/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201105.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, November 5, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 222

                            Headlines

ABEBOOKS USA: Graciano Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
ALTERYX INC: Pomerantz LLP Announces Securities Class Action
AMAZON.COM INC: Jerinic Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action
APPLE INC: "Throttled" Devices With iOS Updates, Lawsuit Alleges

APPLE INC: Blocks Cloud Gaming Apps, Lawsuit Alleges
ARACA MERCHANDISE: Romero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ASPEN MANAGEMENT: Conditional FLSA Class Certification Sought
ASTRAZENECA PHARMA: Fraternal Order Suit Transferred to Delware
ASTRAZENECA PHARMA: NECA-IBEW Welfare Suit Transferred to Delaware

ASTRAZENECA PHARMA: Pipe Trades Suit Transferred to Del. Dist. Ct.
AURORA CANNABIS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action Filing
AVERMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AVRIO HEALTH: Tarantino Files Fraud Class Action
BAIDU INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Class Action

BANK OF THE SIERRA: Williams Files Suit in Ca. Super. Ct.
BANKHEAD TOWERS: Carter Files Civil Rights Suit
BENJAMIN CHARLES MOHR: Mar Suit Removed to N.D. California
BIOMARIN PHARMA: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Nov. 24 Motion Deadline
BRASKEM SA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Class Action

CAFE BRITT CORP: Romero Asserts Disabilities Act Breach
CAMPMOR INC: Romero Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act
CANON USA: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Romero Suit Says
CAPITAL ONE BANK: Quinonez Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Devine Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices

CAROLINA SELECT BRANDS: Romero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CHURCH STREET SOUTH: Settlement for Ex-Tenants Advancing
COLLABERA INC: Sanders Files Suit in New Jersey
COLONY CREDIT: Portnoy Law Alerts of Securities Class Action
COMPUTER CREDIT: Twerski Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

DCM SERVICES: Lenzini Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. California
DETR: Major Setbacks Continue in Class Action Over PUA Payments
DEUTSCHE BANK: April 8, 2021 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
DIAMOND RELOCATION: DeSeignora Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
ELDOR AUTOMOTIVE: Joint Bid for Conditional FLSA Class Cert. Sought

EXEL INC: Foy Files Suit in California
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Carrion Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
FIRST INTERNATIONAL: Romero Files Suit under ADA in New York
FLUIDIGM CORP: Glancy Prongay & Murray Files Class Action
GEORGES AT THE COVE: Jariwala Files Suit under ADA in California

GLENN ASSOCIATES: Burns Files FDCPA Suit in Massachusetts
GOHEALTH INC: Frank Cruz Alerts of Securities Class Action Filing
GOHEALTH INC: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of November 20 Deadline
GOJO INDUSTRIES: Gonzalez Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
GOLAR LNG: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Nov. 23 Motion Deadline

GREAT LAKES POTATO: Romero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
H-E-B LP: Romero Alleges Americans w/ Disabilities Act Breach
HASSELBLAD INC: Romero Suit Alleges ADA Breach
HAWAII: Kelley O'Neil's Files Suit v. Gov., et al.
HDFC BANK: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Class Action

HERITAGE PHARMACEUTICALS: Sandoval Suit Transferred to New Jersey
HOSHIZAKI AMERICA: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
HYDRATION LABS: Jaquez Alleges Violation under ADA
INFLECTION RISK: Taylor Suit Removed to Minn. Dist. Ct.
JJ'S ASIAN FUSION: Cruz Files FLSA Suit in New York

KLN ENTERPRISES: Romero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LIBERTY TAX: 2nd Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Fraud Class Action
LMND MEDICAL: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LOANCARE LLC: Alvarez Seeks to Certify FCCPA & FDUTPA Classes
MAYORGA ORGANICS: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

MCDONALD'S USA: Denies Black Franchisees Equal Rights, Byrds Claim
MESOBLAST LIMITED: Frank Cruz Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
MESOBLAST LIMITED: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Deutsch Files FDCPA  Suit in New York
MIDLAND CREDIT: Feder Files FDCPA Suit in New York

MOLLOY COLLEGE: Booth Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Cone Files Suit in Kansas
NESTLE WATERS: Jimenez Files Suit in Ca. Super. Ct.
NEW YORK: Connolly Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
NEXTCURE INC: Scott+Scott Attorneys Files Securities Class Action

NIKOLA CORP: Johnson Fistel Reminds of November 16 Deadline
NIKOLA CORP: Kaskela Law Reminds of November 16 Deadline
NIKOLA CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 16 Motion Deadline
NIKOLA CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of November 16 Deadline
NUTRAWISE CORPORATION: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Nov. 16 Deadline
ON DECK: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
ONEOK INC: Lindsey Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas
PARAMOUNT RECOVERY: Ginsberg Files Suit under FDCPA
PEABODY ENERGY: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Nov. 27 Motion Deadline

PERFUMES.COM INC: Romero Files Suit under ADA in New York
PERRIGO CO: December 3 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
PINTEC TECHNOLOGY: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Nov. 30 Motion Deadline
PINTEC TECHNOLOGY: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Nov. 30 Motion Deadline
PIZANO'S PIZZA: Blinds Can't Access Website, Antonio Suit Says

PORTLAND GENERAL: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Class Action
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Twerski Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
RICARDO BEVERLY: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ROCKY'S PIZZA: Bravo Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
SASOL LIMITED: Moshell Suit Seeks to Certify Rules 23 Class

SELECT REHABILITATION: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA
SHAPIRO & DENARDO: Ennis Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
SPRUCE 1209: Overcharges Apartment Rentals, Chernett Suit Says
STRIVECTIN OPERATING: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

SUPERDRY RETAIL: Jariwala Alleges Violation under ADA
SWAPALEASE INC: Tenzer-Fuchs Asserts Breach of ADA
SWITCHBACK ENERGY: Bulsa Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty
TELEPATHIC INC: Jones Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
TENDERLOIN HOUSING: Fennix Files Suit in Ca. Super. Ct.

THERMO TECH: Lopez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Misclassifies Drivers, Leaks Suit Claims
ULTRA PETROLEUM: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of November 9 Deadline
UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE: Ninivaggi Suit Removed to Del. Dist. Ct.
VALOR GROUP: Bishop Alleges Violation under ADA

WARNER MUSIC: Buck Files Suit in S.D. New York
WELLS FARGO: Faces Mullen Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
ZOSANO PHARMA: Faces Carr Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop

                            *********

ABEBOOKS USA: Graciano Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
Abebooks USA, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Sandy
Graciano, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Abebooks USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-08761 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 20, 2020).

Abebooks Inc was founded in 1995. The Company's line of business
includes the wholesale distribution of books, periodicals, and
newspapers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
   Gottlieb & Associates
   150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
   New York, NY 10003
   Tel: (212) 228-9795
   Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


ALTERYX INC: Pomerantz LLP Announces Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Alteryx, Inc.  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.
[GN]


AMAZON.COM INC: Jerinic Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Michael Jerinic, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com,
LLC, Case No. 2020CH06036 was removed from the Cook County Circuit
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on Oct. 30, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-06485 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company
based in Seattle, Washington, which focuses on e-commerce, cloud
computing, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan F Stephan, Esq.
          Catherine T Mitchell, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Megan Shannon, Esq.
          STEPHAN, ZOURAS LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 233-1550
          Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                 cmitchell@stephanzouras.com
                 jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                 mshannon@stephanzouras.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Elizabeth Brooke Herrington, Jr.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 324-1000
          Email: beth.herrington@morganlewis.com


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Sept. 16 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.

AEP Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/american-electric-power-company-inc-information-request-form?prid=9294&wire=1
PLAN Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/anaplan-inc-information-request-form?prid=9294&wire=1
UPLCQ Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ultra-petroleum-corp-information-request-form?prid=9294&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

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

AEP Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 2, 2016
- July 24, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/american-electric-power-company-inc-information-request-form?prid=9294&wire=1

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

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=9294&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.

Ultra Petroleum Corp. (OTC PINK:UPLCQ)

UPLCQ Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 3, 2017 -
August 8, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 2, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ultra-petroleum-corp-information-request-form?prid=9294&wire=1

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

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

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

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


APPLE INC: "Throttled" Devices With iOS Updates, Lawsuit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
lawstreetmedia.com reports that a Northern District of California
complaint filed accused Apple Inc. of engaging in unfair business
practices by requiring software updates for certain Apple iPhones
that slowed the devices and reduced their performance. The class
action claims that Apple intruded upon devices that the plaintiff,
Best Companies, Inc., bought, when Apple "secretly" updated them,
thereby diminishing their performance.

According to the filing, Best Companies is an Oklahoma company that
purchased various 6, 6 Plus, 7, or 7 Plus Apple iPhones from
September 2014 through March 2017.  The defendant, Apple, is "the
world's largest information technology company by revenue and the
world's third largest mobile phone developer," the complaint
reports.

Allegedly, beginning in about January 2017, Apple installed updates
that "'throttled' or reduced the speed at which the phones
operate," purportedly to extend the devices' battery life. Apple
supposedly did this by issuing updates that "purposefully degraded
performance in order to have the batteries draw less power to run
the devices," without informing the plaintiff and putative class
that the obligatory updates would have such an effect.

Further, the complaint argues that the throttling Apple introduced
was intended to "address a defect in the design of the Devices: the
fact that the Devices' batteries lacked the capacity and power
delivery to keep up with the demands placed upon them by Apple's
hardware and software." The plaintiff claims that on Dec. 20, 2017,
through a statement published on its website, Apple "tacitly
admitted" that the software updates intentionally slowed its
phones.

Eight days later, the complaint explains that "Apple issued an
'apology' of sorts," when it released a further explanation of the
"power management" taxing iPhone performance. Decreased performance
reportedly manifested through "longer app launch times, lower frame
rates while scrolling, backlight dimming (which can be overridden
in Control Center), and lower speaker volume by up to -3dB," among
other issues.

The plaintiff claims that Apple violated the federal Computer Fraud
and Abuse Act by causing the plaintiff and class members to
download and install mandatory updates without informing them that
code contained within the update would diminish performance. This,
Best Companies contends, occurred secretly, without its information
or consent.

The complaint also alleges two California violations, under its
Unfair Competition Law and Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. The
final cause of action is trespass to chattels. The complaint
requests certification of a nationwide class of non-natural persons
that purchased, owned, or leased one or more iPhone SE, 6, and 7
model devices.

The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief in addition
to the payment of actual and statutory damages, restitution, and
attorneys' fees and litigation costs, among other requests.

The plaintiff is represented by KamberLaw, LLC.

Under a proposed settlement in a separate lawsuit against Apple
Inc. with similar allegations, Apple agreed to give class members
$25 for each iPhone they purchased. [GN]


APPLE INC: Blocks Cloud Gaming Apps, Lawsuit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------
appleinsider.com reports that a new class action lawsuit alleges
that Apple enjoys monopoly power in the iOS mobile gaming
marketplace, and exhibits anticompetitive behavior to keep it that
way.

The complaint, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, claims that Apple has "unlawfully
[foreclosed] competition" through "persistent, pervasive, and
secretive" misconduct.

New Jersey man John Pistacchio, the plaintiff in the case, claims
to be paying "supracompetitive prices" for Apple Arcade as a result
of the company's alleged anticompetitive behavior.

More specifically, the lawsuit suggests that Apple exerts monopoly
power over the iOS App Store by requiring developers to follow its
app guidelines and by prohibiting third-party app stores. It adds
that developers and app publishers are "powerless to constrain"
Apple's conduct by refusing to publish apps on iOS.

"No developer or group of developers have sufficient power to
entice enough iOs users to leave iOS, such that developing apps
solely for other platforms would be profitable," the complaint
reads, suggesting that companies like Microsoft, Facebook, and
Google fall into that category.

The complaint goes on to claim that Apple exhibits anticompetitive
behavior to maintain its monopoly status in iOS subscription-based
gaming services.

Those alleged anticompetitive behaviors include imposing technical
restrictions to prevent users from playing other services besides
Apple Arcade; imposing contractual restrictions on developers;
abusing its app review guidelines to protect its monopoly; and
rejecting cloud-based subscription platforms.

It cites several instances of alleged anticompetitive behavior,
such as Apple's prohibition on cloud gaming apps like Xbox Game
Pass and its treatment of gaming services like Facebook Gaming.

Furthermore, the lawsuit suggests that Apple blocks competing game
services not because they violate its app review guidelines, but
because they are rivals to Apple Arcade. (Apple Arcade, in fact,
complies with all of Apple's own guidelines.)

"Apple has taken advantage of its dual role as both gatekeeper and
market player, repeatedly abusing its monopoly power to prevent
competition with Apple Arcade. Apple's anti-competitive conduct
forecloses competition in the iOS Subscription-Based Mobile Gaming
Market, affects a substantial volume of commerce in this market,
and causes anticompetitive harms to consumers," the complaint
reads.

The lawsuit urges a jury trial, and seeks compensatory damages and
punitive damages, injunctive relief for the plaintiff and class,
statutory interest and penalties, and legal fees.

Additionally, it asks the court to establish a "constructive trust
into which Apple's ill-gotten gains shall be disgorged and from
which Plaintiff and members of the Class may obtain restitution."
[GN]


ARACA MERCHANDISE: Romero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Araca Merchandise
L.P. The case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Araca Merchandise L.P., Case No.
1:20-cv-09082 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2020).

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

Araca Merchandise L.P. provides performing arts services. The
Company offers music, theatrical and other related production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ASPEN MANAGEMENT: Conditional FLSA Class Certification Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned MARIAN DOUGLAS, v. ASPEN
MANAGEMENT USA, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-05568-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio),
the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the Plaintiff's proposed
      collective Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) class defined
      as:

      "all current and former hourly paid Property Managers
      employed by Defendant who, during the past three years,
      received a bonus or other non-discretionary pay";

   2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
      the Plaintiff's FLSA claim is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-
      mail) to the Plaintiff's proposed class as set forth
      above; and

   3. requiring the Defendant to, within 14 days of this Court's
      order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by
      providing a list in electronic and importable format, of
      the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of all
      potential opt-in plaintiffs who worked for Defendant in
      the time frame specified by the Plaintiffs as set forth
      above.

This is an action for unpaid overtime wages brought pursuant to the
FLSA and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (OMFWSA). The
Plaintiff asserts that Defendant violated the FLSA and OMFWSA when
it failed to include monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, and annual
non-discretionary bonus pay in its Property Managers' regular rates
of pay for the purposes of calculating overtime. Ms. Douglas filed
her First Amended Complaint on September 17, 2020.

The Defendant Aspen Management USA, LLC is in the business of real
estate acquisition and management of residential properties. The
Defendant is owned by David Wooster, Matthew Wooster, and Thomas
Wooster.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for FLSA conditional collective
action certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/33Wnfn2 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ASTRAZENECA PHARMA: Fraternal Order Suit Transferred to Delware
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20,
Insurance Trust Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals L.P.; AstraZeneca LP;
AstraZeneca UK Limited; Handa Pharmaceuticals, LLC; Par
Pharmaceutical, Inc.; Case No. 1:19-cv-08712, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on Oct. 29,
2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-01468-UNA to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Antitrust
Litigation.

