---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, November 10, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 225

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Abel Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
ADAM ZUCKERMAN: Simring Sues Over Unapproved Neuropathy Treatment
AGA SERVICE: Arencibia Seeks to Certify Class & Sublcasses
ALEXION PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss ACERA Suit v. Portola Granted
ALEXION PHARMA: Bid to Nix SOLIRIS Sales Practices Suit Pending

ALKERMES PLC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated EDNY Suit Still Pending
ALL WAYS ELECTRIC: Faces Arteaga Wage & Hour Suit in Calif. Court
ALLSTATE CORP: Cutrone Sues Over Imprudent Retirement Plan Options
ALTERYX INC: Gross Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
AMAZON.COM INC: Diaz Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Appeal in Anti-Steering Rules Litigation Pending
AND SHEET: Woodard Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Wrongful Dismissal
ANDREW KOLODNY: Attorneys Disavow Any Connection to Class Action
APPCO: Lion's Share of Settlement May Go to Litigation Funder
ARCH INSURANCE: Denies Coverage for COVID-19 Losses, Legacy Says

AUSTRALIA: Nov. 17 Deadline for Livex Shareholders to Join Suit
AXOS FINANCIAL: Appeal in Mandalevy Class Suit Pending
AXOS FINANCIAL: Petition for Rehearing in Securities Suit Pending
BANK OF AMERICA: Denies Access to Unemployment Benefits, Chong Says
BAXTER INT'L: No Appeal from Dismissal of IV Solutions Suit

BCBSM INC: J.P. Suit Seeks to Certify Class of ERISA Plan Holders
BIMBO BAKERIES: Farley Wage & Hour Suit Removed to E.D. California
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Walther Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
BURNSIDE MEAT: Velasquez Sues Over Unpaid OT for Butcher Shop Staff
BUTTERBALL LLC: Figueroa Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

CARDTRONICS PLC: Bid to Nix Schertzer Putative Class Suit Denied
CASA SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Shen & Baig Suit Pending
CASA SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Hook's IPO Suit Still Pending
CASA SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Panther Partners Suit Pending
CBT NUGGETS: Licea Sues Over Automatic Renewal of Subscriptions

CHAD ARNOLD: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA & IMWL, Whitmer Says
CHATHAM LODGING: $100,000 Paid in Ruffy & Doonan Litigations
CHATHAM LODGING: $600,000 Paid in Perez Class Actions
CITIBANK NA: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Securities Class Action
CITIGROUP INC: Faces Firefighters Suit Over Stock Price Drop

COGNIZANT TECH: Seeks 3rd Cir. Appeal on Securities Case Ruling
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Settles 2014 Data Breach Lawsuit for $5 Million
COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Grain-Free" Dog Food Contains Wheat, Shaw Says
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Putative Class Suit in Michigan Ongoing
DELIVERMD: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts, Torrez Suit Says

DOLAA INC: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
DSW SHOE: Marquez Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. California
ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: Fails to Provide Timely Wages, Clemons Claims
ENTERTAINMENT BENEFITS: Francois FLSA & FMLA Suit Goes to M.D. Fla.
EQUITY BANCSHARES: SDNY Securities Suit Dismissed

ERIE INDEMNITY: 3rd Cir. Denies Petition for Rehearing in "Beltz"
ERIE INSURANCE: Faces Class Action for Denying COVID-19 Claims
ERIE INSURANCE: Faces Teemnow Suit Over Denied COVID-19 Claims
EVOLUS INC: Malakouti Putative Class Complaint Not Yet Served
EXELA ENTERPRISE: Plan Beneficiaries Class Sought

FAMOUS BOURBON: Clifton Sues Over Minimum Wage, Tip Sharing
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Settlement in Suit Against Unit Has Initial OK
FLOOR & DECOR: Dismissal of Georgia Securities Suit Final
FLORIDA COMMERCIAL: Woodard Sues Over Illegal Background Check
FOOD INDUSTRIES: Faces Sacalamitao Wage-and-Hour Suit in California

FORTERRA INC: Settlement in Consolidated Suit Final & Unappealable
FREDDIE MAC: Discovery Underway in Sr. Preferred Stock Litigation
GEICO CASUALTY: Thomas Consumer Fraud Suit Goes to N.D. Illinois
GEL FACTORY: Won et al. Sue Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Additional Diesel Vehicles Amid Lawsuits

GEO: Private Prisons Donate to GOP Policymakers Amid Class Action
GLAUSIER KNIGHT: Veinberg Finds Debt Collection Notice "Confusing"
GOHEALTH INC: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of Nov. 20 Motion Deadline
GOOGLE LLC: Monopolizes Android Mobile App Market, Paige Alleges
GORDON FOOD: Higgins Alleges Unpaid Overtime for Assistant Managers

GRAHAM, NC: Police Use Pepper Spray at Vote Rally, Allen Alleges
HUGO BOSS: Faces Becerra Suit Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
INDEPENDENT BANK: Trial in BOH Merger Suit Moved to May 2021
IROBOT CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
JANUS HENDERSON: VelocityShares Class Suits Still Underway

JEWISH HOME: Ruiz Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages, Unreimbursed Expenses
JOBCO INC: Fails to Pay OT Wages to Laborers, Pineda Suit Says
KAISER PERMANENTE: Faces Yarbough ADA Suit Over Competency Tests
KEURIG DR PEPPER: Agreement Reached with Indirect Purchaser Class
KILL DARE: Mazzara Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA & NYLL

LABCORP EMPLOYER: Williams Wage & Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
LEARJET INC: Wood Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
LIVANOVA PLC: 2nd Payment Made in 3T Device Litigation
MAJOR LEAGUE: Must Face Minor League Players' Wage Class Action
MAPLEBEAR INC: Bailey Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. California

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Barnes Sues Over Unpaid Wages
MARSHALLS OF CA: Lacour Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California
MGP INGREDIENTS: Bid to Nix Suit Over Sales of Aged Whiskey Pending
MICHAEL BOUDREAUX: Medically Vulnerable Persons Class Sought
MICHIGAN: State Police Faces Employee Discrimination Lawsuit

MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Appeal from Brown Class Cert. Order Pending
MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Appeal from Class Cert. Ruling Underway
MOTIVATE LLC: Fails to Timely Pay Final Paychecks, Bradley Says
NAPHCARE INC: Taylor Labor Class Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
NEW JERSEY: Bennett Seeks Change to Gun Permit Regulations

NEWMONT CORP: Shareholder Class Suit Underway in Ontario
NIKOLA CORP: Faces Holzmacher Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
NMC HEALTH: Administrators Prepare to Sue EY Over Audits
NORTHERN TRUST: Callaway Balks at Imprudent Retirement Plan Options
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: Supreme Court May Review Retirement Suit

PAVMED INC: Spritzer Sues Over Improper Approval of Proposals
PAYCOR INC: Fails to Pay Sales Executives' OT, Stang Suit Claims
PBF ENERGY: Trial in Goldstein Suit Set for July 2021
PLYMOUTH, MA: County Jail Inmates Drop COVID Class Action
PREMIER SENIOR: Parker Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA & WWPCL

PRIME SECURITY: Pecora FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Rozo Suit Against Principal Life Ongoing
RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT: Maryland Consumers Class Sought
REXAHN PHARMACEUTICALS: Talsma Putative Class Action Ongoing
SAKAR INTERNATIONAL: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Romero Says

SCREENING REPORTS: Coldiron FCRA Class Suit Goes to W.D. Missouri
SERVICE CORP: Appeal in Moulton Class Suit Remains Pending
SHRI YAMUNA: Giles Balks at Delivery Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
SOUTHERN CO: Class Cert. Bid in Suit vs. Georgia Power Pending
SOUTHERN CO: Settlement in Monroe ERS Suit Preliminarily Approved

SOUTHERN CO: Turnage Suit vs. Mississippi Power Ongoing
SYNEOS HEALTH: Must Face Vaitkuviene Suit, Judge Says
T ROWE PRICE: Continues to Defend 401(k) Plan-Related Suit
TACTILE SYSTEMS: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of Nov. 30 Motion Deadline
TRADER JOE'S: Lowe Consumer Fraud Suit Removed to C.D. California

TWO TOWNS: Fairness Hearing on $985,000 Class Deal Set for May 10
UNITED AIRLINES: Riddick Sues Over Age Bias for Discount Offers
UNITED STATES: Disabled Migrants Sue Over MPP Policy Noncompliance
UNITED STATES: Treasury, IRS Sued Over Stimulus Payments
UV SANITIZER: Garbus Alleges Deceptive Marketing of Sanitizers

VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Gordon Class Suit Pending
VENTURA, CA: Fails to Get Inmates Absentee Ballots, Cannavan Says
WESTERN UNION: Class Suit vs. Argentina Unit Stayed
WESTERN UNION: Landa Seeks OT Pay for Network Administrators
WESTERN UNION: Notice of Dismissal Filed in Frazier Suit

WFS EXPRESS: Walker Employment Class Suit Goes to E.D. California
WILLIS TOWERS: Aon Acquisition-Related Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
WILLIS TOWERS: Bid for Summary Judgment in Proxy Suit Pending
WILLIS TOWERS: Class Cert. Bid in Alaska Laborers Suit Pending
WORLD WRESTLING: February Trial in KS Firefighters' Pension Suit

WW INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated SDNY Suit Pending
WW INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Quintanilla Class Suit
[*] Federation of Korean Industries Opposes Class Action Systems
[*] Workers' Class Actions Did Not Fare Well with Judge Barrett

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Abel Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND ABEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF
CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; FIRE PRODUCTS GP HOLDING, LLC; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.;
KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest
to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03836-RMG (D.S.C., November 2, 2020)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery,
inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent
concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and
wantonness.

The Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendants for their
failure to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design,
manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling,
marketing, and distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF)
products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances collectively known as PFAS, which are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants failed to warn public entities, firefighter trainees who
they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF
products, or firefighters employed by either civilian and/or
military employers that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a
danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff
used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their
intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition. The Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as
to the proper handling of the products.

As a result of the Defendants' omissions and misconduct, the
Plaintiff developed serious medical conditions and complications
due to his exposure to the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF
products during the course of his training and firefighting
activities.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.

ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.

Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.

Archroma Management, LLC is a global color and specialty chemicals
company headquartered in Reinach, Switzerland.

Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

BASF Corporation is a multinational chemical company with its
principal place of business located in Ludwigshafen, Germany.

Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.

Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.

Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.

Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.

E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.

Fire Products GP Holding, LLC is a manufacturer of fire protection
products based in Bismarck, North Dakota.

Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.

Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.

Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.

The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.

Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.

United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
         Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
         GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         270 West Main Street
         Sayville, NY 11782
         Telephone: (631) 600-0000
         Facsimile: (631) 543-5450

                - and –

         Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
         Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
         Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
         ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
         2160 Highland Avenue South
         Birmingham, AL 35205
         Telephone: (205) 328-9200
         Facsimile: (205) 328-9456

ADAM ZUCKERMAN: Simring Sues Over Unapproved Neuropathy Treatment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOAN SIMRING, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ADAM D. ZUCKERMAN, D.C.; MELISSA EIRICH,
M.D.; ADAM D. ZUCKERMAN, D.C., P.A. d/b/a REGENERATIVE MEDICINE OF
SOUTH FLORIDA a/k/a CHRONIC CONDITIONS CENTER a/k/a FUSION MEDICAL
CENTER; GREENSKY, LLC; GREENSKY SERVICING, LLC; and FIFTH THIRD
BANK, Defendants, Case No. CACE-20-018211 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 17th Jud.
Ct., Broward Cty., October 30, 2020) is a class action against the
Defendants for exploitation of elderly adults, battery, independent
tort of civil conspiracy, negligence, unjust enrichment, and
violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants deceptively offers a
drug-free treatment for neuropathy in a newspaper. The Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated senior citizens responded to the
advertisement because they believed that the said treatment will
only use LED lights as advertised and no invasive medical treatment
would be performed. However, the Plaintiff and Class members were
offered stem cell injections as treatment and the drug, which is
marketed under the name Accelerate GF, that was injected to them
was not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to
treat neuropathy and Defendants Adam D. Zuckerman and Melissa
Eirich were not licensed by the FDA to administer the drug.

Adam D. Zuckerman, D.C., P.A., d/b/a Regenerative Medicine of South
Florida a/k/a Chronic Conditions Center a/k/a Fusion Medical Center
is a medical clinic located in Boynton Beach, Florida.

GreenSky, LLC is a consumer finance firm based in Atlanta,
Georgia.

GreenSky Servicing, LLC is a financial technology firm based in
Atlanta, Georgia.

Fifth Third Bank is a federal bank based in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Matthew R. Simring, Esq.
         THE SIMRING LAW GROUP
         235 East Commercial Blvd., Suite 205
         Lauderdale By The Sea, FL 33308
         Telephone: (954) 816-2417
         E-mail: matthew@simringlaw.com

AGA SERVICE: Arencibia Seeks to Certify Class & Sublcasses
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IBALDO ARENCIBIA, v. AGA
SERVICE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00819-O (N.D. Tex.),  the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying these class and
subclasses:

  --  Nationwide Class:

      "all persons who purchased a trip insurance policy from
      Allianz through AA's website within the applicable
      limitations period";

  --  Florida Subclass:

      "all Florida residents who purchased a trip insurance
      policy from Allianz through AA's website within the
      applicable limitations period" ; and

  --  Texas Subclass

      "all Texas residents who purchased a trip insurance policy
      from Allianz through AA's website within the applicable
      limitations period."

On October 17, 2019, Arencibia filed a Class Action Complaint in
the Southern District of Florida. On December 13, 2019, the
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Complaint.

On December 27, 2019, AA filed a Motion to Sever and Transfer
Allegations against American Airlines. A hearing on these motions
was held on August 5, 2020. At the hearing, the Honorable Judge
Marcia G. Cooke ordered that the case be transferred to this Court
in its entirety. Judge Cooke made no ruling on the pending motions
to dismiss.

On October 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an
Amended Class Action Complaint. Court granted the motion and
docketed the Amended Complaint as of October 16, 2020 . In his
Amended Complaint, Arencibia brings claims for declaratory relief,
unjust enrichment, violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act, of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, and of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov.
2, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3kcAS6l at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eduardo A. Maura, Esq.
          Luis F. Quesada, Esq.
          AYALA LAW, P.A.
          2490 Coral Way, Ste 401
          Coral Gables, FL 33145
          Telephone: (305) 570-2208
          Facsimile: (305) 503-7206
          E-mail: eayala@ayalalawpa.com

               - and -

          Felipe Fulgencio, Esq.
          ULGENCIO LAW, P.L.L.C.
          105 S Edison Ave
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: (813) 463-0123
          Facsimile: (813) 670-1288
          E-mail: felipe@fulgenciolaw.com

               - and -

          Roger L. Mandel, Esq.
          JEEVES MANDEL LAW GROUP, P.C.
          2833 Crockett St, Ste 135
          Fort Worth, TX 76107
          Telephone: (214) 253-8300
          Facsimile: (727) 822-1499
          E-mail: rmandel@jeevesmadellawgroup.com

ALEXION PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss ACERA Suit v. Portola Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion
to dismiss the complaint in the class action suit headed by the
Alameda County Employees' Retirement Association ("ACERA") has been
granted.

On July 2, 2020, the company completed the acquisition of Portola
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Portola), a commercial-stage
biopharmaceutical company focused on life-threatening blood-related
disorders, through a tender offer and subsequent merger of Portola
with Odyssey Merger Sub Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Alexion.

In connection with Alexion's acquisition of Portola, the company
had assumed litigation to which Portola was a party. Among the
litigation assumed is a securities fraud class action filed against
Portola and certain of its officers, directors and underwriters
("Defendants") under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Specifically, on January 16, 2020, February 7, 2020, and February
28, 2020, stockholders filed three putative class actions in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
captioned Hayden v. Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No.
3:20-cv-00367-VC (N.D. Cal.); McCutcheon v. Portola
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 3:20-cv-00949 (N.D. Cal.); and
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Portola
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 3:20-cv-01501 (N.D. Cal.).

These cases have since been consolidated, and on April 22, 2020,
the Court issued an Order appointing the Alameda County Employees'
Retirement Association ("ACERA") as Lead Plaintiff in the
litigation.

ACERA filed its amended consolidated complaint on May 20, 2020,
asserting that Defendants made misrepresentations and omissions in
public disclosures (including in materials issued in connection
with the August 7, 2019 securities offering) concerning Portola's
sales of andexanet alfa, marketed as ANDEXXA in the United States
and ONDEXXYA in Europe, between January 8, 2019 and February 26,
2020.

Specifically, plaintiffs allege that Defendants made materially
false and/or misleading statements about the demand for ANDEXXA,
usage of ANDEXXA by hospitals and healthcare organizations, and
about Portola’s accounting for its return reserves.

Plaintiffs contend that the alleged fraud was revealed on January
9, 2020, when Portola announced its preliminary unaudited financial
results for the fourth quarter of 2019, and again on February 26,
2020, when Portola issued its fourth quarter 2019 financial
results.

In July 2020, Portola and the Portola Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss with the Court. The court heard oral argument on September
24, 2020 and granted defendants' pending motion to dismiss, but
with leave for plaintiffs to amend further their complaint.

Plaintiffs have until November 5, 2020 to file a second amended
complaint.

Plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified monetary relief, interest,
and attorneys' fees and costs.

Alexion said, "Given the early stage of these proceedings, we
cannot presently predict the likelihood of obtaining dismissal of
the case which the Company intends to submit following the filing
of the second amended complaint (or the ultimate outcome of the
case if that motion to dismiss is denied by the court), nor can we
estimate the possible loss or range of loss at this time."

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

Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company,
develops and commercializes various therapeutic products. The
company was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.


ALEXION PHARMA: Bid to Nix SOLIRIS Sales Practices Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion
to dismiss the complaint in the putative class action suit related
to SOLIRIS sales practices is still pending.

on December 29, 2016, a shareholder filed a putative class action
against the Company and certain former employees in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut, alleging that
defendants made misrepresentations and omissions about SOLIRIS.

On April 12, 2017, the court appointed a lead plaintiff. On July
14, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended putative class action
complaint against the Company and seven current or former
employees.

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on September 12,
2017. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants' motion to
dismiss on November 13, 2017, and defendants filed a reply brief in
further support of their motion on December 28, 2017. On March 26,
2019, the court held a telephonic status conference.  

During that conference, the court informed counsel that it was
preparing a ruling granting the defendants' pending motion to
dismiss. The court inquired of plaintiffs' counsel whether they
intended to seek leave to amend their complaint, and indicated that
if they wished to file a second amended complaint, they would be
allowed to do so.  

On April 2, 2019, the court granted plaintiffs until May 31, 2019
to file a second amended complaint, thereby rendering moot
defendants' pending motion to dismiss.

On June 2, 2019, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
against the same defendants. The complaint alleges that defendants
engaged in securities fraud, including by making misrepresentations
and omissions in its public disclosures concerning the Company's
SOLIRIS sales practices, management changes, and related
investigations, between January 30, 2014 and May 26, 2017, and that
the Company's stock price dropped upon the purported disclosure of
the alleged fraud.

The plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified monetary relief,
unspecified equitable and injunctive relief, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants' filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
August 2, 2019; plaintiffs' filed their opposition to that motion
on October 2, 2019; and defendants' filed their reply in further
support of their motion on November 15, 2019.

Given the early stage of these proceedings, we cannot presently
predict the likelihood of obtaining dismissal of the case (or the
ultimate outcome of the case if the motion to dismiss is denied by
the court), nor can we estimate the possible loss or range of loss
at this time.

Alexion said, "No further updates were provided in the Company's
SEC report."

Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company,
develops and commercializes various therapeutic products. The
company was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.


ALKERMES PLC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated EDNY Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alkermes plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that the defendants' motion to
dismiss a consolidated class action suit remains pending before the
U.S. Eastern District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

In December 2018 and January 2019, purported stockholders of the
Company filed putative class actions against the Company and
certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York (the "EDNY District Court") captioned Karimian
v. Alkermes plc, et al., No. 1:18-cv-07410 and McDermott v.
Alkermes plc, et al., No. 1:19-cv-00624, respectively.

In March 2019, the EDNY District Court consolidated the two cases
and appointed a lead plaintiff. The plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on July 9, 2019 naming one additional officer of the
Company and one former officer of the Company as defendants.

The amended complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of Alkermes securities during the period of July 31,
2014 through November 1, 2018 and alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly false or
misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's
clinical methodologies and regulatory submission for ALKS 5461 and
the FDA’s review and consideration of that submission.

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, unspecified money damages,
prejudgment and postjudgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees,
expert fees and other costs. In August 2019, the defendants filed a
pre-motion letter (in respect of a requested motion to dismiss
filing) with the EDNY District Court and plaintiff filed a
response.

On November 27, 2019, the defendants served the plaintiff with a
motion to dismiss, and on December 27, 2019, the plaintiff served
the defendants with its opposition to such motion.

On January 17, 2020, the defendants filed the fully-briefed motion,
including a reply to the plaintiff’s opposition, with the EDNY
District Court.

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

Alkermes plc, a biopharmaceutical company, researches, develops,
and commercializes pharmaceutical products to address unmet medical
needs of patients in various therapeutic areas in the United
States, Ireland, and internationally. Alkermes plc was founded in
1987 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALL WAYS ELECTRIC: Faces Arteaga Wage & Hour Suit in Calif. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GUSTAVO ARTEAGA, an individual, on behalf of himself and all other
aggrieved employees v. ALL WAYS ELECTRIC, INC.; KRISTIN HILL, an
individual, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20BBCV00784
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., November 4, 2020) arises from the
Defendants' unlawful labor policies and practices in violations of
the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff is entitled to seek and recover reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the state law for the Defendants'
failure to pay overtime and double time; failure to pay minimum
wage; failure to provide rest and meal periods; failure to keep
accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage statements;
failure to pay split shift pay; failure to pay all wages earned on
time; failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or
resignation; failure to provide basic information at the time of
hiring and when employment changes occur; failure to reimburse
necessary, business-related expenses; and failure to provide notice
of paid sick time and accrual.

Mr. Arteaga was hired by the Defendants as an hourly paid,
non-exempt employee and worked as an electrical apprentice from on
or about May 7, 2015. He worked for the Defendants up until
approximately February 2, 2020 when his employment terminated.

All Ways Electric, Inc. is doing business in California as an
electrical contracting firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ALLSTATE CORP: Cutrone Sues Over Imprudent Retirement Plan Options
------------------------------------------------------------------
KATHERINE CUTRONE, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION; THE ALLSTATE 401(K)
COMMITTEE; THE ALLSTATE 401(K) ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE; THE
ALLSTATE 401(K) INVESTMENT COMMITTEE; AND DOES 1-30, Case No.
1:20-cv-06463 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 30, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of a class of
participants and beneficiaries of the Allstate 401(k) Savings Plan,
against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The Plaintiff contends that as fiduciaries, the Defendants have the
duty to prudently select the Plan's investment options and to
regularly monitor Plan investments and remove ones that become
imprudent. Throughout the Class period, the Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to prudently select and monitor
the Plan's investment options. Specifically, they loaded the plan
with poorly performing targeted retirement-age funds called the
Northern Trust Focus Target Retirement Trusts and then kept these
Funds on the Plan's investment menu throughout the Class period
despite their continued underperformance, he adds.

The Northern Trust Focus Funds are "target date funds" designed to
achieve certain investment results based on an investor's
anticipated retirement date. Target date funds have become
increasingly popular retirement savings options. According to the
Wall Street Journal, as of the end of 2016, target date funds held
21% of all 401(k) assets in the United States. In 2018, at least
$734 billion of retirement savings were invested in target date
funds.

The Plan is a profit-sharing plan that includes a "qualified cash
or deferred arrangement" as described in Section 401(k) of the
Internal Revenue Code, I.R.C. section 401(k) (1986) and is subject
to the provisions of ERISA. The Plan is established and maintained
under a written document in accordance with 29 U.S.C. section
1102(a). The Defendant Allstate is the sponsor of the Plan. The
401(k) Administrative Committee administers the plan, but all the
Benefit Committees have a role in how the 401(k) Plan is
administered and what investment choices are made in it.

The Plan provides for retirement income for tens of thousands of
Allstate employees, former employees and their beneficiaries. With
over $5 billion in assets, the Plan has tremendous leverage to
demand and receive superior investment products and services.
Unfortunately, the Defendants did not effectively use that leverage
to identify and select prudent target date options for Plan
participants.

Katherine Cutrone was a participant in the Plan, as defined in 29
U.S.C. section 1002(7), from 2010 until the spring of 2019. She
suffered harm by investing in the Plan's poorly performing
investment options, including the Northern Trust Focus 2040 Fund
during the Class period.

The Defendants are fiduciaries to the Plan with exclusive authority
to select the Plan's investment options. The Plan's participants,
who are current and former Allstate employees, can invest their
retirement savings in any of the funds that Defendants select for
the Plan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael M. Mulder, Esq.
          Elena N. Liveris, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL M. MULDER
          1603 Orrington, Suite 600
          Evanston, IL 60201
          Telephone: (312) 263-0272
          E-mail: mmmulder@mmulderlaw.com
                  eliveris@mmulderlaw.com

               - and -

          Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq.
          Geoffrey M. Johnson, Esq.
          Jing-Li Yu, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          8068 East Del Acero Drive
          Scottsdale, AZ 85258
          Telephone: (480) 889-3514
          E-mail: gwotkyns@scott-scott.com
                  gjohnson@scott-scott.com
                  jyu@scott-scott.com

ALTERYX INC: Gross Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
----------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following
publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in the
following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to
contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment.
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any
recovery.

Alteryx, Inc. (NYSE:AYX)

Investors Affected: May 6, 2020 - August 7, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Alteryx, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company was unable to close large deals
within the quarter, and deals were pushed out to subsequent
quarters or downsized; (2) as a result, Alteryx increasingly relied
on adoption licenses to attract new customers; (3) as a result and
due to the nature of adoption licenses, the Company's revenue was
reasonably likely to decline; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/alteryx-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=10002&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:

The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]


AMAZON.COM INC: Diaz Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RICKY DIAZ, EMANUEL ADAMSON, JUAN MANUEL ALVAREZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
AMAZON.COM, INC.; AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Case No. RG20072092, was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Alameda to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on November
4, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-07792 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay separately and hourly for
nonproductive time, failure to provide paid rest breaks and paid
missed rest break premiums, failure to provide off-duty meal breaks
and failure to pay missed meal break premiums, failure to reimburse
business expenses, unlawful deductions from pay, failure to pay all
wages within a timely manner, failure to provide complete wage
statements, waiting time penalties for failure to pay wages due on
termination, and unfair business practices.

Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company
based in Seattle, Washington.

Amazon Logistics, Inc. is a shipping and delivery service company
based in in Seattle, Washington. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
                  
         Katherine V.A. Smith, Esq.
         Bradley J. Hamburger, Esq.
         Michael Holecek, Esq.
         GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
         333 South Grand Avenue
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
         Telephone: (213) 229-7000
         Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
         E-mail: ksmith@gibsondunn.com
                 bhamburger@gibsondunn.com
                 mholecek@gibsondunn.com

                 - and –

         Megan Cooney, Esq.
         GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
         3161 Michelson Drive
         Irvine, CA 92612-4412
         Telephone: (949) 451-3800
         Facsimile: (949) 451-4220
         E-mail: mcooney@gibsondunn.com

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

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

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

Plaintiffs have appealed part of this decision.

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


AND SHEET: Woodard Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Wrongful Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
J. WOODARD, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. AND SHEET METAL INC., COLORADO COMMERCIAL
ROOFING, INC., and MARK BARNES, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-03291-RM (D. Colo., November 4, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Colorado Wage Claim Act, and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act
by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated workers at the mandated minimum wage for all travel time
hours, failing to pay overtime wages for all hours worked in excess
of 40 hours in a workweek, and terminating the Plaintiff's
employment following complaints about unpaid travel time wages.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant Colorado Commercial Roofing from
January 2020 through March 2020 and for Defendant AND Sheet Metal
from April 2020 until August 11, 2020 as a middle foreman.

AND Sheet Metal Inc. is a sheet metal company that offers metal
fabrication, installation, and other services, with its principal
place of business located in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

Colorado Commercial Roofing, Inc. is a company that offers
installation and repair of roofs on commercial buildings, with its
principal place of business located in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                  
                                    
         Gregory E. Givens, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY E. GIVENS, P.C.
         18 N. Sierra Madre Street, Suite E
         Colorado Springs, CO 80903
         Telephone: (719) 291-4353
         E-mail: gegivens@hotmail.com

ANDREW KOLODNY: Attorneys Disavow Any Connection to Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Anson, writing for Pain News Network, reports that the
attorneys who filed lawsuits against three pharmacy chains for
allegedly discriminating against pain patients are disavowing any
connection with efforts to raise money for a proposed lawsuit
against Dr. Andrew Kolodny, a prominent anti-opioid activist.

Dr. Arnold Feldman, a retired anesthesiologist, has a GoFundMe
campaign underway to raise $100,000 for a class action lawsuit
targeting Kolodny, the founder and Executive Director of Physicians
for Responsible Prescribing (PROP). Feldman calls Kolodny an
"anti-opioid zealot" who has harmed pain patients through his
advocacy against opioid prescribing.

"To be clear, we have no involvement in or with any fundraising
efforts by Dr. Feldman or others who may be associated with him or
a possible lawsuit against Dr. Kolodny," attorney Robert Redfearn,
Jr. said in a statement to PNN. "Our focus and involvement is on
and in the two national class action lawsuits that we filed in
Rhode Island and California, through which we hope to bring some
relief to pain patients.  Further, we have not received or accepted
any funds from Dr. Feldman or others who may be associated with
him."

Feldman and his associate, Claudia Merandi, have claimed they were
instrumental in filing the lawsuits against CVS, Walgreens and
Costco on behalf of two pain patients. Merandi is one of the
founders of the Don't Punish Pain rally organization.

"BIG NEWS FOR PAIN COMMUNITY: We have filed class action lawsuit
against CVS/WALGREENS for DENYING to fill opioid scripts. This will
set a precedent as to why you DON'T PUNISH PAIN," Merandi posted on
Twitter when the lawsuits were filed in August.

"Dr. Feldman was successful in bringing a class action lawsuit
against Walgreens and CVS to fruition and he will do the same for
the Kolodny lawsuit," Merandi posted to her followers on Facebook,
sharing a link to the GoFundMe campaign.

"Fact: There's only a lawsuit filed against CVS and Walgreens
because of Dr Feldman," Merandi wrote in yet another tweet.

'We Are Litigating This on Our Own'

But the lawyers who actually filed the lawsuits say Feldman and
Merandi had nothing to do with their litigation, other than
providing encouragement.

"In terms of their involvement, there is none. We are litigating
this on our own," said attorney Scott Hirsch. "We obviously don't
agree with Claudia's stance that this is her lawsuit. It's not.
We're representing the plaintiffs and the chronic pain community."

Hirsch began working with Edith Fuog on her lawsuit against CVS in
2018, long before Merandi and Feldman were even aware of the case.
He has been working without pay, which is usually the case in class
action lawsuits. Attorneys are typically not paid until damages are
awarded.

"We have nothing to do with any sort of fundraising that Claudia
Merandi and Dr. Feldman are doing in terms of this lawsuit. There's
no fundraising that we're doing or they're doing for us or this
Kolodny lawsuit. We have nothing to do with that. We're not even
interested in it, to be quite frank," Hirsch said.

Hirsch, Redfearn and four other law firms are involved in the
pharmacy lawsuits, which they hope will get class action status. If
successful, the suits could potentially result in millions of
dollars in damages being awarded to pain patients who were unable
to get their opioid prescriptions filled.

"All these people came together and brought this lawsuit. It wasn't
just Dr. Feldman, he wasn't the savior for us all. And that's my
issue. It's not 100 percent truthful in her (Merandi's) statement.
There's a lot missing," Fuog told PNN. "I don't know anything about
what they're doing with Dr. Kolodny. I don't know who they are
hiring. I don't know where the funds are sitting until they hire a
law firm. I don't know the basis for the lawsuit that they want to
file."

So many misleading claims have been made that the six law firms
representing Fuog and Susan Smith, who filed suit against Walgreens
and Costco, have posted a disclaimer on their website disavowing
any association with the GoFundMe campaign and Don't Punish Pain.

"These groups on the internet, such as Don't Punish Pain, have
posted information about our lawsuits on their websites, Facebook,
Instagram and other social media. This content is not affiliated
with the lawsuits or our effort on behalf of chronic pain
patients.

Please understand no organization except the affiliated lawyers and
law firms handling these National Class Action Lawsuits are
authorized to speak for us or make any financial or informational
request on our behalf. In other words, please be advised that all
other individuals or groups are NOT authorized to speak on behalf
of us or the named plaintiffs in the lawsuits, NOT involved in the
handling or prosecuting of the lawsuits, and NOT authorized to
raise money to cover expenses associated with the lawsuits."

Asked to clarify what role he played in the lawsuits, Feldman told
PNN he "sounded the alarm" and alerted lawyers to what was
happening to pain patients. He said his wife is among those who've
had trouble getting their opioid prescriptions filled.

"I knew some lawyers and I said, 'Guys, this is a problem. What do
you think?' And I harangued them and harassed them and called them
and screamed at them," Feldman explained.  "But I had nothing to do
with it. I didn't write the complaint. I didn't file the
complaint.

"I had nothing to do with this litigation. Nothing. Neither does
Claudia. Other than the fact that we said we're happy this has
happened. That's the extent of it."

