/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201104.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, November 4, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 221

                            Headlines

3M CO: Billing Class Suit Still Stayed in Alabama Court
3M CO: St. John Class Action Remains Stayed
AAA: Former Employees Fight For Wages in Class Action Complaint
ABBVIE INC: KPH Healthcare Sues Over Monopoly of Bystolic Market
ACCESS ONE: Faces Corbin TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls

ALLEGIS GLOBAL: Duran Files Class Suit in Calif. Superior Court
ALLERTON DELI: Ramales Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages
ALPINE TOWING: Chappotin Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
ALTERYX INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Class Action
ALTERYX INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Class Action

AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Class Action
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Appeal in Anti-Steering Rules Litigation Pending
AMERICAN FAMILY: Hesselink Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.
AMERICAN FAMILY: Wilkerson Files 6th Cir. Appeal in Insurance Suit
AMNET SERVICES: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought

APPLE INC: Second Cir. Appeal Filed in Lerman Consumer Class Suit
ARNOT HEALTH: Fails to Pay Off-the-Clock Work, Zona Suit Alleges
ATLAS LAW: Settlement in Curtis Suit Wins Final Court OK
AURORA CANNABIS: Bernstein Liebhard Announces of Dec. 1 Deadline
AWP INC: Faces Salmeri FLSA Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper OT

AXA EQUITABLE: Malek Files RICO Suit in E.D. New York
BAIDU INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of Class Action
BIMBO BAKERIES: Boswell Sues Over Loaf Cake's Misleading Labels
BLUE DIAMOND: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Romero Suit Says
BRADSHAW INTERNATIONAL: Faces Monegro ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.

BRASKEM SA: Schall Law Firm Reminds of October 26 Deadline
BRENNTAG NA: Initial Settlement Approval Sought
BRUNEL RESOURCES: Goff Seeks OT Pay for Construction Coordinators
BUILDERS CONCRETE: Faces Myles Employment Suit in Calif. Super.
CAMINO NATURAL: Johnston Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class

CAMPING WORLD: Court OK's Notice to Settlement Class
CARE.COM INC: Skelton Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
CDI CORP: Straight Time Employees Class Sought
CHESTER, PA: Pitney Seeks to Certify Class Action
CIRCLE GRAPHICS: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind Users, Romero Says

COLONY CREDIT: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 9 Deadline
CONCERTO HEALTHCARE: Court Denies Conditional Cert. Bid as Moot
COOLA LLC: Flaherty Alleges Deceptive Sunscreen Products Labels
COSTA LINDA: Martinez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
COTY INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of Class Action

COTY INC: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of Class Action
COTY INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Class Action
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Dec. 1 Deadline
CRISP MARKETING: Rechul TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
CSAA INSURANCE: Fails to Reimburse Medical Expenses, MSP Claims

D & T PROPERTY: Allen et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay Overtime
DRAKE-STATE AIR: Conditional Cert. of Installers Class Sought
EASTMAN KODAK: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Class Action
EDUCATION DEP'T: Pratt Seeks to Certify Class of Loan Borrowers
ELLIOTT PC: Vanderkodde Suit Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses

ESSENTIA HEALTH: Hills Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
FENNEC PHARMA: Schall Law Firm Reminds of November 2 Deadline
FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS: Robbins Geller Reminds of Class Action
FIRST TEAM: Lalli Seeks to Certify 2 TCPA Classes
FLORIDA: Judge Dismisses Potential Unemployment Class Lawsuit

FLOWERS FOODS: Maciel Employment Suit Removed to S.D. California
FRITO-LAY INC: Vado Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling
G4S SECURE: Underpays Security Guards, Kovacs Suit Claims
GAP INC: Faces Yale Suit Over Wiretapping of Website Visitors
GARRET MOTION: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Lawsuit

GENIUS BRANDS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Class Action
GENIUS BRANDS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Class Action
GLV INC: Mullen Appeals N.D. Ill. Ruling to Seventh Circuit
GOL LINHAS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of November 10 Deadline
GOOGLE LLC: Carroll Sues Over Smart Mobile OS Market Monopoly

GRACIE MEWS: Faces Luna Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
HIGHLAND INDUSTRIES: Tillman Suit Seeks Class Certification
HOME DEPOT: Court Certifies 3 Classes in Pizarro Suit
HOMELAND SECURITY: Supplement to Preliminary Injunction Bid Filed
HOPEWELL REDEVELOPMENT: Joint Bid for Rule 23 Class Cert. Filed

IMAGINATION INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Scarpino Says
INMATE SERVICES: Stearns Seeks to Certify Inmates Class & Subclass
INNATE PHARMA: Faces Golovanov Suit Over Drop in Share Price
INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Liu Appeals S.D.N.Y. Ruling to 2nd Cir.
INTERNATIONAL BONDED: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Higuera Claims

IOWA PLAYHOUSE: Groove Seeks Permission to Issue Notice to Dancers
ISEC INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime to Foremen, Castillo Claims
JACOBY & MEYERS: Harding et al. Seek to Certify Class
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Awaits Trial Date in Contact Lens-Related Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend cART Antitrust Suit

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend INVOKANA(R) Suits
KSR SQUARE: Underpays Customer Service Representatives, Duran Says
LA RISARALDA: Faces Atenco Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
LANCER FOOD: Court Certifies Workers Class in Gardner Suit
LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Tanious Balks at Misclassification of Drivers

LEXINFINTECH HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Reminds of November 9 Deadline
LIBERTY UNIVERSITY: Students Seek to Certify Class
LOYAL SOURCE: Guerrero FLSA Suit Moved From M.D. Fla. to S.D. Tex.
LOYALTY BRANDS: CEO Suit Dismissed by Court of Appeals
LUBRITECH: Fails to Pay Overtime to Operators, Peery Suit Claims

LUFTHANSA: Conditional Cert. of Aircraft Inspectors Class Sought
MAILMYPRESCRIPTIONS.COM: Website Not ADA Compliant, DelaCruz Says
MAIN STREET: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
MARINE DENTAL: Faces Joung FLSA Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MATHESON TRI-GAS: Groves FLSA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Texas

MATSON MONEY: Lures Investors to Sham Investments, Zimmerman Says
MAXIM INTEGRATED: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
MICROSOFT CORP: Khalid Appeals Ruling in Antitrust Suit to 9th Cir
MIDLAND CREDIT: Debiase Sues in New Jersey Over FDCA Violation
MIDLAND FUNDING: Fails to Protect Confidential Info, Davis Alleges

MISSOURI: Court Certifies Defendant Class
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Cruz Employment Suit Goes to E.D. California
MULHOLLAND ENERGY: Estrada Suit Wins Conditional Class Status
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Asks Court to Decertify Class & 4 Subclasses
NAVIENT CORP: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Hyland Suit

NEW YORK TEAMSTERS: Carlisle Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
NEW YORK: Not Dead Yet Alleges Disabilities Act Violations
NIKE INC: Saleh Alleges Wiretapping of Web Site Visitors
NIKOLA CORP: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of November 16 Deadline
NIKOLA CORPORATION: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of Nov. 16 Deadline

NIKOLA CORPORATION: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of November 16 Deadline
NISSAN NA: Hagenbaugh Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania
NOBLE ENERGY: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
NORTH PACIFIC SEAFOODS: Torres Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
OMOROVICZA COSMETICS: Faces Monegro ADA Suit in S.D. New York

ONESPAN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Class Action
PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL: Faces Patel Insurance Suit in Tennessee
PEORIA DISPOSAL: Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot
PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Kunta Class Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: Dorion Class Complaint Has Not Yet Been Served

PHILIP MORRIS: Semple Class Action Ongoing
PHILLIPS 66: Robbins Seeks to Certify 6 Classes
PORTLAND GENERAL: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Class Action
PRECIGEN INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Dec. 4 Deadline
PROGENITY INC: Abraham Fruchter Reminds of Class Action

PROGENITY INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Class Action
PROPETRO SERVICES: Hourly Paid Workers' Suit Wins Class Status
QUTOUTIAO INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Class Action
RENTGROW INC: McIntyre Seeks Class Status for FCRA Suit
RESOURCE MARKETING: Class Counsel Awarded $71,545 in Fees

REZA FAST FOOD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Leonardo Suit Claims
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Dec. 7 Deadline
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Baclija Suit Seeks to Certify Class
SHANGHAI CITY: Court Certifies Kitchen Workers Class
SIMON'S AGENCY: Stephenson-Ortiz Seeks to Certify Class Status

SIMPLY ORANGE: Turnipseed Sues Over Deceptive Product Labels
SIXTH AVENUE: Perez Seeks Conditional Certification of Collective
SPECTRANETICS CORP: Certification of Settlement Class Sought
SPIZZIGO ENTERPRISES: Marino Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
STAAR SURGICAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action

STAAR SURGICAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Actions
STATE FARM: Boobuli's Sues Over Excessive Premiums Amid COVID-19
STEMILT AG: Renteria Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. Washington
STRYKER CORPORATION: Picetti Employment Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
SUNPATH LTD: Morales Sues in Delaware Over Alleged TCPA Violation

TACTILE SYSTEMS: Rosen Law Reminds of November 30 Deadline
TD ASSET: Class Action Against Toronto-Dominion Certified
TEVA BRANDED: Appelbaum Files Personal Injury Suit in S.D. Fla.
TEXAS EDUCATION: Class Certification Sought in Alvarez Suit
THERMOFLEX WAUKEGAN: Insurers Won't Cover Class Suit Costs

TORO FOODS: Leon Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action
TREK RETAIL: Frias-Estrada Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Valdez Labor Class Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
US FOODS: Woodard Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Delivery Drivers
VAXART INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action

VERA LLOYD: Collective Status Sought in House Parents Action
WARNER BROS: O'Connor Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
WASHINGTON: 9th Cir. Affirms District Court Ruling in "Danielson"
WEST END VILLA: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit
WEST TOWN BANK: Somerville Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses

WORCESTER COUNTY, MD: Court Certifies 3 Classes in Coreas Suit
WRAP TECH: Howard G. Smith Reminds of November 23 Deadline
WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Nov. 23 Deadline
WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Nov. 23 Deadline
XPO PORT: Class Certification Bid Granted in Part

YOUTUBE INC: Tort Class Suit Removed to N.D. California

                            *********

3M CO: Billing Class Suit Still Stayed in Alabama Court
-------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that the proceedings in the
"Billing" case remains stayed.

In August 2016, a group of over 200 plaintiffs filed a putative
class action against West Morgan-East Lawrence Water and Sewer
Authority (Water Authority), 3M, Dyneon, Daikin, BFI Waste Systems
of Alabama (BFI), and the City of Decatur in state court in
Lawrence County, Alabama (the "Billings" case).

Plaintiffs are residents of Lawrence, Morgan and other counties who
are or have been customers of the Water Authority.

They contend defendants have released PFAS that contaminate the
Tennessee River and, in turn, their drinking water, causing damage
to their health and properties.

In January 2017, the court in the St. John case, stayed this
litigation pending resolution of the St. John case.

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

3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.


3M CO: St. John Class Action Remains Stayed
-------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that the St. John class action
remains stayed.

A former employee filed a putative class action lawsuit against 3M,
BFI Waste Management Systems of Alabama, and others in the Circuit
Court of Morgan County, Alabama (the "St. John" case), seeking
property damage from exposure to certain perfluorochemicals at or
near the Company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility.

The parties have agreed to continue to stay the St. John case
through December 2020, pending ongoing mediation between the
parties involved in this case and another case (the Tennessee
Riverkeeper, Inc. case).

Two additional putative class actions filed in the same court by
certain residents in the vicinity of the Decatur plant seeking
relief on similar grounds (the Chandler case and the Stover case,
respectively) are stayed pending the resolution of class
certification issues in the St. John case.

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

3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.


AAA: Former Employees Fight For Wages in Class Action Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
glassbytes.com reports that Elizabeth Longoria and Melissa Gomez
have become the lead plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against
defendant American Automobile Association (AAA).  The class action
complaint alleges the association violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) and the Arizona Wage Act. The plaintiffs are seeking
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, as well as
attorney fees and costs.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs and other customer
service representatives (CSRs) were not paid for time spent working
off of the clock. However the tasks performed were classified as
"integral work" by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs allege that they were "required to work
'off-the-clock' whereby they performed integral work prior to the
start of their scheduled shift and while 'clocked out' without any
compensation, including overtime pay" and that they were required
to perform tasks that included clearing computer cookies and
opening maps and customer information software on their computers
prior to the start of their shifts. According to the complaint the
tasks amounted to two and a half hours of work weekly in addition
to their regular 40-hour workweek.

"The process took about 30 minutes due to AAA's underperforming
computers, [that] the CSRs often had to restart … several times,"
a portion of the class action complaint reads.

The plaintiffs also claim AAA's timekeeping system created
discrepancies, because each CSR was responsible to record their own
hours worked. They also had to sign in and out of the association's
phone system, which according to the complaint, allowed for
instances where an employee might forgot to sign out of the phone
system during a break or at the end of shift. Failure to keep an
accurate time sheet resulted in the employee being out of
conformance, according to the class action complaint.

AAA did not respond to the allegations in the class action
complaint as of press time.

Look to a future edition of glassBYTEs for continued coverage of
this suit. [GN]

ABBVIE INC: KPH Healthcare Sues Over Monopoly of Bystolic Market
----------------------------------------------------------------
KPH HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., a/k/a KINNEY DRUGS, INC.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
ABBVIE INC.; ALLERGAN, INC.; ALLERGAN SALES, LLC; ALLERGAN USA,
INC.; FOREST LABORATORIES, INC.; FOREST LABORATORIES HOLDINGS,
LTD.; FOREST LABORATORIES, LLC; and FOREST LABORATORIES IRELAND,
LTD., Case No. 1:20-cv-08754 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2020) is brought
on behalf of the Plaintiff and a putative class of direct
purchasers of Bystolic during the period from July 9, 2016 until
the anticompetitive effects of the Defendants' conduct cease.

Bystolic is used to treat high blood pressure and contains the
active pharmaceutical ingredient nebivolol hydrochloride or
nebivolol HCl.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants engaged in an unlawful
conspiracy to monopolize the Bystolic market in violation of
Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. To prevent generic competition
for Bystolic, Forest orchestrated a series of unlawful
reverse-payment agreements (also known as "pay for delay" deals)
with potential generic competitors. As a result of the Defendants'
anticompetitive conduct, the Plaintiff and members of a putative
direct purchaser class sustained damages by paying more for
Bystolic than they otherwise would have paid in the absence of the
Defendants' unlawful conduct.

AbbVie, Inc., is an American biopharmaceutical company with its
corporate headquarters at 1 North Waukegan Road, in North Chicago,
Illinois.

Headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey, Allergan, Inc., is a
global pharmaceutical company that focused on eye care,
neurosciences, medical dermatology, medical aesthetics, breast
enhancement, obesity intervention and urologics. Based in Madison,
New Jersey, Allergan Sales, LLC, is a pharmaceutical company that
provides eye care, medical aesthetics and dermatology,
gastroenterology, women's health, urology, and anti-infective
therapeutic diseases related products.

Allergan USA, Inc., is a pharmaceutical company that develops and
markets medicines for overactive bladders, urinary tract
infections, and menopause symptoms, well as urinary
analgesic-antiseptic products, with its principal place of business
located in Madison, New Jersey.

Forest Laboratories, Inc., is a pharmaceutical company with its
principal place of business located in New York City. Forest
Laboratories Holdings, Ltd., is a pharmaceutical company with
principal place of business located in Hamilton, Bermuda. Forest
Laboratories Ireland Ltd. is a pharmaceutical company with a place
of business in Dublin, Ireland. Forest Laboratories, LLC, is a
pharmaceutical company with its principal place of business located
at in Parsippany, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
          NASTLAW LLC
          1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 923-9300
          Facsimile: (215) 923-9302
          E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
          ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A.
          20 Rahling Circle
          Little Rock, AR 72223
          Telephone: (501) 821-5575
          Facsimile: (501) 821-4474
          E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us

               - and -

          Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
          SPERLING & SLATER, P.C.
          55 W. Monroe St, Suite 3200
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 641-3200
          E-mail: jvanek@sperling-law.com

ACCESS ONE: Faces Corbin TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
MITCH CORBIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ACCESS ONE CONSUMER HEALTH, INC., a Florida
corporation, PRODIGY HEALTH GROUP LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, Defendants, Case No. 9:20-cv-81959-AHS (S.D. Fla., October
23, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against the
Defendants for their alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff claims that he received numerous calls on his
personal cell phone number ending in 7570, which was registered on
the National Do-Not-Call Registry on or about September 2019, from
a number ending in 8652 beginning on August 26, 2020.

According to the complaint, the live sales representative to whom
the Plaintiff was transferred in each of the calls he answered is
believed to be Defendant Prodigy, who used an "automatic telephone
dialing system" (ATDS), without obtaining the Plaintiff's prior
express written consent.

The Plaintiff asserts that he was damaged by the Defendants'
unsolicited calls on his personal cell phone as his privacy was
wrongfully invaded, his seclusion was intruded upon, and he has
become understandably aggravated with having to deal with the
frustration of repeated unwanted phone calls.

Access One Consumer Health, Inc. and Prodigy Health Group LLC are
companies that engage in the marketing, sale, and finance of
medical service discount contracts to consumers across the country.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          805 East Broward Blvd., Suite 301
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Tel: (954) 871-0050
          E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com

                - and –

          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
          Michael Pascucci, Esq.
          EGGNATZ|PASCUCCI
          7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Tel: (954) 889-3359
          E-mail: jeggnatz@justiceearned.com
                  mpascucci@justiceearned.com


ALLEGIS GLOBAL: Duran Files Class Suit in Calif. Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allegis Global
Solutions, Inc., et al. The case is styled as ANGELA DURAN, ON
BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. ADECCO USA,
INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION; ALLEGIS GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC., A
MARYLAND CORPORATION; ALLEGIS GROUP HOLDINGS, INC., A MARYLAND
CORPORATION; ADELE ALVAREZ, AN INDIVIDUAL; BEELINE.COM, INC., A
FLORIDA CORPORATION; BEST BUY WAREHOUSING LOGISTICS, INC., A
SURRENDERED DELAWARE CORPORATION; and DOES 1 THROUGH 100,
INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC20587209 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty.,
Oct. 7, 2020).

A case management conference is set for March 10, 2021, before
Judge Samuel K. Feng.

Allegis Global Solutions, Inc. is a provider of talent
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
          BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1801 Century Park East, Suite 2600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 438-5555
          Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
          E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com

ALLERTON DELI: Ramales Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
EMANUEL RAMALES, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALLERTON DELI GROCERY INC. (D/B/A ALLERTON
DELI & GROCERY) and TOWFIK ALI SALEH, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-08901 (S.D.N.Y., October 23, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook at the deli
grocery.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants
in excess of 40 hours per week, but the Defendants did not pay him
appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for all the
hours that he worked over 40 at the rate of one and one-half times
his regular rate of pay. Additionally, the Defendants failed to
maintain accurate records of the hours worked by the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees.

Allerton Deli Grocery Inc. owns, operates, or controls a deli
grocery, located at 801 Allerton Ave., Bronx, New York 10467.
Towfik Ali Saleh serves as owner, manager, principal, or agent of
the corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALPINE TOWING: Chappotin Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SANTIAGO CHAPPOTIN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALPINE TOWING, INC., a Florida
Profit Corporation and LARRY J. SARAVIA, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-24385-MGC (S.D. Fla., October 26, 2020) arises
from the Defendants' alleged unlawful employment policies and
practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff performed work for the Defendants as a non-exempt
dispatcher from on or about 2017 until on or about September 4,
2020.

The Plaintiff claims that he regularly worked at least 72 hours per
work week, but the Defendants did not compensate him for all
overtime he worked. The Defendants allegedly paid him below the
minimum applicable hourly wage rate and not at a rate of one and
one-half times of his regular rate for all the overtime hours he
worked.

Alping Towing, Inc. provides towing services to automobile owners.
Larry J. Saravia is a corporate officer of, and exercised
operational control over the activities of Alpine Towing. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathaly Saavedra, Esq.
          Juan J. Perez, Esq.
          PEREGONZA THE ATTORNEYS, PLLC
          1414 NW 107th Ave., Suite 302
          Doral, FL 33172
          Tel: (786) 650-0202
          Fax: (786) 650-0200
          E-mail: nathaly@peregonza.com
                  juan@peregonza.com


ALTERYX INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Alteryx, Inc. ("Alteryx" or the "Company") (NYSE:AYX) and
certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States
District Court for the Central District of California, and docketed
under 20-cv-01886, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise, acquired
Alteryx securities between May 6, 2020 and August 6, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against
the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Alteryx securities during
the class period, you have until October 19, 2020, to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Alteryx is a data analytics company that offers a
subscription-based platform for customers to access, prepare, and
analyze data from a multitude of sources, then deploy and share
analytics at scale to make data-driven decisions.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) that the Company was unable to
close large deals within the quarter and deals were pushed out to
subsequent quarters or downsized; (ii) that, as a result, Alteryx
increasingly relied on adoption licenses to attract new customers;
(iii) that, as a result, and because of the nature of adoption
licenses, the Company's revenue was reasonably likely to decline;
and (iv) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On August 6, 2020, the Company announced in a press release its
second-quarter 2020 financial results, and disappointing growth
projections for the third quarter and full-year 2020. Therein,
Alteryx stated that, for the third quarter, it expected revenue "to
be in the range of $111.0 million to $115.0 million, an increase of
7% to 11% year-over-year." Moreover, for the fiscal year 2020, the
Company expected revenue "to be in the range of $460.0 million to
$465.0 million, an increase of 10% to 11% year-over-year."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $47.62 per share, or
over 28%, to close at $121.38 per share on August 7, 2020, thereby
injuring investors. The stock price continued to decline over the
next trading session by $12.15 per share, or 10%, to close at
$109.23 per share on August 10, 2020, representing a cumulative
decline of $59.77 per share, or over 35%.

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

ALTERYX INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminded
purchasers of the securities of the Alteryx, Inc. (NYSE: AYX)
between May 6, 2020 and August 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important October 19, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline
in the case. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Alteryx
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Alteryx class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1933.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Alteryx was unable to close large deals within the
quarter and deals were pushed out to subsequent quarters or
downsized; (2) as a result, Alteryx increasingly relied on adoption
licenses to attract new customers; (3) as a result and due to the
nature of adoption licenses, the Company’s revenue was reasonably
likely to decline; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants’ positive statements about Alteryx’s business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October
19, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1933.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

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

AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminded
purchasers of the securities of American Electric Power Company,
Inc. (NYSE: AEP) between November 2, 2016 and July 24, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important October 19, 2020
lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for AEP investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the AEP class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1913.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October
19, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1913.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

Contact Information:

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


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Appeal in Anti-Steering Rules Litigation Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the plaintiffs'
appeal in the putative class action suit entitled, In re: American
Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation (II), is pending.

A putative merchant class action in the Eastern District of New
York, consolidated in 2011 and collectively captioned In re:
American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation (II),
alleged that provisions in the company's merchant agreements
prohibiting merchants from differentially surcharging the company's
cards or steering a customer to use another network's card or
another type of general-purpose card ("anti-steering" and
"non-discrimination" contractual provisions) violate U.S. antitrust
laws.

On January 15, 2020, the company's motion to compel arbitration of
claims brought by merchants who accept American Express and to
dismiss claims of merchants who do not was granted.

Plaintiffs have appealed part of this decision.

American Express Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
charge and credit payment card products, and travel-related
services to consumers and businesses worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Global Consumer Services Group, Global Commercial
Services, and Global Merchant and Network Services. American
Express Company was founded in 1850 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.


AMERICAN FAMILY: Hesselink Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as BRENT HESSELINK, individually and on behalf
of aggrieved employees v. AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF
COLUMBUS and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
30-2020-01161586-CU-OECXC, was removed from the Superior Court for
the State of California for the County of Orange to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on October
24, 2020.

The Clerk Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:20-cv-02051 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code Private Attorneys' General Act including
failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages, failure to provide
meal and rest periods, failure to timely pay wages during
employment and upon termination, failure to provide accurate wage
statements, failure to maintain accurate employment records,
failure to reimburse business expenses, and unlawful withholding of
wages.

American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus is an insurance
company based in Columbus, Georgia. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
      
         
         Esra Acikalin Hudson, Esq.
         MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
         2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 312-4000
         Facsimile: (310) 312-4224
         E-mail: ehudson@manatt.com

                  - and –

         Michael E. Olsen, Esq.
         MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
         695 Town Center Drive, 14th Floor
         Costa Mesa, CA 92626
         Telephone: (714) 371-2500
         Facsimile: (714) 371-2550
         E-mail: molsen@manatt.com

AMERICAN FAMILY: Wilkerson Files 6th Cir. Appeal in Insurance Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Nanika Wilkerson filed an appeal from a court ruling
issued in her lawsuit entitled Nanika Wilkerson v. American Family
Insurance Co., Case No. 1:19-cv-02425, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.

On October 17, 2019, Plaintiff Nanika Wilkerson brought this class
action lawsuit on behalf of herself and all persons insured under
an Ohio policy issued by Defendant covering private passenger
automobiles, who made a total-loss property damage claim and were
not paid the full sales tax, title transfer fees and registration
fees. The Plaintiff was involved in an accident while driving her
2010 Chevrolet Impala on April 21, 2016. The Plaintiff filed a
claim under her Policy with Defendant. Defendant determined that
there was coverage, that the cost to repair exceeded the actual
cash value ("ACV") and that the vehicle was a total loss. Plaintiff
concedes that the loss exceeded the ACV and that Defendant was only
liable to pay the ACV. Defendant paid Plaintiff $9,479.00, the base
value less the deductible.

The Plaintiff alleges, however, that the Defendant's failure to pay
the actual cash value of total-loss vehicles, including mandatory
state and local sales tax, title fees, and registration fees,
constitutes a material breach of contract with her and with every
member of the putative class.

The Defendant moves for dismissal of Plaintiff's class action
complaint because, by the plain language of the policy, Defendant
promised to pay the ACV of the damaged property and not sales tax
or fees associated with a replacement vehicle. Thus, Plaintiff's
class action complaint fails to state a claim for breach of
contract.

The Plaintiff contends that because ACV can reasonably be
interpreted to include necessary replacement costs, and because
sales tax, transfer fees and registration fees are necessary
replacement costs, the complaint plausibly alleges that Defendant
breached the insurance contract.

The appellate case is captioned as Nanika Wilkerson v. American
Family Insurance Co., Case No. 20-4113, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant brief is due on November 30, 2020; and

   -- Appellee brief is due on December 30, 2020.[BN]

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

          Beau D. Hollowell, Esq.
          Daniel Richard Karon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL R. KARON
          700 W. Clair Avenue, Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 241-8172
          E-mail: bhollowell@karonllc.com
                  dkaron@karonllc.com

Defendant-Appellee AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY is represented
by:

          Adam Arceneaux, Esq.
          Jennifer R. Buchheit, Esq.
          ICE MILLER
          One American Square, Suite 2900
          Indianapolis, IN 46282
          Telephone: (317) 236-2137
          E-mail: adam.arceneaux@icemiller.com
                  jenny.buchheit@icemiller.com

               - and -

          Steven D. Forry, Esq.
          Lydia F. Reback, Esq.
          ICE MILLER
          250 West Street, Suite 700
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 462-2700
          E-mail: steven.forry@icemiller.com
                  lydia.reback@icemiller.com

AMNET SERVICES: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL CROCKETT and
PATRICK IVLOW-PAQUETTE, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. AMNET SERVICES, INC. And CROSSLINK WIRELESS,
L.L.C., Case No. 4:20-cv-00417-RK (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs
Michael Crockett and Patrick Ivlow-Paquette ask the Court for an
order conditionally certifying a collective action of, and
authorizing the issuance of notice to:

   "all individuals who held the positions of RF Engineer and/or
   Drive Tester with, and who were classified by Defendant
   Crosslink Wireless, LLC and/or Defendant Amnet Services, Inc.
   as independent contractors during the last three years."

AmNet is a technology-focused company engaged in providing value
add services and intelligent solutions for the wireless Carriers
and Enterprise customers. Crosslink is a telecommunication
company.

A copy of Plaintiffs' pre-discovery motion for conditional
certification of a collective action is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3j2g0OB at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          M. Katherine Paulus, Esq.
          Ryan M. Paulus, Esq.
          Brittany C. Mehl, Esq.
          Jessica M. McDowell, Esq.
          CORNERSTONE LAW FIRM
          5821 NW 72nd Street
          Kansas City, MO 64151
          Telephone: (816) 581-4040
          Facsimile: (816) 741-8889
          E-mail: m.paulus@cornerstonefirm.com
                  r.paulus@cornerstonefirm.com
                  b.mehl@cornerstonefirm.com
                  j.mcdowell@cornerstonefirm.com

APPLE INC: Second Cir. Appeal Filed in Lerman Consumer Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Apple Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
the lawsuit entitled CHAIM LERMAN, ROSLYN WILLIAMS, and JAMES
VORRASI, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs. APPLE INC., the Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-7381,
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
(Brooklyn).

The questions presented are: 1. Is class certification improper
when individualized issues make it impossible to answer essential
questions of injury on a class-wide basis under Plaintiffs' theory
of liability, which here required a user-specific weighing of
benefits of an operating system software update against an alleged
slowdown"? 2. Is class certification improper when Plaintiffs'
damages theory does not match their liability theory and can the
availability of statutory damages excuse this mismatch?

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on January 2,
2020, Plaintiffs ask the Court for an Order:

   1. certifying these classes:

      New York Class:

      "all individuals and entities in New York who currently own
      or have owned an iPhone 4s that was updated from iOS 7 or
      iOS 8 to iOS 9";

      New Jersey Class:

      "all individuals and entities in New Jersey who currently
      own or have owned an iPhone 4s that was updated from iOS 7
      or iOS 8 to iOS 9";

   2. appointing Chaim Lerman and Roslyn Williams as Class
      Representatives of the New York Class and James Vorrasi as
      Class Representative of the New Jersey Class; and

   3. appointing Pomerantz LLP and Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman,
      LLC as Class Counsel.