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP manufactures, fabricates, and
processes drugs in pharmaceutical preparations. The Company focuses
on several therapeutic areas such as cardiovascular and metabolic,
gastrointestinal, neuroscience, oncology, respiratory, and
infection.[BN]


ASTRAZENECA PHARMA: NECA-IBEW Welfare Suit Transferred to Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. AstraZeneca
Pharmaceuticals L.P.; AstraZeneca LP; AstraZeneca UK Limited; Handa
Pharmaceuticals, LLC; Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.; Case No.
1:19-cv-09171, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware on Oct. 29, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-01474-UNA to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP manufactures, fabricates, and
processes drugs in pharmaceutical preparations. The Company focuses
on several therapeutic areas such as cardiovascular and metabolic,
gastrointestinal, neuroscience, oncology, respiratory, and
infection.[BN]


ASTRAZENECA PHARMA: Pipe Trades Suit Transferred to Del. Dist. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Pipe Trades Services MN Welfare Fund, on behalf
of itself and all those similarly situated v. AstraZeneca
Pharmaceuticals L.P.; AstraZeneca LP; AstraZeneca UK Limited; Handa
Pharmaceuticals, LLC; Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.; Case No.
1:19-cv-09083, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware on Oct. 29, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-01471-UNA to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP manufactures, fabricates, and
processes drugs in pharmaceutical preparations. The Company focuses
on several therapeutic areas such as cardiovascular and metabolic,
gastrointestinal, neuroscience, oncology, respiratory, and
infection.[BN]


AURORA CANNABIS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Aurora Cannabis, Inc. (NYSE:
ACB). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the
court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each
case can be found at the link provided.

Aurora Cannabis, Inc. (NYSE: ACB)

Class Period: February 13, 2020 to September 4, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 1, 2020

Aurora is headquartered in Edmonton, Canada. The Company produces
and distributes medical cannabis products worldwide. It is
vertically integrated and horizontally diversified across various
segments of the cannabis value chain, including facility
engineering and design, cannabis breeding, genetics research,
production, derivatives, high value-add product development, home
cultivation, wholesale, and retail distribution.

In 2018, the Canadian government approved the Cannabis Act, which
legalized and regulated the use of recreational cannabis. In
response to the statute's approval, and the corresponding surge of
the recreational cannabis industry, Aurora completed a series of
acquisitions to expand the Company's presence and increase its
distribution, including the Company's all-share purchase of the
Canadian medical cannabis producer MedReleaf for total
consideration of 3.2 billion Canadian dollars. Like many other
companies in the cannabis industry, however, the Company
encountered a variety of difficulties as the industry surged,
including, inter alia, overproduction, regulatory delays, and
competition from the black market.

On February 6, 2020,shortly before the start of the Class Period,
Aurora issued a press release announcing, inter alia, a "business
transformation plan," to "better align the business financially
with the current realities of the cannabis market in Canada while
maintaining a sustainable platform for long-term growth."
Specifically, the press release touted that the plan was "expected
to include significant and immediate decreases in selling, general
& administrative ("SG&A") expenses and capital investment plans."

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.

The complaint, filed on October 2, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) 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.

For more information on the Aurora Cannabis class action go to:
https://bespc.com/ACB

                    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]


AVERMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avermedia
Technologies, Inc. The case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf
of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Avermedia
Technologies, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-09186 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 2,
2020).

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

AVerMedia Technologies provides PC, tablet, and mobile TV-viewing
solutions, along with high-definition video and real-time
audio-visual product designs, manufacturing, and marketing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



AVRIO HEALTH: Tarantino Files Fraud Class Action
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avrio Health. The
case is styled as Kelly Tarantino, individually on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Avrio Health, Case No.
2:20-cv-05220 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending.

Avrio Health L.P. is a consumer health products company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP
          85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
          Phone: (845) 483-7100
          Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com


BAIDU INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminded
purchasers and those who otherwise acquired the securities of
Baidu, Inc. (NASDAQ: BIDU) between April 8, 2016 and August 13,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important October 19,
2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action
commenced by the firm. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Baidu investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Baidu class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1925.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) Baidu misrepresented the financial and business condition
of iQIYI; (2) iQIYI had inadequate controls; and (3) 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 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-1925.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

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

Contact Information:

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


BANK OF THE SIERRA: Williams Files Suit in Ca. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BANK OF THE SIERRA.
The case is styled as Robin Williams, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. BANK OF THE SIERRA, Case No.
BCV-20-102549 (Ca. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Oct. 30, 2020).

The case type is stated as "Breach of Contract/Warranty-Civil
Unlimited".

Bank of the Sierra operates as a bank. The Bank offers checking
accounts, credit and debit cards, loans, insurance, payment
protection, phone banking, bills pay, and merchant services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is reprensted by JEFFREY D. KALIEL, ESQ.


BANKHEAD TOWERS: Carter Files Civil Rights Suit
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bankhead Towers
Apartments LTD LLC, et al. The case is styled as Karen Carter,
individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v.
Bankhead Towers Apartments LTD LLC, Bankhead 2192 AL LLC, Millennia
Housing Management LTD, Millennia Housing Development LTD LLC, Case
No. 2:20-cv-01700-SGC (N.D. Ala., Oct. 29, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Civil Rights: Accommodations for
Breach of Contract.

Bankhead Towers is a senior living apartment complex is located in
Birmingham, AL.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Constantin Post, Esq.
          Rachael Toomey Schexnailder, Esq.
          THE SLOCUMB LAW FIRM
          2 North 20th Street, Ste. 1320
          Birmingham, AL 35201
          Phone: (251) 302-1155
          Fax: (251) 302-1331
          Email: cpost@slocumblaw.com
                 rachaels@slocumblaw.com

BENJAMIN CHARLES MOHR: Mar Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Robert G. Mar, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Benjamin Charles Mohr, Paul
Randall Wassgren, an individual, Case No. 20-CIV-01986, was removed
from the San Mateo Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on Nov. 2, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-07719 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Benjamin Charles Mohr is a local financial adviser.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Edward W. Swanson, Jr.
          SWANSON & MCNAMARA LLP
          300 Montgomery St., Suite 1100
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: (415) 477-3800
          Fax: (415) 477-9010
          Email: ed@smllp.law


BIOMARIN PHARMA: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Nov. 24 Motion Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that class
action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of
BioMarin Pharmaceuticals.  Investors have until the deadlines
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 these class actions at 310-914-5007 or by email to
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com.

BioMarin Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ: BMRN)

Class Period: February 28, 2020 - August 18, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 24, 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.

To be a member of these class actions, 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 these class actions, 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.
[GN]


BRASKEM SA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Sept. 8
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Braskem S.A. (NYSE: BAK) between
May 6, 2016 and July 8, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Braskem investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Braskem class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1921.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
to investors that: (1) Braskem's salt mining operations were unsafe
and presented a significant danger to surrounding areas, including
nearly two thousand properties; (2) the foregoing foreseeably
increased the risk that Braskem would be subjected to remedial
liabilities, including, but not limited to, increased governmental
and/or regulatory oversight or enforcement, significant monetary
and reputational damage, and/or the permanent closure of one or
more of its salt mining operations; (3) accordingly, earnings
generated from Braskem's salt mining operations were unsustainable;
(4) Braskem downplayed the true scope and severity of the Company's
liability with respect to its salt mining operations; and (5) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

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
26, 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-1921.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]


CAFE BRITT CORP: Romero Asserts Disabilities Act Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Cafe Britt Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Cafe Britt Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-08774 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 21, 2020).

Cafe Britt is a Costa Rican company that produces and markets
gourmet coffee, chocolate and other products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



CAMPMOR INC: Romero Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Campmor, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Josue
Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Campmor, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-08778 (S.D.
N.Y., Oct. 21, 2020).

Campmor is an outdoor recreation equipment retailer established in
Bogota, New Jersey in 1978. The company sells outdoor camping gear
and camping equipment. Campmor's warehousing and order processing
facilities are located in Mahwah, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CANON USA: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Romero Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSUE ROMERO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CANON U.S.A., INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-09085 (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 2, 2020), alleges that the Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's Website,
shop.usa.canon.com, is not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
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 this definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.

The Defendant is a camera and lens company, and owns and operates
the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to
access the goods and services and which the Defendant ensures the
delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New
York State. The Defendant operates and distributes its products
throughout the United States, including New York.[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

CAPITAL ONE BANK: Quinonez Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital One Bank
(USA) NA. The case is styled as Isabella A. Quinonez, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Capital One Bank
(USA) NA, Case No. 4:20-cv-01195-O (N.D. Tex., Oct. 30, 2020).

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

Capital One Bank (USA), National Association operates as a bank.
The Bank offers checking accounts, credit and debit cards, loans,
insurance, payment protection, phone banking, bill pay, lending,
and online banking services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Devine Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
COREY J. DEVINE, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CAPSTONE LOGISTICS, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
20STCV39030 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 9, 2020) arises
from the Defendants' illegal payroll policies and practices in
violation of the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants acted pursuant to, and in
furtherance of, their policies and practices of not paying him and
other aggrieved employees all wages earned and due, through methods
and schemes which include failing to pay overtime premiums; failing
to provide rest and meal periods; failing to properly maintain
records; failing to provide accurate itemized statements for each
pay period; failing to properly compensate for necessary
expenditures; and requiring, permitting or suffering the employees
to work off the clock, in violation of the California Labor Code
and the applicable Welfare Commission Orders.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all
current and former non-exempt aggrieved employees of the Defendants
working as managers or in similar non-exempt positions in the state
of California at any time within the period beginning one year and
65 days prior to the filing of the action, and ending at the time
the action settles or proceeds to final judgment.

Capstone Logistics, LLC provides logistics services. The Company
offers transportation management, on-site warehouse, distribution,
supply chain, inspection, pallet sorting, and freight hauling
services. Capstone Logistics serves customers in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Taras Kick, Esq.
          Daniel J. Bass, Esq.
          Roy K. Suh, Esq.
          THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
          815 Moraga Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90049
          Telephone: (310) 395-2988
          Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
          E-mail: Taras@kicklawfirm.com
                  Daniel@kicklawfirm.com
                  Roy@kicklawfirm.com

CAROLINA SELECT BRANDS: Romero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carolina Select
Brands, LLC. The case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Carolina Select
Brands, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-09080 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2020).

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

Carolina Select Brands LLC is located in Charlotte, North Carolina
and is part of the Museums, Zoos & Parks Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHURCH STREET SOUTH: Settlement for Ex-Tenants Advancing
--------------------------------------------------------
thehour.com reports that the settlement for tenants at the Church
Street South complex, delayed by the shutdown of much of the
judicial branch, is back on track with more than twice the number
of beneficiaries notified since the spring and development of a
simpler application process.

"We are back in business," attorney David Rosen, the lead litigator
in the class action suit against the Northland Investment
Corporation, said as the parties filed 14 motions to move it
forward.

A major change is a trust system that will be put in place for
easier access to funds to meet the needs of children, the disabled
and the estates of deceased members.

The parties announced on March 6 that they had reached a settlement
of $18.75 million for a class that could go as high as 1,050
persons, tenants who had lived at the deteriorated complex from
December 2013 to December 2016. Rosen's clients numbered around 330
tenants and in the last six months, his firm has contacted 400
more.

They had filed for preliminary approval of the settlement in March,
but they did not ask Judge Linda Lager to make the ruling at that
time, once the courts shut down due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The parties have waived a hearing on the settlement, which they
hope will help Lager proceed quickly on the complex litigation.
Still, tenants in the suit that began in 2016, are not likely to
start getting checks until late April or early May.

Northland and Rosen have worked cooperatively now for some time to
arrive at a solution in the case.

"We would like to thank mediator and retired Judge Jonathan Silbert
for his continued guidance and work in helping both sides achieve
this amended agreement. All parties agree that today's filing
strengthens the existing settlement process, and we look forward to
the court's consideration for preliminary and ultimately final
approval," the Northland Investment Corporation said in a
statement.

"We remain committed to helping the former Church Street families
move forward in a positive way and believe this improved process
will make it easier for claimants to access funds," Northland
said.

The payouts will range from $5,000 to $17,000, depending on how
long a tenant was there over the three-year period agreed to in the
suit. A total of $13.25 million has been set aside for base
payments to the tenants, which are not subject to liens.

The 301 apartments, where tenants complained about leaking roofs,
mold and structural problems, have been razed and the 13-acre site
is ready for a new use.

The settlement also allocates $2.65 million for "enhanced
payments," for those who can demonstrate serious injuries due to
mold in the apartments and for damage to household possessions. A
total of $2,850,000 has been set aside for attorneys costs and
fees.

The modifications in the agreement were made with the continuing
help of Judge Jonathan Silbert, who has acted as the moderator
between the parties and by Attorney Deborah Tedford, their trusts
and estates counsel.

Attorney William Clendenen, former president of the Connecticut Bar
Association, has agreed to take on the assignment of trustee. Rosen
explained that parents can go to him when their children have needs
and he can make a determination without having to go through the
time consuming process of probate court.

Former New Haven Probate Judge John F. Keyes has agreed to serve as
guardian ad litem. With the the help of David Swensen, Yale
University's chief investment officer, TIAA has agreed to act as
the investment adviser and manager for the trust.

Attorney Christopher Royston, Adamina Roman-Sanchez, a nurse care
coordinator at Yale-New Haven Hospital and Che Dawson, regional
director of operations at Achievement First, who lived at Church
Street South as a child, have been appointed special masters.
Royston and Roman-Sanchez are bilingual in English and Spanish.

They will make determinations with respect to the class members'
requests for enhanced payments under the settlement.

Rosen, in one of the briefs, tells the judge that the case was not
a sure thing if litigation continued without agreement on class
action status.

Rosen said the reaction to the settlement by the tenants "has been
overwhelmingly positive."

"None has expressed an intention to object to the settlement or opt
out of the class, much less to simply pass up the benefits of the
settlement. Their uniform reaction has been eagerness - often
accompanied by completely understandable impatience - to have the
settlement confirmed so that they and their families may finally
obtain benefits," he wrote.

Under the agreement, the former tenants get first shot at renting
affordable units at any housing Northland builds on the highly
desirable location across from Union Station. [GN]


COLLABERA INC: Sanders Files Suit in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against COLLABERA INC. The
case is styled as Thomas Sanders, Individually and on behalf all
others similarly situated v. COLLABERA INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-15207
(D.N.J., Oct. 29, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Property Damage.

Collabera Inc. is an American company headquartered in Basking
Ridge, New Jersey that provides professional information technology
recruiting, staffing, consulting, and business services to
companies worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Javier Luis Merino, Esq.
          THE DANN LAW FIRM
          372 Kinderkamack Road, Suite 5
          Westwood, NJ 07675
          Phone: (201) 355-3440
          Fax: (216) 373-0536
          Email: jmerino@dannlaw.com


COLONY CREDIT: Portnoy Law Alerts of Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Colony Credit Real Estate, Inc.
("Colony Credit" or "the Company") (NYSE: CLNC) investors that
acquired securities 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.

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.

It is alleged in the complaint that the registration statement was
materially false and misleading and failed to state: (1) that
certain of Colony Credit's assets' credit quality had deteriorated
prior to the Merger and were continuing to deteriorate at the time
of the Merger; (2) that certain of the company's loans, including
four loans related to a New York hotel worth approximately $261
million, were substantially impaired, sufficient collateral to
secure the loans was not available, and it was not likely that
these loans would be repaid; (3) that, as a result, the valuation
attributed to certain of the Colony Credit's assets was overstated;
(4) that, certain of the assets contributed as part of the Merger
were of substantially lower value than reflected in the financial
statements made public by the company and the registration
statement; (5) that, as a result, the financial condition of the
company's, such as its book value, was materially overstated; and
(6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the positive statements in
the registration statement about the Colony Credit's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

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

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


COMPUTER CREDIT: Twerski Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Computer Credit, Inc.
The case is styled as Raizel Twerski, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Computer Credit, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-05231 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2020).

