMERSON COLLEGE: Porter Seeks Tuition Fee Refunds Due to COVID-19
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN PORTER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. EMERSON COLLEGE, Case No. 1:20-cv-11897-RWZ (D. Mass., Oct. 21,
2020), is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who paid
tuition and/or fees to attend Emerson College for in person
hands-on educational services and experiences for the semesters or
terms affected by Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19"), including
the Spring 2020 semester, and had their course work moved to online
only learning and failed to receive the services for which they
paid fees.

According to the complaint, students, like the Plaintiff, were
required to pay tuition for the Spring 2020 semester to attend
Emerson, including a typical tuition price of approximately
$23,928.00 for undergraduate students, and a mandatory UG Student
Services Fee of $436.00. Additionally, students typically were
required to pay over $9,000.00 in room and board if they resided on
Emerson housing.

The Plaintiff contends that Emerson has not refunded any amount of
the tuition or any of the mandatory fees, even though it canceled
in-person classes on or about March 13, 2020, and began the
transition to online learning starting on March 23, 2020. Because
of the College's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, on March 13,
2020, the College also stopped providing services or facilities the
mandatory fees was intended to cover.

The College's failure to provide the services for which tuition and
the mandatory fees were intended to cover since approximately March
13, 2020 constitutes a breach of the contracts between the College
and the Plaintiff and the members of the Class and is unjust, the
Plaintiff alleges.

The Plaintiff seeks for himself and the Class members protections
including injunctive and declaratory relief protecting Class
Members from paying the full cost of tuition and mandatory fee
during the pendency of the pandemic in light of the educational
services, opportunities, and experiences Defendant can actually
safely provide.

Ryan Porter was an undergraduate student during the Spring 2020
semester. In the Spring 2020 semester, Emerson charged him
approximately $23,928.00 in tuition and $436.00 for a UG Student
Services Fee. Additionally, he was charged $9,200.00 for room and
board. Emerson later provided a pro-rated refund for room and
board.

Emerson was founded in 1880 as the Boston Conservatory of
Elocution, Oratory, and Dramatic Arts. The College offers numerous
major fields for undergraduate students, as well as a number of
graduate programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward F. Haber, Esq.
          Michelle H. Blauner, Esq.
          Adam M. Stewart, Esq.
          SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
          Seaport Lane
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 439-3939
          Facsimile: (617) 439-0134
          E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com
                  mblauner@shulaw.com
                  astewart@shulaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

EPION BRANDS: Delacruz Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Epion Brands LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Emanuel
Delacruz, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Epion Brands LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-08394-GBD (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 7, 2020).

Epion Brands LLC is located in Renton, WA, United States and is
part of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EPROMOS PROMOTIONAL: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA
-------------------------------------------------------
ePromos Promotional Products, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ePromos Promotional Products, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-08529 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 13, 2020).

ePromos is a promotional products company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


FORMAGGIO KITCHEN: Romero Alleges Violation of ADA in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Formaggio Kitchen on Line LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Formaggio Kitchen on Line LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-08535 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 13, 2020).

Formaggio Kitchen on Line LLC offers fine foods from local artisans
and exclusive imports from international producers like Artisan
Cheese, Charcuterie, Bean-to-Bar Chocolate and a World of Specialty
Food Imports.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


G4S SECURE: Asks Court to Deny Xiong's Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAI KATY XIONG, an
individual, v. G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA) INC., a corporation, Case
No. 2:19-cv-00508-JAM-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Defendant G4S Secure
Solutions asks the Court to deny the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

The Defendant contends that with incomplete facts and a lack of
legal authority to support her contentions, the Plaintiff fails to
satisfy the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure for class certification of her wage statement claim. The
Defendant further alleges:

  --  The Plaintiff's deficient facts do not meet the
      evidentiary burden for class certification. The Plaintiff
      misrepresents relevant text from an old version of a wage
      statement and neglects any discussion of the new version
      of the wage statement.

  --  Second, contrary to Plaintiff's unfounded theory that
      Defendant G4S Secure Solutions violated Section 226(a)(9),
      G4S correctly reports "applicable hourly rates" and
      "corresponding number of hours worked" on its wage
      statements; this is consistent with overtime wage
      calculations by the California Supreme Court and relevant
      authorities.

  --  Lastly, the Plaintiff's wage statement claim has been
      resolved in two prior class action settlements pending
      court approval in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

G4S is a British multinational security services company
headquartered in London, England.

A copy of the Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com
at https://bit.ly/36D4Ih0 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Stephen E. Ronk, Esq.
          Linh T. Hua, Esq.
          Arya A. Zare, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
          633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 576-5000
          Facsimile: (213) 680-4470
          E-mail: sronk@grsm.com
                  lhua@grsm.com
                  azare@grsm.com

GEICO INDEMNITY: Perez Files Suit in Ca. Over Insurance Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Geico Indemnity
Company. The case is styled as Kristen Perez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Geico Indemnity Company,
a foreign insurance company, Case No. 5:20-cv-07436 (N.D. Cal.,
Oct. 23, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as filed over Insurance Contract.

GEICO Indemnity Company operates as an insurance company. The
Company provides vehicle, property, business, and life insurance
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Phone: (305) 975-3320
          Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com


GLOBAL CREDIT: Duarte Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Global Credit &
Collection Corp. The case is styled as Andres Duarte, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Global Credit &
Collection Corp., Case No. 1:20-cv-06339 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 26,
2020).

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

Global Credit & Collection Corp is a debt collection agency located
in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Scott Davidson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH P. DOYLE, LLC
          105 South Roselle Road, Suite 203
          Schaumburg, IL 60193
          Phone: (630) 460-7655
          Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com


GUITTARD CHOCOLATE: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Guittard Chocolate
Company. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Guittard Chocolate
Company, Case No. 1:20-cv-08921 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2020).

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

The Guittard Chocolate Company is an American-based chocolate maker
which produces couverture chocolate, using original formulas and
traditional French methods.[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


HANOR LAW FIRM: Bauer-Robertson Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hanor Law Firm, PLLC.
The case is styled as Deborah Bauer-Robertson, Craig Miller,
Bernard Reel, Tynisa Richardson, Lloyd Ryan, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Hanor Law Firm,
PLLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00827 (E.D. Va., Oct. 23, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Hanor Law Firm, PLLC is a law firm in Kingsport, Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin Anthony Dillon, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
          626 E Broad Street, Suite 300
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Phone: (804) 905-9904
          Fax: (757) 930-3662
          Email: kevin@clalegal.com


HARDY STORAGE: Jones Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hardy Storage
Company, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Sherry Lyn Jones,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Hardy Storage Company, LLC, Columbia Gas Transmission, L.L.C., Case
No. 2:20-cv-00043-TSK (N.D.W. Va., Oct. 23, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Torts to Land.

Hardy Storage Company, LLC operates in the United States in the Gas
& Water Utilities industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher D. Pence, Esq.
          James P. McHugh, Esq.
          HARDY PENCE PLLC
          500 Lee Street East, Suite 701
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Phone: (304) 345-7250
          Fax: (304) 345-9941
          Email: CPence@HardyPence.com
                 jmchugh@hardypence.com

HB USA HOLDINGS: Linarte Brings Fraud Class Action in Ca.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HB USA Holdings, Inc.
The case is styled as Natalie Linarte, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. HB USA Holdings, Inc., Case No.
2:20-cv-09748 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 23, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

HB Holdings, LLC operates as an investment holding company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter J Farnese, Esq.
          BESHADA FARNESE LLP
          700 South Flower Street, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (310) 356-4668
          Fax: (310) 388-1232
          Email: pjf@bfllplaw.com


HOME CAPTAIN: Pappas Files TCPA Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Home Captain, Inc.
The case is styled as George Pappas, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Home Captain, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-04909 (E.D.
N.Y., Oct. 13, 2020).

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

Home Captain, Inc. provides software solutions. The Company offers
technology-enabled real estate platform which connects homebuyers,
mortgage banks, and real estate agents with each other in home
buying process. Home Captain serves customers in the State of New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Aytan Yehoshua Bellin, Esq.
   Bellin & Associates, LLC
   50 Main Street, Suite 1000
   White Plains, NY 10606
   Tel: (914) 358-5345
   Fax: (212) 571-0284
   Email: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com


HURRICANE EXPRESS: Turpin Files FLSA Suit in Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hurricane Express,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Charles Turpin, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hurricane Express,
Inc., Jonathan, LTD, Case No. 4:20-cv-00544-JED-FHM (N.D. Okla.,
Oct. 23, 2020).

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

Hurricane Express provides equipment and service in the
refrigerated freight markets from coast to coast and specializes in
transporting produce, poultry and seafood.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eugene Kenneth Bertman, Esq.
          TALLEY, TURNER, STICE & BERTMAN
          219 E. Main St.
          Norman, OK 73069
          Phone: (405) 364-8300
          Fax: (405) 364-7059
          Email: gbertman@ttsblaw.com


I.C. SYSTEMS: George Alleges Violation under FDCPA
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against I. C. Systems Inc.
The case is styled as Derek George, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. I. C. Systems Inc and John
Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-02266 (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 7,
2020).

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

IC System offers accounts receivable management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Amichai Eitan Zukowsky, Esq.
   23811 Chagrin Blvd., Ste. 160
   Beachwood, OH 44122
   Tel: (216) 800-5529
   Fax: (216) 514-4987
   Email: ami@zukowskylaw.com



IMPROVED DATA: De La Cruz Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Improved Data
Services LLC, et al. The case is styled as Genesis De La Cruz,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Improved Data Services LLC, Brian Murphy, Case No. 1:20-cv-01569
(W.D.N.Y., Oct. 26, 2020).

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

Improved Data Services is a third-party debt collection agency
based in Williamsville, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (845) 367-7146
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


JO CAT BAKERY: Ramirez Files Labor Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jo Cat Bakery Corp.
The case is styled as Orlando Ramirez and Wilvaldo Castro, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. Jo Cat Bakery Corp., doing business as: Catania Bakery, Joseph
Catania and Rosamaria Catania, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04791
(E.D. N.Y., Oct. 6, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Labor: Fair
Standards filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

JO CAT BAKERY CORP (doing business as CATANIA BAKERY) is a retail
food store licensed by New York State Department of Agriculture and
Markets.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.



JP MORGAN: Court Dismisses Abbas Class Suit With Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard J. Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia dismissed with prejudice the case, HASSAN ABBAS,
Plaintiff, v. BUNDESREPUBLIK DEUTSCHLAND a/k/a FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF
GERMANY, et al., Defendants, Civil Case No. 15-cv-332 (RJL) (D.
D.C.).

In March 2015, Plaintiff Abbas initiated the action against
JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Bundesrepublik Deutchland, also known as
the Federal Republic of Germany.  The Plaintiff brought the suit on
behalf of himself and a putative "class of holders of bearer bonds
issued by Germany, which were underwritten and sold in the United
States by Defendant JPMorgan Chase & Co."

The complaint raises 11 counts -- as well as class action
allegations -- against Germany and JPMorgan Chase under contract
law, tort law, international law, and international treaties.  In
sum, Abbas seeks recovery of the principal and interest of the
bearer bonds, which Abbas calculated to be in excess of $2 million
per bond (estimating the present value of a bond).

The Plaintiff perfected service on JPMorgan Chase on March 9, 2015,
and the Court subsequently ordered JPMorgan Chase to answer the
Plaintiff's complaint no later than 21 days after the Plaintiff
perfected service on Germany.