The Plaintiffs and the class bring this action against Apple Inc.
for deceptive trade practices and false advertising in violation of
New York General Business Law and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act. The Plaintiffs and other owners of the iPhone 4s were harmed
when their devices' software was updated to the newest version, iOS
9. The update significantly slowed down their iPhones and
interfered with the normal usage of the device, leaving Plaintiffs
with a difficult choice: use a slow and buggy device that disrupts
everyday life or spend hundreds of dollars to buy a new phone.
Apple explicitly represented to the public that iOS 9 is compatible
with and supports the iPhone 4s. This is also obvious from the fact
that Apple made the software available for the iPhone 4s, but not
for older versions of the iPhone.

The petition raises important issues concerning the rigor that the
predominance inquiry requires in proposed class actions under Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Despite issuing a
lengthy opinion, the district court did not fulfil its duty
carefully to scrutinize critical evidence and precedent. In so
doing, it ignored individualized injury issues that create fatal
dissimilarities among class members. The court compounded those
errors by misapplying damages models to bypass these individual
issues. These errors in the district court's class certification
order warrant immediate review.

The appellate case is captioned as Lerman v. Apple Inc., Case No.
20-3627, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents Chaim Lerman, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated; James Vorrasi; and Roslyn Williams are
represented by:

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN
          60 East 42nd Street
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-8209
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com

               - and -

          Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com

Defendant-Petitioner Apple Inc. is represented by:

          Keara M. Gordon, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 335-4500
          E-mail: keara.gordon@dlapiper.com

ARNOT HEALTH: Fails to Pay Off-the-Clock Work, Zona Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
TAMMY ZONA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARNOT HEALTH, INC., ARNOT OGDEN MEDICAL
CENTER, ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL, and QUEST STAFFING GROUP, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 6:20-cv-06902 (W.D.N.Y., October 28, 2020) is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of the New
York Labor Law including failure to compensate the Plaintiff and
all others similarly situated nurses for their off-the-clock work
and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt traveling
nurse in New York for six years.

Arnot Health, Inc. is a healthcare services company based in
Elmira, New York.

Arnot Ogden Medical Center is a 256-bed tertiary medical facility
located in Elmira, New York.

St. Joseph's Hospital is a provider of skilled nursing care,
out-patient rehabilitation, and in-patient behavioral science
services located in Elmira, New York.

Quest Staffing Group, Inc. is a Texas-based company that connects
traveling nurses with employers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         John J. Nestico, Esq.
         SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
         6000 Fairview Road, Suite 1200
         Charlotte, NC 28210
         Telephone: (510) 740-2946
         Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
         E-mail: jnestico@schneiderwallace.com

                 - and –
         
         Joshua Konecky, Esq.
         Leslie Joyner, Esq.
         Nathan Piller, Esq.
         Sarah McCracken, Esq.
         2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
         Emeryville, CA 94608
         Telephone: (415) 421-7100
         Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
         E-mail: jkonecky@schnedierwallace.com
                 ljoyner@schneiderwallace.com
                 npiller@schneiderwallace.com
                 smccracken@schneiderwallace.com

ATLAS LAW: Settlement in Curtis Suit Wins Final Court OK
--------------------------------------------------------
The settlement in the class action lawsuit captioned as LEONARD
CURTIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v.
ATLAS LAW, PLLC, Case No. 8:19-cv-01811-MSS-AEP (M.D. Fla.), has
won final court approval.

The final settlement approval hearing was held September 29.  The
Parties had asked the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class for settlement purposes;

   2. granting final approval of the parties' proposed
      settlement agreement; and

   3. appointing the Plaintiff and his counsel as
      representatives of the Class for final settlement
      purposes.

On April 2, 2020, the Court conditionally certified a settlement
Class in this action and preliminary approved the Parties' proposed
settlement agreement.

After providing the other 733 Class members with notice of the
proposed settlement, no objections have been received, no Class
member has requested exclusion from the Class, and 46 Class members
submitted valid claims. If the Court grants final approval of the
proposed settlement, the Settlement Fund of $3,500.00 will be
equally divided among the 46 Class members who submitted
claims--with each receiving a check for $76.08, the suit says.

This action has been brought under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant sent him
its initial written communication seeking to collect the Debt.

The Plaintiff is a consumer alleged to owe money arising from
mobile home rental fees.

The Defendant is a law firm alleged to be a "debt collector" under
the FDCPA based on its consumer debt collection activities.

A copy of the Joint Motion for Class Certification is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/303xseR at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex D. Weisberg, Esq.
          WEISBERG CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PA
          5846 S. Flamingo Rd, Ste. 290
          Cooper City, FL 33330
          Telephone: (954) 212-2184
          Facsimile: (866) 577-0963 fax
          E-mail: aweisberg@afclaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Dale T. Golden, Esq.
          GOLDEN SCAZ GAGAIN, PLLC
          201 North Armenia Avenue
          Tampa, FL 33609-2303
          Telephone: (813) 251-5500
          Facsimile: (813) 251-3675
          E-mail: dgolden@gsgfirm.com

AURORA CANNABIS: Bernstein Liebhard Announces of Dec. 1 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action has been filed on
behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of
Aurora Cannabis Inc. ("Aurora" or the "Company") (NYSE: ACB)
between February 13, 2020 and September 4, 2020 (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) Aurora had significantly overpaid for previous
acquisitions and experienced degradation in certain assets,
including its production facilities and inventory; (ii) the
Company's purported "business transformation plan" and cost reset
failed to mitigate the foregoing issues; (iii) accordingly, it was
foreseeable that the Company would record significant goodwill and
asset impairment charges; and (iv) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On September 8, 2020, Aurora issued a press release "announc[ing]
an update on its business operations along with certain unaudited
preliminary fiscal fourth-quarter 2020 results." Among other
things, Aurora announced that the Company expected to record up to
$1.8 billion in goodwill impairment charges in the fourth quarter
of 2020. The Company also announced that "previously announced
fixed asset impairment charges [were] now expected to be up to $90
million, due to production facility rationalization, and a charge
of approximately $140 million in the carrying value of certain
inventory, predominantly trim, in order to align inventory on hand
with near term expectations for demand." On this news, Aurora's
stock price fell $0.99 per share, or 11.63% to close at $7.52 per
share on September 8, 2020.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 1, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Aurora securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/auroracannabisinc-acb-shareholder-class-action-stock-fraud-lawsuit-322/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

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

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2020 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.

         Matthew E. Guarnero
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         Tel No: (877) 779-1414
         E-mail: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]

AWP INC: Faces Salmeri FLSA Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
GARY SALMERI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AWP INC., D/B/A AREA WIDE PROTECTIVE,
Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-02412 (N.D. Ohio, October 23, 2020)
brings this collective action complaint against the Defendant for
its alleged failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
non-exempt traffic control specialist since March 2017.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other
similarly-situated employees were paid shift differential wages for
working on shifts that started in the evening, and safety bonuses
if they worked enough hours and had no preventable injuries and
accident. However, the Defendant failed to include the shift
differential wags and bonuses paid to the Plaintiff and other
similarly-situated employees in their regular rate of pay in the
calculation of their overtime compensation. As a result, the
Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated
employees their lawfully earned overtime wages at the proper rate
at one and one-half times of their regular rate of ay as required
by the FLSA.

AWP Inc. provides temporary traffic control services at work sites
throughout the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          920 Rocketfeller Building
          614 W. Superior Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Tel: (216) 696-5000
          Fax: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  lori@lazzarolawfirm.com


AXA EQUITABLE: Malek Files RICO Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AXA Equitable Life
Insurance Co., et al. The case is styled as Joel J. Malek,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Leonard Feigenbaum; Does 1 through 1000; and AXA Equitable Life
Insurance Co., Case No. 2:20-cv-04885-JMA-AKT (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 9,
2020).

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

The case is assigned to Judge Joan M. Azrack.

AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company provides insurance services.
The Company offers term, universal, and whole life insurance
services, as well as provides retirement and investment products.
AXA Equitable Life Insurance serves customers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory Alan Frank, Esq.
          FRANK LLP
          305 Broadway, Ste 700
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 682-1853
          Facsimile: (212) 682-1892
          E-mail: gfrank@frankllp.com

BAIDU INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Baidu, Inc. (NASDAQ: BIDU) investors
that acquired shares between April 24, 2020 and June 3, 2020.
Investors have until August 7, 2020 to seek an active role in this
litigation.

Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case.

Baidu founded iQIYI in 2010. Baidu currently owns an approximately
56% controlling interest in iQIYI.

After the market closed on August 13, 2020, iQIYI announced that
the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission sought "the production of
certain financial and operating records dating from January 1,
2018, as well as documents related to certain acquisitions and
investments that were identified in a report issued by short-seller
firm Wolfpack Research in April 2020."

Baidu's American depositary share ("ADS") price fell $7.83 per ADS,
or 6%, on this news, to close at $116.74 per ADS on August 14,
2020, damaging investors.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October
19, 2020.

Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.

The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]


BIMBO BAKERIES: Boswell Sues Over Loaf Cake's Misleading Labels
---------------------------------------------------------------
MONICA BOSWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-08923 (S.D.N.Y., October 25, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of New York General Business
Law, negligent misrepresentation, breaches of express warranty,
implied warranty of merchantability and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act,
fraud, and unjust enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false and misleading
advertising and labeling of its loaf cake product under the
Entenmann's brand. The representations of the product as "All
Butter Loaf Cake" are misleading because butter is not the sole
shortening ingredient in the product, as shown by the small print
of the ingredient list. Though the product contains butter, it also
contains soybean oil, a shortening ingredient. Moreover, the
product contains artificial flavor, which provides artificial
butter flavoring, which gives the impression that it contains more
butter than it does by increasing the butter taste.

As a result of the Defendant's deceptive practice, the product is
sold at a premium price compared to other similar products
represented in an appropriate manner, the suit says.

Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. is the American corporate arm of the
Mexican multinational bakery product manufacturing company Grupo
Bimbo, with a principal place of business in Horsham, Pennsylvania.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                  
                           
         Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
         SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         60 Cuttermill Rd. Ste. 409
         Great Neck, NY 11021-3104
         Telephone: (516) 260-7080
         Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
         E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

BLUE DIAMOND: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Romero Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSUE ROMERO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS, Case No. 1:20-cv-08772 (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 21, 2020) arises from the Defendant's failure to design and
operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people
in violation of the rights under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that during his visits to the Web site,
www.bluediamondstore.com, the last occurring in October 2020, he
encountered multiple access barriers that denied him full and equal
access to the facilities, goods and services offered to the public
and made available to the public; and that denied him the full
enjoyment of the facilities, goods and services of the Web site
equal to sighted individuals.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination and seeks a permanent injunction to
cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices,
and procedures so that its Web site will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

Blue Diamond Growers is an almond growing company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575-4175
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal

BRADSHAW INTERNATIONAL: Faces Monegro ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bradshaw
International, Inc. The case is captioned as Frankie Monegro, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bradshaw
International, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-08379-VSB (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 7,
2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990.

The case is assigned to Judge Vernon S. Broderick.

Bradshaw International, Inc. is an American manufacturer of food
service equipment, headquartered in Rancho Cucamonga, California.
The company owns the brand goodcook and has a partnership with Mr.
Clean.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Paul Force, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com

BRASKEM SA: Schall Law Firm Reminds of October 26 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Sept. 9 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Braskem S.A. ("Braskem" or "the Company") (NYSE:BAK) for violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between May 6,
2016 and July 8, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), were
encouraged to contact the firm before October 26, 2020.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Braskem operated its salt mines in an
unsafe manner resulting in significant danger to the approximately
2,000 properties in the nearby area. The Company's disregard for
safe operations put it at risk for remedial liabilities to these
property's owners, including permanent closure of a salt mine. The
Company downplayed the seriousness of its liabilities in this
regard. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were
false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When
the market learned the truth about Braskem, investors suffered
damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

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

CONTACT:

The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]


BRENNTAG NA: Initial Settlement Approval Sought
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRYANT BUESCHER, CLARENCE
IANNINE, CLARESSA WALLACE, and CRAIG COOK, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA,
INC, BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA, INC., and
BRENNTAG INVESTMENT AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, Case No.
5:20-cv-00147-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order:

   1. granting preliminary approval to the proposed Settlement
      Agreement entered into with the Defendants;

   2. preliminarily certifying the Settlement Class;

   3. approving the form and manner of providing notice of the
      Settlement to the proposed Settlement Class (the Notice
      Plan); and

   4. scheduling a Fairness Hearing.

Brenntag distributes chemicals globally. It serves adhesives,
coatings, elastomers, sealants, ceramics, and chemical
compounding.

A copy of the Court's Order Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/340di6u at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          312 Old Lancaster Road
          Merion Station, PA 19066
          Telephone: (717) 233-4101
          Facsimile: (717) 233-4103

BRUNEL RESOURCES: Goff Seeks OT Pay for Construction Coordinators
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFERY GOFF, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. BRUNEL RESOURCES, INC. And RIO TINTO
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-03536 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 16, 2020),
alleges that the Defendants failed to pay overtime at the rate of
time and one half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked
over 40 in a workweek.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants knowingly and
deliberately failed to compensate the Plaintiff and the Class
Members overtime pay at the rate required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that he worked a total of approximately 125
hours and was paid an hourly rate of $45.50 per hour for all hours
worked. He worked overtime hours during this time period but was
not paid any additional premium for those hours worked over 40 in a
week.

The Plaintiff Jeffery Goff is an individual residing in Herriman,
Utah. The Class Members are all current and former Construction
Coordinators who worked for Defendants and who were paid an hourly
rate of pay without overtime pay.

Brunel is a staffing company that places workers with its client
companies in the oil and gas, mining, engineering, manufacturing,
and IT industries across the U.S. Rio Tinto is a client of Brunel
that primarily operates in the mining industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          Courtney B. Warren, Esq.
          HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
          4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste. 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
                  cwarren@hftrialfirm.com

BUILDERS CONCRETE: Faces Myles Employment Suit in Calif. Super.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Builders Concrete,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as DAMMION MYLES, an individual, on
behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated
v. BUILDERS CONCRETE, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; CONCRETE
HOLDING COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, INC., CORPORATION; VIKING READY MIX
CO., INC., A CORPORATION; and NATIONAL READY MIXED CONCRETE CO., A
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, Case No. BCV-20-102375 (Cal. Super., Kern
Cty., Oct. 9, 2020).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."

A case management conference is set for April 12, 2021 before Judge
Stephen D. Schuett.

Builders Concrete Inc. was founded in 1989. The company's line of
business includes the manufacturing of portland cement
concrete.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by NORMAN B. BLUMENTHAL, ESQ.

CAMINO NATURAL: Johnston Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETTY JEAN JOHNSTON, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. CAMINO
NATURAL RESOURCES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case
No.1:19-cv-02742-CMA-SKC (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
for an order:

   1. certifying a Settlement Class consisting of:

      All non-excluded persons or entities:

      i. who received working interest, royalty, and/or
         overriding royalty payments from Defendant for oil
         and/or gas proceeds from oil and/or gas wells located
         in the State of Oklahoma with check dates up to and
         including May 31, 2020.

     ii. The persons or entities excluded from the class
         are: (1) agencies, departments, or instrumentalities
         of the United States of America or the State of
         Oklahoma; (2) publicly traded oil and gas companies
         and their affiliates";

   2. preliminarily approving the Settlement;

   3. appointing herself as Class Representative for the
      Settlement Class;

   4. appointing Reagan E. Bradford and Ryan K. Wilson of
      Bradford & Wilson PLLC as Class Counsel for the Settlement
      Class;

   5. approving the form and manner of the proposed Notice;

   6. appointing JND Legal Administration as Settlement
      Administrator;

   7. appointing JND Legal Administration as Escrow Agent; and

   8. setting a hearing date for final approval of the
      Settlement and application for an award of Attorneys'
      Fees, Litigation Expenses, and Case Contribution Award to
      the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff has reached a settlement with Defendant worth $2.1
million in cash value for the Plaintiff's claim on statutory
interest owed for late payments of oil-and-gas proceeds under
Oklahoma law.

The Plaintiff initiated this action on September 9, 2019, by filing
the Original Class Action Complaint in this Court, in which she
alleged that the Defendant violated Oklahoma's Production Revenue
Standards Act, by failing to pay statutory interest owed on the
payment of oil-and-gas proceeds made outside of the timelines set
out in the PRSA.

Camino Natural operates as a natural gas company. The Company
explores and develops deposits of crude oil and natural gas.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify settlement class is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34gxR00 at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
          Ryan K. Wilson, Esq.
          BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC
          431 W. Main Street, Suite D
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 698-2770
          Facsimile: (405) 234-5506
          E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com
                  ryan@bradwil.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jonathan W. Rauchway, Esq.
          David Holman, Esq.
          Molly Kokesh, Esq.
          DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS
          1550 17th Street, Suite 500
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: 303 892 9400
          Facsimile: 303.893.1379
          E-mail: jon.rauchway@dgslaw.com
                  david.holman@dgslaw.com
                  molly.kokesh@dgslaw.com

CAMPING WORLD: Court OK's Notice to Settlement Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HARRY A. MILLS and MARY F.
MILLS, v. CAMPING WORLD RV SALES a/k/a CAMPING WORLD OF NEW
JERSEY-LAKEWOOD, MEYER'S RV CENTERS, LLC, Case No.
3:18-cv-02283-TJB (D.N.J.), the Court has entered an order:

   1. approving notice to be sent to the proposed settlement
      class:

      all persons who purchased or leased a motor vehicle from
      the Defendant at any time on or after January 16, 2012,
      the day six years prior the date the initial Complaint was
      filed who: (a) received from Camping World a sales
      document with terms the same or similar to the terms in
      the Purchase Agreement provided to Plaintiffs; and/or (b)
      were charged a "Documentation Fee" or similar fee for
      documentary services where the sales document used in the
      transaction did not set forth in writing the price
      for each specific documentary service performed.
      Specifically excluded from the Classes are any judges or
      magistrates involved in this matter.

   2. appointing interim counsel; and

   3. scheduling fairness hearing

The Court has considered the benefits that the settlement will
confer on the Settlement Class, which are:

   --  The Defendant will pay total payment of $1,603,100.00
       into a Common Fund which will result in a total payment
       of $575.00 per Settlement Class Member account.

   --  Members of the Settlement Class shall receive a total
       payment of $575.00 per Settlement Class Member account.

   --  After the fees and costs referred to below each
       Settlement Class Member will receive a check in the
       amount of approximately $367.23 2 per account.

A  copy of the Court's Order approving notice to be sent to
proposed settlement class is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3kJSbMQ at no extra charge.[CC]

CARE.COM INC: Skelton Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------
SHELBY SKELTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CARE.COM, INC., and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-02086-AJB-DEB (S.D. Cal.,
October 23, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against the
Defendants for its alleged negligent and willful violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants sent numerous
unsolicited text messages on the Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number ending in -7330 on or about August 19, 2020 in an attempt to
solicit the Plaintiff to purchase the Defendants' services. The
Defendants allegedly used its SMS Blasting Platform, which is an
automatic telephone dialing system, in transmitting text messages
without obtaining "prior express consent" from the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated consumers.

The complaint asserts that the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated individuals were harmed by the acts of the Defendants
causing them to incur certain charges or reduced telephone time for
which they had previously paid, and invading their privacy.

Care.com, Inc. is a service company that connects consumers with
caregivers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CDI CORP: Straight Time Employees Class Sought
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN C. VASQUEZ,
individually and on behalf of other similarly situated employees,
v. CDI CORPORATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-01044-TR (E.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. granting conditional certification and authorizing notice
      to be sent (via mail, email, and text message) to:

      "all current and former employees of CDI who were paid the
      same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in
      excess of 40 in a single workweek (or "straight time for
      overtime") at any time in the past 3 years (Straight Time
      Employees).

   2. approving the Notice and Consent forms, as well as the
      proposed email, text, and phone scripts;

   3. authorizing his proposed notice methods;

   4. directing CDI to produce each Straight Time Employee's
      contact information to Plaintiffs' within 10 days; and

   5. authorizing a 60-day notice period for the Straight Time
      Employees to join the case.

A copy of the Vasquez's motion for conditional certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/368xgyK at no
extra charge.[CC]

CDI is a privately-held multinational company providing
engineering, information technology and staffing services to
clients in a range of industries including energy, chemical,
aerospace, defense, transportation and financial services.

Attorneys for the plaintiff & putative class members are:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  tjones@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713-877-8788
          Facsimile: 710-877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          Thomas N. Sweeney, Esq.
          MESSA & ASSOCIATES PC
          123 South 22nd Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 568-3500
          Facsimile: (215) 578-3501
          E-mail: tsweeny@messalaw.com

CHESTER, PA: Pitney Seeks to Certify Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENARD PITNEY, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF CHESTER,
ET AL., Case No. 2:19-cv-00799-PD (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court for an order certifying the case as a class action
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on behalf of:

   "all persons who have been (1) detained in a holding cell at
   the City of Chester Police Department (2) as a result of
   being arrested and/or charged with summary offenses, civil
   enforcement offenses, child support enforcement arrears,
   traffic offenses, petty disorderly offenses, disorderly
   persons offenses, misdemeanors, contempt proceedings, failure
   to pay financial fines, penalties and/or costs in like
   matters as set forth above; and/or failure to appear at any
   court proceedings on like matters as set forth above; and (3)
   who were strip-searched upon their entry into detainment
   and/or custody and/or were strip-searched prior to an
   appearance before a judge or judicial officer who had the
   authority to release the person as referred to above from
   detainment and/or custody and (4) the strip-search was
   conducted and/or performed according to the City of Chester's
   blanket strip search policy, that is, without reasonable
   suspicion based on objective and articulable facts that the
   aforesaid person or persons possessed weapons and/or
   contraband. The class includes persons who were strip
   searched on or after February 25, 2017 and extends to the
   date on which the City of Chester and the Chester Police
   Department are enjoined and/or cease to strip-search the
   class of persons referred to above."

This civil action alleges a blatant violation of plaintiff Kenard
Pitney's constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment. On May
18, 2018, Mr. Pitney was the subject of a questionable arrest by
defendant City of Chester's Police Department ("CPD") while he was
a patron at Harrah's Casino in Chester, Pennsylvania.

Chester is a city in Delaware County, Pennsylvania. With a
population of 33,972 at the 2010 census it is the largest city in
Delaware County.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33QOnCD at no
extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class are:

          Patrick Geckle, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PATRICK G. GECKLE, LLC
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1200
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: 215-735-3326

               - and -

          Alan M. Feldman, Esq.
          Edward S. Goldis, Esq.
          Andrew K. Mitnick, Esq.
          FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER
            TANNER WEINSTOCK & DODIG, LLP
          1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 215 567-8300

CIRCLE GRAPHICS: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind Users, Romero Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSUE ROMERO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CIRCLE GRAPHICS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-08777-LTS
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 21, 2020) arises from the Defendant's failure to
design and operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that during his visits to the Web site,
www.canvasondemand.com, the last occurring in October 2020, he
encountered multiple access barriers that denied him full and equal
access to the facilities, goods and services offered to the public
and made available to the public; and that denied him the full
enjoyment of the facilities, goods and services of the Web site
equal to sighted individuals.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination and seeks a permanent injunction to
cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices,
and procedures so that its Web site will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

Circle Graphics, Inc. is a photo printing company, and owns and
operates the said Web site.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575-4175
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal

COLONY CREDIT: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 9 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Colony Credit Real Estate,
Inc. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have
until the deadline listed to petition the court. Further details
about the case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost
or obligation to you.

CLNC Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/colony-credit-real-estate-inc-information-request-form?prid=9610&wire=1

Colony Credit Real Estate, Inc. (NYSE:CLNC)

This lawsuit is on behalf of persons and/or entities who purchased
or otherwise acquired the common stock of Colony Credit pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's false and/or misleading
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the
combination of Colony NorthStar, Inc., NorthStar Real Estate Income
Trust, Inc., and NorthStar Real Estate Income II, Inc. on or about
February 1, 2018 (the "Merger").

Lead Plaintiff Deadline : November 9, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/colony-credit-real-estate-inc-information-request-form?prid=9610&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, (i) the credit quality of certain
of the Company's assets had deteriorated prior to the Merger, and
were continuing to deteriorate at the time of the Merger; (ii)
certain of the Company's loans, including four loans of
approximately $261 million related to a New York hotel, were
substantially impaired, there was insufficient collateral to secure
the loans, and it was unlikely that the loans would be repaid;
(iii) as a result, the valuation attributed to certain of the
Company's assets was overstated; (iv) that certain of the assets
contributed as part of the Merger were of substantially lower value
than reflected in the Company's financial statements and the
Registration Statement; (v) as a result, the Company's financial
condition, including its book value, was materially overstated; and
(vi) as a result of the foregoing, the positive statements in the
Registration Statement about the Company's business, operations,
and prospect were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

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

According to the filed complaint, (i) the credit quality of certain
of the Company's assets had deteriorated prior to the Merger, and
were continuing to deteriorate at the time of the Merger; (ii)
certain of the Company's loans, including four loans of
approximately $261 million related to a New York hotel, were
substantially impaired, there was insufficient collateral to secure
the loans, and it was unlikely that the loans would be repaid;
(iii) as a result, the valuation attributed to certain of the
Company's assets was overstated; (iv) that certain of the assets
contributed as part of the Merger were of substantially lower value
than reflected in the Company's financial statements and the
Registration Statement; (v) as a result, the Company's financial
condition, including its book value, was materially overstated; and
(vi) as a result of the foregoing, the positive statements in the
Registration Statement about the Company's business, operations,
and prospect were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

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

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

CONCERTO HEALTHCARE: Court Denies Conditional Cert. Bid as Moot
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY MENTH, v. CONCERTO
HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-11514-SJM-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the
Hon. Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III entered an order denying the
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of collective
action and to issue notice, as moot:

   "all current and former salaried, non-managerial employees
   who worked for Concerto Healthcare, Inc., who performed
   utilization review duties (referred to as Utilization
   Management Nurses or "UM Nurses"), at any location and at any
   time after June 10, 2017."

The Plaintiff brought this case against the Defendant alleging
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

ConcertoHealth is a risk-bearing provider group that delivers high
touch, individualized field-based care to persistently high cost
and at-risk populations.

A copy of the Court's order is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3m4pf2H at no extra charge.[CC]

COOLA LLC: Flaherty Alleges Deceptive Sunscreen Products Labels
---------------------------------------------------------------
NORAH FLAHERTY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. COOLA LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-05964 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 7,
2020) seeks legal or equitable remedies from the illegal actions of
the Defendant in violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Businesses Practices.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant intentionally labeled its
sunscreen products with false and misleading claims that they
provide full spectrum infrared light protection, when the
Defendant's products do not provide full spectrum infrared light
protection.

By making false and misleading claims about the protections
provided by its products, the Defendant impaired the Plaintiff's
ability to choose the type and quality of products she chose to
buy. As a result, the Plaintiff has been deprived of her legally
protected interest to obtain true and accurate information about
her consumer products as required by Illinois and federal law.

Coola LLC manufactures, advertises, markets, sells, and distributes
sunscreen throughout Illinois and the United States under the brand
name "Coola."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 619-8966
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com

               - and -

          Steven G. Perry, Esq.
          David B. Levin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          333 Skokie Blvd., Suite 103
          Northbrook, IL 60062
          Telephone: (224) 218-0875
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: steven.perry@toddflaw.com
                  dlevin@toddflaw.com

COSTA LINDA: Martinez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
NELSON A. MARTINEZ, and other similarly situated individuals, v.
COSTA LINDA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-24086-JAL (S.D. Fla., Oct. 6, 2020), seeks to recover money
damages for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff contends that while he is employed by the Defendant,
he worked on some weeks an average of 65 hours per week without
being compensated at the rate of not less than one- and one-half
times the regular rate at which he was employed. Specifically, from
October 5, 2017 through July 21, 2020 (146.71 compensable weeks),
he worked overtime 146.71 weeks, he adds.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida.

Costa Linda Condominium Association is a Florida not for profit
corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tanesha Blye, Esq.
          Aron Smukler, Esq.
          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
          www.saenzanderson.com
          20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
          Adventure, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 503-5131
          Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
          E-mail: tblye@saenzanderson.com
                  asmukler@saenzanderson.com
                  msaenz@saenzanderson.com

COTY INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, on Sept. 8 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of investors that purchased Coty,
Inc. (NYSE: COTY) common stock between October 3, 2016 and May 28,
2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors had until November 3, 2020 to
apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

Coty is one of the world's largest beauty companies. The Company
operates three divisions: Coty Consumer Beauty ("Consumer Beauty")
which focuses on color cosmetics, retail hair coloring and styling
products, body care and mass fragrances sold primarily in the mass
retail channels; Coty Luxury ("Coty Luxury") which focuses on
prestige fragrances and skincare brands; and Coty Professional
Beauty ("Coty Professional") which focuses on servicing nail salon
owners and professionals in both hair and nail.

On the first day of the Class Period, October 3, 2016, Coty issued
a press release announcing the completion of its blockbuster merger
with The Proctor & Gamble Company's fine fragrance, color
cosmetics, salon professional and hair color and certain styling
businesses ("P&G Specialty Beauty Business") for $12.5 billion to
scale up its beauty business. In the press release, defendant
Becht, Chairman of Coty's Board of Directors, confirmed that " . .
. we now have a much improved team, structure and culture to make
the vision of this merger a reality."

On July 1, 2019, Coty announced the write down of about $3 billion
in value of brands acquired from P&G as part of a four-year
restructuring plan, confirming that the P&G Specialty Beauty
Business had been overvalued.

On this news, Coty's stock price dropped $1.94, or over 14%, from
an opening price of $13.53 per share on July 1, 2019 to a closing
price of $11.59 per share.  

On November 18, 2019, Coty announced another beauty brand
acquisition – a 51% majority stake in Kylie Cosmetics for $600
million in order to "build and further develop Kylie's existing
beauty business," which "realized an estimated $177M net revenues
for the trailing twelve months (TTM)." Kylie Jenner was described
"as the youngest-ever self-made billionaire on the cover of Forbes
Self-Made Billionaire issue in August 2018."

But then, on May 29, 2020, Forbes reported that Kylie Jenner "has
been inflating the size and success of her business. For years." --
revealing that defendants had overvalued yet another acquisition.
On this news, Coty's stock price fell $0.56, or over 13%, from a
close of $4.19 on May 28, 2020 to a close of $3.63 per share on May
29, 2020.