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

Computer Credit, Inc., alternatively known as CCi, handles revenue
services and collections for health care organizations and
physician groups around the country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DCM SERVICES: Lenzini Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DCM Services, LLC.
The case is styled as Carol Lenzini, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. DCM Services, LLC, Case No.
3:20-cv-07612 (N.D. Ca., Oct. 29, 2020).

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

DCM Services, LLC, is a third-party collection agency with a
primary focus on estate recoveries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas Michal Wajda, Esq.
          WAJDA LAW GROUP APC
          6167 Bristol Parkway, Suite 200
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Phone: (310) 997-0471
          Fax: (866) 286-8433
          Email: nick@wajdalawgroup.com


DETR: Major Setbacks Continue in Class Action Over PUA Payments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Wolford at news3lv.com reports that in the words of a
frustrated Reno attorney, "We are back to where we were
approximately a month ago."

Mark Thierman says the latest efforts to secure Pandemic
Unemployment Assistance (PUA) payments in his class action lawsuit
against the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation
(DETR), received another setback in the form of failed mediation to
reach a resolution.

Thierman has had the case in front of the Nevada 2nd Judicial
District Court and the Nevada Supreme Court, and hoped mediation
would lead to ways for DETR to expedite its adjudication process.
Unfortunately, he says it was unsuccessful.

"It's not unusual or unfathomable that mediations don't always
work," Thierman said. "You just kind of hope they do. You keep
trying." Thierman said he couldn't offer specific details about the
mediation, but the sticking points remain the same.

"I can tell you what's in the public domain, and why there are so
many delays, and it's the same old same old." Thierman added, "They
keep wanting to do things step-by-step, and that's not what's in
the regulations. The regulations say you cannot automatically deny
benefits."

According to an email received by News 3 from DETR as of several
weeks ago, 26,000 PUA claims are identified by DETR in need of
intervention. DETR reports 5,400 had been adjudicated, but Thierman
doesn't believe the process of moving quickly enough.

"Their last publicly announced rate, I think it turned out to be
6,000 in two months. That's 300 a day. We'll be here 288 days,
assuming no new cases are filed," adding, "So, 288 days to rack up
backlog? Who can go to 288 days without a paycheck Additional days?
We are already eight months into this thing. That's crazy!"

Thierman said he plans to work through the weekend to prepare a new
motion to file with the Nevada Supreme Court. "Plans are to get an
emergency motion, to get an expedited hearing by the first part of
next week, depending on how fast we can get the papers together,"
Thierman said. "Then, it's up to the Supreme Court whether they
will hear it in the normal course of months and months and months
or earlier, in which case there should be an expedited hearing
schedule, and they'll decide what it is."

Thierman says, even in a best case scenario, that will likely be at
least three weeks. [GN]


DEUTSCHE BANK: April 8, 2021 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
If you entered into a U.S.-Related Transaction in or on any
over-the-counter market or exchange in physical silver or in a
derivative instrument in which silver is the underlying reference
asset from January 1, 1999 through and including September 6, 2016
("Settlement Class Period"), your rights may be affected by a
pending class action settlement and you may be entitled to a
portion of the settlement fund.

This Summary Notice is to alert you to a proposed settlement
totaling $38,000,000.00 reached with Deutsche Bank AG, Deutsche
Bank Americas Holding Corporation, DB U.S. Financial Markets
Holding Corporation, Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., Deutsche Bank
Trust Corporation, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, Deutsche
Bank AG New York Branch, and their subsidiaries and affiliates
(collectively "Deutsche Bank"). Deutsche Bank denies any liability,
fault, or wrongdoing of any kind in connection with the allegations
in the Action.  By entering into the proposed settlement, Deutsche
Bank has not admitted to any such liability, fault, or wrongdoing,
and nothing in the Settlement Agreement or this Notice shall be
construed as such an admission.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (the "Court") authorized this Notice. The Court has appointed
the lawyers listed below to represent the Settlement Class in this
Action:

Vincent Briganti
Lowey Dannenberg, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 733-7221
vbriganti@lowey.com

Robert Eisler
Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.
485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 722-8500
reisler@gelaw.com

Who Is a Member of the Settlement Class?

Subject to certain exceptions, the proposed Settlement Class
consists of all persons and entities who or which entered into a
U.S.-Related Transaction (1) in or on any over-the-counter market
or exchange in physical silver or (2) in a derivative instrument in
which silver is the underlying reference asset (collectively,
"Silver Instruments") during the Class Period.

"U.S.-Related Transaction" means any transaction in a Silver
Instrument: (a) by any person or entity domiciled in the U.S. or
its territories; or (b) by any person or entity domiciled outside
the U.S. or its territories but conducted, in whole or in part, in
the U.S. or its territories.

The other capitalized terms used in this Summary Notice are defined
in the detailed Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement, April
8, 2021 Fairness Hearing Thereon and Class Members' Rights
("Notice") and the Settlement Agreement, which are available at
www.SilverFixSettlement.com.

If you are not sure if you are included in the Settlement Class,
you can get more information, including the detailed Notice, at
www.SilverFixSettlement.com or by calling toll-free 1-800-254-2939
(if calling from outside the United States or Canada, call
1-414-961-6577).

What Is This Lawsuit About and What Does the Settlement Provide?

Plaintiffs allege that each Defendant, including Deutsche Bank,
conspired to dictate the price of silver during a daily, secret,
and unregulated meeting (the "Silver Fix"). Defendants are alleged
to have coordinated manipulative silver transactions in advance of
the daily Silver Fix call. The alleged goal of Defendants was to
manipulate the Fix price in their desired direction. Defendants
allegedly agreed to fix the "bid-ask spread" artificially wider
when offering to buy or sell silver in the public silver market
trading with Plaintiffs and the Class. Defendants also allegedly
implemented coordinated trading strategies to manipulate and
maintain the price of Silver Instruments at artificial levels
during the Class Period. Plaintiffs have asserted legal claims
under the federal antitrust law, Commodity Exchange Act, and common
law.

To settle the claims in this lawsuit and without admitting any
liability, fault, or wrongdoing, Deutsche Bank has agreed to pay a
total of $38 million (the "Settlement Fund") in cash for the
benefit of the proposed Settlement Class. If the Settlement is
approved, the Settlement Fund, plus interest earned from the date
it was established, less any Taxes, any Notice and Administration
Costs, any Court-awarded attorneys' fees, payment of litigation
costs and expenses, and service awards for Plaintiffs, and any
other costs or fees approved by the Court (the "Net Settlement
Fund") will be divided among all Settlement Class Members who file
valid Proofs of Claim and Release.

Will I Get a Payment?

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not opt out, you
will be eligible for a payment from the Net Settlement Fund if you
file a Proof of Claim and Release ("Claim Form"). You also may
obtain more information at www.SilverFixSettlement.com or by
calling toll-free 1-800-254-2939 (if calling from outside the
United States or Canada, call 1-414-961-6577).

Claim Forms must be submitted online at www.SilverFixSettlement.com
on or before 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on March 1, 2021 OR mailed to
and received by the Settlement Administrator, A.B. Data by March 1,
2021.

What Are My Rights?

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not opt out, you
will release certain legal rights against Deutsche Bank and the DB
Released Parties, as explained in the detailed Notice and
Settlement Agreement, which are available at
www.SilverFixSettlement.com. If you do not want to take part in the
Settlement, you must opt out by February 11, 2021. You may object
to the Settlement, Distribution Plan, and/or application for an
award of attorneys' fees, payment of litigation costs and expenses,
and/or service awards for Plaintiffs. If you want to object, you
must do so by February 11, 2021. Information on how to opt out or
object is contained in the detailed Notice, which is available at
www.SilverFixSettlement.com.

When Is the Fairness Hearing?

The Court will hold a hearing at the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall United
States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, Courtroom 443, New York, NY
10007, on April 8, 2021 at 10:00 A.M. to consider whether to
finally approve this Settlement, Distribution Plan, and application
for an award of attorneys' fees, payment of litigation costs and
expenses, and any service awards for Plaintiffs. Given the current
COVID-19 situation, the Court reserves the right to conduct the
final fairness hearing remotely. You or your lawyer may ask to
appear and speak at the hearing at your own expense, but you do not
have to. Any changes to the time and place of the Fairness Hearing,
or other deadlines, will be posted to www.SilverFixSettlement.com
as soon as practicable.

For more information, call toll-free 1-800-254-2939 (if calling
from outside the United States or Canada, call 1-414-961-6577) or
visit www.SilverFixSettlement.com.

**** Please do not call the Court or the Clerk of the Court for
information about the Settlement. *** [GN]


DIAMOND RELOCATION: DeSeignora Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Clarence DeSeignora, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Diamond Relocation, Inc. and Calvin
Highfield, Case No. 20-2489 (Mass. Cmmw., Oct. 29, 2020), alleges
that the Defendants have violated Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 149, section 27G by failing to pay the Plaintiff and the
putative class the applicable prevailing wage rate for all time
spent moving office furniture and fixtures for public entities.

The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants violated M.G.L. c.
151, section 1A by failing to pay him and the putative class
overtime compensation based off a "blended rate" (i.e. the
Defendants failed to take into account the applicable prevailing
wage rates when calculating overtime compensation due); and
violated M.G.L. c. 149, section 148 for withholding the timely
payment of all wages due to them,

The Plaintiff and the putative class seek to recover all unpaid
wages, statutory treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs,
prejudgment interest, and any other relief permitted by law.

Plaintiff DeSeignora is a resident of Roslindale, Massachusetts and
is employed by the Defendants out of Methuen, Massachusetts.

DRI is in the business of commercial moving and office
installations. Mr. Highfield is the President of DRI.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Shafran, Esq.
          Edward J. DelSignore, Esq.
          RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP
          92 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 723-7700
          Facsimile: (617) 227-0313
          E-mail: ashafran@rflawyers.com
                  edelsignore@rflawyers.com

ELDOR AUTOMOTIVE: Joint Bid for Conditional FLSA Class Cert. Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID JOHN BROUSSARD,
Plaintiff, on his own behalf, and for all those similarly situated,
v. ELDOR AUTOMOTIVE POWERTRAIN USA, Case No. 7:19-cv-00841-MFU-RSB
(W.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting
motion for conditional class certification and judicial Notice
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, for the following class:

   "all individuals who worked for Defendant as a Process
   Engineer at any time from December 13, 2016 to the present
   who believe they were misclassified as exempt."

The Plaintiff filed his Collective and Class Action Complaint on
December 13, 2019, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA). The Defendant Answered on February 12, 2020, denying
that it violated the FLSA.

The parties have been in contact on multiple occasions and agree,
based on current information, that the putative Plaintiffs in this
matter are similarly situated within the meaning of 29
U.S.C.section 216(b) and believe this matter is appropriate for
collective action status and judicially approved notice to Putative
Plaintiffs. The parties further agree that Putative Plaintiffs all
worked for Defendant during the relevant time period as Process
Engineers, and all were affected similarly by the various policies
and practices that form the basis of the matters at issue in this
litigation, the complaint says.

Eldor provides auto parts. The Company offers carbon dioxide
reduction, electrification, urban e-mobility, alternative energy
sources, and energy production services for automobiles.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zev H. Antell, Esq.
          Butler Royals, PLC
          140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 648-4848
          Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
          E-mail: zev.antell@butlerroyals.com

               - and -

          Thomas E. Strelka, Esq.
          L. Leigh R. Strelka, Esq.
          N. Winston West, IV, Esq.
          Brittany M. Haddox, Esq.
          Monica L. Mroz, Esq.
          STRELKA LAW OFFICE, PC
          Warehouse Row
          119 Norfolk Avenue, S.W., Suite 330
          Roanoke, VA 24011
          Telephone: 540-283-0802
          E-mail: thomas@strelkalaw.com
                  leigh@strelkalaw.com
                  winston@strelkalaw.com
                  brittany@strelkalaw.com
                  monica@strelkalaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant Eldor are:

          Thomas M. Winn, Esq.
          Leah M. Stiegler, Esq.
          WOODS ROGERS PLC
          10 South Jefferson Street, Suite 1400
          Roanoke, VA 24011
          Telephone: (540) 983-7600
          Facsimile: (540) 983-7711
          E-mail: winn@woodsrogers.com
                  lstiegler@woodsrogers.com

EXEL INC: Foy Files Suit in California
--------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Exel, Inc. The case
is styled as Diana Foy, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Exel, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
BCV-20-102463 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 21, 2020).

The type of the lawsuit is stated as Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited.

Exel Inc. Exel Inc., doing business as DHL Supply Chain, provides
logistics services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
   Aegis Law
   9811 Irvine Center Dr, Suite 100
   Irvine, CA 92618
   Tel: 800-543-4829


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Carrion Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Financial Recovery Services,
Inc. The case is styled as Christopher Carrion, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Financial Recovery
Services, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-06416 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 29, 2020).

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

Financial Recovery Services, Inc. provides debt collection
services. The Company offers comprehensive coverage, auditing,
monitoring, electronic file transfer, legal collections,
skiptracing, bilingual capability, and comprehensive data security
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FIRST INTERNATIONAL: Romero Files Suit under ADA in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
First International Health Foods, LTD. is facing a class action
lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The
case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. First International Health Foods,
LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-08782 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 21,
2020).

First International Health Foods, Ltd. is located in Haverstraw,
NY, United States and is part of the Specialty Food Stores
Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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




FLUIDIGM CORP: Glancy Prongay & Murray Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on Sept. 21 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California captioned
Saintjermain v. Fluidigm Corporation, et al., (Case No.
20-cv-06617) on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Fluidigm Corporation ("Fluidigm" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: FLDM) securities between February 7, 2019 and
November 5, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from September
21, 2020, the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff in this action.

If you suffered a loss on your Fluidigm 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/fluidigm-corporation/. 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 August 1, 2019, Fluidigm reported second quarter 2019 revenue of
$28.2 million, well below analysts' expectations of $32 million,
citing weakness in its microfluidics segment.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $4.10, or 34%, to
close at $8.05 per share on August 2, 2019, thereby injuring
investors.

Then, on November 5, 2019, after the market closed, Fluidigm
reported that third quarter 2019 revenue declined 8.5%
year-over-year primarily due to mass cytometry instrument sales.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.60, or 51%, to
close at $2.51 per share on November 6, 2019, 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: (1) that Fluidigm was experiencing longer sales cycles;
(2) that, as a result, Fluidigm's revenue was reasonably likely to
decline; 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 or otherwise acquired Fluidigm securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from
September 21, 2020, 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.

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


GEORGES AT THE COVE: Jariwala Files Suit under ADA in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Georges at the Cove, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Krishna Jariwala, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Georges at the Cove, Inc., a
California corporation and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 3:20-cv-02074-WQH-WVG (S.D. Cal., Oct. 21, 2020).

Georges at the Cove, Inc. is a Californian restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GLENN ASSOCIATES: Burns Files FDCPA Suit in Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Glenn Associates,
Inc. The case is styled as David Burns, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Glenn Associates, Inc., Case
No. 1:20-cv-11949 (D. Mass., Oct. 29, 2020).