Merandi says she exchanged emails and participated in Zoom calls
with the lawyers. And she continues to insist that Don't Punish
Pain was the driving force behind getting the CVS lawsuit filed in
her home state of Rhode Island.

"This lawsuit was born out of the Don't Punish Pain organization,"
she claimed in a Facebook video feed, not mentioning that the
lawsuit was filed in Rhode Island because CVS corporate
headquarters is located there.

To date, nearly $12,000 has been donated to the GoFundMe campaign,
with most of the money coming from hundreds of small donors, many
of them pain patients.

Feldman says he and Merandi have had discussions with several
lawyers, but so far no one has been willing to take the case
against Kolodny.

"No, we haven't found a lawyer yet," he said. "But we're going to
find somebody. We're talking about billions of dollars in
litigation."

"We want to raise a lot of money to pay these lawyers. Lawyers need
to get paid and that's why this GoFundMe is important," Merandi
said while promoting the fundraiser in a recent radio interview.
"We need an investigation done and that costs money."

Until a law firm is found, Feldman says the donated funds will
remain untouched in a bank account. "I haven't taken a dime. Nor
will I ever. When we have enough money and find a law firm, that's
where the money will go," he said.

Asked what would happen if no lawyer take the case, Feldman said
the donated funds would be returned to donors.  

"It'll be a pain in the ass, but of course. I'm not going to buy a
BMW with it, I'll tell you that much. I'm honest as the day is
long. I would starve before I took that money," Feldman said. [GN]


APPCO: Lion's Share of Settlement May Go to Litigation Funder
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Marin-Guzman, writing for Australian Financial Review,
reports that hundreds of workers in a $65 million underpayment
class action would be left with "a derisory sum, if anything", a
judge has warned, under a proposed settlement that would see the
lion's share of money go to the litigation funder.

Federal Court Justice Michael Lee has deferred signing off on a
$1.9 million settlement between marketing agency Appco and Canberra
law firm Adero that would have left 1,172 group members with just
$910,000 following deductions in legal costs.

Half of the settlement would have gone to UK-based litigation
funder Harbour, although Adero has advised the funder that 25 per
cent would be appropriate.

Justice Lee told a court hearing on Oct. 9 that almost $3 million
had been spent on lawyers' fees in the case and that group members
could recover almost nothing.

"Something has gone quite wrong in relation to the conduct of this
class action," he said.

"To be perfectly frank, I have grave concerns that their [the
claimants'] interests are being properly looked after if this
settlement is put up."

Appco, which raised funds for charities, was accused of
misclassifying its sales people as independent contractors when
they should have been employees, allegedly short-changing minimum
wages, superannuation, leave and allowances.

The mostly young contractors worked an average 70 hours a week,
according to Adero, and some were allegedly underpaid more than
$100,000.

Adero filed an underpayments class action in 2016 and originally
said it had good liability prospects, estimating total
underpayments at $65 million.

It was one of the first of many class actions in employment law,
which has proven attractive to litigation funders due to the Fair
Work Act's no-costs jurisdiction but controversial among judges and
employers due to funders' large commissions.

As the Appco class action dragged on, the agency's financial
position deteriorated to the point where it had only $2.1 million
in the bank and assets were sold at a loss of almost $250,000.

In an affidavit, Adero principal Rory Markham raised concerns the
agency was creating new entities to provide similar services to its
former clients as an attempt to defeat a possible judgment.

However, he said he did not conduct a further investigation because
litigation funder Harbour refused to fund it.

Justice Lee said that was a "deeply unsatisfactory state of
affairs" and he could not approve the settlement without a further
investigation.

"I just think it would be completely irresponsible for me to
approve a settlement . . . in those circumstances," he said. "I
mean, these people are going to get diddly squat."

About 20 group members have complained about the settlement amount
to Adero, in particular that it was unfair to those who had
allegedly been underpaid for more than a year.

Adero has notified group members that they may have particular
individual circumstances that means opting out would place them in
a "considerably more favourable position" than the proposed
settlement.

At the end of the hearing Adero advised that it was in a position
to do a further investigation and the judge has adjourned the
proceedings until October 26.

Justice Lee previously raised concerns as far back as March that
Harbours' funding deal was "fantastic in the true sense of the
word" and claimants may not get a fair outcome.

Godfrey Moase, executive director in the United Workers Union,
which had backed the legal action, said "it's a real kick in the
guts that workers are not getting what they deserve"

"This class action was a shot at trying to change an unfair status
quo.

"It hasn't achieved an outcome workers deserve but given the dodgy
contracting prevalent in direct sales, it was important to give
this a try."

He said the union would continue to its battle with insecure work
and contracting "until every worker is treated with the dignity and
respect they deserve".

Australian Industry chief executive Innes Willox said if the
settlement was approved workers would get an average of just $776.

"Thee case highlights the urgent need for reforms to class action
and litigation funding laws," he said.

"The proposed share to the plaintiffs is dwarfed by the nearly $3
million in solicitors' and barristers' fees racked up in the case."
[GN]


ARCH INSURANCE: Denies Coverage for COVID-19 Losses, Legacy Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
LEGACY GYMNASTICS, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
2:20-cv-04214 (W.D. Mo., Nov. 2, 2020) is a class action for
declaratory judgment and breach of contract arising from the
Defendant's refusal to pay claims related to COVID-19 as required
by the property insurance policies it sold to Plaintiff and other
insureds.

As a result of, and in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic and
related governmental restrictions on non-essential business, the
Plaintiff ceased normal operations and closed its facility in the
middle of March 2020. Although Plaintiff has since reopened in a
limited capacity, revenues are still down significantly since
reopening, as a direct result of COVID-19, says the complaint .

The Plaintiffs have sustained hundreds of thousands of dollars of
losses due to COVID-19. Fortunately -- or so it thought – the
Plaintiff purchased an all-risk commercial property insurance
policy from the Defendant to protect it in the event such as
COVID-19.

The Plaintiff made a claim for coverage under the policy for
insured direct physical loss of or damage to covered property
caused by a covered cause of loss, asking for the Defendant's
confirmation as to coverage with respect to each and every
potentially applicable basis for coverage under all provisions of
the policy. The Defendant denied the Plaintiff's claim for coverage
under the policy.

According to the Defendant, COVID-19 cannot under any set of facts
or circumstances cause physical loss of or damage to property
within the meaning of the policy. The Defendant also contends that
the government shutdown orders were not issued due to physical loss
of or damage to property, and therefore do not trigger coverage
under the policy's Civil Authority provision.

The Plaintiff is located in Lexington, Kentucky and offers
gymnastics, cheerleading, and dance programs for children of all
ages in its 70,000+ square foot facility.

Arch Insurance is a market-leading insurer in the U.S. The Company
provides a wide range of property, casualty and specialty insurance
for corporations, professional firms and financial institutions
across the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
          Bradley T. Wilders, Esq.
          Curtis Shank, Esq.
          Abby E. McClellan, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com
                  wilders@stuevesiegel.com
                  shank@stuevesiegel.com
                  mcclellan@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          John J. Schirger, Esq.
          Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
          Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq.
          MILLER SCHIRGER LLC
          4520 Main Street, Suite 1570
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 561-6500
          Facsimile: (816) 561-6501
          E-mail: jschirger@millerschirger.com
                  mlytle@millerschirger.com
                  jfeierabend@millerschirger.com

               - and -

          J. Kent Emison, Esq.
          LANGDON & EMISON LLC
          911 Main Street
          PO Box 220
          Lexington, MO 64067
          Telephone: (660) 259-6175
          Facsimile: (660) 259-4571
          E-mail: kent@lelaw.com

               - and -

          Richard F. Lombardo, Esq.
          SHAFFER LOMBARDO SHURIN, P.C.
          2001 Wyandotte Street
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 931-0500
          Facsimile: (816) 931-5775
          E-mail: rlombardo@sls-law.com

               - and -

          Matthew Metzger, Esq.
          WOLTERMAN LAW OFFICE
          434 W. Loveland Ave.
          Loveland, OH 45150
          Telephone: (513) 488-1135
          E-mail: matt@woltermanlaw.com

AUSTRALIA: Nov. 17 Deadline for Livex Shareholders to Join Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Condon, writing for Beef Central, reports that CATTLE industry
stakeholders impacted by the 2011 Indonesian live export market
suspension have a little over a month to decide whether they wish
to apply for compensation under the class action claim.

Class action facilitator Tracey Hayes told Beef Central that for
people affected by the live export ban who were not currently part
of the class action still had the opportunity to join the
compensation process.

Stakeholders have until November 17 to apply to join the class
action group. Beef Central understands that phones have been
'running off the hook' since the application process was launched.

Inquiries have been field from across the Northern Territory,
northern regions of Queensland and northern parts of Western
Australia, Beef Central was told.

Unless they opted out earlier, stakeholders who fall into one of
the three categories (cattle producers exposed to the norther live
export industry, live exporters themselves, and service providers
-- see detailed description at base of page), may be eligible for
compensation for losses after the 2011 Indonesian market closure.

"Now is the time to step forward and register interest in
participating," Ms Hayes told Beef Central.

It was important that industry stakeholders not simply 'assume'
that they may not be eligible.

"It's best to check first if people are uncertain," she said.

Ms Hayes agreed with Beef Central's assessment that the third
category 'service providers,' was very open-ended.

"If you derive part of your income by provision of a service
somewhere along the live export supply chain -- stock and station
agents, livestock transporters, helicopter mustering operators, for
example -- then we would strongly encourage making an application
of their business was impacted," she said

Ms Hayes said there would inevitably be some 'grey areas' in terms
of eligibility that would need to be tested, based on evidence.

One of the areas the class action group had been seeking
clarification on was the Class Action Litigation Funding (CALF)
legislation that the Commonwealth had been working on this year.
That legislation was designed to address some of the litigation
funding issues, where in some cases legal fees as high as 40-50pc
could be charged for class actions. Regulations were amended to try
to address that issue.

The live export industry class action got caught up on that Federal
legislation change on the matter, which came into effect on August
22.

While the live export class action was in place prior to that date,
there was a risk that any stakeholders joining the action after
that date potentially could have been picked up by the regulatory
change. In effect this meant that the Australian Farmers Fighting
Fund, the non-profit charity which funded the class action, could
potentially have been forced to obtain an Australian financial
services license to qualify -- an expensive, lengthy and
unnecessary move.

It had now been established by the Federal Court judiciary that,
because an existing arrangement was in place, that step will not be
necessary, Ms Hayes said.

"We were concerned that effectively, there could be two class
actions going on -- one for those who were part of the arrangement
prior to August 22, and one for those who joined after that date.
Potentially, our funding body and the arrangements we had in place
would not have worked for those who joined after August 22."

The fact that that matter has now been resolved through court
orders has added some momentum to the process, leading to the call
to action.

"Following the recent important clarifications, stakeholders now
have some certainty around what the process is going to look like
from here, and the funding arrangements," Ms Hayes said.

She said that given the sheer number of case claims likely to be
processed, it was now hoped that a 'lean and agile' compensation
review model would be established to 'get the compensation out the
door, rather than drifting on.'

"It's really important that we do that, to avoid further delays,
but there is a body of work to be done yet -- that's for sure," Ms
Hayes said.

The specific wording in the Federal Court notice over eligibility
says the following:

You are a Group Member if: (a) on or around 7 June 2011, you
derived financial benefit from: (i) producing cattle in Australia
which were sold for live export to the Republic of Indonesia
('Producers'); (ii) exporting cattle from Australia to the Republic
of Indonesia ('Exporters'); or (iii) providing transport services,
mustering services, feed, agistment and/or other incidental
services to Producers and/or Exporters ('Service Providers'); (b)
you suffered loss and or financial harm or damage as a result of
the Export Control (Export of Live-stock to the Republic of
Indonesia); and (c) you did not opt out of the proceedings.

Stakeholders who are unsure whether they may be eligible as a Class
Action Group Member can contact solicitor Andrew Gill on (02) 6225
3347 or email livetradeclassaction@minterellison.com and/or seek
their own legal advice without delay. There is no cost in
contacting Mr Gill in order to make an initial inquiry of this
kind. [GN]


AXOS FINANCIAL: Appeal in Mandalevy Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Axos Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the appeal in the
putative class action suit entitled, Mandalevy v. BofI Holding,
Inc., et al, is pending.

On April 3, 2017, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its
Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative class
action lawsuit styled Mandalevy v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al, and
brought in United States District Court for the Southern District
of California (the "Mandalevy Case").

The Mandalevy Case seeks monetary damages and other relief on
behalf of a putative class that has not been certified by the
Court.

The complaint in the Mandalevy Case alleges a class period that
differs from that alleged in the First Class Action, and that the
Company and other named defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose wrongful conduct
that was alleged in a March 2017 media article.

The Mandalevy Case has not been consolidated into the First Class
Action.

On December 7, 2018, the Court entered a final order granting the
defendants' motion and dismissing the Mandalevy Case with
prejudice.

Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and opening
brief, the Company filed its answering brief, arguments in the
appeal occurred and the Court has taken the matter under advisement
and has yet to issue its ruling.

Axos Financial, Inc. operates as the holding company for BofI
Federal Bank that provides consumer and business banking products
in the United States. The company offers deposits products,
including consumer and business checking, demand, savings, and time
deposit accounts. Axos Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and
is based in San Diego, California.


AXOS FINANCIAL: Petition for Rehearing in Securities Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Axos Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the petition for a
rehearing with respect to a decision in the suit entitled, In re
BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case #:
3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC, is pending.

On October 15, 2015, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative
class action lawsuit styled Golden v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al,
and brought in United States District Court for the Southern
District of California (the "Golden Case").

On November 3, 2015, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a second
putative class action lawsuit styled Hazan v. BofI Holding, Inc.,
et al, and also brought in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California (the "Hazan Case").

On February 1, 2016, the Golden Case and the Hazan Case were
consolidated as In re BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case #: 3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC (the "Class Action"), and the Houston
Municipal Employees Pension System was appointed lead plaintiff.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company and other named defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose
wrongful conduct that was alleged in a complaint filed in
connection with a wrongful termination of employment lawsuit filed
on October 13, 2015 (the "Employment Matter") and that as a result
the Company's statements regarding its internal controls, as well
as portions of its financial statements, were false and misleading.


On March 21, 2018, the Court entered a final order dismissing the
Class Action with prejudice.

Subsequently, the plaintiff appealed, the Court overturned the
dismissal and the Company filed a petition for a rehearing.

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

Axos Financial, Inc. operates as the holding company for BofI
Federal Bank that provides consumer and business banking products
in the United States. The company offers deposits products,
including consumer and business checking, demand, savings, and time
deposit accounts. Axos Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and
is based in San Diego, California.


BANK OF AMERICA: Denies Access to Unemployment Benefits, Chong Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KUANG TING CHONG and STEPHANIE MOORE, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BANK OF AMERICA and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-10052 (C.D.
Cal., November 2, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, breach of contract, and violations of the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act and Unfair Competition Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants denied the Plaintiffs
and all others similarly situated California residents access to
their unemployment benefits following a data breach on Bank of
America's Employment Development Department (EDD) debit cards. The
Defendants chose to respond to the systemic failures in its
security measures by either transferring funds out of recipients'
accounts, revoking credits to the accounts to create negative
balances, or simply locking their debit cards and preventing access
to unemployment benefits.

As a result of the Defendants' negligence and decision, nearly
350,000 Californians were deprived of access to their only source
of income during a global pandemic.

Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and
financial services holding company, with its principal place of
business located at 100 North Tryon Street, Charlotte, North
Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
                                 
         Benjamin Gubernick, Esq.
         GUBERNICK LAW, P.L.L.C.
         10720 W. Indian School Rd., Suite 19, PMB 12
         Phoenix, AZ 85037
         Telephone: (734) 678-5169
         E-mail: ben@gubernicklaw.com

                - and –

         David N. Lake, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF DAVID N. LAKE,
         A Professional Corporation
         16130 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 650
         Encino, CA 91436
         Telephone: (818) 788-5100
         Facsimile: (818) 479-9990
         E-mail: david@lakelawpc.com

BAXTER INT'L: No Appeal from Dismissal of IV Solutions Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the plaintiffs in
the putative antitrust class action suit related to IV solutions
sales have not taken an appeal from the district

In November 2016, a putative antitrust class action complaint
seeking monetary and injunctive relief was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint alleges a conspiracy among manufacturers of IV
solutions to restrict output and affect pricing in connection with
a shortage of such solutions.

Similar parallel actions subsequently were filed. In January 2017,
a single consolidated complaint covering these matters was filed in
the Northern District of Illinois.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in
February 2017.

The court granted the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint without prejudice in July 2018. The plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint, which the company moved to dismiss on November
9, 2018.

The court granted the company's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint with prejudice on April 3, 2020.

The plaintiffs did not file an appeal.

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

Baxter International Inc., through its subsidiaries, develops and
provides a portfolio of healthcare products. The company operates
through North and South America; Europe, Middle East and Africa;
and Asia-Pacific segments. Baxter International Inc. was founded in
1931 and is headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois.


BCBSM INC: J.P. Suit Seeks to Certify Class of ERISA Plan Holders
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.P. and M.K.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BCBSM, Inc., d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota, Case
No. 0:18-cv-03472-MJD-DTS (D. Minn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
for an order certifying a class of:

   "all persons who are covered under any Employee Retirement
   Income Security Act of 1974-governed health benefit plan
   insured and/or administered by Blue Cross against whom Blue
   Cross offset covered charges based on the following language
   found in the Blue Cross plan and/or certificate of coverage
   and/or summary plan description: "Payments made in error or
   overpayments may be recovered by the Claims Administrator as
   provided by law"."

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota operates as a non-profit
organization. The Organization provides health, dental, and
prescription drug coverage, as well as other related plans for
individuals and families. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota
serves customers in the United States.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Nov.
2, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3n7PC8e at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jordan Lewis, Esq.
          JORDAN LEWIS, P.A.
          4473 N.E. 11th Avenue
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334
          Telephone: (954) 616-8995
          Facsimile: (954) 206-0374
          E-mail: jordan@jml-lawfirm.com

               - and -

          Charles N. Nauen, Esq.
          Susan Ellingstad, Esq.
          David W. Asp, Esq.
          Jennifer L. M. Jacobs, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: cnnauen@locklaw.com
                  seellingstad@locklaw.com
                  dwasp@locklaw.com
                  jlmjacobs@locklaw.com

BIMBO BAKERIES: Farley Wage & Hour Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PATRICK B. FARLEY, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC. and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Case No. 34-2020-00285248, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Sacramento to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on November 5, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-02223-TLN-KJN to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide accurate itemized statements,
failure to provide wages due upon termination, and unfair
competition.

Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. is the American corporate arm of the
Mexican multinational bakery product manufacturing company Grupo
Bimbo, headquartered in Horsham Township, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
                  
         Kathy H. Gao, Esq.
         MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
         300 South Grand Avenue
         Twenty-Second Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
         Telephone: (213) 612-2500
         Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
         E-mail: kathy.gao@morganlewis.com

                 - and –
        
         Claire M. Lesikar, Esq.
         MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
         1400 Page Mill Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94304
         Telephone: (650) 843-4000
         Facsimile: (650) 843-4001
         E-mail: claire.lesikar@morganlewis.com

BROOKDALE SENIOR: Walther Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MELANIE WALTHER, EVELYN GARICA, on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated persons and the general
public v. BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITIES, INC. and DOES 1-50,
Case No. 30-2020-01140688-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Orange to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
November 4, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:20-cv-02137-CJC-JDE to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay missed rest and meal breaks, failure
to pay overtime and minimum wages, failure to maintain accurate pay
records, failure to pay wages upon separation, failure to pay sick
days, and unfair business practices.

Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc. is a company that
provides nursing home and rehabilitation services, headquartered in
Brentwood, Tennessee. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
                  
         Shannon R. Boyce, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
         Telephone: (310) 553-0308
         Facsimile: (310) 553-5583
         E-mail: sboyce@littler.com

                 - and –

         Jeffrey J. Mann, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         Treat Towers
         1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600
         Walnut Creek, CA 94597
         Telephone: (925) 932-2468
         Facsimile: (925) 946-9809
         E-mail: jmann@littler.com

BURNSIDE MEAT: Velasquez Sues Over Unpaid OT for Butcher Shop Staff
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SANTOS R. VELASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BURNSIDE MEAT MARKET INC. and JOSE
PERALTA, Defendants, Case No. 9:20-cv-05352 (E.D.N.Y., November 4,
2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing
to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
workers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek, failing to post notices of the minimum wage and
overtime requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of
their employment, and failing to keep accurate payroll records.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in New York from July
2017 until March 2020. The Plaintiff's primary duties were butchery
work and counter service.

Burnside Meat Market Inc. is a butcher shop with its principal
place of business located at 271 Burnside Ave., Lawrence, New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                  
                                    
         Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
         HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
         Kew Gardens, NY 11415
         Telephone: (718) 263-9591

BUTTERBALL LLC: Figueroa Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
OSVALDO FIGUEROA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated person, Plaintiff v. BUTTERBALL, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:20-cv-00585-D (E.D.N.C., November 4, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, and the Americans with
Disabilities Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated poultry workers overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek and for denying
the Plaintiff's reasonable accommodation, disciplining, and
terminating his employment.

Mr. Figueroa worked as a poultry loader/catcher for the Defendant
at its location in Warsaw, North Carolina from approximately May 8,
2017 until May 2019.

Butterball, LLC is a producer of turkey products, with its
principal place of business located at One Butterball Lane, Garner,
North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                  
                                    
         Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
         Charlotte Smith, Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC
         1020 Southhill Drive, Ste. 130
         Cary, NC 27513
         Telephone: (919) 741-8693
         Facsimile: (919) 869-1853
         E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
                 csmith@gildahernandezlaw.com

CARDTRONICS PLC: Bid to Nix Schertzer Putative Class Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cardtronics plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company's
motion to dismiss the purported class action suit entitled, Kristen
Schertzer, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., has been
denied.

On March 1, 2019, the Company was named as a defendant in a
purported class action lawsuit stylized as Kristen Schertzer, et
al. v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00264, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, which makes allegations of harm related to balance
inquiry transactions.

On September 28, 2020, the district court issued a denial of the
Company's motion to dismiss and the matter is proceeding to the
discovery phase.

Due to the early stages of this matter, including uncertainty
related to class certification and potential amount claimed by the
class, the Company is unable to determine if liability will arise
from this matter or estimate the range of any potential liability.


The Company will vigorously defend this matter.

Cardtronics plc provides convenient automated consumer financial
services through its network of automated teller machines and
multi-function financial services kiosks (collectively referred to
as "ATMs"). The company is the world's largest ATM owner/operator,
providing services to over 285,000 ATMs. The company is based in
Houston, Texas.


CASA SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Shen & Baig Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Casa Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated Shen v. Chen et al. and Baig v.
Chen et al., lawsuit is still pending.

On May 29, 2019 and July 3, 2019, two putative class action
lawsuits, Shen v. Chen et al. and Baig v. Chen et al., were filed
in the Massachusetts Superior Court against the company, certain of
its current and former executive officers and directors, Summit
Partners, the company's largest investor, and the underwriters from
its December 15, 2017 initial public offering, which the company
refers to as its IPO.

These complaints purport to be brought on behalf of all purchasers
of the company's common stock in and/or traceable to its IPO.  

The complaints generally allege that (i) each of the defendants
violated Section 11 and/or Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, or the "Securities Act", because documents
related to its IPO including its registration statement and
prospectus were materially misleading by containing untrue
statements of material fact and/or omitting to state material facts
necessary to make such statements not misleading and (ii) the
individual defendants and Summit Partners acted as controlling
persons within the meaning and in violation of Section 15 of the
Securities Act.  

On August 13, 2019, the Court consolidated these actions and
referred the consolidated actions to the Business Litigation
Session of the Massachusetts Superior Court or the "BLS".  

On September 3, 2019, the BLS accepted the consolidated action into
its session for further proceedings. On November 12, 2019,
Plaintiffs filed an Amended shareholder class action complaint,
purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the company's common
stock in and/or traceable to its IPO, which contains substantially
similar allegations and asserts the same claims as the two initial
complaints.  

Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including
counsel and expert fees, rescission or a rescissory measure of
damages, and equitable and injunctive relief.

On January 14, 2020, the defendants served motions to dismiss the
amended complaint, which remain pending.

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

Casa Systems, Inc., incorporated on February 28, 2003, is provides
a software-centric infrastructure solutions. In addition, the
Company offers solutions for next-generation distributed and
virtualized architectures in cable operator, fixed telecom and
wireless networks. Its products include axyom software platform,
delivery platforms, multi-service applications, capacity expansion
products. The company is based in Andover, Massachusetts.


CASA SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Hook's IPO Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Casa Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss the amended complaint in the putative class action suit
entitled, Donald Hook v. Casa Systems, Inc. et al., is still
pending.

On August 9, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit, Donald Hook v.
Casa Systems, Inc. et al., was filed in the Supreme Court of New
York, New York County, against the company, certain of its current
and former executive officers and directors, Summit Partners, and
the underwriters from the company's initial public offering (IPO).


The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all purchasers of
the company's common stock in and/or traceable to its IPO and
generally alleges that (i) each of the defendants violated Section
11 and/or Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act because documents
related to the company's IPO including its registration statement
and prospectus were materially misleading by containing untrue
statements of material fact and/or omitting to state material facts
necessary to make such statements not misleading and (ii) the
individual defendants and Summit Partners acted as controlling
persons within the meaning and in violation of Section 15 of the
Securities Act.  

On November 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint,
purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the company's common
stock in and/or traceable to its IPO, which contains substantially
similar allegations as the initial complaint, described above, and
asserts claims for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act.  

Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including
counsel and expert fees, rescission or a rescissory measure of
damages, disgorgement, and equitable and injunctive relief.  

On January 21, 2020, the defendants served motions to dismiss the
amended complaint, which remains pending to date.

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

Casa Systems, Inc., incorporated on February 28, 2003, is provides
a software-centric infrastructure solutions. In addition, the
Company offers solutions for next-generation distributed and
virtualized architectures in cable operator, fixed telecom and
wireless networks. Its products include axyom software platform,
delivery platforms, multi-service applications, capacity expansion
products. The company is based in Andover, Massachusetts.


CASA SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Panther Partners Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Casa Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss the complaint in the putative class action suit entitled,
Panther Partners, Inc. v. Guo et al., is still pending.

On August 13, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit, Panther
Partners, Inc. v. Guo et al., was filed in the Supreme Court of New
York, New York County, against the company, certain of its current
and former executive officers and directors, and the underwriters
from our April 30, 2018 follow-on offering of common stock, which
the company refers to as its Follow-on Offering.  

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all purchasers of
the company's  common stock in our Follow-on Offering and generally
alleges that (i) each of the defendants, other than Abraham
Pucheril, violated Section 11 of the Securities Act, and each of
the defendants violated Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act,
because documents related to the company's Follow-on Offering,
including its registration statement and prospectus, were
materially misleading by containing untrue statements of material
fact and/or omitting to state material facts necessary to make such
statements not misleading and (ii) the individual defendants acted
as controlling persons within the meaning and in violation of
Section 15 of the Securities Act.  

On November 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed an amended class action
complaint, purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of our common
stock in the company's Follow-on Offering, which contains
substantially similar allegations and asserts the same claims as
the initial complaint, described above.  

Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including
counsel and expert fees, rescission or a rescissory measure of
damages, and equitable and injunctive relief.  

On January 21, 2020, the defendants served motions to dismiss the
amended complaint, which remain pending.

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

Casa Systems, Inc., incorporated on February 28, 2003, is provides
a software-centric infrastructure solutions. In addition, the
Company offers solutions for next-generation distributed and
virtualized architectures in cable operator, fixed telecom and
wireless networks. Its products include axyom software platform,
delivery platforms, multi-service applications, capacity expansion
products. The company is based in Andover, Massachusetts.


CBT NUGGETS: Licea Sues Over Automatic Renewal of Subscriptions
---------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS LICEA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CBT NUGGETS, LLC and DOES 1–10, inclusive,
Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-02273 (C.D. Cal., October 30, 2020) is
a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
California's Automatic Renewal Law and the Unfair Competition Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has offered free trial
online training services that violate California law. Specifically,
the Defendant: (a) fails to present the automatic renewal offer
terms or continuous service offer terms, including its full
cancellation policy, in a clear and conspicuous manner and in
visual proximity to the request for consent to the offer before the
subscription or purchasing agreement was fulfilled; (b) charges
consumer credit or debit cards without first obtaining affirmative
consent to automatically renewing charges; and (c) fails to provide
an acknowledgment that includes the automatic renewal or continuous
service offer terms, cancellation policy, and information regarding
how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the
consumer.

As a result, the product or service provided by the Defendant to
the Plaintiff and Class members is an unconditional gift pursuant
to the California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17603 and must
be refunded.

CBT Nuggets, LLC is a company that offers online training
services/subscriptions and related products, with its principal
place of business located in Eugene, Oregon. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
                                 
         Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.                           
         PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
         A Professional Corporation
         4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
         Newport Beach, CA 92660
         Telephone: (949) 706-6464
         Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
         E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com

CHAD ARNOLD: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA & IMWL, Whitmer Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Whitmer, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Chad Arnold Insurance and Financial Services,
Inc., an Illinois corporation, and Chad Arnold, Case No.
1:20-cv-06468 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 30, 2020) seeks to recover overtime
pay, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

The Plaintiff, the Collective members and the Class members are
current and former employees of the Defendants. The Plaintiff
brings this action on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated
current and former agents who the Defendants misclassified as
"exempt" from overtime under the FLSA and IMWL, and who were
therefore not paid one-and-one-half times their regular rates of
pay for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek.

The Plaintiff was a full-time employee of the Defendants who worked
as an agent from December 9, 2019 through June 9, 2020.

Chad Arnold Insurance and Financial Services, Inc. is an
Illinois-based insurance services provider. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
          FRADIN LAW
          Skokie, IL 60076
          Telephone: (847) 986-5889
          Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
          E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com

               - and -

          James L. Simon, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
          5000 Rockside Road
          Liberty Plaza - Suite 520
          Independence, OH 44131
          Telephone: (216) 525-8890
          E-mail: james@bswages.com

               - and -

          Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
          Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
          BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
          P.O. Box 97066
          Phoenix, AZ 85060
          Telephone AZ: (480) 382-5176
          Telephone OH: (216) 395-4226
          E-mail: cliff@bswages.com

CHATHAM LODGING: $100,000 Paid in Ruffy & Doonan Litigations
------------------------------------------------------------
Chatham Lodging Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that a payment of
$100,000 has been made with respect to the "Ruffy" and "Doonan"
litigation. The amount represents the Company's total exposure to
the "Ruffy" and "Doonan" litigations based on standard
indemnification obligations under hotel management agreements with
Island Hospitality Management, LLC.

A class action lawsuit was filed in the Santa Clara County Superior
Court on October 21, 2016 under the title Ruffy, et al, v. Island
Hospitality Management, LLC, et al. Case No. 16-CV-301473 ("Ruffy")
and a second class action lawsuit was filed on March 21, 2018 under
the title Doonan, et al, v. Island Hospitality Management, LLC, et
al. Case No 18-CV-325187 ("Doonan").

The class actions relate to hotels operated by Island Hospitality
Management Inc. (IHM) in the state of California and owned by
affiliates of the Company and the NewINK JV, and/or certain third
parties.

The complaints allege various wage and hour law violations based on
alleged misclassification of certain hotel managerial staff and
violation of certain California statutes regarding incorrect
information contained on employee paystubs.

The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, money damages, penalties,
and interest. A settlement agreement has been negotiated and
approved by the applicable courts for Ruffy and Doonan.

In August 2020, a payment of $100,000, which represents the
Company's total exposure to the Ruffy and Doonan litigations based
on standard indemnification obligations under hotel management
agreements with IHM, was paid related to this lawsuit settlement.

Chatham Lodging Trust is a self-advised, publicly-traded real
estate investment trust focused primarily on investing in upscale,
extended-stay hotels and premium-branded, select-service hotels.
The company is based in West Palm Beach, Florida.


CHATHAM LODGING: $600,000 Paid in Perez Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------
Chatham Lodging Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that a payment of
$600,000 has been made in relation to the settlement of the Perez
class actions. The amount  represents the Company's total exposure
to the Perez class actions based on standard indemnification
obligations under hotel management agreements with Island
Hospitality Management Inc.

IHM is a defendant in the following series of interrelated class
action lawsuits: Perez et al. v. Island Hospitality Management III
LLC et al. (United States District Court for the Central District
of California, Case No. 2:18-cv-04903-DMG-JPR) filed on March 15,
2018, Cruz v. Island Hospitality Management III LLC (Santa Clara
County Superior Court Case No. 19CV353655) filed on August 19,
2019, Leon et al. v. Island Hospitality Management III LLC (Orange
County Superior Court Case No. 30-2019-01050719-CU-OE-CXC) filed on
April 2, 2019, and Vela v. Island Hospitality Management LLC et al.
(San Diego County Superior Court, Case No. 37-2019-0003525) filed
on July 9, 2019 (collectively the "Perez class actions").

The Perez class actions also relate to hotels operated by IHM in
the state of California and owned by affiliates of the Company and
the NewINK JV, and/or certain third parties.

The complaints allege various wage and hour law violations based on
alleged violation of certain California statutes regarding rest and
meal breaks and wage statements. The plaintiffs seek injunctive
relief, money damages, penalties, and interest.

In September 2020, a payment of $600,000, which represents the
Company's total exposure to the Perez class actions based on
standard indemnification obligations under hotel management
agreements with IHM, was paid related to this lawsuit settlement.