The complaint, filed on September 4, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about
Coty's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose: (1) that
despite being no stranger to beauty brand acquisitions, Coty did
not have adequate processes and procedures in place to assess and
properly value the P&G Specialty Beauty Business and Kylie
Cosmetics acquisitions; (2) that as a result, Coty had overpaid for
the P&G Specialty Beauty Business and Kylie Cosmetics; (3) that
Coty did not have adequate infrastructure to smoothly integrate and
support the beauty brands that it acquired from P&G, including an
adequate supply chain; (4) that, as a result of its inadequate
infrastructure, Coty was not successfully integrating the beauty
brands it acquired from P&G and not delivering synergies from the
acquisition; (5) and that, as a result of the foregoing, Coty's
financial statements and defendants' statements about Coty's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased Coty common stock during the Class Period and
suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information,
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Melissa Fortunato, Marion
Passmore, or Brandon Walker by email at investigations@bespc.com,
telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

                About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

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

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


COTY INC: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., reminded investors that
they had until November 3, 2020 to file lead plaintiff applications
in a securities class action lawsuit against Coty, Inc. (NYSE:
COTY), if they purchased the Company's shares between October 3,
2016 and May 28, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").  This action
is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of Coty and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost
to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-coty/ to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by November 3, 2020.

                       About the Lawsuit

Coty and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

The alleged false and misleading statements and omissions include,
but are not limited to, that: (i) the Company did not have adequate
processes and procedures in place to assess and properly value the
acquisitions of P&G Specialty Beauty Business and Kylie Cosmetics
(ii) as a result, the Company had overpaid for the P&G Specialty
Beauty Business and Kylie Cosmetics; (iii) the Company did not have
adequate infrastructure to smoothly integrate and support the
beauty brands that it acquired from P&G, including an adequate
supply chain; (iv) as a result of its inadequate infrastructure,
Coty was not successfully integrating the beauty brands it acquired
from P&G and not delivering synergies from the acquisition; and (v)
as a result of the foregoing, Coty's financial statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On this news, the price of Coty's shares plummeted.

The case is Crystal Garrett-Evans, et al. v. Coty Inc., et al.,
20-cv-07277.

                  About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

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

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

Contact:

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


COTY INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Sept. 8 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Coty Inc. ("Coty" or "the Company") (NYSE: COTY) for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between October 3,
2016 and May 28, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), were
encouraged to contact the firm before November 3, 2020.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Despite being no stranger to beauty brand
acquisitions, Coty did not have adequate processes and procedures
in place to assess and properly value the P&G Specialty Beauty
Business and Kylie Cosmetics acquisitions. As a result, the Company
overpaid for the P&G Specialty Beauty Business and Kylie Cosmetics.
Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false
and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the
market learned the truth about Coty, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

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

Contacts
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]


CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Dec. 1 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
Credit Acceptance Corp. ("Credit Acceptance" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: CACC) from November 1, 2019 through August 28, 2020 (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan alleges violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased Credit Acceptance Corporation securities, and/or
would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit
Credit Acceptance Corp. Shareholder Lawsuit or contact Matthew E.
Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) that the Company was topping off the pools of loans that
they packaged and securitized with higher-risk loans; (ii) that
Credit Acceptance was making high-interest subprime auto loans to
borrowers that the Company knew borrowers would be unable to repay;
(iii) that the borrowers were subject to hidden finance charges,
resulting in loans exceeding the usury rate ceiling mandated by
state law; (iv) that Credit Acceptance took excessive and illegal
measures to collect debt from defaulted borrowers; (v) that, as a
result, the Company was likely to face regulatory scrutiny and
possible penalties from various regulators or lawsuits; and (vi)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendant's positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and adherence to
appropriate laws and regulations were materially misleading and/or
lacked a reasonable basis.

On August 28, 2020, the Massachusetts Attorney General ("Mass AG")
filed a lawsuit against Credit Acceptance alleging that the Company
has, for years, been making unfair and deceptive automobile loans
to thousands of Massachusetts consumers. Additionally, the lawsuit
alleges that Credit Acceptance provided its investors with false
and/or misleading information regarding the asset-backed
securitizations they offered to investors, and that the Company
engaged in unfair debt collection practices as well. In response to
the public disclosure of the Mass AG lawsuit, Credit Acceptance's
stock price fell $85.36 per share, or over 18%, to close at $374.07
per share over two trading days ending on September 1, 2020.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 1, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Credit Acceptance securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/creditacceptancecorp-cacc-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-298/apply/
contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

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

CRISP MARKETING: Rechul TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WERONIKA RECHUL, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. CRISP MARKETING, LLC,
Case No. 0:20-cv-61042-RAR (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order:

   1. certifying a proposed class;

      "all persons or entities within the United States who (a)
      received at least one call from Boomsourcing; (b) made
      using a pre-recorded voice; (c) to their cellular
      telephone numbers; (d) as a result of a purported visit to
      https://medicareguide.us/ and (f) as part of the
      "medicare-plus-card" and "medicare-discount-card-v8"
      calling campaigns";

   2. appointing the Plaintiff to serve as the class
      representative;

   3. appointing Kaufman P.A. and Paronich Law, P.C. to serve as
      class counsel; and

   4. directing the Plaintiff to submit a proposed notice plan
      and form of notice within a reasonable time.

The Plaintiff contends that this case is well-suited to class
certification because it involves a single type of telemarketing
calls (prerecorded voice calls) made by a single third party
(Boomsourcing) to telephone numbers Crisp Marketing purportedly
obtained from a single webpage. The central and determinative
issues in this case will be whether Crisp Marketing had prior
express written consent, as defined under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991, to make the calls.

Crisp Marketing works with other companies to promote their
products. To promote these other companies' products, Crisp
Marketing works with a series of vendors, including Boomsourcing,
LLC, to make pre-recorded calls to consumers.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/348aF45 at no
extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the proposed class, are:

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

               - and -

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: 508 221 1510
          E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com

CSAA INSURANCE: Fails to Reimburse Medical Expenses, MSP Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC v. CSAA INSURANCE EXCHANGE, CSAA
AFFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-24325 (S.D. Fla., Oct.
21, 2020) arises from the Defendants' failure to meet the statutory
payment and reimbursement obligations of the Plaintiffs' assignors
and the proposed class members under the Medicare Secondary Payer
provisions of the Social Security Act.

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

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

Based in Walnut Creek, California, CSAA Insurance Exchange and CSAA
Affinity Insurance Company are companies that issue property and
casualty policies.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John H. Ruiz, Esq.
          Michael O. Mena, Esq.
          MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
          2701 S. Le Jeune Rd., 10th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 614-2222
          E-mail: jruiz@msprecoverylawfirm.com
                  mmena@msprecoverylawfirm.com   

               - and -

          Francesco A. Zincone, Esq.
          Eduardo Bertran Esq.
          J. Alfredo Armas, Esq.
          ARMAS BERTRAN PIERI
          4960 SW 72nd Avenue, Suite 206
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 461-5100
          E-mail: fzincone@armaslaw.com
                  ebertran@armaslaw.com
                  alfred@armaslaw.com

D & T PROPERTY: Allen et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER ALLEN, JOSHUA MARTIN, and JEFF SPURGEON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. D & T
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC and FLOYD ERVIN DYESS, Defendants, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01241-STA-JAY (W.D. Tenn., October 26, 2020) is a
collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for
their alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as property workers
at the Defendants' Jackson, Tennessee location.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs regularly worked over 40
hours per week, but they were not compensated by the Defendants for
any hours worked as required by the FLSA.

D & T Property Management, LLC engages in managing real estate.
Floyd Ervin Dyess is the owner. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lisa A. White, Esq.
          Justin G. Day, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Tel: (865) 247-0080
          E-mail: lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  justin@gregcolemanlaw.com

                - and –

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Lotus Cannon, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Tel: (877) 561-0000
          Fax: (855) JTB-LAWS
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                  lotus.cannon@jtblawgroup.com


DRAKE-STATE AIR: Conditional Cert. of Installers Class Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONALD DILL for himself,
and all others similarly situated, v. DRAKE-STATE AIR, INC. et al.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00373-WHR (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a proposed Fair Labor Standards
      Act class, on behalf of:

      "all similarly situated installers includes any installer
      who worked for the Defendants from September 8, 2017 to
      present, and who, in one or more workweeks, was not paid
      all overtime owed"; and

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

Mr. Ronald Dill filed this action to recover unpaid overtime wages
for himself and other HVAC installers who worked for the Defendants


Drake is located in Eaton, Ohio, and provides HVAC installations
and services to customers located throughout the greater Dayton,
Ohio area. Defendant Chrismer is a part-owner of Drake, who has
significant control of the day-to-day operations of the company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional class
certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2HoOCNE at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

EASTMAN KODAK: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminded investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action that has been filed on behalf
of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of  Eastman
Kodak Company ("Kodak" or the "Company") (NYSE: KODK) between July
27, 2020 and August 7, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed
in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose that the Company had granted
Defendant Continenza and several other Company insiders millions of
dollars' worth of stock options, immediately prior to the Company
publicly disclosing that it had received a $765 million loan from
the DFC to produce drugs to treat COVID-19, which Defendants knew
would cause Kodak's stock to immediately increase in value once the
deal was announced. In addition, while in possession of this
material non-public information, Defendant Continenza and other
Company insiders purchased tens of thousands of the Company's
shares immediately prior to the announcement, again at prices that
they knew would increase exponentially once news of the loan became
public.

On August 1, 2020, a Reuters article reported new details of the
"unusual" 1.75 million option grant to Continenza. The article
stated that according to "a person familiar with the arrangement,"
the option award "occurred because of an understanding" between
Continenza and Kodak's Board of Directors "that had previously
neither been listed in his employment contract nor made public."
Further, "[t]he decision to grant Continenza options was never
formalized or made into a binding agreement, which is why it was
not disclosed previously." Concurrently market observers questioned
why Kodak, historically a technology company, had been selected for
a DPA loan related to pharmaceutical supplies over companies with
more experience in the pharmaceutical industry.

In reaction to this news, Kodak's stock price plummeted $6.91 per
share to close at $14.94 per share on August 3, 2020 -- a decline
of over 34% per share.

On August 5, 2020, several Congressional committees sent a joint
letter to Defendant Continenza seeking documents about the loan,
insider trading, and stock options for their review of "DFC's
decision to award this loan to Kodak despite your company's lack of
pharmaceutical experience and the windfall gained by you and other
company executives as a result of this loan" which raised
"questions that must be thoroughly examined." The committees also
sent a document request to the DFC's Chief Executive Officer on the
same day, inquiring about the Kodak loan, which the letter noted
was "an organization that was on the brink of failure in 2012 and
was unsuccessful in its previous foray into pharmaceutical
manufacturing."

On August 7, 2020, after the market closed, the DFC announced, "on
July 28, we signed a Letter of Interest with Eastman Kodak. Recent
allegations of wrongdoing raise serious concerns.  We will not
proceed any further unless these allegations are cleared."

On this news, the Company's stock price declined $4.15, or 28%,
from $14.88 per share on August 7, 2020, to $10.73 per share on
August 10, 2020.  

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 13, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Kodak securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/eastmankodakcompany-kodk-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-290/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

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

Contact Information

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


EDUCATION DEP'T: Pratt Seeks to Certify Class of Loan Borrowers
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMMIA PRATT, ALICIA
DAVIS, and BRITTANY SAULSBERRY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, and MARISOL CASTILLO and HEATHER
BIANCHI, v. ELISABETH DeVOS, in her official capacity as Secretary
of Education, and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Case No.
1:20-cv-01501-TNM (D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order
certifying a class of:

   "all people who have taken out a Direct Loan or a Federal
   Family Education Loan (FFEL) loan to pay for a program of
   higher education, who have asserted a borrower defense claim,
   who have received or will receive by the time of entry of
   final judgment in this action a decision applying the partial
   relief methodology announced by the Department of Education
   on December 10, 2019 (and revised for accuracy, clarity, and
   technical corrections on August 4, 2020) ("Partial Relief
   Rule's methodology") to their borrower defense claim, and who
   have not and will not be granted full relief from
   their federal student loans under the Partial Relief Rule's
   methodology."

Excluded from the class are people from whom the Department of
Education has or will have by the time of entry of final judgment
in this action accepted for reconsideration under 34 C.F.R. section
685.222(e)(5)(i) a request for reconsideration of the relief
decision. Also excluded from this class are members of the class
certified in Calvillo Manriquez v. DeVos, No. 17-cv-7210 (N.D.
Cal.).

On June 9, 2020, Ms. Pratt, Ms. Davis, and Ms. Saulsberry, along
with borrowers with pending borrower defense applications, filed
this lawsuit pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),
alleging that the Partial Relief Rule is arbitrary, capricious, and
contrary to law and was adopted without procedures required by law.
Further, they allege that decisions applying the Partial Relief
Rule are themselves arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion,
or otherwise not in accordance with law, because they are based on
a rule that is unlawful.

The United States Department of Education, also referred to as the
ED for Education Department, is a Cabinet-level department of the
United States government.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3clBFj5 at no
extra charge.[CC]

Counsel for Plaintiffs and Proposed Class are:

          Adina H. Rosenbaum, Esq.
          Adam R. Pulver, Esq.
          PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION GROUP
          1600 20th St. NW
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 588-1000
          E-mail: arosenbaum@citizen.org

               - and -

          Michael N. Turi, Esq.
          Eileen M. Connor, Esq.
          Toby R. Merrill, Esq.
          LEGAL SERVICES CENTER OF HARVARD LAW SCHOOL
          122 Boylston Street
          Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
          Telephone: (617) 522-3003
          E-mail: mturi@law.harvard.edu

ELLIOTT PC: Vanderkodde Suit Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL VANDERKODDE, ANITA
BECKLEY, SUSAN BUCK, RUBY ROBINSON, and RITCHIE SWAGERTY, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. MARY JANE M.
ELLIOTT, P.C., BERNDT & ASSOCIATES, P.C., MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC,
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC., and
LVNV FUNDING, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-00203-PLM-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying this action as a
class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on
behalf of these classes:

   ELLIOTT CLASS:

   "A class comprising: (a) every natural person; (b) against
   whom a money judgment, in a civil action to collect a debt
   incurred for personal, family, or household purposes, was
   entered by a Michigan court; (c) in an action in which a
   written instrument or promissory note specifying an interest
   rate of more than 3.848% was not alleged in the complaint;
   (d) from whom Mary Jane M. Elliott, P.C. collected or
   attempted to collect a judgment balance by communicating to
   any person, during the period from April 11, 2011 to the date
   of class certification, that the judgment debtor owed an
   amount that included judgment interest calculated at a rate
   of more than 3.848%";

   BERNDT CLASS

   "A class comprising: (a) every natural person; (b) against
   whom a money judgment, in a civil action to collect a debt
   incurred for personal, family, or household purposes, was
   entered by a Michigan court; (c) in an action in which a
   written instrument or promissory note specifying an interest
   rate of more than 3.848% was not alleged in the complaint;
   (d) from whom Berndt & Associates, P.C. collected or
   attempted to collect a judgment balance by communicating to
   any person, during the period from April 11, 2011 to the date
   of class certification, that the judgment debtor owed an
   amount that included judgment interest calculated at a rate
   of more than 3.848%";

   MIDLAND SUBCLASS

   "A subclass comprising: (a) every natural person; (b) against
   whom a money judgment, in a civil action to collection a debt
   incurred for personal, family, or household purposes, was
   entered by a Michigan court in favor of Midland Funding LLC;
   (c) in an action in which a written instrument or promissory
   note specifying an interest rate of more than 3.848% was not
   alleged in the complaint; (d) from whom Mary Jane M. Elliott,
   P.C. or Berndt & Associates, P.C. collected or attempted to
   collect a judgment balance by communicating to any person,
   during the period from April 11, 2011 to the date of class
   certification, that the judgment debtor owed an amount that
   included judgment interest calculated at a rate of more than
   3.848%";

   LVNV SUBCLASS

   "A subclass comprising: (a) every natural person; (b) against
   whom a money judgment, in a civil action to collection a debt
   incurred for personal, family, or household purposes, was
   entered by a Michigan court in favor of LVNV Funding LLC; (c)
   in an action in which a written instrument or promissory note
   specifying an interest rate of more than 3.848% was not
   alleged in the complaint; (d) from whom Mary Jane M. Elliott,
   P.C. or Berndt & Associates, P.C. collected or attempted to
   collect a judgment balance by communicating to any person,
   during the period from April 11, 2011 to the date of class
   certification, that the judgment debtor owed an amount that
   included judgment interest calculated at a rate of more than
   3.848%."

Alternatively, should the Court decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' state-law claims, the Plaintiffs
request that the Court modify the definition as to each class
specified above as follows: changing the date of "April 11, 2011"
to "April 11, 2016," and certify each class accordingly.

This case is a putative class action, based on the core theory that
the Defendants' violations of law as to Plaintiffs were part of a
routine, systematic, and pervasive practice of calculating judgment
interest at excessive rates and communicating the resulting
excessive amounts to consumers and courts throughout the State of
Michigan.

The Plaintiffs alleged violations of the federal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, the Michigan Regulation of Collection
Practices Act, and the Michigan Occupational Code.

Mary Jane Elliott is law firm specializing in debt collection.
Berndt & Associates has a law office located in Warren, Michigan.
Midland is a debt buyer of unpaid debt. Encore Capital is a global
specialty finance company with operations and investments across
North America, Europe, Asia and Latin America. LVNV is a debt
collection agency.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33Tkkdn at no
extra charge.[CC]

ESSENTIA HEALTH: Hills Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned MARY HILLS Individually and
on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, v. ESSENTIA
HEALTH, Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, v. Ciox Health LLC, Third
Party Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00907-wmc (W.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiff Mary Hills asks the Court for an order certifying a class
under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure:

The proposed class covers persons who have been illegally charged
various basic, retrieval and/or certification fees in violation of
Wisconsin law.

The Plaintiff contends that the proposed class meets all of the
requirements of Rule 23 necessary to certify classes that will
allow Wisconsin patients to recover the fees that the Defendant
Essentia has directly or indirectly illegally charged and collected
and be granted such other relief they may be entitled to under
Wisconsin law.

Essentia Health is an integrated healthcare system with facilities
in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota. As of 2014 it has over
12,000 employees, including 1,500 physicians and credentialed
practitioners. Ciox Health is a healthcare information management
company with headquarters in Alpharetta, Georgia.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify classes is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iTK1A9 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert J. Welcenbach, Esq.
          WELCENBACH LAW OFFICES, S.C.
          State Bar No. 1033091
          933 North Mayfair Road, Suite 311
          Milwaukee, WI 53226
          Telephone: (414) 774-7330
          Facsimile: (414) 774-7670
          E-mail: robert@welcenbachlaw.com

               - and -

          J. Craig Jones, Esq.
          JONES AND HILL, LLC
          131 Highway 165 South
          Oakdale, LA 71463
          Telephone: (318) 335-1333
          Facsimile: (318) 335-1934
          E-mail: craig@joneshilllaw.com

               - and -

          Scott C. Borison, Esq.
          BORISON FIRM, LLC
          1400 S Charles St.
          Baltimore MD 21230
          Telephone: (301) 620-1016
          Facsimile: (301) 620-1018
          E-mail: scott@borisonfirm.com

FENNEC PHARMA: Schall Law Firm Reminds of November 2 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Sept. 8 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Fennec" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:
FENC) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between February
11, 2020 and August 10, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), were
encouraged to contact the firm before November 2, 2020.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Fennec's production facilities for its
PEDMARK product candidate failed to maintain good manufacturing
practices. This failure was likely to delay the regulatory approval
of PEDMARK. Based on this news, the Company's public statements
were false and materially misleading throughout the class period.
When the market learned the truth about Fennec, investors suffered
damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

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

Contacts
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]


FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS: Robbins Geller Reminds of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Sept. 15 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the Middle District of North
Carolina on behalf of purchasers of Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc.
(NASDAQ:FENC) securities between February 11, 2020 and August 10,
2020 (the "Class Period"). The case is captioned Chapman v. Fennec
Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 20-cv-00812. The Fennec Pharmaceuticals
class action lawsuit charges Fennec Pharmaceuticals, its CEO
Rostislav Raykov and CFO Robert Andrade with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Fennec Pharmaceuticals securities during the
Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Fennec
Pharmaceuticals class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff will act on
behalf of all other class members in directing the Fennec
Pharmaceuticals class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select
a law firm of its choice to litigate the Fennec Pharmaceuticals
class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery of the Fennec Pharmaceuticals class
action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If
you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Fennec Pharmaceuticals
class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights
regarding the Fennec Pharmaceuticals class action lawsuit, please
provide your information here or contact counsel, Michael Albert of
Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at
malbert@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Fennec
Pharmaceuticals class action lawsuit must be filed with the court
no later than Monday, November 2, 2020.

Fennec Pharmaceuticals is a biopharmaceutical company focused on
the development of PEDMARK, a sodium thiosulfate anhydrous
injection for the prevention of hearing loss associated with
certain chemotherapy treatments in pediatric cancer patients.

The Fennec Pharmaceuticals class action lawsuit alleges that during
the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the manufacturing
facilities for PEDMARK, Fennec Pharmaceuticals' sole product
candidate, did not comply with current good manufacturing
practices; (2) as a result, regulatory approval for PEDMARK was
reasonably likely to be delayed; and (3) as a result of the
foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Fennec
Pharmaceuticals' business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On August 11, 2020, Fennec Pharmaceuticals disclosed that it had
received a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration ("FDA") regarding Fennec Pharmaceuticals' New
Drug Application for PEDMARK. According to the CRL, "after recent
completion of a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing
facility of [Fennec Pharmaceuticals'] drug product manufacturer,
the FDA identified deficiencies resulting in a Form 483, which is a
list of conditions or practices that are required to be resolved
prior to the approval of PEDMARK." On this news, Fennec
Pharmaceuticals' share price fell more than 34%, damaging
investors.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities class action litigation.
With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of
the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For
seven consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has
ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top
law firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders
and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller
attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered
tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond
securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins
Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance
reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors
worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by
courts, professional organizations, and the media as leading
lawyers in the industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor
more information.

Contacts:

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
Michael Albert, 800-449-4900
malbert@rgrdlaw.com [GN]


FIRST TEAM: Lalli Seeks to Certify 2 TCPA Classes
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PARAMJIT LALLI,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
FIRST TEAM REAL ESTATE-ORANGE COUNTY, a California corporation,
Case No. 8:20-cv-00027-JLS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move
the Court on February 26, 2021 for an order certifying the
following classes:

   Prerecorded No Consent Class:

   "all persons in the United States who from four years prior
   to the filing of this action through class certification (1)
   one or more of Defendant's realtors called or texted, (2) for
   substantially the same reason Defendant's realtors called or
   texted Plaintiff, (3) using a prerecorded voice message, (4)
   whose phone numbers Defendant's realtors obtained from
   Vulcan7 or RedX, and (5) who are identified by Plaintiff's
   expert Aaron Woolfson"; and

   Autodialed Call No Consent Class:

   "all persons in the United States who from four years prior
   to the filing of this action through class certification (1)
   one or more of Defendant's realtors called, (2) for
   substantially the same reason Defendant's realtors called or
   texted Plaintiff, (3) using Vulcan7, (4) whose phone numbers
   Defendant's realtors obtained from Vulcan7, and (5) who are
   identified by the Plaintiff's expert Aaron Woolfson."

In this case, Plaintiff Lalli seeks certification of classes in
connection with two different Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) claims: one under the TCPA's autodialer provision and one
under the TCPA's prerecorded voice provision.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's expert has determined
that, between January 2016 and September 2020, First Team's agents
made more than 100,000 calls to telephone numbers they obtained
from Vulcan7 or RedX using the dialers supplied by Vulcan7 or RedX
and/or a prerecorded voice. These calls included 5,658 calls
transmitting pre-recorded messages, including texted video
messages, which were delivered to 4,977 unique numbers, including
3,144 unique wireless numbers, for which Vulcan7 was the source of
the numbers and for whom First Team and its agents do not otherwise
claim to have obtained consent to call.

First Team is a real estate brokerage that provides realty services
to property buyers and sellers.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/331lO61 at no
extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class are:

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

FLORIDA: Judge Dismisses Potential Unemployment Class Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
miami.cbslocal.com relates that in at least an initial win for the
state and Deloitte Consulting, a Leon County circuit judge has
dismissed a potential class-action lawsuit stemming from major
problems with Florida's unemployment-compensation system amid the
COVID-19 pandemic.

But the case might not be finished: Circuit Judge John Cooper gave
attorneys for the plaintiffs an opportunity to file an amended
complaint, which would refuel the legal fight.

Cooper's order came more than three months after a hearing in which
lawyers for the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and
Deloitte argued that he should dismiss the case. The three-page
order did not detail reasons for the dismissal, saying only that
Cooper "grants the motion to dismiss on the grounds argued by the
defendants."

Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in April after hundreds of thousands
of coronavirus-caused unemployment claims overwhelmed the state's
online CONNECT system. The Department of Economic Opportunity runs
the unemployment system, while Deloitte was a contractor that
helped put CONNECT in place in 2013.

The lawsuit made a series of allegations, including negligence and
breach of fiduciary duty. Cooper in May also rejected a preliminary
injunction that plaintiffs sought to force the Department of
Economic Opportunity to "fix" the system.

During the June hearing, Cooper indicated he expected the dispute
to eventually be appealed to the 1st District Court of Appeal. He
also seemed to be considering dismissing at least parts of the case
but allowing the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint — a move
known legally as dismissing a case "without prejudice."

"Do you want to get up to the DCA quicker, or do you want to drag
it out?" Cooper said at one point to plaintiffs' attorney Marie
Mattox.

Cooper wrote in this week's order that the plaintiffs' attorneys
had requested an opportunity to file an amended complaint if he
dismissed the lawsuit. He gave them 30 days to file an amended
complaint.

"If the plaintiffs fail to amend the complaint within the time set
by this order, the case will be dismissed with prejudice without
further hearing or notice," he wrote.

During the June hearing, Department of Economic Opportunity
attorney Daniel Nordby argued, in part, that the lawsuit should be
dismissed because of the constitutional separation of powers
between judges and the executive branch.

He said decisions by the department "involve a great deal of
discretion" that cannot be second-guessed by judges under the
separation of powers.

But Mattox said the department is required by law to properly
maintain the unemployment system and that three audits said the
system needed changes before the problems this year. She said
properly maintaining and operating the system was not a
discretionary duty.

The state scrambled to take steps to shore up the system after the
problems this spring, but many people who lost jobs when the
pandemic shuttered businesses remained frustrated as they tried to
get benefits. Gov. Ron DeSantis even called the system a "jalopy."

Deloitte has sought to distance itself from the problems, saying in
court documents it has not been involved with the CONNECT system
for more than five years.

Deloitte attorney John Boudet during the June hearing disputed the
legal arguments made by the plaintiffs, while acknowledging the
frustrations of many people who sought benefits.

"I don't mean to minimize them in the least," Boudet said. "But
this lawsuit is not the right place to address those concerns."

But when Cooper asked whether the state or Deloitte was at fault
for the problems, Mattox quickly responded, "It's both." [GN]

FLOWERS FOODS: Maciel Employment Suit Removed to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE MACIEL, and individual, and MACIEL DISTRIBUTION, Inc., a
California Corporation, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC., a Georgia corporation;
FLOWERS BAKERIES, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company, FLOWERS
FINANCE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No.
3:20-cv-03814, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-02059-AJB-BLM to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought as a collective action under the Federal
Labor Standards Act as well as a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Rule 23 class action based on the California Constitution's
prohibitions on usury. The Plaintiff seeks recovery for fraud, lost
wages (including overtime), unfair competition, as well as an
injunction putting an end to the Defendants' bait-and-switch
"independent distributor" business model. He also seeks
reimbursement for business expenses and illegal deductions.

Flowers Foods, headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia, is a producer
and marketer of packed bakery food. The Company operates 47
bakeries producing bread, buns, rolls, snack cakes, pastries, and
tortillas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Craig McKenzie Nicholas, Esq.
          Ethan Thomas Litney, Esq.
          Shaun Andrew Markley, Esq.
          Alex Michael Tomasevic, Esq.  
          NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
          225 Broadway, 19th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 325-0492
          Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
          E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org  

               - and -

          Alexander Miller Chemers, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          400 S. Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 239-9800
          Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
          E-mail: alexander.chemers@ogletreedeakins.com  

               - and -

          Francis Lawrence Tobin, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, LLC
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 652-3100
          Facsimile: (858) 652-3101

               - and -

          Jared Lee Palmer, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          Steuart Tower, One Market Plaza, Suite 1300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 369-3553
          Facsimile: (415) 442-4870
          E-mail: jared_palmer@ogletree.com

FRITO-LAY INC: Vado Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling
--------------------------------------------------------
Jesika Vado, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Frito-Lay Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
3:20-cv-02055-MMA-BLM (S.D. Cal., Oct. 19, 2020) arises from the
Defendant's practice of mislabeling its potato crisps product in
violation of the California Business & Professions Code and the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The Plaintiffs alleges that the Defendant markets, distributes, and
sells potato crisps under its "Ruffles" brand labeled as "Baked
Lays Cheddar & Sour Cream Flavor" potato crisps that contains false
representations including both words and images seen on the front
label of the package. Ms. Vado claims that the "Sour Cream" flavor
within the mislabeled product is produced and/or affected by
artificial diacetyl, an artificial flavoring compound. Accordingly,
she added that the "Sour Cream" flavor in the product is not
"natural."

As a result of this mislabeling and the misrepresentations
contained therein, the Plaintiff and California consumers were
convinced to and did pay a premium to purchase what they believed
is and was a naturally flavored product, to the benefit and profit
of the Defendant, the suit says.

Frito-Lay Inc. is a subsidiary of multinational food conglomerate
PepsiCo that manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells a
variety of snacks, crackers, dips, and other products for the
wholesale and retail markets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keia J. Atkinson, Esq.
          John J. Nelson, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP  
          501 West Broadway, Ste. 1260
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1333
          Facsimile: (619) 238-5425
          E-mail: kja@classactionlaw.com
                  jjn@classactionlaw.com

G4S SECURE: Underpays Security Guards, Kovacs Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE KOVACS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA) INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-03180-KMT (D. Colo., October 23, 2020) is a
collective action complaint brought against the Defendant to
challenge its unlawful policies and practices that violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Act, and the Colorado
Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Act.