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

Glenn Associates, Inc. is a debt collection company located in
Wilmington, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin V.K. Crick, Esq.
          RIGHTS PROTECTION LAW GROUP, PLLC
          100 Cambridge St., Suite 1400
          Boston, MA 02114
          Phone: (844) 574-4487
          Fax: (888) 622-3715
          Email: k.crick@rightsprotect.com


GOHEALTH INC: Frank Cruz Alerts of Securities Class Action Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired GoHealth, Inc. ("GoHealth" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: GOCO) Class A common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's July 2020 initial public offering (the
"IPO" or "Offering"). GoHealth investors have until November 20,
2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.

In July 2020, GoHealth sold approximately 43.5 million shares of
stock in its initial public stock offering (the "IPO"), at $21.00
per share raising almost $914 million in new capital.

Then, on August 19, 2020, in its first quarterly earnings report
following the IPO, GoHealth announced that it incurred a net loss
of $22.9 million after posting net income of $15.3 million in the
prior-year period.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.99 per share, or
10%, to close at $17.03 per share on August 20, 2020, thereby
injuring investors.

On September 15, 2020, GoHealth's stock price closed at $12.53, a
40% decline from its IPO price.

The complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that at the time of
the IPO: (1) the Medicare insurance industry was undergoing a
period of elevated churn, which had begun in the first half of
2020; (2) GoHealth suffered from a higher risk of customer churn
due to its unique business model and limited carrier base; (3)
GoHealth suffered from degradations in customer persistency and
retention as a result of elevated industry churn, vulnerabilities
that arose from the Company's concentrated carrier business model,
and its efforts to expand into new geographies, develop new carrier
partnerships and worsening product mix; (4) GoHealth had entered
into materially less favorable revenue sharing arrangements with
its external sales agents; and (5) these adverse financial and
operational trends were internally projected by GoHealth to
continue and worsen following the IPO.

Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/FRC_LAW.

If you purchased GoHealth securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than November 20, 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 purchased GoHealth securities, have information or
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact 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.
[GN]


GOHEALTH INC: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of November 20 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until November 20, 2020 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against GoHealth,
Inc. (NasdaqGS: GOCO), if they purchased the Company's Class A
common stock issued in connection with its July 2020 initial public
stock offering (the "IPO"). This action is pending in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of GoHealth 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/nasdaqgs-goco/ to learn more. If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by November 20, 2020.

                        About the Lawsuit

GoHealth and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information in its IPO Registration Statement,
violating federal securities laws.

The alleged false and misleading statements and omissions include,
but are not limited to, that: (i) since the first half of 2020, the
Medicare insurance industry was undergoing a period of elevated
churn; (ii) the Company was exposed to a higher risk of customer
churn due to its unique business model and limited carrier base;
(iii) the Company suffered from degradations in customer
persistency and retention as a result of elevated industry churn,
vulnerabilities that arose from the Company's concentrated carrier
business model, and its efforts to expand into new geographies,
develop new carrier partnerships and worsening product mix; (iv)
the Company had entered into materially less favorable revenue
sharing arrangements with its external sales agents; and (v) these
adverse financial and operational trends were internally projected
by GoHealth to continue and worsen following the IPO.

The case is Hudson v. GoHealth, Inc., No. 20-cv-05593.

                   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.

Contacts:
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850 [GN]


GOJO INDUSTRIES: Gonzalez Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Magdiela Gonzalez, Rita Bongiovi, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gojo Industries,
Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00888, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on Oct. 29, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-02448-JRA to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

GOJO Industries, Inc., is a privately held manufacturer of hand
hygiene and skin care products founded in 1946, in Akron, Ohio,
where it is again headquartered after a period in Cuyahoga
Falls.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          George Volney Granade, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515
          Los Angeles, CA 90211
          Phone: (212) 643-0500
          Fax: (212) 253-4272

               - and -

          Michael Robert Reese, Esq.
          REESE RICHMAN, LLP
          875 Avenue of the Americas
          18th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Phone: (212) 579-4625
          Fax: (212) 253-4272

               - and -

          Christopher Patalano, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, PC
          60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 409
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 303-0552
          Fax: (516) 234-7800

               - and -

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, PC
          505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 303-0552
          Fax: (516) 234-7800

The Defendant is represented by:

          Sharyl Anne Reisman, Esq.
          Michael Mahar Klotz, Esq.
          JONES DAY (NYC)
          250 Vesey Street
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 326-3405
          Fax: (212) 755-7306

               - and -

          Kelly G. Laudon, Esq.
          JONES DAY - Minneapolis
          90 South Seventh Street, Ste. 4950
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 217-8921
          Fax: (844) 345-3178
          Email: klaudon@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Philip M. Oliss, Esq.
          JONES DAY - Cleveland
          901 Lakeside Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Phone: (216) 586-7164
          Email: poliss@jonesday.com


GOLAR LNG: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Nov. 23 Motion 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 common stock of Golar
LNG Limited ("Golar" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GLNG) between April
30, 2020, and August 10, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

If you purchased Golar securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit GLNG 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, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors:
(1) that certain employees, including Hygos CEO, had bribed third
parties, thereby violating anti-bribery policies; (2) that, as a
result, the Company was likely to face regulatory scrutiny and
possible penalties; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing
reputational harm, Hygos valuation ahead of its IPO would be
significantly impaired; 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.

On September 24, 2020, media reported that Hygo's CEO Eduardo
Navarro Antonello was involved in a bribery network investigated in
Brazil's Operation Car Wash.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.28.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 23, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. 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 Golar securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/golarlnglimited-glng-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-315/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. (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]


GREAT LAKES POTATO: Romero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Great Lakes
Potato Chip Company LLC. The case is styled as Josue Romero, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Great
Lakes Potato Chip Company LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-09078 (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 29, 2020).

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

The Great Lakes Potato Chip Company LLC makes potato chips from
Michigan potatoes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


H-E-B LP: Romero Alleges Americans w/ Disabilities Act Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
H-E-B, LP is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Josue
Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. H-E-B, LP, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-08780 (S.D.
N.Y., Oct. 21, 2020).

H-E-B is an American privately held supermarket chain based in San
Antonio, Texas, with more than 340 stores throughout the U.S. state
of Texas, as well as in northeast Mexico. The company also operates
Central Market, an upscale organic and fine foods retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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




HASSELBLAD INC: Romero Suit Alleges ADA Breach
----------------------------------------------
Hasselblad Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Josue
Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Hasselblad Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-08775
(S.D. N.Y., Oct. 21, 2020).

Hasselblad is a manufacturer of digital medium format cameras and
lenses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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




HAWAII: Kelley O'Neil's Files Suit v. Gov., et al.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against government officials
in Hawaii. The case is styled as Kelley O'Neil's Inc., Irish Rose
Saloon Inc., Anna O'Brien's Inc., O'Toole's Irish Pub Inc. and Dos
Kalbos Enterprises LLC, in their individual capacities and on
behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. David Y. Ige, in
his official capacity as Governor of the State of Hawaii, Clare E.
Connors, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the State
of Hawaii, State of Hawaii, Kirk Caldwell, in his official capacity
as Mayor of the City and County of Honolulu and City and County of
Honolulu, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00449-LEK-RT (D. Haw., Oct.
20, 2020).

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

The Defendants are government officials.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   James Dennis DiPasquale, Esq.
   DiPasquale & Summers, LLP
   737 Bishop Street, Suite 2890
   Honolulu, HI 96813
   Tel: (808) 240-4771
   Fax: (646) 606-2388
   Email: james@ds-lawoffices.com



HDFC BANK: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, on Sept. 21 disclosed that a securities class action has been
filed on behalf of investor that purchased or acquired the
securities of HDFC Bank Limited ("HDFC" or the "Company") (NYSE:
HDB) between July 31, 2019, and July 10, 2020 (the "Class Period").
The case filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York alleges violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

If you purchased HDFC securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit HDFC 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, 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) HDFC Bank had
inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal control
over financial reporting; (ii) as a result, the Bank maintained
improper lending practices in its vehicle-financing operations;
(iii) accordingly, earnings generated from the Bank's
vehicle-financing operations were unsustainable; (iv) all the
foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material
negative impact on the Bank's financial condition and reputation;
and (v) as a result, the Bank's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On July 13, 2020, during pre-market hours, The Economic Times
published an article titled "HDFC Bank probes lending practices at
vehicle unit." That article reported that HDFC Bank had "conducted
a probe into allegations of improper lending practices and
conflicts of interests in its vehicle-financing operations
involving the unit's former head."

On this news, HDFC Bank's American Depositary Share ("ADS") price
fell $1.37 per share, or 2.83%, to close at $47.02 per share on
July 13, 2020.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 2, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. 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 HDFC securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/hdfcbanklimited-hdfc-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-309/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]


HERITAGE PHARMACEUTICALS: Sandoval Suit Transferred to New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Luis Sandoval, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Heritage Pharmaceuticals
Inc., a Delaware corporation, Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc., doing
business as: Avet Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Does 1 to 50, inclusive,
Defendants, was transferred from the District of California Central
with the assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-05787 to the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey on October 20, 2020, and assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-14714.

Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a manufacturer of generic
pharmaceuticals based in Eatontown, New Jersey, United States, and
established in 2006. The company was involved in a 2014
congressional inquiry about the rising price of doxycycline hyclate
initiated by Elijah Cummings and Bernie Sanders.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.



HOSHIZAKI AMERICA: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hoshizaki America,
Inc. The case is styled as Jay Winegard, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Hoshizaki America, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-05282 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2020).

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

Hoshizaki America, Inc. manufactures foodservice equipment. The
Company offers ice machines, water filters, freezers, prep tables,
refrigerated display cases, and shelves and trays.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HYDRATION LABS: Jaquez Alleges Violation under ADA
--------------------------------------------------
Hydration Labs, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Hydration Labs, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-08735 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 20, 2020).

Hydration Labs, Inc., doing business as Bevi, manufactures and
markets water coolers. The company offers countertop and
floor-standing water coolers that dispense filtered, still,
sparkling, and flavored water on demand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INFLECTION RISK: Taylor Suit Removed to Minn. Dist. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Tony N. Taylor, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated v. Inflection Risk Solutions, LLC, Case
No. 20-cv-2266, was removed from the Hennepin County, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota on Nov. 2, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:20-cv-02266-PAM-DTS to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Inflection is offers people data, privacy standards, and risk
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          John G Albanese, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
          Minneapolis, MN 55414
          Phone: (612) 594-5999
          Fax: (612) 584-4470
          Email: emdrake@bm.net
                 jalbanese@bm.net

              - and -

          John H Goolsby, Esq.
          GOOLSBY LAW OFFICE, LLC
          475 Cleveland Avenue N, Suite 212
          Saint Paul, MN 55104
          Phone: (651) 646-0153
          Email: jgoolsby@goolsbylawoffice.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Neil S Goldsmith, Jr.
          LATHROP GPM LLP
          80 South 8th Street, Ste. 500 IDS Center
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 632-3401
          Fax: (612) 632-4401
          Email: neil.goldsmith@lathropgpm.com



JJ'S ASIAN FUSION: Cruz Files FLSA Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JJ's Asian Fusion
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Marcos Cruz, Eloy Martinez
Bautista, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. Cha Lom Thai Inc. doing business as: JJ's Asian Fusion Inc.
doing business as: JJ's Fusion, Zi Jie Lin, Hu Doe, Case No.
1:20-cv-09098 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act for Denial of Overtime Compensation.

JJ's Asian Fusion is located in Astoria, New York, offering Dinner,
Sushi, Asian, Japanese and Lunch.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: (212) 317-1200
          Fax: (212) 317-1620
          Email: michael@faillacelaw.com


KLN ENTERPRISES: Romero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against KLN Enterprises, Inc.
The case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. KLN Enterprises, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-09079 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2020).

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

KLN Enterprises, Inc., doing business as KLN Family Brands,
provides food products. The Company offers candies, potato chips,
snacks, and pet food products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LIBERTY TAX: 2nd Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Fraud Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
jdsupra.com reports that on September 30, 2020, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a
putative securities fraud class action asserting violations of
Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rules 10b-5, 14a-3, and 14a-9 against a company that
provides tax preparation services (the "Company") as well as
certain of its officers. In re Liberty Tax, Inc. Sec. Litig., No.
20-652, 2020 WL 5807566 (2d Cir. Sept. 30, 2020). Plaintiffs
alleged that the Company made false or misleading statements and
omissions concerning its compliance efforts and the termination of
its CEO and Chairman, in light of an ongoing internal investigation
into allegations that he had engaged in sexual misconduct. The
district court dismissed the suit for failure to adequately allege
material misrepresentations and loss causation. The Second Circuit,
in a summary order, affirmed the district's courts dismissal of the
claims for failure to adequately allege any material
misrepresentations.

In September 2017, the Company terminated the CEO following an
internal investigation, which revealed that he had dated female
employees and franchisees, had sex with them in his office, had
taken them on business trips, and had hired the friends and
relatives of these women. However, the CEO, as the sole owner of
the Company's Class B shares, remained Chairman and had the power
to appoint the majority of the Company's directors. In November
2017, the CEO removed two directors and, the next day, a third
director resigned. Shortly thereafter, a local newspaper published
a report chronicling his misconduct. In the wake of the newspaper
article, the now former CEO also resigned as Chairman, and the
Company publicly confirmed that the newspaper article was based on
"credible evidence."

Although the district court dismissed the suit for failure to
adequately allege material misrepresentations and loss causation,
the Second Circuit focused solely on plaintiff's failure to allege
actionable misrepresentations in affirming the dismissal.

First, plaintiffs alleged that the Company made a misrepresentation
during a December 2016 quarterly earnings call, when the then CEO
announced that the Company's "compliance task force was very
successful in analyzing, reviewing, and evaluating the work of our
compliance department and taking appropriate action to ensure that
the standards of the [the Company's] brand are upheld and that
those who do not uphold [these] standards are exited." Plaintiffs
alleged that the CEO's statement was misleading because the Company
had already hired a law firm to investigate his misconduct, which
was inconsistent with his claim that the compliance task force had
been "very successful."

After noting that the Company had convened the compliance task
force to investigate fraud at franchise locations, which was wholly
unrelated to the sexual misconduct allegations, the Court
determined that the CEO's statement was mere puffery. Although the
Court acknowledged that statements about a company's reputation for
ethical conduct can give rise to actionable misrepresentations, the
Court found that the CEO's statement was not actionable because:
(1) it did not provide any details about the work the task force
had actually conducted, and (2) it contained "no qualitative
assurances" about the Company's compliance with applicable laws or
what it had done to achieve this compliance.

Second, plaintiffs alleged that the Company made a
misrepresentation in a September 2017 press release announcing the
CEO's termination. Specifically, the Company announced that it "had
engaged in a deliberate succession process" that resulted in the
appointment of a new COO as an interim step before he would assume
the role of CEO, but subsequently "determined that it was in the
Company's best interest to terminate [the current CEO]." Plaintiffs
alleged that this press release was materially misleading because:
(1) it implied that the CEO's departure was the result of a
"deliberate succession planning process" rather than sexual
misconduct, and (2) it did not disclose that the now former CEO
would remain extensively involved in the Company as its Chairman.

The Court was unpersuaded. The Court first pointed out that the
press release explained that succession planning was the reason for
hiring a new COO, not for terminating the CEO. Second, the Court
noted that the press release disclosed that the former CEO retained
his Class B shares, which gave him the right to appoint the
majority of the Board, and that any agreement to re-purchase the
former CEO's shares remained "uncertain."