Chatham Lodging Trust is a self-advised, publicly-traded real
estate investment trust focused primarily on investing in upscale,
extended-stay hotels and premium-branded, select-service hotels.
The company is based in West Palm Beach, Florida.


CITIBANK NA: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a lawsuit against Citibank, N.A.,
alleging that the company violated The Private Attorney General Act
by allegedly failing to lawfully calculate and pay their employees
correct wages. The lawsuit against Citibank, N.A., is currently
pending in the San Mateo County Superior Court, Case No.
20-CIV-03650.

The lawsuit filed against Citibank, N.A. alleges PLAINTIFF and
other AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES were from time to time unable to take
thirty (30) minute off-duty meal breaks and were not fully relieved
of duty for their meal periods. California labor laws require an
employer to provide an employee required to perform work for more
than five (5) hours during a shift with, a thirty (30) minute
uninterrupted meal break prior to the end of the employee's fifth
(5th) hour of work.

PAGA is a mechanism by which the State of California itself can
enforce state labor laws through the employee suing under the PAGA
who do so as the proxy or agent of the state's labor law
enforcement agencies. An action to recover civil penalties under
PAGA is fundamentally a law enforcement action designed to protect
the public and not to benefit private parties. The purpose of PAGA
is not to recover damages or restitution, but to create a means of
"deputizing" citizens as private attorneys general to enforce the
Labor Code. As a result of their rigorous work schedules,
"PLAINTIFFS and other AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES were from time to time
denied their proper rest periods by DEFENDANT and DEFENDANT's
managers."

For more information about the class action lawsuit against
Citibank, N.A., call (800) 568-8020 to speak to an experienced
California employment attorney today.

Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is a labor law firm with
law offices located in San Diego County, Riverside County, Los
Angeles County, Sacramento County, Santa Clara County, Orange
County and San Francisco County. The firm has a statewide practice
of representing employees on a contingency basis for violations
involving unpaid wages, overtime pay, discrimination, harassment,
wrongful termination and other types of illegal workplace conduct.

***THIS IS AN ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT*** [GN]


CITIGROUP INC: Faces Firefighters Suit Over Stock Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF SUNRISE FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. CITIGROUP INC., MICHAEL
L. CORBAT, JOHN C. GERSPACH, and MARK A. L. MASON, Case No.
1:20-cv-09132 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2020) is a securities class
action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Citi's common stock between February 25, 2017 and October
12, 2020, inclusive, against Citi and certain of the Company's
current and former senior executives under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The Class period begins on February 25, 2017, following the
Company's submission of its 2016 annual report to the Securities
and Exchange Commission. Citi assured investors that there were no
significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in the Company's
internal controls. When faced with periodic regulatory penalties
for noncompliance, the Company continued to assure investors that
the specific deficiencies at issue were being remediated promptly
and that internal controls and regulatory compliance were a top
priority at Citi. In particular, Citi assured investors that it
satisfied all regulatory requirements and maintained adequate
internal controls, data governance, compliance risk management, and
enterprise risk management.

In reality, during the Class period and unbeknownst to investors,
Citi's internal controls and risk management capabilities suffered
from "serious" and "longstanding" inadequacies that exposed the
Company to massive regulatory penalties and will cost significantly
more than $1 billion to remediate. Specific control failures about
which Citi executives were warned remained unresolved for years and
the Company's culture of non-compliance was so widespread that
Citi's CEO, Defendant Michael Corbat, exhorted employees in an
internal memo that regulatory compliance required more than
"checking boxes."

The truth began to emerge on September 14, 2020, when reports
surfaced that regulators were preparing to reprimand Citi for
failing to improve its risk-management systems. That disclosure
caused the price of Citi's stock to decline $2.85 per share, from
$51.00 to $48.15, erasing $5.91 billion in shareholder value.

After the market closed on September 14, 2020, an internal memo
sent to Citi employees revealed for the first time the Company's
disregard for adequate internal controls and regulatory compliance.
As a result, the price of Citi's stock declined an additional $3.34
per share, from $48.15 to $44.81, erasing $6.93 billion in
shareholder value.

Then, on October 13, 2020, Citi reported earnings for the third
quarter of 2020, and disclosed that the Company's expenses
increased during the third quarter by 5%, to $11 billion, due to an
increase in costs including a $400 million fine, investments in
infrastructure, and other remediation costs related to control
deficiencies. These disclosures caused Citi's stock price to
decline by $2.20 per share, from $45.88 to $43.68, erasing $4.57
billion in shareholder value.

In total, as a result of Citi's deception relating to its internal
controls and compliance systems, $17.43 billion of shareholder
value has evaporated and class members were the ones who suffered
from the Defendants' actions, says the complaint.

The Defendant Citi is a multinational investment bank and financial
services corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hannah Ross, Esq.
          Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
          Avi Josefson, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
          & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400
          Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
          E-mail: hannah@blbglaw.com
                  jerry@blbglaw.com
                  avi@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Robert D. Klausner, Esq.
          KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN
          & LEVINSON
          7080 Northwest 4th Street
          Plantation, FL 33315
          Telephone: (954) 916-1202
          E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com

COGNIZANT TECH: Seeks 3rd Cir. Appeal on Securities Case Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October
29, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that
the company's motion to certify the June 7, 2020 order denying case
dismissal for immediate appeal to the Third Circuit pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1292(b), is pending.

On October 5, 2016, October 27, 2016 and November 18, 2016, three
putative securities class action complaints were filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, naming
the company and certain of its current and former officers as
defendants.

These complaints were consolidated into a single action and on
April 7, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities who
purchased the company's common stock during the period between
February 27, 2015 and September 29, 2016, naming the company and
certain of its current and former officers as defendants and
alleging violations of the Exchange Act, based on allegedly false
or misleading statements related to potential violations of the
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the company's business, prospects
and operations, and the effectiveness of its internal controls over
financial reporting and our disclosure controls and procedures.

The lead plaintiffs seek an award of compensatory damages, among
other relief, and their reasonable costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on June 6, 2017. On August 8, 2018, the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an order which
granted the motion to dismiss in part, including dismissal of all
claims against current officers of the Company, and denied them in
part.

On September 7, 2018, the company filed a motion in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey to certify the
August 8, 2018 order for immediate appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1292(b).

On October 18, 2018, the District Court issued an order granting
the company's motion, and staying the action pending the outcome of
the company's appeal petition to the Third Circuit. On October 29,
2018, the company filed a petition for permission to appeal with
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

On March 6, 2019, the Third Circuit denied the petition without
prejudice. In an order dated March 19, 2019, the District Court
directed the lead plaintiffs to provide the defendants with a
proposed amended complaint. On April 26, 2019, lead plaintiffs
filed their second amended complaint.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
on June 10, 2019. On June 7, 2020, the District Court issued an
order denying the company's motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint.

On July 10, 2020, the company filed its answer to the second
amended complaint. On July 23, 2020, the United States Department
of Justice filed a motion on consent for leave to intervene and to
stay all discovery through the conclusion of the criminal
proceedings in United States v. Gordon J. Coburn and Steven
Schwartz, Crim. No. 19-120 (KM), except for documents produced by
the company to the Department of Justice in connection with those
criminal proceedings.

On July 24, 2020, the District Court granted the Department of
Justice's motion; and on that same day, the company filed a motion
in the District Court to certify the June 7, 2020 order for
immediate appeal to the Third Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1292(b), which motion is now fully briefed.

Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation provides information
technology consulting and technology services in North
America,Europe, and Asia. The company was founded in 1994 and is
based in Teaneck, New Jersey.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Settles 2014 Data Breach Lawsuit for $5 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kara Hartnett, writing for NashvillePost, reports that
Franklin-based Community Health Systems has agreed to pay $5
million in a multistate settlement related to its 2014 data breach
that impacted 6.1 million patients, including nearly 450,000 in
Tennessee.

Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery joined 27 other states
in the action against CHS, as well as federal regulators, which
settled with the hospital company two weeks ago for $2.3 million
and a probationary period. The company also agreed to settle a
class action over the breach last year.

Tennessee will receive up to $667,000 as part of the state
settlement. In addition, CHS will be required to implement and
maintain a comprehensive security program to safeguard patient
information. According to the attorney general's office, that
program will include a written incidence response plan for security
and privacy training, limiting access to personal health
information and implementing new internal policies surrounding
cybersecurity.

CHS officials contend the allegations against them in the multiple
suits are inaccurate and that the company cooperated with the FBI
to resolve the breach since it occurred.

"Community Health Systems is pleased to have resolved this
six-year-old matter in which it admitted no wrongdoing," a
spokesperson told the Post. "The Company had robust risk controls
in place at the time of the attack and worked closely with the FBI
and consistently with its recommendations after becoming aware of
the attack."

Chattanooga care org names Corker chairman

Former U.S. Sen. Bob Corker has been named the chairman of a
corporate health management company in Chattanooga.

A prominent businessman and politician, Corker will take the lead
of a workplace health care provider looking to partner directly
with employers to manage and provide care to its workers.

"I have been able to see the significant benefit of the One-to-One
Health approach to health care for employees and their employers
and am excited about helping them expand their reach and positively
impact many more families and businesses," Corker said in a press
release.

One-to-One already has contracts to provide care for more than
6,000 employees in Hamilton County and Summer County governments.
[GN]


COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Grain-Free" Dog Food Contains Wheat, Shaw Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRADLEY SHAW and THOMAS MCCARTHY, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a
Washington corporation; and SCHELL & KAMPETER, INC. d/b/a/ DIAMOND
PET FOODS INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-06078 (W.D. Wash., Nov. 3, 2020)
contends that the Defendants' dog foods purport to be "grain free"
and formulated using specific, limited ingredients, though, in
reality, they contain wheat and other unlisted ingredients.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' omissions are material
to consumers. Consumers -- including the Plaintiffs -- purchase
Kirkland Products because the Defendants represent that the
products actually include only limited ingredients, are
specifically formulated for the health needs of dogs, that the
Kirkland Products meet the Defendants' own ingredient promises and
warranties, and that the Kirkland Products adhere to quality and
manufacturing standards.

The Plaintiffs say that if the Defendants disclosed the material
facts concerning these products, including that the supposed "grain
free" products contained wheat and other foods, consumers like the
Plaintiffs would not have purchased the Defendants' pet foods or
not paid as much money for them.

Schell & Kampeter manufactures the Kirkland Products, which are
sold at Costco Wholesale stores across the United States under the
"Kirkland" brand name.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
          Benjamin M. Drachler, Esq.
          Ryan Tack‐Hooper, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103‐8869
          Telephone: (206) 816‐6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319‐5450
          E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
                  jmurray@terrellmarshall.com
                  bdrachler@terrellmarshall.com
                  rtack‐hooper@terrellmarshall.com

               - and -

          Alex Straus, Esq.
          Lisa A. White, Esq.
          Arthur Stock, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          16748 McCormack Street
          Los Angeles, CA 91436
          Telephone: (310) 450‐9689
          Facsimile: (310) 496‐3176
          E-mail: alex@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  arthur@gregcolemanlaw.com

              - and -

          Nick Suciu III, Esq.
          BARBAT, MANSOUR, SUCIU & TOMINA PLLC
          6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
          Telephone: (313) 303‐3472
          E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com

               - and -

          J. Hunter Bryson, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON, LLP
          641 S Street NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (919) 539‐2708
          E-mail: hunter@whitfieldbryson.com

CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Putative Class Suit in Michigan Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Credit Acceptance Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit pending before the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division.

On October 2, 2020, a shareholder filed a putative class action
complaint against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its
Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, based on
alleged false and/or misleading statements or omissions regarding
the Company and its business, and seeking class certification,
unspecified damages plus interest and attorney and expert witness
fees and other costs on behalf of a purported class consisting of
all persons and entities (subject to specified exceptions) that
purchased or otherwise acquired Credit Acceptance common stock from
November 1, 2019 through August 28, 2020.

The company cannot predict the duration or outcome of this lawsuit
at this time.

Credit Acceptance said "As a result, we are unable to estimate the
reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible loss
arising from this lawsuit. The Company intends to vigorously defend
itself in this matter."

Credit Acceptance Corporation provides funding, receivables
management, collection, sales training, and related services to
automobile dealers. The Company provides indirect financing for
buyers with limited access to traditional sources of consumer
credit. Credit Acceptance operates in the United States. The
company is based in Southfield, Michigan.


DELIVERMD: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts, Torrez Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
TIANA TORREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DELIVERMD d/b/a SMOAKLAND, Defendant, Case
No. 4:20-cv-07747 (N.D. Cal., November 3, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent numerous
telemarketing text messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number using an automatic telephone dialing system without her
prior express written consent.

The Defendant's unsolicited text messages caused the Plaintiff
actual harm, including invasion of her privacy, aggravation,
annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion. The
Defendant's text messages also inconvenienced the Plaintiff and
caused disruption to her daily life.

DeliverMD, d/b/a Smoakland, is a cannabis delivery service provider
with its principal place of business located at 7850 Edgewater
Drive, Oakland, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                  
                                    
         Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
         EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
         20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
         Aventura, FL 33180
         Telephone: (305) 975-3320
         E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

DOLAA INC: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
------------------------------------------------------------
YUANYI XIA, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. DOLAA INC. d/b/a Dolaa; MING HUA LIU a/k/a Minghua Liu,
and SU LI a/k/a Mickey Li, Case No. 1:20-cv-05279-RPK-VMS
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2020) is a class action suit brought on behalf
of the Plaintiff as well as other employees similarly situated
against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL), arising
from the Defendants' various willful, malicious, and unlawful
employment policies, patterns and practices.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have willfully,
maliciously, and intentionally committed widespread violations of
the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in pattern and practice of failing to
pay its employees, including the Plaintiff, minimum wage for each
hour worked and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40
each workweek.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work as a driver in
New York and to work for Dolaa Inc.

Dolaa Inc. is a foreign business corporation organized under the
laws of the state of New Jersey with a principal address at 8 Olsen
Avenue, Edison, New Jersey. The Individual Defendants are officers,
directors, managers and/or majority shareholders or owners of the
Corporate Defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 103
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324

DSW SHOE: Marquez Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANGELINA MARQUEZ, on behalf of herself and on
behalf of other persons similarly situated v. DSW SHOE WAREHOUSE,
INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. C20-01948, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Contra Costa to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on November 3, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-07759 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide required meal and rest periods,
failure to pay overtime and minimum wages, failure to pay all wages
due to discharged and quitting employees, failure to maintain
required records, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage
statements, failure to indemnify employees for necessary
expenditures incurred in discharge of duties, and unfair and
unlawful business practices.

DSW Shoe Warehouse, Inc. is a shoe stores company headquartered in
Columbus, Ohio. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
                  
         Brian C. Sinclair, Esq.
         Michael J. Rossiter, Esq.
         RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
         18575 Jamboree Road, 9th Floor
         Irvine, CA 92612
         Telephone: (714) 641-5100
         Facsimile: (714) 546-9035
         E-mail: bsinclair@rutan.com
                 mrossiter@rutan.com

ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: Fails to Provide Timely Wages, Clemons Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD CLEMONS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-05259
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2020) seeks to recover untimely wage
compensation and other damages for the Plaintiff and similar
drivers and other similar manual labor positions who work or have
worked as manual workers for the Defendant in New York State.

The Plaintiff contends that as a manual worker, he was required to
drive vehicles from one Enterprise location to another. The
Defendant has compensated the Plaintiff and all other manual
workers on a bi-weekly basis. Despite being manual workers, the
Defendant has failed to properly pay him and other manual workers
their wages within seven calendar days after the end of the week in
which these wages were earned. In this regard, the Defendant has
failed to provide timely wages, he adds.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other
similar manual workers in New York pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23 to remedy violations of the New York Labor Law.

Headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, Enterprise is a car rental
company with over 8,000 locations worldwide. Founded in 1957,
Enterprise has annual revenues of nearly $22.5 billion and is
considered the largest car rental service provider in the world
measured by revenue and fleet.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
          Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375

ENTERTAINMENT BENEFITS: Francois FLSA & FMLA Suit Goes to M.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SOPHIA FRANCOIS, on her own behalf, and on behalf
of those similarly situated v. ENTERTAINMENT BENEFITS GROUP, LLC,
Case No. 2020-CA-7062-O, was removed from the Florida Circuit Court
of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida on November 4,
2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 6:20-cv-02046 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act for unpaid wages and the Family and Medical
Leave Act for interference and retaliation.

Entertainment Benefits Group, LLC is a company that operates as a
travel and entertainment provider, with its principal place of
business in Aventura, Florida. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
                  
         John S. Lord, Jr., Esq.
         FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
         2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1900
         Miami, FL 33131
         Telephone: (305) 482-8420
         Facsimile: (305) 482-8600
         E-mail: jlord@foley.com

                 - and –

         Leonard V. Feigel, Esq.
         FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
         One Independent Drive, Suite 1300
         Jacksonville, FL 32202
         Telephone: (904) 359-2000
         Facsimile: (904) 359-8700
         E-mail: lfeigel@foley.com

                 - and –

         Sarah Guo, Esq.
         FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
         111 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1800
         Orlando, FL 32801
         Telephone: (407) 236-5901
         Facsimile: (407) 648-1743
         E-mail: sguo@foley.com

EQUITY BANCSHARES: SDNY Securities Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
Equity Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the putative
securities class action suit before the Southern District of New
York against the Company has been dismissed.

On May 13, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative securities class action lawsuit in federal court in the
Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of
its executive officers.  

On August 16, 2019, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and on
October 15, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased Company
securities between April 20, 2018, and April 23, 2019.  

Plaintiffs allege that the Company made materially misleading
statements about the Company's financial results, business,
operations and prospects starting on April 20, 2018, that these
statements caused the Company's securities to be overvalued and
that the "truth" came out on January 24, 2019, when the Company
disclosed that a credit relationship was downgraded and further on
April 22, 2019, when the Company disclosed a $14,500 provision for
loan loss against that credit relationship.

On December 6, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all
claims in the lawsuit. On October 14, 2020, the court issued a
ruling in favor of the Company finding that the case had no merit
and dismissing all claims with prejudice.  

The plaintiffs have 30 days to appeal the adverse ruling.  

Equity Bancshares said, "At this time, the Company is confident the
outcome will be resolved in favor of the Company."

Equity Bancshares, Inc., incorporated on August 23, 2002, is a bank
holding company. The Company's principal activity is the ownership
and management of its subsidiary, Equity Bank (the Bank). The Bank
provides a range of financial services primarily to businesses and
business owners, as well as individuals through its network of over
49 branches located in Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas and Oklahoma. The
company is based in Wichita, Kansas.


ERIE INDEMNITY: 3rd Cir. Denies Petition for Rehearing in "Beltz"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erie Indemnity Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit has denied plaintiffs' petition for
rehearing of their appeal.

On February 6, 2013, a lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, captioned
Erie Insurance Exchange, an unincorporated association, by members
Patricia R. Beltz, Joseph S. Sullivan and Anita Sullivan, and
Patricia R. Beltz, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situate v. Richard L. Stover; J. Ralph Borneman, Jr.; Terrence W.
Cavanaugh; Jonathan Hirt Hagen; Susan Hirt Hagen; Thomas B. Hagen;
C. Scott Hartz; Claude C. Lilly, III; Lucian L. Morrison; Thomas W.
Palmer; Martin P. Sheffield; Elizabeth H. Vorsheck; and Robert C.
Wilburn (the "Beltz" lawsuit), by alleged policyholders of Exchange
who are also the plaintiffs in the Sullivan lawsuit. The
individuals named as defendants in the Beltz lawsuit were the
then-current Directors of Indemnity.

As subsequently amended, the Beltz lawsuit asserts many of the same
allegations and claims for monetary relief as in the Sullivan
lawsuit.

Plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf of all policyholders of
Exchange, or, alternatively, on behalf of Exchange itself.
Indemnity filed a motion to intervene as a Party Defendant in the
Beltz lawsuit in July 2013, and the Directors filed a motion to
dismiss the lawsuit in August 2013.

On February 10, 2014, the court entered an order granting
Indemnity's motion to intervene and permitting Indemnity to join
the Directors’ motion to dismiss; granting in part the Directors'
motion to dismiss; referring the matter to the Department to decide
any and all issues within its jurisdiction; denying all other
relief sought in the Directors' motion as moot; and dismissing the
case without prejudice.

To avoid duplicative proceedings and expedite the Department's
review, the Parties stipulated that only the Sullivan action would
proceed before the Department and any final and non-appealable
determinations made by the Department in the Sullivan action will
be applied to the Beltz action.

On March 7, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Indemnity filed a
motion to dismiss the appeal on March 26, 2014.

On November 17, 2014, the Third Circuit deferred ruling on
Indemnity's motion to dismiss the appeal and instructed the parties
to address that motion, as well as the merits of Plaintiffs'
appeal, in the parties' briefing.

Briefing was completed on April 2, 2015. In light of the
Department's April 29, 2015 decision in Sullivan, the Parties then
jointly requested that the Beltz appeal be voluntarily dismissed as
moot on June 5, 2015. The Third Circuit did not rule on the
Parties' request for dismissal and instead held oral argument as
scheduled on June 8, 2015.

On July 16, 2015, the Third Circuit issued an opinion and judgment
dismissing the appeal. The Third Circuit found that it lacked
appellate jurisdiction over the appeal, because the District
Court’s February 10, 2014 order referring the matter to the
Department was not a final, appealable order.

On July 8, 2016, the Beltz plaintiffs filed a new action labeled as
a "Verified Derivative And Class Action Complaint" in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

The action is captioned Patricia R. Beltz, Joseph S. Sullivan, and
Anita Sullivan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Erie
Insurance Exchange v. Erie Indemnity Company; Kaj Ahlmann; John T.
Baily; Samuel P. Black, III; J. Ralph Borneman, Jr.; Terrence W.
Cavanaugh; Wilson C. Cooney; LuAnn Datesh; Patricia A. Goldman;
Jonathan Hirt Hagen; Thomas B. Hagen; C. Scott Hartz; Samuel P.
Katz; Gwendolyn King; Claude C. Lilly, III; Martin J. Lippert;
George R. Lucore; Jeffrey A. Ludrof; Edmund J. Mehl; Henry N.
Nassau; Thomas W. Palmer; Martin P. Sheffield; Seth E. Schofield;
Richard L. Stover; Jan R. Van Gorder; Elizabeth A. Hirt Vorsheck;
Harry H. Weil; and Robert C. Wilburn (the "Beltz II" lawsuit).

The individual defendants are all present or former Directors of
Indemnity (the "Directors").

The allegations of the Beltz II lawsuit arise from the same
fundamental, underlying claims as the Sullivan and prior Beltz
litigation, i.e., that Indemnity improperly retained Service
Charges and Added Service Charges. The Beltz II lawsuit alleges
that the retention of the Service Charges and Added Service Charges
was improper because, for among other reasons, that retention
constituted a breach of the Subscriber's Agreement and an Implied
Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing by Indemnity, breaches of
fiduciary duty by Indemnity and the other defendants, conversion by
Indemnity, and unjust enrichment by defendants Jonathan Hirt Hagen,
Thomas B. Hagen, and Elizabeth A. Hirt Vorsheck, at the expense of
Exchange.

The Beltz II lawsuit requests, among other things, that a judgment
be entered against the Defendants certifying the action as a class
action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
declaring Plaintiffs as representatives of the Class and
Plaintiffs’ counsel as counsel for the Class; declaring the
conduct alleged as unlawful, including, but not limited to,
Defendants' retention of the Service Charges and Added Service
Charges; enjoining Defendants from continuing to retain the Service
Charges and Added Service Charges; and awarding compensatory and
punitive damages and interest.

On September 23, 2016, Indemnity filed a motion to dismiss the
Beltz II lawsuit. On September 30, 2016, the Directors filed their
own motions to dismiss the Beltz II lawsuit. On July 17, 2017, the
Court granted Indemnity's and the Directors' motions to dismiss the
Beltz II lawsuit, dismissing the case in its entirety.

The Court ruled that "the Subscriber's Agreement does not govern
the separate and additional charges at issue in the Complaint" and,
therefore, dismissed the breach of contract claim against Indemnity
for failure to state a claim.

The Court also ruled that the remaining claims, including the
claims for breach of fiduciary duty against Indemnity and the
Directors, are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation or
fail to state legally cognizable claims.

On August 14, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

On May 10, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the Beltz II
lawsuit. On May 24, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a petition seeking
rehearing of their appeal before the Third Circuit. The Third
Circuit denied that petition on June 14, 2018.

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

Erie Indemnity Company operates as a managing attorney-in-fact for
the subscribers at the Erie Insurance Exchange in the United
States. The company provides sales, underwriting, and policy
issuance services for the policyholders on behalf of the Erie
Insurance Exchange. Erie Indemnity Company was founded in 1925 and
is based in Erie, Pennsylvania.


ERIE INSURANCE: Faces Class Action for Denying COVID-19 Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Martin, writing for Erie Times-News, reports that a Washington
Post reviewer described St. Arnold's Mussel Bar as "a cozy,
basement-level Belgian beer bar and mussels restaurant hidden away
on Jefferson Place NW."

The company, which touted its 40 varieties of beer and 20 kinds of
mussels on its website, owns three locations in Washington, D.C.,
and a fourth in Bethesda, Maryland.

But in March of this year, St. Arnold's closed its doors and turned
out the lights as the owners responded to operating restrictions
due to COVID-19. More than six months later, the restaurants remain
closed, according to the company's website.

The owners, Hello Hospitality LLC, like thousands of business
owners across the country, say they thought that had some
protection in the form of a business insurance policy that included
coverage for business interruption.

Hello Hospitality, which purchased a policy from Erie Insurance in
2019, has filed a class-action lawsuit against the company.
According to the lawsuit, "Erie (Insurance) has denied claims
related to COVID-19 on a uniform and class basis without individual
bases or investigations."

The lawsuit against Erie Insurance is anything but an outlier.

According to a litigation tracker maintained by the law school at
the University of Pennsylvania, 1,126 federal lawsuits had been
filed nationwide seeking payment from insurance companies.

Many of those have taken the form of class-action cases,
potentially expanding the pool of plaintiffs to thousands.

By comparison, catastrophic hurricanes, including Irma, Harvey and
Superstorm Sandy, prompted between 100 and 150 business
interruption lawsuits a year, according to a report in Insurance
Journal.

Erie Insurance, which does business in 12 states and Washington,
D.C., is facing more than its fair share of litigation, according
to the litigation tracker. With 52 lawsuits as of writing, Erie
Insurance ranked sixth among insurance companies. Hartford
Financial Services Group faced the largest number of lawsuits with
198.

What the plaintiffs claim varies from case to case. The general
theme that emerges is that plaintiffs say they bought policies to
protect them from losses related to a business shutdown and that
their policies contained no specific exclusion for a pandemic.

According to the Hello Hospitality lawsuit, "In violation of the
policy's plain language and its own contractual obligations,
defendants denied plaintiff's claim and refuses to pay for
plaintiff's losses and expenses."

The lawsuit also notes that its Erie Insurance policy did not
include what it calls standard virus exclusion language.

According to the lawsuit, "The only mention of the word 'virus' in
the policy concerns a computer virus.

Erie Insurance declined to speak specifically about any of the
pending litigation. but spokesman John Simon did offer some general
comments, saying, "Business interruption insurance covers financial
losses when a business cannot function because of physical damage
to a commercial property."

Most businesses in this region have complained about lost revenues,
but not physical damages to their property as a result of the
coronavirus shutdown.

Both the insurance industry and Erie Insurance specifically say
there are no blanket denials of claims.

"Erie (Insurance) is considering all claims submitted on a
case-by-case basis and decisions are based on the facts and
circumstances as well as policy provisions and individual
coverages," Simon said. "We continue to support individuals and
businesses impacted by COVID-19 and fulfill the promises made in
our policies."

There's a great deal at stake, both for thousands of businesses
wounded by shutdown and slowdown and to companies like Erie
Insurance, which is both Erie County's largest employer, with more
than 3,000 local employees, and a driving force of local
philanthropy.

Speaking on behalf of the industry, David A. Sampson, CEO of the
American Property Casualty Insurance Association, an industry
group, echoed Simon's comments.

"Insurers are paying -- and will continue to pay -- every covered
insurance claim related to the pandemic, just like we have for
other major events," he said.

"Business interruption insurance refers to property insurance
policies that cover physical damage, such as from wildfires and
tornados," Sampson continued. "These policies are not intended to
cover diseases or pandemic related losses. In the vast majority of
cases, insurers did not price policies to include such coverage,
and policyholders did not pay premiums to have this coverage."

Faced with 52 lawsuits, there's a lot of potential downside for
Erie Insurance, just as there is for the industry as a whole.

No one denies that small businesses sustained staggering losses.

"APCIA estimates that closure losses just for small businesses with
100 or fewer employees at the peak of the pandemic were between
$255 billion to $431 billion per month," Samson said in a
statement. "These numbers dwarf the premiums for all relevant
commercial property risks in the key insurance lines, which are
estimated at $4.5 billion a month."

It seems unlikely that answer will satisfy the owners of St.
Arnolds Mussel Bar or the owner of the Lock Loft, a hair salon in
Lakewood, Ohio, that was forced to close during the pandemic and
has since filed a class-action complaint against Erie Insurance.

In its request for class-action status, the Lock Loft notes that
the defendant is a large insurer and the number of potential
plaintiffs is substantial.

According to Sampson, the losses are beyond the scope of the
insurance industry.

"Only the federal government can be the financial bridge for a
crisis of this scale, proportion, and duration," he said.

It will be up to the federal courts to make that determination.

According to a report in Claims Journal, U.S. District Court Judge
Charles R. Wolle in Des Moines, Iowa recently became one of the
latest judges to find no merit to arguments that a government
closure order constitutes a "direct physical loss" to a property.

Claims Journal reports that he dismissed a lawsuit filed by Oral
Surgeons P.C. against Cincinnati Insurance Co.

On behalf of Erie Insurance, Simon expressed empathy for businesses
affected by the coronavirus.

"Our commercial customers and our agents are all small business
owners. We understand the challenges they face daily and the pain
they're feeling now," Simon said. "We are doing what we can to
help, and we continue to consider additional support through this
difficult and unprecedented time." [GN]


ERIE INSURANCE: Faces Teemnow Suit Over Denied COVID-19 Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
TEEMNOW LLC, d/b/a Exiles, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Case No.
1:20-cv-03153-RCL (D.D.C., Oct. 30, 2020), alleges that Erie
Insurance used COVID-19 crisis to blatantly avoid the Plaintiff out
of money owed to it by issuing denials to valid insurance claims.

On March 11, 2020, World Health Organization Director General
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus declared the COVID-19 outbreak a
worldwide pandemic. In March 2020, the Plaintiff was forced to shut
down its business due to the coronavirus pandemic and related
events. The closure was a result of several orders issued by the
state and local governments that required the restaurant, its
workers, and its customers to "shelter in place" and abide by
strict "social distancing" guidelines. These orders forced the
restaurant to lay off employees and forgo income for several months
while continuing to pay many regular expenses. This caused severe
financial losses, which Plaintiff was unable to recoup even after
it was able to re-open with strict limitations, says the
complaint.

Most businesses insure against such catastrophic events like the
current unforeseen COVID-19 pandemic by purchasing all-risk
commercial property insurance policies. These policies promise to
indemnify the policyholder for actual business losses incurred when
business operations are involuntarily suspended, interrupted, or
curtailed, and when access to the premises is prohibited because of
direct physical loss or damage to the property, or by a civil
authority order that restricts or prohibits access to the property.
This coverage is commonly known as "business interruption coverage"
and is standard in most all-risk commercial property insurance
policies.

In addition, this proposed class action asserts a claim against
Defendant for breach of its contractual obligation under common
all-risk commercial property insurance policies to indemnify
Plaintiff and others similarly situated for business losses and
extra expenses, and related losses resulting from actions taken by
civil authorities to stop the human to human and surface to human
spread of the COVID-19 outbreak. Under Rule 23, the Plaintiff
brings this action on behalf of a proposed class of policyholders
who paid premiums in exchange for business insurance policies that
included lost business income and extra expense coverage.

The Plaintiff owns and operates a celebrated restaurant, Exiles,
located in the U Street Corridor of Washington, DC. Serving as both
a neighborhood tavern and a highly acclaimed sports bar, Exiles has
become a fixture in the historic community and formed partnerships
with alumni associations and international fan groups to give
people from around the world a welcoming place to watch their
favorite teams and enjoy a quality meal.

Erie Insurance is a publicly held insurance company, offering auto,
home, commercial and life insurance through a network of
independent insurance agents.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brad Ponder, Esq.
          Luke Montgomery, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY PONDER, LLC
          1015 15th Street NW, Suite 600
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (888) 201-0305
          Facsimile: (205) 208-9443
          E-mail: brad@montgomeryponder.com
                  luke@montgomeryponder.com

EVOLUS INC: Malakouti Putative Class Complaint Not Yet Served
-------------------------------------------------------------
Evolus, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that the complaint in the putative
securities class action suit initiated by Armin Malakouti has not
yet been served.

On October 16, 2020, a putative securities class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York by Armin Malakouti naming the Company and certain of its
officers as defendants.

The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, claiming that the defendants made false and
materially misleading statements and failed to disclose material
adverse facts related to the Company's acquisition of the right to
sell Jeuveau(R), the ITC action (In the Matter of Certain Botulinum
Toxin Products, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1145) and risks related to the
ITC action. The complaint asserts a putative class period of
February 1, 2019 to July 6, 2020.

The complaint has not yet been served.