The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
and none-exempt security guard at a SAP America location in
Colorado Springs, claims that the Defendant failed to pay her and
other similarly situated security guards, specifically for the time
they spent obtaining keys, radios, and briefing data on events that
occurred or were expected to occur at the location.

As a result, the Defendant failed to pay them overtime at one and
one-half times of their respective regular rates of pay for all
hours worked over 40 during each workweek.

G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc. is an American security services
company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Tel: (330) 470-4428
          Fax: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                  sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com

                - and –

          Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          614 West Superior Ave., Suite 1148
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Tel: (234) 401-9286
          E-mail: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com

                - and –

          Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER VAUGHT PLLC
          1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Tel: (214) 251-4157
          Fax: (214) 261-5159
          E-mail: avaught@txlaborlaw.com


GAP INC: Faces Yale Suit Over Wiretapping of Website Visitors
-------------------------------------------------------------
AMBER YALE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE GAP, INC. and CLICKTALE, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-07575 (N.D. Cal., October 28, 2020) is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of the
California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA).

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged wiretapping of the
electronic communications of visitors, including the Plaintiff, to
Defendant Gap's Websites. The wiretaps, which are embedded in the
computer code on the Websites, are used by the Defendants to
secretly observe and record Website visitors' keystrokes, mouse
clicks, and other electronic communications, including the entry of
Personally Identifiable Information (PII), in real time. Neither
the Plaintiff nor any Class member consented to being wiretapped on
the Websites, nor to have their communications recorded and shared
with Clicktale. Any purported consent that was obtained was
ineffective because (i) the wiretapping began from the moment
Plaintiff and Class members accessed the Websites; (ii) the Privacy
Policy did not disclose the wiretapping or Clicktale; and (iii) the
hyperlink to the Privacy Policy is inconspicuous and therefore
insufficient to provide notice.

The Gap, Inc. is an American worldwide clothing and accessories
retailer, with its principal place of business at 2 Folsom Street,
San Francisco, California.

Clicktale, Inc. is a marketing software-as-a-service (SaaS)
company, with its principal place of business at Atrium Tower, 2
Jabotinsky Street, Ramat Gan, Tel Aviv, Israel. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                 
         
         L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
         Joel D. Smith, Esq.
         Blair E. Reed, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
         Walnut Creek, CA 94596
         Telephone: (925) 300-4455
         Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
         E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                 jsmith@bursor.com
                 breed@bursor.com

GARRET MOTION: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York captioned Husson v. Garrett Motion
Inc., et al., (Case No. 20-cv-07992) on behalf of persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Garret Motion Inc.
("Garrett" or the "Company") (NYSE: GTX, OTC: GTXMQ) securities
between October 1, 2018 and September 18, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

POR Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/portland-general-electric-company-information-request-form?prid=9610&wire=1

Portland General Electric Company (NYSE:POR)

POR Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 24, 2020 -
August 24, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : November 2, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/portland-general-electric-company-information-request-form?prid=9610&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Portland
General Electric Company made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) PGE lacked effective
internal controls over its energy trading practices; (2) PGE
personnel had entered energy trades during 2020, with increasing
volume accumulating late in the second quarter and into the third
quarter, that created significant negative financial exposure for
PGE; (3)as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to incur
significant losses; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date
of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.

If you suffered a loss on your Garrett investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/garrett-motion-inc/.
You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

Garrett designs, manufactures and sells turbocharger,
electric-boosting and connected vehicle technologies for original
equipment manufacturers and the aftermarket. In October 2018, the
Company formed as a spin-off of the Transportation Systems business
of Honeywell International Inc. ("Honeywell").

On August 26, 2020, before the market opened, the Company disclosed
that its "leveraged capital structure poses significant challenges
to its overall strategic and financial flexibility and may impair
its ability to gain or hold market share in the highly competitive
automotive supply market, thereby putting Garrett at a meaningful
disadvantage relative to its peers." Garrett further stated that
its "high leverage is exacerbated by significant claims asserted by
Honeywell against certain Garrett subsidiaries under the disputed
subordinated asbestos indemnity and the tax matters agreement."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.04, or 44%, to
close at $3.84 per share on August 26, 2020, thereby damaging
investors.

On September 20, 2020, Garrett announced that it had filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

On September 21, 2020, the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE")
announced that it would commence proceedings to delist Garrett's
stock from the NYSE after the Company's disclosure that it had
filed for bankruptcy.

On this news, the Company's stock began trading over-the-counter
and closed at $1.76 per share on September 22, 2020, a 12% decline
from the closing price on September 18, 2020.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that, due to its agreement to indemnify and
reimburse Honeywell for certain asbestos-related liability, Garrett
was saddled with an unsustainable level of debt; (2) that, as a
result, Garrett had a highly leveraged capital structure that posed
significant challenges to its overall strategic and financial
flexibility; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Garrett's
ability to gain or hold market share was impaired; (4) that, as a
result of the foregoing, the Company was reasonably likely to seek
bankruptcy protection; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Garrett securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from
the date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead
plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to
learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Charles H. Linehan,
Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles,
California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by
email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.

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

GENIUS BRANDS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminded
purchasers of the securities of the Genius Brands International,
Inc. (NASDAQ: GNUS) between March 17, 2020 and July 5, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important October 19, 2020
lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Genius Brands investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Genius Brands class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1929.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements regarding: (1) the Kartoon
Channel app; (2) Nickelodeon's claimed broadcast expansion of
Genius's Rainbow Rangers cartoon; and (3) the Company's growth
potential and overall prospects as a company. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October
19, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1929.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

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


GENIUS BRANDS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Sept. 16 announced the filing of a class-action lawsuit against
Genius Brands International, Inc. ("Genius" or "the Company")
(NASDAQ:GNUS) for violations of 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between March 17,
2020 and July 5, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), were
encouraged to contact the firm before October 19, 2020.

The Firm also encouraged investors to contact Brian Schall of the
Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA
90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss their rights free of charge. The
Firm can also be reached through the firm's website at
www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Genius misled investors about the Kartoon
Channel app. The Company also made misleading claims concerning
Nickelodeon expanding its "Rainbow Rangers" cartoon. The Company
did not fairly present its growth potential and overall prospects.
Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false
and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the
market learned the truth about Genius, investors suffered damages.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

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

CONTACT:

The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.
310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com
www.schallfirm.com [GN]


GLV INC: Mullen Appeals N.D. Ill. Ruling to Seventh Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Laura Mullen filed an appeal from a recent court ruling
issued in her lawsuit entitled Laura Mullen v. GLV, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01465, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 22,
2020, Judge Matthew F. Kennelly of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted Mullen's
motion to sanction the Defendants.

GLV is a youth volleyball business that offers coaching, training
programs, and camps; it is known for placing its participants in
competitive college sports programs. Mullen sued GLV and its
owners, Rick and Cheryl Butler, in a class action alleging fraud,
fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, and violations of the
Illinois Physical Fitness Services Act and the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act. Mullen alleges that the defendants wrongfully concealed
from parents of GLV's program participants that in the 1980s, Rick
raped and sexually abused several underage women. In the decision,
the Court will refer to the Butlers by their first names for the
sake of simplicity.

In January 2019, the Court certified a Plaintiff class consisting
of persons who paid for youth volleyball instruction through GLV's
Sports Performance programs in Illinois between Feb. 27, 2013 and
Jan. 10, 2018. In February 2019, after getting input from both
sides, the Court approved a class notice, which included a brief
description of the case, informed the class members about their
options to either stay in the suit or opt out of the class, and
explained the legal implications of both options. The notice also
advised that class members choosing to opt out had to do so via
mail by April 19, 2019.

Mullen moved for sanctions against the Defendants for improperly
interfering with the class notice process. Mullen has also moved
for sanctions against the Defendants' counsel, alleging that she
violated her ethical responsibilities by communicating directly
with represented parties and knowingly misrepresenting to the Court
her clients' conduct during the opt-out period. The Defendants have
separately moved for summary judgment.

On review, Judge Kennelly found that the Defendants intentionally
interfered with the class notice and opt-out process and therefore
granted Mullen's motion for sanctions against them. The sanctions
the Court imposes under the Court's inherent authority must be
proportionate to the gravity of the offense. At this point, the
Court is, in a separate decision, largely granting summary judgment
against the Defendants. As a result, the Defendants may have harmed
only themselves by encouraging opt-outs those individuals will not
be bound by a judgment against the class and may still be able to
file individual suits. But the Defendants did not know that at the
time. It is clear from the evidence that they were attempting to
come up with enough opt-outs that they would be able to convince
the Court to dismiss the case.

The appellate case is captioned as Laura Mullen v. GLV, Inc., et
al., Case No. 20-3021, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript information sheet is due by November 2, 2020; and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before November 30, 2020 for
Laura Mullen.[BN]

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

          J. Eli Wade-Scott, Esq.
          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
          219 S. Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60604-0000

Defendants-Appellees GLV, INC., an Illinois Corporation doing
business as SPORTS PERFORMANCE VOLLEYBALL CLUB and GREAT LAKES
CENTER; RICKY BUTLER; and CHERYL BUTLER are represented by:

          Danielle D'Ambrose, Esq.
          D'AMBROSE P.C.
          500 N. Michigan
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (213) 396-4121

GOL LINHAS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of November 10 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investors rights
law firm, on Sept. 15 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Gol Linhas Aereas
Inteligentes S.A. ("Gol" or the "Company") (NYSE: GOL) securities
between March 14, 2019 and July 22, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Gol investors have until November 10, 2020 to file a lead
plaintiff motion.

If you suffered a loss on your Gol investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/gol-linhas-aereas-inteligentes-sa/.
You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you purchased Gol securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than November 10, 2020 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan,
Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles
California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by
email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.

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

Contacts:
Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]


GOOGLE LLC: Carroll Sues Over Smart Mobile OS Market Monopoly
-------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL CARROLL, DANIEL EGERTER, and BRENDA KEEGAN, and individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOOGLE LLC;
GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED; GOOGLE COMMERCE LIMITED; GOOGLE ASIA
PACIFIC PTE. LIMITED; and GOOGLE PAYMENT CORP., Case No.
3:20-cv-07379 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 21, 2020) arises from the
Plaintiffs' federal antitrust claims against the Defendants
pursuant to the Clayton Antitrust Act.

According to the complaint, Google has been able to maintain a
monopoly over the market for the distribution of apps compatible
with licensable smart mobile operating systems ("Oss"). The conduct
is made through a series of contracts with device manufacturers and
app developers, and by imposing technological restrictions that
make it nearly impossible for consumers to locate alternate ways to
download apps. Additionally, Google requires that device
manufacturers give the Google Play Store preferential treatment in
order to use the Android trademark, Google's proprietary apps,
including Gmail, Google Maps, and YouTube, and Google Play
Services, software that is necessary to keep apps running
effectively. Without access to this content, device manufacturers
are essentially unable to market their smart mobile devices.

The complaint further asserts that the consumers, including the
Plaintiffs, have suffered from Google's anticompetitive conduct.
Google imposes a 30 percent surcharge on all paid apps and in-app
purchases, an amount that they could not charge in a competitive
market. Other app stores and payment processors have tried to offer
lower prices. They are unable to break through Google's monopoly.

Based in Mountain View, California, Google LLC is the primary
operating subsidiary of the publicly traded holding company
Alphabet Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
          Jonathan K. Levine, Esq.
          Bethany Caracuzzo, Esq.
          Caroline C. Corbitt, Esq.
          PRITZKER LEVINE LLP
          1900 Powell Street, Suite 450
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 692-0772
          Facsimile: (415) 366-6110
          E-mail: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com
                  jkl@pritzkerlevine.com
                  bc@pritzkerlevine.com
                  ccc@pritzkerlevine.com

               - and -
              
          Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
          Justin R. Erickson, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: hmsilton@locklaw.com
                  jrerickson@locklaw.com

GRACIE MEWS: Faces Luna Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------
MIJARES ROSALES LUNA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. GRACIE MEWS RESTAURANT CORP. (D/B/A GRACIE
MEWS DINER), GRACIE MEWS LLC (D/B/A GRACIE MEWS DINER), MIHAIL
KREATSOULAS aka MIKE, STEVE KREATSOULAS, AMBROS DOE, and TIMMY DOE,
Case No. 1:20-cv-08700 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 19, 2020) arises from the
Defendants' unlawful labor policies and practices in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay applicable
minimum wage, failed to pay overtime compensation at a rate of one
and one-half times the regular rate of pay for each hour worked in
excess of 40 hours in a work week, failed to pay an additional
hour's pay for each day spread of hours exceeded 10 hours, failed
to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, failed to
provide accurate wage statements, made unlawful deductions from
wages, and failed to pay wages on a timely basis.

The Plaintiff was employed as a dishwasher and delivery worker at
Gracie Mews Diner from approximately January 2016 until on or about
October 10, 2020.

The Defendants own, operate and control a diner, located in New
York City, under the name "Gracie Mews Diner."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

HIGHLAND INDUSTRIES: Tillman Suit Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANET TILLMAN AND MELVIN
WILKERSON, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated,
v. HIGHLAND INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-02563-SAL (D.S.C.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order granting their Motion for
Class Certification:

   "all owners of real property in Cheraw, South Carolina
   located within five hundred (500) feet of the Surface Water
   Drainage Corridor which properties have been impacted by PCB
   contamination emanating from the Highland Industries Plant
   Site. Said Surface Water Drainage Corridor extends from the
   Western Ditch at Highland Industries Plant Site for
   approximately 3.2 miles to its convergence with the Pee Dee
   River, and includes said Western Ditch; an unnamed
   intermittent creek/ditch into which it flows; Various
   wetlands through which it flows; Flowing then in an easterly
   direction to Wilson Branch; then in a Northeasterly direction
   to Huckleberry Branch, and then in an easterly/southeasterly
   direction to its convergence with the Pee Dee River."

This case involves a single contaminant (PCB's), a single source of
that contaminant (Highland/Burlington Property), a single method of
transport of the contaminant (Surface Water), a defined area of
contamination (Drainage Corridor), and a single theory of damages
(Diminution of Property Value).

Highland Industries specializes in the conception, design and
delivery of high-performance textiles.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mMviKd at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William C. Lewis, Esq.
          Christopher Moore, Esq.
          RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK
          & BRICKMAN, LLC
          1513 Hampton Street, 1st Floor
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: 803 541 7850
          Facsimile: 803 541 9625

               - and -

          Joshua E. Slavin, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JOSHUA E. SLAVIN, LLC
          PO Box 762, Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
          Telephone: 843 619-7338
          Facsimile: 888 246-8914
          E-mail: josh@attorneycarolina.com

               - and -

          Gary W. Poliakoff, Esq.
          Raymond P. Mullman, Jr., Esq.
          POLIAKOFF & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          215 Magnolia Street
          P.O. Box 1571
          Spartanburg, SC 29304
          Telephone: 864-582-5472
          E-mail: atty@gpoliakoff.com
                  rmullmanjr@gmail.com

HOME DEPOT: Court Certifies 3 Classes in Pizarro Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMIE H. PIZARRO, CRAIG
SMITH, JERRY MURPHY, RANDALL IDEISHI, GLENDA STONE, RACHELLE NORTH,
and MARIE SILVER, on behalf of themselves and other similarly
situated, v. THE HOME DEPOT, INC., THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF
THE HOME DEPOT FUTUREBUILDER 401(K) PLAN, THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE
OF THE HOME DEPOT FUTUREBUILDER 401 (K) PLAN, and DOES 1-30, Case
No. 1:18-cv-01566-WM (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge William M. Ray
entered an order:

   1. certifying the following classes under Fed.R.Civ.P.
23(b)(1):

      Challenged Fund Class:

      "all participants and beneficiaries of the Plan, excluding
      the Defendants, who invested in the Challenged Funds at
      any time from April 12, 2012, through the date of
      judgment;

      FE Class:

      "all Plan participants and beneficiaries, excluding the
      Defendants, for whom FE performed investment advisory
      services through the Program at any time from April 12,
      2012, through the date of judgment; and

      AFA Class:

      "all Plan participants and beneficiaries, excluding the
      Defendants, for whom AFA performed investment advisory
      services through the Program at any time from April 12,
      2012, through the date of judgment"

   2. appointing the Plaintiffs Smith, Ideishi, and North
      as Class Representatives of the Challenged Fund Class;
      Plaintiffs Pizarro and Stone as Class Representatives of
      the FE Class; and Plaintiffs Murphy and Stone as Class
      Representatives of the AFA Class;

   3. appointing Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP and Blumenthal
      Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blow LLP as Class Counsel; and

   4. denying the Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment.

The Court concludes that common questions as to the underlying
liability determination of the fiduciaries' prudence in retaining
the Challenged Funds predominate. The Plaintiffs allege that "the
Plan was injured by Defendants' fiduciary breaches" and suffered
quantifiable damages. Class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) is
not defeated simply because the calculation of damages may show
that participants did not sustain identical amounts of loss.
Consequently, any challenge by the Defendants' to manageability is
also unavailing. Particularly given the Court's extensive case
management tools, there is a well-settled presumption that courts
should not decline to certify a class based on manageability alone.
Ultimately, "the Court has a powerful arsenal from which to draw in
making otherwise intractable class actions manageable."
Accordingly, the Court determines that certification of each
proposed Class is also appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3).

The Plaintiffs assert two types of claims against the Defendants:

   (1) that certain investment options in the Plan were
       imprudently selected and/or retained by the Defendants
       despite a sustained record of poor performance (otherwise
       referred to as the "Challenged Fund claims"), and

   (2) that the Defendants imprudently selected and/or retained
       outside investment advisors with an agreement that
       allowed said advisers to charge fees to participants that
       were objectively excessive (otherwise referred to as the
       "Excessive Fee claims").

The Defendants deny these claims and have moved for summary
judgment against those individual Plaintiffs who complained about
the alleged unreasonable fees for investment advice.

A copy of the Court's Order on plaintiffs' motion for class
certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/304cDjC at no extra charge.[CC]

HOMELAND SECURITY: Supplement to Preliminary Injunction Bid Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as YOSELIN GABRIELA REINA MORAN,
et al., v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Case No.
5:20-cv-00696-DOC-JDE (C.D. Cal.), Respondents Matthew T. Albence,
Does, Thomas P. Giles, James Janecka, David A Marin, United States
Department of Homeland Security, and Chad F. Wolf have filed a
Supplement to Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary
Injunction re Release.

On September 22, 2020, Judge David O. Carter entered an order
denying petitioners' request for relief. The Notice, to the extent
it asks for relief, is denied as it does not provide any argument
as to likelihood of success on the merits with its request. The
Motion for Preliminary Injunction re Release Motion filed by
Petitioners Miguel Angel Orellana, Juan Jairo Perez Fajardo,
Yoselin Gabriela Reina Moran43 remains under submission pending the
outcome of related cases, as discussed with counsel during the
hearing on August 24.

Judge Carter entered an order on Aug. 19, 2020, taking under
submission a motion to dismiss and a motion for class
certification.  In an Aug. 21 Order, Judge Carter granted the
Motion to Dismiss, in part.

The United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S.
federal executive department responsible for public security,
roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other
countries.[CC]


HOPEWELL REDEVELOPMENT: Joint Bid for Rule 23 Class Cert. Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOROTHY FLOWERS, et al.,
Individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v.
HOPEWELL REDEVELOPMENT & HOUSING AUTHORITY, Case No. e
3:19-cv-00241-MHL (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs and Defendants ask the
Court for an order certifying a class under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3)
consisting of:

   "all current and former Hopewell public housing residents
   since June 1, 2014 through September 30, 2018 (the Recovery
   Period), who were subject to Hopewell Redevelopment and
   Housing Authority's ("HRHA") procedures regarding utility
   allowances and late fees.

The Plaintiffs and Defendant have reached a settlement agreement
which the parties believe is fair and just and adequately resolves
Plaintiffs' claims. The Parties further seek the Court's approval
of the Settlement Agreement and all supporting documents.

A copy of the joint motion for class certification is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cwcv0Z at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rachel C. McFarland, Esq.
          Sylvia Cosby Jones, Esq.
          Brenda Castaneda, Esq.
          Mary DeVries, Esq.
          Caroline Klosko, Esq.
          LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER
          123 East Broad Street
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: 804-643-1086
          Facsimile: 804-643-2059

               - and -

          Larry F. Eisenstat, Esq.
          CROWELL & MORING LLP
          1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004

The Defendants are represented by:

          Darius K. Davenport, Esq.
          James L. Chapman, IV, Esq.
          David C. Hartnett, Esq.
          CRENSHAW, WARE & MARTIN, P.L.C.
          150 W. Main Street, Suite 1500
          Norfolk, VA 23510
          Telephone: (757) 623-3000
          Facsimile: (757) 623-5735
          E-mail: jchapman@cwm-law.com
                  ddavenport@cwm-law.com
                  dhartnett@cwm-law.com

IMAGINATION INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Scarpino Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTEENA SCARPINO, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. IMAGINATION INDUSTRIES, INC.,
d/b/a AMERICAN DREAM and CASEY ROWE, Defendants, Case No.
8:20-cv-00449 (D. Neb., October 26, 2020) is a class and collective
action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately
2011 until October 2020 as an exotic dancer at American Dream
performing dances on stage and private dances for the Defendants'
customers.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated exotic dancers were misclassified by the Defendants as
independent contractors, thereby failing to provide them the
required minimum wage compensation.

The Plaintiff asserts these claims:

     -- The Defendants required him and other exotic dancers to pay
$50 as a penalty for missing a scheduled shift, if they came in to
work on a night when they were not on the schedule, and for leaving
a scheduled shift early;

     -- The Defendants did not pay them any wages; all their
compensation came in the form of tips paid by customers;

     -- The Defendants required them to tip out the DJ each night,
and required to pay a $10 fine if they failed to tip out DJ;

Imagination Industries, Inc., d/b/a American Dream, is an
establishment where live nude dance entertainment is presented to
adult members of the general public, owned and operated by Casey
Rowe. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          Olena Savytska, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Tel: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                  osavytska@llrlaw.com


INMATE SERVICES: Stearns Seeks to Certify Inmates Class & Subclass
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANZEL L. STEARNS, on
behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, v. INMATE
SERVICES CORPORATION; RANDY L. CAGLE JR.; CHRISTOPHER L. WEISS;
RYAN B. MOORE; and DOE 1 to 100, Case No. 3:16-cv-00339-BRW-JJV
(E.D. ArK.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an order
certifying a class and subclass as follows:

   "all inmates transported by Inmate Services Corporation on or
   after November 15, 2013, who were forced to continuously
   remain in transport vehicles and deprived of the minimal
   civilized measure of life’s necessities, including sleep,
   exercise, and hygiene, for more than: (a) 24 hours; (b) 48
   hours; (c) 72 hours; (d) 96 hours; (e) 120 hours; (f) 144
   hours; (g) 168 hours; and (h) 192 hours."

Inmate Services is a law enforcement company based out of 220 N 6th
Street Suite A, West Mephis, Arkansas.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kJUmju at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark E. Merin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN
          1010 F Street, Suite 300
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 443-6911
          Facsimile: (916) 447-8336
          E-Mail: mark@markmerin.com

INNATE PHARMA: Faces Golovanov Suit Over Drop in Share Price
------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDRE GOLOVANOV, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INNATE PHARMA S.A., MONDHER
MAHJOUBI, and LAURE-HELENE MERCIER, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-09778-DDP-AGR (C.D. Cal., October 23, 2020) is a class
action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged
violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with Innate's acquisition of
9.8% of the newly-issued equity by AstraZeneca.

According to the complaint, the Defendants announced that
AstraZeneca will advance monalizumab in combination with cetuximab
in head and neck patients in a Phase III trial, in which Innate
will receive $100m milestone payment from AstraZeneca upon dosing
of the first patient.

On May 12, 2020, the Defendants submitted to the SEC a Form 6-K
containing a press release summarizing the results of the first
quarter of 2020 ended March 31, 2020. However, the statements were
materially false and/or misleading because it failed to disclose
adverse fact pertaining to the Company's business, operations and
prospects. The Defendants allegedly failed to disclose that it
touted the results of their various Phase trials as being within
expectations; that it continued to reassure investors that they
were eligible for the $100 million payment upon first dosing of
Phase 3 trials; and their negotiations with AstraZeneca to split
the $100m payment into two $50m payments.

Subsequently, the Defendants abruptly announced in its Form 6-K
what they failed to disclose in its financial results which
resulted to precipitous decline of the Innate's American Depository
Share market value.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons or entities, who
have purchased publicly traded Innate securities between March 10,
2020 and September 8, 2020, have suffered significant losses and
damages due to the Defendant's wrongful acts and omissions.

Innate Pharma S.A. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company
engaged in discovering and developing first-in-class therapeutic
antibodies that harness the innate immune system to improve cancer
treatment and clinical outcomes for patients. Mondher Mahjoubi
served as the Company's Chief Executive Officer (CEO), while
Laure-Helene Mercier served as the Company's Chief Financial
Officer (CFO). [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Ave., Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Tel: (213) 785-2610
          Fax: (213) 226-4684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Liu Appeals S.D.N.Y. Ruling to 2nd Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Plaintiffs Hou Liu and Amy Fu filed an appeal from the
District Court's Judgment dated March 27, 2020, Order dated March
26, 2020, and Memorandum Opinion dated September 20, 2020, entered
in the lawsuit styled HOU LIU and AMY FU, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Lead Plaintiffs, v.
INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS INC., MARK PRUZANSKI, SANDIP S. KAPADIA,
RICHARD KIM, and RACHEL MCMINN Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-7371, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New
York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, a purported
shareholder class action, initially styled DeSmet v. Intercept
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming the
Company and certain of its officers as defendants on September 27,
2017.

The Court appointed lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit on June 1, 2018,
and the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 31,
2018, captioned Hou Liu and Amy Fu v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., naming the Company and certain of its current and
former officers as defendants.

The lead plaintiffs claim to be suing on behalf of anyone who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between
June 9, 2016 and September 20, 2017. This lawsuit alleges that
material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact were
made in the Company's public disclosures during the period from
June 9, 2016 to September 20, 2017, in violation of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The alleged
improper disclosures relate to statements regarding Ocaliva dosing,
use and pharmacovigilance-related matters, as well as the Company's
operations, financial performance and prospects.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
putative class, an award of costs and expenses, including
attorney's fees, and rescissory damages.

The appellate case is captioned as Hou Liu v. Intercept
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 20-3488, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Hou Liu and Amy Fu are represented by:

          Richard W. Gonnello, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com  

Defendants-Appellees Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Mark
Pruzanski, Sandip S. Kapadia, Richard Kim, and Rachel McMinn are
represented by:

          Jay B. Kasner, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          One Manhattan West
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 735-2628
          E-mail: jay.kasner@skadden.com

INTERNATIONAL BONDED: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Higuera Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
BYRON HIGUERA, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff v. INTERNATIONAL BONDED COURIERS,
INC., a Florida corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2020-8988 (Cal. Sup. Ct., October
23, 2020) brings this complaint against the Defendants pursuant to
the Labor Code Private Attorney's General Act of 2004 for their
alleged unlawful employment policies and practices, and in
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the
California Business and Professions Code.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee from 2016 through May 2019.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants failed to:

     -- compensate him and other similarly situated non-exempt
employees with all minimum and overtime wages earned throughout
their employment;

     -- provide him and other similarly situated non-exempt
employees with meal and rest periods;

     -- provide accurate itemized wage statements;
     
     -- timely pay wages due at separation of employment; and

     -- reimburse the Plaintiff and Class Members for all
out-of-pocket expenses they incurred in performing their job
duties.

The Plaintiff sent a letter to the Labor and Workforce Development
Agency (LWDA) by certified mail on January 27, 2020 concerning the
Defendants' violations. However, the LWDA did not respond within 65
days, the suit says.

International Bonded Couriers, Inc. is an international logistics
company that specializes in providing customized global
transportation solutions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel F. Gaines, Esq.
          Alex P. Katofsky, Esq.
          Evan S. Gaines, Esq.
          GAINES & GAINES, APLC
          27200 Agoura Rd., Suite 101
          Calabasas, CA 91301
          Tel: (818) 703-8985
          Fax: (818) 703-8984
          E-mail: daniel@gaineslawfirm.com
                  alex@gaineslawfirm.com
                  evan@gaineslawfirm.com


IOWA PLAYHOUSE: Groove Seeks Permission to Issue Notice to Dancers
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA GROVE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. IOWA PLAYHOUSE,
RONALD BERGERON and MICHAEL BERGERON, Case No.1:20-cv-00027-SMR-CFB
(S.D. Iowa), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting
permission to issue notice to a class consisting of:

   "all dancers who have worked at Playhouse during the last
   three years in order to advise potential opt-in plaintiffs
   that this lawsuit is pending and to enable them to decide
   whether to join the lawsuit."

The Plaintiff Andrea Grove has brought this collective action on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals who
have worked as exotic dancers at Iowa Playhouse strip club, seeking
to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).


The Plaintiff Grove asserts that she and other exotic dancers
working for Playhouse were all subject to the same rules and
policies imposed by the Defendants, and were misclassified as
independent contractors when they were, in fact, employees of
Playhouse as a matter of economic reality, and thus subject to the
protections of the FLSA, as a result, the Defendants failed to pay
dancers working at Playhouse the minimum wage in violation of the
FLSA, Groove alleges.

Iowa Playhouse is an all nude adult entertainment club/strip club.

A copy of the Plaintiff's request is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nCMrGP at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Olena Savytska, Esq.
          Harold Lichten, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                  osavytska@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          Nate Willems, Esq.
          RUSH & NICHOLSON P.L.C.
          P.O. Box 637
          Cedar Rapids, IA 52406
          Telephone: 319 363-5209
          Facsimile: 319-363-6664
          E-mail: nate@rushnicholson.com

ISEC INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime to Foremen, Castillo Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
RENE CASTILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ISEC INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No.
5:20-cv-01269 (W.D. Tex., October 26, 2020) brings this collective
action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged failure to
properly pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
foreman from June 2014 to July 2020.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay him proper
overtime because the annual bonuses he received based on his
performance were not included by the Defendant in his regular rate
when calculating his overtime pay. As a result, despite regularly
working 40 hours per week throughout his employment with the
Defendant, the Plaintiff did not receive accurate overtime pay at
one and one-half times of his regular rate of pay for all hours
worked over 40 per week.