The Court concluded by rejecting plaintiffs' appeal for leave to
amend, finding that nothing in the record could cure the legal
deficiencies in plaintiffs' claims. [GN]


LMND MEDICAL: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LMND Medical Group,
Inc. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. LMND Medical Group, Inc., A
Professional Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-09139 (S.D.N.Y., Oct.
30, 2020).

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

LMND Medical Group, Inc., A Professional Corporation, doing
business as Lemonaid Health, provides health care services. The
Company offers services related to birth control, flu, hair loss,
acid reflux, and other diseases.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LOANCARE LLC: Alvarez Seeks to Certify FCCPA & FDUTPA Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA ALVAREZ, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. LOANCARE LLC, a
Virginia corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-21837-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   a. certifying Plaintiff's Florida Classes under Federal Rules
      of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(3), and/or (b)(2):

      Florida's Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) CLASS:

      "all persons who are borrowers or co-borrowers on a
      residential mortgage loan owned or serviced by LoanCare on
      property located in Florida who, since May 1, 2018,
      LoanCare charged, collected, or attempted to collect a
      processing fee for making a mortgage payment over the
      phone or online"; and

      Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA)
      CLASS:

      "all persons who are borrowers or co-borrowers on a
      residential mortgage loan owned or serviced by LoanCare on
      property located in Florida who since May 1, 2016,
      LoanCare charged, collected, or attempted to collect a
      processing fee for making a mortgage payment over the
      phone or online."

      Excluded from the Florida Classes are LoanCare and its
      officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives,
      and employees, any governmental entities, any judge,
      justice or judicial officer presiding over this matter and
      the members of their immediate families and judicial
      staff.;

   b. appointing Plaintiff Donna Alvarez as Class
      Representative; and

   c. appointing The Moskowitz Law Firm PLLC as Class Counsel.

According to the complaint, there is no dispute that since May 1,
2015, LoanCare has issued fees on homeowners for paying their
mortgages by phone or via the website, however, these fees are
unauthorized by all class member mortgages, and under Florida law.
The sole purpose of these new charges is to provide LoanCare with a
secret profit center to collect millions of dollars from their
customers. LoanCare concedes it was never expressly authorized to
uniformly charge the plaintiff and the Florida classes millions of
dollars in processing fees.

This case is one of numerous class action cases being litigated
across the country specifically challenging charges that banks and
mortgage servicers have been issuing to their consumers who make
mortgage payments over the phone or online, in clear violation of
state and federal consumer protection laws and contrary to the
actual language in the mortgage instrument.

The Plaintiff Ms. Alvarez is a citizen and resident of the State of
Florida, and the owner of a house at 12034 Butler Woods Cir,
Riverview, Florida, which is subject to a Mortgage serviced by
LoanCare.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/31ufNh5 at no
extra charge.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Classes are:

          Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
          Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
          Barbara C. Lewis, Esq.
          THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
          2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-1423
          E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com
                  joseph@moskowitz-law.com
                  barbara@moskowitz-law.com

MAYORGA ORGANICS: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mayorga Organics,
LLC. The case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Mayorga Organics, LLC, Case
No. 1:20-cv-09184 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2020).

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

Mayorga Organics, LLC wholesales and distributes groceries and
related products. The Company offers coffee beans, chia, honey, and
other related products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MCDONALD'S USA: Denies Black Franchisees Equal Rights, Byrds Claim
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES BYRD, JR. and DARRELL BYRD, for themselves and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. MCDONALD'S USA, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, and MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-06447 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 29, 2020), is
a class action complaint brought by the Plaintiffs, current Black
McDonald's franchisees, on behalf of themselves and 186 Black
franchisees who own and operate McDonald's restaurants in the
United States, seeking racial justice and economic equality by
holding McDonald's accountable for its company-wide and
decades-long violations of federal and state laws in denying Black
franchisees equal rights under their franchise agreements.

The Plaintiffs are brothers who own and operate four McDonald's
restaurants in Tennessee. James Byrd has been a McDonald's
franchisee for 31 years, with an organization that has dwindled
down from 10 to two underperforming restaurants, and his brother,
Darrell, has been a McDonald's franchisee for 22 years, with an
organization that has been cut down from four to two restaurants.

The Byrd brothers operate restaurants in the Nashville Region, the
McDonald's Region with the highest cash flow disparity between
White and Black McDonald's franchisees in the nation. For decades,
the Byrd brothers comprised half of only four total Black
McDonald's franchisees in their local co-op. James Byrd is now the
only remaining Black McDonald's franchisee in Memphis.

Although the Byrds risk retaliation (and potentially any chance at
saving their only remaining restaurants) in bringing forth this
action, they cannot allow other Black McDonald's franchisees to be
misled and injured by the same pipeline of discrimination that has
plagued Black franchisees for decades, the complaint says.

The Plaintiffs contend that McDonald's growth strategy has been
predatory in nature, targeting Black consumers, markets, and
territories by steering Black franchisees to Black neighborhoods
with high overhead costs -- including higher security, insurance,
and employee turnover – where White franchisees refused to own
and operate restaurants. By placing Black franchisees in
predominantly Black neighborhoods, McDonald's is able to both
increase its capital through the acquisition of real estate in
areas with lower market prices, and increase sales to Black
consumers, resulting in higher company profits, which are based
only on gross sales and do not account for the higher operational
costs associated with these locations. When Black franchisees are
inevitably unable to pay McDonald's rent and fees, and McDonald's
wants them out, it holds all of the power, and benefits by keeping
the real estate with all improvements paid for by Black
franchisees.

The Plaintiffs are members of a federally-protected class who own
and operate McDonald's domestic franchised restaurants.

McDonald's USA LLC operates a chain of restaurants. The Company
offers products such as burgers, sandwiches, chicken, salads,
shakes, smoothies, coffee, and beverages. McDonald's serves
customers throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James L. Ferraro, Esq.
          Janpaul Portal, Esq.
          Natalia Salas, Esq.
          THE FERRARO LAW FIRM, P.A.
          600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 375-0111
          Facsimile: (305) 379-6222
          E-mail: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
                  jpp@ferrarolaw.com
                  nms@ferrarolaw.com

               - and -

          William R. Fahey, Esq.
          COONEY & CONWAY, PC
          120 N. LaSalle Street, 30th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-6166
          E-mail: bfahey@cooneyconway.com

MESOBLAST LIMITED: Frank Cruz Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned Kristal v. Mesoblast
Limited, et al., (Case No. 1:20-cv-08430), on behalf of persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Mesoblast Limited
("Mesoblast" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: MESO) securities between
April 16, 2019 and October 1, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Plaintiff pursues under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.

Mesoblast develops allogeneic cellular medicines using its
proprietary mesenchymal lineage cell therapy platform. Its lead
product candidate, RYONCIL (remestemcel-L), is an investigational
therapy comprising mesenchymal stem cells derived from bone marrow.
In February 2018, the Company announced that remestemcel-L met its
primary endpoint in a Phase 3 trial to treat children with steroid
refractory acute graft versus host disease ("aGVHD").

In early 2020, Mesoblast completed its rolling submission of its
Biologics License Application ("BLA") with the FDA to secure
marketing authorization to commercialize remestemcel-L for children
with steroid refractory aGVHD.

On August 11, 2020, the FDA released briefing materials for its
Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee ("ODAC") meeting to be held on
August 13, 2020. Therein, the FDA stated that Mesoblast provided
post hoc analyses of other studies "to further establish the
appropriateness of 45% as the null Day-28 ORR" for its primary
endpoint. The briefing materials stated that, due to design
differences between these historical studies and Mesoblast's
submitted study, "it is unclear that these study results are
relevant to the proposed indication."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $6.09, or
approximately 35%, to close at $11.33 per share on August 11, 2020,
on unusually heavy trading volume.

On October 1, 2020, Mesoblast disclosed that it had received a
Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA regarding its
marketing application for remestemcel-L for treatment of SR-aGVHD
in pediatric patients. According to the CRL, the FDA recommended
that the Company "conduct at least one additional randomized,
controlled study in adults and/or children to provide further
evidence of the effectiveness of remestemcel-L for SR-aGVHD." The
CRL also "identified a need for further scientific rationale to
demonstrate the relationship of potency measurements to the
product's biologic activity."

On this news, the Company's stock fell $6.56, or 35%, to close at
$12.03 per share on October 2, 2020, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

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 comparative analyses between Mesoblast's Phase
3 trial and three historical studies did not support the
effectiveness of remestemcel-L for steroid refractory aGVHD due to
design differences between the four studies; (2) that, as a result,
the FDA was reasonably likely to require further clinical studies;
(3) that, as a result, the commercialization of remestemcel-L in
the U.S. was likely to be delayed; 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 purchased Mesoblast 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 purchased Mesoblast securities,
have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or
have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact 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]


MESOBLAST LIMITED: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP announces that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned Kristal v. Mesoblast Limited, et
al., (Case No. 1:20-cv-08430), on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Mesoblast Limited ("Mesoblast"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ: MESO) securities between April 16, 2019
and October 1, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff
pursues under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")

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 Mesoblast 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/mesoblast-limited/.
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.

Mesoblast develops allogeneic cellular medicines using its
proprietary mesenchymal lineage cell therapy platform. Its lead
product candidate, RYONCIL (remestemcel-L), is an investigational
therapy comprising mesenchymal stem cells derived from bone marrow.
In February 2018, the Company announced that remestemcel-L met its
primary endpoint in a Phase 3 trial to treat children with steroid
refractory acute graft versus host disease ("aGVHD").

In early 2020, Mesoblast completed its rolling submission of its
Biologics License Application ("BLA") with the FDA to secure
marketing authorization to commercialize remestemcel-L for children
with steroid refractory aGVHD.

On August 11, 2020, the FDA released briefing materials for its
Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee ("ODAC") meeting to be held on
August 13, 2020. Therein, the FDA stated that Mesoblast provided
post hoc analyses of other studies "to further establish the
appropriateness of 45% as the null Day-28 ORR" for its primary
endpoint. The briefing materials stated that, due to design
differences between these historical studies and Mesoblast's
submitted study, "it is unclear that these study results are
relevant to the proposed indication."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $6.09, or
approximately 35%, to close at $11.33 per share on August 11, 2020,
on unusually heavy trading volume.

On October 1, 2020, Mesoblast disclosed that it had received a
Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA regarding its
marketing application for remestemcel-L for treatment of SR-aGVHD
in pediatric patients. According to the CRL, the FDA recommended
that the Company "conduct at least one additional randomized,
controlled study in adults and/or children to provide further
evidence of the effectiveness of remestemcel-L for SR-aGVHD." The
CRL also "identified a need for further scientific rationale to
demonstrate the relationship of potency measurements to the
product's biologic activity."

On this news, the Company's stock fell $6.56, or 35%, to close at
$12.03 per share on October 2, 2020, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

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 comparative analyses between Mesoblast's Phase
3 trial and three historical studies did not support the
effectiveness of remestemcel-L for steroid refractory aGVHD due to
design differences between the four studies; (2) that, as a result,
the FDA was reasonably likely to require further clinical studies;
(3) that, as a result, the commercialization of remestemcel-L in
the U.S. was likely to be delayed; 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 purchased or otherwise acquired Mesoblast 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 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]


MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Deutsch Files FDCPA  Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as David M. Deutsch, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Midland
Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-08795 (S.D.,
N.Y., Oct. 21, 2020).

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

Midland Credit Management, Inc. was founded in 1953. The company's
line of business includes extending credit to business enterprises
for relatively short periods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan Weiss, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Email: jonathan@cml.legal

     - and –

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




MIDLAND CREDIT: Feder Files FDCPA Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Esther Feder, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Midland
Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-04791 (E.D.,
N.Y., Oct. 21, 2020).

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

Midland Credit Management, Inc. was founded in 1953. The company's
line of business includes extending credit to business enterprises
for relatively short periods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan Weiss, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Email: jonathan@cml.legal

     - and -

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

MOLLOY COLLEGE: Booth Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MOLLOY COLLEGE. The
case is styled as Maddison Booth, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. MOLLOY COLLEGE, Case No. 608750/2020
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Oct. 30, 2020).

The case type is stated as "CONTRACT".

Molloy College is a private Catholic college in Rockville Centre,
New York. It provides more than 50 academic undergraduate,
graduate, and doctoral degree programs for over 5,000
undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral students.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          ONE OLD COUNTRY ROAD, STE.347
          CARLE PLACE, NY 11514
          Phone: (516) 873-9550

The Defendant is represented by:

          CULLEN AND DYKMAN, ESQS.
          Phone: 357-3700


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Cone Files Suit in Kansas
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationstar Mortgage
LLC. The case is styled as Kristen Cone, individually and as
personal representative of the estate of James F. Cone; Richard
Evans, Loretta Evans, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated persons v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-02543
(D. Kan., Oct. 29, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Contract Dispute.

Nationstar Mortgage LLC, doing business as Mr. Cooper, offers
mortgage services. The Company provides mortgages loan,
re-financing, and home equity loans.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


NESTLE WATERS: Jimenez Files Suit in Ca. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NESTLE WATERS NORTH
AMERICA. The case is styled as Jose Pablo Jimenez, as an individual
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NESTLE WATERS
NORTH AMERICA, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, Case No. BCV-20-102561 (Ca.
Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Nov. 2, 2020).

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

Nestle Waters is the bottled water division of the Nestle Group.
.[BN]

The Plaintiff is reprensted by LARRY W. LEE, ESQ.

NEW YORK: Connolly Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the CITY OF NEW YORK.
The case is styled as Brendan Connolly, on behalf of persons
similarly situated v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 28257/2020 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty., Oct. 30, 2020).

The case type is stated as "E-FILED OTHER TORTS".

New York City (NYC), often called simply New York, is the most
populous city in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          THE BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          100 QUENTIN ROOSEVELT BLVD
          GARDEN CITY, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 280-3008

The Defendant is represented by:

          CORP.COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NY
          Phone: (212) 356-1000


NEXTCURE INC: Scott+Scott Attorneys Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international
securities and consumer rights litigation firm, on Sept. 21
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against
NextCure, Inc. ("NextCure" or the "Company"), certain directors and
officers of the Company, and the underwriters of NextCure's
November 2019 public offering (collectively, "Defendants").

The action, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, asserts claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act"), 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, on behalf of investors who purchased
NextCure securities between November 5, 2019 and July 14, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period") and who were damaged thereby (the
"Class"). The action also asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"), 15 U.S.C.
Sections 77k and 77o, on behalf of investors who purchased or
acquired NextCure common stock pursuant or traceable to the
Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus filed with the SEC
on November 12 and 18, 2019, respectively, and were damaged
thereby.

NextCure is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that strives
to discover and develop immune-oncology therapies.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated provisions of the
Exchange and Securities Acts by misleading investors regarding its
leading treatment candidate, NC318. Specifically, the complaint
alleges that statements made by Defendants concerning the
effectiveness of NC318, the responses observed in patients treated
with NC318, and NC318's potential to treat patients' refractory to
PD-1 therapies were false and misleading.

NextCure had been developing NC318 using proceeds from a 2018
research and development collaboration agreement with Eli Lilly. On
January 13, 2020, NextCure announced that Eli Lilly had ended its
deal with the Company. Following this news, NextCure's stock
plunged, falling $4.70 per share, or approximately 8.3%, to close
at $52.00 per share on January 13, 2020.

Then, pre-market on July 13, 2020, NextCure provided an interim
update on the Phase 2 portion of its NC318 Monotherapy Phase 1/2
Trial, revealing that the Company was no longer planning to advance
the non-small cell lung cancer and ovarian cancer cohorts in the
Stage 2 portion of the Simon 2-stage trial, citing clinical
response data and current enrollment criteria. The Company also
announced the resignation of its Chief Medical Officer.