Evolus said, "It is possible that additional suits will be filed,
or additional allegations will be made by stockholders, with
respect to these same or similar or other matters and also naming
the Company and/or our officers and directors as defendants. The
Company believes that the complaint is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against it. However, the outcome of the legal
proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information
available to the Company at present, it cannot reasonably estimate
a range of loss and accordingly has not accrued any liability
associated with this action."

Evolus, Inc. is a medical aesthetics company that develops,
produces, and markets clinical neurotoxins for the treatment of
aesthetic concerns. The company is based in Newport Beach,
California.


EXELA ENTERPRISE: Plan Beneficiaries Class Sought
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RIGOBERTO SANDOVAL,
individually and as a representative of a class of similarly
situated plan participants and beneficiaries, on behalf of the
EXELA 401(k) PLAN, the successor-in-interest of the NOVITEX
ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN, v. EXELA ENTERPRISE
SOLUTIONS, INC., NOVITEX ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
COMMITTEE and DOES NO. 1-10, Whose Names Are Currently Unknown,
Case No. 3:17-cv-01573-DJS (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all participants and beneficiaries of the Novitex Plan
      prior to the merger of the Novitex Plan with the SourceHOV
      401(k) Plan, excluding the Defendants and all other
      individuals who have or have ever been a member of the
      Novitex Enterprise Solutions Employee Benefits Committee
      or otherwise served as fiduciaries of the Novitex Plan";
      and

   2. appointing him as representative of the Class; and

   3. appointing his attorneys as Class Counsel.

Exela provides cloud-based solutions and data management services.
The Company offers analytics, data management, and communication
software, as well as engages in customer communication management,
document solution, and international mail processing services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kYW80x at no
extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff, the Proposed Class and the Exela
401(k) Plan, are:

          James E. Miller, Esq.
          Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
          Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq.
          Ronald S. Kravitz, Esq.
          Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
          James C. Shah, Esq.
          Alec J. Berin, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          65 Main Street
          Chester, CT 06412
          Telephone: (860) 526-1100
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com
                  lrubinow@sfmslaw.com
                  nzipperian@sfmslaw.com
                  rkravitz@sfmslaw.com
                  jshah@sfmslaw.com
                  aberin@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN
          18250 Ventura Blvd.
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com

FAMOUS BOURBON: Clifton Sues Over Minimum Wage, Tip Sharing
-----------------------------------------------------------
KELLY CLIFTON, On Behalf of Herself and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. FAMOUS BOURBON MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.,
MANHATTAN FASHION, LLC d/b/a SCORES WEST, SILVER BOURBON, INC.
d/b/a SCORES FRENCH QUARTER, TEMPTATIONS, INC. d/b/a STILETTO’S
CABARET, N’AWLINS ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC., and GUY OLANO III,
GUY OLANO, JR., JOSEPH ASCANI, and RAYMOND PALAZZOLO individually,
Case No. 2:20-cv-02991-SM-JVM (E.D. La., November 4, 2020) arises
from the Defendants' unlawful practices in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to pay applicable
minimum wage and failed to allow the Plaintiff and the Class
members to retain all their tips by requiring them to "tip out"
employees who do not customarily and regularly receive tips.

Plaintiff Clifton is currently employed as an exotic dancer at the
Defendants' adult entertainment club and has worked at Stiletto's
Cabaret since October 2016.

The Defendants operate several adult entertainment clubs in
Louisiana including Stiletto's Cabaret, Scores French Quarter, and
Scores West where the named Plaintiff and opt-in Plaintiffs
worked.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          K. Todd Wallace, Esq.
          Stacey LaGraize Meyaski, Esq.
          WALLACE MEYASKI, LLC
          5190 Canal Blvd., Suite 102
          New Orleans, LA 70124
          Telephone: (504) 644-2011
          Facsimile: (504) 644-2010
          E-mail: todd.wallace@walmey.com
                  stacey.meyaski@walmey.com

               - and -

          David W. Hodges, Esq.
          Tina E. Gutierrez, Esq.
          HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116   
          E-mail: Dhodges@hftrialfirm.com
                  Tgutierrez@hftrialfirm.com

FIDELITY NATIONAL: Settlement in Suit Against Unit Has Initial OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October
29, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that
the Court in the class action suit against Reliance Trust Company,
a company subsidiary, has preliminarily approved the settlement
agreement.

Reliance Trust Company ("Reliance"), the Company's subsidiary, is a
defendant in a class action arising out of its provision of
services as the discretionary trustee for a 401(k) Plan (the
"Plan") for one of its customers.

On behalf of the Plan participants, plaintiffs in the action, which
was filed in December 2015, seek damages and attorneys' fees, as
well as equitable relief, against Reliance and the Plan's sponsor
and record-keeper for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").

At a non-jury trial conducted in March 2020, Reliance vigorously
defended the action and contended that no breaches of fiduciary
duty or prohibited transactions occurred and that Plan participants
suffered no damages.

At trial, Plaintiffs claimed damages of approximately $127 million
against all defendants.

On October 12, 2020, Reliance and plaintiffs entered into a
settlement agreement, which is subject to final court approval, to
settle all allegations and claims asserted in the action for $39.8
million without equitable relief. On October 14, 2020, the Court
preliminarily approved the settlement agreement.

In the settlement agreement, Reliance admitted no wrongdoing or
liability with respect to any of the allegations or claims and
maintains that the Plan was managed, operated, and administered
during its tenure as the Plan's discretionary trustee in full
compliance with The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA) and applicable regulations.

Upon final court approval, all allegations and claims will be
settled and released with prejudice.

The Company recorded a liability for the agreed settlement amount
of $39.8 million and a corresponding loss in Other income
(expense), net on the consolidated statement of earnings for the
three and nine months ended September 30, 2020.

Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. operates as a
financial services technology company in the United States and
internationally. It operates through Integrated Financial Solutions
and Global Financial Solutions segments. The company was founded in
1968 and is headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida.


FLOOR & DECOR: Dismissal of Georgia Securities Suit Final
---------------------------------------------------------
Floor & Decor Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 24, 2020, that the
plaintiff in the putative class action suit entitled, In re Floor &
Decor Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, did not take an appeal
from the decision dismissing the case and the dismissal is now
final.

On May 20, 2019, an alleged stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit, Taylor v. Floor & Decor Holdings,
Inc., et al., No. 1:19-cv-02270-SCJ (N.D. Ga.), in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against
the Company and certain of our officers, directors and
stockholders.

On August 14, 2019, the Court named a lead plaintiff, and the case
was re-captioned In re Floor & Decor Holdings, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 1:19-cv-02270-SCJ (N.D. Ga.).

The operative complaint alleged certain violations of federal
securities laws based on, among other things, purported materially
false and misleading statements and omissions allegedly made by the
Company between May 23, 2018 and August 1, 2018 and sought class
certification, unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys'
fees and equitable relief.

The Company denied the material allegations and moved to dismiss
the lawsuit.

On September 21, 2020, the District Court granted the Company’s
motion to dismiss in its entirety. The plaintiff did not appeal
that decision, meaning the dismissal is final.

Floor & Decor Holdings, Inc., formerly FDO Holdings, Inc.,
incorporated on October 15, 2010, is a retailer of hard surface
flooring and related accessories. The Company retails its products
such as tile, stone, wood, marble, glass and decoratives. The
company is based in Smyrna, Georgia.


FLORIDA COMMERCIAL: Woodard Sues Over Illegal Background Check
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL WOODARD, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. FLORIDA COMMERCIAL CARE, INC., Case No.
8:20-cv-02560-TPB-SPF (M.D. Fla., Nov. 2, 2020), alleges that the
Defendant has unlawfully inserted liability release provisions into
its standard application form purporting to grant the Defendant the
authority to obtain and use consumer report information for
employment purposes for the Plaintiff and all proposed Class
members in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

The Plaintiff applied to work for the Defendant on July 1, 2019 in
Hillsborough County, Florida. The Plaintiff completed the
Defendant's standard application form including an authorization to
obtain a consumer report as defined by FCRA. The Plaintiff was
hired and began work for the Defendant on July 1, 2019, as an
irrigation technician. The Plaintiff was confused by the standard
application form and did not understand that the Defendant would be
requesting a "consumer report" as defined by the FCRA. The
Defendant allegedly then secured the Plaintiff's consumer report.

The Defendant is a facilities services company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
          FLORIN GRAY BOUZAS OWENS, LLC
          16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
          Lutz, FL 33558
          Telephone: (727) 254-5255
          Facsimile: (727) 483-7942
          E-mail: wolfgang@fgbolaw.com
                  daniela@fgbolaw.com
                  chris@fgbolaw.com

FOOD INDUSTRIES: Faces Sacalamitao Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LEONILA SACALAMITAO, on behalf of herself and all other aggrieved
employees, Plaintiff v. FOOD INDUSTRIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. DBA
SEAFOOD RANCH MARKET; VIRGIL SAN JUAN SY; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV41964 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., November 2, 2020) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act including failure to pay the required minimum
wages and overtime pay, failure to provide rest and meal periods,
failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage
statements, failure to pay split shift pay, failure to pay all
wages earned on time, failure to pay all wages earned upon
discharge or resignation, failure to provide basic information at
the time of hiring and when employment changes occur, failure to
reimburse business-related expenses, and failure to provide notice
of paid sick time and accrual.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly paid,
non-exempt employee in California from May 11, 2015 until her
termination on December 6, 2019.

Food Industries International, Inc., d/b/a Seafood Ranch Market, is
a company that operates seafood, meat and produce grocery market,
with its principal place of business located in Los Angeles,
California. [BN]

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

FORTERRA INC: Settlement in Consolidated Suit Final & Unappealable
------------------------------------------------------------------
Forterra, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the settlement in
the consolidated securities class action suit has become final and
unappealable.

Beginning on August 14, 2017, four plaintiffs filed putative class
action complaints in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against various defendants.

On July 27, 2018, an order was entered consolidating the lawsuits
into a single action (the "Securities Action") and transferring the
venue of the case from the Eastern District of New York to the
Northern District of Texas. Pursuant to an agreed scheduling order,
plaintiffs in the Securities Action filed their Consolidated
Amended Complaint on November 30, 2018.

The Securities Action is brought by two plaintiffs individually and
on behalf of all persons that purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's common stock issued pursuant to and/or traceable to the
initial public offering (IPO) and is brought against the Company,
certain of its current and former officers and directors, Lone Star
and certain of its affiliates, and certain banks that acted as
underwriters of the IPO (collectively, the "Securities
Defendants").

The Securities Action generally alleges that the Company's
registration statement on Form S-1 filed in connection with the IPO
(the "Registration Statement") contained false or misleading
statements and/or omissions of material facts.

Specifically, plaintiffs allege the Registration Statement (1) made
false and/or misleading statements about the Company's ability to
generate organic growth through cross-selling initiatives amongst
the Company's various businesses while failing to disclose that the
Company had not adequately integrated acquisitions, had not begun
rolling out its cross-selling initiative, and that its businesses
were submitting competing bids against one another, and (2) made
false or misleading statements regarding the existence of certain
accounting practices and alleged material weaknesses in the
Company's internal controls over financial reporting, including the
existence of and accounting for bill and hold transactions, the
lack of sufficient accounting personnel, the lack of effective
internal controls to ensure costs were properly and accurately
accrued, resulting in misstated costs and profits in the Company's
2016 financial statements, and the making of inventory accounting
entries without adequate substantiation or documentation.

The Securities Action asserts claims under Section 11 and Section
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, (the "Securities
Act") and seeks (1) class certification under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, (2) damages suffered by plaintiffs and other class
members, (3) prejudgment and post-judgment interest, (4) reasonable
counsel fees and expert fees, and other costs and expenses
reasonably incurred, and (5) other relief the court deems
appropriate.

On February 15, 2019, the Securities Defendants filed a Motion to
Dismiss all claims in the case based on plaintiffs' failure to
state a claim. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed on
May 1, 2019, and the court has not yet ruled on the motion. A
mediation of the Securities Action occurred in August 2019.

On November 4, 2019, the parties to the Securities Action entered
into a settlement agreement to fully and finally resolve all claims
in the Securities Action for a payment of $5.5 million.

On January 4, 2020, the court issued an order granting preliminary
approval for the settlement and providing for notice. Following a
hearing on July 28, 2020, the court issued orders dated August 12,
2020, in which it approved the settlement in the Securities Action;
no appeal of that order occurred within 30 days, and it became
final and unappealable on September 12, 2020.

Forterra said, "The settlement was largely funded by the Company's
insurance after payment of a retention amount."

Forterra, Inc. manufactures and sells pipe and precast products the
United States, Canada, and Mexico. It operates through Drainage
Pipe & Products; and Water Pipe & Products segments. Forterra, Inc.
was founded in 2016 and is headquartered in Irving, Texas.


FREDDIE MAC: Discovery Underway in Sr. Preferred Stock Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29,
2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that
discovery is ongoing in the class action suit entitled, In re
Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement
Class Action suit.

This case is the result of the consolidation of three putative
class action lawsuits: Cacciapelle and Bareiss vs. Federal National
Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and
Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), filed on July 29, 2013;
American European Insurance Company vs. Federal National Mortgage
Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and FHFA, filed
on July 30, 2013; and Marneu Holdings, Co. vs. FHFA, Treasury,
Federal National Mortgage Association and Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation, filed on September 18, 2013. (The Marneu case
was also filed as a shareholder derivative lawsuit.)

A consolidated amended complaint was filed in December 2013. In the
consolidated amended complaint, plaintiffs alleged, among other
items, that the August 2012 amendment to the Purchase Agreement
breached Freddie Mac's and Fannie Mae's respective contracts with
the holders of junior preferred stock and common stock and the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in such contracts.


Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages, equitable and injunctive
relief, and costs and expenses, including attorney and expert
fees.

The Cacciapelle and American European Insurance Company lawsuits
were filed purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of junior
preferred stock issued by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae who held stock
prior to, and as of, August 17, 2012.

The Marneu lawsuit was filed purportedly on behalf of a class of
purchasers of junior preferred stock and purchasers of common stock
issued by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae over a not-yet-defined period
of time.

Arrowood Indemnity Company vs. Federal National Mortgage
Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, FHFA, and
Treasury, was filed on September 20, 2013. The allegations and
demands made by plaintiffs in this case were generally similar to
those made by the plaintiffs in the In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac
Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations
case described above.

Plaintiffs in the Arrowood lawsuit also requested that, if
injunctive relief were not granted, the Arrowood plaintiffs be
awarded damages against the defendants in an amount to be
determined including, but not limited to, the aggregate par value
of their junior preferred stock, the total of which they stated to
be approximately $42 million.

American European Insurance Company, Cacciapelle, and Miller vs.
Treasury and FHFA, was filed as a shareholder derivative lawsuit,
purportedly on behalf of Freddie Mac as a "nominal" defendant, on
July 30, 2014. The complaint alleged that, through the August 2012
amendment to the Purchase Agreement, Treasury and FHFA breached
their respective fiduciary duties to Freddie Mac, causing Freddie
Mac to suffer damages.

The plaintiffs asked that Freddie Mac be awarded compensatory
damages and disgorgement, as well as attorneys' fees, costs, and
other expenses.

FHFA, joined by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, moved to dismiss the In
re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement
Class Action Litigations case and the other related cases in
January 2014.

Treasury filed a motion to dismiss the same day. In September 2014,
the District Court granted the motions and dismissed the
plaintiffs' claims. All plaintiffs appealed that decision, and on
February 21, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit affirmed in part and remanded in part the decision
granting the motions to dismiss. The DC Circuit affirmed dismissal
of all claims except certain claims seeking monetary damages for
breach of contract and breach of implied duty of good faith and
fair dealing.

In March 2017, certain institutional and class plaintiffs filed
petitions for panel rehearing with respect to certain claims.

On July 17, 2017, the DC Circuit granted the petitions for
rehearing and issued a modified decision, which permitted the
institutional plaintiffs to pursue the breach of contract and
breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing claims that
had been remanded. The DC Circuit also removed language related to
the standard to be applied to the implied duty claims, leaving that
issue for the District Court to determine on remand.

On October 16, 2017, certain institutional and class plaintiffs
filed petitions for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court
challenging whether HERA's prohibition on injunctive relief against
FHFA bars judicial review of the net worth sweep dividend
provisions of the August 2012 amendment to the Purchase Agreement,
as well as whether HERA bars shareholders from pursuing derivative
litigation where they allege the conservator faces a conflict of
interest. The Supreme Court denied the petitions on February 20,
2018.

On November 1, 2017, certain institutional and class plaintiffs and
plaintiffs in another case in which Freddie Mac was not originally
a defendant, Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. FHFA, Treasury, and Federal
National Mortgage Association, filed proposed amended complaints in
the District Court.

Each of the proposed amended complaints names Freddie Mac as a
defendant for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing claims as well as for new claims alleging
breach of fiduciary duty and breach of Virginia corporate law. On
January 10, 2018, FHFA, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae moved to
dismiss the amended complaints.

On September 28, 2018, the District Court dismissed all of the
claims except those alleging breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing.

Discovery is ongoing.

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

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, known as Freddie Mac, is a
public government-sponsored enterprise, headquartered in Tysons
Corner, Virginia. Freddie Mac is ranked No. 38 on the 2018 Fortune
500 list of the largest United States corporations by total
revenue. The company is based in McLean, Virginia.


GEICO CASUALTY: Thomas Consumer Fraud Suit Goes to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ROXANNE THOMAS and JAMES THOMAS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. GEICO CASUALTY
COMPANY, Case No. 2020 CH 05163, was removed from the Illinois
Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on October 30,
2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-06453 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs bring claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act,
common-law fraud, unjust enrichment, bad faith breach of contract,
and declaratory relief over the Defendant's Giveback Program, a 15%
credit for GEICO's renewing and new auto insurance policyholders
for a six-month period due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

GEICO Casualty Company is an insurance company based in Chevy
Chase, Maryland. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
                  
         Lisa T. Scruggs, Esq.
         Ronald M. Lepinskas, Esq.
         DUANE MORRIS, LLP
         190 South LaSalle, Suite 3600
         Chicago, IL 60603
         E-mail: ltscruggs@duanemorris.com
                 rmlepinskas@duanemorris.com

                - and –

         Damon N. Vocke, Esq.
         DUANE MORRIS LLP
         1540 Broadway
         New York, NY 10036-4086
         E-mail: dnvocke@duanemorris.com

GEL FACTORY: Won et al. Sue Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
YEONTAI WON, and JUNG HYUNG SONG, on their own behalf and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. GEL FACTORY, CORP. d/b/a Gel
Factory; KEUM HEE KANG a/k/a Tammy Kang, and KEUM OK KANG a/k/a Kay
Kang, Case No. 2:20-cv-05269 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2020), is a class
action suit brought by the the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves
as well as other employees similarly situated, against the the
Defendants alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), and New York Labor Law (NYLL), arising from the Defendants'
various willful, malicious, and unlawful employment policies,
patterns and practices.

The Defendants have willfully, maliciously, and intentionally
committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in
pattern and practice of failing to pay its employees, including the
Plaintiffs, minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs worked as Nail Technician for the Defendants at 3051
Jericho Turnpike, No. 3, East Northport, New York. The Plaintiff
Won worked from April 6, 2019 to January 18, 2020. The Plaintiff
Song worked from February 26, 2017 to January 06, 2020

The Defendant Gel Factory is a domestic business corporation
organized under the laws of the State of New York with a principal
address at East Northport, New York. The Individual Defendants are
officers, directors, managers and/or majority shareholders or
owners of the Corporate Defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 103
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324

GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Additional Diesel Vehicles Amid Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Salisbury, writing for Fleetpoint, reports that
Mercedes-Benz's latest recall of additional diesel vehicles in the
UK for an emissions related software update is a strong indication
the manufacturer knows it has a larger dirty diesel problem here,
according to lawyers working on a potential group action litigation
on behalf of UK Mercedes owners.

London law firm Fox Williams LLP, in collaboration with US
class-action law firm Hagens Berman, is building a group claim in
England and Wales that will allege Mercedes deliberately engaged in
emissions fraud in the sale of its diesel and BlueTec vehicles by
programming an emission defeat device during test conditions which
limited illegally high, dangerous levels of Nitrogen Oxide (NOx)
emissions normally evident in real-world driving conditions.

This follows Hagens Berman's multi-year investigations of a similar
fraud in the US and its successful role in leading a class action
lawsuit there which has paid out more than US$700m to US Mercedes
owners. Hagens Berman has also been involved in litigation against
Volkswagen in the US where it was found that a comparable defeat
device was used and again, the firm also secured substantial
compensation for US vehicle owners.

As far back as 2018, and on several occasions since then, the
German Federal Motor Transport Authority (KBA) has required Daimler
to conduct mandatory recalls of Mercedes-Benz vehicles with diesel
engines in Europe in order to implement an emissions related
software update.  Fox Williams' and Hagens Berman's legal teams
have learned that pursuant to a further KBA order in August 2020,
Daimler has now added additional models to the recall exercise (see
link and list here).  Since as recently as 4 September 2020,
Mercedes-Benz has been sending out recall notices to UK Mercedes
diesel vehicle owners which prescribes an update to engine control
unit software in order to help to "further reduce the average
nitrogen oxide emissions while driving on the road".  The UK recall
process is being overseen by the UK DVLA in compliance with the
Code of Practice on Defects in the UK.

Andrew Hill, the Fox Williams partner who is leading the UK based
action, comments: "This latest recall exercise is yet further
compelling evidence Mercedes diesel and BlueTec vehicles have a
nitrogen oxide problem that needs fixing. Any UK vehicle owners
that have the software repair are still eligible to join our
claimant group given the alleged deception and fraudulent
representation occurred at the original point of sale or subsequent
purchase."

Michael Gallagher, Co-Managing Director of Hagens Berman UK,
comments: "The fact Mercedes is doing this at the instruction of
the German Transport Authority is telling.  Of further note is the
scope of the recall. We believe Mercedes is developing software
updates for almost the entire Euro 6b and Euro 5 diesel fleet in
Europe and that the cheating impacts more vehicles than we
originally thought. We absolutely don't accept Mercedes' argument
that the emissions control system of US vehicles is materially
different to European models."

Fox Williams and Hagens Berman UK had previously appealed to owners
of the following Mercedes models powered by BlueTec diesel-fuelled
engines and sold from 2008 up to 2018 to register with a view to
joining their group action litigation:  A-Class, B-Class, C-Class,
Citan, CLA, CLS, E-Class, GL-Class, GLA-Class, GLC-Class,
GLE-Class, GLS, M-Class, S-Class, SLK, Sprinter, V-Class, and Vito.
These models include passenger and commercial vehicles and vans,
such as people movers, shuttles and taxis.

Earlier estimates suggested that approx 1.2 million potential
claimants owning (or having owned) impacted vehicles purchased in
England and Wales have been affected by the Dieselgate scandal,
based on Mercedes selling more than 600,000 impacted vehicles here
between 2008 and 2018.  However, Fox Williams and Hagens Berman now
believe this number could be higher if additional models are also
likely emitting dirty diesel emissions.

Not only private owners and businesses, such as fleet operators and
hire car companies, but also lessees of vehicles affected may be
eligible for damages.

Steve Berman, Managing Partner, Hagens Berman and Co-Managing
Director Hagens Berman UK comments: "We have already seen Daimler
settle with the US authorities and US vehicle owners over its
Dieselgate problem. The evidence strongly suggests that Daimler and
Mercedes have been involved in similar practices in England and
Wales and that British consumers also have a right to compensation
for unlawful, deceptive and otherwise defective emission controls
implemented by Mercedes."

Andrew Hill adds: "We believe Mercedes vehicle owners and lessees
in England and Wales will likely have good claims for losses caused
to them from unwittingly owning or leasing dirty diesels.
Compensation could be in the range of GBP5,000 to GBP10,000 per
vehicle."

Those unsure if their Mercedes vehicle is affected by the dirty
diesel technology, can contact Fox Williams at
www.mercedes-dieselclaims.co.uk.

It is intended the Fox Williams-led group action claim will be
conducted on a no-win, no-fee basis, meaning that there will be no
out-of-pocket cost to sign up to or participate. [GN]


GEO: Private Prisons Donate to GOP Policymakers Amid Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Lurie, writing for Mother Jones, reports that the for-profit
prison industry has spent more money on the upcoming election than
any on record—and the vast majority of the donations are going to
Republicans.

During this election cycle, private prison PACs, employees, and
their families have given $2.1 million to candidates, according to
the Center for Responsive Politics.

This is no surprise: The for-profit prison business has been
booming under the Trump Administration, which has increasingly
relied on prison companies to hold immigrant detainees.

As my colleague Madison Pauly wrote in August, the two largest
prison companies, the GEO Group and CoreCivic, relied on federal
funding for more than half of their revenue last year, according to
their annual reports.

GEO Group, which was responsible for the bulk of the election
spending, received $900 million in federal contracts in the most
recent fiscal year—as compared to $500 million in Obama's last
year in office. A recent New York Times investigation into Trump's
sprawling business empire found that GEO paid thousands to
Mar-a-Lago during Trump's first two years in office, when the
company was under fire for its treatment of detained migrant
families.

The donations from the private prison industry this election cycle
have flowed to a number of GOP policymakers. As Pauly wrote:

The recipients include Sen. Corey Gardner of Colorado, where GEO
and CoreCivic run networks of halfway houses and GEO is fighting a
class-action lawsuit over allegations that it forced immigration
detainees to work for little or no pay; Sen. Mitch McConnell of
Kentucky; and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, the chair
of the appropriations committee homeland security subcommittee. One
of the few Democrats is, again, Rep. Henry Cuellar, a conservative
Texas Democrat and vocal defender of private prisons whose district
includes both GEO and CoreCivic lockups.

Joe Biden, meanwhile, has vowed to end the federal government's use
of for-profit prisons, building off an Obama-era policy that was
rescinded by the Trump administration. In a way, the unprecedented
spending spree this election cycle makes perfect sense: The private
prison industry has a whole lot to lose. [GN]


GLAUSIER KNIGHT: Veinberg Finds Debt Collection Notice "Confusing"
------------------------------------------------------------------
NATASHA VEINBERG, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GLAUSIER KNIGHT JONES, PLLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:20-cv-10086 (C.D. Cal., November 3, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to effectively provide
the required disclosures in its initial written debt collection
communications to consumers, including the Plaintiff, or within
five days thereafter. Specifically, while the Defendant included
the validation notice required by 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692g(a) with the
appropriate 30-day time period for disputing the debt or requesting
creditor information as an attachment to its July 16, 2020
communication to the Plaintiff, in that same communication, the
Defendant demanded payment of $3,004.81 within 30 days of the
Plaintiff's receipt of the communication.

As a result, upon receiving the Defendant's July 16, 2020
communication, the Plaintiff was confused as to whether she (a) had
the full 30-day period from her receipt of the communication to
invoke her validation rights, or (b) had to pay the debt within 30
days of her receipt of the July 16, 2020 communication in order to
stop the filing of a lien and the filing of a foreclosure action
against her property.

Glausier Knight Jones, PLLC is a debt collection firm with its
principal office in Hillsborough County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                  
                                    
         Russell S. Thompson, IV, Esq.
         THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PC
         7080 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 1100
         Los Angeles, CA 90028
         Telephone: (602) 388-8898
         Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
         E-mail: rthompson@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com

                 - and –

         Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
         GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
         7601 N. Federal Hwy., Suite A-230
         Boca Raton, FL 33487
         Telephone: (561) 826-5477
         E-mail: jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com

GOHEALTH INC: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of Nov. 20 Motion Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jakubowitz Law on Oct. 11 disclosed that securities fraud class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of GoHealth
Inc. who purchased shares within the class periods listed below.
Shareholders interested in representing the class of wronged
shareholders have until the lead plaintiff deadline to petition the
court. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that
you serve as a lead plaintiff. For more details and to speak with
our firm without cost or obligation, follow the links below.

GoHealth, Inc. (NASDAQ:GOCO)

CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT GOCO:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/gohealth-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=10003&from=1

The GoHealth lawsuit is on behalf of all purchasers of GoHealth
Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration
statement issued in connection with GoHealth's July 2020 initial
public offering.

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 20, 2020

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

Jakubowitz Law is vigorous in pursuit of justice for shareholders
who have been the victim of securities fraud. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
JAKUBOWITZ LAW
1140 Avenue of the Americas
9th Floor
New York, New York 10036
T: (212) 867-4490
F: (212) 537-5887 [GN]


GOOGLE LLC: Monopolizes Android Mobile App Market, Paige Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
J. JACKSON PAIGE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. GOOGLE LLC and ALPHABET INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-03158
(D.D.C., Oct. 30, 2020) is a class action complaint against the
Defendants for damages, injunctive relief, and other relief
pursuant to federal antitrust laws.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the putative Class
have overpaid or otherwise suffered economic losses due to Google's
monopolization of Android Mobile App Market.

Google's Play Store is available to mobile device users running
Google's Android operating system. While Google claims that the
Android OS is maintained as "open" source software, Google has
engaged in course of conduct designed to deter competition in the
market for Android mobile applications of "apps" and products sold
with such apps ("Android Mobile App Market").

The Plaintiff contends that Google maintains a monopoly in the
Android Mobile App Market and is able to charge supracompetitive
prices for mobile app and in-app purchases. He adds that Google
uses anticompetitive covenants in Google's Mobile Application
Distribution Agreement ("MADA"), requiring OEMs to license the
entire suite of Google applications and services in order to also
license the Android OS. Google also requires OEMS to pre-install
the Google Play Store on its home page. If OEM refuse these
restrictive terms and conditions, they lose access to the Android
OS.

As a result of the MADA terms and conditions, Google has
successfully prevented competition from its rivals in the Android
Mobile App Market. Google's MADA agreements also allow Google to
charge supracompetitive prices for mobile app and in-app purchases,
harming the Plaintiff and Class Members by limiting consumer
choice.

The Plaintiff is an individual who purchased and paid Google for
one or more apps through the Google Play Store. Plaintiff is a
resident of Michigan.

Google LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws
of Delaware with its principal place of business in Mountain View,
California. Google LLC is a technology company that provides
Internet-related services and products, including online
advertising technologies and a search engine. Alphabet Inc. is a
Delaware corporation and has its principal place of business in
Mountain View, California. Google LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Alphabet Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
          Victoria Sims, Esq.
          Blaine Finley, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) -789-3960
          E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com
                  vicky@cuneolaw.com
                  bfinley@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Gerard V. Mantese, Esq.
          MANTESE HONIGMAN, P.C.
          1361 E. Big Beaver Road
          Troy, MI 48083
          Telephone: (248) 457-9200 ext. 203
          Facsimile: (248) 457-9201
          E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com

GORDON FOOD: Higgins Alleges Unpaid Overtime for Assistant Managers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK HIGGINS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GORDON FOOD SERVICE STORE LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01054 (W.D. Mich., November 3, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of Fair Labor Standards
Act and Ohio Wage Laws by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and
all others similarly situated assistant managers overtime pay for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Mr. Higgins was employed by the Defendant as an exempt-classified
assistant manager in a Gordon Food retail store in Strongsville,
Ohio from approximately January 2019 to July 2019.

Gordon Food Service Store LLC is a foodservice distributor with its
principal place of business in Grand Rapids, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Megan A. Bonanni, Esq.
         PITT, MCGEHEE, PALMER, BONANNI & RIVERS, PC
         117 West 4th Street Suite 200
         Royal Oak, MI 48067
         Telephone: (248) 398-9800
         E-mail: mbonanni@pittlawpc.com

                - and –

         Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
         Tamra Givens, Esq.
         SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
         951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
         Boca Raton, FL 33431
         Telephone: (561) 447-8888
         E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                 tgivens@shavitzlaw.com

                - and –

         Michael Palitz, Esq.
         SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
         800 3rd Avenue, Suite 2800
         New York, NY 10022
         Telephone: (800) 616-4000
         E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com

GRAHAM, NC: Police Use Pepper Spray at Vote Rally, Allen Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
SYLVESTER ALLEN, JR., DEJUANA BIGELOW, TABATHA DAVIS, and FUTURE
ALAMANCE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF GRAHAM, KRISTI COLE, individually
and in her official capacity as Chief of the Graham Police
Department, ALAMANCE COUNTY, TERRY S. JOHNSON, individually and in
his official capacity as Sheriff of Alamance County, GRAHAM POLICE
OFFICERS JOHN and JANE DOES #1-15, and ALAMANCE COUNTY DEPUTY
SHERIFFS JOHN and JANE DOES #16-30, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-00997 (M.D.N.C., November 2, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the U.S. Constitution
including voter intimidation, retaliation, use of excessive force,
and conspiracy to deprive civil rights.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged constitutional
violations during the participation of the Plaintiffs and Class
members in I Am Change, a march to the polls in Graham, North
Carolina that focused on social justice and political
participation, on October 31, 2020. Despite the peaceful march, the
Defendants fired pepper spray indiscriminately into the crowd of
marchers, including children as young as three years old and
individuals with disabilities, on at least two occasions during the
event. As pepper spray filled the air, the protesters were forced
to disperse; many suffered trouble breathing, vomiting, and other
complications. The Plaintiffs and Class members participated the
march to exercise their rights to vote and assemble but the
Defendants subjected them to unwarranted and violent levels of
force. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
     
         Geraldine Sumter, Esq.
         FERGUSON CHAMBERS & SUMTER, P.A.
         309 East Morehead St., Suite 110
         Charlotte, NC 28202
         Telephone: (704) 375-8461
         E-mail: GSumter@fergusonsumter.com

                 - and –

         C. William Phillips, Esq.
         COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
         620 Eighth Avenue
         New York, NY 10018-1405
         Telephone: (212) 841-1081
         E-mail: cphillips@cov.com

                 - and –

         Marianne Spencer, Esq.
         COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
         850 Tenth Street, N.W.
         Washington, DC 20001
         Telephone: (202) 662-5745
         E-mail: mspencer@cov.com

                 - and –

         Leah Aden, Esq.
         Natasha Merle, Esq.
         Ashok Chandran, Esq.
         NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, INC.
         40 Rector Street, 5th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         Telephone: (212) 965-2200
         E-mail: laden@naacpldf.org
                 nmerle@naacpldf.org
                 achandran@naacpldf.org

                 - and –

         Morgan Lewis, Esq.
         COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
         415 Mission Street
         San Francisco, CA 94105-2533
         Telephone: (415) 591-7098
         E-mail: mlewis@cov.com

HUGO BOSS: Faces Becerra Suit Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN BECERRA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. HUGO BOSS RETAIL, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 37-2020-000-40096-CU-OE-CTL (Cal.
Super., San Diego Cty., Nov. 3, 2020), alleges that the Defendants
failed to pay minimum wages and overtime wages under the California
Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a resident of
California and during the time period relevant to this action was
employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt hourly employee within
the state of California. The Plaintiff and the other Class members
worked for the Defendants throughout California and/or San Diego
County, and in other nonexempt positions, throughout California,
and consistently worked at the Defendants' behest without being
paid all wages due.