On April 20, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to add JP
Morgan Chase Bank N.A. ("Bank") as a Defendant.  The Court granted
the Plaintiffs' motion stating, once joined as a Defendant in the
action, the Bank will have up to and including 21 days after
service has been perfected on Germany to file an answer to the
complaint.

On June 8, 2016 -- well over a year after the summons was issued--
the Plaintiff filed an affidavit requesting foreign mailing for
purposes of perfecting services on Germany.  But as the Court's
docket makes clear, the Plaintiff's affidavit was entered in error,
and the clerk returned the documents to him.  The docket does not
show any other efforts by the Plaintiff to serve Germany.

On June 20, 2016, the Plaintiff also moved to join Truro Ltd. as a
Plaintiff, but the Court denied that motion.

Over three years passed without any action on the docket.  On May
7, 2020, the Court entered an order requiring the Plaintiff to show
cause in writing why the action should not be dismissed for failure
to prosecute pursuant to Local Rule 83.23.  The Plaintiff responded
on May 29, 2020, stating that the matter stalled due to his
inability to perfect service on Germany by diplomatic channels
under the FSIA.  Instead of dismissal, he suggested either to
resubmit the request for service on Germany or in the absence of
diplomatic service on Germany, to proceed only against the JPMorgan
Defendants, who are already served since 2015.

On June 26, 2020, JPMorgan Chase replied, arguing that the
Plaintiff failed to establish any diligence in prosecuting the
matter, that he never served the Bank, and that JPMorgan Chase
would be prejudiced if the matter proceeded against only it.  

Based on the Plaintiffs response to the Order to Show Cause, and
the entire record, Judge Leon finds that dismissal is appropriate
in the case because of the Plaintiff's consistent failure to
prosecute the case and abide by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  First, the Plaintiff has failed to satisfy Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 4 by neglecting to perfect service on the Bank
within the required time.  Second, Plaintiff violated Local Civil
Rule 15.1 because he did not attach a copy of a proposed amended
complaint to his motion for leave.  Third, Plaintiff has shown
almost no effort to perfect service on Germany.  Fourth, dismissal
is appropriate in the case as a deterrent to other litigants who
fail to abide by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local
Rules.  The fact that the Plaintiff is proceeding pro se does not
absolve him for his delay.

Dismissal seems reasonably appropriate in the case due to the
Plaintiff's delay of the case and repeated failures to comply with
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Civil Rules.  As
mentioned, the Bank was never served, and the Plaintiff never filed
an amended complaint containing allegations related to the Bank.
JPMorgan Chase would be further prejudiced if the matter proceeded
against only JPMorgan Chase because Germany is likely a required
party under Rule 19, and JPMorgan Chase's ability to defend itself
would be severely hindered without Germany's participation in this
litigation.  

Finally, the Judge also finds that dismissal with prejudice is
warranted in the case.  The multiple delays described have stalled
any discovery or dispositive motions that might have allowed
JPMorgan Chase, the Bank, and Germany (had they been properly
served as Defendants) to defend against the Plaintiff's claims.  To
allow him to continue to delay, procrastinate, and ignore the
Court's deadlines in that fashion would be unfair to the Defendants
and continue to prejudice their ability to conduct discovery and
otherwise defend the case in the future.  Therefore, the Judge
finds that the Plaintiff's delay has prejudiced JPMorgan Chase, the
Bank, and Germany.  As such, his suit must also be dismissed with
prejudice.

Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, Judge Leon dismissed
with prejudice the action for failure to prosecute under Local
Civil Rule 83.23.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 4, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6prxemz from
Leagle.com.


KAISER FOUNDATION: Smith Must File Amended Bid for Settlement OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MONICA SMITH and ERIKA SIERRA, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v.
KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, a California corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 18cv780-KSC (S.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Karen S.
Crawford of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California granted in part and denied in part without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Class/Collective Action Settlement and Class Notice.

The class and collective action involve an alleged failure by
Defendant Kaiser to properly compensate certain call center
employees.  Kaiser offers call center services to patients and
insured members located in California, Georgia, and Hawaii.  It
employs "Telemedicine Specialists," "Customer Support Specialists,"
and "Wellness Specialists" to receive and respond to call center
calls, among other duties.  

The Plaintiffs allege that Kaiser does not compensate its
Telemedicine Specialists, Customer Support Specialists, and
Wellness Specialists for certain activities required of their
employment.  They also claim Kaiser fails to reimburse Telemedicine
Specialists, Customer Support Specialists, and Wellness Specialists
for necessary business expenditures incurred in the execution of
their job duties.

On Dec. 21, 2017, Smith filed a hybrid class and collective action
complaint in the District Court for the Northern District of
California, asserting Kaiser had engaged in willful violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA,"); California Labor Code
Sections 221, 223, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1174, 1194, 1197, 1197.1,
1198, 2802; California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No.
4; California Business & Professions Code Section 17200; and the
Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), with respect to its
policies and practices for the payment of Telemedicine Specialists
and Advice Nurses.

On April 20, 2018, the case was transferred to the Court, pursuant
to the parties' stipulation, and on June 5, 2018, the case was
transferred to Magistrate Crawford for all purposes, pursuant to
the parties' consent.  Shortly thereafter, the parties reached an
agreement for conditional certification of an FLSA collective
action and dissemination of a Court-authorized notice, which was
adopted by the Court.

At that time, the conditionally certified collective action members
were identified as: All current and former hourly telemedicine
specialists who work or have worked for Kaiser Foundation
Hospitals, or KP on Call, LLC, any time since May 21, 2015.  A
Notice of Right to Join Lawsuit was then disseminated to the 286
conditionally certified collective action members.  By the time the
opt-in period closed, 64 Telemedicine Specialists had filed their
consent to join the action.

Starting in July 2018, the parties engaged in a voluntary exchange
of discovery and two mediation sessions with wage and hour class
action mediator David Rotman.  Additionally, the Plaintiffs
informed Kaiser of their intention to amend the Complaint to add
claims on behalf of Kaiser's Customer Support Specialists.

Several months later, on May 30, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the
First Amended Complaint pursuant to the parties' Joint Motion.  The
FAC adds Sierra as a class representative.  In addition, the FAC
adds two causes of action (Violation of California Labor Code
Section 226.7, 512 and IWC Wage Order 5-2001 - Failure to Provide
Rest Breaks and Violation of California Labor Code Sections 201-203
- Waiting Time Penalties).  It also redefines and broadens the
scope of the action to include Customer Support Specialists and
Wellness Specialists in addition to the Telemedicine Specialists
included in the original Complaint.

The FAC defines a California-based class under Rule 23: All
similarly situated current and former hourly Telemedicine
Specialists, Customer Support Specialists and Wellness Specialists,
who work or have worked for Defendant (in a brick and mortar
location or remotely) in California at any time from Dec. 21, 2013
through judgment.

The FAC also defines an FLSA collective that is not specifically
limited to California: All similarly situated current and former
hourly Telemedicine Specialists, Customer Support Specialists and
Wellness Specialists, who work or have worked for Defendant (in a
brick and mortar location or remotely) at any time from Dec. 21,
2014 through judgment.

The original Complaint included allegations indicating it was
possible there could be a "nationwide" collective of employees with
FLSA claims, because it was alleged that defendant employed
Telemedicine Specialists out of San Diego, California, and Atlanta
Georgia, who served patients located in California, Georgia, and
Hawaii.  However, the allegations in the FAC are narrower, because
it was learned in discovery that all of the Defendant's employees
work and reside in California and were based out of the Defendant's
San Diego, California location.  In addition, the Amended Agreement
defines FLSA Collective Members more narrowly to only include
current and former employees who worked for the Defendant in its
San Diego, California location.

In support of their Renewed Motion, the Plaintiffs submitted a copy
of the parties' Amended Class and Collective Action Settlement
Agreement and Release of Claims.  Although the Amended Agreement is
unsigned, the Plaintiffs represent they will file an executed copy
prior to a Preliminary Approval Hearing.

The Amended Agreement defines the "Rule 23 Class Members" as
follows: All current and former employees who, between Dec. 21,
2013 and preliminary approval, worked for Kaiser Foundation
Hospitals at its San Diego, California location, with the job title
of Customer Support Specialist, Wellness Specialist, or
Telemedicine Specialist, in job codes 20005, 50278, and 20186.  The
Class Members are ascertainable through Defendant's employment and
payroll records.

The Amended Agreement also includes the following separate
definition for FLSA Collective Members: All current and former
employees who, between Dec. 21, 2014 and preliminary approval,
worked for Kaiser Foundation Hospitals at its San Diego, California
location, with the job title of Customer Support Specialist,
Wellness Specialist and Telemedicine Specialist, in job codes
20005, 50278, and 20186, and who have already submitted an opt-in
consent form, as well as all individuals who submit an opt-in
consent form during the settlement notice period.  The potential
FLSA Collective Members are ascertainable through the Defendant's
employment and payroll records.

The Plaintiff's Renewed Motion does not explain why the employment
period for Rule 23 Class Members is different from the employment
period for FLSA Collective Members.  The Plaintiffs should address
the difference prior to final approval.

The Amended Agreement requires Kaiser to pay a Gross Settlement
Amount of $1,475,000, in addition to any employer payroll taxes.
The Gross Settlement Amount is non-reversionary.

The Amended Agreement allocates the Gross Settlement Amount as
follows: (A) A Class Counsel Payment for (a) attorneys' fees of
$442,500, which represents 30% of the Gross Settlement Amount and
(b) litigation costs actually incurred in representing the Class,
supported by adequate documentation; (B) $7,500 as an incentive
award for the original named Plaintiff Smith, $5,000 to opt-in
Plaintiff Fox, and $2,500 to named Plaintiff Sierra; (C) $40,000 to
settlement of PAGA claims for civil penalties, of which $30,000
(75%), if approved, will be paid to the California Labor &
Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") and $10,000 (25%) will be
allocated to the Net Settlement Fund for distribution; and (D) up
to $15,000 in Administrative Costs, which will be used to pay
Simpluris, Inc., the Settlement Administrator, for administrative
costs.

According to the Renewed Motion, the Net Settlement Amount (i.e.,
the Gross Settlement Amount of $1,475,000, less the allocations
outlined above) is estimated to be $917,500, but the amount is not
included in the Amended Agreement.  The Net Settlement Amount is to
be distributed as Individual Settlement Payments to Rule 23
Settlement Class Members and as FLSA Settlement Payments to FLSA
Collective Members.  A total of $203,142.50 of the Net Settlement
Amount is apportioned for payment of FLSA Settlement Payments to
the FLSA Collective Members.  After accounting for the $203,142.50
to be used for FLSA Settlement Payments, the remaining portion of
the Net Settlement Amount will be apportioned as Individual
Settlement Payments to the Rule 23 Settlement Class Members.

The Renewed Motion represents that 437 is the approximate number of
current and/or former Telemedicine Specialists, Customer Support
Specialists, and Wellness Specialists who may qualify to
participate in the action as Rule 23 Class Members and/or FLSA
Collective Members.  The approximate number of potential class
members is based on payroll and other documents and data produced
during discovery by defendant and then analyzed by the defense
counsel and an expert.  Using a straight average (i.e., dividing
the estimated Net Settlement Amount of $917,500 by 437 without
accounting for any individual differences in claims), the payments
to each member would be approximately $2,099.54.