ISEC Incorporated is a construction company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JACOBY & MEYERS: Harding et al. Seek to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuits filed against JACOBY & MEYERS, LLP, et
al., the Plaintiffs will move the Court on December 21, 2020, for
an order:

   1. certifying, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3), a class of:

      "clients of Finkelstein & Partners, LLP ("F&P") and Jacoby
      & Meyers, LLP ("J&M") who were billed and charged for
      tasks provided by TTS that constitute Actual Attorney
      Work, Law Firm Overhead, and Surcharge Tasks during the
      applicable statute of limitations"

   2. certifying, under Rule 23(b)(2), a declaratory judgment
      class of F&P and J&M clients who have pending TTS charges
      that constitute Actual Attorney Work, Law Firm Overhead,
      and Surcharge Tasks;

   3. appointing Mr. Harding and Ms. Smalls as Representative
      Plaintiffs; and

   4. appointing Squitieri & Fearon, LLP as Class Counsel.

The lawsuits are captioned as:

      "NANCY HARDING and JEFFREY HARDING, on behalf of
      themselves and all others similarly situated, v. JACOBY &
      MEYERS, LLP, FINKELSTEIN & SOLUTIONS, LLC, ANDREW
      FINKELSTEIN, and KENNETH OLIVER, Case No. 2:14-cv-05419-
      JMV-MF (D.N.J.)"; and

      "BARBARA J. SMALLS, on behalf of herself and all others
      similarly situated, v. JACOBY & MEYERS, LLP, SOLUTIONS,
      LLC, and ANDREW FINKELSTEIN."

Jacoby & Meyers is an American law firm established as a
partnership by Leonard Jacoby and Stephen Meyers. Finkelstein &
Partners, LLP is a law firm in Newburgh, New York.

A copy of the notice of the plaintiffs' renewed motion for class
certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3kd7UE6 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 421-6492
          Facsimile: (212) 421-6553

               - and -

          Joseph Santoli, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH SANTOLI
          340 Devon Court
          Ridgewood, NJ 07450
          Telephone: (201) 926-9200

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,
          OLSTEIN, BROADY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Awaits Trial Date in Contact Lens-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 27, 2020, that the parties in the
contact lens-related suit are awaiting a trial date.

In March and April 2015, over 30 putative class action complaints
were filed by contact lens patients in a number of courts around
the United States against Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.
(JJVCI) and other contact lens manufacturers, distributors, and
retailers, alleging vertical and horizontal conspiracies to fix the
retail prices of contact lenses.

The complaints allege that the manufacturers reached agreements
with each other and certain distributors and retailers concerning
the prices at which some contact lenses could be sold to consumers.


The plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive relief. All of
the class action cases were transferred to the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida in June 2015.

The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint in
November 2015. In December 2018, the district court granted the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Defendants filed two motions for interlocutory appeal of class
certification to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit. Both motions were denied.

Defendants' motions for summary judgment were denied in November
2019.

The parties await a trial date.

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

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend cART Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 27, 2020, that the company and
Janssen R&D Ireland continue to defend a class action suit related
to combination antiretroviral therapies (cART) to treat HIV.

In May 2019, a class action antitrust complaint was filed against
Janssen R&D Ireland (Janssen) and Johnson & Johnson in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

The complaint alleges that Janssen violated federal and state
antitrust and consumer protection laws by agreeing to exclusivity
provisions in its agreements with Gilead concerning the development
and marketing of combination antiretroviral therapies (cART) to
treat HIV.

The complaint also alleges that Gilead entered into similar
agreements with Bristol-Myers-Squibb and Japan Tobacco.

In March 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motions to dismiss.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in April 2020. Defendants
moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

In July 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part the
renewed motion to dismiss.

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend INVOKANA(R) Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 27, 2020, that the company
continues to defend class action suits related to sales of
INVOKANA(R) medication.

Claims for personal injury have been made against a number of
Johnson & Johnson companies, including Janssen Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. and Johnson & Johnson, arising out of the use of INVOKANA(R),
a prescription medication indicated to improve glycemic control in
adults with Type 2 diabetes.

Lawsuits filed in federal courts in the United States have been
organized as a multi-district litigation in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Cases have also been filed in state courts.

Class action lawsuits have been filed in Canada.

Product liability lawsuits continue to be filed, and the Company
continues to receive information with respect to potential costs
and the anticipated number of cases. The Company has settled or
otherwise resolved many of the cases and claims in the United
States and the costs associated with these settlements are
reflected in the Company's accruals.

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

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.



KSR SQUARE: Underpays Customer Service Representatives, Duran Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
NAIMI DURAN, Plaintiff v. KEVIN CEVYN T. FELDER and KSR SQUARE LLC
a/k/a KSR SQUARED LLC, Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-03111-PWG (D.
Md., October 26, 2020) brings this collective action complaint on
behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
against the Defendants for their alleged failure to pay minimum
wage compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as customer service
representative.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants maintained an illegal ad
company-wide practice of unlawfully failing to pay its employees at
the hourly wage rates as required by the FLSA. As a result, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated customer service
representatives were denied by the Defendants of the required
minimum wage compensation. The Defendants have not paid any wages
to its customer service representatives despite their repeated
demands.

KSR Square LLC a/k/a KSR Squared LLC provides customer service
support to Comcast customers throughout the U.S. Kevin Cevyn T.
Felder has extensive managerial responsibility at KSR and has
substantial control of the terms and conditions of all of KSR's
employees. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James M. Ray, II, Esq.
          RAY LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          8720 Georgia Ave., Suite 803
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Tel: (301) 755-5656
          Fax: (301) 755-5627
          E-mail: jim.ray@raylegalgroup.com


LA RISARALDA: Faces Atenco Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
JUAN ATENCO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. LA RISARALDA CORP. (D/B/A CARNICERIA LA RISARALDA),
ORLANDO VALENCIA, AIDA VALENCIA, and JASMINE VENEGAS, Case No.
1:20-cv-04807 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 7, 2020) arises from the Defendants'
unlawful labor policies and practices in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to pay him
appropriate overtime compensation, failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of the hours worked, and failed to provide accurate
wage statements at the time of the payment of wages.

The Plaintiff was employed as a general assistant at the
Defendants' supermarket in New York from approximately 2001 until
on or about August 2020.

La Risaralda Corp. owns, operates, or controls a supermarket in New
York under the name Carniceria La Risaralda.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

LANCER FOOD: Court Certifies Workers Class in Gardner Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robin Gardner,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, v. Lancer Food Holdings, LLC (d/b/a Lancer
Hospitality, Inc.) and Lancer Management Services, Inc., Case No.
0:20-cv-00493-KMM (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge Katherine M. Menendez
entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Conditional and
      Class Certification and for Preliminary Approval of
      Settlement;

   2. certifying this lawsuit as a class action pursuant to Rule
      23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 29 U.S.C.
      section 216(b), for purposes of settlement only, on behalf
      of the following settlement group:

      "all hourly workers employed by Defendants in Minnesota,
      or who opted- into this action as of August 4, 2020 by
      filing a consent form with the Court, for whom, according
      to Plaintiffs' calculations based on Defendants' records,
      worked unpaid overtime at any time during February 12,
      2017 to August 4, 2020";

   3. directing that the notice of intent to object or request
      exclusion must be emailed or mailed to class counsel at
      the following address on or before the 45-day period
      specified in the notice of settlement:

            Michele R. Fisher
            Nichols Kaster, PLLP
            80 South 8th Street, Suite 4600
            Minneapolis, MN 55402
            E-mail: forms@nka.com

   4. appointing Michele R. Fisher, Kayla M. Kienzle, and the
      law firm of Nichols Kaster, PLLP as class counsel to
      represent the settlement group; and

   5. directing the parties to take all reasonable steps needed
      to comply with the following timeline:

      --  Within 5 days of Order:

          Defendants provide updated list for mailing

      --  Within 7 days of receipt of list:

          Plaintiff mail notice of settlement

      --  Within 45 days of notice of settlement mailing:

          Objections and requests for exclusion due to class
          counsel

      --  Within 7 days prior to final approval hearing:

          Requests for exclusion and objections due to Court and
          defense counsel letter supplementing previously filed
          memorandum due

      --  At least 71 days from Order:

          Final approval hearing

A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3mXPYzg at no extra charge.[CC]

LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Tanious Balks at Misclassification of Drivers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hany Tanious; Loussine S. Mazmanian; individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. James B. Gatton; Patrick J.
O'Malley; Landstar System Inc.; Landstar Ranger, Inc.; and DOES l
to 25, inclusive, Case No. RG20076517 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty.,
Oct. 9, 2020) arises from the Defendants' deliberate scheme to
misclassify their truck drivers as independent contractors, thereby
denying them the fundamental protections due to employees under the
California Labor Code.

The complaint alleges that as a result of the Defendants' unlawful
misclassification policy and practice, they have (1) failed to
provide proper wage compensation and engaged in unfair business
practices pursuant to California Business and Professions Code; (2)
failed to provide worker's compensation benefits in violation of
California's Workers Compensation Act, Labor Code Section 3200; and
(3) engaged in wrongful termination and retaliation of the
Plaintiffs.

Plaintiff Tanious was employed as a truck driver for the Defendants
approximately for five & half years until October 29, 2018.
Plaintiff Mazmanian is the wife of Tanious.

Landstar System, Inc. is a transportation services company
specializing in logistics and more specifically third-party
logistics.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Motaz M. Gerges, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MOTAZ M. GERGES
          118543 Devonshire St., #448
          Northridge, CA 91324
          E-mail: mgerges@aol.com

LEXINFINTECH HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Reminds of November 9 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of LexinFintech Holdings Ltd. (NASDAQ:
LX): (i) pursuant and/or traceable to LexinFintech's initial public
offering ("IPO") conducted on or about December 21, 2017; and/or
(ii) between December 21, 2017 and August 24, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period") of the important November 9, 2020 lead plaintiff
deadline in the securities class action first filed by the firm.
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for LexinFintech investors
under the federal securities laws.

To join the LexinFintech class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1936.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
9, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1936.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

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

LIBERTY UNIVERSITY: Students Seek to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STUDENT A, STUDENT B,
STUDENT C, and STUDENT D, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. LIBERTY UNIVERSITY, INC., d/b/a LIBERTY
UNIVERSITY, Case No. 6:20-cv-00023-NKM-RSB (W.D.Va.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class defined as:

      "all students who paid fees (including but not limited to
      campus fees, room, board, parking, and other fees as
      broadly defined herein) in connection with enrollment in
      live, on-campus classes at Liberty University for the
      Spring 2020 semester";

   2. appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives;
      and

   3. appointing Michie Hamlett PLLC; DiCello Levitt Gutzler
      LLC; and Matthew S. Miller LLC, as Class Counsel.

Liberty University is a private evangelical Christian university in
Lynchburg, Virginia. It was founded by Jerry Falwell and Elmer L.
Towns in 1971. Although the university's physical campus is in
Lynchburg, most of its students are online.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/303pHpm at no
extra charge.[CC]

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are:

          E. Kyle McNew, Esq.
          J. Gregory Webb, Esq.
          Lisa S. Brook, Esq.
          MICHIEHAMLETT
          310 4th Street, NE
          P.O. Box 298
          Charlottesville, VA 22902
          Telephone: 434-951-7231
          Facsimile: 434-951-7254
          E-mail: kmcnew@michiehamlett.com
                  gwebb@michiehamlett.com
                  lbrook@michiehamlett.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          Laura E. Reasons, Esq.
          D I CELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312 214-7900
          E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
                  akeller@dicellolevitt.com
                  lreasons@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Matthew S. Miller, Esq.
          MATTHEW S. MILLER LLC
          77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4500
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: 312-741-1085
          E-mail: mmiller@msmillerlaw.com

LOYAL SOURCE: Guerrero FLSA Suit Moved From M.D. Fla. to S.D. Tex.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GRACE GUERRERO, individually and for others
similarly situated v. LOYAL SOURCE GOVERNMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case
No. 6:20-cv-00009, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas on October 23, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Texas assigned Case
No. 2:20-cv-00261 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated employees overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Loyal Source Government Services, LLC is a staffing company that
provides healthcare professionals to government and private
entities, headquartered in Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                    
         
         C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
         20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1600
         Orlando, FL 32801
         Telephone: (407) 420-1414
         Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
         E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com

                   - and –

         Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
         JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
         11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 352-1100
         Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
         E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 adunlap@mybackwages.com
                 rschreiber@mybackwages.com

                   - and –

         Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
         BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
         8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 877-8788
         Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
         E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

LOYALTY BRANDS: CEO Suit Dismissed by Court of Appeals
------------------------------------------------------
Loyalty Brands, the parent company for multiple like-minded
business service franchises, recently announced that after two
years of litigation, the Class Action Suit filed against its CEO,
John Hewitt, has been dismissed by the United States Court of
Appeals.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgement of the United States
District Court for Eastern New York handed down in January of 2020.
At that time, it was found categorically that claims raised by
class action plaintiffs were to be dismissed before ever reaching
trial.

The Lead Plaintiff-Appellant IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund appealed
the motion to dismiss the January 21st judgement. This dismissal of
the Class Action suit by two federal courts upholds a consensus
that the shareholders of Liberty Tax Service, the company in which
Hewitt was the Founder and former CEO, were not hurt by any actions
taken by the company in prior years.

In the January ruling, the Judge of the United States District
Court for Eastern New York, found categorically that the claims
raised by the class action plaintiffs had to be dismissed as they
did not establish a legal basis that could lead to a finding
against John Hewitt. The United States Court of Appeals has upheld
that opinion.

"This court decision proves definitively what I have said all
along, which is that the claims against me and the company never
had any merit, and now two United States Federal Judges have
vindicated me," said Hewitt.

Hewitt is the founder and CEO of Loyalty Brands, LLC, a company he
founded in 2018. Loyalty Brands is an umbrella franchise
development company that engages with emerging franchisers to help
build and strengthen their operations and marketing to increase
sales and revenues.

For more information about these franchise opportunities, please
visit https://loyaltybrands.com/.

                     About Loyalty Brands

Headquartered in Virginia Beach, Virginia, Loyalty Brands is an
umbrella franchise company founded in 2018 by serial entrepreneur
John Hewitt. The Loyalty Brands consist of business brokerage,
small business accounting, tax preparation and added services,
networking and bartering. The company maintains a community first
outlook, meaning that involvement in local communities and giving
back is a core value. The multi-brand concept involves businesses
that are synergistic and compatible, so potential franchisees could
possibly own one or more of the brands for additional customer
acquisition and co-marketing opportunities. To learn more about
Loyalty Brands, please visit https://loyaltybrands.com/.

         Martha O'Gorman
         Loyalty Brands
         Tel No: 757-802-4635
         E-mail: Martha@loyaltybrands.com [GN]

LUBRITECH: Fails to Pay Overtime to Operators, Peery Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
HEATH PEERY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SIDNEY K. IVEY d/b/a LUBRITECH and LUBRITECH
PRODUCTS, Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-00248 (W.D. Tex., October 26,
2020) brings this complaint against the Defendant for its alleged
willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay
its employees' overtime.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a coil tubing
operator/team lead from August 2019 to October 2020.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours per week but he only received a
salary-plus-daily-rate without overtime. The Defendant allegedly
did not pay the Plaintiff his lawfully earned overtime at the rate
not less than one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for
all hours he worked in excess of 40 per week.

Lubritech provides production and completion equipment, products,
and chemicals to the oilfield industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Centre
          440 Louisiana St., Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002-1063
          Tel: (713) 222-6775
          Fax: (713) 222-6739
          E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
                  curt@mooreandassociates.net


LUFTHANSA: Conditional Cert. of Aircraft Inspectors Class Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYRONE SHAUGHNESSY, et
al., v. LUFTHANSA TECHNIK NORTH AMERICA HOLDING CORP., et al., Case
No. 2:20-cv-01032-RAJ (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
for an order conditionally certifying case as a "collective action"
on behalf of eligible employees consisting of:

   "all past and/or present employees of LTNA who, like the
   Plaintiffs:

   a) Work or have worked for LTNA within the past three years;
      and

   b) Held non-supervisory or non-lead positions as aircraft
      inspectors; and

   c) Performed more than 40 hours of work in any week; and

   d) Were not paid for their overtime hours of work at a rate
      of at least one and one-half times the regular rate of
      pay."

The Plaintiffs were employed to work as aircraft inspectors by the
Defendant, LTNA. They claim that LTNA systematically violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act by refusing to provide its aircraft
inspectors with overtime wages, as required by 29 U.S.C. section
207(a).

LTNA provides aircraft maintenance, repair, overhaul and
modification services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion conditional certification of
collective action is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3keeLgs at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott McKay, Esq.
          NEVIN, BENJAMIN, MCKAY & BARTLETT LLP
          303 W. Bannock
          Boise, ID 83702
          Telephone: 208 343 1000
          Facsimile: 208 345 8274
          E-mail: smckay@nbmlaw.com


MAILMYPRESCRIPTIONS.COM: Website Not ADA Compliant, DelaCruz Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EMANUEL DELACRUZ, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. MAILMYPRESCRIPTIONS.COM PHARMACY
CORPORATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-08337-JGK (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 6, 2020),
alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain,
and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website,
https://www.mailmyprescriptions.com, is not equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA, the
Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet their definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually-impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually-impaired persons live in the State of New York.

The Defendant is a US mail-order pharmacy.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: 212 228 9795
          Facsimile: 212.982.6284
          E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
                  Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com

MAIN STREET: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAIN STREET HOST INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:20-cv-09773 (C.D. Cal., October 23, 2020) arises from
the Defendant's alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received a pre-recorded
call on his telephone number (818)-352-XXXX from the Defendant on
August 28, 2020. When the Plaintiff responded, she has spoke to a
certain Taylor Morgan, who is attempting to promote the Defendant's
services and solicit a sale, and subsequently confirming their
conversation by sending an e-mail to the Plaintiff from
tmorgan@mainstreethost.com.

The Plaintiff contends that he did not provide his prior express
written consent to the Defendant to be contacted via automatic
telephone dialing system. As a result of the Defendant's
unsolicited calls, the Plaintiff has been harmed because his
privacy has been violated, he was annoyed and harassed, and he has
incurred certain charges for the Defendant's calls.

Main Street Host, Inc. offers digital marketing services to
businesses. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Schwartz, Esq.
          ADAM J SCHWARTZ, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          5670 Wishire Blvd., Suite 1800
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Tel: (323) 455-4016
          E-mail: adam@ajschwartzlaw.com


MARINE DENTAL: Faces Joung FLSA Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------
SU KEN JOUNG, Plaintiff v. MARINE DENTAL LABORATORY, INC., JIN UP
KIM, and YONG GI JANG, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01261 (E.D.
Va., October 23, 2020) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and
those similarly situated against the Defendants for their alleged
willful and intentional violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a dental technician
from on or about August 22, 2017 until on or about August 11,
2020.

The Plaintiff claims that despite regularly working more than 40
hours a week, the Defendant did not pay him overtime wages at the
rate of not-less-than one and one-half times his regular hourly
wage rate.

Marine Dental Laboratory, Inc. is in the business of making and
selling dental prosthetics for patients of dentists located in
Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia and Ohio, operated by
its owners Jin Up Kim and Yong Gi Jang. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Hyunkweon Ryu, Esq.
          RYU & RYU, PLC
          301 Maple Ave. West, Suite 620
          Vienna, VA 22180
          Tel: (703) 319-0001
          Fax: (703) 562-0787


MATHESON TRI-GAS: Groves FLSA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as SHAWANDA GROVES, on behalf of herself and all
similarly situated v. MATHESON TRI-GAS, INC., Case No. DC-20-13072,
was removed from the 116th District Court of Dallas County, Texas
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on
October 23, 2020.

The Clerk Court for the Northern District of Texas assigned Case
No. 3:20-cv-03238-L to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc. is a company that provides gases and gas
handling equipment based in Basking Ridge, New Jersey. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                  
         
         Paul E. Hash, Esq.
         JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
         500 N. Akard, Suite 2500
         Dallas, TX 75201
         Telephone: (214) 520-2400
         Facsimile: (214) 520-2008
         E-mail: Paul.Hash@jacksonlewis.com

MATSON MONEY: Lures Investors to Sham Investments, Zimmerman Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN ZIMMERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MATSON MONEY, INC., CHRISTOPHER W. BURNS,
INVESTUS ADVISERS LLC d/b/a DYNAMIC MONEY LLC, INVESTUS FINANCIAL
LLC, and PEER CONNECT LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04409-WMR
(N.D. Ga., October 28, 2020) is a class action against the
Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, violation of the Georgia
Securities Act, breach of contract, negligence, and negligence per
se.

According to the complaint, the Defendants defrauded the Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated persons to invest in promissory
notes that were falsely described to them as safe and conservative
"peer to peer" investment opportunities. In reality, the promissory
notes were sham investments, unregistered securities under Georgia
law and part of a Ponzi scheme that the Defendants attempted to
keep afloat by taking in money from new investors to pay interest
to earlier investors.

Matson Money, Inc. is an investment advisor company based in Mason,
Ohio.

Investus Advisers LLC, d/b/a Dynamic Money LLC, is a financial
advisor company headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.

Investus Financial LLC is a financial services company based in
Atlanta, Georgia.

Peer Connect LLC is a limited liability company based in Atlanta,
Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Jason R. Doss, Esq.
         THE DOSS FIRM, LLC
         The Brumby Building
         127 Church Street, Suite 220
         Marietta, GA 30060
         Telephone: (770) 578-1314
         E-mail: jasondoss@dossfirm.com

                 - and –
         
         Robert C. Port, Esq.
         Luke M. Caselman, Esq.
         GASLOWITZ FRANKEL LLC
         303 Peachtree Street N.E., Suite 4500
         Atlanta, GA 30308
         Telephone: (404) 892-9797
         Facsimile: (404) 892-1311
         E-mail: rport@gadisputes.com
                 lcaselman@gadisputes.com

MAXIM INTEGRATED: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case
No. 1:20-cv-07168-MKV on behalf of shareholders of Maxim Integrated
Products, Inc. ("Maxim" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:MXIM) who have
been harmed by Maxim's and its board of directors' (the "Board")
alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the
proposed merger of the Company with Analog Devices, Inc. (the
"Proposed Transaction").

On July 12, 2020, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger under which Maxim shareholders stand
to receive 0.63 shares of Analog Devices, Inc. common stock for
each share of Maxim stock they own.

The complaint alleges that the Form S-4 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission violates Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act because it provides materially incomplete and
misleading information about the Company and the Proposed
Transaction, including information concerning the Company's
financial projections and analysis, on which the Board relied to
recommend the Proposed Transaction as fair to Maxim shareholders.

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

Take Action

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

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from September 15, 2020, the date of this
notice.  Any member of the putative class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.  If you
wish to discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this
notice or your rights or interests, please contact:

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


MICROSOFT CORP: Khalid Appeals Ruling in Antitrust Suit to 9th Cir
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Atm Shafiqul Khalid filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Atm Khalid, et al. v. Microsoft
Corporation, Case No. 2:19-cv-00130-RSM, in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington, Seattle.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Ricardo
S. Martinez granted Defendant Microsoft's Motion to Dismiss
Khalid's amended complaint with leave to amend certain claims.  

The Plaintiff worked at Microsoft from Jan. 9, 2012 until February
2015. As an initial matter, the Plaintiff sought to certify as a
class of all Microsoft employees who signed an employment contract
with Microsoft similar to the Employee Agreement signed by the
Plaintiff (presented as "Count 7").  

A pro se litigant may not serve as the representative of a class in
a class action lawsuit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.  Accordingly,
Judge Martinez did not consider the question of class
certification.

Having reviewed the Defendant's Motion, the Plaintiff's Response,
the Defendant's Reply, and the remainder of the record, Judge
Martinez granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.  He (i)
dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend Counts 1 and 2
(Sherman Act claims) and Count 3 (claim for extortion under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act); (ii) dismissed
with prejudice Count 4 (forced labor), Count 5 (RICO claim for
forced labor), Counts 6 and 12 (civil rights claims), Count 8
(fraud), and the Plaintiff's claim for declaratory relief on
Fourteenth Amendment violation (Count 10); and dismissed without
prejudice and with leave to amend the Plaintiff's remaining claims
for declaratory relief (Counts 9 and 11).

The appellate case is captioned as Atm Khalid v. Microsoft
Corporation, et al., Case No. 20-35921, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant Atm Shafiqul Khalid opening brief is due on
December 21, 2020;

   -- Appellees John Doe and Microsoft Corporation answering brief
is due on January 19, 2021; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant ATM SHAFIQUL KHALID, an individual and on
behalf of similarly situated, of Redmond, Washington, appears pro
se.

Defendant-Appellee MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington corporation,
is represented by:

          Heidi B. Bradley, Esq.
          BRADLEY BERNSTEIN SANDS LLP
          113 Cherry Street
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 337-6551
          E-mail: bradleyh@lanepowell.com

               - and -

          Tiffany Connors, Esq.
          LANE POWELL PC
          1420 Fifth Avenue
          P.O. Box 91302
          Seattle, WA 98111-9402
          Telephone: (206) 223-7000        
          E-mail: connorst@lanepowell.com

MIDLAND CREDIT: Debiase Sues in New Jersey Over FDCA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is captioned as MAUREEN DEBIASE, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MIDLAND
CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-14070-JMV-JBC (D.N.J.,
Oct. 7, 2020).

The nature of the suit is stated as consumer credit filed pursuant
to the Fair Debt Collection Act.

The case is assigned to Judge John Michael Vazquez.

Midland Credit Management, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Encore Capital Group, Inc., is a specialty finance company
providing debt recovery solutions for consumers across a broad
range of assets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan Leyland Gentile
          LAW OFFICES OF GUS MICHAEL FARINELLA PC
          110 Jericho Turnpike-Suite 100
          Floral Park, NY 11001
          Telephone: (201) 873-7675
          E-mail: rlg@lawgmf.com

MIDLAND FUNDING: Fails to Protect Confidential Info, Davis Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANN DAVIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:20-cv-01975-MWB (M.D. Pa., October 26, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false and misleading
representations concerning its debt collection practices. The
Defendant failed to include a confidential document form anywhere
in a complaint that it filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Centre
County about the Plaintiff's alleged debt. Within the complaint,
the Defendant affirmatively certified compliance with the
provisions of 204 Pennsylvania Code that require the filing of
confidential information and documents differently than
non-confidential information and documents. Furthermore, Midland
Funding disclosed information capable of identifying the Plaintiff
as an alleged debtor. As a result of the Defendant's false
representations or means in connection with its debt collection
practice, the Plaintiff's confidential information such as credit
card statements were exposed.

Midland Funding, LLC is a debt collection company, with its
principal place of business located 350 Camino De La Reina, San
Diego, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                  
                           
         Joshua P. Ward, Esq.
         THE LAW FIRM OF FENTERS WARD
         The Rubicon Building
         201 South Highland Avenue, Suite 201
         Pittsburgh, PA 15206
         Telephone: (412) 545-3015
         Facsimile: (412) 540-3399
         E-mail: jward@fentersward.com

MISSOURI: Court Certifies Defendant Class
-----------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ORGANIZATION FOR BLACK
STRUGGLE, ST. LOUIS A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE, GREATER KANSAS
CITY A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN
ST. LOUIS SECTION, and MISSOURI FAITH VOICES, v. JOHN R. ASHCROFT,
in his official capacity as the Missouri Secretary of State, and
GREENE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE; JACKSON COUNTY ELECTION BOARD; ST.
CHARLES COUNTY ELECTION AUTHORITY; and ST. LOUIS COUNTY BOARD OF
ELECTIONS, and all others similarly situated, Case No.
2:20-cv-04184-BCW (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order certifying under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 a
Defendant Class of:

   "all 116 local election authorities in Missouri or, in the
   alternative, joinder of the same."

The Plaintiffs in this action seek immediate relief for the
thousands of Missouri voters who will attempt to vote on a date or
at a location other than their Election Day polling site, voters
who vote by mail or absentee ballot (remote ballot) in the November
2020 general election, but who will face severe or insurmountable
burdens to casting a ballot that will count.

The Plaintiffs' seek to vindicate their voting rights through this
Court, and a defendant class certification of local election
authorities in this case will ensure the consistent constitutional
application, implementation, and enforcement of Missouri law
throughout the state, the complaint says.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify defendant class of 116
local election authorities is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2Ety1Hm at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony Rothert, Esq.
          Jessie Steffan, Esq.
          Kayla Deloach, Esq.
          ACLU OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION
          906 Olive Street, Suite 1130
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 652-3114
          Facsimile: (314) 652-3112
          E-mail: arothert@aclu-mo.org
                  jsteffan@aclu-mo.org
                  kdeloach@aclu-mo.org

               - and -

          Denise Lieberman, Esq.
          MISSOURI VOTER PROTECTION COALITION
          6047 Waterman Blvd.
          St. Louis, MO 63112
          Telephone: (314) 780-1833
          E-mail: denise@movpc.org
                  denise@deniselieberman.com

               - and -

          Naila Awan, Esq.
          Kathryn C. Sadasivan, Esq.
          Chiraag Bains, Esq.
          DEMOS
          80 Broad Street, Fl 4
          New York, NY 10014
          Telephone: (212) 485-6065
          E-mail: nawan@demos.org
                  kasadasivan@demos.org
                  cbains@demos.org

               - and -

          Ezra Rosenberg, Esq.
          Ryan Snow, Esq.
          LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW
          1500 K Street NW, Suite 900
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 662-8600
          Facsimile: (202) 783-0857
          E-mail: erosenberg@lawyerscommittee.org
                  rsnow@lawyerscommittee.org

MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Cruz Employment Suit Goes to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as NICO CRUZ, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v. MOHAWK
INDUSTRIES, INC.; DALTILE SERVICES, INC.; DAL-TILE SERVICES, INC.;
DAL-TILE CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
20CECG02675, was removed from the Superior Court for the State of
California for the County of Fresno to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California on October 23, 2020.

The Clerk Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:20-at-00834 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wages and overtime, failure
to provide meal and rest periods, failure to timely pay wages
during employment and upon separation, failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements, failure to keep requisite payroll
records, and failure to indemnify necessary business expenses.