Hugo Boss provides online clothing. The Company offers clothing for
men and women such as shirts, pants, shorts, skirts, swim wear,
socks, shoes, belts, wallets and card holders, hats, gloves, bags,
luggage, watches, jewelry, cologne, eyewear, pens, stationary,
umbrellas, and tech accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Yeremian, Esq.
          Roman Shkodnik, Esq.
          Emil Davtyan, Esq.
          DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
          Glendale, California 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230-8380
          Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
          E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com
                  roman@yeremianlaw.com
                  emil@davtyanlaw.com

INDEPENDENT BANK: Trial in BOH Merger Suit Moved to May 2021
------------------------------------------------------------
Independent Bank Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the parties
in the suit related to the acquisition of BOH Holdings, Inc., have
agreed to amend the scheduling order to push back the trial date to
May 6, 2021.

Independent Bank is a party to a legal proceeding inherited by
Independent Bank in connection with the Company's acquisition of
BOH Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiary, Bank of Houston, or BOH,
that was completed on April 15, 2014.

Several entities related to R. A. Stanford, or the Stanford
Entities, including Stanford International Bank, Ltd., or SIBL, had
deposit accounts at BOH. Certain individuals who had purchased
certificates of deposit from SIBL filed a class action lawsuit
against several banks, including BOH, on November 11, 2009 in the
U.S. District Court Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, in
a case styled Peggy Roif Rotstain, et al. on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, v. Trustmark National Bank, et
al., Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-02384-N-BG.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the plaintiffs were
victims of fraud by SIBL and other Stanford Entities and seeks to
recover damages and alleged fraudulent transfers by the defendant
banks.

On May 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting permission
to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint in this case, which
motion was subsequently granted.

The Second Amended Class Action Complaint presents previously
unasserted claims, including aiding and abetting or participation
in a fraudulent scheme based upon the large amount of deposits that
the Stanford Entities held at BOH and the alleged knowledge of
certain BOH officers.

The plaintiffs seek recovery from Independent Bank and other
defendants for their losses.

The case was inactive due to a court-ordered discovery stay issued
March 2, 2015 pending the Court's ruling on plaintiff's motion for
class certification and designation of class representatives and
counsel.

On November 7, 2017, the Court issued an order denying the
plaintiff's motion. In addition, the Court lifted the previously
ordered discovery stay.

On January 11, 2018, the Court entered a scheduling order providing
that the case be ready for trial on January 27, 2020. Due to agreed
upon extensions of discovery on July 25, 2019, the Court amended
the scheduling order to provide that the case be ready for trial on
January 11, 2021.

In light of additional agreed upon extensions of discovery
deadlines, the Court entered a new scheduling order on March 9,
2020, which now provides that the case be ready for trial March 15,
2021.

In light of delays in discovery associated with the COVID-19
pandemic, the parties agreed to amend the scheduling order with new
ready for trial date of May 6, 2021.

Independent Bank said, "The Company has experienced an increase in
legal fees associated with the defense of this claim and
anticipates further increases in legal fees as the case proceeds to
trial."

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

Independent Bank Group, Inc. operates as a national commercial
bank. The Bank offers personal and business banking services.
Independent Bank provides personal checking accounts, loans, debit
and credit cards, mobile banking, and investment services.
Independent Bank Group serves customers in the State of Texas. The
company is based in McKinney, Texas.


IROBOT CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
iRobot Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 26, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss the consolidated putative class action suit before the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts remains pending.

The court has taken the matter under advisement following a hearing
on the motion via videoconference held on September 17.

On October 24, 2019, purported Company shareholder Miramar
Firefighters' Pension Fund filed a putative class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the Company and certain of its directors and officers, captioned
Miramar Firefighters' Pension Fund v. iRobot Corporation, et al.,
No. 1:19-cv-09837. The case has been transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

A similar case captioned Campbell v. iRobot Corporation, et al.,
No. 1:19-cv-12483 was also filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York and subsequently transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

On January 24, 2020, the Court consolidated the Miramar and
Campbell cases (the consolidated cases together, the "Securities
Class Action") and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's
Counsel.

On April 3, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder based on allegedly false and
misleading statements and omissions concerning the impact of
competition and Section 301 tariffs on the Company's financial
performance, and the Company has filed a motion to dismiss the
case.

A hearing was held on the Company's motion to dismiss on September
17, 2020, and the Company is currently awaiting a ruling on its
motion to dismiss.

iRobot Corporation manufactures robots that vacuum and wash floors
and perform battlefield reconnaissance and bomb disposal. The
Company markets its products to consumers through retailers, the
United States military, and other government agencies worldwide.
The company is based in Bedford, Massachusetts.


JANUS HENDERSON: VelocityShares Class Suits Still Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Janus Henderson Group plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the Company and/or
its subsidiaries continue to defend several class action lawsuits
related to VelocityShares Daily Inverse VIX.

On March 15, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against a
subsidiary of JHG Janus Index & Calculation Services LLC, which
effective January 1, 2019, was renamed Janus Henderson Indices LLC
("Janus Indices"), on behalf of a class consisting of investors who
purchased VelocityShares Daily Inverse VIX Short-Term ETN (Ticker:
XIV) between January 29, 2018, and February 5, 2018 (Eisenberg v.
Credit Suisse AG and Janus Indices).

Credit Suisse, the issuer of the XIV notes, is also named as a
defendant in the lawsuit. The plaintiffs generally allege
statements by Credit Suisse and Janus Indices, including those in
the registration statement, were materially false and misleading
based on its discussion of how the intraday indicative value
("IIV") is calculated and that the IIV was not an accurate gauge of
the economic value of the notes.

On April 17, 2018, a second lawsuit was filed against Janus Indices
and Credit Suisse in the U.S. District Court of the Northern
District of Alabama by certain investors in XIV (Halbert v. Credit
Suisse AG and Janus Indices).

On May 4, 2018, a third lawsuit, styled as a class action on behalf
of investors who purchased XIV between January 29, 2018, and
February 5, 2018, was filed against Janus Indices and Credit Suisse
AG in the SDNY (Qiu v. Credit Suisse AG and Janus Indices). The
Halbert and Qiu allegations generally copy the allegations in the
Eisenberg case.

On August 20, 2018, an amended complaint was filed in the Eisenberg
and Qiu cases (which have been consolidated in the SDNY under the
name Set Capital LLC, et al. v. Credit Suisse AG, et al.), adding
Janus Distributors LLC, doing business as Janus Henderson
Distributors, and Janus Henderson Group plc as parties, and adding
allegations of market manipulation by all of the defendants.

The Janus Henderson and Credit Suisse defendants moved to dismiss
the Set Capital amended complaint, and on September 25, 2019, the
court dismissed all claims against all defendants. The court denied
the plaintiffs' request for an opportunity to further amend their
complaint, and therefore dismissed the case in its entirety.
Plaintiffs have filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.

The defendants in Halbert — Credit Suisse and Janus Indices —
jointly moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On August 22, 2019,
the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion
to dismiss the claims. The court dismissed all claims against Janus
Indices — including all federal securities claims — other than
a claim for negligent misrepresentation. On October 1, 2020, the
parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the remaining claim to
prejudice, which was granted by the court.    

Janus Henderson said, "We believe the remaining claims in these
exchange-traded notes (ETN) lawsuits are without merit and we are
vigorously defending the actions. As of September 30, 2020, we
cannot reasonably estimate possible losses from the remaining
claims in the ETN lawsuits."

Janus Henderson Group plc is an asset management holding entity.
Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides services to
institutional, retail clients, and high net worth clients. It
manages separate client-focused equity and fixed income portfolios.
The firm also manages equity, fixed income, and balanced mutual
funds for its clients. It invests in public equity and fixed income
markets, as well as invests in real estate and private equity.
Janus Henderson Group plc was founded in 1934 and is based in
London, United Kingdom with additional offices in Jersey, United
Kingdom and Sydney, Australia.


JEWISH HOME: Ruiz Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages, Unreimbursed Expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALEJANDRA RUIZ, in a representative capacity only, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. JEWISH HOME CARE SERVICES, INC. and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 37-2020-00039509-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San
Diego Cty., October 30, 2020) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the
California Business and Professions Code including failure to pay
minimum wages and overtime pay, failure to provide meal and rest
periods, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements,
failure to reimburse business expenses, and failure to pay wages
upon separation.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee from August 30, 2019 through on or about August 2020.

Jewish Home Care Services, Inc. is a provider of home care services
based in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                  
                                    
         William B. Sullivan, Esq.
         Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq.
         William G. Anderson, Esq.
         SULLIVAN & YAECKEL LAW GROUP, APC
         2330 Third Avenue
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 702-6760
         Facsimile: (619) 702-6761
         E-mail: helen@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
                 yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
                 ganderson@sullivanlawgroupapc.com

JOBCO INC: Fails to Pay OT Wages to Laborers, Pineda Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JULIO PINEDA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly-situated v. JOBCO INCORPORATED, and COMMERCIAL
CONTRACTORS CORP., Case No. 2:20-cv-05321 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 3, 2020),
is a class action for damages and equitable relief resulting from
the violations that the Defendants committed of the Plaintiff's
rights guaranteed to him by the overtime provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the
Defendants, a construction management company and a general
contractor, which jointly employed the Plaintiff as a
non-managerial laborer from June 2018 through September 3, 2018,
during which period he performed manual labor on the Moxie Rigby
public housing complex in Freeport, New York.

The Plaintiff contends that for the duration of his employment, the
Defendants willfully failed to pay him the wages lawfully due to
him under the FLSA and the NYLL, as the Defendants failed to
compensate him at the statutorily-required overtime rate of pay for
all hours that he worked beyond 40 in a workweek.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
          STEVENSON MARINO LLP
          75 Maiden Lane, Suite 402
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 939-7229

KAISER PERMANENTE: Faces Yarbough ADA Suit Over Competency Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTEAUS N. YARBOUGH, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KAISER PERMANENTE GEORGIA REGION a/k/a
KAISER PERMANENTE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-04484-WMR-CCB (N.D. Ga., November 3, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant refused to accommodate
the Plaintiff's request for postponement of her competency test
until she was mentally stable enough to sit for it. The Defendant
denied the Plaintiff's request and was not even given any
accommodations whatsoever to assist her despite knowing that she
has been diagnosed with anxiety and depression. Further, after
taking the test, the Defendant told her that she had failed the
test, even though she did not receive her test score.

Kaiser Permanente Georgia Region, a/k/a Kaiser Permanente Insurance
Company, is an insurance provider located at 3495 Piedmont Road NE,
Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                  
                                    
         Roderick T. Cooks, Esq.
         Lee D. Winston, Esq.
         WINSTON COOKS, LLC
         505 20th Street North, Suite#815
         Birmingham, AL 35203
         Telephone: (205) 502-0970
         Facsimile: (205) 278-5876

KEURIG DR PEPPER: Agreement Reached with Indirect Purchaser Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that Keurig Green
Mountain, Inc. (KGM) has reached an agreement with the putative
indirect purchaser class plaintiffs in the Multidistrict Antitrust
Litigation to settle the claims asserted in their complaint for $31
million.

Beginning in March 2014, twenty-seven putative class actions
asserting similar claims and seeking similar relief were filed on
behalf of purported direct and indirect purchasers of Keurig Green
Mountain, Inc.'s KGM's products in various federal district courts.


In June 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
granted a motion to transfer these various actions, including the
TreeHouse and JBR actions, to a single judicial district for
coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings (the
"Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation").

Consolidated putative class action complaints by direct purchaser
and indirect purchaser plaintiffs were filed in July 2014.

An additional class action on behalf of indirect purchasers,
originally filed in the Circuit Court of Faulkner County, Arkansas
(Julie Rainwater et al. v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc.), was
transferred into the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation in November
2015.

In January 2019, McLane Company, Inc. filed suit against KGM
(McLane Company, Inc. v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc.) in the SDNY
asserting similar claims and was also transferred into the
Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation. These actions are now pending
in the SDNY (In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee
Antitrust Litigation). Discovery in the Multidistrict Antitrust
Litigation commenced in December 2017.

Separately, a statement of claim was filed in 2014 against KGM and
Keurig Canada Inc. in Ontario, Canada by Club Coffee L.P., a
Canadian manufacturer of single serve beverage pods, claiming
damages of CDN $600 million and asserting a breach of competition
law and false and misleading statements by KGM.

In July 2020, KGM reached an agreement with the putative indirect
purchaser class plaintiffs in the Multidistrict Antitrust
Litigation to settle the claims asserted in their complaint for $31
million.

The settlement class consists of individuals and entities in the
United States that purchased, from persons other than KGM and not
for purposes of resale, KGM manufactured or licensed single serve
beverage portion packs during the applicable class period
(beginning in September 2010 for most states).

The agreement remains subject to court approval, prior to which
putative class members will be given notice and the opportunity to
opt out of the settlement.

KDP intends to vigorously defend the remaining pending lawsuits
brought by Treehouse, JBR, McLane, the putative direct purchaser
class and Club Coffee.


Keurig said, "At this time, the Company is unable to predict the
outcome of these lawsuits, the potential loss or range of loss, if
any, associated with the resolution of these lawsuits or any
potential effect they may have on the Company or its operations."

Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. engages in the brewing system and specialty
coffee businesses in the United States and Canada. The company
sources, produces, and sells coffee, hot cocoa, teas, and other
beverages in K-Cup, Vue, Rivo, K-Carafe, and K-Mug pods brands;
coffee in traditional packaging, including bags and fractional
packs; and other specialty beverages in pods. The company was
founded in 1981 and is based in Waterbury, Vermont. Keurig Dr
Pepper Inc. is a subsidiary of Acorn Holdings B.V.


KILL DARE: Mazzara Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
---------------------------------------------------------------
IOLANDA MAZZARA, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. KILL DARE, CORP., d/b/a ALLURE, and JOSEPH JULIANO a.k.a
"Buster," Case No. 1:20-cv-09181 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2020), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum wages, unfully deducted wages, unlawfully
retained tips, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an entertainer at
Allure, a gentleman's club, located at 2945 Arthur Kill Road,
Staten Island, New York from May 1, 2019 until March 15, 2020. The
Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class Members were
employees of the Defendants.

Corporate Defendant Kill Dare is a domestic limited liability
company organized under the laws of the State of New York with a
principal place of business located at 2945 Arthur Kill Road Staten
Island, New York. The Individual Defendant has been an owner and
operator of Allure and the principal of the Corporate
Defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Brown, Esq.
          BROWN, KWON & LAM LLP
          521 5th Avenue, Suite 1744
          New York, NY 10175
          Telephone: (718) 971-0326
          Facsimile: (718) 795-1642
          E-mail: wbrown@bkllawyers.com

LABCORP EMPLOYER: Williams Wage & Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SHANNON WILLIAMS, as an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. LABCORP EMPLOYER SERVICES, INC.;
LABCORP STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC.; WELLNESS CORPORATE SOLUTIONS,
LLC; and DOES 4-10, Case No. 20STCV33583, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on November 4, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-10146 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay overtime and minimum wages, failure
to provide rest and meal periods, failure to reimburse business
expenses, failure to provide itemized wage statements, failure to
pay wages on a timely manner, and unfair business practices.

LabCorp Employer Services, Inc. is a company that provides medical
laboratory tests and services in New York.

LabCorp Staffing Solutions, Inc. is a company that provides
staffing solutions in New York.

Wellness Corporate Solutions, LLC is a company that specializes in
promoting healthy workplace cultures through biometric screenings,
health coaching, and comprehensive wellness programming,
headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
                  
         Christopher J. Kondon, Esq.
         Saman M. Rejali, Esq.
         Kate G. Hummel, Esq.
         Lucy C. Jackson, Esq.
         K&L GATES LLP
         10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Eighth Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 552-5000
         Facsimile: (310) 552-5001
         E-mail: christopher.kondon@klgates.com
                 saman.rejali@klgates.com
                 kate.hummel@klgates.com
                 lucy.jackson@klgates.com

LEARJET INC: Wood Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK WOOD, et al., v.
LEARJET, INC., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02621-EFM-GEB (D. Kan.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. granting conditional certification of their claims
      under 29 U.S.C. Sections 626(b) and 216(b) as to a
      collective of:

      "all persons who were employees of Learjet, Inc. and/or
      Bombardier, Inc. in the engineering organization of the
      Bombardier Flight Test Center in Wichita, Kansas from
      January 1, 2015 through the present, and 40 years of age
      or older at the time their employment ended";

   2. directing the Defendants to provide, to the extent not
      previously provided, the last known home mailing
      addresses, personal email addresses and personal phone
      numbers of all class members;

   3. directing the Defendants to provide the last four digits
      of social security numbers for all members of the class
      whose mailed notices are returned undeliverable so
      Plaintiffs can locate a viable mailing address;

   4. approving the Plaintiffs Mark Woods and Dennis Parr as the
      class representatives and their counsel as class counsel
      in this matter;

   5. directing the parties to confer and submit an agreed form
      of Notice to be send to the class members by U.S. mail and
      email; and

   6. granting such other relief, the Court deems just and
      proper.

Learjet is a Canadian owned, American aerospace manufacturer of
business jets for civilian and military use based in Wichita,
Kansas.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective action
certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2I6PpTR at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sarah A. Brown, Esq.
          BROWN & CURRY, LLC
          1600 Genessee Street, Suite 956
          Kansas City, MO 64102
          E-mail: sarah@brownandcurry.com

               - and -

          Anthony E. LaCroix, Esq.
          LACROIX LAW FIRM, LLC
          1600 Genessee, Suite 956
          Kansas City, MO 64102
          Telephone: (816) 399-4380
          Facsimile: (816) 399-4380
          E-mail: tony@lacroixlawkc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          James M. Armstrong, Esq.
          Forrest T. Rhodes, Jr., Esq.
          FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP
          1551 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 100
          Wichita, KS 67206-4466
          E-mail: jarmstrong@foulston.com
                  frhodes@foulston.com

LIVANOVA PLC: 2nd Payment Made in 3T Device Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
LivaNova PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that the second settlement payment
has been made in the class action suit related to the company's 3T
device.

The Company is currently involved in litigation involving its 3T
device. The litigation includes a class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania,
federal multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania, various U.S. state court cases
and cases in jurisdictions outside the U.S.

The class action, filed in February 2016, consists of all
Pennsylvania residents who underwent open heart surgery at WellSpan
York Hospital and Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center
between 2011 and 2015 and who currently are asymptomatic for NTM
infection.

Members of the class seek declaratory relief that the 3T devices
are defective and unsafe for intended uses, medical monitoring,
damages, and attorneys' fees.

On March 29, 2019, the company announced a settlement framework
that provides for a comprehensive resolution of the personal injury
cases pending in the multi-district litigation in U.S. federal
court, the related class action pending in federal court, as well
as certain cases in state courts across the United States.

The agreement, which makes no admission of liability, is subject to
certain conditions, including acceptance of the settlement by
individual claimants and provides for a total payment of up to $225
million to resolve the claims covered by the settlement.

Per the agreed-upon terms, the first payment of $135 million was
paid into a qualified settlement fund in July 2019 and the second
payment of $90 million was paid in January 2020.

Cases covered by the settlement are being dismissed as amounts are
disbursed to individual plaintiffs from the qualified settlement
fund.

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

LivaNova PLC, a medical device company, designs, develops,
manufactures, and sells therapeutic solutions worldwide. It
operates in two segments, Cardiovascular (CV) and Neuromodulation
(NM). The company was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in
London, the United Kingdom.


MAJOR LEAGUE: Must Face Minor League Players' Wage Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Thomas, writing for Press Herald, reports that minor league
baseball is in for a major shake-up, with teams already being
eliminated.

But all seems calm for the Portland Sea Dogs front office. The
staff is back working (and socially distancing) at Hadlock Field

"We are planning and preparing for the 2021 season as we normally
would be this time of year," said Geoff Iacuessa, the Sea Dogs
president and general manager.

Normally, the Sea Dogs would be planning for the opening day of
ticket sales -- usually the first Saturday of November. But no date
for sales has been announced.

One reason for that is no schedule has been announced.

Iacuessa said the schedule cannot be approved until there is an
agreement between Major League Baseball and Minor League Baseball
-- which officially is called the National Association of
Professional Baseball Leagues, which had governed the minor league
teams.

But the days of the NAPBL seem numbered.

Major League Baseball is flexing its muscle and taking over.

On Sept. 29, MLB announced that the Appalachian League -- an
advanced rookie league of 10 teams -- would be converted to a
summer collegiate league in conjunction with USA Baseball, the
governing body of amateur baseball. The Minor League Baseball
office was not mentioned in the announcement.

The move is the beginning of MLB's quest to reduce the minor league
landscape by 25 percent, from 160 to 120 teams. Other advanced
rookie and short-season leagues (including the New York-Penn
League, which has the Red Sox-affiliated Lowell Spinners) seem
destined be converted, as well -- to either collegiate or
independent pro leagues.

On Sept. 30, the contract between MLB and Minor League Baseball
expired. The minor league office in St. Petersburg, Florida, sent
out a press release saying that negotiations continued for a new
agreement.

Major League Baseball's statement was telling: "We intend to work
with Minor League owners to grow the game by building a new model .
. . " Notice the talks are with owners, not with the Minor League
Baseball office.

On Oct. 7, Major League Baseball announced that Minor League
Baseball would transition to New York, where MLB is headquartered.
Commissioner Rob Manfred hired his own people to "help develop the
framework for a more cohesive and efficient model."

Signs of MLB's takeover surfaced last year with its contraction
plan. It looked like Minor League Baseball might put up a fight,
but the coronavirus pandemic and canceling of the 2020 minor league
season put a financial strain on many minor league teams. Pat
O'Conner, Minor League Baseball's CEO, said over half of minor
league teams would either have to sell or face bankruptcy. O'Conner
announced his retirement a month ago, with no successor named.

While there are struggling teams, the Sea Dogs have maintained
their solvency, avoiding layoffs, and paying their gameday
employees throughout the season.

Now it is onto 2021.

The lack of an official agreement between MLB and the minor leagues
"has not affected our day-to-day operation," Iacuessa said. "While
we are waiting for what the final details of the new (agreement)
will be, we know the game-day experience for fans won't impacted."

The new agreement is likely to be official word of the MLB
takeover, and the reduction of teams.

THE EASTERN LEAGUE is not in trouble, but at least one of its teams
could be. The Mets-affiliated Binghamton Rumble Ponies, annually
ranking at or near the bottom in attendance, might be moved to
Brooklyn, site of the Mets' popular New York-Penn League team. That
move will likely affect the Sea Dogs schedule.

REDUCING THE number of minor league teams would help Major League
Baseball pay its remaining minor leaguers a better salary.

Low pay in the minors has long been a point of contention and has
resulted in a class action lawsuit by a group of players, claiming
MLB violates minimum wage laws. MLB tried to get the lawsuit thrown
out, but the U.S. Supreme Court denied MLB's request in a ruling on
Oct. 5.

MLB may eventually have to pay back wages to minor leaguers.

For the future, MLB announced last January that it is bumping up
salaries next year, ranging from a 38 percent to 72 percent
increase, depending on the league. Double-A players, including the
Sea Dogs, will get one of the biggest raises, from a salary of $350
a week to $600. [GN]


MAPLEBEAR INC: Bailey Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CASEY BAILEY, JENNIFER WICKLUND, CURTIS SMITH and
CHRISTINA HEARN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. MAPLEBEAR, INC., d/b/a Instacart, and DOES 1-25, Case
No. CGC-20-586596, was removed from Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Francisco to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on October 30, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 4:20-cv-07677-DMR to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to compensate
the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated employees overtime
pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

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

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Malcolm A. Heinicke, Esq.
         Rohit K. Singla, Esq.
         Margaret G. Maraschino, Esq.
         Lloyd S. Marshall, Esq.
         MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
         560 Mission Street
         Twenty-Seventh Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94105-2907
         Telephone: (415) 512-4000
         Facsimile: (415) 512-4077
         E-mail: malcolm.heinicke@mto.com
                 rohit.singla@mto.com
                 margaret.maraschino@mto.com
                 lloyd.marshall@mto.com

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Barnes Sues Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE BARNES and PAIGE STROMAN, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Maryland, Case No.
8:20-cv-03205-PX (D. Md., November 4, 2020) arises from the
Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
state contract laws, and common law claims of unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to pay them for
their pre-shift time spent booting up their computers, logging into
required computer networks and software applications, and reviewing
work-related e-mails and other information prior to the start of
their shift, during the day when they were logged out during meal
periods and other breaks during their shift, and after the end of
their shift. The Defendant also failed to compensate the Plaintiffs
and all similarly situated employees for mid-shift, off-the-clock
work attributed to technical problems with the computers, networks,
programs/applications, and/or phones. The Plaintiff further asserts
that the Defendant failed to compensate them and all similarly
situated employees at the correct overtime rate, by failing to
incorporate commissions and other incentive pay earned into the
employees' regular rate.

Plaintiff Barnes is a resident of Austin, Texas, and was employed
by the Defendant as an hourly customer service representative from
approximately November 2019 to February 2020.

Plaintiff Paige Stroman is a resident of San Antonio, Texas, and
was also employed by the Defendant as an hourly CSR from
approximately December 2010 to August 28, 2010.

Marriott International, Inc. provides hotel services throughout the
world.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
          Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
                  crash@sommerspc.com

MARSHALLS OF CA: Lacour Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ROBERT LACOUR, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. MARSHALLS OF CA, LLC; MARSHALLS OF MA, INC.;
THE TJX COMPANIES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
HG20074719, was removed from Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Alameda to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on October 30, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-07641 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to
pay hourly wages, failure to indemnify, failure to provide accurate
written wage statements, failure to timely pay all final wages, and
unfair competition.

Marshalls of CA, LLC is a company that operates discount department
stores, headquartered in Framingham, Massachusetts.

Marshalls of MA, Inc. is a company that operates discount
department stores, headquartered in Framingham, Massachusetts.

The TJX Companies, Inc. is an American multinational off-price
department store corporation, headquartered in Framingham,
Massachusetts. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         J. Kevin Lilly, Esq.
         Bradley E. Schwan, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
         Telephone: (310) 553-0308
         Facsimile: (310) 553-5583
         E-mail: klilly@littler.com
                 BSchwan@littler.com

                 - and –

         Amy Todd-Gher, Esq.
         Brittany L. McCarthy, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
         San Diego, CA 92101-3577
         Telephone: (619) 232-0441
         Facsimile: (619) 232-4302
         E-mail: Atodd-gher@littler.com
                 blmccarthy@littler.com

MGP INGREDIENTS: Bid to Nix Suit Over Sales of Aged Whiskey Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MGP Ingredients Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss the complaint in the consolidated putative class action
suit entitled, In re MGP Ingredients, Inc. Securities Litigation
and the file is maintained under Master File No.
2:20-cv-2090-DDCJPO, is pending.

In 2020, two putative class action lawsuits were filed in the
United States District Court for District of Kansas, naming the
Company and certain of its current and former executive officers as
defendants, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The plaintiffs seek to pursue claims on behalf of a class
consisting of purchasers or acquirers of the Company's Common Stock
during certain specified periods (the "Class Periods").

On May 28, 2020, the two lawsuits were consolidated and the Court
appointed City of Miami Fire Fighters' and Police Officers'
Retirement Trust as lead plaintiff. The consolidated action is
captioned In re MGP Ingredients, Inc. Securities Litigation and the
file is maintained under Master File No. 2:20-cv-2090-DDCJPO.

On July 22, 2020, the Retirement Trust filed a consolidated Amended
Complaint. The Consolidated Complaint alleges that the defendants
made false and/or misleading statements regarding the Company's
forecasts of sales of aged whiskey, and that, as a result the
Company's Common Stock traded at artificially inflated prices
throughout the Class Periods.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, interest, attorneys'
fees, costs, and unspecified equitable relief, but have not
specified the amount of damages being sought.

On September 8, 2020, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint. The Motion is pending.

MGP said, "The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend
itself in this action."

MGP Ingredients Inc. develops and produces natural grain-based
products in the United States. The Company is based in Atchison,
Kansas.


MICHAEL BOUDREAUX: Medically Vulnerable Persons Class Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Charles Criswell, Levi
Johnson, Samuel Camposeco, Adam Ibarra, and California Attorneys
for Criminal Justice, v. Michael Boudreaux, in his official
capacity as Sheriff of Tulare County, Case No.
1:20-cv-01048-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for
an order:

   1. granting provisional certification of the Provisional
      Class and a Subclass of Medically Vulnerable Persons:

      Provisional Class:

      "all people who are now, or in the future will be,
      incarcerated in Tulare 9 County jails"; and

      Medically Vulnerable Subclass:

      "persons whose age or medical conditions put them at
      increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19 and who are
      confined pre-trial and pursuant to a judgment of
      conviction in the Tulare County Jails."

   2. re-appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives; and

   3. re-appointing class counsel, pursuant to Federal Rule of
      Civil Procedure 23 and Local Rule 205.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Nov.
2, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/35d8yMY at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jacob S. Kreilkamp, Esq.
          William D. Temko, Esq.
          Sara A. McDermott, Esq.
          Omar H. Noureldin, Esq.
          Lauren M. Harding, Esq.
          Ariel T. Teshuva, Esq.
          Estalyn S. marquis, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3426
          Telephone: (213) 683-9100
          Facsimile: (213) 687-3702
          E-mail: jacob.kreilkamp@mto.com
                  william.temko@mto.com
                  sara.mcdermott@mto.com
                  omar.noureldin@mto.com
                  lauren.harding@mto.com
                  ariel.teshuva@mto.com
                  estalyn.marquis@mto.com

               - and -

          Kathleen Guneratne, Esq.
          Amy Gilbert, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
          39 Drumm Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 621-2493
          E-mail: KGuneratne@alcunc.org
                  AGilbert@aclunc.org

MICHIGAN: State Police Faces Employee Discrimination Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Brooke Kansier, writing for Traverse City Record Eagle, reports
that two more officials have joined a multiple-lawsuit fight
against what they've called employee discrimination within the
Michigan State Police.

Now, four cases accuse the agency of denying promotions to
more-qualified white applicants in favor of less-qualified female
and non-white employees.

The attorney representing all four officials, Jim Fett, said there
may be more to come.

"It would be accurate to say that I'm looking at a class action
(lawsuit) against the State Police," said Fett, who has handled
several similar cases in his career. "I have some irons in the fire
that I can't talk about at this point."

For now, his focus is on the suits at hand.

One of the new cases, filed by now-transferred Second District
Assistant Post Commander Michael McCormick in August, claims
retaliation for opposing what he calls "illegal racial and gender
preferences," that saw him, a white male, passed up for a post
commander promotion.

Second District Sgt. Larissa LaMay filed a similar complaint in
September, claiming she'd been passed for a promotion -- to
McCormick's position after his transfer to Lansing -- for being
white and gay, according to court documents. LaMay claims in her
complaint that her Metro North post commander voiced anti-gay
sentiments and made fun of another gay colleague's sexual
orientation in front of her and several peers during a mandatory
meeting, and attributes the appointment of a less-qualified
applicant in her stead to the woman being Black. She argues the
person who was promoted should've been disqualified because of
disciplinary action in her record, and that the woman was coached
for success in the interview.

LaMay's suit also names that post commander, F/Lt. Keyonn
Whitfield.

Michigan's Constitution clearly prohibits racial and gender
preferences of any kind, LaMay's complaint argues. She claims MSP
is simply using new branding of "Valuing Diversity and Inclusion"
to implement illegal practices, which the complaint notes have been
condemned by state judges more than once.

The complaint attributes the most recent of those efforts to
outrage against former MSP Director Col. Kristie Kibbey Etue after
a charged Facebook post condemning Black NFL players for kneeling
during the national anthem in 2017. The complaints suggest new MSP
Director Col. Joseph Gasper's appointment came with instruction
from Gov. Gretchen Whitmer to improve department diversity and seek
out non-white and female candidates to promote.

"It all emanates from Col. Gasper saying ‘We're way too white,
we're way too male,' and saying that diversity is going to be job
No. 1 -- it's not about merit and efficiency as required by the
Constitution, it's about diversity," Fett said, referencing a
comment Gasper is accused of making at an agency gathering last
year. "I can't imagine citizens -- Black, white, yellow, purple,
anything in between -- want to hear that MSP are more interested in
social engineering than they are in protecting the public."