On this news, NextCure's shares, which had closed at $17.88 per
share on Friday, July 10, 2020, dropped over 54% on the next
trading day, to close at $8.15 per share on July 13, 2020, on
unusually high trading volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from September 21, 2020, the date of this
notice. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed class.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Plaintiff's
counsel, Jonathan Zimmerman of Scott+Scott at (888) 398-9312 or via
email at jzimmerman@scott-scott.com.

              About Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and consumer rights litigation throughout
the United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations,
individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices in New York,
Connecticut, California, Ohio, Virginia, London (U.K.), and
Amsterdam (Netherlands). [GN]


NIKOLA CORP: Johnson Fistel Reminds of November 16 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP reminds investors
that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Nikola
Corporation ("Nikola or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NKLA) on behalf of
all purchasers of common stock during the period between March 3,
2020 and September 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than November 16, 2020. If you want to discuss this action
or have any questions concerning this notice, please contact lead
analyst Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471. If you
email, please include your phone number.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and misleading statements
and 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 misleading at all relevant times. According to the suit,
these true details were disclosed by a market research firm.

On September 14, 2020, media outlets reported Nikola is facing a
probe by the SEC and the DOJ. Then on September 20, 2020, Nikola
announced that Trevor Milton, its founder stepped down as executive
chairman.

                   About Johnson Fistel, LLP

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

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


NIKOLA CORP: Kaskela Law Reminds of November 16 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC on Sept. 21 disclosed that a shareholder class
action lawsuit has been filed against Nikola Corporation ("Nikola"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NKLA) on behalf of investors who
purchased Nikola's securities between March 3, 2020 and September
15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Investors who purchased Nikola's securities during the Class Period
and suffered an investment loss in excess of $250,000 are
encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at
(484) 258 - 1585, or by email at skaskela@kaskelalaw.com or online
at http://kaskelalaw.com/case/nikola-corporation/,for additional
information about this action and their legal rights and options.

As detailed in the complaint, on September 10, 2020, Hindenburg
Research published a report describing, among other things, how:
(i) the Company claims to design key components in house, but they
appear to simply be buying or licensing them from third-parties;
(ii) the Company has not produced hydrogen; (iii) a spokesman for
Powercell AB, a hydrogen fuel cell technology company that formerly
partnered with Nikola, called Nikola's battery and hydrogen fuel
cell claims "hot air"; (iv) Nikola staged a "test" video for its
Nikola Two; (v) some of Nikola's team, including Defendant Milton,
are not experts and do not have relevant experience; and (vi)
Nikola did not have five Tre trucks completed.

Following this news, shares of Nikola's stock fell $10.24 per
share, or 24% in value, over two trading days, to close at $32.13
per share on September 11, 2020.

Subsequently, on September 14, 2020, Bloomberg published an article
reporting that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission "is
examining Nikola Corp. to assess the merits of a short-seller's
allegations that the electric-truck maker deceived investors about
its business prospects."

IMPORTANT DEADLINE: Investors who purchased Nikola's securities
during the Class Period may, no later than November 16, 2020, seek
to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative in the action.

Nikola investors who suffered an investment loss in excess of
$250,000 are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC for additional
information about this action. Kaskela Law LLC exclusively
represents investors in securities fraud, corporate governance, and
merger & acquisition litigation. For additional information about
Kaskela Law LLC please visit www.kaskelalaw.com.

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


NIKOLA CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 16 Motion Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces 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.

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.

NKLA Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/nikola-corporation-f-k-a-vectoiq-acquisition-corp-information-request-form?prid=9923&wire=1

Nikola Corporation, f/k/a VectoIQ Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ:NKLA)

NKLA Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 3, 2020 -
September 15, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline : November 16, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/nikola-corporation-f-k-a-vectoiq-acquisition-corp-information-request-form?prid=9923&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Nikola
Corporation, f/k/a VectoIQ Acquisition Corp. made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
VectoIQ did not engage in proper due diligence regarding its merger
with Nikola; (2) Nikola overstated its "in-house" design,
manufacturing, and testing capabilities; (3) Nikola overstated its
hydrogen production capabilities; (4) as a result, Nikola
overstated its ability to lower the cost of hydrogen fuel; (5)
Nikola founder and Executive Chairman, Trevor Milton, tweeted a
misleading "test" video of the Company's Nikola Two truck; (6) the
work experience and background of key Nikola employees, including
Mr. Milton, had been overstated and obfuscated; (7) Nikola did not
have five Tre trucks completed; and (8) as a result, defendants'
public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all
relevant times.

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

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


NIKOLA CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of November 16 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Sept. 21 disclosed
that a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities who
purchased the securities of Nikola Corporation ("Nikola" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq: NKLA) between June 4, 2020 and September 15,
2020 (the "Class Period").

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

If you have incurred losses in the shares of Nikola Corporation,
you may, no later than November 16 , 2020, request that the Court
appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class.  Please contact
Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in
the shares of Nikola Corporation.

According to the filed Complaint, the Company made false and
misleading statements to the market. Nikola's founder, Trevor
Milton, materially misrepresented the Company's technology and
business. The Company's profitability and business prospects were
massively overstated. Based on these facts, the Company's public
statements were false and materially misleading throughout the
class period.

On September 10, 2020, Hindenburg Research issued a report titled:
"Nikola: How to parlay an Ocean of Lies into a Partnership with the
Largest Auto OEM in America." In that report, Hindenburg claimed
that it "gathered extensive evidence-including recorded phone
calls, text messages, private emails, and behind-the-scenes
photographs detailing dozens of false statements by the Company's
founder Trevor Milton."

On this news the Company's stock price fell on September 10, 2020,
closing at $37.57, down $4.80 per share.

Subsequently, on September 15, 2020, dropped further Tuesday after
a report by The Wall Street Journal said the Justice Department has
joined the Securities and Exchange Commission in looking into
allegations that the electric-truck maker has misled investors. The
report, which cited people familiar with the matter, said the probe
was being handled by the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office, working
in conjunction with the securities regulators, which has reportedly
initiated its own probe. The stock closed at $32.83, down $2.96 per
share.

On Sept. 21, Trevor Milton stepped down as executive chairman
effective immediately and was replaced by Stephen Girsky, the
former General Motors vice chairman who oversaw Nikola's stock
listing and helped broker their partnership. Nikola's shares, which
were already reeling from all the prior negative news, traded as
low as $24.97 per share in intraday trading.

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

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

Contact:

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


NUTRAWISE CORPORATION: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nutrawise
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf
of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Nutrawise
Corporation, Nutrawise Health & Beauty Corporation, Case No.
1:20-cv-09138 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2020).

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

Nutrawise Corporation manufactures health and beauty supplements.
The Company offers products for hair, nails, ligaments, and
tendons.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Nov. 16 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Sept. 21
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Odonate Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:
ODT) between December 7, 2017 and August 21, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Odonate
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Odonate class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1946.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
to investors that: (1) tesetaxel was not as safe or well-tolerated
as the Company had led investors to believe; (2) consequently,
tesetaxel's commercial viability as a cancer treatment was
overstated; and (3) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When
the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

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-1946.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

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

Contact Information:

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


ON DECK: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on Sept. 21 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware on behalf of holders of On Deck Capital, Inc.
("On Deck" or the "Company") (NYSE: ONDK) common stock in
connection with the proposed acquisition of On Deck by Enova
International, Inc. ("Enova") and Energy Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger
Sub") announced on July 28, 2020 (the "Complaint"). The Complaint,
which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against On Deck, its Board of Directors (the "Board"), Enova, and
Merger Sub, is captioned Sabatini v. On Deck Capital, Inc., Case
No. 1:20-cv-01166 (D. Del.).

To learn more about this investigation and your rights, visit:
https://www.rigrodskylong.com/cases-on-deck-capital-inc,join.

You may also contact Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra cost and
obligation free at (888) 969-4242 or info@rl-legal.com.

On July 28, 2020, On Deck entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Enova and Merger Sub. Pursuant
to the terms of the Merger Agreement, On Deck's shareholders will
receive 0.092 of a share of Enova and $0.12 in cash per share (the
"Proposed Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants
issued materially incomplete disclosures in a Form S-4 Registration
Statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission. The Complaint alleges
that the Registration Statement omits material information with
respect to, among other things, the Company's and Enova's financial
projections and the analyses performed by On Deck's financial
advisor. The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief and
damages on behalf of holders of On Deck common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 20, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Any member of the proposed 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.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Delaware and New York, has
recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of investors
and achieved substantial corporate governance reforms in securities
fraud and corporate class actions nationwide.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

CONTACT:

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
Seth D. Rigrodsky
Gina M. Serra
(888) 969-4242 (Toll Free)
(302) 295-5310
Fax: (302) 654-7530
info@rl-legal.com
https://rl-legal.com [GN]


ONEOK INC: Lindsey Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Brian Lindsey, individually and for others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ONEOK Inc, Cypress Environmental
Management-TIR, LLC and Cleveland Integrity Services, Inc.,
Defendants, was transferred from the Northern District of Texas
with the assigned Case No. 3:20-mc-00074 to the U.S. District Court
of Western District of Texas (Midland) on October 21, 2020, and
assigned Case No. 7:20-mc-00245.

The lawsuit is filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

ONEOK, Inc. is a diversified Fortune 500 corporation based in
Tulsa, Oklahoma. ONEOK was founded in 1906 as Oklahoma Natural Gas
Company, but it changed its corporate name to ONEOK in December
1980. It also owns major natural gas liquids systems due to the
2005 acquisition of Koch Industries natural gas businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
   Josephson Dunlap Law Firm
   11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
   Houston, TX 77046
   Tel: (713) 352-1100
   Fax: (713) 352-3300
   Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com

     - and -

   Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
   Josephson Dunlap Law Firm
   11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
   Houston, TX 77046
   Tel: (713) 352-1100
   Fax: (713) 352-3300
   Email: Adunlap@mybackwages.com

     - and -

   Richard J. Burch, Esq.
   Bruckner Burch PLLC
   8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
   Houston, TX 77046
   Tel: (713) 877-8788
   Fax: (713) 877-8065
   Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com

     - and -

   Taylor Ashley Jones, Esq.
   Josephson Dunlap
   11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
   Houston, TX 77046
   Tel: (713) 352-1100
   Fax: (713) 352-3300
   Email: tjones@mybackwages.com

PARAMOUNT RECOVERY: Ginsberg Files Suit under FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paramount Recovery
Systems, L.P. The case is styled as Sholom Ginsberg, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Paramount Recovery Systems, L.P. and John Does 1-25, Defendants,
Case No. 3:20-cv-14778-BRM-ZNQ (D.N.J., Oct. 21, 2020).

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

Paramount Recovery Systems, L.P. is professional debt collection
agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Eliyahu Babad, Esq.
   Stein Saks, PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500
   Email: ebabad@steinsakslegal.com

PEABODY ENERGY: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Nov. 27 Motion Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Peabody Energy Corporation.
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.

Peabody Energy Corporation (NYSE: BTU)

Class Period: April 3, 2017 to October 28, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 27, 2020

The complaint, filed on September 28, 2020, alleges that from April
3, 2017 through September 28, 2018, defendants failed to disclose,
and would continue to omit, the following adverse facts pertaining
to the safety practices at the Company's North Goonyella mine,
which were known to or recklessly disregarded by defendants: (i)
the Company had failed to implement adequate safety controls at the
North Goonyella mine to prevent the risk of a spontaneous
combustion event; (ii) the Company failed to follow its own safety
procedures; and (iii) as a result, the North Goonyella mine was at
a heightened risk of shutdown.

The truth about Peabody's inadequate safety practices was revealed
when, on September 28, 2018, a fire erupted at the mine, forcing
Peabody to suspend operations indefinitely. On this news, Peabody
shares fell $5.54 per share, or 13.4%.

The complaint further alleges that, following the fire and
throughout the remainder of the Class Period, defendants failed to
disclose, and would continue to omit, the following adverse facts
pertaining to the feasibility of Peabody's plan to restart the
North Goonyella mine: (i) the Company's low-cost plan to restart
operations at the mine posed unreasonable safety and environmental
risks; (ii) the Australian body responsible for ensuring acceptable
health and safety standards, the Queensland Mines Inspectorate
("QMI"), would likely mandate a safer, cost-prohibitive approach;
and (iii) as a result, there would be major delays in reopening the
North Goonyella mine and restarting coal production.

The truth about the feasibility of Peabody's plan to restart
operations at North Goonyella was revealed through a series of
disclosures beginning on February 6, 2019, when Peabody revealed
that contrary to previous statements, production at the North
Goonyella mine would not resume in 2019, but was instead targeted
to begin to ramp in the early months of 2020. On this news, Peabody
shares fell by $3.80 per share, or 10.6%.

On October 29, 2019, Peabody disclosed that QMI was placing strict
restrictions on restarting operations at the North Goonyella mine
and that as a result Peabody was forced to drastically adjust its
reentry plan, ultimately announcing a three year or more delay
before any meaningful coal could be produced. On this news, Peabody
shares declined $3.26 per share, or 22%.

For more information on the Peabody Energy class action go to:
https://bespc.com/BTU

                About Bragar Eagel & Squire

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]


PERFUMES.COM INC: Romero Files Suit under ADA in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
Perfumes.com Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Josue
Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Perfumes.com Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-08770
(S.D. N.Y., Oct. 21, 2020).

Perfume.com sells different kinds of perfumes for both men and
women.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PERRIGO CO: December 3 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ROOFER'S PENSION FUND,

    v.

JOSEPH PAPA, et al.

No. 16-CV-2805-MCA-LDW

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION

This notice is for:

(1) All persons who purchased Perrigo Co., plc's ("Perrigo")
publicly traded common stock between April 21, 2015 and May 2,
2017, both dates inclusive, on the New York Stock Exchange or any
other trading center within the United States and were damaged
thereby;

(2) All persons who purchased Perrigo's publicly traded common
stock between April 21, 2015 and May 2, 2017, both dates inclusive,
on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange and were damaged thereby; and

(3) All persons who owned Perrigo common stock as of November 12,
2015 and held such stock through at least 8:00 a.m. on November 13,
2015 (whether or not a person tendered their shares in response to
tender offer of Mylan, N.V.).

Excluded from these Classes are the Defendants, any current or
former officers or directors of Perrigo, the immediate family
members of any Defendant or any current or former officer or
director of Perrigo, and any entity that any Defendant owns or
controls, or owned or controlled during the Class Period.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY.
YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION.

This Notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey (the "Court"). This Action has not
been settled and continues to be litigated. No claim form need be
filed at this time.

If you are a member of one or more Classes, your rights are
affected by this Action, and you may have the right to participate
in any recovery. You also have the right to exclude yourself from
the Class(es) by December 3, 2020 in accordance with the directions
set forth in the Notice, which is available at
www.PerrigoSecuritiesLitigation.com or by writing the Notice
Administrator at: Perrigo Securities Litigation c/o JND Legal
Administration, P.O. Box 91374, Seattle, WA 98111. Inquiries other
than requests for notice may be made to Class Counsel:

Joshua B. Silverman, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South LaSalle St.
Suite 3505
Chicago, IL  60603
(312) 377-1181

James A. Harrod, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
& GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY  10020
(212) 554-1400

Any questions visit www.PerrigoSecuritiesLitigation.com.

PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
FOR INFORMATION OR ADVICE.

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
United States District Court
District of New Jersey [GN]


PINTEC TECHNOLOGY: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Nov. 30 Motion Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Pintec Technology Holdings
Limited (NASDAQ: PT). Stockholders have until the deadlines below
to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional
information about each case can be found at the link provided.

Pintec Technology Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: PT)

Class Period: Securities purchased pursuant and/or traceable to the
registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the
"Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's
October 2018 initial public offering ("IPO").

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 30, 2020

In October 2018, Pintec completed its IPO in which it sold more
than 3.7 million American Depositary Shares ("ADSs" or "shares") at
$11.88 per share.

On July 30, 2019, the Company filed its fiscal 2018 annual report,
in which it restated previously disclosed financial results. Among
other things, the Company reported net income of $315,000 for
fiscal year 2018, compared to its prior disclosure of $1.068
million net income. Pintec also disclosed that there were material
weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting related
to cash advances outside the normal course of business to Jimu
Group, a related party, and to a non-routine loan financing
transaction with a third-party entity, Plutux Labs.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.53, or more than
13%, over the next several trading sessions, to close at $3.40 per
share on August 5, 2019, thereby injuring investors.

On June 15, 2020, Pintec disclosed that it could not timely file
its fiscal 2019 annual report and that it anticipated reporting a
significant change in results of operations. Specifically, the
Company disclosed that it "erroneously recorded revenue earned from
certain technical service fee on a net basis" for fiscal years 2017
and 2018. Moreover, Pintec "announced a net loss of RMB906.5
million in the full year of 2019 due to RMB890.7 million of
provision for credit loss in amounts due from a related party, Jimu
Group, and RMB200 million of impairment in prepayment for long-term
investment."

By the commencement of the action, Pintec shares were trading as
low as $0.92 per share, a nearly 92% decline from the $11.88 per
share IPO price.

The complaint, filed September 29, 2020, alleges that the
Registration Statement was false and misleading and omitted to
state material adverse facts. Specifically, defendants failed to
disclose to investors: (1) that the Company erroneously recorded
revenue earned from certain technical service fee on a net basis,
rather than a gross basis; (2) that there were material weaknesses
in Pintec's internal control over financial reporting related to
cash advances outside the normal course of business to Jimu Group,
a related party, and to a non-routine loan financing transaction
with a third-party entity, Plutux Labs; (3) that, as a result of
the foregoing, the Company's financial results for fiscal 2017 and
2018 had been misstated; 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.

                     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]


PINTEC TECHNOLOGY: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Nov. 30 Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Pintec Technology Holdings
Limited. 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.

PT Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/pintec-technology-holdings-limited-loss-form?prid=9956&wire=1

Pintec Technology Holdings Limited (NASDAQ:PT)

This lawsuit is on behalf of shareholders who purchased PT
securities pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement
and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's October 2018
initial public offering.

Lead Plaintiff Deadline : November 30, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/pintec-technology-holdings-limited-loss-form?prid=9956&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, (1) the Company erroneously
recorded revenue earned from certain technical service fee on a net
basis, rather than a gross basis; (2) there were material
weaknesses in Pintec's internal control over financial reporting
related to cash advances outside the normal course of business to
Jimu Group, a related party, and to a non-routine loan financing
transaction with a third-party entity, Plutux Labs; (3) as a result
of the foregoing, the Company's financial results for fiscal 2017
and 2018 had been misstated; 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.

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. [GN]


PIZANO'S PIZZA: Blinds Can't Access Website, Antonio Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ISRAEL ANTONIO v. PIZANO'S PIZZA & PASTA, INC.; PIZANO'S PIZZA &
PASTA ON DIVISION; PIZANO'S PIZZA & PASTA EXPRESS I; PIZANO'S PIZZA
& PASTA EXPRESS, INC.; PIZANO'S PIZZA & PASTA I; PIZANO'S PIZZA &
PASTA IN THE LOOP; PIZANO'S PIZZA & PASTA SOUTH; and PIZANO'S PIZZA
& PASTA FROZEN DIVISION, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-06443 (N.D. Ill.,
Oct. 29, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, alleging that the Defendants
failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired people.

The Defendants' denial of full and equal access to its Website,
www.pizanoschicago.com, and therefore denial of its goods and
services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's and
class members' rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA").

The Plaintiff contends that because the Defendants' Website is not
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to
effect changes in the Defendants' corporate policies, practices,
and procedures to ensure the 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 20x200. Some
blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others
have no vision.

Pizano's Pizza & Pasta, Inc. is a pizza restaurant located in
Chicago, Illinois that owns and operates the Website. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas J. Nitschke, Esq.
          BLAISE & NITSCHKE, P.C.
          123 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 250
          Chicago, Illinois 60606
          Telephone: (312) 448-6602
          Facsimile: (312) 803-1940
          E-mail: tjntischke@blaisenitschkelaw.com

PORTLAND GENERAL: 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
Portland General Electric Company ("Portland General Electric" or
"the Company") (NYSE:POR) 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 April 24,
2020 and August 24, 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. Portland General Electric failed to
maintain appropriate controls over its energy trading practices.
The Company's energy traders created massive negative financial
exposure through an increasing volume of energy trades in the
second and third quarter of 2020. These trades set the Company up
to incur significant losses. 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 Portland
General Electric, 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]


PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Twerski Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Claims
Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Raizel Twerski, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Professional Claims
Bureau, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-05228 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2020).

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

Professional Claims Bureau, Inc. provides healthcare revenue cycle
management solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RICARDO BEVERLY: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ricardo Beverly
Hills, Inc. The case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Mayorga
Organics, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-09185 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2020).

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

Ricardo Beverly Hills Inc. manufactures travel products. The
Company produces and markets a variety of luggage such as duffel
bags, laptop cases, garment bags, spinners, carry on luggage, and
accessorie.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROCKY'S PIZZA: Bravo Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BAUDEL BRAVO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. ROCKY'S PIZZA 14TH STREET CORP. (D/B/A ROCKY'S PIZZA),
FERNANDO MATEO , DONATO DOE , JOHN DOE , and ELI DOE, Case No.
1:20-cv-09100 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and
the New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff contends that he worked for the Defendants without
appropriate minimum wage compensation for the hours that he worked.
Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate record-keeping
of the hours worked and failed to pay him appropriately for any
hours worked at the straight rate of pay. Furthermore, the
Defendants repeatedly failed to pay him wages on a timely basis.
The Defendants' conduct extended beyond him to all other similarly
situated employees, he adds.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendants. He was
employed as a counter worker and a cashier at the restaurant
located at 304 W 14th Street, New York.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a pizzeria, located at 304
W 14th Street, New York, under the name "Rocky's Pizza".[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

SASOL LIMITED: Moshell Suit Seeks to Certify Rules 23 Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHAD LINDSEY MOSHELL,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, V.
SASOL LIMITED, DAVID EDWARD REPRESENTATIVES, AND CONSTABLE, BONGANI
NQWABABA, APPOINTMENT OF CLASS COUNSEL STEPHEN CORNELL, PAUL
VICTOR, and STEPHAN SCHOEMAN, Case No. 1:20-cv-01008-JPC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff David Cohn and
additional named plaintiff Chad Lindsey Moshell will move the Court
on December 17, 2020 or at a date or time designed by the Court,
for an order:

   1. certifying under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal
      Rules of Civil Procedure a class of:

      "all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
      acquired publicly traded Sasol Limited American Depository
      Receipts during the period from March 10, 2015, to January
      13, 2020, inclusive, and were damaged thereby, excluding
      Defendants, the officers and directors of Sasol Limited,
      all entities in which any Defendant has or had a
      controlling interest, and the legal representatives,
      members of immediate families, heirs, successors or
      assigns of any excluded person or entity";

   2. certifying the Class for a claim against all Defendants
      under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
      ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
      and for a claim under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
      against all Defendants except Sasol Limited;

   3. appointing the plaintiffs David Cohn and Chad Lindsey
      Moshell to serve as Class Representatives; and

   4. appointing Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as Class
      Counsel.

Sasol Limited is an integrated energy and chemical company based in
Sandton, South Africa. The company was formed in 1950 in Sasolburg,
South Africa and built on processes that were first developed by
German chemists and engineers in the early 1900s.[CC]

Counsel for Lead Plaintiff David Cohn and Additional Representative
Plaintiff Chad L. Moshell are:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Jerrod C. Patterson, Esq.
          Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail steve@hbsslaw.com
                 jerrodp@hbsslaw.com
                 lucasg@hbsslaw.com

SELECT REHABILITATION: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action complaint alleging that
Select Rehabilitation, LLC, failed to provide accurate wages to
employees, among other allegations. The Select Rehabilitation, LLC
class action lawsuit, Case No. 20CV002240, is currently pending in
the Monterey County Superior Court of the State of California. A
copy of the Complaint can be read here.

As a result of their rigorous work schedules, PLAINTIFF was from
time to time unable to take off-duty meal and rest breaks.
Allegedly, PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members forfeited
required meal and rest breaks without compensation at the
applicable overtime rates. Employees were also allegedly denied
second off-duty meal breaks when working ten [10] hour shifts.

The complaint further alleges Select Rehabilitation, LLC committed
acts of unfair competition in violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. (the
"UCL"), by engaging in a company-wide policy and procedure which
failed to accurately calculate and record the correct overtime rate
for the overtime worked by PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS
Members. As a result of DEFENDANT's intentional disregard of the
obligation to meet this burden, DEFENDANT allegedly failed to
properly calculate and/or pay all required compensation for work
performed by the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS and violated the
California Labor Code.

If you would like to know more about the Select Rehabilitation, LLC
lawsuit, please contact Attorney Nicholas J. De Blouw today by
calling (800) 568-8020.

Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is an employment law
firm with offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento,
Los Angeles, Riverside and Chicago that dedicates its practice to
helping employees, investors and consumers fight back against
unfair business practices, including violations of the California
Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. If you need help in
collecting unpaid overtime wages, unpaid commissions, being
wrongfully terminated from work, and other employment law claims,
contact one of their attorneys today. [GN]


SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA
---------------------------------------------------------
SelectQuote Insurance Services is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SelectQuote Insurance Services,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-08769 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 21, 2020).

Selectquote Insurance Services provides insurance agent and broker
services. The Company offers auto and home, life, and medical
insurance. Selectquote Insurance Services serves clients in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SHAPIRO & DENARDO: Ennis Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shapiro & Denardo,
LLC. The case is styled as Lois Ennis also known as: Lois Evans
also known as: Lois Evans-Ennis, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Shapiro & Denardo, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-14788-RBK-KMW (D.N.J., Oct. 21, 2020).

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

Shapiro & Denardo LLC is a national law firm. The Firm's areas of
practice include real estate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
   17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
   Rutherford, NJ 07070
   Tel: (201) 507-6300
   Email: lh@hershlegal.com




SPRUCE 1209: Overcharges Apartment Rentals, Chernett Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH CHERNETT and MICHAEL RAPIN, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. SPRUCE 1209, LLC, Case No.
159188/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Oct. 29, 2020), alleges that
the Defendant overcharged the Plaintiffs and the members of the
Class an amount equal to the difference between their monthly rents
and the appropriate legal regulated rent-stabilized rents.

The Defendant entered into leases with them and the Class, which
misrepresented the amount of rent the Defendant was legally
entitled to collect. The Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled
to recover monetary damages from the Defendant based on the
unlawful overcharges, as well as an award of interest.

Plaintiff Elizabeth Chemett resides in Apartment 410 at 1209 Dekalb
Avenue. The Plaintiff Michael Rapin resides in Apartment 311 at
1209 Dekalb Avenue.

The Defendant is the owner-in-fee of the apartment building located
at 1209 DeKalb Avenue (the "Building") in Brooklyn.

The Building participates in the 421-a Program, which requires
landlords to register their units with the Division of Housing and
Community Renewal, and that those apartments be treated as
rent-stabilized. The initial legal regulated rent to be registered
for an apartment in a 421-a building must be the "monthly rent
charged and paid by the tenant," and all subsequent rent increases
are to be derived from that first payment. Here, Defendant
hoodwinked tenants, and DHCR, by registering a legal regulated rent
higher than the "monthly rent charged and paid by the tenant."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq.
          Jarred I. Kassenoff, Esq.
          Roger A. Sachar Jr., Esq.
          NEWMAN FERRARA LLP
          1250 Broadway, 27th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 619-5400
          E-mail: lferrara@nfllp.com
                  ikassenoffffjntllp.com
                  rsachar@nfllp.com

STRIVECTIN OPERATING: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Strivectin Operating
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Strivectin
Operating Company, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-09140 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 30,
2020).

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

Strivectin Operating Company, Inc. is located in New York and is
part of the Cosmetics, Beauty Supply & Perfume Stores
Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUPERDRY RETAIL: Jariwala Alleges Violation under ADA
-----------------------------------------------------
Superdry Retail LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Krishna Jariwala, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Superdry Retail LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 3:20-cv-02070-AJB-MDD (S.D. Cal., Oct. 20, 2020).

Superdry Retail LLC is located in New York and is part of the
Clothing Stores Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



SWAPALEASE INC: Tenzer-Fuchs Asserts Breach of ADA
--------------------------------------------------
Swapalease, Inc is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Michelle
Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Swapalease, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-05066 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 21, 2020).

Swapalease.com is a car lease transfer marketplace helping
customers to get out of auto lease early without penalties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
   Shalom Law, PLLC
   105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
   Forest Hills, NY 11375
   Tel: (718) 971-9474
   Email: jonathan@shalomlawny.com


SWITCHBACK ENERGY: Bulsa Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty
-------------------------------------------------------------
JASON BULSA, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
SWITCHBACK ENERGY ACQUISITION CORPORATION, SCOTT McNEILL, JIM
MUTRIE, ZANE ARROTT, JOSEPH ARMES, RAY KUBIS, CHRIS CARTER, SCOTT
GIESELMAN, and SAM STOUTNER, Case No. 655800/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New
York Cty., Oct. 29, 2020), is a stockholder class action complaint
against Switchback Energy and the Company's Board of Directors for
breaches of fiduciary duty as a result of the Defendants' efforts
to sell the Company, through merger vehicle Lightning Merger Sub,
Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, to ChargePoint,
Inc., a Delaware corporation.

Switchback Energy is a special purpose acquisition company, or
"SPAC," an entity that is formed strictly to raise capital through
an initial public offering for the purpose of acquiring an existing
company, and merging with it to take that entity public.
ChargePoint will merge with the Company, via a reverse merger
where, when completed, the Company's shareholders interests will be
significantly diluted - they will own only 10.3% of the combined
company, while existing ChargePoint shareholders will own the vast
majority, or approximately 80.4%, of the go-forward company, by
raising approximately $317 million of gross proceeds from
Switchback Energy shareholders to finance a portion of the purchase
price (the "Proposed Transaction").

The terms of the Proposed Transaction were memorialized in a
September 24, 2020 filing with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") on Form 8-K attaching the definitive
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"). Under the
terms of the Merger Agreement, Switchback Energy will merge into
ChargePoint and cease to exist, forming one publicly traded entity
combined with the investors in ChargePoint, significantly diluting
Switchback Energy investors' share of the combined company.