In exchange for their portion of the Net Settlement Amount, the
Amended Agreement provides that the Settlement Class, which is
defined as all Class Members and Collective Members who do not file
a timely and valid Request for Exclusion, will be bound by the
release.  The Amended Agreement also includes the release that
applies to FLSA Collective Members.  Additionally, it provides that
each Settlement Class Member waives all rights provided by
California Civil Code section 1542.

The Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion requests that the Court enters an
order (1) preliminarily certifying the proposed Settlement Class
under Rule 23 and as an FLSA Collective under United States Code,
Section 216(b); (2) preliminarily approving the parties' Amended
Settlement Agreement; (3) preliminarily appointing Plaintiffs Smith
and Sierra as the representative Class Members and the Class
Counsel as the counsel for the Class Members; (4) approving the
parties' proposed Notice; and (5) scheduling a hearing on the final
approval of the Amended Settlement Agreement and approval of the
application of the Class Counsel and the Plaintiffs for their
requested attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards.

Magistrate Judge Crawford holds that the structure of the Amended
Agreement resolves some of the fairness concerns raised by the
parties' prior Settlement Agreement, which did not fully address
the hybrid nature of the action and the difference between a Rule
23 class action and an FLSA collective action.  However, some
provisions of the Amended Agreement still need to be addressed
before preliminary approval is appropriate.

Among other things, Magistrate Judge Crawford finds that since FLSA
rights are determined on an opt-in consent basis, not on a Rule 23
opt-out basis, including the phrase "and who do not timely file a
Request for Exclusion" in the definition of "FLSA Released Claims"
is confusing and inclusion of the phrase has the potential to
adversely affect the rights of Class/Collective Members.
Similarly, the Amended Agreement defines the term "Settlement
Class" as "all Class Members and Collective Members who do not file
a timely and valid Request for Exclusion."  Without more, it
appears that "Settlement Class" should refer to "all Class Members
who do not file a timely and valid Request for Exclusions and all
Collective Members who have already submitted an opt-in consent
form, as well as individuals who submit an opt-in consent form
during the settlement notice period."

If the matters outlined are addressed, the new structure reflected
in the Amended Agreement appears to result in fair and equal
treatment of Class Members and FLSA Collective Members.  Magistrate
Judge Crawford is unable to discern any disadvantage to either of
these groups that results from the new structure in the Amended
Agreement.

Magistrate Judge Crawford also holds that the Renewed Motion does
not include enough information for the Court to assess the value of
the settlement, and, without more, it is unclear whether the
settlement treats Class/Collective Members equitably relative to
each other.

The Plaintiff's damages analysis, which was prepared with the
assistance of two experts, estimated the Defendant's maximum
potential exposure for PAGA penalties equals $1,651,800, if the
Plaintiff were to prevail on all viable claims under the California
Labor Code.  Although $40,000 to settle the PAGA claims seems low
when compared to the maximum potential exposure, Magistrate Judge
Crawford cannot say the amount is unfair, inadequate, or
unreasonable given the risks of continued litigation.  Accordingly,
she finds that preliminary approval of the PAGA Payment is
appropriate.

According to the ruling, the proposed Notice needs to be thoroughly
reviewed and revised before preliminary approval is appropriate.
Many revisions will be necessary before the Notice is ready to be
mailed to Class/Collective Members.  For example, paragraph 13 of
the Notice pertaining to the Class Counsel Fees refers in the last
sentence to the "Total Settlement Amount," and it should read the
"Gross Settlement Amount" for the sake of clarity and consistency.

The definition of Gross Settlement Amount in the Amended Agreement
states that "no part of the Gross Settlement Amount will revert to
Defendant."  In addition, it appears that all Class/Collective
Members stand to receive a meaningful sum if they participate in
the settlement.  Thus far, there is no evidence of collusion.
Finally, Magistrate Judge Crawford will have the opportunity to
look more closely at the amount of requested attorney's fees at the
time of final approval.  Accordingly, preliminary approval of the
Class Counsel Payment provision is appropriate.

Based on the information provided, Magistrate Judge Crawford finds
that (i) the requested litigation costs appear to be reasonable for
purposes of preliminary approval and supporting documentation
should be submitted for the Court's review with any Final Approval
briefing; (ii) the requested administrative fees are also
adequately supported and reasonable and preliminary approval of
these costs is therefore appropriate; and (ii) the proposed
incentive or service awards for the named Plaintiffs and the opt-in
Plaintiff are reasonable for purposes of preliminary approval.

After preliminary approval, the Defendant will provide the
Settlement Administrator with names, contact, and identifying
information for each potential Class/Collective Member, and this
information will remain confidential.  Thereafter, it will mail the
Notices to the Class/Collective Members, along with Request for
Exclusion forms, opt-in consent forms, and any required tax forms.
If there are any irregularities in timely-submitted Requests for
Exclusion, the Settlement Administrator will send a deficiency
notice explaining how to cure the deficiencies.

The Notice to the Class/Collective Members will include an Employee
Information Sheet.  Based on information obtained from the
Defendant's time records, the Employee Information Sheet will show
each Class/Collective Member how much they could expect to receive
based on the pro rata formulas included in the Amended Agreement,
which are based on an individual's number of Eligible Workweeks and
other factors.  Individual Class/Collective Members will have an
opportunity to dispute the number of Eligible Workweeks shown on
the Employee Information Sheet, and the Settlement Administrator
will then review any available documentation to determine whether
an error was made in the calculation.  Checks for Individual
Settlement and FLSA Settlement Payments will then be mailed to
Class/Collective Members without the need to submit any further
paperwork.  If there are uncashed checks that amount to less than
$5,000, the unclaimed proceeds will be sent to California Rural
Legal Assistance, Inc. If unclaimed proceeds are greater than
$5,000, this amount will be proportionately allocated to the
Settlement Class Members.

For the reasons she outlined, Magistrate Judge Crawford (i) granted
the Plaintiffs' request for certification of a class under Rule 23
for purposes of settlement; (2) granted the Plaintiffs' request for
conditional certification of an FLSA collective for settlement; and
(3) denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for
Preliminary Approval.  Within 45 days from the date the Order is
entered, the Plaintiff must file an amended motion for preliminary
approval, an amended settlement agreement, and an amended notice
addressing the issues discussed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 26, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y6dwydcr from Leagle.com.

KEVIN O BRIEN: Thomas Files Class Action Over Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kevin O Brien &
Associates Co., L.P.A. The case is styled as Mary Thomas,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Kevin O Brien & Associates Co., L.P.A. and John Does
1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05958 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 7,
2020).

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

Kevin O Brien & Associates Co., L.P.A. is an accounting firm in
Nenagh, Ireland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Amichai Eitan Zukowsky, Esq.
   23811 Chagrin Blvd., Ste. 160
   Beachwood, OH 44122
   Tel: (216) 800-5529
   Fax: (216) 514-4987
   Email: ami@zukowskylaw.com


KEY HEALTH: Edwards Suit Removed to South Carolina Dist. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Dana Michelle Edwards, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. Key Health Medical Solutions Inc., VBS
Physical Therapists Inc, John Doe 1-100, Case No. 2020-CP-23-04048,
was removed from the Greenville County Court of Common Pleas, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Oct.
26, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:20-cv-03764-DCC to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Key Health offers medical funding options to help ensure healthcare
providers & attorneys can get their clients the care they
need.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Russell Warren Patrick
          Douglas Franklin Patrick
          COVINGTON PATRICK HAGINS STERN AND LEWIS
          PO Box 2343
          Greenville, SC 29602
          Phone: (864) 240-5522
          Fax: (864) 233-9777
          Email: rpatrick@covpatlaw.com
                 dpatrick@covpatlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lane Davis, Esq.
          David Curry Dill
          NELSON MULLINS RILEY AND SCARBOROUGH
          PO Box 10084
          Greenville, SC 29603-0084
          Phone: (864) 250-2300
          Email: lane.davis@nelsonmullins.com
                 david.dill@nelsonmullins.com


LESSEREVIL LLC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LesserEvil LLC. The
case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. LesserEvil LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-08914
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2020).

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

LesserEvil Snacks is a natural snack food company located in
Danbury, Connecticut. The company manufacturers and distributes its
own products.[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


MALLERY & ZIMMERMAN: Niemann Brings FDCPA Suit in Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mallery & Zimmerman,
S.C. The case is styled as Bernard J. Niemann, Jr., Sondra S.
Niemann, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v.
Mallery & Zimmerman, S.C., Case No. 3:20-cv-00979 (W.D. Wis., Oct.
26, 2020).

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

Mallery & Zimmerman is a diversified, full-service law firm with
offices in Milwaukee, Stevens Point and Wausau.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James Davidson, Esq.
          GREEN DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
          Boca Raton, FL 33487
          Phone: (561) 826-5477
          Fax: (561) 961-5684
          Email: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Matthew Curtiss Lein, Esq.
          LEIN LAW OFFICES
          P.O. Box 761
          Hayward, WI 54843
          Phone: (715) 634-4273
          Fax: (715) 634-5051
          Email: mlein@leinlawoffices.com


MARKET HOUSE MEATS: Romero Suit Asserts ADA Breach
--------------------------------------------------
Market House Meats is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Josue
Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Market House Meats, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-08531
(S.D. N.Y., Oct. 13, 2020).

Market House Meats is a Butcher shop deli.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


MIKE-SELL'S POTATO: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mike-Sell's Potato
Chip Co. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Mike-Sell's Potato Chip Co.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-08913 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2020).

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

Mike-Sell's Potato Chip Company is a Dayton, Ohio-based producer of
potato chips and other 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


MONARCH RECOVERY: Alagna Files FDCPA Suit in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monarch Recovery
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Nicholas M Alagna,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-05958 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 7, 2020).

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

Monarch Recovery Management, Inc. operates as a collection
agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph Scott Davidson, Esq.
   Law Offices of Joseph P. Doyle, LLC
   105 South Roselle Road, Suite 203
   Schaumburg, IL 60193
   Tel: (630) 460-7655
   Email: jdavidson@fightbills.com




NATIONAL GRID: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Nightingale Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Robert Nightingale, Plaintiff, v. National Grid USA
Service Company, Inc. et al, Defendants, Civil Action No.
19-12341-NMG (D. Mass.), Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied the motion
of First Contact, LLC and iQor US, Inc. to dismiss for failure to
state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

The putative class action involves claims of unfair and deceptive
business practices in violation of the Massachusetts Consumer
Protection Act.  Nightingale brings the action on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated against National Grid, iQor and
its subsidiary First Contact.

Nightingale is a resident of Boston, Massachusetts.  National Grid
is an electricity, natural gas and clean energy delivery company
located in Waltham, Massachusetts.  iQor provides business process
services, including first-party debt collection services.  First
Contact is a wholly-owned subsidiary of iQor and provides business
support services.  Both business entities are located in St.
Petersburg, Florida.

The Plaintiff alleges that he incurred a debt to National Grid for
electricity services and National Grid contracted with First
Contact and iQor to place first-party collection calls on its
behalf in order to collect that debt.

Between June 20 and June 23, 2018, the Defendants allegedly called
Nightingale's cell phone five times in an attempt to collect the
debt.  Nightingale claims that the Defendants' repeated calls (1)
caused him anger, anxiety, emotional distress, fear, frustration
and embarrassment; (2) were distracting, inconvenient and an
invasion of his personal privacy and (3) wasted his time and
energy.