LaMay calls the practice "A cancer to the department," and an
upsetting display of "Reverse discrimination and nepotism."

The agency has yet to file responses to the still-fresh suits.

MSP "is committed to maintaining a work environment where there is
equal opportunity for all members, one in which decisions regarding
employment, promotion, retention, or any other personnel practice
are not motivated by bias or based on discrimination," agency
Spokeswoman Shanon Banner said in an emailed statement.

The new suits come months after former Capt. Michael Caldwell and a
since-fired MSP Inspector, Mike Hahn, filed federal lawsuits with
near-identical accusations in May. Both lawsuits are still pending
in federal court and share a near-identical timeline of court
action.

The twin complaints allege Gasper focused MSP policies like setting
higher promotion testing standards for white male officers compared
to their female and minority peers, and consistent choosing of
those groups for promotions over white male colleagues without
regard for merit, the complaints allege. Another policy, according
to Hahn's suit, requires a certain number of minority candidates to
be included in a considered promotion pool.

Caldwell's suit claims the white, male officers under his command
felt they'd been passed up for promotions and weren't awarded equal
opportunities.

MSP officials in May confirmed that Hahn was terminated and his
supervisor, Caldwell, was demoted and reassigned following an
internal investigation spurred when Hahn filed an HR complaint
about the behavior of another, non-white employee.

In a statement, Gasper said Caldwell "violated department policy"
in opposing diversity-based promoting and hiring practices — both
men had verbally objected to the practices in the past. An MSP
answer filed in the suit denies those changes were related to any
diversity-focused practices.

The latest action in both Hahn and Caldwell's cases, both filed
Oct. 2, are an identical pair of stipulated orders setting several
restrictions on MSP documents and records shared through discovery.
That's waiting on a review by Chief Judge Robert Jonker, who is
presiding over Caldwell, Hahn and McCormick's cases.

For now, a deadline for discovery has been set for March 19, 2021,
and a deadline for dispositive motions comes April 23. Fett said
discovery is ongoing, and he plans to complete depositions this
fall.

In an answer to Caldwell's complaint, MSP declined to respond to
requested financial compensation, and denied most of his claims as
inappropriately filed and incorrectly worded, or irrelevant to the
topic at-hand.

The agency denied the existence of any "affirmative action"
policies or directives, as well as the described "purge" of MSP's
white, male officials and separate testing standards for white men
compared to other employees.

The answer does admit that Gasper has stated that "diversity is an
important priority for the MSP," but denies he ever made the "Way
too white and way too male" comment.

Fett called the response "evasive."

"When I was in high school, we were taught in football camp by the
senior captain that if you're called down to the office, deny
everything, admit nothing. That's what they are doing," he said.
"They absolutely know that what they're doing is illegal."

MSP spokeswoman Shanon Banner declined to discuss the litigation
further, and MSP Attorney Kyla Barranco referred comment to media
personnel within the Attorney General's Office who did not respond
to requests for comment. [GN]


MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Appeal from Brown Class Cert. Order Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. (MAA) said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October
29, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that
the petition seeking review of the District Court's order granting
class certification in the class action suit initiated by Nathaniel
Brown is still pending.

In April 2017, plaintiff Nathaniel Brown, on behalf of a purported
class of plaintiffs, filed a complaint against the Operating
Partnership, as the successor by merger to Post Properties' primary
operating partnership, and MAA in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.  

The lawsuit alleges that Post Properties (and, following the Post
Properties merger in December 2016, the Operating Partnership)
charged late fees at its Texas properties that violate Section
92.019.  The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and attorney's
fees and costs.  

In September 2018, the District Court certified a class proposed by
the plaintiff.  

Additionally, in September 2018, the District Court denied the
Company's motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiff’s
motion for partial summary judgment.

Because the District Court certified a class prior to granting the
plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, the District
Court’s ruling applies to the entire class.  

In October 2018, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the
Company's petition to review the District Court's order granting
class certification. In September 2019, the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals heard the Company's oral arguments.

The Company also intends to appeal the District Court's order
granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment to the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals if permission to appeal is granted.  

The Company will continue to vigorously defend the action and
pursue such appeals.  

Mid-America Apartment said, "Management estimates that the
Company's maximum exposure in the lawsuit, given the class
certification and summary judgment ruling, is $8.4 million, which
includes both potential damages and attorneys' fees but excludes
any prejudgment interest that may be awarded.

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

Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. (MAA), incorporated on
September 22, 1993, is a multifamily focused, self-administered and
self-managed real estate investment trust (REIT). The Company owns,
operates, acquires and develops apartment communities primarily
located in the Southeast and Southwest regions of the United
States. It operates through three segments: Large market same
store, Secondary market same store and Non-Same Store and Other.
The company is based in Germantown, Tennessee.


MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Appeal from Class Cert. Ruling Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. (MAA) said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October
29, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that
the petition seeking review of the District Court's order granting
class certification of the lawsuit initiated by Cathi Cleven and
Tara Cleven remains pending in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In June 2016, plaintiffs Cathi Cleven and Tara Cleven, on behalf of
a purported class of plaintiffs, filed a complaint against MAA and
the Operating Partnership in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.  

In January 2017, Areli Arellano and Joe L. Martinez joined the
lawsuit as additional plaintiffs.  

The lawsuit alleges that the Company (but not Post Properties
charged late fees at its Texas properties that violate Section
92.019 of the Texas Property Code, or Section 92.019, which
provides that a landlord may not charge a tenant a late fee for
failing to pay rent unless, among other things, the fee is a
reasonable estimate of uncertain damages to the landlord that are
incapable of precise calculation and result from the late payment
of rent.  

The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and attorneys' fees and
costs.  

In September 2018, the District Court certified a class proposed by
the plaintiffs.

Additionally, in September 2018, the District Court denied the
Company's motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiffs’
motion for partial summary judgment.  

Because the District Court certified a class prior to granting the
plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, the District
Court’s ruling applies to the entire class.  

In October 2018, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the
Company's petition to review the District Court's order granting
class certification. In September 2019, the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals heard the Company's oral arguments.

The Company also intends to appeal the District Court's order
granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment to the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals if permission to appeal is granted.  

The Company will continue to vigorously defend the action and
pursue such appeals.  

Mid-America said, "Management estimates that the Company's maximum
exposure in the lawsuit, given the class certification and summary
judgment ruling, is $54.6 million, which includes both potential
damages and attorneys' fees but excludes any prejudgment interest
that may be awarded.

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

Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. (MAA), incorporated on
September 22, 1993, is a multifamily focused, self-administered and
self-managed real estate investment trust (REIT). The Company owns,
operates, acquires and develops apartment communities primarily
located in the Southeast and Southwest regions of the United
States. It operates through three segments: Large market same
store, Secondary market same store and Non-Same Store and Other.
The company is based in Germantown, Tennessee.


MOTIVATE LLC: Fails to Timely Pay Final Paychecks, Bradley Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
DARRION BRADLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MOTIVATE, LLC; Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No.
CGC-20-587511 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., October 23, 2020)
arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violations
of the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was terminated via email
on July 31, 2020, and the Defendants did not immediately provide
him the final paycheck at the place of termination, nor did they
provide his final paycheck at the Defendants' place of business, as
is required under the Labor Code.

The Plaintiff seeks damages due to the Defendants' failure to pay
all wages on separation from employment and failure to provide
employees' final paycheck at the place of termination.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from approximately March
2020 through approximately July 2020 as a bicycle mechanic.

Motivate, LLC provides a bicycle sharing system in and around the
Bay Area in San Francisco and Alameda counties, as well as in other
locations around the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy B. Del Castillo, Esq.
          Kent L. Bradbury, Esq.
          CASTLE LAW: CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL
          3200 Douglas Blvd., Suite 300
          Roseville, CA 95661
          Telephone: (916) 245-0122
          E-mail: tdc@castleemploymentlaw.com
                  kb@castleemploymentlaw.com

NAPHCARE INC: Taylor Labor Class Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled EILEEN TAYLOR, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. NAPHCARE, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-10703, was
removed from the Superior Court of Massachusetts to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on October 30,
2020.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case
No. 1:20-cv-11970 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Massachusetts General Laws by failing
to pay the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees
overtime pay for all hours worked.

NaphCare, Inc. is a company that provides correctional healthcare
services, with its principal place of business located in
Birmingham, Alabama. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Kenneth D. Sansom, Esq.
         Grace L. Kipp, Esq.
         SPOTSWOOD SANSOM & SANSBURY LLC
         1819 Fifth Avenue North, Suite 1050
         Birmingham, AL 35203
         Telephone: (205) 986-3620
         Facsimile: (205) 986-3639
         E-mail: ksansom@spotswoodllc.com
                 gkipp@spotswoodllc.com

                  - and –

         Jeffrey A. Dretler, Esq.
         RUBIN AND RUDMAN LLP
         53 State Street
         Boston, MA 02109
         Telephone: (617) 330-7078
         Facsimile: (617) 330-7550
         E-mail: jdretler@rubinrudman.com

NEW JERSEY: Bennett Seeks Change to Gun Permit Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------
STANLEY BENNETT; MICHAEL HUCKER; FIREARMS POLICY COALITION, INC.;
THE SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION; and NEW JERSEY SECOND AMENDMENT
SOCIETY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. ANDREW DAVIS, in his official capacity as Chief of
Police of the Borough of Clayton Police Department; ROBERT D.
WHITE, in his official capacity as Public Safety Director of the
Town of Guttenberg Police Department; JUAN BARRERA, in his official
capacity as Officer in Charge of the Town of Guttenberg Police
Department; GURBIR S. GREWAL, in his official capacity as Attorney
General of New Jersey; and PATRICK J. CALLAHAN, in his official
capacity as Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-15406-RMB-JS (D.N.J., November 2,
2020) is a class action against the Defendants for deprivation of
fundamental rights under 2nd and 14th Amendments of the U.S.
Constitution.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action to challenge the State of
New Jersey's laws, regulations, policies, practices, and customs
which deny millions of individuals who reside in New Jersey, like
the Plaintiffs, their fundamental, individual right to bear loaded,
operable handguns outside their homes through oppressive criminal
statutes combined with a Carry Permit system that requires
justifiable need and other subjective requirements that regular
citizens cannot meet. The Defendants' actual and threatened
enforcement of such regulatory schemes hinders the Plaintiffs and
all others similarly situated residents to exercise their
constitutional right to bear arms outside of their homes without
being subjected to criminal sanction. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
                                 
         David D. Jensen, Esq.
         DAVID JENSEN PLLC
         33 Henry Street
         Beacon, NY 12508
         Telephone: (212) 380-6615
         Facsimile: (914) 591-1318
         E-mail: david@djensenpllc.com

                - and –

         Raymond M. DiGuiseppe, Esq.
         THE DIGUISEPPE LAW FIRM, P.C.
         4320 Southport-Supply Road, Suite 300
         Southport, NC 28461
         Telephone: (910) 713-8804
         Facsimile: (910) 672-7705
         E-mail: law.rmd@gmail.com

                - and –

         Adam Kraut, Esq.
         FIREARMS POLICY COALITION
         1215 K Street, 17th Floor
         Sacramento, CA 95814
         Telephone: (916) 476-2342
         E-mail: akraut@fpclaw.org

NEWMONT CORP: Shareholder Class Suit Underway in Ontario
--------------------------------------------------------
Newmont Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action pending before the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

On October 28, 2016 and February 14, 2017, separate proposed class
actions were commenced in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
pursuant to the Class Proceedings Act (Ontario) against the Company
and certain of its current and former officers.

Both statement of claims alleged common law negligent
misrepresentation in Goldcorp, Inc.'s public disclosure concerning
the Penasquito mine and also pleaded an intention to seek leave
from the Court to proceed with an allegation of statutory
misrepresentation pursuant to the secondary market civil liability
provisions under the Securities Act (Ontario).

By a consent order, the latter lawsuit will proceed, and the former
action has been stayed.

The active lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of persons who
acquired Goldcorp Inc.'s securities in the secondary market during
an alleged class period from October 30, 2014 to August 23, 2016.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter, but cannot
reasonably predict the outcome.

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

Newmont Corporation engages in the production and exploration of
gold, copper, silver, zinc, and lead.  The Company has operations
and/or assets in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Dominican
Republic, Peru, Suriname, Argentina, Chile, Australia, and Ghana.
Newmont Corporation was founded in 1916 and is headquartered in
Greenwood Village, Colorado.


NIKOLA CORP: Faces Holzmacher Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Holzmacher; Michael Wood; and Tate Wood, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Nikola Corporation;
Trevor R. Milton; Mark A. Russell; Kim J. Brady; Stephen J. Girsky;
and Steven M. Shindler, Case No. 2:20-cv-02123-JJT (D. Ariz., Nov.
3, 2020) is a securities class action alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiffs Albert Holzmacher, Michael Wood and Tate Wood bring this
action for violations of: (i) Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act against Nikola and certain of its current and former
officers and directors on behalf of themselves and all persons or
entities, excluding the Defendants, that purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of Nikola from March 3, 2020 through
October 15, 2020, inclusive and were damaged thereby; and (ii)
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of
themselves and all other shareholders of VectoIQ as of the May 8,
2020 record date that were entitled to vote on VectoIQ's proposed
transaction (the "Business Combination") with Nikola.

The Plaintiffs seek to recover damages caused by the Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws in connection with: (i)
VectoIQ's false and misleading statements and omissions of material
facts in its May 8, 2020 proxy statement seeking shareholder
approval of the Business Combination with Nikola; and (ii) public
Class period statements issued by the Defendants concerning, among
other things, Nikola's purported fuel cell and battery technology,
development of electric vehicles and ability to produce hydrogen at
less than 80% of the cost of its competitors.

Nikola's planned agreement with GM to collaborate on the 9 Badger
pick-up truck did not close at the end of September 2020 as
expected, and reports indicated GM was seeking to renegotiate more
favorable terms. On October 15, 2020 and October 16, 2020,
Defendant Russell indicated in several interviews that Nikola's
partnership with GM might fall through. Following Russell's
comments, Nikola's stock price fell approximately 16%, from $23.30
per share on October 15, 2020 to $19.55 per share on October 16,
2020.

VectoIQ was created in 2018 as a Special Purpose Acquisition
Vehicle or "blank check" company, by former General Motors Company
Vice Chairman Stephen Girsky for the purpose of effectuating a
transaction in the transportation or smart mobility industries. On
March 3, 2020, VectoIQ announced its plan to merge with
privately-held electric vehicle startup Nikola in a transaction
valued at $3.3 billion.

The Plaintiffs purchased the Company's securities at artificially
inflated prices during the Class period and was damaged upon the
revelation of the Defendants' fraud.

Nikola Corporation purports to be a zero-emissions vehicle company.
The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of the
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
          ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
          401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1170
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 710-5960
          Facsimile: (212) 894-7272
          E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com

               - and -

          Robert N. Cappucci, Esq.
          Joshua K. Porter, Esq.
          Andrew M. Sher, Esq.
          ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
          299 Park Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10171
          Telephone: (212) 894-7200
          Facsimile: (212) 894-7272
          E-mail: cappucci@entwistle-law.com
                  jporter@entwistle-law.com
                  asher@entwistle-law.com

NMC HEALTH: Administrators Prepare to Sue EY Over Audits
--------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Thomas and Tabby Kinder at The Financial Times report that
the administrators to NMC Health are preparing to sue Ernst & Young
for more than GBP1 billion over claims the Big Four audit firm was
negligent when it signed off the group's accounts during a "long
term" multibillion-dollar fraud.

NMC Health, the former FTSE 100 healthcare group, collapsed this
year after discovering that more than US$4 billion was apparently
hidden from its balance sheet in a large-scale fraud that spanned
operations from Abu Dhabi to London, the FT recounts.

EY has overseen NMC's accounts since the healthcare company floated
in London in 2012, the FT discloses.  The quality of the firm's
audits has already been questioned due to the fact that NMC's board
included former EY partners, the FT notes.

Administrator Alvarez & Marsal said it had hired law firm Quinn
Emanuel to make a claim against EY, and had already issued a
preliminary notice informing the audit firm it intended to file a
lawsuit, the FT relates.

In a progress report to creditors, Alvarez & Marsal said it was
still investigating the size and scale of the fraud, how it had
been perpetrated and by whom, as it sought to assess potential
claims and recoveries, the FT relays.

The Financial Reporting Council has already opened an investigation
into EY's audit of NMC's 2018 financial statements, the FT
recounts.

EY earned about GBP14 million in audit fees from NMC Health over
seven years, according to the FT.

The administrator's lawyers will have to prove that NMC's financial
performance would have been significantly different without the
allegedly negligent EY audits in order to pursue the quantum of its
claim, the FT says.

Alvarez & Marsal, as cited by the FT, said an estimate of payments
for unsecured creditors was not yet possible.


NORTHERN TRUST: Callaway Balks at Imprudent Retirement Plan Options
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KATRINA L. CALLAWAY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY, THE NORTHERN
TRUST COMPANY EMPLOYEE BENEFIT ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, and DOES
1-30, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-06497 (N.D. Ill., November 2,
2020) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to prudently select
the Northern Trust Company Thrift-Incentive Plan's investment
options from November 2, 2014 through December 31, 2019.
Specifically, the Defendants failed to regularly monitor Plan
investments and remove ones that become imprudent. The Defendants
loaded the Plan with poorly performing proprietary funds called the
Northern Trust Focus Target Retirement Trusts and then kept these
Funds on the Plan's investment menu throughout the Class Period
despite their continued underperformance.

As a result of the Defendants' disloyal and imprudent decision to
keep offering the Northern Trust Focus Funds in the Plan, the
retirement accounts of Plan participants, including the Plaintiff,
suffered significant losses.

The Northern Trust Company is a banking firm with its principal
place of business located in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
                                 
         Michael M. Mulder, Esq.
         Elena N. Liveris, Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL M. MULDER
         1603 Orrington, Suite 600
         Evanston, IL 60201
         Telephone: (312) 263-0272
         E-mail: mmmulder@mmulderlaw.com
                 eliveris@mmulderlaw.com

                - and –

         Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq.
         SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
         8068 East Del Acero Drive
         Scottsdale, AZ 85258
         Telephone: (480) 889-3514
         E-mail: gwotkyns@scott-scott.com

                - and –

         Geoffrey M. Johnson, Esq.
         SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
         12434 Cedar Road, Suite 12
         Cleveland Heights, OH 44106
         Telephone: (216) 229-6088
         E-mail: gjohnson@scott-scott.com

                - and –

         Jing-Li Yu, Esq.
         SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
         The Helmsley Building
         230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
         New York, NY 10169
         Telephone: (212) 223-6444
         E-mail: jyu@scott-scott.com

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: Supreme Court May Review Retirement Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Isabelle Sarraf, writing for The Daily Northwestern, reports that
the U.S. Supreme Court sought federal government input on a suit
brought against Northwestern involving its retirement plan.

The original suit, filed against NU in 2016, argued that NU
eliminated hundreds of mutual funds provided to those on the
retirement plan. Now, NU employees are asking the highest court of
the land to undo a March decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit, which they say created conflicting decisions
on pleading claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.

The Seventh Circuit's decision favoring NU created a "heightened
pleading standard," employees said, which differed from decisions
made by the Third and Eighth Circuits, which moved similar lawsuits
forward against the University of Pennsylvania and Washington
University in St. Louis, respectively.

Since 2016, more than 20 elite universities were struck by class
action lawsuits alleging retirement plan mismanagement. According
to a Bloomberg Law analysis, the move by the Supreme Court to
involve federal input means a justice is interested in the
retirement dispute -- increasing the chances the case will be heard
from 1 to 5 percent.

The Court's decision to consider the NU case comes months after
they denied a similar petition by UPenn. [GN]


PAVMED INC: Spritzer Sues Over Improper Approval of Proposals
-------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE A. SPRITZER, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated stockholders, Plaintiff v. LISHAN AKLOG, M.D., RONALD M.
SPARKS, DAVID S. BATTLEMAN, M.D., JAMES L. COX, M.D., DAVID WEILD
IV, MICHAEL J. GLENNON, and PAVMED INC., Defendants, Case No.
2020-0935 (Del. Ch., November 2, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendants for breach of contract.

The case arises from the Defendants' representations of certain
proposals at PAVmed's annual stockholder meeting as approved during
its filing of a Form 8-K Current Report on July 27, 2020. These
proposals include: (1) an amendment to the Company's 2014 Long-Term
Incentive Equity Plan to increase its aggregate share limit by
2,000,000 shares; (2) an amendment to the Company's Employee Stock
Purchase Plan to increase the number of shares authorized for
purchase by 500,000 shares; (3) the issuance of stock to certain
holders of PAVmed 2019 senior secured convertible notes; and (4)
the issuance of stock to a certain holder of PAVmed 2020 senior
convertible notes. In reality, the said proposals did not receive
the requisite stockholder vote at the meeting because the Company's
Board of Directors improperly failed to count Broker Non-Votes as
Against votes as required by the Company's Bylaws.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek to void the failed proposals
and otherwise remedy the harm resulting from the Defendants'
wrongful tabulation of stockholders' votes and improper adoption of
the failed proposals.

PAVmed Inc. is a medical device company, with its principal place
of business in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
                                 
         David A. Jenkins, Esq.
         Julie M. O'Dell, Esq.
         SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS LLP
         1000 N. West Street, Suite 1501
         P.O. Box 410
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Telephone: (302) 652-8400
         E-mail: DAJ@skjlaw.com
                 JMO@skjlaw.com

               - and –

         William J. Fields, Esq.
         Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
         Samir Shukurov, Esq.
         FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP
         1370 Broadway, 5th Floor – #5100
         New York, NY 10018
         Telephone: (212) 231-1500
         Facsimile: (646) 851-0076
         E-mail: wfields@fksfirm.com
                 ckupka@fksfirm.com
                 sshukurov@fksfirm.com

PAYCOR INC: Fails to Pay Sales Executives' OT, Stang Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM QUINCY STANG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PAYCOR, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00882-MRB (S.D. Ohio, November 3, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Ohio Wage Laws by failing to compensate the Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated client sales executives overtime
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiff was employed by Paycor in its Cincinnati, Ohio office
as a major market client sales executive from approximately May 23,
2016 through approximately November 12, 2018.

Paycor, Inc. is a company that provides cloud-based onboarding,
human resources, payroll, and timekeeping software, with its
principal place of business located in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                  
                                    
         Drew Legando, Esq.
         MERRIMAN LEGANDO WILLIAMS & KLANG, LLC
         1360 W. 9th Street, Suite 200
         Cleveland, OH 44113
         Telephone: (216) 522-9000
         Facsimile: (216) 522-9007
         E-mail: drew@merrimanlegal.com

                  - and –

         Melissa Stewart, Esq.
         Chauniqua D. Young, Esq.
         OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
         685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (212) 245-1000
         Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
         E-mail: mstewart@outtengolden.com
                 cyoung@outtengolden.com

PBF ENERGY: Trial in Goldstein Suit Set for July 2021
-----------------------------------------------------
PBF Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that trial in the case,
Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., has
been scheduled to commence on July 27, 2021.

On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation, et al., the company and PBF LLC, and its subsidiaries,
PBF Western Region LLC and Torrance Refining Company LLC ("Torrance
Refining") and the manager of its Torrance refinery along with
ExxonMobil were named as defendants in a class action and
representative action complaint filed on behalf of Arnold
Goldstein, John Covas, Gisela Janette La Bella and others similarly
situated.

The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles (the "Court") and alleges
negligence, strict liability, ultra-hazardous activity, a
continuing private nuisance, a permanent private nuisance, a
continuing public nuisance, a permanent public nuisance and
trespass resulting from the February 18, 2015 electrostatic
precipitator ("ESP") explosion at the Torrance refinery which was
then owned and operated by ExxonMobil.

The operation of the Torrance refinery by the PBF entities
subsequent to the company's acquisition in July 2016 is also
referenced in the complaint.

To the extent that plaintiffs' claims relate to the ESP explosion,
ExxonMobil has retained responsibility for any liabilities that
would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the agreement relating to
the acquisition of the Torrance refinery.

On July 2, 2018, the Court granted leave to plaintiffs' to file a
Second Amended Complaint alleging groundwater contamination. With
the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs' added an
additional plaintiff.

On March 18, 2019, the class certification hearing was held and the
judge took the matter under submission. On April 1, 2019, the judge
issued an order denying class certification.

On April 15, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Petition with the Ninth
Circuit for Permission to Appeal the Order Denying Motion for Class
Certification. The appeal is currently pending with the Ninth
Circuit.

On May 3, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Motion with the Central District
Court for Leave to File a Renewed Motion for Class Certification.
On May 22, 2019, the judge granted Plaintiffs’ motion.

The company filed its opposition to the motion on July 29, 2019.
The Plaintiffs' motion was heard on September 23, 2019. On October
15, 2019, the judge granted certification to two limited classes of
property owners, rejecting two other proposed subclasses based on
negligence and on strict liability for ultrahazardous activities.

The certified subclasses relate to trespass claims for ground
contamination and nuisance for air emissions. Discovery is ongoing.


Trial currently is scheduled to commence on July 27, 2021.

PBF Energy said, "We presently believe the outcome will not have a
material impact on our financial position, results of operations or
cash flows.

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

PBF Energy Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in
refining and supplying petroleum products. The company operates in
two segments, Refining and Logistics. PBF Energy Inc. was founded
in 2008 and is based in Parsippany, New Jersey.


PLYMOUTH, MA: County Jail Inmates Drop COVID Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Joe DiFazio, writing for Patriot Ledger, reports that inmates at
the Plymouth County jail facing federal charges have dropped a
potential class action lawsuit that sought to release some
detainees because of coronavirus concerns at the facility, the
Patriot Ledger reported.

The litigation, filed in federal court in April by four men,
claimed that keeping federal inmates in the facility amid the
coronavirus violated the detainee's constitutional rights. U.S.
District Court Judge Leo Sorokin disagreed. In May, Sorokin denied
the men's request for an injunction and found that the men hadn't
established that the conditions at the jail were unsafe enough to
grant the men relief. The detainees dismissed their lawsuit on Oct.
8.

"The health and safety of the persons committed to the (Plymouth
County Sheriff) Department's care and custody, the staff, and the
public is of paramount importance," Plymouth County Sheriff Joseph
McDonald Jr., said in a statement. "It is gratifying to see that
the court has recognized the many measures the Department has taken
to protect people during this time of unprecedented challenge."

There are more than 150 men in federal custody being housed at the
county correctional facility in Plymouth. U.S. Attorney Andrew
Lelling, whose office handled the case, credited McDonald and his
department for their efforts to reduce COVID-19 risk.

"The COVID-19 pandemic has put enormous pressure on detention
facilities," Lelling said in a statement. "Our law enforcement
partners in Plymouth met that challenge by swiftly instituting
measures to ensure the safety of detainees, staff, and the public.
Consequently, they prevailed, despite the plaintiffs' insistence
that the facility was still unsafe. We are pleased the court
recognized Plymouth's efforts in this case."

Since the beginning of the pandemic, the jail has had four total
inmate cases of COVID-19 and nine staff cases. The jail is designed
to hold 1,250 inmates, but according to data released by the
state's Department of Public Health, there are currently about 627
inmates at the jail. There were 765 inmates there at the beginning
of April. [GN]


PREMIER SENIOR: Parker Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA & WWPCL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
QUINNCY PARKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. PREMIER SENIOR LIVING, LLC, Case No. 20-cv-1664 (E.D.
Wis., Nov. 3, 2020) is a collective and class action brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) and the
Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws (WWPCL).

The Plaintiff brings these FLSA and WWPCL claims and causes of
action against the Defendant on behalf of herself and all other
similarly-situated current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt
employees of the Defendant for purposes of obtaining relief under
the FLSA and WWPCL for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive
relief, and/or any such other relief the court may deem
appropriate.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant operated (and continues
to operate) an unlawful compensation system that deprived her and
all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees of their wages earned
for all compensable work performed each workweek, including at an
overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek. Specifically, the Defendant's unlawful compensation
system failed to include all forms of non-discretionary
compensation, such as monetary bonuses, incentives, awards, and/or
other rewards and payments, in all current and former hourly-paid,
non-exempt employees' regular rates of pay for overtime calculation
purposes, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL, she adds.

Plaintiff, Quinncy Parker, is an adult female resident of the state
of Wisconsin

Premier Senior is a privately-owned assisted living company
headquartered in New York, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780-1953
          Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
          E-Mail: sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com

PRIME SECURITY: Pecora FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ALBERTO SALMON PECORA, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. PRIME SECURITY ALLIANCE INC., ANAILY
GONZALEZ and RUBEN ARVELIO BORRERO, Case No. 2020-21457-CA-01, was
removed from the Florida Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial
Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on October 30, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-24478-UU to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to compensate
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees accurate
minimum wages and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Prime Security Alliance Inc. is a provider of professional security
services, headquartered in Florida. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Yelina Angulo, Esq.
         ANGULO DIAZ LAW GROUP P.A.
         782 NW 42nd Avenue, Suite 630
         Miami, FL 33126
         Telephone: (305) 468-9564
         E-mail: service@angulodiazlaw.com

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Rozo Suit Against Principal Life Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Principal Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that Principal
Life, a company subsidiary, continues to defend a class action suit
initiated by Frederick Rozo.

On November 12, 2014, Frederick Rozo filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Iowa against Principal Life and the company . The company was later
dismissed as a defendant.

The Plaintiff alleged that defendants breached fiduciary duties and
engaged in prohibited transactions under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) in connection with a general account
guaranteed product known as the Principal Fixed Income Option
("PFIO").

On May 12, 2017, the district court certified a nationwide class of
participants and beneficiaries who had funds invested in one of the
PFIO contracts. On September 25, 2018, the district court granted
Principal Life's motion for summary judgment.

On February 3, 2020, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
that ruling and remanded the case back to the district court.

Principal Life will continue to aggressively defend the case.

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

Principal Financial Group, Inc., is a global investment management
company offering retirement services, insurance solutions and asset
management. The company is based in Des Moines, Iowa.


RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT: Maryland Consumers Class Sought
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIFFANY DYER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RECEIVABLES
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00299-ELH (D. Md.), the
Parties ask the Court for an order certifying this case to proceed
as a class action, and granting preliminary approval of the
settlement, on behalf of the following class:

   "all Maryland consumers who were sent collection letters
   and/or notices from the Defendant, during the period of
   February 5, 2019 to present, attempting to collect a consumer
   debt owed to or allegedly owed to Patient First, which
   included a $40.00 collection fee, when no such fee was
   expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt."

The Plaintiff filed this class action lawsuit pursuant to the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, which alleges RMS violated the FDCPA
by sending consumers written collection communications that
contained a fee not authorized by the agreement creating the debt
or authorized by law.

RMS is a third-party debt collection agency located in North
Chesterfield, Virginia.

A copy of the joint motion for an order conditionally certifying
class dated Nov. 2, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3n6kDcL at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Adam Sampson, Esq.
          ROLLINS SMALKIN RICHARDS & MACKIE, LLC
          300 East Lombard Street, Suite 900
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: 410 727-2443
          E-mail: asampson@rsrm.com

REXAHN PHARMACEUTICALS: Talsma Putative Class Action Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Rexahn Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Talsma
v. Rexahn Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1-20-cv-06541
(S.D.N.Y.).

On June 17, 2020, Rexahn's Board of Directors caused Rexahn to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Razor Merger Sub,
Inc. and Ocuphire Pharma, Inc. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, among other things: (i) Merger Sub will merge with and
into Ocuphire, with Ocuphire continuing as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Rexahn; and (ii) each share of Ocuphire common stock
will be converted into the right to receive shares of Rexahn common
stock such that former Ocuphire shareholders will own approximately
85.7% of the combined company and Rexahn's shareholders will own
approximately 14.3%.

On July 31, 2020, a putative stockholder class action was filed in
the Chancery Court styled Stahlman v. Rexahn Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2020-0639.

Additionally, on August 3, 2020, a putative stockholder class
action was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware styled Thompson v. Rexahn Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01036-UNA (D. Del).

On August 7, 2020 and August 17, 2020, putative stockholder class
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York styled, respectively, Manes v. Rexahn
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-06227 (S.D.N.Y.).
and Talsma v. Rexahn Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No.
1-20-cv-06541 (S.D.N.Y.).

On August 18, 2020, a putative stockholder class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York styled Juilfs v. Rexahn Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No
1:20-cv-03780 (F.D.N.Y.).

The Stockholder Actions assert claims against the company and the
Individual Defendants.

The Stahlman and Manes complaints allege that the Individual
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the company's
stockholders. The Thompson, Manes, Juilfs and Talsma complaints
allege that the company and the Individual Defendants violated
Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder, by failing to disclose in the Initial Registration
Statement certain information regarding, among other things,
financial projections for the company and Ocuphire, the valuation
analyses performed by the company's financial advisor, Oppenheimer
& Co., Inc., in support of its fairness opinion and the process
leading to the execution of the Merger Agreement.

The Thompson, Manes, Juilfs and Talsma complaints also allege that
the Individual Defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, as control persons who had the ability to prevent the Proxy
Statement from being false and misleading.

The Stockholder Actions seek, among other things, an injunction
preventing consummation of the Merger, an award of damages, and an
award of costs and expenses, including attorney' fees.

On September 8, 2020, plaintiff Thompson made a filing in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
voluntarily dismissing the Thompson complaint.

On September 22, 2020, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of the Juilfs action in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York.  

On October 8, 2020, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of the Manes action in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

On October 1, 2020, the Chancery Court granted an unopposed motion
to dismiss the Stahlman action, but retained jurisdiction for the
limited purpose of deciding any fee application should that become
necessary.