On October 19, 2020, Switchback Energy filed a Registration
Statement on Form S-4 with the SEC in support of the Proposed
Transaction. The Plaintiff contends that the Proposed Transaction
is unfair and undervalued for a number of reasons. Significantly,
the Registration Statement describes an insufficient sales process
in which the Board failed to create a disinterested committee of
independent directors to maximize public stockholder value. He adds
that it appears as though the Board has entered into the Proposed
Transaction to procure for itself and senior management of the
Company significant and immediate benefits with no thought to the
Company's public stockholders. For instance, Company insiders,
including the Individual Defendants, currently own large, illiquid
portions of Company stock that will be rolled over for much higher
percentages of the surviving entity than Plaintiff and other
Switchback Energy public stockholders.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of South Carolina and, at all times
relevant hereto, has been a Switchback Energy stockholder.

Switchback Energy is a Delaware corporation and maintains its
principal executive offices at 5949 Sherry Lane, Suite 1010,
Dallas, Texas. Switchback Energy's common stock is traded on the
NYSE under the ticker symbol "SBE". The Individual Defendants have
served as a director of the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

TELEPATHIC INC: Jones Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Telepathic, Inc. The
case is styled as Kahlimah Jones, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Telepathic, Inc. doing business as: Hooked, Case No. 1:20-cv-05236
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2020).

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

Telepathic is a narrative technology company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


TENDERLOIN HOUSING: Fennix Files Suit in Ca. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TENDERLOIN HOUSING
CLINIC, INC., ET AL. The case is styled as Sharon Fennix,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
TENDERLOIN HOUSING CLINIC, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, DOES 1
TO 10 INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC20587419 (Ca. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., Nov. 2, 2020).

The case type is stated as "OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS".

Tenderloin Housing Clinic, Inc. operates as a non-profit
organization. The Organization offers property management,
community organizing, and housing, legal, and support services.[BN]


The Plaintiff is reprensted by KANE MOON, ESQ.


THERMO TECH: Lopez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN LOPEZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
the Class v. THERMO TECH MECHANICAL INC. And GOWKARRAN BUDHU, Case
No. 1:20-cv-09113 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2020), alleges that the
Plaintiff and others similarly situated are entitled to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages for all hours worked due to
improper rounding down of hours, liquidated damages and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to pay him and
Class members prevailing wages for work done on multiple public
works projects. In doing so, the Defendants breached the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing with them, and violated
their rights as third-party beneficiaries of the public works
contracts between the Defendants and the relevant government
instrumentality.

From January 2016 until August 2018, Plaintiff was employed by the
Defendants as an HVAC installation worker.

The Corporate Defendant is a business specializing in the
installation, maintenance, and repair of heating, ventilation, and
air conditioning (HVAC) systems. The Individual Defendant is the
president and owner of the company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Misclassifies Drivers, Leaks Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
LEX LEAKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-06423 (Oct.
29, 2020), alleges that the Defendant has misclassified its
drivers, including the Plaintiff, as independent contractors when
they should be classified under Illinois law as employees.

Based on the drivers' misclassification as independent contractors,
Uber has unlawfully required drivers to pay business expenses
(including but not limited to the cost of maintaining their
vehicles, gas, insurance, phone and data expenses, and other costs)
in violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, 820
ILCS section 115/9.5(a). Uber has also failed to guarantee and pay
its drivers minimum wage for all hours worked and it has failed to
pay overtime premiums for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week in violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

The Plaintiff brings these claims on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. He seeks
recovery of damages for himself and the class, as well as
declaratory and injunctive relief, requiring Uber to reclassify its
drivers as employees in Illinois.

The Plaintiff is an adult resident of Oak Brook, Illinois, where he
has worked as an Uber driver since approximately 2015.

Uber is a car service, which engages thousands of drivers across
the state of Illinois who can be hailed and dispatched through a
mobile phone application to transport riders. Uber is based in San
Francisco, California, and it does business across the United
States, including extensively throughout Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Adelaide H. Pagano, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
                  apagano@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          Bradley Manewith, Esq.
          Marc J. Siegel, Esq.
          James D. Rogers, Esq.
          SIEGEL & DOLAN LTD.
          150 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 878-3210
          Facsimile: (312) 878-3211
          E-mail: bmanewith@msiegellaw.com
                  msiegel@msiegellaw.com
                  jrogers@msiegellaw.com

ULTRA PETROLEUM: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of November 9 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Sept. 21 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against certain officers of Ultra Petroleum Corporation
("Ultra Petroleum" or the "Company") (OTCMKTS: UPLCQ).  The class
action, filed in United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, and docketed under 20-cv-02820, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise, acquired Ultra securities between April 13, 2017, and
August 8, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") against certain of the Company's current and former senior
executives.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Ultra Petroleum securities
during the class period, you have until November 9, 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.

Non-party Ultra is a petrochemical company focused on developing
its natural gas reserves located in southwest Wyoming.

Ultra is an oil and gas development company with primary assets in
the Pinedale and Jonah fields of the Green River Basin of southwest
Wyoming.  Over 80% of the Company's revenues have historically been
derived from the development and sale of natural gas.  On May 14,
2020, Ultra filed for bankruptcy protection for the second time in
four years and, as a result, is not named as a defendant in this
action.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants,
inter alia: (i) materially overstated the value of Ultra's oil and
gas reserves; (ii) materially misrepresented the Company's ability
to ramp up production and its financial flexibility; (iii) failed
to disclose the Company's extreme sensitivity to even a modest
decline in natural gas prices; and (iv) concealed significant
setbacks in the Company's vaunted horizontal well drilling
program.

On July 31, 2019, Ultra issued a press release announcing that
NASDAQ had commenced proceedings to delist Ultra's stock "as a
result of the Company not regaining compliance with the $1.00 per
share minimum bid price requirement for continued inclusion on
Nasdaq."

On August 9, 2019, Ultra issued a press release announcing its
second-quarter 2019 ("2Q19") financial and operational results.
The Company disclosed that total revenues for the quarter had
decreased by 18% to $155.4 million as compared to $190.1 million
during 2Q18.  The release stated that the Company's once-vaunted
horizontal well program had been effectively halted.  It also
lowered 2019 projected capital investments to a range of $260
million to $290 million and annual production to a range of 238 to
244 Bcfe.

On this news, the price of Ultra stock declined 31% to just $0.09
per share on an unusually high volume of nearly 14 million shares
traded.

On August 22, 2019, NASDAQ formally delisted Ultra stock.

On September 16, 2019, Ultra issued a press release announcing that
the Company had amended its credit facility and suspended all
drilling in its Pinedale field to "preserve its highest value
inventory for future development locations to be developed under
more favorable commodity pricing conditions."  The release further
announced that "[i]n connection with the approval of the amendment
to the Credit Facility, the fall borrowing base redetermination has
been established at $1.175 billion, including $200 million of the
commitment allocated to the Credit Facility."

On November 7, 2019, Ultra issued its third-quarter 2019 ("3Q19")
financial results in a press release, revealing that total revenues
for the quarter had decreased to $144.2 million as compared to
$203.8 million in 3Q18.  The release also stated that Ultra had
produced just 60.2 Bcfe during the quarter, a 4% decrease from
2Q19.

On February 18, 2020, Ultra filed a current report on Form 8-K with
the SEC, announcing a number of negative changes to Ultra's credit
facilities.

On March 5, 2020, Ultra filed a current report on Form 8-K with the
SEC, revealing that Ultra had unsuccessfully attempted to
renegotiate its debt out of court.

On March 31, 2020, Ultra filed with the SEC a Notification of Late
Filing on Form 12b-25 with respect to its Form 10-K for the 2019
fiscal year ("FY19") (the "2019 10-K").  As explained in the
notification, Ultra was unable to timely file its 2019 10-K because
Ultra was "currently engaged in liability management efforts,
through its ongoing engagement with Centerview Partners and is
actively engaging in discussions with certain holders of the
Company's long-term debt with respect to potential deleveraging or
restructuring transactions."

On April 14, 2020, the Company issued a press release announcing
its financial and operational results for the fourth quarter of
2019 ("4Q19") and FY19 and disclosing that the Company's
forthcoming annual report on Form 10-K would include a report from
the Company's accounting firm expressing "substantial doubt about
the Company's ability to continue as a going concern."  As the
release revealed: "The failure to deliver audited, consolidated
financial statements without a going concern or like qualification
or explanation results in a default under each of the Credit
Agreement and Term Loan Agreement as of April 14, 2020."  The
release also reported that Ultra's revenue had declined
significantly in the quarter to $170.9 (from $273.2 million in
4Q18) and to $742.0 million in FY19 (from $892.5 million in FY18).
The release further revealed that year-end proved reserves stood at
just 1,990 Bcfe and that, because the Company had suspended its
drilling operations, it no longer included its PUD reserves in its
reserve valuations.  It stated that 2020 production was expected to
plummet to a range of just 182 to 192 Bcfe, with an annual capital
investment budget of only $10 million to $20 million.

On May 14, 2020, Ultra filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division,
under the caption In re Ultra Petroleum Corp., et al., Case No.
20-bk-32631 (the "2020 Bankruptcy").  Also on May 14, 2020, Ultra
announced a restructuring agreement that it had secured with a
number of its creditors.  Ultra continued to operate as a "debtor
in possession" following its bankruptcy petition.

In its 2020 Bankruptcy filings, Ultra estimated that the values of
its oil and gas reserves based on a future net cash flows analysis
and on a discounted future net cash flows analysis at a 10%
discount rate, each before income tax, were just $1.907 billion and
$1.217 billion, respectively, as of March 31, 2020.  The Company
ascribed no value to its PUD reserves.

On August 21, 2020, the bankruptcy court in the 2020 Bankruptcy
approved the Company's proposed plan of reorganization, which
provided zero recoveries to existing Ultra shareholders.

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

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


UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE: Ninivaggi Suit Removed to Del. Dist. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Penny Ninivaggi, Michael Ninivaggi, James
Nigrelli, Cailin Nigrelli, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. University of Delaware, Case No.
N20C-08-00121 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
Delaware, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
on Oct. 29, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-01478-UNA to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

The University of Delaware is a private-public research university
located in Newark, Delaware. UD is the largest university in
Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Esq.
          Scott M. Tucker, Esq.
          CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
          2711 Centerville Road, Suite 201
          Wilmington, DE 19808
          Phone: (302) 656-2500
          Fax: (302) 656-9053
          Email: rjk@chimicles.com
                 scotttucker@chimicles.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James Darlington Taylor, Jr.
          SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP
          1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2300
          P.O. Box 1266
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Phone: (302) 421-6863
          Email: James.taylor@saul.com


VALOR GROUP: Bishop Alleges Violation under ADA
-----------------------------------------------
Valor Group LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Cedric
Bishop, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Valor Group LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-08762 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 20, 2020).

Valor Group LLC is located in Somerset, NJ, and is part of the
Wholesale Sector Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
   Gottlieb & Associates
   150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
   New York, NY 10003
   Tel: (212) 228-9795
   Email: michael@gottlieb.legal




WARNER MUSIC: Buck Files Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Warner Music Group
Corp. The case is styled as Alexander Buck, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Warner Music Group
Corp., Case No. 1:20-cv-09075 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Torts.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Adam Acocelli, Jr., Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, Suite 1601
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: (212) 682-3025
          Fax: (212) 682-3010
          Email: racocelli@weisslawllp.com


WELLS FARGO: Faces Mullen Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN A. MULLEN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, C. ALLEN PARKER,
TIMOTHY J. SLOAN and JOHN R. SHREWSBERRY, Case No. 3:20-cv-07674
(Oct. 30, 2020), is a securities class action on behalf of all
purchasers of Wells Fargo common stock between October 13, 2017 and
October 13, 2020, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies against
Wells Fargo and certain of the Company's current and former senior
executives under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On October 13, 2017, Wells Fargo issued a release providing its
results for the quarter ended September 30, 2017. The Company
stated that it had generated $4.6 billion in net income during the
quarter on $21.9 billion of revenue. The release emphasized Wells
Fargo's purportedly "solid credit quality."

On October 14, 2020, Wells Fargo issued a release providing its
results for the quarter ended September 30, 2020 ("3Q20"). The 3Q20
release stated that Wells Fargo had recognized another provision
expense of $769 million and that non-accrual loans had increased
$2.5 billion, or 45%, to $8 billion during the quarter. The price
of Wells Fargo stock fell further on this news, declining 6% to
$23.25 per share by market close on October 14, 2020, on abnormally
high trading volume.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
decline in the price of Wells Fargo common shares detailed herein,
the Plaintiff and other members of the Class have suffered
significant losses and damages.

The Plaintiff contends that rather than disclose the true facts
regarding Wells Fargo's commercial lending practices during the
Class Period, the Defendants concealed the Company's actual
business practices and misrepresented the attendant risks to
investors.

Plaintiff Steven Mullen purchased Wells Fargo common stock during
the Class Period and has been damaged thereby.

Wells Fargo is a financial services and bank holding company
headquartered in San Francisco, California. The Individual
Defendants are officers of the company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          & DOWD LLP
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
          E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
                  bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

ZOSANO PHARMA: Faces Carr Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
DANIELLE CARR, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. ZOSANO PHARMA CORPORATION, STEVEN LO, JOHN P. WALKER,
and KONSTANTINOS ALATARIS, Case No. 3:20-cv-07625 (N.D. Cal., Oct.
29, 2020), is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Zosano securities between February
13, 2017 and September 30, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to pursue claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Zosano, a clinical stage pharmaceutical company, has a proprietary
intracutaneous delivery system purports to offer rapid absorption
of drug, consistent drug delivery, improved ease of use, and
room-temperature stability. Its intracutaneous patch consists of an
array of titanium microneedles that is coated with Zosano's
proprietary formulation of a previously approved drug that is
attached to an adhesive patch. The patch purports to offer rapid
and consistent delivery of the drug via the microneedles that
penetrate the skin, resulting in dissolution and absorption of the
drug. Its lead product candidate is Qtrypta (M207), a formulation
of zolmitriptan coated onto the Company's microneedle patch. The
Company's pivotal efficacy trial, called ZOTRIP, began in July 22,
2016. In December 2019, Zosano submitted its New Drug Application
("NDA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") seeking
regulatory approval for Qtrypta.

On September 30, 2020, after the market closed, Zosano disclosed
receipt of a discipline review letter ("DRL") from the FDA
regarding its NDA for Qtrypta and stated that approval was not
likely. According to the Company's press release, the FDA "raised
questions regarding unexpected high plasma concentrations of
zolmitriptan observed in five study subjects from two
pharmacokinetic studies and how the data from these subjects affect
the overall clinical pharmacology section of the application." The
FDA also "raised questions regarding differences in zolmitriptan
exposures observed between subjects receiving different lots of
Qtrypta in the company's clinical trials." On this news, the
Company's share price fell $0.92, or 57%, to close at $0.70 per
share on October 1, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume.

On October 21, 2020, Zosano disclosed receipt of a Complete
Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA. As a result of the previously
identified deficiencies, the FDA recommended that Zosano conduct a
repeat bioequivalence study between three of the lots used during
development. On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.17, or
27%, to close at $0.04440 per share on October 21, 2020, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

The Plaintiff contends that throughout the Class Period, the
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, the
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that the Company's
clinical results reflected differences in zolmitriptan exposures
observed between subjects receiving different lots.

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

Plaintiff Carr purchased or otherwise acquired Zosano securities
during the Class Period, and suffered damages as a result of the
federal securities law violations.

Defendant Zosano is incorporated under the laws of Delaware with
its principal executive offices located in Fremont, California.
Zosano's common stock trades on the NASDAQ exchange under the
symbol "ZSAN." The Individual Defendants are officers of the
Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


                            *********

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 ***