Mohawk Industries, Inc. is an American flooring manufacturer based
in Calhoun, Georgia.

Daltile Services, Inc. is a distributor of stone, cement, lime,
construction sand, gravel, and other construction materials, with
its headquarters in Calhoun, Georgia.

Dal-Tile Services, Inc. is a distributor of stone, cement, lime,
construction sand, gravel, and other construction materials, with
its headquarters in Calhoun, Georgia.

Dal-Tile Corporation is a manufacturer of ceramic tiles and natural
stone based in Dallas, Texas. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 

         
         Jesse M. Jauregui, Esq.
         Ian A. Wright, Esq.
         Kelsey K. Wong, Esq.
         ALSTON & BIRD LLP
         333 South Hope Street, 16th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-1410
         Telephone: (213) 576-1000
         Facsimile: (213) 576-1100
         E-mail: jesse.jauregui@alston.com
                 ian.wright@alston.com
                 kelsey.wong@alston.com

MULHOLLAND ENERGY: Estrada Suit Wins Conditional Class Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned as BLAKE ESTRADA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MULHOLLAND ENERGY
SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 7:20-cv-00140 (W.D. Tex.), Blake Estrada
and Mulholland Energy Services, LLC file an agreed motion for
conditional class certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act
for the following class:

   "Individuals who performed work for Mulholland Energy
   Services, LLC, as Wash Crew Hands in Texas and New Mexico
   from June 1, 2017 to present."

The Parties have further agreed to and propose the following
schedule:

   --  14 days from order approving notice to Potential Class
       Members

       The Defendant to provide to Plaintiff's Counsel in Excel
       (.xlsx) format the following information regarding all
       Putative Class Members: full name; last known address(es)
       with city, state, and zip Code; last known e-mail
       address(es) (non-company address if applicable);
       beginning date(s) of engagement; and ending date(s) of
       engagement (if applicable).

   --  21 days from order approving notice to Potential Class
       Members

       The Plaintiff's Counsel shall send a copy of the Court-
       approved Class Notice and Consent Form to the Putative
       Class Members by First Class U.S. Mail and by email.

   --  30 days from order approving notice to Potential Class
       Members.

       The Plaintiff's Counsel may resend a copy of the Court-
       approved Notice and Consent Form to the Putative Class
       Members by First Class U.S. Mail and by email.

   --  60 days from mailing of Notice and Consent Forms to
       Potential Class Members.

       The Putative Class Members shall have 60 days to return
       their signed Consent forms to Plaintiff's Counsel for
       filing with the Court.

On Oct. 16, 2020, Judge Ronald C. Griffin entered an order granting
an unopposed motion for conditional certification.

Mulholland Energy Services is an oil and gas company.

A copy of the Parties' motion for conditional certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cqQG2T at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          David I. Moulton, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLUCK
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Telecopier: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
                  dmoulton@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
          Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375
          Facsimile: (212) 481-1333
          E-mail: JFitapelli@fslawfirm.com
                  Fmazzaferro@fslawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Bruce A. Koehler, Esq.
          Monica L. Perez, Esq.
          MOUNCE, GREEN, MYERS, SAFI, PAXSON & GALATZAN P.C.
          100 N. Stanton, Suite 1000
          El Paso, TX 79901
          Telephone: (915) 541-1513
          E-mail: koehler@mgmsg.com
                  perez@mgmsg.com

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Asks Court to Decertify Class & 4 Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES D. MCNAMEE, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. NATIONSTAR
MORTGAGE LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-01948-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the
Defendant asks the Court for an order:

   1. granting its motion for decertification of the class and
      decertify the four subclasses certified by this Court on
      March 30, 2018, as amended by Order issued on May 22,
      2019; and

   2. granting Nationstar such other and further relief as the
      Court deems just and proper.

Nationstar, doing business as Mr. Cooper, offers mortgage services.
The Company provides mortgages loan, re-financing and home equity
loans.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen A. Weigand, Esq.
          FARUKI PLL
          201 East Fifth Street, Suite 1420
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 632-0306
          Telecopier: (513) 632-0319
          E-mail: sweigand@ficlaw.com

               - and -

          D. Kyle Deak, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
          305 Church at North Hills Street, Suite 1200
          Raleigh, NC 27609
          Telephone: (919) 835-4133
          E-mail: kyle.deak@troutman.com

NAVIENT CORP: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Hyland Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned KATHRYN HYLAND, MELISSA
GARCIA, ELIZABETH TAYLOR, JESSICA SAINT-PAUL, REBECCA
SPITLER-LAWSON, MICHELLE MEANS, ELIZABETH KAPLAN, JENNIFER GUTH,
MEGAN NOCERINO, and ANTHONY CHURCH, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. NAVIENT CORPORATION and NAVIENT
SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-09031-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Denise Cote entered an order:

   1. approving the Cy Pres Recipient to launch the PSLF
      Project, and receive a total distribution of $2,250,000
      from the Settlement Fund;

   2. certifying the Settlement Class pursuant to Federal Rules
      of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(e):

      "all individuals who, at any point from October 1, 2007 to
      the Effective Date (i) have or had Federal Family
      Education Loans (EFEL) or Direct Loans serviced by
      Navient; (ii) are or were employed full-time by a
      qualifying public service employer or employers for
      purposes of PSLF; and (it) spoke to a Navient customer
      service representative about subjects relating to
      eligibility for PSLF";

   3. declining to reach the merits of the Fees Application
      because counsel's papers, and therefore the Class Notice,
      did not disclose that the American Federation of Teachers
      (AFT) had paid counsel's fees or that an attorneys’ fees
      award would be used to reimburse AFT for those payments.
      Therefore, under Settlement Agreement, the $500,000
      requested for such award shall be distributed to the Cy
      Pres Recipient, for a total distribution to the Cy Pres
      Recipient of $2,250,000; and

   4. reserving continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the
      Plaintiffs, the Defendants, and the Settlement Class with
      respect to the Settlement Agreement and this Order.

Navient is a U.S. corporation based in Wilmington, Delaware, whose
operations include servicing and collecting student loans.

A copy of the Court's Final Approval Order is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dpCh7O at no extra charge.[CC]

NEW YORK TEAMSTERS: Carlisle Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT CARLISLE, individually and as a representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, on behalf of the NEW YORK STATE
TEAMSTERS CONFERENCE PENSION AND RETIREMENT FUND v. THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF THE NEW YORK STATE TEAMSTERS
CONFERENCE PENSION AND RETIREMENT FUND; JOHN BULGARO; BRIAN K.
HAMMOND; PAUL A. MARKWITZ; GEORGE F. HARRIGAN; MARK D. MAY; MICHAEL
S. SCALZO, SR.; ROBERT SCHAEFFER; MARK GLADFELTER; SAMUEL D.
PILGER; DANIEL W. SCHMIDT; TOM J. VENTURA; MEKETA INVESTMENT GROUP,
INC.; and HORIZON ACTUARIAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-08793
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 21, 2020) seeks to recover and obtain all losses
resulting from the Defendants' fiduciary breaches under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that from 2014 and continuing period, the
Board of Trustees and the Trustee Defendants imprudently deployed
and maintained the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and
Retirement Fund assets in an extraordinary high risk, high cost
asset allocation to chase a grossly excessive and unreasonable 8.5%
"actuarial return target." The Plaintiff asserts that Meketa, the
Plan's investment consultant and alternatives asset manager,
breached its fiduciary duties in exercising authority or control
over Plan management and assets and providing investment consulting
services and investment management services for compensation.

Meketa used its position as the Plan's nondiscretionary investment
consultant to recommend itself for the position of the Plan's paid
discretionary investment manager; advised the trustees as the
Plan's nondiscretionary investment consultant the only way to
strive to achieve the "actuarial return target" was with
extraordinary significantly overweighted allocations of Plan assets
to the highest risk asset classes including Emerging Markets
Equities and Private Equity and other private market alternatives
under Meketa's discretionary management; and directly and
substantially benefited by the imprudent asset allocation at the
unfair expense of the Plan and the participants, the suit says.

The Defendant, the Board of Trustees of the New York State
Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund, is the Plan
Sponsor.

Meketa Investment Group, Inc. is a global investment consulting and
advisory firm incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.

Horizon Actuarial Services, LLC is an actuarial consulting firm
incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leslie A. Blau, Esq.
          BLAU & MALMFELDT
          566 West Adams Street, Suite 600
          Chicago, IL 60661
          Telephone: (312) 443-1600
          Facsimile: (312) 443-1665
          E-mail: blaulaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Schwartz, Esq.
          CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642-8500
          Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
          E-mail: steveschwartz@chimicles.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Esq.
          Ips Emily L. Skaug, Esq.
          CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
          2711 Centerville Road, Suite 201
          Wilmington, DE 19808

NEW YORK: Not Dead Yet Alleges Disabilities Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Andrew Cuomo, et al.
The case is captioned as Not Dead Yet, NMD United, Disability
Rights New York, Michelle Brose, Mike Volkman, Jessica Tambor, and
Peri Finkelstein, individually and on behalf of a class of all
others similarly situated v. Andrew Cuomo, Governor of the State of
New York, in his official capacity, and Howard A. Zucker
Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, in his
official capacity, Case No. 2:20-cv-04819-GRB-AKT (E.D.N.Y., Oct.
7, 2020).

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

The case is assigned to Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Britney Renee Wilson, Esq.
          NATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE
          275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1506
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 633-6967
          Facsimile: (212) 633-6371
          E-mail: wilson@nclej.org

NIKE INC: Saleh Alleges Wiretapping of Web Site Visitors
--------------------------------------------------------
BURHAAN SALEH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NIKE, INC. and FULLSTORY, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-09581
(C.D. Cal., Oct. 19, 2020) is brought against the Defendants for
wiretapping the electronic communications of visitors to Nike's
website, Nike.com, in violation of the California Invasion of
Privacy Act ("CIPA").

The Plaintiff contends that in May 2020, prior to the filing of the
lawsuit, he visited Nike.com and purchased shoes from the Web site.
He was in Glendale when he visited the Web site. During the visit,
his keystrokes, mouse clicks, and other electronic communications
including the entry of personally identifiable information were
intercepted in real time and were disclosed to the Defendants
through the wiretap.

The Defendants' unlawful conduct not only violated the CIPA but
also invaded the Plaintiff's and class members' privacy rights in
violation of the California Constitution, the suit says.

NIKE, Inc. is an American multinational corporation that is engaged
in the design, development, manufacturing, and worldwide marketing
and sales of footwear, apparel, equipment, accessories, and
services. The Company is headquartered near Beaverton, Oregon, in
the Portland metropolitan area.

FullStory is a marketing software-as-a-service company based in
Atlanta, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Joel D. Smith, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  jsmith@bursor.com

NIKOLA CORP: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of November 16 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Sept. 15
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Nikola Corporation (NASDAQ: NKLA,
NKLAW), f/k/a VectoIQ Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: VTIQ, VTIQW,
VTIQU), between March 3, 2020 and September 15, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Nikola investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Nikola class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1943.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) VectoIQ did not engage in proper due diligence regarding
its merger with Nikola; (2) Nikola overstated its "in-house"
design, manufacturing, and testing capabilities; (3) Nikola
overstated its hydrogen production capabilities; (4) as a result,
Nikola overstated its ability to lower the cost of hydrogen fuel;
(5) Nikola founder and Executive Chairman, Trevor Milton, tweeted a
misleading "test" video of the Company's Nikola Two truck; (6) the
work experience and background of key Nikola employees, including
Mr. Milton, had been overstated and obfuscated; (7) Nikola did not
have five Tre trucks completed; and (8) as a result, defendants'
public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all
relevant times. According to the suit, these true details were
disclosed by a market research firm.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
16, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1943.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

CONTACT:

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


NIKOLA CORPORATION: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of Nov. 16 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces
that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Nikola
Corporation ("Nikola" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NKLA) between
March 3, 2020 and September 20, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Nikola securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead
plaintiff by no later than November 16, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions
will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.

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

Background on the Nikola Securities Class Litigation

Nikola, headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, describes itself as a
designer and manufacturer of zero-emission battery-electric and
hydrogen-electric vehicles, electric vehicle drivetrains, vehicle
components, energy storage systems, and hydrogen station
infrastructure. The actions allege that during the Class Period,
defendants made materially false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose that: (1) Nikola founder and then-Chairman,
Trevor Milton, repeatedly overstated and mischaracterized Nikola's
financial, technological, and operational profile; (2) Milton's
misrepresentations were designed to falsely portray Nikola as a
successful and growing company; and (3) the foregoing
misrepresentations would likely subject Nikola to regulatory
scrutiny and enforcement actions, as well as reputational harm
after the truth emerged.

On September 10, 2020, before the market opened, research firm
Hindenburg Research published a report describing Nikola as "an
intricate fraud built on dozens of lies over the course of its
Founder and Executive Chairman Trevor Milton's career." According
to Hindenburg, the report was based on "extensive evidence –
including recorded phone calls, text messages, private emails and
behind-the-scenes photographs—detailing dozens of false
statements by" defendant Milton. Hindenburg claimed that "[w]e have
never seen this level of deception at a public company, especially
of this size." Following this news, the price of Nikola common
stock fell $4.80 per share, or 11.3%, from its closing price of
$42.37 on September 9, 2020 to close at $37.57 on September 10,
2020.

On September 14, 2020, after the market closed, Bloomberg reported
that the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") was examining
the merits of the Hindenburg report.

On September 15, 2020, The Wall Street Journal reported that the
U.S. Department of Justice joined the SEC in examining allegations
that Nikola misled investors by making exaggerated claims about its
technology. On that day, the price of Nikola stock fell $2.96 per
share, or 8.3%, from its closing price of $35.79 on September 14,
2020 to close at $32.83 on September 15, 2020.

On September 20, 2020, Nikola announced that defendant Milton had
resigned as Chairman of the Company. Following this news, the price
of Nikola stock fell another $6.61 per share, or 19.3%, from its
closing price of $34.19 on September 18, 2020, to close at $27.58
on September 21, 2020.

                      About Lieff Cabraser

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

NIKOLA CORPORATION: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of November 16 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP reminds
investors of the upcoming deadline to move for appointment as lead
plaintiff in the class action litigation has been filed on behalf
of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of
Nikola Corporation ("Nikola" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:NKLA)
between March 3, 2020 and September 20, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Nikola securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead
plaintiff by no later than November 16, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions
will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.

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

Background on the Nikola Securities Class Litigation

Nikola, headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, describes itself as a
designer and manufacturer of zero-emission battery-electric and
hydrogen-electric vehicles, electric vehicle drivetrains, vehicle
components, energy storage systems, and hydrogen station
infrastructure. The actions allege that during the Class Period,
defendants made materially false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose that: (1) Nikola founder and then-Chairman,
Trevor Milton, repeatedly overstated and mischaracterized Nikola's
financial, technological, and operational profile; (2) Milton's
misrepresentations were designed to falsely portray Nikola as a
successful and growing company; and (3) the foregoing
misrepresentations would likely subject Nikola to regulatory
scrutiny and enforcement actions, as well as reputational harm
after the truth emerged.

On September 10, 2020, before the market opened, research firm
Hindenburg Research published a report describing Nikola as "an
intricate fraud built on dozens of lies over the course of its
Founder and Executive Chairman Trevor Milton's career." According
to Hindenburg, the report was based on "extensive evidence -
including recorded phone calls, text messages, private emails and
behind-the-scenes photographs-detailing dozens of false statements
by" defendant Milton. Hindenburg claimed that "[w]e have never seen
this level of deception at a public company, especially of this
size." Following this news, the price of Nikola common stock fell
$4.80 per share, or 11.3%, from its closing price of $42.37 on
September 9, 2020 to close at $37.57 on September 10, 2020.

On September 14, 2020, after the market closed, Bloomberg reported
that the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") was examining
the merits of the Hindenburg report.

On September 15, 2020, The Wall Street Journal reported that the
U.S. Department of Justice joined the SEC in examining allegations
that Nikola misled investors by making exaggerated claims about its
technology. On that day, the price of Nikola stock fell $2.96 per
share, or 8.3%, from its closing price of $35.79 on September 14,
2020 to close at $32.83 on September 15, 2020.

On September 20, 2020, Nikola announced that defendant Milton had
resigned as Chairman of the Company. Following this news, the price
of Nikola stock fell another $6.61 per share, or 19.3%, from its
closing price of $34.19 on September 18, 2020, to close at $27.58
on September 21, 2020.

                   About Lieff Cabraser

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

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

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

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

NISSAN NA: Hagenbaugh Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled David Hagenbaugh, Heather Hagenbaugh, Michael P.
Homanko, Jr., Sherri A. Homanko, Frederick L. Lubrecht and Marianne
P. Lubrecht, his wife, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Nissan North America; Hyundai Motor Company;
Kia Motors America; Airport Road Motors N., LLC doing business as:
Hazleton Nissan; Airport Road Motors HY., LLC doing business as:
Hazleton Hyundai; Airport Road Motors K, LLC doing business as:
Hazleton Kia; Michael S. Saporito; Antonio D. Pierce; and Jessie W.
Armstead, Case No. 2020-cv-07988, was removed from the Pennsylvania
Court Common Pleas for the County of Luzerne to the U.S. District
Court Middle District of Pennsylvania on October 7, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-01838-MEM to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from breach of contract-related issues.

Nissan North America, doing business as Nissan USA, is the North
American headquarters, and a wholly owned subsidiary of
multinational automobile manufacturer Nissan Motor Corporation of
Japan.

Hyundai Motor Company, commonly known as Hyundai Motors, is a South
Korean multinational automotive manufacturer headquartered in
Seoul.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher B. Slusser, Esq.
          John M. Solt, Esq.
          THE SLUSSER LAW FIRM
          1620 N. Church Street Suite I
          Hazleton, PA 18202
          Telephone: (570) 453-0463
          E-mail: chriss@slusserlawfirm.com
                  jsolt@slusserlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Alan Rockman, Esq.
          12 Oregon Street
          Wilkes-Barre, PA 18702
          Telephone: (570) 823-6788
          Facsimile: (570) 823-6899

               - and -

          Joseph Richard Baranko, Jr., Esq.
          GILLESPIE FERDINAND MISCAVIGE BARANKO & O'DONNELL, LLC
          67 North Church St.
          Hazleton, PA 18201
          Telephone: (717) 454-5575
          E-mail: jrb@gmlawoffices.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael P. Daly, Esq.
          FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          One Logan Square Suite 2000
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-6999
          Telephone: (215) 988-2604
          Facsimile: (215) 988-2757
          E-mail: michael.daly@faegredrinker.com

               - and -

          Stephen A. Loney
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          1735 Market Street 23rd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 675-4677
          E-mail: stephen.loney@hoganlovells.com

NOBLE ENERGY: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP on Sept. 8 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Case No. 1:20-cv-06563-KPF on behalf of
shareholders of Noble Energy, Inc. ("Noble" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:NBL) who have been harmed by Noble's and its board of
directors' (the "Board") alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
in connection with the proposed merger of the Company with Chevron
Corporation (the "Proposed Transaction").

On July 20, 2020, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger under which Noble shareholders stand
to receive 0.1191 shares of Chevron Corporation for each share of
Noble stock they own.

The complaint alleges that the Form S-4 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission violates Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act because it provides materially incomplete and
misleading information about the Company and the Proposed
Transaction, including information concerning the Company's
financial projections and analysis, on which the Board relied to
recommend the Proposed Transaction as fair to Noble shareholders.

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

Take Action

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

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

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


NORTH PACIFIC SEAFOODS: Torres Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO TORRES and JORGE HURTADO JR., individually and on behalf of
other similarly situated individuals v. NORTH PACIFIC SEAFOODS,
INC., and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01545
(W.D. Wash., Oct. 19, 2020) seeks to recover unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, an equal amount in liquidated damages and
prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Alaska Wage and Hour Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants willfully and
intentionally engaged in a widespread pattern and practice of
violating the provisions of the federal and state laws by denying
them proper wages and overtime compensation.

The Plaintiffs also contend the use of the Defendants of false or
deceptive representations concerning the kind and character of the
work to be done, the amount and character of the compensation to be
paid for the work, and the sanitary or other conditions of
employment at its Alaska seafood processing facilities.

Mr. Torres was employed by the Defendants as salmon processor from
June 2020 until July 2020.

Mr. Hurtado also worked for the Defendants as salmon processor from
June 2020 until August 2020.

Based in Seattle, Washington, North Pacific Seafoods, Inc. is in
the business of canning and processing seafood. It was established
in 1972 as a wholly owned subsidiary of Marubeni Corporation, a
multi-billion-dollar Japanese company that owns more than 30
subsidiaries in the food industry worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dan Drachler, Esq.
          Henry Avery, Esq.
          ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
          1904 Third Avenue, Suite 1030
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 223-2053
          Facsimile: (206) 343-9636  
          E-mail: ddrachler@zsz.com
                  havery@zsz.com

               - and -

          Robert S. Arns, Esq.
          Jonathan E. Davis, Esq.
          Shounak S. Dharap, Esq.
          THE ARNS LAW FIRM
          515 Folsom St., 3rd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94109
          Telephone: (415) 495-7800
          Facsimile: (415) 495-7888
          E-mail: rsa@arnslaw.com
                  jed@arnslaw.com
                  ssd@arnslaw.com
   
               - and -

          Kevin Osborne, Esq.
          Julie Erickson, Esq.
          Elizabeth Kramer, Esq.
          ERICKSON KRAMER OSBORNE LLP
          182 Howard Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 635-0631
          Facsimile: (415) 599-8088
          E-mail: kevin@eko.law
                  julie@eko.law
                  elizabeth@eko.law

OMOROVICZA COSMETICS: Faces Monegro ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Omorovicza Cosmetics,
Inc. The case is captioned as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Omorovicza Cosmetics, Inc.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-08356-LGS (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 7, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990.

The case is assigned to Judge Lorna G. Schofield.

Omorovicza Cosmetics, Inc. is a skin care company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Paul Force, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com

ONESPAN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action that has been filed on behalf
of investor that purchased or acquired the securities of OneSpan
Inc. ("OneSpan" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: OSPN) between May 9,
2018 and August 11, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The case filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies.  Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) OneSpan had
inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal control
over financial reporting; (ii) as a result, OneSpan overstated its
revenue relating to certain contracts with customers involving
software licenses in its financial statements spread out over the
quarters from the first quarter of 2018 to the first quarter of
2020; (iii) as a result, it was foreseeably likely that the Company
would eventually have to delay one or more scheduled earnings
releases, conference calls, and/or financial filings with the SEC;
(iv) OneSpan downplayed the negative impacts of errors in its
financial statements; (v) all the foregoing, once revealed was
foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the
Company's financial results and reputation; and (vi) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On August 11, 2020, during after-market hours, OneSpan disclosed to
shareholders that it would not timely file its quarterly report for
the quarter ended June 30, 2020, with the Securities and Exchange
Commission; reported that same quarter year-over-year revenues had
declined; and withdrew its full year 2020 earnings guidance, which
the Company had affirmed one quarter earlier.

On this news, OneSpan's share price fell $12.36 per share, or over
39%, to close at $18.84 per share on August 12, 2020.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 19, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased OneSpan securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/onespaninc-ospn-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-294/apply/
contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

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

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2020 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin.  Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.


         Matthew E. Guarnero
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         Tel No: (877) 779-1414
         E-mail: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]

PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL: Faces Patel Insurance Suit in Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pennsylvania National
Mutual Casualty Insurance Company. The case is captioned as
Ghanshyambhai Patel and Alkaben Patel, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Pennsylvania National Mutual
Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-00066 (M.D. Tenn.,
Oct. 21, 2020).

The Patels allege breach of the parties' insurance contract.

The case is assigned to Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. An
initial case management conference is set for January 4, 2021.

Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company is a
property-casualty mutual insurance company, headquartered in
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Emily Alcorn, Esq.
          J. Brandon McWherter, Esq.
          MCWHERTER SCOTT & BOBBITT PLC
          341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
          Franklin, TN 37067
          Telephone: (615) 354-1144
          E-mail: emily@msb.law
                  brandon@msb.law

               - and -

          Erik David Peterson, Esq.
          MEHR, FAIRBANKS & PETERSON TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC
          201 West Short Street, Suite 800
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Telephone: (859) 225-3731
          Facsimile: (859) 225-3830
          E-mail: edp@austinmehr.com

PEORIA DISPOSAL: Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stinson, v. Peoria
Disposal Company, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01130 (C.D. Ill., Filed
Mar. 30, 2020), the Hon. Judge Michael M. Mihm entered an order:

   1. denying as moot a motion to certify class; and

   2. denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to
      state a claim.

On September 15, 2020, the Court granted the Plaintiff's amended
motion to certify the class and granted plaintiffs' motion to
dismiss defendant PDC Services, Inc.

Accordingly, these motions are now moot.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

PDC was founded in 1928 and for more than 90 years, PDC and AREA
companies have provided environmental services and solutions.[CC]

PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Kunta Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Kunta v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al.

In a class action pending in Canada, Kunta v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Winnipeg,
Canada, filed June 12, 2009, the company, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges
Inc. ("RBH"), and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria),
and other members of the industry are defendants.

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
("COPD"), severe asthma, and mild reversible lung disease resulting
from the use of tobacco products.

She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents
and family members, as well as restitution of profits, and
reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by
tobacco products.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Dorion Class Complaint Has Not Yet Been Served
-------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the Company
has yet to be served with the complaint in the class action suit
entitled, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et
al.

In a class action pending in Canada, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Alberta, Canada,
filed June 15, 2009, the company, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges
Inc.("RBH"), and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and
other members of the industry are defendants.

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and chronic bronchitis and severe sinus infections
resulting from the use of tobacco products.

She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents
and family members, restitution of profits, and reimbursement of
government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products.


Philip Morris said, "To date, we, our subsidiaries, and our
indemnitees have not been properly served with the complaint."

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Semple Class Action Ongoing
------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Semple v.
Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al.

In a class action pending in Canada, Semple v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Supreme Court (trial court),
Nova Scotia, Canada, filed June 18, 2009, the company , Rothmans,
Benson & Hedges Inc. ("RBH"), and the company's indemnitees (PM USA
and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants.

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to
tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD")
resulting from the use of tobacco products.

He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents
and family members, as well as restitution of profits, and
reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by
tobacco products.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILLIPS 66: Robbins Seeks to Certify 6 Classes
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEAN ROBBINS and TIMOTHY
GREEN on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY a Delaware Corporation and DOES 1 through 50
inclusive, Case No. 3:18-cv-00292-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs
will move the Court on January 21, 2021, for an order:

   1. certifying plaintiff classes:

      Radio Rest Break Class (Operator):

      "all non-exempt hourly California Operators from December
      7, 2017 to present who Phillips 66 required to carry or
      have a radio and answer it during rest breaks";

      Radio Meal Break Class (Operator):

      "all non-exempt hourly California Operators from November
      27, 2013 to present who Phillips 66 required to carry or
      have a radio and answer it during meal breaks";

      Radio Class (Non-Operator):

      "all non-exempt hourly California employees except
      Operators from November 27, 2013 to present who Phillips
      66 required to carry or have a radio and answer it
      including during meal and/or rest breaks";

      Donning and Doffing Class:

      "all non-exempt hourly California employees from November
      27, 2013 to present who Phillips 66 required to don and
      doff protective gear and/or safety gear";

      Auto-Deduct Class:

      "all non-exempt hourly California employees from November
      17, 2013 to present for whom Phillips 66 did not require
      the precise recordation of the start and end times of each
      meal break"; and

      Rounding Class:

      "all non-exempt hourly California employees from November
      17, 2013 to present for whom Phillips 66 rounded their
      time punches";

   2. appointing the Plaintiff Dean Robbins, Timothy Green, Ian
      Clare and Keith Washington as representative of the
      classes proposed or later proposed and approved by the
      Court and any other sub-class the Court may devise; and

   3. appointing Shaun Setareh, and Thomas Segal of Setareh Law
      Group and James Hawkins and Gregory Mauro of James Hawkins
      APLC as Class Counsel.

In this putative wage and hour class action, the Plaintiffs seek to
certify claims for failure to provide legally compliant meal and
rest periods under California law; donning and doffing claims for
failure to pay for donning and doffing safety gear and protective
equipment off-the-clock; auto-deduct claims related to Phillips
66's practice of failing to record meal breaks and deducting half
an hour daily whether a meal break was in fact taken or not; and
claims related to Phillips 66's practice of rounding time punches.


By its own admission the Phillips 66 has a policy whereby class
members must always carry radios and answer calls even if they are
on a meal and rest break. Phillips 66 asserts various class-wide
defenses to this.

The Plaintiff Dean Robbins began working at Phillips 66's Rodeo
California Carbon Plant in 1984 when it was owned by Union Oil
Company of California. He was paid on an hourly basis and worked a
regular shift of 6:00am to 2:30pm.

Class representative Timothy Green worked for Phillips 66 at the
Santa Maria, California refinery. He worked for Phillips 66 from
April 2014 until November 2017. His job title was Green Coker
Operator. 23

When Mr. Green worked an eight-and-a-half-hour day, he would be
paid for 8 hours regardless of whether he received a meal break.

Mr. Clare worked at the Phillips 66 refinery in Wilmington,
California from 2007 to 2016. His regular shift was a 12-hour
shift. During his entire tenure at Phillips 66 he did not clock in
or out for meal breaks.

Mr. Washington worked for Phillips 66 at the Rodeo refinery from
September of 2011 until March 2019. He did not clock in or out for
meal breaks.