On August 6, 2020, another party sent a letter to the company's
counsel demanding that the company and the Individual Defendants
amend the Initial Registration Statement to provide additional
disclosures that the party alleges were improperly omitted from the
Initial Registration Statement in violation of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act, including certain information regarding
financial data and the background and process leading to the
execution of the Merger Agreement (the "Demand Letter").

Rexahn said, "We and the Individual Defendants intend to vigorously
defend against the remaining Stockholder Action and the Demand
Letter. Additional lawsuits arising out of or relating to the
Merger Agreement or the Merger may be filed in the future. The
results of complex legal proceedings are difficult to predict and
could delay or prevent the completion of the Merger. The existence
of litigation relating to the Merger could impact the likelihood of
obtaining stockholder approval of the Merger. Moreover, the pending
litigation is, and any future additional litigation could be, time
consuming and expensive and could divert management’s attention
away from its regular business."

Rexahn Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company. The
Company develops signal inhibitor therapies for cancer, and
treatments for central nervous system diseases. The company is
based Rockville, Maryland.


SAKAR INTERNATIONAL: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Romero Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSUE ROMERO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. SAKAR INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-09218
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 3, 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 the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Because the Defendant's Website, www.mushie.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 the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its 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.

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

The Defendant is an electronic products manufacturing company, and
owns and operates the Website, www.vivitar.com, 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



SCREENING REPORTS: Coldiron FCRA Class Suit Goes to W.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CRYSTAL COLDIRON, individually and all others v.
SCREENING REPORTS, INC. d/b/a BETTERNOI, Case No. 20CN-CC00061, was
removed from the Missouri Circuit Court of Clinton County to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on
November 2, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 5:20-cv-06157-DGK to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

Screening Reports, Inc., d/b/a Betternoi, is a company that
provides credit reporting services, with its principal place of
business located in Wood Dale, Illinois. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Joshua C. Dickinson, Esq.
         Kersten L. Holzhueter, Esq.
         1000 Walnut, Suite 1400
         Kansas City, MO 64106
         Telephone: (816) 474-8100
         Facsimile: (816) 474-3216
         E-mail: jdickinson@spencerfane.com
                 kholzhueter@spencerfane.com

SERVICE CORP: Appeal in Moulton Class Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29,
2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
appeal from a ruling in the class action suit entitled, Karen
Moulton, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service Corporation
International (SCI) and others ; Case No. 2013-5636; in the Civil
District Court Parish of New Orleans, Louisiana, is still pending.

This case was filed as a class action in June 2013 against an SCI
subsidiary in connection with SCI's acquisition of Stewart
Enterprises, Inc.

The plaintiffs allege that SCI aided and abetted breaches of
fiduciary duties by Stewart Enterprises and its board of directors
in negotiating the combination of Stewart Enterprises with a
subsidiary of SCI.

The plaintiffs seek damages concerning the combination.

The company filed exceptions to the plaintiffs' complaint that were
granted in June 2014. Thus, subject to appeals, SCI will no longer
be party to the suit.

The case has continued against the company's subsidiary Stewart
Enterprises and its former individual directors.

However, in October 2016, the court entered a judgment dismissing
all of plaintiffs' claims.

Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal.

Service Corporation said, "Given the nature of this lawsuit, we are
unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or ranges of loss,
if any."

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

Service Corporation International is an American provider of
funeral goods and services as well as cemetery property and
services. It is headquartered in Neartown, Houston, Texas. SCI
operates more than 1500 funeral homes and 400 cemeteries in 43
states, eight Canadian provinces, and Puerto Rico.


SHRI YAMUNA: Giles Balks at Delivery Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENCER GILES, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. SHRI YAMUNA ENTERPRISES, INC., GSJ COVINGTON,
LLC, GOPI COVINGTON, LLC, SANJAY PATEL, GANI MOHAMMED, RIZWAN
MOMIN, and DOES 1-20 inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-04489-CAP (N.D. Ga., November 3, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for minimum wage violations under the Fair
Labor Standards Act by failing to reimburse the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated delivery drivers for their out-of-pocket
expenses while performing their jobs for the Defendants' benefit.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a delivery driver
at Marco's franchise restaurants in Georgia from March 2016 to July
2020.

Shri Yamuna Enterprises, Inc. is a company that operates a chain of
Marco's franchise restaurants in Georgia.

GSJ Covington, LLC is a company that operates a chain of Marco's
franchise restaurants in Georgia.

Gopi Covington, LLC is a company that operates a chain of Marco's
franchise restaurants in Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                  
                                    
         Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
         WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
         11500 Olive Boulevard, Suite 133
         St. Louis, MO 63141
         Telephone: (314) 997-9150
         Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
         E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com

                  - and –

         Eli Karsh, Esq.
         LIBERMAN, GOLDSTEIN & KARSH
         225 South Meramec Ave., Suite 1200
         St. Louis, MO 63105
         Telephone: (314) 433-9300
         Facsimile: (314) 300-6262
         E-mail: elikarsh@aol.com

                  - and –

         Andrew Weiner, Esq.
         WEINER & SAND LLC
         800 Battery Avenue SE, Suite 100
         Atlanta, GA 30339
         Telephone: (404) 254-0842
         Facsimile: (866) 800-1482
         E-mail: aw@atlantaemployeelawyer.com

SOUTHERN CO: Class Cert. Bid in Suit vs. Georgia Power Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
ˋThe Southern Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the plaintiffs' and
Georgia Power's motions for summary judgment on all claims and the
plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification remain pending.


In 2011, plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Georgia
Power in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia alleging that
Georgia Power's collection in rates of amounts for municipal
franchise fees (which fees are paid to municipalities) exceeded the
amounts allowed in orders of the Georgia PSC and alleging certain
state law claims.

This case has been ruled upon and appealed numerous times over the
last several years. In one recent appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court
remanded the case and noted that the trial court could refer the
matter to the Georgia PSC to interpret its tariffs.

Following a motion by Georgia Power, in February 2019, the Superior
Court of Fulton County ordered the parties to submit petitions to
the Georgia PSC for a declaratory ruling and also conditionally
certified the proposed class.

In March 2019, Georgia Power and the plaintiffs filed petitions
with the Georgia PSC seeking confirmation of the proper application
of the municipal franchise fee schedule pursuant to the Georgia
PSC's orders.

Also in March 2019, Georgia Power appealed the class certification
decision to the Georgia Court of Appeals.

In October 2019, the Georgia PSC issued an order that found Georgia
Power has appropriately implemented the municipal franchise fee
schedule.

On March 11, 2020, the Georgia Court of Appeals vacated the
Superior Court of Fulton County's February 2019 order granting
conditional class certification. The Court of Appeals remanded the
case to the Superior Court of Fulton County for further
proceedings.

In September 2020, the plaintiffs and Georgia Power each filed
motions for summary judgment on all claims and the plaintiffs
renewed their motion for class certification.

Southern Company said, "The amount of any possible losses cannot be
calculated at this time because, among other factors, it is unknown
whether a class will be certified, the ultimate composition of any
class, and whether any losses would be subject to recovery from any
municipalities."

The Southern Company, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity. It
operates in four segments: Gas Distribution Operations, Gas
Pipeline Investments, Wholesale Gas Services, and Gas Marketing
Services. The Southern Company was founded in 1945 and is
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


SOUTHERN CO: Settlement in Monroe ERS Suit Preliminarily Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Southern Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the court in the
class action suit initiated by Monroe County Employees' Retirement
System has preliminarily approved the parties' settlement.

In January 2017, a securities class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia by
Monroe County Employees' Retirement System on behalf of all persons
who purchased shares of Southern Company's common stock between
April 25, 2012 and October 29, 2013.

The complaint names as defendants Southern Company, certain of its
current and former officers, and certain former Mississippi Power
officers and alleges that the defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Kemper County energy facility
in violation of certain provisions under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.

The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and
litigation costs and attorneys' fees.

In 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that provided
additional detail about their claims, increased the purported class
period by one day, and added certain other former Mississippi Power
officers as defendants. Also in 2017, the defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint with prejudice, to
which the plaintiffs filed an opposition.

In 2018, the court issued an order dismissing certain claims
against certain officers of Southern Company and Mississippi Power
and dismissing the allegations related to a number of the
statements that plaintiffs challenged as being false or misleading.


In 2018, the court denied the defendants' motion for
reconsideration and also denied a motion to certify the issue for
interlocutory appeal.

In the third quarter 2019, the court certified the plaintiffs'
proposed class and the defendants filed a petition for
interlocutory appeal of the class certification order with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

In December 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia entered an order staying all deadlines in the case
pending mediation.

The stay automatically expired on March 31, 2020; however, in light
of the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia vacated all existing discovery deadlines until
June 15, 2020.

On June 30, 2020, the court entered a revised scheduling order,
which resumed discovery and set out remaining case deadlines.

On August 15, 2020, the parties reached a settlement.

On September 8, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a stipulation of
settlement and motion for preliminary approval to resolve the case
on a class-wide basis, which the court granted on October 1, 2020.


Southern Company said, "The settlement amount will be paid entirely
through existing insurance policies and is not expected to have a
material impact on Southern Company's financial statements."

The Southern Company, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity. It
operates in four segments: Gas Distribution Operations, Gas
Pipeline Investments, Wholesale Gas Services, and Gas Marketing
Services. The Southern Company was founded in 1945 and is
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


SOUTHERN CO: Turnage Suit vs. Mississippi Power Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
The Southern Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that plaintiffs are
seeking authority to file a third amended complaint in their
lawsuit against Mississippi Power.

In November 2018, Ray C. Turnage and 10 other individual plaintiffs
filed a putative class action complaint against Mississippi Power
and the three then-serving members of the Mississippi PSC in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.

Mississippi Power received Mississippi PSC approval in 2013 to
charge a mirror construction work in progress (CWIP) rate premised
upon including in its rate base pre-construction and construction
costs for the Kemper IGCC prior to placing the Kemper IGCC into
service.

The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed that approval and ordered
Mississippi Power to refund the amounts paid by customers under the
previously-approved mirror CWIP rate. The plaintiffs allege that
the initial approval process, and the amount approved, were
improper.

They also allege that Mississippi Power underpaid customers by up
to $23.5 million in the refund process by applying an incorrect
interest rate.

The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and their
putative class, actual damages, punitive damages, pre-judgment
interest, post-judgment interest, attorney's fees, and costs.

In response to Mississippi Power and the Mississippi PSC each
filing a motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint in March 2019. The amended complaint included four
additional plaintiffs and additional claims for gross negligence,
reckless conduct, and intentional wrongdoing.

Mississippi Power and the Mississippi PSC have each filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 27, 2020, the
Mississippi PSC's motion to dismiss was granted.

Also on March 27, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to
name the new members of the Mississippi PSC, the Mississippi
Development Authority, and Southern Company as additional
defendants and add a cause of action against all defendants based
on a dormant commerce clause theory under the U.S. Constitution.

On April 9, 2020 and April 10, 2020, Mississippi Power and the
Mississippi PSC, respectively, filed responses opposing the motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint. On May 26, 2020, the
court granted Mississippi Power's motion to dismiss the first
amended complaint filed in 2019.

On July 6, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for revision of the
court's decision. The plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint also remains pending before the court.

On July 28, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
third amended complaint, which includes the same federal claims as
the proposed second amended complaint, as well as several
additional state law claims based on the allegation that
Mississippi Power failed to disclose the annual percentage rate of
interest applicable to refunds.

Southern Company said, "An adverse outcome in this proceeding could
have a material impact on Mississippi Power's financial
statements."

The Southern Company, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity. It
operates in four segments: Gas Distribution Operations, Gas
Pipeline Investments, Wholesale Gas Services, and Gas Marketing
Services. The Southern Company was founded in 1945 and is
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


SYNEOS HEALTH: Must Face Vaitkuviene Suit, Judge Says
------------------------------------------------------
Syneos Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that a  magistrate judge
has issued a report recommending to the District Court that
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the class action suit entitled,
Vaitkuviene v. Syneos Health, Inc., et al, No. 18-0029 (E.D.N.C.),
be denied.

On December 1, 2017, the first of two virtually identical actions
alleging federal securities law claims was filed against the
Company and certain of its officers on behalf of a putative class
of its shareholders.

The first action, captioned Bermudez v. INC Research, Inc., et al,
No. 17-09457 (S.D.N.Y.) in the Southern District of New York, names
as defendants the Company, Michael Bell, Alistair MacDonald,
Michael Gilbertini, and Gregory S. Rush (the "Bermudez action"),
and the second action, Vaitkuviene v. Syneos Health, Inc., et al,
No. 18-0029 (E.D.N.C.) in the Eastern District of North Carolina,
filed on January 25, 2018 (the "Vaitkuvienë action"), names as
defendants the Company, Alistair MacDonald, and Gregory S. Rush
(the "Initial Defendants").

Both complaints allege similar claims under Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a
putative class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between
May 10, 2017 and November 8, 2017 and November 9, 2017.

The complaints allege that the Company published inaccurate or
incomplete information regarding, among other things, the financial
performance and business outlook for inVentiv's business prior to
the Merger and with respect to the combined company following the
Merger.

On January 30, 2018, two alleged shareholders separately filed
motions seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff and approving the
selection of lead counsel.

On March 30, 2018, Plaintiff in the Bermudez action filed a notice
of voluntary dismissal of the Bermudez action, without prejudice,
and as to all defendants.

On May 29, 2018, the Court in the Vaitkuviene action appointed the
San Antonio Fire & Police Pension Fund and El Paso Firemen &
Policemen's Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiffs and, on June 7, 2018,
the Court entered a schedule providing for, among other things,
Lead Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by July 23, 2018
(later extended to July 30, 2018).

Lead Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on July 30, 2018,
which also includes a claim against the Initial Defendants, as well
as each member of the board of directors at the time of the INC
Research - inVentiv Health merger vote in July 2017 (the
"Defendants"), contending that the inVentiv merger proxy was
misleading under Section 14(a) of the Act.

Lead Plaintiffs seek, among other things, orders (i) declaring that
the lawsuit is a proper class action and (ii) awarding compensatory
damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest
thereon, and reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action,
including attorneys' fees and expert fees, to Lead Plaintiffs and
other class members.

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint
on September 20, 2018. Lead Plaintiffs filed a Response in
Opposition to such motion on November 21, 2018, and Defendants
filed a Reply to such response on December 5, 2018.

The District Court referred the Motion to Dismiss to a magistrate
judge for a report and recommendation. On September 26, 2019, the
magistrate judge stayed the action and, on August 7, 2020, the
magistrate judge lifted the stay.

Also on August 7, 2020, the magistrate judge issued a report
recommending to the District Court that Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss be denied.

On September 4, 2020, Defendants filed written objections to the
Magistrate Report, requesting that the District Court grant the
Motion to Dismiss.

Syneos said, "The Company and the other defendants deny the
allegations in these complaints and intend to defend vigorously
against these claims."

Syneos Health, Inc. operates as an integrated biopharmaceutical
solutions company in North America, Europe, the Middle East,
Africa, the Asia-Pacific, and Latin America. It operates through
two segments, Clinical Solutions and Commercial Solutions. The
company was formerly known as INC Research Holdings, Inc. and
changed its name to Syneos Health, Inc. in January 2018. Syneos
Health, Inc. was incorporated in 2010 and is headquartered in
Morrisville, North Carolina.


T ROWE PRICE: Continues to Defend 401(k) Plan-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend itself from a class action suit pending before
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland over the
handling of the Company's 401(k) Plan.

On February 14, 2017, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., T. Rowe Price
Associates, Inc., T. Rowe Price Trust Company, current and former
members of the management committee, and trustees of the T. Rowe
Price U.S. Retirement Program were named as defendants in a lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland.

The lawsuit alleges breaches of The Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974's ERISA's fiduciary duty and prohibited
transaction provisions on behalf of a class of all participants and
beneficiaries of the T. Rowe Price 401(k) Plan from February 14,
2011, to the time of judgment.

The matter has been certified as a class action. T. Rowe Price
believes the claims are without merit and is vigorously defending
the action.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for partial summary judgment and
defendants have filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, and
briefing is underway.

T. Rowe said, "We cannot predict the eventual outcome, or whether
it will have a material negative impact on our financial results,
or estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from
any negative outcome."

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

T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., incorporated on February 4, 2000, is
afinancial services holding company. The Company provides global
investment management services through its subsidiaries to
investors across the world. The Company provides an array of
Company-sponsored mutual funds, other sponsored pooled investment
vehicles, sub advisory services, separate account management,
recordkeeping, and related services to individuals, advisors,
institutions, financial intermediaries and retirement plan
sponsors. The firm was previously known as T. Rowe Group, Inc. and
T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. was
founded in 1937 and is based in Baltimore, Maryland.


TACTILE SYSTEMS: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of Nov. 30 Motion Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jakubowitz Law on Oct. 11 disclosed that securities fraud class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of Tactile
Systems Technology Inc. who purchased shares within the class
periods listed below. Shareholders interested in representing the
class of wronged shareholders have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to petition the court. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. For
more details and to speak with our firm without cost or obligation,
follow the links below.

Tactile Systems Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ:TCMD)

CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT TCMD:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/tactile-systems-technology-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=10003&from=1

Class Period: May 7, 2018 - June 8, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 30, 2020

The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
while Tactile publicly touted a $4 plus billion or $5 plus billion
market opportunity, in truth, the total addressable market for
Tactile's pneumatic compression devices was materially smaller; (2)
to induce sales growth and share gains, Tactile and/or its
employees were engaged in illicit and illegal sales and marketing
activities in violation of applicable federal and state rules and
public payer regulations; (3) the foregoing illicit and illegal
sales and marketing activities increased the risk of a Medicare
audit of Tactile's claims and criminal and civil liability; (4)
Tactile's revenues were in part the product of unlawful conduct and
thus unsustainable; and that as a result of the foregoing, (5)
Defendants' public statements, including Tactile's year-over-year
revenue growth, the purported growth drivers, and the effectiveness
of Tactile's internal controls over financial reporting were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Jakubowitz Law is vigorous in pursuit of justice for shareholders
who have been the victim of securities fraud. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
JAKUBOWITZ LAW
1140 Avenue of the Americas
9th Floor
New York, New York 10036
T: (212) 867-4490
F: (212) 537-5887 [GN]


TRADER JOE'S: Lowe Consumer Fraud Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DENNIS LOWE, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. TRADER JOE'S COMPANY, Case No. RIC1903074,
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Riverside to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on November 2, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:20-cv-02289 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false, deceptive, and
misleading representations on the packaging of its Honey Nut O's
cereal in violation of the California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, the False Advertising Law, and the Unfair Competition Law.

Trader Joe's Company is an American chain of grocery stores
headquartered in Monrovia, California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Rita Mansuryan, Esq.
         FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
         1800 Century Park East, Suite 1500
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 203-4000
         Facsimile: (310) 229-1285
         E-mail: rita.mansuryan@faegredrinker.com

                - and –

         Sarah L. Brew, Esq.
         Tyler A. Young, Esq.
         FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
         2200 Wells Fargo Center
         90 South Seventh Street
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Telephone: (612) 766-7000
         Facsimile: (612) 766-1600
         E-mail: sarah.brew@faegredrinker.com
                 tyler.young@faegredrinker.com

TWO TOWNS: Fairness Hearing on $985,000 Class Deal Set for May 10
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. issued a notice, and has
been authorized by the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, in Richard Winters and Jake
Gruber, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Two Towns Ciderhouse, Inc. (No. 3:20-cv-0468-BAS-BGS).

Consumers filed a class action lawsuit against 2 Towns Ciderhouse,
claiming that it manufactured, marketed, advertised and sold hard
apple cider products as containing "Nothing Artificial: No
concentrates or refined sugars; No essences or artificial flavors;
No velcorin or sorbate", when in fact some of 2 Towns hard apple
cider products use DL-Malic Acid—a synthetic version of Malic
Acid found in fruit, and commonly used to adjust acidity in fruit
juices.

2 Towns Ciderhouse denies all of the claims in the lawsuit and any
wrongdoing, and denies that all of its products contained DL-Malic
Acid or that DL-Malic Acid was added to any of its products as an
artificial flavor.  The Parties have reached an agreement to settle
on a nationwide basis however the Court has not ruled on the merits
of the claims and the Parties have agreed to settle to avoid the
costs and uncertainty of litigation.

Are you included?

You are included in the Class if you bought certain 2 Towns
Ciderhouse hard cider products as a consumer between March 12, 2016
and October 11, 2020 and the product was labeled as containing
"Nothing Artificial: No concentrates or refined sugars; No essences
or artificial flavors; No velcorin or sorbate."

What does the settlement provide?

The Defendant has agreed to establish a Settlement Fund of $985,000
to pay settlement class members who make valid, timely claims; pay
Class Counsel's attorneys' fees of up to 25% of the Settlement
Fund; pay Class Counsel's actual costs up to $20,000; pay a service
award to the Class Representatives Winters and Gruber up to $7,500
and $5,000, respectively; and pay costs and expenses of the Claims
Administrator.

After the Court grants final approval of the Settlement, each
Settlement Class Member who submitted a Valid Claim Form will
receive a check in the mail, or through electronic payment, for a
pro rata share of the Settlement Fund. For more details on how pro
rata values are calculated, please visit the Settlement Website,
www.CiderSettlement.com, to see a copy of the Settlement
Agreement.

What are my rights and options?

File A Claim: To receive Settlement benefits, you must complete and
submit a Valid Claim Form, either online at www.CiderSettlement.com
or by mailing it to 2 Towns Ciderhouse Claims Administrator, P.O.
Box 1228, Baton Rouge, LA 70821.  A Valid Claim Form must be
submitted online or postmarked by January 9, 2021.  Your failure to
timely submit a Valid Claim Form will forfeit your right to receive
your portion of the Settlement Fund.

Do Nothing: If you do nothing, you will be bound by the terms of
the Settlement Agreement and Final Judgment.

Exclude Yourself: You can exclude yourself ("opt out") of the
settlement by submitting a Valid Exclusion Request to the Claims
Administrator no later than December 28, 2020.  If you do so, you
will not be eligible to receive a settlement payment.  But you will
retain the right to sue on your own regarding any claims that are
part of the settlement.  Details on how to opt out are available at
www. CiderSettlement.com.

Object: You may also object to any part of this Settlement.
Objections must be must be mailed to the Clerk of the Court and
postmarked on or before March 26, 2021.  Details about how to
object are available at www.CiderSettlement.com.

Has the court approved the Settlement?

No, the Court has set a hearing for May 10, 2021 to determine
whether to approve the settlement and what attorneys' fees,
expenses, and incentive payments to award.

Who represents me?

The Court has appointed the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
to represent you and other Class Members as Class Counsel.  You do
not have to pay Class Counsel or anyone else to participate.  If
the Court approves the Nationwide Class settlement the Parties
agreed to, then Class Counsel will ask the Court for attorneys'
fees and costs, which would be paid out of any money recovered for
the Class.  You may hire your own lawyer to represent you at your
own expense.  Richard Winters and Jake Gruber are Class members
like you, and the Court has appointed them to serve as the "Class
Representatives."

Getting More Information?

If you want detailed information or other documents about this
lawsuit and your rights, visit the website:
www.CiderSettlement.com, 1-833-343-1076, write to 2 Towns
Ciderhouse, Class Action Administrator, P.O. Box 1228, Baton Rouge,
LA 70821 or call Class Counsel at 1-877-619-8966
http://www.CiderSettlement.com[GN]


UNITED AIRLINES: Riddick Sues Over Age Bias for Discount Offers
---------------------------------------------------------------
FUIOLEVAGA RIDDICK and DAVID PACHECO, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware
Code orporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Case No.
3:20-cv-02148-H-KSC (S.D. Cal., Nov. 3, 2020) alleges that the
Plaintiffs were victims of age discrimination by United Airlines,
saying they were excluded from a 10% ticket discount offered to 18-
to 22-year-olds in violation of the California Unruh Civil Right
Act.

On September 10, 2019, United began denying a 10% discount off the
price of United flights to customers whom United considered to be
too old. On this date, United started exclusively providing
customers 18-22 years old a 10% discount off United flights while
denying the discount to older customers, including Plaintiffs
Fuiolevaga Riddick and David Pacheco, who are older than 22 years
old, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Fuiolevaga Riddick has been a resident of Los Angeles
County, California. Ms. Riddick was harmed by United's
discount based on her age, which was 23 when she, as a United
MileagePlus member, used the United app while in Carson, California
to purchase a United economy ticket on December 11, 2019 for travel
on a United flight scheduled for February 18, 2020 from Los Angeles
to San Francisco.

Plaintiff David Pacheco has been a resident of San Diego,
California. Mr. Pacheco was also harmed by United's discount based
on his age.

United Airlines is an American airline headquartered at Willis
Tower in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alfred G. Rava, Esq.
          RAVA LAW FIRM
          3667 Voltaire Street
          San Diego, CA 92106
          Telephone: (619) 238-1993
          Facsimile: (619) 374-7288
          E-mail: alrava@cox.net

UNITED STATES: Disabled Migrants Sue Over MPP Policy Noncompliance
------------------------------------------------------------------
E.A.R.R.; G.S.E.R, A MINOR CHILD, by and through his mother and
NEXT FRIEND, E.A.R.R; B.A.E.R., A MINOR CHILD, by and through his
mother and NEXT FRIEND, E.A.R.R; L.Y.G.; H.A.H.G.; J.A.E.M;
Y.J.C.E, A MINOR CHILD, by and through his mother and NEXT FRIEND,
J.A.E.M.; S.F.L.; C.J.M.L., A MINOR CHILD, by and through his
mother and NEXT FRIEND, S.F.L.; Y.M.M.; J.C.M.M., A MINOR CHILD, by
and through her mother and NEXT FRIEND, Y.M.M.; G.F.F.; M.Y.J.L.;
M.M.G., A MINOR CHILD, by and through his mother and NEXT FRIEND,
V.A.G.; D.Y.S., A MINOR CHILD, by and through his mother and NEXT
FRIEND, M.S.S.; S.M.A., A MINOR CHILD, by and through her mother
and NEXT FRIEND, K.A.M.; D.G.M.; N.R.R.; H.H.M.; E.H.M.; C.J.V.C.,
A MINOR CHILD, by and through his mother and NEXT FRIEND, M.C.;
La.V.S.O., A MINOR CHILD, by and through her mother and NEXT
FRIEND, A.A.F.S.O; and, AL OTRO LADO, an organization, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS); CHAD WOLF, Acting Secretary
of The Department of Homeland Security, in his official capacity;
U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (CBP); and MARK A. MORGAN,
Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, in his
official capacity, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-02146-TWR-BGS (S.D.
Cal., November 2, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and the
Rehabilitation Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to implement
and follow their own policies of prohibiting people with mental or
physical health issues to be placed under the Migrant Protection
Protocols (MPP). The Plaintiffs and Class members are migrants with
disabilities and health conditions and/or their family members whom
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its sub-component
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) have forcibly returned to
Mexico under the MPP. The Defendants knew or should have known that
the Plaintiffs or their family members had physical or mental
health conditions, including disabilities because prior to being
placed in the MPP, CBP takes a recently arrived immigrant into
custody and detains them in a CBP processing center. The
Plaintiffs' conditions are open and obvious, well documented,
and/or were repeatedly reported to CBP agents. The Defendants have
utterly failed to establish mechanisms to ensure that their agents
follow their policies, including exempting migrants with physical
or mental health conditions from the MPP. As a result, the
Defendants' employees or agents subjected the Plaintiffs to the
MPP, forcing them to return to Mexico pending their immigration
proceedings and any appeals.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is a department
within the Executive Branch tasked with enforcing the immigration
laws of the United States.

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is the subagency of
DHS that is responsible for enforcement operations along the
borders of the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
                                 
         Robert S. Shwarts, Esq.
         ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
         The Orrick Building
         405 Howard Street
         San Francisco, CA 94105-2669
         Telephone: (415) 773-5700
         Facsimile: (415) 773-5759
         E-mail: rshwarts@orrick.com

               - and –

         Lillian J. Mao, Esq.
         ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
         1000 Marsh Road
         Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
         Telephone: (650) 614-7400
         Facsimile: (650) 614-7401
         E-mail: lmao@orrick.com

               - and –

         Timothy P. Fox, Esq.
         CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT CENTER
         1245 E. Colfax Avenue, Suite 400
         Denver, CO 80218
         Telephone: (303) 757-7901
         Facsimile: (303) 872-9072
         E-mail: tfox@creeclaw.org

               - and –

         Maria Del Pilar Gonzalez Morales, Esq.
         CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT CENTER
         1825 N. Vermont Avenue, #27916
         Los Angeles, CA 90027
         Telephone: (805) 813-8896
         Facsimile: (303) 872-9072
         E-mail: pgonzalez@creeclaw.org

UNITED STATES: Treasury, IRS Sued Over Stimulus Payments
--------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Singletary, writing for Washington Post, reports that
while millions of Americans wait anxiously to see if another
stimulus package will ever see the light of day, a federal judge in
California has rapped the knuckles of Treasury and the IRS for
withholding and requiring the return of relief money from
incarcerated people.

A class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of incarcerated individuals
argued that the decision to deny the payments was arbitrary and
against the law.

Judge Phyllis Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California agreed and ordered the Treasury Department
and the IRS to reverse their decision to disallow stimulus funds to
prisoners solely based on their incarcerated status. The government
has filed an appeal.

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (Cares) Act
provides economic impact payments or stimulus payments of up to
$1,200 for individuals and up to $2,400 for taxpayers filing a
joint tax return.

The Cares Act specifically excluded some people: nonresident
aliens, an estate or trust and people who are dependents on someone
else's tax return. The law did not exclude payments to incarcerated
individuals.

Initially, the IRS sent nearly 85,000 payments totaling $100
million to incarcerated people, according to a June report by the
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA). After
TIGTA raised concerns about the payments to prisoners, the IRS
reversed course, declaring in an FAQ on irs.gov that such payments
to people in local, state and federal correctional facilities were
not allowed under the Cares Act.

"On the law, there is literally zero legitimate argument on the IRS
side," said Kelly Dermody, a partner with San Francisco-based Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, one of the law firms representing the
class-action members.

Now, not only does the government have to give that money back to
prisoners, but Hamilton also ordered the IRS to extend to Oct. 30 a
deadline for incarcerated individuals to file paper returns to get
their money before the end of the year.

The judge also said the IRS should immediately send a memo to staff
working the agency's hotline and other public-facing roles to stop
telling people that the incarcerated are ineligible for a stimulus
payment. Additionally, the IRS has to send letters to correctional
facilities retracting prior communication that stimulus payments
should be intercepted and returned. The letters should also include
a statement from the agency that incarcerated people are permitted
to submit claim forms and receive stimulus payments.

"The court's order reflects its well-supported concern that IRS has
previously created, and continues to disseminate misleading and
wrong information," Dermody said. "The deadline extension helps to
ensure that people inside, and the families on the outside that
support them, will have a chance to claim these desperately needed
funds."

The economic impact payment is an advance credit for 2020. Under
the Cares Act, payments must be made by Dec. 31. If people don't
receive a payment by then, they won't receive their stimulus funds
until they file a 2020 federal return next year.

The IRS estimates that there are about 9 million Americans who
typically don't file federal income tax returns who may be eligible
for but have not registered to claim stimulus payments. This group,
which now includes incarcerated individuals, has until Nov. 21 to
use the agency's online non-filers tool at irs.gov.

Because incarcerated individuals are generally not allowed access
to a computer, they will have to file a paper return to claim the
money. This means that people covered by the lawsuit who did not
file a 2018 or 2019 tax return will have to postmark a simplified
Form 1040 paper return by Oct. 30 to receive a stimulus payment
this year. Before the court order, the IRS said they had until Oct.
15.

"We need to get the word out to families of incarcerated persons
and advocacy groups that incarcerated persons should file returns,
either through the non-filer portal, if they have Internet access,
or on paper," said Nina Olson, a former taxpayer advocate who is
now executive director of the Center for Taxpayer Rights. "It is
very important people not hesitate to file."

For information on how to help an incarcerated person file for a
stimulus payment either online on by mailing a paper return, go to
caresactprisoncase.org. On the site is an FAQ section with
directions on where to mail a paper return. There's also a link to
a sample Form 1040 with instructions on how incarcerated people
should fill out a 2019 return to get a stimulus payment, including
where to add the personal corrections number that is given to each
prisoner so the payment is sent to the right place. [GN]


UV SANITIZER: Garbus Alleges Deceptive Marketing of Sanitizers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sheryl Garbus, individually on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. UV Sanitizer USA LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-05358-JMA-ARL (E.D.N.Y., November 4, 2020) seeks to remedy
the deceptive and misleading business practices of the Defendant
with respect to the marketing and sales of the Portable UV Light
Sanitizer to their consumers including the Plaintiff.

According to the complaint, the Defendant prominently represents
that its sanitizer product can "eliminate any harmful bacteria and
virus" and kills 99.99% of viruses, bacteria, germs and molds.
However, the Defendant's advertising and marketing campaign is
false, deceptive, and misleading because the product does not
eliminate any harmful bacteria and viruses, nor does it kill 99.99%
of viruses, bacteria, germs and molds. Despite the fact that the
Food and Drug Administration has stated that UV sanitizers must be
supplemented with manual cleaning in order to be effective, the
Defendant represents that its product can take the place of
sanitizing wipes and disinfecting chemicals.

In addition, the scientific community recognizes that consumers'
use of and exposure to UV radiation puts them at risk for DNA
damage and carcinogenesis. Despite these risks, the Defendant
markets and advertises the product as "completely safe to use" and
"100% safe" without providing adequate safety warnings or adequate
protective features, the suit alleges.