In October 2018, the Plaintiff filed a complaint in Massachusetts
Superior Court on behalf of himself and a putative class of
Massachusetts consumers, naming "National Grid USA Company, Inc."
as the sole Defendant.  In December, 2018, he filed an amended
complaint correctly identifying the Defendant as National Grid USA
Service Company, Inc.

During discovery, National Grid represented that it had contracted
with First Contact to place first-party collection calls on its
behalf.  In September, 2019, Nightingale filed a second amended
complaint naming First Contact and iQor as co-Defendants.  First
Contact and iQor then removed the action to the Court on grounds of
diversity jurisdiction and pursuant to the Class Action Fairness
Act.

Pending before the Court is the motion of Defendants First Contact
and iQor to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).  iQor and First Contact maintain that
Nightingale's complaint fails to allege a Chapter 93A violation
because it relies on conclusory allegations and omits basic facts
about (1) the debt, (2) the debt collection calls and (3) the
Plaintiff's specific injury.  Nightingale responds that the
complaint sufficiently states a claim for relief because it alleges
that the Defendants collectively engaged in deceptive acts that
caused him to suffer separate, identifiable injuries including
emotional distress.

Judge Gorton finds Nightingale's complaint short on "substantive
factual development."  The Judge does, however, allege that (1) he
is a debtor, (2) the Defendants are creditors who called him at a
frequency that violates Chapter 93A and (3) he suffered separate,
identifiable injuries (i.e., anger, anxiety, emotional distress,
fear, frustration and embarrassment; distraction, inconvenience and
invasion of privacy; and wasted time and energy).  Accordingly, the
Plaintiff has pled more than a per se injury and his complaint
pleads just enough facts to state a claim.

The Defendants next contend that the complaint is an impermissible
"shotgun" pleading in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) because it
lumps together multiple Defendants and is unclear with respect to
which Defendant committed each of the alleged wrongful acts.  They
claim that Nightingale fails to make substantive allegations
specific to either First Contact or iQor and therefore, they cannot
discern which defendant is allegedly responsible for particular
conduct.  The Plaintiff responds that the complaint properly
alleges that both First Contact and iQor called him in an attempt
to collect the debt and thus they are each directly liable.

Nightingale alleges that both First Contact and iQor placed
collection calls to him on National Grid's behalf at a frequency
that violated 940 C.M.R. Section 7.04(1)(f) and that as result he
suffered separate injuries, including emotional distress.  The
complaint states a cognizable basis for liability as to each
defendant and thereby gives each defendant notice of their
allegedly wrongful acts.  The complaint is not, therefore, a
"shotgun" pleading.

Finally, the Defendants contend that iQor is not a proper party
because a parent corporation is not liable for the acts of its
subsidiaries.  The Plaintiff responds that he is not pursuing iQor
solely under a veil-piercing theory but under a theory of direct
liability.

The complaint alleges that National Grid contracted with First
Contact and iQor to place debt collection calls to Nightingale and
that both entities called him in an attempt to collect the debt.
Those facts, taken as true for the purposes of a motion to dismiss,
indicate that iQor is a proper party under a theory of direct
liability.  Accordingly, at this stage, the Judge need not address
the veil-piercing issue because the Plaintiff states a valid
Chapter 93A claim against iQor.

For these reasons, Judge Gorton denied the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 4, 2020 Memorandum &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2q4fxlc from
Leagle.com.


NETSHOES (CAYMAN): Securities Suit Settlement Gets Prelim. Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE NETSHOES SECURITIES LITIGATION Plaintiff, v.
XXX, Defendant, Docket No. 157435/2018, Motion Seq. No. 005 (N.Y.
Sup.), the New York County Supreme Court preliminarily approved the
Parties' Settlement Agreement.

On Aug. 25, 2020, the Parties entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement which, together with the exhibits thereto, sets forth
the terms and conditions for the Settlement and dismissal of the
claims alleged in the Litigation.  The Court has read and
considered the Stipulation and the accompanying documents; and the
Parties to the Stipulation having consented to the entry of the
Notice Order.

The Court preliminarily finds that (a) the Settlement resulted from
informed, extensive arm's-length negotiations, including a
mediation among the Lead Plaintiff and the Defendants under the
direction of a very experienced mediator, Robert A. Meyer, Esq.;
and (b) the Settlement is sufficiently fair, reasonable, and
adequate to warrant providing notice of the Settlement to the
Settlement Class.

Accordingly, for purposes of the Settlement only, and
preliminarily, for purposes of the Order, the Litigation will
proceed as a class action, pursuant to CPLR Sections 901 and 902,
on behalf of a Settlement Class consisting of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Netshoes common stock before May
15, 2018.

The Lead Plaintiff is certified as the Settlement Class
Representative, the Lead Counsel is appointed as the Class Counsel,
and A.B. Data, Ltd. is approved as the Claims Administrator.

The Settlement Fairness Hearing is scheduled to be held via Skype
Business or Microsoft Teams videoconference or other court
authorized remote videoconference on Nov. 23, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.

The Court approved the form, substance, and requirements of the
Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action, the Proof of Claim
and Release, and the Summary Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class
Action.

The Claims Administrator will cause the Notice and Proof of Claim
within 21 calendar days of the Order, to all Settlement Class
Members who can be identified with reasonable effort.  Within ten
calendar days of the Order, Netshoes, at its expense, will provide
the last known addresses of Netshoes record shareholders to the
Claims Administrator for the purpose of identifying and giving
notice to the Settlement Class.  

The Claims Administrator will use reasonable efforts to give notice
to nominee purchasers, such as brokerage firms and other Persons,
who purchased or otherwise acquired Netshoes common stock during
the Settlement Class Period as record owners, but not as beneficial
owners.  Such nominee purchasers are directed, within 14 business
days of their receipt of the Notice, to either forward copies of
the Notice and Proof of Claim to their beneficial owners or to
provide the Claims Administrator with lists of the names and
addresses of the beneficial owners, and the Claims Administrator is
ordered to send the Notice and Proof of Claim promptly to such
identified beneficial owners.

Nominee purchasers who elect to send the Notice and Proof of Claim
to their beneficial owners will send a statement to the Claims
Administrator confirming that the mailing was made as directed.
Additional copies of the Notice will be made available to any
record holder requesting such for the purpose of distribution to
beneficial owners, and such record holders will be reimbursed from
the Settlement Fund, upon receipt by the Claims Administrator of
proper documentation, for the reasonable expense of sending the
Notice and Proof of Claim to beneficial owners.

The Claims Administrator will cause the Summary Notice to be
published once over a national newswire service, within 10 calendar
days after the mailing of the Notice.  It will notify all the
Settlement Class Members of any changes of the Settlement Fairness
Hearing by posting notice of the changes on
www.NetshoesSecuritiesLitigation.com.

The Lead Counsel shall, at least seven calendar days before the
Settlement Fairness Hearing, file with the Court and serve on the
Parties proof of mailing of the Notice and Proof of Claim and proof
of publication of the Summary Notice.

In order to be entitled to participate in the Net Settlement Fund,
in the event the Settlement is consummated in accordance with the
terms set forth in the Stipulation, each Settlement Class Member
will take the following actions and be subject to the following
conditions:

     (a) Within 90 calendar days after such time as set by the
Court for the Claims Administrator to mail the Notice to the
Settlement Class, each Person claiming to be an Authorized Claimant
will be required to submit to the Claims Administrator a completed
Proof of Claim, substantially in the form contained in Exhibit A-2
attached hereto and as approved by the Court, signed under penalty
of perjury and supported by such documents as specified in the
Proof of Claim and as are reasonably available to the Authorized
Claimant.

     (b) Except as otherwise ordered by the Court, all Settlement
Class Members who fail to timely submit a Proof of Claim within
such period, or such other period as may be ordered by the Court,
will be forever barred from receiving any payments pursuant to the
Stipulation and Settlement set forth therein, but will, in all
other respects, be subject to and bound by the provisions of the
Stipulation, the releases contained therein, and the Final
Judgment.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, Lead Counsel may, in its
discretion, accept for processing late submitted claims, so long as
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund to Authorized Claimants
is not materially delayed. Lead Counsel may also, in its
discretion, waive what the Lead Counsel deems to be de minimis or
formal or technical defects in any Proof of Claim submitted.  In
connection with processing the Proofs of Claim, no discovery will
be allowed on the merits of the Litigation or Settlement.  No
Person will have any claim against the Lead Plaintiff, the Lead
Counsel, or the Claims Administrator by reason of the decision to
exercise such discretion whether to accept late-submitted or
technically deficient claims.

     (c) As part of the Proof of Claim, each Settlement Class
Member will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court, with respect
to the claim submitted, and will (subject to effectuation of the
Settlement) release all Released Claims as provided in the
Stipulation.

A Settlement Class Member wishing to make such request shall, no
later than 60 calendar days after the date set for the initial
mailing of the Notice to Settlement Class Members, mail a request
for exclusion in written form by first class mail postmarked to the
address designated in the Notice.

The Court will consider objections to the Settlement, Plan of
Allocation, award to the Lead Plaintiff, and/or award of attorneys'
fees and expenses.  Any Person wanting to object must do so in
writing and may also appear at the Settlement Fairness Hearing.  To
the extent any Person wants to object in writing, such objections
and any supporting papers, accompanied by proof of Settlement Class
membership, will be filed no later than Nov. 17, 2020, which is 60
calendar days after the date set for the initial mailing of the
Notice to the Settlement Class.

All papers in support of the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, and
Fee and Expense Application by the Plaintiff's Counsel and award to
the Lead Plaintiff will be filed 14 calendar days prior to the
deadline for objections to be filed.  All reply papers will be
filed and served at least seven calendar days prior to the
Settlement Fairness Hearing.

All funds held by the Escrow Agent will be deemed and considered to
be in custodia legis of the Court, and will remain subject to the
jurisdiction of the Court, until such time as such funds will be
distributed pursuant to the Stipulation and/or further order(s) of
the Court.

The Claims Administrator, the Defendants' Counsel, and the
Plaintiff's Counsel will promptly furnish each other with copies of
any and all objections that come into their possession.

Unless and until the Stipulation is cancelled and terminated
pursuant to its terms, all proceedings in the Litigation, other
than such proceedings as may be necessary to carry out the terms
and conditions of the Settlement, are stayed and suspended until
further order of the Court.

The Court may adjourn or continue the Settlement Fairness Hearing
without further written notice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 26, 2020 Decision & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3ojatvk from Leagle.com.


NEW YORK: Deutsch, et al. Files Class Action v. Election Board
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed New York State Board of
Elections, et al. The case is styled as Hanna Abigail Deutsch,
Naama Leah Deutsch, Chizkiyahu Shalom Deutsch, Elozor Dovid Berlin,
Chaya Rochel Kamenetsky, Basya Engel, Miriam Sharon Engel, Naomi
Margalit Engel, Nechama Yuta Engel, Yisrael Meir Engel, Golda
Thaler, Jacob Thaler, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. New York State Board of Elections; Peter S.
Kosinski, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the New York
State Board of Elections; Douglas A. Kellner, in his official
capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Board of Elections;
Andrew J. Spano, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the
New York State Board of Elections; Todd D. Valentine, in his
official capacity as Co-Executive Director of the New York State
Board of Elections; Robert A. Brehm, in his official capacity as
Co-Executive Director of the New York State Board of Elections;
Andrew Cuomo, as Governor of the State of New York; Case No.
1:20-cv-08929-LGS (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 26, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Constitutional - State Statute.