Phillips 66 is a multinational energy company headquartered in
Houston, Texas. It operates several oil refineries and other energy
facilities in California including in Rodeo, Santa Maria, Carson,
and Wilmington, California.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mkwi7F at no
extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Dean Robbins are:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          Thomas Segal, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          315 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 315
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  thomas@setarehlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Timothy green are:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Gregory Mauro, Esq.
          Michael Calvo, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
          E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com

PORTLAND GENERAL: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP on Sept. 15 disclosed that a
class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Oregon on behalf of those who acquired Portland
General Electric Company ("PGE" or the "Company") (NYSE: POR)
securities during the period from April 24, 2020 through August 24,
2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors had until November 2, 2020 to
apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

On August 24, 2020, after the market closed, PGE announced that it
had incurred losses of $127 million as of August 24, 2020. PGE
further stated that personnel entered into a number of energy
trades during 2020, with increasing volume accumulating late in the
second quarter and into the third quarter, resulting in significant
exposure to the Company. In addition, the Company announced that it
had formed a Special Committee to review the energy trading that
led to the losses and the Company's procedures and controls related
to the trading. On this news, the Company's share price fell from
$41.96 to close at $38.45 per share on August 24, 2020, a drop of
$3.51 per share, thereby injuring investors. Defendants failed to
disclose to investors: (1) that PGE lacked effective internal
controls over its energy trading practices; (2) that PGE personnel
had entered energy trades during 2020, with increasing volume
accumulating late in the second quarter and into the third quarter,
that created significant negative financial exposure for PGE; (3)
that, as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to incur
significant losses; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

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

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

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

Contacts

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


PRECIGEN INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Dec. 4 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of
Precigen, Inc.  Investors have until the deadline listed below to
file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz to discuss their legal
rights in the class action at 310-914-5007 or by email to
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com .

Precigen, Inc. f/k/a Intrexon Corporation (NASDAQ: PGEN , XON)
Class Period: May 10, 2017 - September 25, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 4 , 2020

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company
was using pure methane as feedstock for its announced yields for
its methanotroph bioconversion platform instead of natural gas; (2)
yields from natural gas as a feedstock were substantially lower
than the aforementioned pure methane yields; (3) due to the
substantial price difference between pure methane and natural gas,
pure methane was not a commercially viable feedstock; (4) the
Company's financial statements for the quarter ended March 31, 2018
were false and could not be relied upon; (5) the Company had
material weaknesses in its internal controls over financial
reporting; (6) the Company was under investigation by the SEC since
October 2018; and (7) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

To be a member of the class action, you need not take any action at
this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action
and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to
learn more about the class action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law
Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com , or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com .   If you inquire by email please include
your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

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

PROGENITY INC: Abraham Fruchter Reminds of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP (www.aftlaw.com) on Sept. 15
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against
Progenity, Inc. ("PROGENITY") (NASDAQ: PROG) on behalf of investors
who purchased PROGENITY stock pursuant and/or traceable to
PROGENITY's registration statement and related prospectus
("Registration Statement"), issued in connection with PROGENITY's
June 2020 initial public offering ("IPO").  The class action, filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, charges PROGENITY, certain of its officers and
directors, and the underwriters of the IPO (together,
"Defendants"), with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.  The
class action is captioned Brickman Investments Inc. v. Progenity,
Inc., et al., No. 3:20-cv-01795 (S.D. Cal.).  

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased PROGENITY common stock pursuant to the IPO
Registration Statement to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the
pending class action.  A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
class members in directing the litigation.  The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice.  An investor's ability to share in
any potential future recovery of the lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff.  If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff
of this litigation, you must submit an application to the Court no
later than October 27, 2020.

If you purchased PROGENITY stock and would like to inquire about
pursuing claims to recover losses or seeking appointment as lead
plaintiff, you are encouraged to contact Abraham, Fruchter &
Twersky, LLP by e-mailing either Jack G. Fruchter
(JFruchter@aftlaw.com) or Sean M. Handron-O'Brien
(SHandronobrien@aftlaw.com).  You may also call and leave a message
at (212) 279-5050, Ext. 1602 or Ext. 1626.

On or about June 22, 2020, Defendants conducted PROGENITY's IPO.
In the IPO, Defendants sold over 6.6 million shares of PROGENITY
common stock to the investing public at a price of $15.00 per
share, generating over $100 million in gross proceeds.

The Complaint filed by Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, alleges
that PROGENITY's Registration Statement was negligently prepared
and, as a result, failed to make the necessary disclosures required
under the rules and regulations governing its preparation.
Specifically, the Registration Statement failed to disclose that:
(i) PROGENITY had overbilled government payors by $10.3 million in
2019 and early 2020 and, thus, had materially overstated its
revenues, earnings and cash flows from operations for the
historical financial periods provided in the Registration
Statement; (ii) PROGENITY would need to refund this overpayment in
the second quarter of 2020 (the same quarter in which the IPO was
conducted), adversely impacting its quarterly results; and (iii)
PROGENITY was suffering from accelerating negative trends in the
second quarter of 2020 with respect to PROGENITY's testing volumes,
revenues and product pricing.

Shortly after the IPO, the price of PROGENITY stock declined
significantly.  By August 14, 2020, PROGENITY's stock closed at
just $7.71 per share, or nearly 50% below the $15.00 per share
price investors paid for the stock in the IPO less than two months
previously.

Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP (www.aftlaw.com), is a law firm
based in New York and maintaining an office in California.
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP has extensive experience in
litigating securities class action cases.  The firm has been ranked
among the leading class action law firms in terms of recoveries
achieved for shareholders, most recently obtaining approval of a
$48,750,000 settlement in In re Terraform Global Securities
Litigation, No. 1:16-cv-07967 (S.D.N.Y.), representing as much as
75% of likely recoverable damages.

If you have any questions about this Notice, the action, your
rights or your interests, please contact:

Jack G. Fruchter
Sean M. Handron-O'Brien
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
New York, New York 10119
Tel: (212) 279-5050, Ext. 1602 or 1626
Fax: (212) 279-3655
Email: JFruchter@aftlaw.com
SHandronobrien@aftlaw.com [GN]


PROGENITY INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminded
purchasers of the securities of Progenity, Inc. (NASDAQ: PROG)
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering
conducted in June 2020 (the "IPO") of the important October 27,
2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the case. The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Progenity investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Progenity class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1932.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, the Registration Statement for the IPO
was negligently prepared and made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Progenity had
overbilled government payors by $10.3 million in 2019 and early
2020 and, thus, had materially overstated its revenues, earnings
and cash flows from operations for the historical financial periods
provided in the Registration Statement; (2) Progenity would need to
refund this overpayment in the second quarter of 2020 (the same
quarter in which the IPO was conducted), adversely impacting its
quarterly results; and (3) Progenity was suffering from
accelerating negative trends in the second quarter of 2020 with
respect to the Company's testing volumes, revenues and product
pricing. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit
claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October
27, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1932.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

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

PROPETRO SERVICES: Hourly Paid Workers' Suit Wins Class Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIGUEL RUIZ ENRIQUEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PROPETRO SERVICES, INC., Case No. 7:20-cv-00060-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.),
the Hon. Judge Ronald C. Griffin entered an order:

   1. granting conditional certification of a collective action
      and certifying the following class:

      "all current and former hourly-paid employees of the
      Defendant who received "per diem" pay from September 1,
      2017 to the present and whose home address is within 100
      miles of the Defendant's location in Midland, Texas";

   2. directing the Defendants to provide to the Plaintiff's
      counsel a complete and accurate list of the names, last
      known addresses, and email addresses of the potential
      class members;

   3. directing the Plaintiff counsel within 20 days of the
      Court approving this stipulation, to mail the agreed
      Notice and Consent forms to all potential plaintiffs;

   4. directing the Plaintiff's counsel to advise Defendant's
      counsel of the date of mailing and emailing the Notice.

   5. directing the Plaintiff's counsel to send an identical
      reminder notice 30 days after the first mailing or
      emailing of the Notice; and

   6. directing the potential plaintiffs to have 60 days from
      the date of the initial mailing of the Notice to file
      their Consent opting into this lawsuit as plaintiffs by
      returning a completed Consent form to Plaintiff's counsel.

The Court further orders the following at the request of the
parties: Nothing in the Unopposed Motion for Conditional
Certification or in the Notice and Consent shall be interpreted as
limiting, waiving, or modifying any of the parties' claims and/or
defenses. The Unopposed Motion for Conditional Certification is not
an admission as to any underlying substantive issue in this
controversy. Further, Defendant is not waiving its right to later
move for decertification of the class.

The Plaintiff brings this action both individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated against Defendant asserting
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff seeks
unpaid overtime wages plus liquidated damages and restitution,
attorney fees, and costs.

ProPetro operates as an oilfield service company. The Company
specializes in providing hydraulic fracturing, cementing,
acidizing, coiled tubing, nitrogen, and flowback services.

A copy of the Court's Order granting motion for conditional
certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3iWPff4 at no extra charge.[CC]

QUTOUTIAO INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Sept. 9 announced the filing of a class-action lawsuit against
Qutoutiao Inc. ("Qutoutiao" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:QTT) for
violations of the federal securities laws.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares pursuant to and/or
traceable to the Company's September 2018 initial public offering
("IPO"); and/or (2) between September 14, 2018 and July 15, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period") were encouraged to contact the firm
before October 19, 2020.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Qutoutiao installed a related party as
its advertising agent, removing third-party oversight of the
quality and content of advertisements. The Company's mobile app ran
ads considered false advertisements under applicable regulations.
As a result of the regulatory scrutiny the Company was likely to
face regarding such ads, revenues would decline. Based on these
facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the
truth about Qutoutiao, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

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

CONTACT:

The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.
310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com
www.schallfirm.com [GN]


RENTGROW INC: McIntyre Seeks Class Status for FCRA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned PATRICIA MCINTYRE, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. RENTGROW, INC.,
d/b/a Yardi Resident Screening, Case No. 1:18-cv-12141-ADB (D.
Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a
class of:

   "all natural persons with an address in the United States and
   its Territories who were (a) the subject of a tenant
   screening report prepared by Defendant that (b) contained
   information about an eviction proceeding, which (c) was
   obtained by Defendant from Trans Union, and (d) which had to
   be updated because it was inaccurate or incomplete according
   to records of post-dispute investigation results (For the
   period beginning two years prior to the filing of the Class
   Action Complaint and continuing through the date of
   judgment)."

The Plaintiff has asserted claims for the Defendant's violations of
section 1681e(b) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Defendant is doing business in internet media & services
industry.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3k281lW at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          Jordan M. Sartell, Esq.
          FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 215-735-8600
          Facsimile: 215-940-8000
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                 jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
                 jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com

                    - and -

          Christopher M. Lefebvre, Esq.
          Two Dexter Street
          Pawtucket, RI 02862
          Telephone: (401) 728-6060
          Facsimile: (401) 728-6534

RESOURCE MARKETING: Class Counsel Awarded $71,545 in Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JERRY BAUDIN, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals;
JOSEPHINE DUFFNEY, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals; and KARISHMA PERSAUD, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, v.
RESOURCE MARKETING CORP., LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-00386-MAD-CFH
(N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge May A. D'Agostino entered an order:

   1. partly granting and partly denying the Plaintiffs' motion
      for reconsideration;

   2. awarding Class Counsel $71,545.69 in attorneys' fees; and

   3. directing the Clerk of the Court to serve a copy of this
      Memorandum-Decision and Order on the parties in accordance
      with the Local Rules.

The Court increased the fee award to $71,545.69. The Court notes
that, throughout its memorandum of law in support of an award of
attorneys' fees, Class Counsel repeatedly requested "33%" of the
Fund. Class Counsel also repeatedly stated that $81,333.33 is "33%
of the Fund." However, $81,333.33 actually represents 33.33333% or
1/3 of the Fund, whereas 33% of $244,000.00 actually amounts to
$80,520.00. When the Court ordered $70,830.24, this number
accurately amounts to 33% of the net settlement fund of
$214,637.08. However, in the Joint Stipulation of Settlement and
Release, it clearly states that Class Counsel is entitled to
attorneys' fees of "one third" or "thirty-three and one-third
percent (33 1/3%)." As such, the Court grants reconsideration and
awards Class Counsel one third of the net settlement fund, or
$71,545.69.

On April 1, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a collective and class action
complaint against the Defendant alleging violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the New York State Labor Law, breach of
contract, and unjust enrichment, based on the Defendant's failure
to pay overtime wages. On January 29, 2020, the Court preliminarily
approved the parties' proposed settlement. On July 16, 2020, the
Plaintiffs filed their motions to certify class settlement and for
attorneys' fees and costs. On July 27, 2020, the Court held a final
approval hearing, during which it signaled its intent to approve of
the settlement and requested fees and that a written decision would
follow. In the August 13, 2020 Memorandum-Decision and Order, the
Court granted the motion to certify class settlement and granted in
part the motion for attorneys' fees and costs.

A copy of the Court's order is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3jh5ItW at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Townsquare Place, Ste. 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310

               - and -

          Rod Johnston, Esq.
          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076

The Defendant is represented by:

          Vincent E. Polsinelli, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS, P.C.
          677 Broadway, 9th Floor
          Albany, NY 12207

REZA FAST FOOD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Leonardo Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LUIS HERNANDEZ LEONARDO (A/K/A/ KEVIN) and YONIC HERNANDEZ,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. PEZA FAST FOOD, INC. (D/B/A CROWN FRIED CHICKEN) and ADEL
EJTEMAI, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-08879 (S.D.N.Y., October 23,
2020) is a collective action complaint brought against the
Defendants for their alleged unlawful employment policies and
practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs, who are former employees of the Defendants, allege
the Defendants of failing to pay their appropriate minimum wage,
overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they
worked in excess of 40 per week. Moreover, the Defendants did not
provide the Plaintiffs any breaks or meal periods of any kind,
improperly and illegally deducted their wages a full hour whenever
they were late, and failed to provide them with notices regarding
their overtime and wages as well as accurate statement of wages.

Peza Fast Food, Inc. is a fried chicken restaurant that conducts
business under the name "Crown Fried Chicken," located at 3351
Broadway, New York, NY 10031 owned and operated by Adel Ejtemai.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Dec. 7 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action that has been filed on behalf
of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of Royal
Caribbean Cruises Ltd. ("Royal Caribbean" or the "Company") (NYSE:
RCL) between February 4, 2020 and March 17, 2020 (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

The complaint alleges that the Defendants throughout the Class
Period made false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's decrease in
bookings outside China and its inadequate policies and procedures
to prevent the spread of COVID-19 on its ships. Specifically,
regarding global bookings, Royal Caribbean made statements that:
(1) misled investors to believe that any issue related to COVID-19
was relatively insignificant; (2) falsely assured investors that
bookings outside China were strong with no signs of a slowdown; and
(3) failed to disclose that the Company was experiencing material
declines in bookings globally due to customer concerns over
COVID-19. Additionally, regarding safety procedures, the Company
made statements that: (1) falsely assured investors that it
implemented rigorous safety protocols; (2) such protocols were
expected to ultimately contain the spread of the virus; and (3)
failed to disclose that its ships were following grossly inadequate
protocols that would foster the spread of COVID-19 and pose a
substantial risk to passengers and crews.

The full impact of the Company's false and misleading statements
and/or omissions was revealed, as analysts downgraded the Company's
stock and slashed their price targets, reflecting the true value of
Royal Caribbean stock. On March 18, 2020, prior to the opening of
the stock market, Stifel cut its one-year price target on Royal
Caribbean from $161 to $40

On this news, Royal Caribbean's stock price dropped $5.33 per
share, or 19.27% to close at $22.33 per share on March 18, 2020.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 7, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Royal Caribbean securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/nikolacorporation-nkla-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-307/apply/
contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

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

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2020 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.[GN]

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Baclija Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN BACLIJA, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Case No. 5:16-cv-01953-DMG-KK (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on January 15, 2021 for an
order:

   1. certifying a Class of:

      "all individuals who purchased, for their own use and not
      for resale, within California, a new Galaxy S7, Galaxy S7
      Edge, or Galaxy S7 Active cellular phone: (i) prior to
      February 2017 (for Sprint, T-Mobile, or MetroPCS wireless
      customers or for AT&T wireless customers who purchased a
      Galaxy S7 or S7 Edge), prior to April 2017 (for Verizon or
      Comcast wireless customers), or prior to May 2017 (for
      Cricket wireless customers or for those who purchased an
      unlocked phone or a Galaxy S7 Active); or (ii) at any time
      and did not set up their own phone."

      Excluded from the Class are Defendant Samsung, its
      parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, 15 officers and
      directors; any entity in which Samsung has a controlling
      interest; governmental entities; and all judges assigned
      to hear any aspect of this litigation, as 17 well as their
      staff and immediate family members.

   2. appointing himself as class representative; and

   3. appointing the law firms of Girard Sharp LLP and Hagens
      Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as class counsel.

Mr. Baclija seeks to represent a class of California purchasers of
these phones, who he alleges overpaid because Samsung's
advertisements were false and misleading. Joinder of these
consumers is impracticable, and their claims turn on common
questions of law and fact-including the core question of whether
Samsung's advertising campaign was deceptive, the Plaintiff
contends.

The complaint says Plaintiff Martin Baclija's consumer protection
claims against Samsung are well-suited for class treatment and
satisfy Rule 23's requirements for certification. Despite their
universal appeal, electronic devices remain vulnerable to water
damage. When Samsung released its Galaxy S7 line of smartphones,
its main competition in the market -- Apple's iPhone -- was not
water resistant. To distinguish itself from Apple, Samsung devised
and implemented a national promotional campaign centering on water
resistance. Samsung claimed in widespread television, print,
billboard, and digital advertisements that the S7 phones are
resistant in five feet of water for up to 30 minutes and depicted
them as still working after being sprayed with a garden hose,
dropped in a water fountain, or dunked in a fish tank. In reality,
the phones are not designed for such conditions, the Plaintiff
alleges.

Samsung manufactures electronic products. The Company offers
televisions, digital cameras, cell phones, storage devices, home
appliances, security systems, smartwatches, and computer products.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2G31Bns at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Jordan Elias, Esq.
          Simon S. Grille, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          E-mail; dgirard@girardsharp.com
                  jelias@girardsharp.com
                  sgrille@girardsharp.com

               - and -

          Robert B. Carey, Esq.
          Leonard W. Aragon, Esq.
          Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL
          SHAPIRO LLP
          11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85003
          Telephone: (602) 840-5900
          Facsimile: (602) 840-3012
          E-mail: rob@hbsslaw.com
                  leonard@hbsslaw.com
                  elaineb@hbsslaw.com

SHANGHAI CITY: Court Certifies Kitchen Workers Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HUER HUANG, et al., v.
SHANGHAI CITY CORP, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-07702-LJL (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered an order:

   1. dismissing the claims of Huer Huang and Hui Zhen Huang;

   2. imposing $3,300.00 in costs on the Plaintiffs for their
      failure to produce Lu, Li, and Zhai for their depositions;

   3. directing the Plaintiffs to produce the responses to Li's
      interrogatories by October 14, 2020;

   4. declining to certify a collective action for employees of
      the Midtown Restaurant; and

   5. conditionally certifying a collective action represented
      by the plaintiffs Aragon Cardoso Cruz and Maximino
      Raymundo concerning Defendants' alleged "common policy of
      (i) not paying Plaintiffs for all the hours they worked,
      (ii) failure to pay Plaintiffs at least the minimum wage
      for each hour worked, and (iii) failure to pay at least
      the one and one half (1.5x) rate the equivalent hourly
      rate or the minimum wage, whichever is higher, for each
      hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a work week."

      The conditional class includes:

      "the named [p]laintiff[s] and all nonexempt current and
      former employees of the Defendants who performed work as
      non-exempt, non-managerial [kitchen workers] from August
      16, 2016 to present  at the Flushing Restaurant."

The Plaintiffs brought this action against Shanghai City Corp.,
Shanghai Duplicate Corp., East Brother Corp., and Shanghai
Original, Inc., the corporations that owned and operated the two
Joe's Shanghai restaurants as well as a number of individuals who
managed the restaurants, alleging that they were paid wages that
violated the Fair Labor Standards Ac and the New York Labor Law.

A copy of the Court's order is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2FLLISv at no extra charge.[CC]

SIMON'S AGENCY: Stephenson-Ortiz Seeks to Certify Class Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dawn Stephenson-Ortiz,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Simon's Agency, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-02639-RPK-RML (E.D.N.Y.),
the Plaintiff will move the Court on November 27, 2020 for an
order:

   1. certifying this matter as a class action pursuant to
      Federal Rule of Civil Procedure for an Order;

   2. appointing Dawn Stephenson-Ortiz as Class Representative;
      and

    3. appointing Barshay Sanders, PLLC, as class counsel.

Simon's Agency offers debt recovery and collections services for
revenue cycle management and medical billing.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Barshay, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7600
          Facsimile: (516) 706-5055

SIMPLY ORANGE: Turnipseed Sues Over Deceptive Product Labels
------------------------------------------------------------
Sandi Turnipseed, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Simply Orange Juice Company, Case No.
7:20-cv-08677 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 19, 2020) arises from the Defendant's
deceptive and misleading representations of its vanilla almondmilk
in violation of the New York General Business Law and the Magnuson
Moss Warranty Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's representations of its
"Simply" brand product as "Vanilla" are false, deceptive and
misleading because the product contains added vanillin, which
provides almost all of its vanilla taste. She asserts that the
representations of "Vanilla" and images of vanilla are also
misleading since they give consumers the impression that all of the
flavoring is from the ingredient of vanilla beans.

As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the product is
sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $3.99 per 46
OZ, excluding tax, compared to other similar products represented
in a non-misleading way, and higher than the price of the product
if it were represented in a non-misleading way, the suit says.

Based in Atlanta, Georgia, Simply Orange Juice Company sells
beverages from fruits, vegetables and nuts under the "Simply"
brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409
          Great Neck, NY 11021-3104
          Telephone: (516) 268-7080
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

SIXTH AVENUE: Perez Seeks Conditional Certification of Collective
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA PEREZ, on behalf of
herself, v. SIXTH AVENUE RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a L'AMICO,
PEAK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC d/b/a THE VINE, LT HOSPITALITY
MANAGEMENT INC., and LAURENT TOURONDEL, Case No.
1:19-cv-09316-AJN-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order:

   1. granting conditional certification of the Fair Labor
      Standards Act claim as a representative collective action
      pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on behalf of Covered
      Employees:

      "all current and former non-exempt employees (including
      food preparers, bartenders, bar-backs, servers, stockers,
      runners, bussers, dishwashers, and delivery persons)
      employed by the Defendants within the last six years"

   2. approving Court-facilitated notice of this FLSA action to
      Covered Employees, including a consent form (or opt-in
      form) as authorized by the FLSA;

   3. granting approval of the proposed FLSA notice of this
      action and the consent form;

   4. granting approval of the consent forms of opt-in
      plaintiffs to be sent directly to the Plaintiff's counsel;

   5. directing the production in Excel format of names, Social
      Security numbers, titles, compensation rates, dates of
      employment, last known mailing addresses, email addresses
      and all known telephone numbers of all Covered Employees
      within 10 days of Court approval of conditional
      certification;

   6. directing the posting of the notice, along with the
      consent forms in each of the Defendants' places of
      business where Covered Employees are employed; and

   7. approving equitable tolling of the FLSA statute of
      limitations until such time that the Plaintiff is able to
      send notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs.

On October 8, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a Class and Collective
Action Complaint against the Defendants seeking unpaid wages under
the FLSA and New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate the following two restaurants in New
York City: "L'Amico" -- 849 Avenue of the Americas, Ground Floor,
New York; and "The Vine" -- 851 Avenue of the Americas, Ground
Floor, New York.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional collective
certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3dDPMB2 at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorney for Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class,
is:

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

SPECTRANETICS CORP: Certification of Settlement Class Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHELLY LOUANGAMATH, on
behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated, and as an
"aggrieved employee" on behalf of other "aggrieved employees" under
the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, v. THE
SPECTRANETICS CORPORATION d.b.a. SPNC, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
4:18-cv-03634-JST (N.D. Cal., filed April 20, 2018), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order:

   1. granting class certification of the Settlement Class
      solely for settlement purposes pursuant to Federal Rules
      of Civil Procedure section 23:

      "all current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees
      employed in the Fremont North or South facilities by the
      Defendant or its predecessor companies as non-exempt
      hourly employees working as assemblers or in comparable
      positions, at any time during the Class Period from April
      20, 2014 through the date of the Court's order
      preliminarily approving the Settlement";

   2. preliminarily approving the Joint Stipulation of Class
      Action and PAGA Settlement and Release of Claims;

   3. appointing David Spivak of The Spivak Law Firm and Walter
      Haines of United Employees Law Group as Class Counsel;

   4. appointing herself as Class Representative;

   5. approving the use of the proposed notice procedures and
      related forms;

   6. directing that notice be mailed to the proposed Settlement
      Class; and

   7. scheduling a hearing date for motion for final approval of
      class action settlement and awards of attorneys' fees and
      costs.

Spectranetics develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes its
technology for interventional cardiovascular therapy. The Company's
CVX-300 excimer laser system is used in applications such as
coronary angioplasty and the removal of pacemaker leads.

A copy of the Plaintiff's second motion for preliminary approval
of class action settlement is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3kHazFS at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G. Spivak, Esq.
          Maralle Messrelian, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 203
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 582-3086
          Facsimile: (818) 582-2561
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
                  maralle@spivaklaw.com

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
          5500 Bolsa Ave, Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (562) 256-1047
          Facsimile: (562) 256-1006
          E-mail: whaines@uelglaw.com

SPIZZIGO ENTERPRISES: Marino Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, YEMINA MARINO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPIZZIGO ENTERPRISES, L.L.C., a
Florida limited liability company, L'ANGOLO 107 INVESTMENTS LLC, a
Florida limited liability company, and SALVATORE DOMANTI,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-24391-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
October 26, 2020) is brought by the Plaintiff against the
Defendants for their alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a wait-staff worker at
all three restaurants operated by the Defendants in Miami-Dade
County from approximately December 2014 through September 2020.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants failed to pay him and
other similarly situated employees at least the highest applicable
minimum hourly rate and failed to timely pay wages to them at the
regularly scheduled pay date when those wages were earned.

Additionally, the Defendants took a tip credit in excess of actual
tips received and kept by the Plaintiff greater than permitted by
regulations.

Spizzigo Enterprises, L.L.C. and L'angolo 107 Investments LLC
operate at least three restaurants and bars in South Florida as a
single jointly organized conglomerate using the same or similar
names. Both entities are owned and/or controlled, directly or
indirectly by Defendant Salvatore Domanti. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony F. Sanchez, Esq.
          ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A.
          6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101
          Miami, FL 33143
          Tel: (305) 665-9211
          Fax: (305) 328-4842
          E-mail: AFS@LABORLAWFLA.COM


STAAR SURGICAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Staar Surgical Company.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the
case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

Staar Surgical Company (NASDAQ:STAA)
STAA Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 26,
2020 - August 10, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : October 19, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/staar-surgical-company-information-request-form?prid=9610&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Staar
Surgical Company made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: the Company was overstating and/or
mischaracterizing: (1) its sales and growth in China; (2) its
marketing spend; (3) its research and development expenses; and
that as a result of the foregoing, (4) Defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

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

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

STAAR SURGICAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Sept. 8 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

STAA Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/staar-surgical-company-information-request-form?prid=9099&wire=1
PLAN Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/anaplan-inc-information-request-form?prid=9099&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

Staar Surgical Company (NASDAQ:STAA)

STAA Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 26,
2020 - August 10, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/staar-surgical-company-information-request-form?prid=9099&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Staar
Surgical Company made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: the Company was overstating and/or
mischaracterizing: (1) its sales and growth in China; (2) its
marketing spend; (3) its research and development expenses; and
that as a result of the foregoing, (4) Defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

Anaplan Inc. (NYSE:PLAN)

PLAN Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 21,
2019 - February 26, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 23, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/anaplan-inc-information-request-form?prid=9099&wire=1

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

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

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

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


STATE FARM: Boobuli's Sues Over Excessive Premiums Amid COVID-19
----------------------------------------------------------------
BOOBULI'S LLC, a California limited liability company, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. STATE FARM FIRE AND
CASUALTY COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Case No.
3:20-cv-07074-LB (N.D. Cal., Oct. 9, 2020) seeks to remedy the
Defendant's unfair business practice of unjustly profiting from the
COVID-19 pandemic by collecting and/or retaining excessive, unfair
premiums in violation of California's public policy limiting
insurers to a fair rate of return.

Beginning in March 2020, California health authorities began to
enforce strict social distancing measures in an effort to slow the
spread of COVID-19, including the closing of nonessential
businesses and strict shelter-in-place orders that prevented most
people from leaving their homes for extended periods of time. The
negative effects of the pandemic on the business operations of
Boobuli's and other insured businesses has been severe and
protracted.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has continued to collect
excessive premiums and failed to issue appropriate refunds, despite
full knowledge of the circumstances. The Defendant has withheld its
policyholders' excessive, unfair premiums, taking advantage of the
reduction in the insured risk to reduce reserves, invest the excess
funds, and otherwise unfairly profit from its policyholders'
misfortunes.

The Plaintiff is doing business in Contra Costa County, California,
as Caffe California, with its principal place of business in Walnut
Creek, California.

Bloomington, Illinois-based State Farm Fire and Casualty Company is
engaged in the business of marketing and selling insurance products
in California and other states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel L. Rottinghaus, Esq.
          Fredrick A. Hagen, Esq.
          BERDING & WEIL LLP
          2175 N. California Blvd, Suite 500
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 838-2090
          Facsimile: (925) 820-5592
          E-mail: drottinghaus@berdingweil.com
                  fhagen@berdingweil.com

               - and -

          David M. Birka-White, Esq.
          Robert S. Robinson, Esq.
          BIRKA-WHITE LAW OFFICES
          178 E. Prospect Avenue
          Danville, CA 94526
          Telephone: (925) 362-9999
          Facsimile: (925) 362-9970
          E-mail: dbw@birka-white.com
                  rob@robrobinsonlaw.com

STEMILT AG: Renteria Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. Washington
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as OMAR PALMA RENTERIA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. STEMILT AG SERVICES,
LLC, a solely owned subsidiary of Stemilt Growers, LLC, and DOES
1-10, inclusive, Case No. 18-2-00471-8, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of Chelan
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington
on October 23, 2020.

The Clerk Court for the Eastern District of Washington assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-00392 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged labor violations.

Stemilt Ag Services, LLC is a provider of farm management services
based in Wenatchee, Washington. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
      
         
         Robert R. Siderius, Esq.
         JEFFERS, DANIELSON, SONN & AYLWARD, P.S.
         2600 Chester Kimm Road
         P.O. Box 1688
         Wenatchee, WA 98807-1688
         Telephone: (509) 662-3685
         Facsimile: (509) 662-2452
         E-mail: bobs@jdsalaw.com

STRYKER CORPORATION: Picetti Employment Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as ROBERT PICETTI, individually and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v. STRYKER
CORPORATION, HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS CORP., and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Case No. RG19044860, was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Alameda to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on October
23, 2020.