UV Sanitizer USA LLC manufactures, markets, advertises and
distributes the sanitizer product in New York and throughout the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          Joseph Lipari, Esq.
          Jeremy Francis, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
          85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
          Telephone: (845) 483-7100
          Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
          E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com

VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Gordon Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion seeking
dismissal of the class action suit entitled, Gordon v. Vanda
Pharmaceuticals Inc., is still pending.

In February 2019, a securities class action, Gordon v. Vanda
Pharmaceuticals Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York naming the Company and certain of its
officers as defendants.

An amended complaint was filed in July 2019. The amended complaint,
filed on behalf of a purported stockholder, asserts claims on
behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased the
Company's publicly traded securities between November 4, 2015 and
February 11, 2019, for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements and/or omissions regarding Fanapt(R),
HETLIOZ(R) and the Company's interactions with the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) regarding tradipitant between November 3, 2015
and February 11, 2019.

In March 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.


The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends
to vigorously defend this lawsuit.

Vanda said, "The Company does not anticipate that this litigation
will have a material adverse effect on its business, results of
operations or financial condition. However, this lawsuit is subject
to inherent uncertainties, the actual cost may be significant, and
the Company may not prevail. The Company believes it is entitled to
coverage under its relevant insurance policies, subject to a
retention, but coverage could be denied or prove to be
insufficient."

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

Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc., incorporated on November 13, 2002, is a
biopharmaceutical company. The Company is focused on the
development and commercialization of therapies to address unmet
medical needs. The company is based in Washington, D.C.

VENTURA, CA: Fails to Get Inmates Absentee Ballots, Cannavan Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK ALLEN CANNAVAN, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated v. COUNTY OF VENTURA, VENTURA COUNTY SHERIFF
BILL AYUB, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-10012-FMO-PVC
(C.D. Cal., Oct. 30, 2020), is a class action complaint for
injunctive and declaratory relief alleging violation of First
Amendment right to vote.

The Plaintiff contends that the burden on detainees who are
dependent on County officials to obtain their ballots for them, and
County Defendants' failure to do so, is severe and subject to
strict scrutiny because he and putative class members are detained
and cannot obtain absentee ballots on their own, and the Defendants
failure to do so causes the ultimate sanction, preventing them from
voting. Where the County Defendants are in a position to obtain
absentee ballots and fail to do so without justification, there is
no compelling interest achieved by not honoring his fundamental
rights to vote and therefore unless they provide ballots
immediately to all eligible detained voters in Ventura County
custody, they will have irreparably caused damage to them, he adds.


As a result of Defendants' unconstitutional actions, the Plaintiffs
are suffering irreparable injury and are entitled to injunctive
relief. Accordingly, the Defendants, as supervisors, direct
participants, and policy makers for Los Angeles County, have
violated the rights of the Class under First Amendment, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Patrick Allen Cannavan is a 56-year-old male who
currently resides in Ventura County, California. Mr. Cannavan has
been in the custody of the Todd Road Facility located in Santa
Paula, California. He has been deprived of his constitutional right
to vote.

The Defendant Ventura County is a public entity organized and
existing under the laws of the State of California. The Ventura
County Sheriff's Department is/was an agency of the County of Los
Angeles. The Defendant County controls and operates the Ventura
County’s jails via the VCSD and Sheriff Bill Ayub, who is the
Sheriff of the Ventura County Sheriff's Department.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David S. Mclane, Esq.
          KAYE, McLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT
          975 East Green Street
          Pasadena, CA 91106
          Telephone: (626) 844-7600
          Facsimile: (626) 844-7670
          E-mail: dmclane@kmbllaw.com

               - and -

          Brian A. Vogel, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF
          BRIAN A. VOGEL, PC
          770 County Square Drive, Suite 104
          Ventura, CA 93003
          Telephone: (805) 654-0400
          Facsimile: (805) 654-0326
          E-mail: brian@bvogel.com

WESTERN UNION: Class Suit vs. Argentina Unit Stayed
---------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the class action
suit initiated by Consumidores Financieros Asociacion Civil para su
Defensa against Western Union Financial Services Argentina S.R.L.
("WUFSA"), a company subsidiary, has been stayed.

In October 2015, Consumidores Financieros Asociacion Civil para su
Defensa, an Argentinian consumer association, filed a purported
class action lawsuit in Argentina's National Commercial Court No.
19 against the Company's subsidiary Western Union Financial
Services Argentina S.R.L. ("WUFSA").

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that WUFSA's fees for
money transfers sent from Argentina are excessive and that WUFSA
does not provide consumers with adequate information about foreign
exchange rates.

The plaintiff is seeking, among other things, an order requiring
WUFSA to reimburse consumers for the fees they paid and the foreign
exchange revenue associated with money transfers sent from
Argentina, plus punitive damages. The complaint does not specify a
monetary value of the claim or a time period.

In November 2015, the Court declared the complaint formally
admissible as a class action.

The notice of claim was served on WUFSA in May 2016, and in June
2016 WUFSA filed a response to the claim and moved to dismiss it on
statute of limitations and standing grounds. In April 2017, the
Court deferred ruling on the motion until later in the proceedings.


The process for notifying potential class members has been
completed and the case proceeded to the evidentiary stage.

On June 4, 2020, the case was stayed because the consumer
association that filed the lawsuit no longer had the registration
needed to assert its claims on behalf of the alleged class.

The case will be stayed until (i) the Attorney-General instructs
the Prosecutor to continue to litigate the claims on behalf of the
plaintiff (during the time the registration of Consumidores
Financieros before the Secretary of Commerce remains suspended); or
(ii) the parties report to the Court that the plaintiff recovered
its legal capacity.

Western Union said, "Due to the stage of this matter, the Company
is unable to predict the outcome or the possible loss or range of
loss, if any, associated with this matter. WUFSA intends to defend
itself vigorously."

The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment
services worldwide. The company operates in two segments,
Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions. It serves primarily
through a network of agents. The Western Union Company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.


WESTERN UNION: Landa Seeks OT Pay for Network Administrators
------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS ALBERTO CASTILLO LANDA, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. WESTERN UNION, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-03274-WJM (D. Colo., Nov. 3, 2020) is a collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Colorado Minimum Wage
Order for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable
attorneys' fees, as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay the
Plaintiff and other LAN Network Administrators lawful overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff is an individual and resident of Douglas County.

Western Union was founded in 2003. The Company's line of business
includes providing management consulting services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

WESTERN UNION: Notice of Dismissal Filed in Frazier Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the plaintiffs in
Frazier et al. v. The Western Union Company et al., Civil Action
No. 1:18-cv-00998-KLM (D. Colo.), filed a Notice of Dismissal,
indicating that they had dismissed the action and that the case may
be terminated from the Court’s docket.

On April 26, 2018, the Company, its subsidiary, Western Union
Financial Services, Inc., its President and Chief Executive
Officer, and various "Doe Defendants" (purportedly including
Western Union officers, directors, and agents) were named as
defendants in a purported class action lawsuit asserting claims for
alleged violations of civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and the Colorado Organized Crime Act, civil
theft, negligence, unjust enrichment, and conversion under the
caption Frazier et al. v. The Western Union Company et al., Civil
Action No. 1:18-cv-00998-KLM (D. Colo.).

The complaint alleges that, during the purported class period of
January 1, 2004 to the present, and based largely on the admissions
and allegations relating to the United States Department of
Justice, Federal Trade Commission, Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network, and State Attorneys General Settlements, as disclosed in
the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2019, the defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud
customers through Western Union’s money transfer system.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 17, 2018. The
amended complaint is similar to the original complaint, although it
adds additional named plaintiffs and additional counts, including
claims on behalf of putative California, Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, and New Jersey subclasses for alleged violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act, the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act, the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

On August 28, 2018, the Company and the other defendants moved to
stay the action in favor of individual arbitrations with the named
plaintiffs, which defendants contend are contractually required.

On March 27, 2019, the Court granted that motion and stayed the
action pending individual arbitrations with the named plaintiffs.
To date, no such individual arbitration requests have been filed.

On August 27, 2020, the Court issued an order requiring that the
parties indicate whether the case should remain administratively
closed, subject to reopening, or that the parties file dismissal
papers stating that the case may be terminated from the Court's
docket. That same day, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Dismissal,
indicating that they had dismissed the action and that the case may
be terminated from the Court’s docket.

The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment
services worldwide. The company operates in two segments,
Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions. It serves primarily
through a network of agents. The Western Union Company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.


WFS EXPRESS: Walker Employment Class Suit Goes to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled VAN WALKER, as an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WFS EXPRESS, INC. and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 34-2020-00285301, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Sacramento to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on October 30, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-at-01082 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code including failure to provide rest and meal
breaks, failure to pay accurate minimum wages and overtime
compensation, failure to reimburse business expenses, and failure
to provide accurate wage statements.

WFS Express, Inc. is an air cargo handling company, with its
principal place of business located in Jamaica, New York. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
                  
         Daniel H. Handman, Esq.
         Benjamin J. Treger, Esq.
         HIRSCHFELD KRAEMER LLP
         233 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 600
         Santa Monica, CA 90401
         Telephone: (310) 255-0705
         Facsimile: (310) 255-0986
         E-mail: dhandman@hkemploymentlaw.com
                 btreger@hkemploymentlaw.com

WILLIS TOWERS: Aon Acquisition-Related Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Companysaid in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October
29, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that
the putative class action suits related to the recommended
acquisition of WTW by Aon plc have been voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice.

On March 9, 2020, the company (WTW) and Aon plc ("Aon") issued an
announcement disclosing that the respective boards of directors of
WTW and Aon had reached agreement on the terms of a recommended
acquisition of WTW by Aon. Under the terms of the agreement each
WTW shareholder will receive 1.08 Aon ordinary shares for each WTW
ordinary share. At the time of the announcement, it was estimated
that upon completion of the combination, existing Aon shareholders
will own approximately 63% and existing WTW shareholders will own
approximately 37% of the combined company on a fully diluted
basis.

On May 11, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and the members of the
Company's board of directors, captioned Stein v. Willis Towers
Watson Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03656
(S.D.N.Y.), referred to as the 'Stein Complaint.'

On May 14, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware against the Company, the members of the
Company's board of directors, and Aon plc ('Aon'), captioned Kent
v. Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company, et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-00641 (D. Del.), referred to as the 'Kent Complaint.'

On May 19, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company and the members
of the Company's board of directors, captioned Carter v. Willis
Towers Watson Public Limited Company, et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-03865 (S.D.N.Y.), referred to as the 'Carter Complaint.'

On May 28, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California against the Company and the members of the
Company's board of directors, captioned Tang v. Willis Towers
Watson Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00986 (S.D.
Cal.), referred to as the 'Tang Complaint.'

On June 17, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California against the Company and the members of the
Company's board of directors, captioned Kuznik v. Willis Towers
Watson Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01097 (S.D.
Cal.), referred to as the 'Kuznik Complaint,' and together with the
Stein Complaint, the Kent Complaint, the Carter Complaint, and the
Tang Complaint, referred to as the 'Complaints.'

The Complaints assert claims against certain defendants under
Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for allegedly
false and misleading statements in the proxy statement; and against
certain defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act for
alleged "control person" liability with respect to such allegedly
false and misleading statements.

The Stein Complaint, the Carter Complaint, and the Tang Complaint
each seek, among other relief, an order enjoining the proposed
combination with Aon unless and until corrective disclosures are
made.

The Kuznik Complaint and the Kent Complaint each seek, among other
relief, an order enjoining the proposed combination with Aon and an
order directing certain defendants to issue corrective disclosures.


The Stein Complaint and the Carter Complaint also seek damages in
an unspecified amount.

The Company believes the allegations in the Complaints are without
merit.

On August 4, 2020, certain plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice the Kent Complaint, the Carter Complaint, and the Stein
Complaint. On September 15, 2020, certain plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice the Tang Complaint and the Kuznik
Complaint.

Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an
advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human
Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan
design, and administrative services for traditional pension and
retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and
administration services for health and group benefit programs; and
benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London,
England.


WILLIS TOWERS: Bid for Summary Judgment in Proxy Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Companysaid in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October
29, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that
the motions for summary judgment in the class action suit entitled,
In re Willis Towers Watson plc Proxy Litigation,' Master File No.
1:17-cv-1338-AJT-JFA, is pending.

On November 21, 2017, a purported former stockholder of Legacy
Towers Watson filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of
a putative class consisting of all Legacy Towers Watson
stockholders as of October 2, 2015 against the Company, Legacy
Towers Watson, Legacy Willis, ValueAct Capital Management
('ValueAct'), and certain current and former directors and officers
of Legacy Towers Watson and Legacy Willis (John Haley, Dominic
Casserley, and Jeffrey Ubben), in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The complaint asserted claims against certain defendants under
Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 'Exchange
Act') for allegedly false and misleading statements in the proxy
statement for the Merger; and against other defendants under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act for alleged 'control person'
liability with respect to such allegedly false and misleading
statements.

The complaint further contended that the allegedly false and
misleading statements caused stockholders of Legacy Towers Watson
to accept inadequate Merger consideration.

The complaint sought damages in an unspecified amount.

On February 20, 2018, the court appointed the Regents of the
University of California ('Regents') as Lead Plaintiff and
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP ('Bernstein') as Lead
Counsel for the putative class, consolidated all subsequently
filed, removed, or transferred actions, and captioned the
consolidated action 'In re Willis Towers Watson plc Proxy
Litigation,' Master File No. 1:17-cv-1338-AJT-JFA. On March 9,
2018, Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint.

On April 13, 2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Amended Complaint, and, on July 11, 2018, following briefing and
argument, the court granted the motions and dismissed the Amended
Complaint in its entirety.

On July 30, 2018, Lead Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the
court’s July 11, 2018 dismissal order to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (the 'Fourth Circuit'), and, on
December 6, 2018, the parties completed briefing on the appeal. On
May 8, 2019, the parties argued the appeal, and on August 30, 2019,
the Fourth Circuit vacated the dismissal order and remanded the
case to the Eastern District of Virginia for further proceedings
consistent with its decision.

On September 13, 2019, the defendants filed a petition for
rehearing by the Fourth Circuit en banc, which the Fourth Circuit
denied on September 27, 2019. On November 8, 2019, the defendants
filed renewed motions to dismiss in the Eastern District of
Virginia based upon certain arguments that were advanced in their
original motions to dismiss, but undecided by both the district
court and the Fourth Circuit.

On December 18, 2019, the parties completed briefing on the
defendants' renewed motions, and, on December 20, 2019, the court
heard argument on the motions. On January 31, 2020, the court
denied the motions.

On June 12, 2020, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification, in connection with which it indicated that it is
seeking class-wide damages of approximately $456 million. On
September 4, 2020, the court granted Lead Plaintiff's motion for
class certification, certified the putative class, and appointed
Lead Plaintiff as the Class Representative for the certified class.


On September 18, 2020, the defendants filed a petition with the
Fourth Circuit under Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure for permission to appeal the certification order, to
which Lead Plaintiff responded on October 1, 2020. The petition is
currently pending.

On October 16, 2020, the defendants filed motions for summary
judgment and to exclude Lead Plaintiff's proposed experts.

Also on October 16, 2020, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion to exclude
certain of the defendants' proposed experts.

Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an
advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human
Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan
design, and administrative services for traditional pension and
retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and
administration services for health and group benefit programs; and
benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London,
England.



WILLIS TOWERS: Class Cert. Bid in Alaska Laborers Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October
29, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that
the motion for class certification in the consolidated suit
entitled, Alaska Laborers-Employers Retirement Trust v. Victor F.
Ganzi, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0155, is pending.

On February 27, 2018 and March 8, 2018, two additional purported
former stockholders of Legacy Towers Watson, City of Fort Myers
General Employees' Pension Fund ('Fort Myers') and Alaska
Laborers-Employers Retirement Trust ('Alaska'), filed putative
class action complaints on behalf of a putative class of Legacy
Towers Watson stockholders against the former members of the Legacy
Towers Watson board of directors, Legacy Towers Watson, Legacy
Willis and ValueAct, in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned
City of Fort Myers General Employees' Pension Fund v. Towers Watson
& Co., et al., C.A. No. 2018-0132, and Alaska Laborers-Employers
Retirement Trust v. Victor F. Ganzi, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0155,
respectively.

Based on similar allegations as the Eastern District of Virginia
action, the complaints assert claims against the former directors
of Legacy Towers Watson for breach of fiduciary duty and against
Legacy Willis and ValueAct for aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty.

On March 9, 2018, Regents filed a putative class action complaint
on behalf of a putative class of Legacy Towers Watson stockholders
against the Company, Legacy Willis, ValueAct, and Messrs. John
Haley, Dominic Casserley, and Jeffrey  Ubben, in the Delaware Court
of Chancery, captioned The Regents of the University of California
v. John J. Haley, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0166.

Based on similar allegations as the Eastern District of Virginia
action, the complaint asserts claims against Mr. Haley for breach
of fiduciary duty and against all other defendants for aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty.

Also on March 9, 2018, Regents filed a motion for consolidation of
all pending and subsequently filed Delaware Court of Chancery
actions, and for appointment as Lead Plaintiff and for the
appointment of Bernstein as Lead Counsel for the putative class. On
March 29, 2018, Fort Myers and Alaska responded to Regents' motion
and cross-moved for appointment as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and for the
appointment of their counsel, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. and Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as Co-Lead Counsel.

On April 2, 2018, the court consolidated the Delaware Court of
Chancery actions and all related actions subsequently filed in or
transferred to the Delaware Court of Chancery. On June 5, 2018, the
court denied Regents' motion for appointment of Lead Plaintiff and
Lead Counsel and granted Fort Myers' and Alaska's cross-motion.

On June 20, 2018, Fort Myers and Alaska designated the complaint
previously filed by Alaska (the 'Alaska Complaint') as the
operative complaint in the consolidated action. On September 14,
2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Alaska Complaint.


On October 31, 2018, Fort Myers and Alaska filed an amended
complaint, which, based on similar allegations, asserts claims
against the former directors of legacy Towers Watson for breach of
fiduciary duty and against ValueAct and Mr. Ubben for aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty.

On January 11, 2019, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint, and on March 29, 2019, the parties completed
briefing on the motions. The court heard argument on the motions on
April 11, 2019 and, on July 25, 2019, dismissed the amended
complaint in its entirety.

On August 22, 2019, Fort Myers and Alaska filed a notice of appeal
(only with respect to Messrs. Haley and Ubben and ValueAct) from
the court's July 25, 2019 dismissal order to the Supreme Court of
the State of Delaware. On November 22, 2019, the parties completed
briefing on the appeal, which was submitted on April 22, 2020 for
decision in lieu of argument.

On June 30, 2020, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware
reversed and remanded the case to the Court of Chancery for further
proceedings consistent with its decision. On July 27, 2020, Fort
Myers and Alaska filed a motion for class certification, which is
currently pending. On September 14, 2020, Mr. Haley answered the
amended complaint.

Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an
advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human
Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan
design, and administrative services for traditional pension and
retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and
administration services for health and group benefit programs; and
benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London,
England.


WORLD WRESTLING: February Trial in KS Firefighters' Pension Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29,
2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
court has ordered that the consolidated class action suit filed by
Firefighters' Pension System of the City of Kansas City, Missouri,
to be trial ready on February 22, 2021.

On March 6, 2020, the Company along with its Chairman and CEO,
Vince McMahon, and former-WWE officers and directors, Michelle
Wilson and George Barrios (collectively, the "Individual
Defendants"), were sued in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York in a case captioned City of Warren Police and
Fire Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Vincent
K. McMahon, George A. Barrios, and Michelle D. Wilson, No.
1:20-cv-02031-JSR.  

The complaint alleges that the Company and the Individual
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements in
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 regarding WWE's
strategic relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.  

Specifically, the complaint alleges that various public statements
made by the Company and the Individual Defendants were false and
misleading because they failed to disclose certain adverse facts
regarding WWE's strategic relationship with Saudi Arabia that
supposedly was known by them and, as a result, the plaintiff class
allegedly purchased WWE stock at artificially inflated prices.

On March 12, 2020 a nearly-identical lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Paul
Szaniawski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Vincent K.
McMahon, George A. Barrios, and Michelle D. Wilson, No.
1:20-cv-02223-JSR.  

This lawsuit was filed as related to the City of Warren case and
was assigned to the same judge handling the City of Warren case. By
Order dated May 12, 2020, the City of Warren and Szaniawski
lawsuits were consolidated for all purposes.  

After multiple parties filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiff
for the putative class in the consolidated action, on May 22, 2020,
the Court issued a memorandum order selecting the Firefighters'
Pension System of the City of Kansas City, Missouri to be lead
plaintiff and their attorneys, Labaton Sucharow LLP, to be lead
counsel for the putative class.  

On May 26, 2020, the Company served Rule 11 motion for sanctions on
the attorneys for the City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement
System, the attorneys for Paul Szaniawski, and Labaton Sucharow
LLP. The Rule 11 motion identified false allegations in the
originally filed complaints and was supported by six declarations
from Company executives and third-parties with direct first-hand
knowledge of the matters at issue.  

Following service of the Rule 11 motion, the attorneys for the City
of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System and the attorneys for
Paul Szaniawski voluntarily dismissed their complaints before the
expiration of the Rule 11 safe-harbor period.  

On June 8, 2020, the Firefighters' Pension System of the City of
Kansas City, Missouri filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint.  

On June 26, 2020, the Company moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint in its entirety. The Court held oral argument on
the Company's motion to dismiss on July 30, 2020. On August 6,
2020, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss.  On August
19, 2020, the Court issued a case management plan that, among other
things, scheduled this case to be trial ready on February 22,
2021.

World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., an integrated media and
entertainment company, engages in the sports entertainment business
in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Asia
Pacific, and Latin America. It operates in three segments: Media,
Live Events, and Consumer Products. The company was founded in 1980
and is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.


WW INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated SDNY Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
WW International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 26, 2020, that the company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York remains
pending.

In March 2019, two substantially identical class action complaints
alleging violations of the federal securities laws were filed by
individual shareholders against the Company, certain of the
Company's current officers and the Company's former controlling
shareholder, Artal Group S.A. ("Artal"), in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The actions were consolidated and lead plaintiffs were appointed in
June 2019.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on July 29, 2019, naming
as defendants the Company, certain of the Company's current
officers and directors, and Artal and certain of its affiliates.

A second consolidated amended complaint was filed on September 27,
2019. The operative complaint asserts claims on behalf of all
purchasers of the Company's common stock between May 4, 2018 and
February 26, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), including
purchasers of the Company's common stock traceable to the May 2018
secondary offering of the Company's common stock by certain of its
shareholders.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the defendants
disseminated materially false and misleading statements and/or
concealed or recklessly disregarded material adverse facts. The
complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, and with respect to the secondary offering, under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.

The plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified damages on behalf of the
class members. The Company believes that the action is without
merit and intends to vigorously defend it.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on October 31,
2019.

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

WW International, Inc. provides weight control programs. The
Company offers subscriptions for commitment plans that give their
clients access to meetings and online subscriptions. WW
International also gives their members guidance and access to a
supportive community to help enable them for healthy habits. The
company is based in New York, New York.


WW INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Quintanilla Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
WW International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 26, 2020, that the company intends
to file another motion to dismiss the "Quintanilla Matter".

Two substantially similar class action complaints were filed by
individual Studio + Digital members against the Company in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
in May 2020 (the "Vodden Matter") and the Superior Court of
California in Ventura County in June 2020 (the "Quintanilla
Matter").

The complaints were filed on behalf of all Studio + Digital members
nationwide and regard the fees charged for Studio + Digital
memberships since the temporary replacement of in-person workshops
with virtual workshops in March 2020 in response to the COVID-19
pandemic.

The complaints alleged, among other things, that the Company's
decision to charge its members the full Studio + Digital membership
fee while only providing a virtual workshop experience violated
state consumer protection laws in New York and/or California, as
applicable, and gave rise to claims for breach of contract, fraud,
and other tort causes of action based on the same factual
allegations that are the basis for the breach of contract claim.

The plaintiffs sought to recover damages plus injunctive relief to
enjoin the Company from engaging in similar conduct in the future
on behalf of the class members.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Vodden Matter on August
3, 2020 and, in response, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal without prejudice on August 17, 2020.

The Company filed a notice to remove the Quintanilla Matter to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on July 30, 2020 and per the parties' stipulation, the case was
transferred to the SDNY on August 7, 2020.

On September 23, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all of
the plaintiff's claims with prejudice. At the parties' September
29, 2020 preliminary conference, the court issued an order
permitting the plaintiff to either submit her opposition to the
motion to dismiss or file an amended complaint by October 14, 2020.


On October 14, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint with
predominantly the same claims. The Company intends to file another
motion to dismiss the Quintanilla Matter on or about November 4,
2020.

The Company believes that the Quintanilla Matter is without merit
and intends to vigorously defend it.

WW International, Inc. provides weight control programs. The
Company offers subscriptions for commitment plans that give their
clients access to meetings and online subscriptions. WW
International also gives their members guidance and access to a
supportive community to help enable them for healthy habits. The
company is based in New York, New York.


[*] Federation of Korean Industries Opposes Class Action Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shin Ji-hye, writing for The Korea Herald, reports that the
Federation of Korean Industries said on Oct. 12 it submitted to the
government its opposition to the introduction of punitive damages
compensation and class action lawsuit systems.

The opposition came as the government had announced an amendment to
the Commercial Law in September to more precisely monitor
conglomerates in the form of allowing class action suits, something
that had not been legally allowed in the country before.

The FKI estimated that if the government's legislative notice is
passed, the legal costs could add up to 10 trillion won (US$8.7
billion) -- 8.3 trillion won for punitive damages and 1.7 trillion
won for class action suits -- for the country's 30 largest
conglomerates. This is a six-fold increase from the current legal
cost estimate of 1.65 trillion won.

"(We understand) the purpose of introducing a class action lawsuit
system and a punitive damages compensation system is to efficiently
rescue victims. However, as the US case shows, only lawyers in
charge of litigation will end up pocketing huge profits," the FKI
said, citing the case of American video rental firm Blockbuster
Video.

In 2001, US consumers filed a class action lawsuit against the
video rental chain for unfairly charging overdue fees. In the end,
consumers ended up receiving only $1 coupons, which could only be
used for four months while the plaintiffs' lawyers earned $9.25
million in fees.

The association is also concerned about excessive lawsuits against
companies.

The current securities group lawsuit has a rule that "one lawyer
can be involved in up to three cases in three years" in order to
prevent abusive litigation. But, the government's pre-announcement
of the legislation of the class action law has eliminated the
limit. By allowing lawyers to file class action suits without
restrictions, there is room for professional brokers to instigate
lawsuits, the FKI said.

"The low cost of participating in class action suits and the low
burden of losing will also be the cause of abusive litigation. In
particular, punitive damages can be a factor that encourages
lawsuits as they can expect up to five times more compensation than
actual damages," the FKI said.

The FKI said the biggest victims of the government's legislative
notice are likely to be companies. Even currently, Korean companies
are struggling with heavy criminal penalties, administrative
sanctions and civil lawsuits it said.. If class lawsuits and
punitive damage compensation are introduced again, normal
management activities will be difficult, the organization said.

"The most urgent policy priority now is to improve unreasonable
regulations to overcome the economic crisis," said Yoo Hwan-ik,
head of the FKI's corporate system division. "It is not the time to
hastily introduce a system that adds uncertainty to corporate
management like the government's legislative notice." [GN]


[*] Workers' Class Actions Did Not Fare Well with Judge Barrett
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth C. Tippett, writing for Wall Street Window, reports that
when it comes to Supreme Court rulings, constitutional law cases --
like Roe v. Wade and Citizens United -- tend to hog the limelight.
But that's not the only type of case that matters.

The Supreme Court issues a lot of important rulings that affect
workers, like the Bostock case earlier this year declaring that
LGBT workers are protected from discrimination under Title VII of
the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The Roberts court has been a mixed bag, however, when it comes to
worker rights. It has also issued rulings that are unfavorable to
unions and uphold forced arbitration of employment claims.

How might the addition of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the high court
alter its approach?

As a law professor specializing in employment law, I was curious
about Barrett and decided to read the employment cases she decided
while serving on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. I found 15
such rulings written by Barrett on behalf of a three-judge panel
and another 45 where she was part of the panel but did not write
the opinion.

Although it is impossible to separate Barrett's conclusions from
those of the other panelists, her opinions provide a window into
her approach.

By the numbers

Federal appellate courts favor the status quo. According to
official statistics, federal courts will uphold the lower court
ruling in 91% of appeals.

And in employment cases, most appeals involve workers whose cases
were tossed out by a lower court. In other words, the deck is
stacked against workers at the appellate courts, regardless of the
judge assigned to a particular case.

Barrett's three-judge panel on the Seventh Circuit was a little bit
less likely than average to uphold the lower court ruling - they
did so in 80% of the 45 cases. And Barrett did so in around 75% of
the 15 opinions she wrote.

But did workers end up better or worse off as a result? Well, they
didn't do very well when one of Barrett's co-panelists wrote the
opinion -- the panel ruled in the employee's favor in only seven of
those cases, or 16%.

Workers actually fared somewhat better in opinions written by
Barrett. She issued a ruling favorable to the employee in one-third
of her 15 cases. And there were two additional cases where she
mostly upheld favorable jury verdicts for the worker but reduced
some of the damages. That suggests she may be more sympathetic
toward workers than her colleagues.

But a closer read of Barrett's opinions suggest that her stance
toward employment cases depends on whether workers are suing on
their own or as part of a class action.

Class action skepticism

Class actions -- where many workers bring a lawsuit together --
tend to be important for enforcing minimum wage and overtime laws.
They're just not worth enough money for a lawyer to file one claim
at a time.

But these sorts of class actions did not fare well before Judge
Barrett. Of the five class action opinions she wrote, the workers
lost in all but one.

Barrett's skepticism is revealed in two class actions involving
very similar fact patterns. In the first, which involved Grubhub
delivery drivers, she sent the drivers to arbitration because they
were not engaged in interstate commerce due to the local nature of
their deliveries. This effectively ended their lawsuit, because the
arbitration agreement prohibited class actions.

By contrast, in a remarkably similar case involving drivers for a
cardboard box company, she ruled that the drivers were engaged in
interstate commerce, even though they were mostly just driving to
and from a loading dock or across the street. This ruling meant
they couldn't sue for overtime under an exemption meant for
long-haul truckers.

Very similar facts, very similar legal rule, opposite rulings
--both of which ended the case for the workers at issue. That's not
promising for workers.

It's unclear whether Barrett's adverse rulings simply reflect
current law, which is quite unfriendly to class actions, or signal
her underlying views.

However, a jaundiced approach toward class actions may be one
respect in which Barrett mirrors the judicial philosophy of her
mentor, the late Justice Antonin Scalia. In 2011, Scalia penned two
landmark Supreme Court rulings -- Dukes v. Walmart and AT&T v.
Conception -- which proved incredibly damaging to workers' ability
to use class actions to protect their rights.

With Barrett added to the bench, I would therefore expect the
Supreme Court to continue to take a pro-business stance when it
comes to class actions.

A premium on personal responsibility

Barrett's approach to claims brought by individual workers was
different and somewhat hard to pin down.

As best I could tell, she seemed to approach these lawsuits from a
framework of personal responsibility. In general, she seemed to
rule against whichever party made bad or irresponsible choices –
whether that was the worker or the company.

When a prison guard was fired for falsely claiming that a prisoner
hit her with a snack cake box, Barrett had no patience for her
gender discrimination claim against the prison. The surveillance
footage showed that the prisoner threw the box but it did not hit
her. Barrett seemed especially concerned that the prisoner could
have been sentenced to extra prison time if there hadn't been
surveillance footage to back up his account.

Likewise, Barrett proved unsympathetic toward an ice rink worker
who brought a disability discrimination claim after causing a
Zamboni accident. Barrett was also nonplussed by a race harassment
claim brought by a traffic patrolman with a bad driving record that
included driving away from a gas pump with the nozzle attached and
almost crashing into a police car.

Barrett seemed so appalled by the bad driving, the merits of the
harassment claim fell by the wayside.

But Barrett's philosophy also favored workers when the employer
dropped the ball or behaved badly. She upheld a jury verdict
against Costco for failing to protect a worker who was being
harassed by a customer. She upheld another involving a Latina park
supervisor who brought a race discrimination case after her
employer subjected her to surveillance and falsely accused her of
altering her timecard. Barrett likewise sided with a butcher who
was repeatedly sexually and racially harassed by his male
co-workers and his supervisor.

In perhaps the best illustration of her philosophy, she reversed a
lower court ruling against a worker who had been bilked out of his
long-term disability benefits. The insurance company lost, Barrett
ruled, because it had "blown" the regulatory deadline for
responding to the worker's claim. "A deadline is a bright line
rule," she wrote. "What's good for the goose is good for the
gander."

Cross-cutting values

Barrett's approach to individual claims is consistent with certain
conservative values, but it's also distinct from a pro-business
model of conservatism that seeks to expand employer power and
discretion for the sake of efficiency and cost savings.

It's also somewhat different from the Supreme Court's approach to
discrimination cases in recent years, which have been cloaked in
technical language, with unpredictable results.

The closest analog to Barrett's stance may actually be recent
liberal social movements such as the #MeToo movement, which was
morally centered on accountability and redress. On the other hand,
the ultimate goal of many liberal movements is equity, which does
not seem to much of a priority for Barrett.

Still, I would expect Barrett to be somewhat of a wild card when it
comes to the rights of individual workers. Just like the rest of
2020, Barrett could prove to be more unpredictable than we assume.
[GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***