/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201113.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, November 13, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 228

                            Headlines

206 FUEL CAFE: Underpays Kitchen Workers, Almendares Claims
3M COMPANY: Caylor Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS
3M COMPANY: Cynowa Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS
3M COMPANY: Diseth Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS
3M COMPANY: Ellis Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS

3M COMPANY: Fournier Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS
3M COMPANY: Grossman Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS
7-ELEVEN: Bid to Strike Class Claim in Sousa Suit Denied
AFFILIATED HOME: Alves Class Certification Bid Denied
AIRBNB INC: Shortchanges Guests and Hosts, Farmer Suit Claims

AKO RESTAURANT: Chen Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Delivery Staff
ALLEGIANT AIR: Rolle Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Ward Suit Seeks Class Certification
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Browning Sues Over False Marketing of Beverages
ARCHDIOCESE OF HALIFAX: Priest Sexual Abuse Class Suit Certified

ASTROS: Disgruntled Ticketholders' Class Suit Heads to Appeals Ct
AURORA CANNIBAS: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 1 Deadline
AUSTRALIA: Group of Teens File Climate Change Class Action
AVA PORK: Garris Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA & NYLL
AVEO: Levitt Robinson Invites Residents to Join Class Action

BARRY UNIVERSITY: Bid to Strike Rosado Class Claims Denied
BLACKBAUD INC: Faces Class Action Following Ransomware Attack
BOJANGLES RESTAURANTS: Stafford Suit Wins Collective Status
BRANDON ZANOTTI: Court Strikes Class Claims in Gaddis Suit
C&W FACILITY: Collective Status Sought in Knecht FLSA Action

CALERES INC: Meza Labor Class Suit Goes to C.D. California
CANADA: Grand Forks Flooding Victims File Class Action
CARDONE EQUITY: Rosen Law Reminds of Nov. 20 Deadline
CARNIVAL CORP: Archer Appeals Ruling in COVID-19 Related Suit
CG CONSULTING: Ousley Suit Seeks to Certify Collective FLSA Class

CHAAC PIZZA: Mullen Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unrefunded Expenses
CHESAPEAKE & DELAWARE: Reynolds' PMWA Claim Denied Class Status
CLEARVIEW TREE: Underpays Tree Care Workers, Valle Suit Alleges
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Mediator Tapped to Resolve Class Action
CONAGRA BRANDS: Michael's Suit Goes to Trial

COTY INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action
COULTER VENTURES: Braun et al. Seek to Certify FLSA Class
CYTOSPORT INC: Court OKs Class Action Settlement in Clay Suit
DAIMLER AG: Reaches Settlement in Emissions Litigation
DANCING SANDWICH: Blind Can't Access Web Site, Monegro Says

DAVINCI'S RESTAURANT: Faces Gutierrez Labor Suit Over Unpaid Wages
EQUIFAX: Plaintiffs' Lawyer Files Amicus Brief at 11th Cir.
FCA US: Peralta Sues Over Dodge Challenger SRT's Hood Scoop Defect
FIRST MARINER: Bezek et al. Seek Approval of Class Notice
FLUIDIGM CORP: Rosen Law Reminds of Nov. 20 Deadline

FRITO-LAY: Court Approves Amended Revised Settlement Agreement
GARRETT MOTION: Bragar Eagel Reminds of November 24 Deadline
GARRETT MOTION: Faces Froehlich Suit Over 12% Drop in Share Price
GARRETT MOTION: Rosen Law Reminds of Nov. 24 Deadline
GO HEALTH: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of November 20 Deadline

GOHEALTH INC: November 20 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
GOL LINHAS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Class Action
GOLAR LNG: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Nov. 23 Deadline
GOOGLE LLC: Monopolizes Android Apps Market, Roberts Suit Claims
GRAMERCY SURGERY: Gaymon Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA & NYLL

GREENWAY HEALTH: Court Narrows Claims in Altamonte Suit
GURUNANDA LLC: Blind Can't Access Web Site, Graciano Says
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Kilpatrick Atty. Discusses Ruling in Greene Case
HEALING TOUCH: Welch Seeks Overtime Wages Under OMFWSA & FLSA
HILL COUNTRY STAFFING: Hourly Employees Class Sought