The Clerk Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-07454 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay overtime and minimum wages, failure
to provide meal and rest period premiums, failure to timely pay
final wages, failure to provide compliant wage statements, failure
to reimburse business expenses, and unlawful business practices.

Stryker Corporation is an American multinational medical
technologies corporation based in Kalamazoo, Michigan.

Howmedica Osteonics Corp. is a company that manufactures and
distributes medical products based in Mahwah, New Jersey. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
        
         
         Michele J. Beilke, Esq.
         Julia Y. Trankiem, Esq.
         Gabriel M. Huey, Esq.
         HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
         550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627
         Telephone: (213) 532-2000
         Facsimile: (213) 532-2020
         E-mail: mbeilke@huntonAK.com
                 jtrankiem@huntonAK.com
                 ghuey@huntonAK.com

SUNPATH LTD: Morales Sues in Delaware Over Alleged TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunpath Ltd., et al.
The case is styled as Kurt Morales, II, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated; Ben Fabrikant; Stephen Ost;
Brandon Callier; and Nathan Byars v. Sunpath Ltd., a Delaware
corporation; Northcoast Warranty Services, Inc., a Delaware
corporation; and Matrix Financial Services, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Case No. 1:20-cv-01376-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 9.
2020).

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment.

SunPath Ltd. is an administrator of vehicle service contracts which
are commonly referred to as extended warranties or extended vehicle
service contracts.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ian Connor Bifferato, Esq.
          THE BIFFERATO FIRM, P.A.
          1007 N. Orange Street, 4th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 225-7600
          E-mail: cbifferato@tbf.legal

TACTILE SYSTEMS: Rosen Law Reminds of November 30 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Tactile Systems Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: TCMD)
between May 7, 2018 and June 8, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Tactile
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Tactile class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1872.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) while Tactile publicly touted a $4 plus billion or $5
plus billion market opportunity, in truth, the total addressable
market for Tactile's medical devices was materially smaller; (2) to
induce sales growth and share gains, Tactile engaged in illegal
sales and marketing activities; (3) Tactile's revenues were in part
the product of unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; and (4) as
a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
30, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1872.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

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

TD ASSET: Class Action Against Toronto-Dominion Certified
---------------------------------------------------------
An Ontario law firm says a class action centred on TD Asset
Management Inc.'s trailing commissions to discount brokers has been
certified.

Siskinds LLP says the class action was prompted by a retired
dentist investing in mutual funds, who discovered that TD Asset
Management was paying trailing commissions to discount brokers like
TD Direct Investing for services and advice, but neither was being
provided.

A trailing commission, also known as a trailer fee, is paid by
mutual fund investors to financial advisers in exchange for
regularly reviewing holdings and providing guidance.

The retired dentist alleges his mutual fund assets were wasted by
the commissions he had to pay and says investors lost tens of
millions of dollars because of the practice.

TD Bank Group, which Siskinds says unsuccessfully sought an appeal
of the certification decision, declined to comment because it said
the matter is still before the courts.

Siskinds is currently pursuing six other trailing commissions class
actions against mutual fund trustees managers, including the Bank
of Nova Scotia's Dynamic, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Royal
Bank of Canada, National Bank and Bank of Montreal Investments.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published October 9,
2020. [GN]

TEVA BRANDED: Appelbaum Files Personal Injury Suit in S.D. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Teva Branded
Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc., et al. The case is styled as
Jane Appelbaum, Linda Hall, Kenaope Rutang, and Dawn Darrow, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Teva
Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc., formerly known as: Teva
Global Respiratory Research, LLC, formerly known as: Ivax Research
LLC, formerly known as: Ivax Research Inc., formerly known as: Ivax
Laboratories Inc., formerly known as: Baker Norton Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.; Ivax LLC, formerly known as: Ivax Corporation; JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., formerly known as: Ortho-McNeil-Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., formerly known as: Janssen Pharmaceutica
Inc.; ORTHO-MCNEIL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; Janssen Research &
Development LLC, formerly known as: Johnson & Johnson Research &
Development, L.L.C.; Alza Corporation; Janssen Ortho LLC; Johnson &
Johnson; and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., formerly known
as: Bayer Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Case No. 0:20-cv-62068-AHS
(S.D. Fla., Oct. 9, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability.

The case is assigned to Judge Raag Singhal.

Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&d, Inc. was founded in 2008.
The company's line of business includes the manufacturing,
fabricating, or processing of drugs in pharmaceutical preparations
for human or veterinary use.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alexandra Camille Mullenax, Esq.
          Francisco Raul Maderal , Jr., Esq.
          COLSON HICKS EIDSON
          255 Alhambra Cir., Penthouse
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 476-7400
          E-mail: alexandra@colson.com
                  frank@colson.com

               - and -

          Susan Stanfill Carlson, Esq.
          DEEHL& CARLSON, P.A.
          501 N.E. 1st Avenue, Suite 301
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 448-9111
          Facsimile: (305) 442-0441
          E-mail: susan@deehl.com

               - and -

          Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq.
          Benjamin Jacobs Widlanski, Esq.
          KOZYAK TROPIN THROCKMORTON
          2525 Ponce de Leon, 9th Floor
          Miami, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 728-2959
          E-mail: tjl@kttlaw.com
                  bwidlanski@kttlaw.com

TEXAS EDUCATION: Class Certification Sought in Alvarez Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.A. B/N/F ALFREDO ALVAREZ
and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, v. TEXAS
EDUCATION AGENCY, Case No. 1:19-cv-00921-RP (W.D. Tex.), the
Proposed Class asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class; and

   2. appointing class counsel.

On September 18, 2019, the class members filed their First Original
Class Action Complaint arguing the TEA violated their rights
pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Ac, the
Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act of
1973.

TEA is the branch of the government of Texas responsible for public
education in Texas in the United States.

A copy of the Proposed Class' motion to certify class is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dzXdJr at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs and the Class are represented by:

          Martin J. Cirkiel, Esq.
          CIRKIEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          1901 E. Palm Valley Blvd.
          Round Rock, TX 78664
          Telephone: (512) 244-6658
          Facsimile: (512) 244-6014
          E-mail: marty@cirkielaw.com

The Defendant Texas Education Agency is represented by:

          Rola Daaboul, Esq.
          ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
            GENERAL LITIGATION DIVISION
          Austin, TX 78711-2548
          Telephone: (512) 936-1322
          Facsimile: (512) 320-0667
          E-mail: rola.daaboul@oag.texas.gov

THERMOFLEX WAUKEGAN: Insurers Won't Cover Class Suit Costs
----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Thermoflex Waukegan, LLC, et al.
The case is captioned as Citizens Insurance Company of America, a
Michigan corporation; and Hanover Insurance Company, a New
Hampshire corporation v. Thermoflex Waukegan, LLC an Illinois
limited liability company, and Gregory Gage, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Case No. 1:20-cv-05980
(N.D. Ill., Oct. 7, 2020).

This is an insurance coverage dispute between Citizens and Hanover,
on the one hand, and Thermoflex.  Citizens issued a Commercial
Lines Policy to Thermoflex that contains a General Liability
Coverage Part and a Cyber Liability Coverage Part. Hanover issued a
Commercial Follow Form Excess and Umbrella Policy to Thermoflex.

In this action, Citizens and Hanover seek a declaration that they
have no duty to defend or indemnify Thermoflex under the Policies
in connection with the underlying putative class action suit
captioned Gregory Gage v. Thermoflex Waukegan, LLC, et al., filed
in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois, and bearing Case No.
20 CH 00000749.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John F. Kness.

Thermoflex Waukegan, LLC engages in the business of automotive
accessory development and production.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey Alan Goldwater, Esq.
          Kelly M. Ognibene, Esq.  
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP
          550 West Adams, Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60661
          Telephone: (312) 345-1718
          E-mail: jgoldwater@lbbslaw.com
                  kelly.ognibene@lewisbrisbois.com

TORO FOODS: Leon Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS LEON, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. TORO FOODS, LLC,
and GERARDO DEANDA, Case No. 5:20-cv-00823-JKP-RBF (W.D. Tex.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order conditionally certifying a
class of:

   "all hourly employees employed by the Defendants since July
   14, 2017."

The Plaintiff alleges that he and putative class members were
uniformly subject to the same policies of the Defendants that led
to the violations of Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff brought this suit on behalf of all hourly employees
employed by the Defendants, to recover overtime wages and other
damages pursuant to the FLSA.

The Defendants are a Texas business that own and operate two
Spanish cuisine restaurants in San Antonio. Defendants employ
hourly employees such as the Plaintiff to accomplish its business
purpose.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of
collective action is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3dNp3BN at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          R. Carlo Garcia, Esq.
          OLIVIA, SAKS, GARCIA & CURIEL, LLC
          14255 Blanco Road
          San Antonio, TX 78216
          Telephone: 210-308-6600
          Facsimile: 210-308-6939
          E-mail: cglaw@osgclaw.com

TREK RETAIL: Frias-Estrada Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as RAUL FRIAS-ESTRADA, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. TREK RETAIL CORPORATION
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. C20-01916, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Contra Costa to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on October 23, 2020.

The Clerk Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 4:20-cv-07471 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wages and overtime premium
pay; failure to provide meal and rest periods; failure to provide
wages upon termination or discharge; failure to provide accurate
records; failure to reimburse business expenses; and violations of
California's unfair competition laws.

Trek Retail Corporation is a bicycle and cycling product
manufacturer and distributor, with its headquarters in Waterloo,
Wisconsin. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                  
         
         Jennifer N. Lutz, Esq.
         Rio F. Schwarting, Esq.
         PETTIT KOHN INGRASSIA LUTZ & DOLIN PC
         11622 El Camino Real, Suite 300
         San Diego, CA 92130
         Telephone: (858) 755-8500
         Facsimile: (858) 755-8504
         E-mail: jlutz@pettitkohn.com
                 rschwarting@pettitkohn.com

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Valdez Labor Class Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as BENJAMIN VALDEZ, HECTOR CASTELLANOS,
WORKSAFE, AND CHINESE PROGRESSIVE ASSOCIATION v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES,
INC.; UBER USA, LLC; RASIER, LLC; and RASIER-CA, LLC, Case No.
CGC-20-587266, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Francisco to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on October 25, 2020.

The Clerk Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-07496 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code by misclassifying Uber drivers as independent contractors.

Uber Technologies, Inc. is a provider of ride hailing services
based in San Francisco, California.

Uber USA, LLC is a provider of ride hailing services based in San
Francisco, California.

Rasier, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Uber Technologies,
Inc.

Rasier-CA, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Uber Technologies,
Inc. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
                 
         
         Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq.
         Theane Evangelis, Esq.
         Blaine H. Evanson, Esq.
         Heather Richardson, Esq.
         GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
         333 South Grand Avenue
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
         Telephone: (213) 229-7000
         Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
         E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
                 tevangelis@gibsondunn.com
                 bevanson@gibsondunn.com
                 hrichardson@gibsondunn.com

US FOODS: Woodard Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Delivery Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH WOODARD, individually and on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v. US
FOODS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-00452 (E.D. Tenn. October 26, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as delivery driver.

The Plaintiff claims that he and other similarly situated delivery
drivers routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week, but they
were only paid a "day-rate" for all hours worked per day. The
Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime compensation for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week at one and one-half times his
regular hourly rate of pay.

US Foods, Inc. distributes food and related items to more than
250,000 customers across the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VAXART INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Vaxart, Inc. ("Vaxart") (NASDAQ: VXRT) between June
25, 2020 and July 25, 2020. You are hereby notified that a
securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. To get more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/vaxart-inc-information-request-form-2?prid=9994&wire=5

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: 1) Vaxart exaggerated the prospects of its
COVID-19 vaccine candidate, including its purported role or
involvement in Operation Warp Speed ('OWS'), a program which
commits the federal government to massive funding for the
development of COVID-19 vaccines; 2) Vaxart's COVID-19 vaccine
candidate had no reasonable prospect for mass production and
marketing and was not among the companies chosen to receive
significant financial support from OWS to produce hundreds of
millions of vaccine doses; and 3) Vaxart's COVID-19 vaccine
candidate was merely selected to participate in preliminary U.S.
government studies to determine potential areas for possible OWS
partnership and support.

If you suffered a loss in Vaxart you have until October 23, 2020 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

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

VERA LLOYD: Collective Status Sought in House Parents Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LASHANNA GIRTMON,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
VERA LLOYD PRESBYTERIAN FAMILY SERVICES, INC., and VERA LLOYD
PRESBYTERIAN FOUNDATION, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00762-DPM (E.D.
Ark., Aug. 6, 2020), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the following collective:

      "all House Parents employed since June 18, 2017";

   2. scheduling a period of 90 days to distribute the Notice
      and file Consent forms and directing the Defendants to
      produce the names, last known home and work addresses,
      phone numbers and email addresses of potential opt-in
      the Plaintiffs no later than seven days after the date of
      the entry of the Order granting this Motion; and

   3. permitting her to provide the Notice to potential opt-in
      the Plaintiffs through U.S. Mail and email and that this
      Court permit Plaintiff to distribute a follow-up reminder
      Postcard via traditional U.S. Mail.

Vera Lloyd is an equal opportunity employer and provider.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WARNER BROS: O'Connor Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DANIEL O'CONNOR, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WARNER BROS. ANIMATION INC., a
Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 20STCV33069,
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on October 9, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-09291-MCS-JPR to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from employment-related issues.

Warner Bros. Animation is an American animation studio owned by the
Global Kids, Young Adults and Classics division of Warner Bros.
Entertainment. The studio is closely associated with the Looney
Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters, among others.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Emma Luevano, Esq.
          Louise Truong, Esq.
          MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP
          2040 Century Park East, 18th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90064-1683
          Telephone: (310) 312-2000
          Facsimile: (310) 312-3100
          E-mail: eyl@msk.com
                  ltt@msk.com

WASHINGTON: 9th Cir. Affirms District Court Ruling in "Danielson"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ninth Circuit Panel has affirmed the district court's dismissal
of a claim for monetary relief bought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section
1983 by public sector employees against their union following the
Supreme Court's decision in Janus v. American Federation of State,
County, & Municipal Employees, Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018),
which held that the compulsory collection of agency fees by unions
violates the First Amendment.

The appellate case is captioned as DALE DANIELSON, a Washington
State employee; BENJAMIN RAST, a Washington State employee; TAMARA
ROBERSON, a Washington State employee; as individuals, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. JAY ROBERT INSLEE , in his official capacity as Governor of the
State of Washington; DAVID SCHUMACHER , in his official capacity as
Director of Washington State Office of Financial Management;
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES,
COUNCIL 28, AFL-CIO, a labor organization, the
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-36087, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Plaintiff filed an appeal from the District Court's Order
entered in the lawsuit styled DALE DANIELSON, BENJAMIN RAST, and
TAMARA ROBERSON, the Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE,
COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 28, AFL-CIO, the
Defendants, DALE DANIELSON, BENJAMIN RAST, and TAMARA ROBERSON, the
Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL
EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 28, AFL-CIO, the Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-05206-RJB, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington.

Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Janus, public sector
unions around the country relied on the Supreme Court's decision in
Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977), which
held that the unions could collect compulsory agency fees from
nonmembers to finance their collective bargaining activities,
without running afoul of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. State
laws and regulations further entrenched the union agency shop into
the local legal framework. In 2018, the Supreme Court uprooted its
precedent by overturning Abood. Immediately thereafter, the
defendant Union stopped collecting mandatory fees from nonmembers.


The Plaintiffs subsequently brought suit seeking, among other
things, a refund of all agency fees that were allegedly unlawfully
collected from plaintiffs prior to the Supreme Court's decision in
Janus. Joining the Seventh Circuit, the panel held that private
parties may invoke an affirmative defense of good faith to
retrospective monetary liability under 42 U.S.C. section 1983,
where they acted in direct reliance on then binding Supreme Court
precedent and presumptively valid state law. See Janus v. Am. Fed'n
of State, Cty. & Mun. Emps., Council 31, 942 F.3d 352 (7th Cir.
2019) ("Janus II"); Mooney v. Ill. Educ. Ass'n, 942 F.3d 368 (7th
Cir. 2019). The panel held that the good faith affirmative defense
applied as a matter of law, and the district court was right to
dismiss plaintiffs' claim for monetary relief.

The Plaintiffs are Washington state employees who work within
bargaining units exclusively represented by the American Federation
of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 28, AFL-CIO (the
Union). The Plaintiffs are not members of the Union and object to
financing its activities. Nonetheless, until recently, they were
required to pay agency fees to the Union. Collection of agency fees
from nonmembers was authorized by the governing collective
bargaining agreement, by Washington law, and by over four decades
of U.S. Supreme Court precedent dating back to Abood. On June 27,
2018, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Janus, reversing
course on the constitutionality of the traditional agency shop
regime. Janus overruled Abood and held that the mandatory
collection of agency fees from objectors violated the First
Amendment. 138 S. Ct. at 2486. It is undisputed that, immediately
thereafter, the Union stopped collecting mandatory fees from
nonmembers.

On March 15, 2018, Plaintiffs brought a putative class action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against Jay Inslee, in his
official capacity as Governor of Washington; David Schumacher, in
his official capacity as Director of the Washington Office of
Financial Management; and the Union. In anticipation of the Supreme
Court's decision in Janus, the Plaintiffs alleged that the
imposition of compulsory agency fees violated their constitutional
rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. They sought
declaratory and injunctive relief, a refund of "all agency fees
that were unlawfully collected from Plaintiffs and their fellow
class members," and an award of attorney's fees and costs.

In the wake of Janus and changes to the Union's practices, the
district court determined that the claims against Inslee and
Schumacher (the State Defendants) for declaratory and injunctive
relief were moot, and they were dismissed from the case. Shortly
thereafter, the Union filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings
or summary judgment. The Union argued that the claims for
declaratory and injunctive relief should be dismissed as moot, as
the parallel claims against the State Defendants had been. The
Union further argued that the claim for monetary relief should be
dismissed because it had relied in good faith on
presumptively-valid state law and then-binding Supreme Court
precedent. The district court granted the Union's motion as to all
claims and dismissed the case. Plaintiffs then sought
reconsideration of the ruling, which the district court denied.
This appeal timely followed.

The Plaintiffs' claim for monetary relief against the Union. In so
ruling, we join the Seventh Circuit, the only other circuit to have
addressed the question before us. See Janus v. Am. Fed'n of State,
Cty. & Mun. Emps., Council 31, 942 F.3d 352 (7th Cir. 2019) (Janus
II); Mooney v. Ill. Educ. Ass'n, 942 F.3d 368 (7th Cir. 2019).

The Panel held, "We agree with our sister circuit that a union
defendant can invoke an affirmative defense of good faith to
retrospective monetary liability under section 1983 for the agency
fees it collected pre-Janus, where its conduct was directly
authorized under both state law and decades of Supreme Court
jurisprudence. The Union was not required to forecast changing
winds at the Supreme Court and anticipatorily presume the
overturning of Abood. Instead, we permit private parties to rely on
judicial pronouncements of what the law is, without exposing
themselves to potential liability for doing so."[BN]

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq.
          MITCHELL LAW PLLC
          Austin, TX

               - and -

          Talcott J. Franklin
          TALCOTT FRANKLIN PC
          Dallas, TX

               - and -

          Eric Stahlfeld, Esq.
          FREEDOM FOUNDATION
          Olympia, Washington

               - and -

          Christopher Hellmich, Esq.
          HELLMICH LAW GROUP P.C.
          Anaheim Hills, CA

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          P. Casey Pitts, Esq.
          Scott Kronland, Esq.
          Matthew J. Murray, Esq.
          Altshuler Berzon LLP
          San Francisco, CA

               - and -

          Edward E. Younglove III, Esq.
          YOUNGLOVE & COKER P.L.L.C.
          Olympia, Washington

WEST END VILLA: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Payne at ottawacitizen.com reports that the family of a
woman who contracted COVID-19 while living at West End Villa is
among plaintiffs seeking $15 million in damages as part of a
class-action lawsuit, claiming the Ottawa long-term care home
failed to protect residents and was negligent in their care.

The lawsuit comes as a 16th resident of the home has died since the
outbreak began at the end of August. It is the largest and
deadliest ongoing COVID-19 outbreak in long-term care in the
province since the first wave hit long-term care homes last
spring.

In a statement of claim, the plaintiffs say inadequate preventive
and responsive measures and inadequate staffing at the home
operated by Extendicare contributed to "mass spread" of COVID-19 at
the home.

A spokesperson for Extendicare said the company has not received
any documentation or notice related to the case, adding that the
home has had a regular staff testing program in place since June to
identify and isolate cases as early as possible, has had enough
personal protective equipment to meet all provincial directives and
is working closely with public health and The Ottawa Hospital.

"Our focus at this time is solely on providing quality care to our
residents, keeping our families informed and supporting our staff,"
the spokesman said. "Our hearts are with our community and those
who have lost loved ones to this virus during this immensely
challenging time."

Among allegations in the statement of claim are that the home
failed to implement a proper infection prevention and control
program, contrary to the provincial long-term care act, that it
failed to follow acceptable practices regarding prevention and
containment of contagious respiratory illnesses and failed to
properly train and retrain staff in infection prevention and
control. The lawsuit also said the home failed to make safety
upgrades in the building and to ensure West End Villa met the
required design standards for long-term care homes.

The lawsuit claims Peggy Hannon, whose daughter and guardian
Suzanne Zagallai is lead plaintiff, became infected with COVID-19
while living in a shared room at the home. The family said they had
difficulty getting information about her condition and asked that
she be moved to hospital for treatment but didn't get a response.
The lawsuit also claims that Hannon was not moved from her shared
room, nor was her roommate, after she tested positive for COVID-19
on Sept. 18. She has since been moved to a single room.

The lawsuit claims the home failed to implement adequate
hand-washing protocols and adequate social distancing, among other
things.

The claim alleges that staffing shortages resulted in residents,
including some who died, suffering from dehydration and
malnutrition.

None of the claims has been proven in court. The lawsuit is not
certified.

The Ottawa Hospital took over management of the home on Sept. 18.

Sixty-nine residents of the home have tested positive for COVID-19,
23 of them still have active cases that are being treated in the
home and three are in hospital. Forty three staff members have
tested positive, 38 of whom remain isolated at home. [GN]

WEST TOWN BANK: Somerville Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH AND KAREN
SOMERVILLE, et al., v. WEST TOWN BANK & TRUST, Case No.
8:19-cv-00490-PJM (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs Joseph and Karen
Somerville, Mark and Susan Kline, David and Janie McCranie, and
Randolph Whitley ask the Court for an order:

   1. allowing the case to proceed as a class action pursuant
      to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; and

   2. certifying these Class and Subclasses:

      Proposed West Town Class:

      "all individuals in the United States who were borrowers
      on a mortgage loan obtained from West Town Bank & Trust,
      a/k/a West Town Savings Bank, for which All Star Title,
      Inc. provided a settlement service, as identified in
      Section 1100 on the borrower's HUD-1, between January 1,
      2010 and December 31, 2015."

      Exempted from this class is any person who, during the
      period of January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2015, was
      an employee, officer, member and/or agent of West Town
      Bank & Trust, a/k/a West Town Savings Bank., or All Star
      Title, Inc.;

      The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
      (RICO) Subclass consisting of:

      "all members of the West Town Class"; and

      The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) Subclass
      consisting of:

      "all members of the West Town Class who were borrowers on
      a federally related mortgage loan (as defined under the
      Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. section
      2602) between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2015"; and

   3. appointing themselves as class representatives of the
      Class and Subclasses.

West Town Bank offers a variety of financial services including
checking, savings, loans and mortgages.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3j0gTqH at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Timothy F. Maloney, Esq.
          Veronica B. Nannis, Esq.
          JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE
          6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
          Greenbelt, MD 20770
          Telephone: (301) 220-2200
          Facsimile: (301) 220-1214
          E-mail: tmaloney@jgllaw.com
                  vnannis@jgllaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Paul Smith, Esq.
          Melissa L. English, Esq.
          SMITH, GILDEA & SCHMIDT, LLC
          600 Washington Avenue, Suite 200
          Towson, MD 21204
          Telephone: (410) 821-0070
          Facsimile: (410) 821-0071
          E-mail: mpsmith@sgs-law.com
                  menglish@sgs-law.com

WORCESTER COUNTY, MD: Court Certifies 3 Classes in Coreas Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAURICIO COREAS, et al. v.
DONNA BOUNDS, in her official capacity as Warden of Worcester
County Detention Center, et al., Case No. 8:20-cv-00780-TDC (D.
Md.), the Hon. Judge Theodore D. Chuang entered an order granting
in part and denying in part the Petitioners' Motion for Class
Certification and Expedited Bail Hearings.

The motion is granted on the issue of class certification as to the
overall class, the Howard County subclass, and the Worcester County
subclass. The motion is denied without prejudice on the issue of
expedited bail hearings.

The Court accordingly certifies these classes:

   1. The Main Class consisting of:

      "all persons who are or will in the future be held in U.S.
      Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") detention in
      Maryland who are age 50 or older or who have medical
      conditions that place them at heightened risk of severe
      illness or death from COVID-19";

   2. The Howard County Subclass, consisting of:

      "all persons who are or will in the future be held in ICE
      detention at the Howard County Detention Center who are
      age 50 or older or who have medical conditions that place
      them at heightened risk of severe illness or death from
      COVID-19"’ and

   3. The Worcester County Subclass, consisting of:

      "all persons who are or will in the future be held in ICE
      detention at the Worcester County Detention Center who are
      age 50 or older or who have medical conditions that place
      them at heightened risk of severe illness or death from
      COVID-19."

WCDC is a detention facility located at 5022 Joyner Rd, Snow Hill,
Maryland.

A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/32W1OBJ at no extra charge.[CC]

WRAP TECH: Howard G. Smith Reminds of November 23 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
November 23, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased Wrap
Technologies, Inc. ("Wrap" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: WRTC)
securities between July 31, 2020 and September 23, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

On September 23, 2020, White Diamond Research published a report
alleging, among other things, that Wrap's trial pilot program for
its BolaWrap product was a disaster. According to the report: "Over
a six-month period, 200 BolaWrap devices in the hands of 1,100 LAPD
officers in the field were only used nine times, and only worked
once."

On this news, securities of Wrap fell $2.07 per share, or 25%, to
close at $6.07 per share on September 23, 2020, thereby injuring
investors.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company had concealed
the results of the LAPD BolaWrap pilot program, which demonstrated
that the BolaWrap was ineffective, expensive, and sparingly used in
the field; and (2) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased Wrap securities during the class period, you may
move the Court no later than November 23, 2020 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal
requirements. To be a member of the class action you need not take
any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or
take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If
you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith,
Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215)
638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.

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

WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Nov. 23 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California on behalf of investors that purchased Wrap
Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: WRTC) securities between July 31, 2020
and September 23, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until
November 23, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On September 23, 2020, White Diamond Research published a report
entitled "Wrap Technologies: Disastrous LAPD BolaWrap Pilot Program
Results, No Evidence These Have Been Communicated To Investors"
alleging, among other things, that the Company's trial pilot
program with the LAPD was a disaster, and that the Company had not
disclosed the results to investors.

On this news, securities of Wrap fell $2.07 per share, or 25.43% to
close at $6.07 per share on September 23, 2020.

The complaint, filed on September 23, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had concealed the
results of the LAPD BolaWrap pilot program, which demonstrated that
the BolaWrap was ineffective, expensive, and sparingly used in the
field; and (2) as a result, defendants' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

If you purchased Wrap Technologies securities during the Class
Period and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have
information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Melissa
Fortunato, Marion Passmore, or Brandon Walker by email at
investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by
filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.

                     About Bragar Eagel

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

WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Nov. 23 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of those who acquired Wrap
Technologies, Inc. ("Wrap" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: WRTC)
securities during the period from April 29, 2020 through September
23, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until
November 23, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

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

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

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

XPO PORT: Class Certification Bid Granted in Part
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTOR CORTEZ ARRELLANO,
et al. v. XPO PORT SERVICE INC., et al., Case No.
2:18-cv-08220-RGK-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge R. Gary Klausner
entered an order granting in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.

The Court concurs with Defendants that the Plaintiffs have not met
their burden to demonstrate that class-wide adjudication is
superior -- or even manageable -- for this aspect of their
reimbursement claim, and therefore declines to certify the
Plaintiff's claim for reimbursement of maintenance expenses.
Insofar as Plaintiffs seek reimbursement for fuel and insurance,
however, the Court finds no similar issues to adjudication on a
class-wide basis, and certifies the claim as to those expenses.

On December 4, 2019, Reynaldo Gomez Acosta, Servando Avila Luciano,
and Feliz Nunez Duarte filed a fourth amended class action
complaint on behalf of themselves and similarly situated
individuals against the Defendants. The Plaintiffs' FAC alleges
various violations of the California Labor Code, including
misclassification of employees; unlawful deductions and
reimbursable expenses; unpaid minimum wages; waiting time
penalties; and failure to pay all wages owed every pay period.

The Plaintiffs are drivers who contend that they were improperly
classified as independent contractors rather than employees, and
were therefore denied numerous benefits and protections to which
they were entitled under California law.

The Defendants provide drivers with a company-owned truck and
remain responsible for the truck with insurance, permits, licenses,
place cards and use. XPO is a major transnational transportation
and logistics company that provides various shipping services
throughout California.[CC]

YOUTUBE INC: Tort Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. YOUTUBE, INC., Case No. 20-CIV-04023,
was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of
San Mateo to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on October 24, 2020.

The Clerk Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-07493-SK to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Plaintiff's various tort and statutory
claims against the Defendant after she allegedly suffered
psychological harm as a result of her work as a moderator of
content posted on YouTube's platform.

YouTube, Inc. is an American online video-sharing platform
headquartered in San Bruno, California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                  
         
         Gregory P. Stone, Esq.
         Katherine M. Forster, Esq.
         Bethany W. Kristovich, Esq.
         Zachary M. Briers, Esq.
         Benjamin G. Barokh, Esq.
         April D. Youpee-Roll, Esq.
         MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
         350 South Grand Avenue, Fiftieth Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3426
         Telephone: (213) 683-9100
         Facsimile: (213) 687-3702
         E-mail: Gregory.Stone@mto.com
                 Katherine.Forster@mto.com
                 Bethany.Kristovich@mto.com
                 Zachary.Briers@mto.com
                 Benjamin.Barokh@mto.com
                 April.Youpee-Roll@mto.com


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***