The New York State Board of Elections is a bipartisan agency of the
New York state government within the New York State Executive
Department responsible for enforcement and administration of
election-related laws.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Noam Binyamin Schreiber, Esq.
          Ben Yeduda St. 34
          Migdal Ha'ir 15th Floor
          Jerusalem, Ste. Migdal Hair
          Jerusalem, Israel
          Phone: +972-50-225-5953
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: schreiber.noam@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Douglas A. Kellner, Esq.
          KELLNER HERLIHY GETTY & FRIEDMAN LLP
          470 Park Avenue South-7th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 889-2121
          Fax: (212) 684-6224
          Email: dak@khgflaw.com


NICK'S LLC: Paguada Files ADA Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nick's LLC. The case
is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Nick's LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-08915 (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 25, 2020).

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

Nicks Chips is a Detroit based brand offering flavorsome snacks
from potato chips to corn product.[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


NUTREX HAWAII:  Violates ADA, Bishop Suit Asserts
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nutrex Hawaii, Inc.
The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Nutrex Hawaii, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-08949 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 26, 2020).

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

Nutrex Hawaii was founded in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii in 1990 by Dr.
Gerald Cysewski, a world-renowned expert in microalgae and
carotenoids.[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


OLYMPUS AMERICA: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA
---------------------------------------------------
Olympus America is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Josue
Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Olympus America and Olympus America Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-08307 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 6, 2020).

Olympus America is a manufacturer of optical and digital precision
technology, providing innovative medical systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal





OWASSO, OK: Faces Jurisdictional Class-Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Curtis Killman, writing for Tulsa World, reports that the City of
Owasso has been named a defendant in a jurisdictional class-action
lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that the recent ruling of McGirt v. Oklahoma
determined Oklahoma prosecutors lack the authority to pursue
charges against American Indian defendants in much of eastern
Oklahoma, including Owasso.

The U.S. Supreme Court in early July redefined what for decades
federal and state prosecutors thought had been "Indian Country" in
eastern Oklahoma when it comes to crime enforcement jurisdictional
purposes.

The court upheld challenges from two American Indians who claimed
criminal cases prosecuted against them in state court should have
been tried in federal court because Congress never disestablished
the 19th century boundaries of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation
reservation.

"Anyone who was issued a citation or arrested and it was
adjudicated in our municipal court, that's really the thrust of the
litigation," Owasso City Attorney Julie Lombardi told the Owasso
Reporter.

The plaintiffs contend that the City of Owasso had no jurisdiction
throughout the years to assess municipal fines and costs against
members of the Cherokee Nation.

"… It is entirely possible that people who are members of an
Indian nation may have been given citations for traffic offenses or
may have been tried on misdemeanor crimes in our municipal court,"
Lombardi said.

The City of Owasso is among nearly 50 municipalities across
Oklahoma, including the City of Collinsville, named defendants in
the lawsuit.

Lombardi hired attorney Keith Wilkes and his firm Hall Estill to
represent the City of Owasso in the litigation. She said possible
discovery and deposition could be set in the plaintiffs' order for
the refund of all fines and costs to members of the Cherokee
Nation. [GN]


PROCOLLECT INC: Kale Files Suit in  Tennessee Under FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ProCollect Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Swapna Kale, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. ProCollect Inc., John Does
1-25, Case No. 2:20-cv-02776 (W.D. Tenn., Oct. 26, 2020).

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

ProCollect Inc. is one of the nation's premier debt collection
agencies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


REDWOOD WELLNESS: Bishop Files Suit for ADA Breach
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Redwood Wellness,
LLC. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Redwood Wellness, LLC, Case
No. 1:20-cv-08956 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 26, 2020).

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

Redwood Wellness offers at home services for fitness, yoga and
meditation.[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


ROUTE 11 POTATO CHIPS: Romero Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Route 11 Potato Chips LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Route 11 Potato Chips LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-08528 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 13, 2020).

Route 11 Potato Chips LLC is a Food products supplier.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


SAN FRANCISCO SCHOOL: Hord Files Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The San Francisco
School. The case is styled as H, B, H, G, Jeff Hord and Lisa Hord,
on behalf of themselves, Plaintiffs v. Does 1 through 20,
inclusive, Christina Hughes, Steve Morris, Nancy Nagramada, Anne
Hipskind Roberts and The San Francisco School, Defendants, Case No.
CGC20587135 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 14, 2020).

The case type is stated as Contract/Warranty.

The San Francisco School has inspired a passion for learning since
1966. It is one of the oldest independent, coeducational day
schools in San Francisco.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David Michael Rosenberg-Wohl, Esq.
   Hershenson Rosenberg-Wohl, A PC
   315 Montgomery St Fl 10
   San Francisco, CA 94104-1823
   Tel: (415) 829-4330
   Email: david@hrw-law.com



SAN JOAQUIN HOSP.: Court Tosses 9 Counts in Franklin w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ISABELLE FRANKLIN, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SAN JOAQUIN GENERAL HOSPITAL AND
SAN JOAQUIN GENERAL HOSPITAL FOUNDATION, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00907-JAM-DB (E.D. Cal.), Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento
Division, granted the Parties' Joint Stipulation to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Third through Eleventh Causes of Action in the First
Amended Complaint against San Joaquin General Hospital without
prejudice.

On Aug. 22, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint
(FAC), bringing a wage and hour class action complaint against SJGH
and San Joaquin General Hospital Foundation, alleging causes of
action for: (1) Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation for Improper
Meal Break Time Deductions; (2) Failure to Pay Overtime
Compensation for "Off-The-Clock" Work; (3) Failure to Pay for All
Hours Worked Pursuant to Labor Code Section 204; (4) Failure to Pay
Overtime Wages; (5) Failure to Authorize and Permit and/or Make
Available Meal and Rest Periods; (6) Failure to Provide Accurate,
Itemized Wage Statement; (7) Waiting Time Penalties; (8) Failure to
Reimburse for Necessary Business Expenses; (9) Unlawful Business
Practices; (10) California Private Attorneys General Act Section
2699(a); and (11) California Private Attorneys General Act Section
2699(f).

During October 2019, the counsel for the Plaintiff and SJGH met and
conferred regarding the Defendant's various governmental immunity
defenses related to the Plaintiff's claims under the California
Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code, and Private
Attorneys General Act.  

After reviewing the relevant legal authority on those various
governmental immunity defenses, the Plaintiff has agreed to dismiss
her claims against SJGH that were brought under the California
Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code, and Private
Attorneys General Act, without prejudice, which include the Third
through Eleventh Causes of Action in the FAC.  She is not
dismissing her claims against SJGH based upon the Fair Labor
Standards Act, which include the First and Second Causes of Action
in the FAC.

As of the date of the Order, the Court has issued no rulings or
orders regarding class certification or class-related discovery.

The Parties have not sent any notice to the putative class in the
case.  SJGH is not providing direct or indirect consideration, and
will bear its own fees and costs in relation to dismissed claims.

Subject to the approval of the Court, the parties, by and through
their counsel of record, stipulated and agreed that the Plaintiff's
claims based upon the California Labor Code, California Business
and Professions Code, and Private Attorneys General Act against
Defendant San Joaquin General Hospital, which included the Third
through Eleventh causes of action in the FAC, will be dismissed
from the action, without prejudice, subject to the terms and
conditions contained in the Stipulation.

Pursuant to the Parties' Joint Stipulation and for good cause
shown, Judge Mendez entered an order granting the request.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 4, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yyncd3az from Leagle.com.

Carolyn H. Cottrell -- ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com -- David C.
Leimbach -- dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com -- Michelle S. Lim --
mlim@schneiderwallace.com -- SCHNEIDER WALLACE, COTTRELL KONECKY
LLP, Emeryville, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff, the Putative
Class and Collective Members

Jesse J. Maddox -- jmaddox@lcwlegal.com -- Brian J. Hoffman --
bhoffman@lcwlegal.com -- LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE, Sacramento,
California, Attorneys for Defendant San Joaquin General Hospital

William M. Hogg -- whogg@schneiderwallace.com -- (Pro Hac Vice),
SCHNEIDER WALLACE, COTTRELL KONECKY LLP, Houston, Texas, Attorney
for Plaintiff, the Putative Class and Collective Members


SANTA MONICA-MALIBU: Students with Special Needs File Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Steepleton, writing for Malibu Surfside News, reports that
Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District is named in a
class-action lawsuit claiming students with special needs have been
left behind by the response to coronavirus. [GN]


SAXELBY'S CHEESEMONGERS: Romero Asserts Breach of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------
Saxelby's Cheesemongers, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Saxelby's Cheesemongers, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-08532 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 13, 2020).

Saxelby Cheesemongers offers a selection of American farmstead
cheese, focusing on cheeses produced in the Northeastern United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


SIGMA CORP: Romero Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sigma Corporation of America is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Sigma Corporation of America, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-08312 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 6, 2020).

Sigma Corporation is a Japanese company, manufacturing cameras,
lenses, flashes and other photographic accessories. All Sigma
products are produced in the company's own Aizu factory in Bandai,
Fukushima, Japan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


SIMM ASSOCIATES: Heyman Files FDCPA Suit in Ohio
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SIMM Associates Inc.
The case is styled as Autumn Heyman, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIMM Associates Inc and
John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-02265 (N.D. Ohio, Oct.
7, 2020).

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

SIMM Associates are Accounts Receivable Management Specialists
working with creditors to recover outstanding consumer credit
accounts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Amichai Eitan Zukowsky, Esq.
   23811 Chagrin Blvd., Ste. 160
   Beachwood, OH 44122
   Tel: (216) 800-5529
   Fax: (216) 514-4987
   Email: ami@zukowskylaw.com


SKIN PS BRANDS: Suris Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Skin Ps Brands. The
case is styled as Yaroslav Suris, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Skin Ps Brands, Case No. 1:20-cv-05112
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 23, 2020).

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

Skin PS Brands creates and markets a range of dermatology and skin
care related brands, products and media.[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


STEAK N SHAKE: Faces Winegard ADA Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Steak N Shake Inc.
The case is styled as Jay Winegard, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Steak N Shake Inc. d/b/a
www.steaknshakefranchise.com, Case No. 1:20-cv-05155 (E.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 26, 2020).

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

Steak 'n Shake Operations, Inc. is an American casual restaurant
chain concentrated primarily in the Midwestern United States with
locations also in the South, Mid-Atlantic and Western United
States, Europe, and the Middle East.[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


STERZING FOOD: Romero Suit Alleges ADA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Sterzing Food Company is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Sterzing Food Company, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-08526 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 13, 2020).

Sterzing Food Co is a food production company based out of 1819
Charles St, Burlington, Iowa, United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal



STUBHUB: Owner Looks to Dodge COVID-19 Ticket Refund Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Hale at law360.com reports that ticket reseller Viagogo is
looking to exit a Florida woman's proposed class action accusing it
of refusing to refund consumers for events canceled due to the
pandemic, saying her claims are moot because she accepted a voucher
and they don't apply to other events.