HOMES.COM: TCPA Class Action Transferred to E.D. Va.
HONEST COMPANY: Website Not ADA Compliant, Thorne Suit Says
HP INC: Faces York County Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
INTER-CONTINENTAL HOTELS: Tipped Employees Class Certified
IRAN: Says Canadian Court Has No Jurisdiction in PS752 Case

JACOB KOSTECKI: Gentry Suit Seeks to Certify Class
JAMES WILLIAMS: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
KARMAS FAR: Velasquez Sues Over Failure to Pay OT & Retaliation
KENNETH REES: Settlement Reached in Brice Litigation
KENTUCKY: Certification of UK Healthcare Patients Class Sought

LANSING TRADE: Budicak Suit Seeks to Certify Class
LITIES CORP: Velasquez et al. Seek Class Status of FLSA Action
LITTLE ROCK, AR: Must Face Class Action Over Rental Inspection Code
LOOMIS ARMORED: Fitzlaff Employment Suit Removed to D. Colorado
LOS ANGELES, CA: Safaie Suit Seeks to Certify Class

M&T BANK: Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Denied
MAPLEWOOD, MN: Webb Suit Seeks to Certify 3 Classes
MERCEDES: Settles Diesel Emissions Class-Action for $700 Million
MERCER UNIVERSITY: Student's Class Action Seeks Tuition Refund
MESOBLAST LIMITED: Klein Law Remind of Dec. 7 Plaintiff Deadline

MESOBLAST LTD: Faces Mauskopf Securities Suit Over ADS Price Drop
MOHAN GROUP: Misclassifies Housekeeping Employees, Dixon Claims
NANO-X IMAGING: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of November 16 Deadline
NANO-X IMAGING: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of November 16 Deadline
NATIONAL DEALER: Sends Unwanted Robocalls, Pepper Suit Alleges

NATIONAL SECURITIES: Ginzkey Suit Seeks Class Certification
NEW YORK: Bid for FLSA Collective Status Granted in Part
NEW YORK: Chinese American Citizens Alliance Files Suit v. NYCDOE
NEW YORK: Disabled Firefighters Sue Over OT, Promotion Bias
NEXTCURE INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of November 20 Deadline

NEXTCURE INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of November 20 Deadline
NIKOLA CORP: Kahn Swick Reminds of Nov. 16 Deadline
NIKOLA CORP: Kessler Topaz Reminds of November 16 Deadline
NIKOLA CORP: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of November 16 Deadline
NORDIC CONSULTING: Howard et al. Seek Unpaid Wages

NUTANIX INC: Barr Law Investigates Actions of Officers, Board
ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Geller Reminds of Nov. 16 Deadline
OUTSCHOOL INC: Jaquez Seeks Blind Users' Full Access to Website
PEABODY ENERGY: Kahn Swick Reminds of November 27 Deadline
PEOPLES TRUST: Miller Thomson Atty. Discusses Court Ruling in Tucci

PLAINS MARKETING: Price Trust Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
PLAN BENEFIT SERVICES: Certification of Beneficiaries Class Sought
PRECIGEN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Dec. 4 Deadline
PRUDENTIAL SECURITY: Cowley Seeks to Certify Security Guards Class
R&L INTERIOR: Duran Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA & NYLL

REATA PHARMA: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Dec. 14 Deadline
RED APPLE: Overcharges Apartment Rentals, Flynn Suit Says
REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: Settlement Wins Final Court Approval
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Fails to Warn Customers on Stock Trading Halt
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 7 Deadline

SAN JOSE RESTAURANT: Motion for Class Decertification Denied
SBE RESTAURANT: Flores Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
SCHWAB CHARITABLE: Pinkert Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty
SEFCU: Settlement Class Preliminary Certified in Story et al. Suit
SONIC CORP: Court Certifies Rule 23 Class in Data Breach Suit

SOUTH DADE: Rendon Sues Over Unpaid Sick Leave, Abrupt Termination
SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Class Status Sought in Securities Litig.
TAKEOUT TAXI: Former Employee Files Labor Class Action
TAYLOR FARMS: Court Certifies 4 Subclasses in "Pena" Suit
TELENAV INC: Faces Assad Suit in Del. Over Going Private Proposal

TPUSA INC: Cazeau Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS: Morton Seeks to Certify Residents Class
ULTRA PETROLEUM: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Class Action
UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER: Class Action Seeks Tuition Refund
VIRGINIA TECHNICAL COLLEGE: Deskins Case Settlement OK'd

VITRO FLAT: Romero Employment Suit Removed to E.D. California
VOLVO CARS: Neale Suit Seeks to Certify 4 Classes
W & W ENERGY: Hourly Employees Class Certified in Campos Suit
WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Kirby McInerney Reminds of November 23 Deadline
WVMF FUNDING: Renois Sues Over Additional Hazard Insurance Costs

XPO LOGISTICS: Class Certification Bid Denied with Leave to Renew
YAYYO INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Class Action
ZOSANO PHARMA: Faces Becerra Suit Over 27.8% Share Price Drop

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Accrues $586MM for Respirator Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Still Faces 1,884 Claimants at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AEP Units Transfer Liabilities for Oklaunion Plant
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Defends 95 Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has $679MM Liability at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had $261MM Accrual at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Discovery Still Underway in Class Suit vs. J&J
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson & Johnson Talc Derivative Suit Underway
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Had 2,774 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Still Faces Falk PI Suits at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Subsidiary Had 6,000 Lawsuits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $1.12BB Liability at Sept. 30


                            *********

206 FUEL CAFE: Underpays Kitchen Workers, Almendares Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ALMENDARES, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated kitchen workers, Plaintiff v. 206 FUEL CAFE INC. d/b/a
ENERGY FUEL and S.K.A FUEL INC. d/b/a ENERGY FUEL and VALI SONNY
BARI and AARON STANCADI, individually, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-05285 (E.D.N.Y., November 2, 2020) brings this complaint
against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Wage Theft Prevention Act and the New York
Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from on or about
November 2016 through on or about January 1, 2019 as a cook at
Energy Fuel Bellmore.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly scheduled to
work more than 40 hours each week throughout his employment with
the Defendants. However, the Plaintiff never received any written
record of his regular and overtime hours worked, and was not
required to clock in or clock out at the beginning or end of his
workday. Although the Defendant asked the Plaintiff to record the
time he arrived at work and left work in a notebook beginning on or
about July 2018, the Plaintiff was not properly compensated by the
Defendant. When the Plaintiff complaint about it, he was told by
the Defendant that he could tender his resignation if he did not
agree with the Defendants' compensation policy.

The complaint asserts that the Defendants have intentionally and
willfully engaged in an unlawful conduct pursuant to a corporate
policy of minimizing costs and denying employees legally required
compensation by failing to pay their kitchen workers the applicable
overtime rate at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay
for all time worked in excess of 40 hours per week, and failing to
keep accurate records of hours they worked as required by the FLSA
and NYLL.

206 Fuel Cafe Inc. and S.K.A. Fuel Inc. operate as restaurants
co-owned by Vali Sonny Bari and Aaron Stancadi. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
          225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Tel: (212) 323-6980
          E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com

                - and –

          Vincent Bauer, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFIECES OF VINCENT E. BAUER
          425 Madison Ave., 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Tel: (212) 575-1517
          E-mail: vbauer@vbauyerlaw.com


3M COMPANY: Caylor Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS
-------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD CLAIR CAYLOR v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03703-RMG (D.S.C., October
21, 2020), seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the
Plaintiff and by those similarly situated resulting from exposure
to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

3M COMPANY: Cynowa Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS
-------------------------------------------------------
JAMES CYNOWA v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03702-RMG (D.S.C., October
21, 2020), seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the
Plaintiff and by those similarly situated resulting from exposure
to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

3M COMPANY: Diseth Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS
-------------------------------------------------------
DONAVAN LUVERN DISETH v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03701-RMG (D.S.C., October
21, 2020), seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the
Plaintiff and by those similarly situated resulting from exposure
to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