The Switzerland-based company, which recently acquired StubHub,
argued in a motion to dismiss filed in Florida federal court that
Lauren Shiflett cannot pursue her claims because she accepted a
voucher worth 125% of her purchase price.

That leaves no meaningful relief for the court to offer Shiflett,
the company said, adding that her aim of representing a nationwide
class of Viagogo customers left holding tickets for events canceled
by COVID-19 also falls short because she lacks authority to bring
claims for any events other than the April 19 Tool concert she
purchased tickets to attend.

The company also argued that Shiflett's Aug. 12 suit - which
alleged violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act and brought claims of breach of contract, conversion
and unjust enrichment - also fails on various legal grounds.

Shiflett has alleged that Viagogo is trying to retroactively
discontinue its guarantee that customers can receive a full refund
for tickets to any canceled event purchased through the company's
website, but the company said in its motion that the guarantee only
applies when a buyer has not received her tickets before the event
has occurred.

Viagogo called Shiflett's breach of contract claim "implausible,"
because its terms and conditions give it "absolute discretion"
whether to provide a refund, and it said her conversion and unjust
enrichment claims are "simply breach of contract claims by another
name."

The company also argued that Shiflett failed to allege that it
engaged in any deceptive or unfair practices to support her claim
under FDUTPA.

"It is hard to fathom that Viagogo's refusal to offer any refund is
deceptive or unfair when the very terms and conditions grant
Viagogo discretion in doing so and inform buyers of that
potentiality," the company said. "Buyers agree that they may not
ultimately receive any refund when they use Viagogo's services. And
far from 'forcing' buyers to take a voucher, Viagogo offers them a
choice: a voucher or a refund."

The company said that once the spread of COVID-19 began to delay
and postpone events, it unilaterally updated its website to enact
COVID-19 policies - separate and distinct from its guarantee - that
said tickets would be presumed valid for postponed events but, in
the event of a cancellation, a buyer could choose to receive either
a refund or a voucher worth 125% of the purchase price.

Shiflett claims she used Viagogo on March 3 to buy two tickets to a
Tool concert scheduled for April 19 in Tampa. She paid about $410
for the tickets and never heard from Viagogo when the concert was
canceled, according to the suit.

Despite contacting Viagogo multiple times from April through July,
Shiflett claims Viagogo just informed her that the tickets would
remain good for the concert once it was rescheduled. She was told
that Viagogo could not cancel her order or give her a refund,
according to the suit.

Shiflett is seeking to represent a nationwide class of all people
who used Viagogo to buy tickets to any event that was subsequently
canceled due to COVID-19 and who have not received any refund, as
well as a Florida subclass.

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to
requests for comment.

The suit is one of several that have been filed over refunds in the
wake of the coronavirus pandemic. Baseball fans filed a proposed
class action in California against Major League Baseball, its teams
and online ticket seller. Ticketmaster and Live Nation also were
hit with a proposed class action in California federal court over
their refund policies for events postponed due to COVID-19.

The organizers of the SXSW festival in Texas and the Ultra Music
Festival in Miami also have been sued over denied refunds.

Shiflett is represented by Scott Edelsberg of Edelsberg Law PA and
Gary F. Lynch, Jamisen A. Etzel and Nicholas A. Colella of Carlson
Lynch LLP.

Viagogo is represented by Emily Y. Rottmann and Frank Talbott V of
McGuireWoods LLP.

The suit is Lauren Shiflett v. Viagogo Entertainment Inc., case
number 8:20-cv-01880, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida. [GN]

TAZA CHOCOLATE: Paguada Files Suit v. Cafe for ADA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Taza Chocolate Cafe,
LLC. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Taza Chocolate Cafe, LLC, Case
No. 1:20-cv-08922-VEC (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2020).

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

Taza Chocolate crafts stone ground chocolate from bean to bar.[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


TOYOTA: Soy Wiring Class Action Lawsuit Resurrected
---------------------------------------------------
carcomplaints.com reports that a Toyota soy wiring class action
lawsuit is partly alive on appeal after a district court dismissed
the case in 2018.

According to the Toyota soy wiring class action lawsuit, rodents
are more attracted to the wiring because Toyota switched its wiring
harness from vinyl chloride to a soy-based material.

This allegedly causes rats, mice and other creatures to chew the
wiring, leaving vehicle owners without safe transportation.

The plaintiffs had four opportunities to refile the class action,
but the judge dismissed the lawsuit for failure to plead with
particularity under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and ruled
the soy-based wiring did not constitute a "latent defect."

The district court judge dismissed claims under 13 states' consumer
protection statutes, the implied warranty of merchantability and
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA).

The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit which affirmed in part and reversed in part the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California ruling by
Judge Andrew J. Guilford.

Toyota argues that rats have always been pests that chew on things
and it's just a fact of life, and the Ninth Circuit says none of
that is in dispute.

"Rather, Appellants assert that the soy-based wiring harness has
led to an increase in rodent damage to their vehicles."

The appeals court found the allegations in the class action
"directly support Appellants' theory, which necessarily excludes
Toyota's explanation."

Concerning claims of fraud, the plaintiffs didn't have the same
luck as the appeals court ruled vehicle owners failed to "identify
the fraud with particularity. Appellants merely state in conclusory
fashion that Toyota fraudulently failed to disclose the alleged
defect. Indeed, Appellants fail to allege the extent to which
Toyota was aware of this issue."

The class action alleges customer complaints prove Toyota concealed
the damage that can be caused by using soy wiring. But the appeals
court found the customer complaints "unpersuasive."

"This point is made more salient by the infrequency of reported
damage to Toyota vehicles. We are left to wonder who at Toyota was
aware of the alleged defect and why Toyota did not disclose it.
Thus, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Appellants'
state-law fraud and consumer protection claims." - Ninth Circuit

Next, the Ninth Circuit moved to implied warranty of
merchantability and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims. The district
court dismissed those claims by ruling the alleged wiring defect
did not exist at the time the vehicles were sold.

According to the district judge, the rodents did not destroy the
vehicles until after they were sold.

On appeal, the plaintiffs admit they cannot state claims under
Idaho, Illinois and Oregon laws, but they challenge the dismissal
of their remaining implied warranty and MMWA claims.

According to the Ninth Circuit, the implied warranty generally
requires that goods possess "fitness for the ordinary purpose for
which such goods are used," which means "the product is in safe
condition and substantially free of defects."

"To have an actionable claim, the defect must exist at the time of
sale." Ninth Circuit

The appeals court found the district court incorrectly identified
the rodents as the alleged defect. Instead, the alleged defect was
the soy-based wiring harnesses that attracted the rodents in the
first place. This means the alleged defect existed at the time of
sale even if the damage occurred later.

The Ninth Circuit found that to believe otherwise would require
that the damage, not just the defect, existed at the time of sale.

The Toyota soy wiring class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California - Heber, et
al., v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., et al. [GN]

TRANSURBAN: Class Action Launched Against Toll Fees
---------------------------------------------------
bigrigs.com.au reports that Queensland truck driver and small
business owner Dave Kitson is among a growing list of disgruntled
toll users who are fed up with being charged excessive fees by
Transurban. Now, a class action has been launched against
Transurban's Queensland business Linkt for its exorbitant fees on
overdue notices.

Within the first few days of being filed, the class action had
already received thousands of people signing up - and the team
behind it at Hilton Bradley Lawyers are expecting tens of thousands
more.

Like many toll road users, Kitson was unknowingly stung by admin
fees that were higher than the unpaid tolls.

"The fees are over the top," he says. "I think it's a bit
outrageous. If you don't pay your phone bill or electricity bill on
time, you usually get a reminder, but you don't get charged for it
so why is Transurban charging so much for it?"

Currently in Queensland, when a motorist fails to pay a toll, Linkt
charges them an initial administrative fee of $8.50 in addition to
the toll. If that isn't paid within 10 days, the administration fee
goes up to $23.81 for every notice -and it very quickly adds up.

"Monetarily, the impact these sorts of fees can have on a small
business can be pretty big, particularly if you're not aware of it,
and it just compounds and compounds," says Kitson.

"Most people are probably like myself. You get a bill in the mail
and you just pay it -and that's what I did. The bill came and I
went streuth, I've got some unpaid tolls, so I paid them. Like me,
I'd say a big percentage of people would pay the bill without
realising the fees they are being charged," he adds.

Hilton Bradley Lawyers considers Linkt's administrative charges "to
be excessive and not reflective of 'reasonable' cost as permitted
by Queensland law".

Solicitor Luke Whiffen launched the class action after one of his
clients received a notice from Transurban.

"It was for a large amount of money and when I looked at the
breakdown of it, I noticed it was largely composed of
administration fees. I saw in the Transport Infrastructure Act that
Transurban is only permitted to charge reasonable fees.

"Here, we were talking about tens of thousands of dollars. I know
of one client that was charged $24,000," he explains, adding that
many transport businesses are being especially hard hit.

"With higher fuel prices and a tighter economy, the last thing you
need is to be hit with unlawful administrative charges which can be
14 times the amount of the toll.

"The issue is, if you've got a $10,000 bill from Transurban, are
you going to go and sue a $43 billion ASX listed company? Go to
court? Hire lawyers and pay an expert hundreds of thousands of
dollars to determine what a reasonable fee is? It's impossible to
challenge because litigation like that is a massive scale."

Kitson hopes that this class action against Transurban makes more
motorists aware of the fees they are being charged and leads to
changes in the way Transurban structures its fees.

"I think this is the right thing to do. You've got to stand up for
yourself, you can't just be walked all over and turn a blind eye,"
he says.

Anyone who has paid an administrative fee on 'non-payment' or
overdue notices issued for toll roads in Queensland in the last six
years may be eligible to be part of this class action.

"When people register, we also need them to enter into the funding
agreement because if we don't get enough people doing that, then we
won't be able to proceed with it," says Whiffen. "What we really
need is scale." [GN]

UNITED CAR SALES: Davidson Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jerry Davidson, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. United Car Sales Company, LLC
doing business as: United Auto Credit Corporation; United Auto
Credit Corporation, a California corporation, Case No.
8:20-cv-00636, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia on Oct. 26, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-01263-LMB-JFA to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.

United Auto Credit works with auto dealers to provide financing
opportunities for their customers from all credit history
backgrounds.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq.
          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          FARUQI AND FARUQI LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: (424) 256-2884
          Fax: (424) 256-2885
          Email: rglezakos@faruqilaw.com
                 twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and –

          Christopher Eric Stiner, Esq.
          AHDOOT AND WOLFSON PC
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: (310) 474-9111
          Fax: (310) 474-8585
          Email: cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and –

          Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
          VARNELL AND WARWICK PA
          1101 East Cumberland Avenue Suite 201H-105
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (352) 753-8600
          Fax: (352) 504-3301
          Email: jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Abraham J. Colman, Esq.
          Raymond Yoon Ho Kim, Esq.
          Zachary C. Frampton, Esq.
          HOLLAND AND KNIGHT LLP
          400 South Hope Street, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 896-2400
          Fax: (213) 896-2450
          Email: abe.colman@hklaw.com
                 raymond.kim@hklaw.com
                 zac.frampton@hklaw.com

               - and –

          Rachel Y. Chuang, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 457-8000
          Fax: (213) 457-8080
          Email: rchuang@reedsmith.com


UNITED STATES: Court Partly Grants Certification Bid in Samma Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANGE SAMMA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
20-cv-1104 (ESH) (D. D.C.), Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
appointment of counsel.

The Plaintiffs are noncitizens serving in the United States
military.  They filed the putative class action under the
Administrative Procedure Act to challenge the United States
Department of Defense's ("DOD") policy on issuing Certifications of
Honorable Service (USCIS Form N-426), which is the form that
noncitizens must file with United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services ("USCIS") in order to apply for naturalization
based on military service pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1440.

On April 24, 2020, in response to a provision in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 ("2020 NDAA"), DOD
issued an update to the N-426 Policy.  As represented by the
defense counsel, according to officials within DoD's Office of the
Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness, the 30-day time period
contemplated by the April 24, 2020 policy update begins when the
first person in the chain of command receives the N-426 request.

On April 28, 2020, six named Plaintiffs (Samma, Abner Bouomo, Ahmad
Isiaka, Michael Perez, Sumin Park, and Yu Min Lee), who are
noncitizens serving in the United States Armed Forces, filed the
putative class action, claiming that the O-6 Requirement and the
Minimum Service Requirements in the N-426 Policy violate various
provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA").  Of the
six, five were serving in Active Components while one, Isiaka, was
serving in the Reserves.  As clarified by a later filing, the
Plaintiffs specifically claim that the O-6 Requirement, the Active
Minimum Service Requirement, and the Reservist Minimum Service
Requirement are arbitrary and capricious, and were enacted without
notice and comment.  With respect to the Active and Reservist
Minimum Service Requirements, they further claim that they violate
the APA because they are not in accordance with law are in excess
of statutory jurisdiction, and they result in unlawfully withheld
and unreasonably delayed agency action.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and
appointment of class counsel at the same time they filed their
initial complaint, seeking to certify a class consisting of:   All
individuals who: (a) are noncitizens serving honorably in the U.S.
military; (b) have requested but not received a certified Form
N-426; and (c) are not Selected Reserve MAVNIs covered by the Kirwa
lawsuit.

The Defendants responded and raised several objections to the
Plaintiffs' proposed class definition.  They also challenged the
standing of five of the six named plaintiffs because, since the
filing of the complaint, each had received a certified N-426.
Finally, they argued that the one remaining Plaintiff without an
N-426 (Isiaka) lacked standing to challenge the O-6 requirement.  

The Plaintiffs filed a reply, acknowledging that the receipt of an
N-426 mooted an individual Plaintiff's claim, but they also filed
an amended complaint, adding two additional Plaintiffs (Timotius
Gunawan and Rafael Leal Machado), who were both serving in active
components, had not satisfied the Minimum Service Requirements, and
had not received an N-426.  They proposed these two new plaintiffs,
along with plaintiff Isiaka, as suitable class representatives with
live claims.  The Plaintiffs also proposed a modified class
definition, deleting the word "honorably," to address one of the
Defendants' objections.

At the Court's request, the Defendants filed a surreply to address
the effect of the Plaintiffs' adding two new Plaintiffs in their
amended complaint.  The Plaintiffs' supplemental brief clarified
that the class would only include individuals governed by Section I
of the N-426 Policy and proposed that the class be divided into
subclasses to account for the difference in requirements for
individuals serving in active components and individuals serving in
the Reserves.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are seeking certification of a class
consisting of all individuals who: (a) are noncitizens serving in
the U.S. military who are subject to Section I of the N-426 Policy;
(b) have requested but not received a certified Form N-426; and (c)
are not Selected Reserve MAVNIs covered by the Kirwa lawsuit, with
two subclasses, one consisting of class members who are lawful
permanent residents ("LPRs") serving in the Selected Reserve of the
Ready Reserve, and the other consisting of class members (both LPRs
and MAVNIs) who are noncitizens serving in an active component in
the U.S. military.  

The proposed class representatives are the three Plaintiffs who had
not received their N-426s at the time the amended complaint was
filed on June 8, 2020, with Isiaka representing the Reservist
subclass and Gunawan and Machado representing the Active subclass.

The Court held argument on the motion for class certification and
the cross-motions for summary judgment in mid-July 2016.  During
the argument, the Court tentatively ruled that it would grant the
motion for class certification but that the class claims would be
limited to a challenge to the Minimum Service Requirements because
the Court was of the opinion that none of the proposed class
representatives (or any named Plaintiff) had standing to challenge
the O-6 Requirement given the April 24, 2020 policy update.

However, the Plaintiffs were given leave to file a supplemental
brief to further address that issue, which was pertinent to both
class certification and summary judgment.  After the Plaintiffs
filed their brief, which included numerous exhibits and a
declaration from Gunawan, they learned that Isiaka had received a
certified N-426 on July 21, 2020, even though he had not yet
satisfied the Reservist Minimum Service Requirement.

The Defendants were then asked, inter alia, to respond to the
Plaintiffs' standing arguments, to explain how Isiaka received a
certified N-426 without having complied with the N-426 Policy
requirements, and to address the effect of Isiaka receiving an
N-426.  The Defendants advised the Court that Isiaka had received
an N-426 in error, signed by a commander who was unaware of the
N-426 policy, but that the Army did not intend to revoke it and
that their position is that Isiaka cannot represent the Reservist
subclass because his claim is now moot.  On July 29, 2020, Gunawan,
in another apparent error because he has not yet met the Active
Minimum Service Requirement, received a certified N-426.

Judge Huvelle addresses the Defendants' objections to certifying
the Plaintiffs' proposed class.  The Defendants take the position
that because Isiaka's claim is now moot, he cannot represent the
Reservist Subclass, and they would presumably take the same
position as to Gunawan and his ability to represent the Active
Subclass.  They argue that no class can be certified to challenge
the O-6 requirement because none of the proposed class
representatives has standing to challenge that requirement.  The
Defendants next argue that the Court should exclude the Plaintiff
in Kotab v. U.S. Department of the Air Force, from any class.  They
argue that the class members in Kuang v. United States Department
of Defense, should be excluded "from obtaining any relief in the
case to the extent that it overlaps with the relief sought in
Kuang.

The Judge rules that it would be particularly unfair to plaintiffs
to find that Isiaka and Gunawan can no longer represent the class
when their claims are only moot because defendants erroneously
issued their N-426s before they had met the Minimum Service
Requirements.  The Judge therefore concludes that Isiaka and
Gunawan remain appropriate class representatives.

The Judge also finds that none of the proposed class
representatives, Isiaka, Gunawan, and Machado, has alleged an
injury (past or in the imminent future) that is fairly traceable to
O-6 Requirement as amended by the April 24, 2020 policy update, so
none has standing to challenge that requirement.  Without a class
representative with standing, the Plaintiffs' challenge to the O-6
Requirement is not suitable for class certification, and the claim
must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Plaintiffs agree that Kotab must be excluded, so there is no
dispute for the Court to resolve.  Accordingly, Thomas X. Kotab
will be excluded from any class the Court certifies.  However, the
Judge will not exclude members of the Kuang class from any class
certified in the instant case.  The relief sought by the Plaintiffs
in Kuang was to vacate the LPR Policy that required security
screenings to be completed before an enlistee could ship to basic.
Vacating that policy would have given the Plaintiffs relief from
the delay caused by the time it took to complete those screenings.

Having addressed the issues that fall outside of Rule 23, the Judge
turns to the question of whether the Plaintiffs' proposed class and
subclasses satisfy both Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(1)(A) and/or (2).
The Defendants contest only the Rule 23(a) requirements of
commonality and typicality, but the Court must be satisfied that
any class it certifies meets all of Rule 23's requirements.

The Judge finds that the Rule 23(a) requirements are satisfied, and
the proposed class and subclasses are certifiable under Rule
23(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2).  The Defendants raise no objection to the
appointment of the Plaintiffs' counsel as the class counsel, and
after considering the information provided by the Plaintiffs in
their motion and in the declaration of Brett Max Kauffman, the
Judge finds that all four factors weigh in favor of their
appointment.  Accordingly, the Judge appoints the Plaintiffs'
counsel as the class counsel to represent the class and the
subclasses she has certified.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, Judge Huvelle granted in part
and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
and Appointment of Counsel.  Pursuant to Rule 23(a), (b)(1)(A) and
(b)(2), Judge certifies a class and two subclasses.

The Class consists of all individuals who:

  (a) are noncitizens serving in the U.S. military;

  (b) are subject to Section I of the October 13, 2017 N-426
      Policy (AR 6) ("N-426 Policy"), as updated by DOD's April
      24, 2020 Memorandum (AR 1);

  (c) have not received a certified N-426; and (d) are not
      Selected Reserve MAVNIs in the class certified in Kirwa v.
      U.S. Dep't of Defense, No. 17-cv-1793 (D.D.C. Dec. 1, 2017).

The Class is divided into an Active Subclass and a Reservist
Subclass:

  a. The Active Subclass includes all individuals in the Class
     who are noncitizens serving in an Active Component of the
     U.S. military and have not satisfied the Minimum Service
     Requirements in Section I.3.a of the N-426 Policy.
     Plaintiffs Gunawan and Machado will serve as the Class
     Representatives, and the subclass is certified to challenge
     the Active Minimum Service Requirement in Section I.3.a of
     the N-426 Policy.

  b. The Reservist Subclass includes all individuals in the
     Class who are lawful permanent residents (LPRs) serving in
     the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve and have not
     satisfied the Minimum Service Requirements in Section I.3.b
     of the N-426 Policy, excluding the plaintiff in Kotab v.
     U.S. Dep't of the Air Force, No. 2:18-cv-2031, 2019 WL
     4677020 (D. Nev. Sept. 25, 2019). Plaintiff Isiaka will
     serve as the Class Representative, and the subclass is
     certified to challenge the Reservist Minimum Service
     Requirement in Section I.3.b of the N-426 Policy.

The Plaintiffs' counsel is named the Class Counsel.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 4, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3bmfk9w from
Leagle.com.


WALWORTH COUNTY, SD: Agard, et al. Seek to Certify Prisoners Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Megan Maria Agard, Chico
Baker, Robert DeSersa, Kara Jane Logg, Deborah Looking Back,
Prairie Rose White Buffalo, and Phillip Louis Young Hawk, as named
plaintiffs on behalf of a class, v. Walworth County, South Dakota,
and Walworth County Commissioners James Houck, Kevin Holgard, Scott
Schilling, Marion Schlomer, and Davis Martin, all sued in their
official and individual capacities, Case No. 1:20-cv-01018-CBK
(D.S.D.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying a
class pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 comprised of:

   "people held in the [Walworth County] jail, or who will be
   held in the jail before this lawsuit is concluded, including
   juveniles, for any reason other than having been convicted of
   a criminal offense."

Walworth County is a county in the U.S. state of South Dakota. As
of the 2010 census, the population was 5,438. Its county seat is
Selby. The county was created in 1873 and organized in 1883. It is
named for Walworth County, Wisconsin.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Gw82Qw at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James D. Leach, Esq.
          1617 Sheridan Lake Rd.
          Rapid City, SD 57702
          Telephone: (605) 341-4400
          E-mail: jim@southdakotajustice.com

               - and -

          Stephanie E. Pochop, Esq.
          JOHNSON POCHOP & BARTLING LAW OFFICE, LLP
          P.O. Box 149
          Gregory, SD 57533
          Telephone: (605) 835-8391
          E-mail: Stephanie@rosebudlaw.com

WARNER MUSIC: Hart Files Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Warner Music Group,
Corp. The case is styled as Jon Hart, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Warner Music Group, Corp., Case No.
1:20-cv-08952 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 26, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

Warner Music Group Corp. is an American multinational entertainment
and record label conglomerate headquartered in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WEATHERFORD U.S.: Granillo Files Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Weatherford U.S.,
L.P. The case is styled as Edward Granillo, an individual, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Weatherford U.S., L.P., a Louisiana limited partnership and
Weatherford International, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Defendants, Case No. BCV-20-102386 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct.
13, 2020).

The type of the case is stated as 15-CV Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited.

Weatherford U.S.,L.P. provides oil field machinery and equipments.
The Company offers drilling pipe, lubricants, and other production
equipments to companies. Weatherford serves customers in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
   Melmed Law Group P.C.
   1801 Century Park E, Ste 850
   Los Angeles, CA 90067-2346
   Tel: (310) 824-3828
   Fax: (310) 862-6851
   Email: jm@melmedlaw.com



WEAVER NUT COMPANY: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Weaver Nut Company,
Inc. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Weaver Nut Company, Inc., Case
No. 1:20-cv-08920 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2020).

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

Weaver Nut Company, which started as a small business in the
basement of the Weaver family home in 1975, has since grown into a
reputed family-owned distributor of candy, chocolate, nuts, and
bulk foods in the heart of tranquil Lancaster County.[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


WERNER ENTERPRISES: Bryant Case Consolidated With 3 Other Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson granted the Defendants'
unopposed Motion to Consolidate Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)
the cases, EZEQUIEL OLIVARES ABARCA, et al, individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated, and WILLIAM SMITH, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf
of the general public, and BRIAN VESTER and JOEL MORALES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and
DANIEL BRYANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case Nos. 8:14CV319, 8:15CV287, 8:17CV145, 8:20CV227
(D. Neb.).

The Defendants move to consolidate Bryant with the three previously
consolidated cases.  They represent that the counsel for the
Plaintiff in Bryant does not oppose the motion.  And no objections
to the motion were filed by the other Plaintiffs in the time
provided under the court's local rules.

After review of the filings in the cases, Magistrate Judge Nelson
concludes the Bryant action contains common issues of law and fact
as the Abarca, Smith, and Vester cases.  The putative class action
claims by the Bryant Plaintiffs against the Defendants for
violations of California wage and labor laws are the same or
similar as those alleged in the captioned consolidated cases, and
the previously certified class appears to encompass the newest
claims.  Consolidation will conserve time and resources of the
parties and of the Court.  Accordingly, the Judge granted the
Defendants' motion and consolidated all of the captioned cases for
purposes of discovery and trial.

Case No. 8:14CV319 continues to be designated as the Lead Case and
Case No. 8:20CV227 is designated as a Member Case.

The Court's CM/ECF System has the capacity for spreading text among
the consolidated cases.  If properly docketed, the documents filed
in the Lead Case will automatically be filed in the Member Case.
The parties are instructed to file documents related to discovery
(except those described) in the Lead Case and to select the option
yes in response to the System's question whether to spread the
text.  They may not use the spread text feature to file complaints,
amended complaints, and answers; to pay filing fees electronically
using pay.gov; or to file items related to service of process.

If a party believes an item in addition to those described should
not be filed in all the consolidated cases, the party must move for
permission to file the item in one or more member cases.  The
motion must be filed in all the consolidated cases using the spread
text feature.

The parties in Bryant will comply with the amended case progression
order dated July 23, 2020.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 4, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5xcngdb from Leagle.com.


WORLD WRESTLING: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA
---------------------------------------------------
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. is facing a class action
lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The
case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. World Wrestling Entertainment,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-08310 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 6, 2020).

World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., d/b/a WWE, is an American
integrated media and entertainment company that is primarily known
for professional wrestling. WWE has also branched out into other
fields, including movies, football, and various other business
ventures.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


XPO LOGISTICS: Asks Court to Reconsider Sept. 16 Class Cert. Order
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGEL OMAR ALVAREZ, an
individual; ALBERTO RIVERA, an individual; and FERNANDO Ramirez, an
individual; JUAN ROMERO, an individual; and JOSE PAZ, an
individual; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. XPO LOGISTICS CARTAGE, LLC dba XPO LOGISTICS, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company; XPO CARTAGE, INC. dba XPO
LOGISTICS, a Delaware corporation; XPO LOGISTICS, INC. dba XPO
LOGISTICS, a Delaware corporation; XPO LOGISTICS, LLC dba XPO
LOGISTICS, a Delaware limited liability company; XPO INTERMODAL
SOLUTIONS, INC. dba XPO LOGISTICS, an Ohio corporation; XPO
INTERMODAL SERVICES, LLC dba XPO LOGISTICS, a Delaware limited
liability company; JEFFREY TRAUNER, an individual; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:18-cv-03736-RGK-E (C.D. Cal.),
the Defendants XPO Logistics Cartage, LLC and XPO Logistics, Inc.
ssk the Court for reconsideration of its September 16, 2020 order
granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for
Class Certification.

The Defendants contend that the Court's Order reflects that it
failed to consider material facts demonstrating the Plaintiffs'
failure to establish commonality and predominance with respect to
the right-to-control factor under S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v.
Dep't of Indus. Relations, 769 P.2d 399 (Cal. 1989) (and failed to
properly weigh the other Borello factors as a result) and
demonstrating the individual inquiries necessary to resolve the
Plaintiffs' minimum wage and meal and rest break claims.

XPO requests that the Court consider these material facts and alter
or amend its Order as appropriate. This motion is made following
the conferences of counsel pursuant to Local Rule 7-3, which took
place on September 23 and 25, 2020.

XPO Logistics is an American multinational transportation and
contract logistics company that manages supply chains for 50,000
customers.

A copy of the Defendants' motion for reconsideration of the
court’s order dated Sept. 30, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jPejVG at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Defendant and Counterclaimant XPO Logistics
Cartage, LLC and Defendants XPO Cartage, Inc., XPO Logistics, Inc.,
XPO Logistics, LLC, XPO Intermodal Solutions, Inc.

XPO Intermodal Services, LLC, and Jeffrey Trauner, are:

          Scott Voelz, Esq.
          Alexander Larro, Esq.
          Christianna Kyriacou Mantas, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899
          Telephone: +1 213 430 6000
          Facsimile: +1 213 430 6407
          E-mail: svoelz@omm.com
                  alarro@omm.com
                  ckyriacou@omm.com

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AM Best Estimates $100BB Insurers' Asbestos Losses
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Insurance Journal reports that AM Best said its estimates of $100
billion in asbestos losses and $46 billion in environmental losses
for the U.S. property/casualty industry remain unchanged as of
year-end 2019.

In a report, AM Best notes that A&E loss reserves have declined the
past ten-plus years, with loss payments still outpacing incurred
losses.  Over the past five years, the industry has paid out $16.1
billion for A&E claims.  Over the same period, insurers have
incurred $11.3 billion in losses, according to the report,
Insurance Journal notes.

In the report, "AM Best's A&E Loss Estimates Remain Unchanged," the
ratings agency says the P/C industry has funded approximately 91%
of its aggregate A&E exposures, which translates into an unfunded
liability of approximately $9 billion for asbestos and $4 billion
for environmental.  These are "relatively small amounts" when
compared to cumulative losses of more than $91 billion (asbestos)
and $42 billion (environmental), according to the ratings firm,
which adds that "determining ultimate funding estimates is
extremely difficult, given that the ultimate exposures cannot be
known."

Asbestos losses have started to show signs of subsiding slightly,
with incurred losses down approximately 13% in 2019.  In the
2015-2019 period, the industry has incurred approximately $7.9
billion in asbestos losses, while paying out nearly $12.8 billion,
and slightly more than $3.4 billion in environmental losses, while
paying nearly $3.3 billion.

The report notes that at current payout levels, A&E reserves will
run off within seven years or so barring any additional reserve
strengthening.

The top 15 insurers account for 87% of the industry's average
annual A&E incurred losses, with Travelers Group at the top of the
list, followed by Hartford Insurance Group and American
International Group.

Insurance Journal reports that according to AM Best, overall
asbestos loss payments have exceeded $2 billion a year since 2002,
while annual environmental loss payments have declined since
peaking at $2 billion in the late 1990s, although payouts still
have averaged just under $800 million a year over the past 10
years.

AM Best utilizes a combination of three approaches when evaluating
an insurer's A&E reserve adequacy: historic premium market share,
post-1990 paid loss share (1992–2019) and three-year survival
ratios.

AM Best said it recognizes that "fully funding ultimate estimates
is extremely difficult, given the improvement in therapies,
emerging drug combinations and early diagnosis, combined with
ongoing litigation," but it views the majority of insurers with
material A&E exposures as "well-capitalized and able to absorb any
shortfalls."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Compass Fined for Breaches at Holyoke Medical
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Connors at Daily Hampshire Gazette reports that a Ludlow
company was fined $10,000 by the state Department of Environmental
Protection for violations discovered during work to remove asbestos
at Holyoke Medical Center last year.

The fine came after DEP personnel conducted an unannounced
inspection on Oct. 4 while employees of Compass Restoration
Services were conducting asbestos abatement in two areas of the
hospital.  Several violations of Massachusetts asbestos regulations
were observed, the DEP said in statement.

Asbestos-containing material was stored in a hallway outside of a
containment area at the first-floor blood-drawing laboratory,
inspectors found.  Compass employees also had failed to completely
wet asbestos-containing materials, such as floor tiles and
sheetrock, during removal, according to the DEP.

The DEP also determined that employees of the company were removing
asbestos-containing floor tile from a third-floor area without
notifying the state in advance.

"Asbestos is a known carcinogen and following required work
practices is imperative to protect hospital employees, patients and
visitors.  Additionally, Compass failed to notify MassDEP of all
areas of asbestos abatement at the hospital," Michael Gorski,
director of MassDEP's Western Regional Office in Springfield, said
in a statement.  Compass did correct the violations on the date of
inspection, he noted, according to Daily Hampshire.

A Compass Restoration Services employee reached by phone Wednesday
declined to comment, Daily Hampshire notes.

According to Daily Hampshire, Rebecca MacGregor, spokeswoman for
Holyoke Medical Center, said in an emailed statement: "There were
no patients or staff present in the areas where the violations
occurred, and at no time was the health and safety of patients or
staff at risk.  The contractor corrected the violations
immediately."

Compass Restoration Services will pay $6,500 of the assessed
penalty, according to the DEP, with the balance suspended provided
that the company retrains its employees.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fireman's Fund Wins Reinsurance Reimbursement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Rund, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Fireman's Fund
Insurance Co. has won a ruling to collect reinsurance reimbursement
related to a policyholder's asbestos lawsuits after a federal judge
cited ambiguous terms in the policy.

Mining company Asarco, which held three excess liability policies
from Fireman's, sued the insurer in 2001 for coverage related to
asbestos exposure lawsuits it faced.  Fireman bought reinsurance
for one of the three policies and took the reinsurance provider,
OneBeacon Insurance Co., to court after being denied a payout.

OneBeacon, now called Bedivere Insurance Co., argued that the other
two Fireman's liability policies should have been exhausted before
reinsurance kicks in.



                            *********

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 ***