3M COMPANY: Ellis Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS
------------------------------------------------------
BRETT ALVIN ELLIS v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03754-RMG (D.S.C., October
26, 2020), seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the
Plaintiff and by those similarly situated resulting from exposure
to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


               - and -

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

3M COMPANY: Fournier Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS
---------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL JOSEPH FOURNIER SR. v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY;
CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:20-cv-03700-RMG (D.S.C., October 21, 2020), seeks damages for
personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff and by those similarly
situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

3M COMPANY: Grossman Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS
---------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT JEFFREY GROSSMAN v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03699-RMG (D.S.C., October
21, 2020), seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the
Plaintiff and by those similarly situated resulting from exposure
to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

7-ELEVEN: Bid to Strike Class Claim in Sousa Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KARLA Y. SOUSA, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. 7-ELEVEN, INC.,
Case No. 3:19-cv-02142-JLS-RBB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Janis L.
Sammartino entered an order:

   1. denying the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for lack of
      personal jurisdiction;

   2. denying the Defendant's Motion to Strike; and

   3. denying the Defendant's Motion to Stay.

The Defendant does not dispute personal jurisdiction as to the
Plaintiff, a California resident, or the putative class members who
reside in California or received messages from the Defendant in
California. However, the Plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide
class of persons who received text messages from the Defendant. The
Defendant argues the Court cannot exercise specific personal
jurisdiction with respect to claims Plaintiff seeks to bring on
behalf of nonresident putative class members who did not receive
text messages from the Defendant in California.

The Court said it will defer its decision regarding the propriety
of the Plaintiff's class definition. The Plaintiff must be allowed
an adequate opportunity to conduct formal discovery in support of
class certification. If the Plaintiff's class definition were to
require clarification, the Plaintiff should be given the
opportunity to make the case for certification in a later motion
where such issues can be evaluated by the Court in their entirety.
The Court is reluctant to preemptively deny the Plaintiff at least
the opportunity to present a motion for class certification.

The putative class action alleges that the Defendant sent
unsolicited text messages to the cell phones of the Plaintiff and
putative class members without prior express consent. The Plaintiff
claims that the Defendant used a short message service (SMS) short
code to mass transmit text messages to a nationwide list of
cellular telephone numbers. Based on these allegations, the
Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff asserts these claims on behalf of herself and a
putative class defined as:

   "all persons within the United States who received a non-
   emergency text message from 7-Eleven, or their agents, to a
   cellular telephone through the use of an automatic telephone
   dialing system within four years to the filing of this
   Complaint."

The Plaintiff seeks actual damages, statutory damages, injunctive
and declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.

7-Eleven is an international chain of convenience stores,
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. The chain was founded in 1927 as an
ice house storefront in Dallas.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 2, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3neNrjA at no extra charge.[CC]


AFFILIATED HOME: Alves Class Certification Bid Denied
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA ALVES, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AFFILIATED HOME
CARE OF PUTNAM, INC., and BARBARA KESSMAN, in her individual
capacity, Case No. 1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Kenneth M. Karas entered an order:

   1. denying -- without prejudice and with leave to renew
      at the conclusion of discovery -- the following motions:

       -- the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and
          Final Certification of the Collective Action;

       -- the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment; and

       -- the Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment; and

   2. directing the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending
      motions.

The Court will reopen discovery for 60 days. The Parties must serve
all additional interrogatories and document production requests,
and complete all additional depositions, within this period. The
Court will also allow the Parties to complete any additional expert
disclosures -- including reports, production of documents, and
depositions -- within this same 60-day window, thus mooting
Plaintiffs' pending request for a preclusion and sanctions order.

A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2I2kKqI at no extra charge.[CC]

AIRBNB INC: Shortchanges Guests and Hosts, Farmer Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY FARMER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. AIRBNB, INC.; AIRBNB PAYMENTS, INC., Case No.
3:20-cv-07842 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 5, 2020) is a proposed class action
brought on behalf of the Plaintiff in an effort to stop Airbnb's
unlawful conduct, compel Airbnb to make a full accounting to hosts,
and require Airbnb to compensate hosts for profiting at their
expense.

According to the complaint, as the COVID-19 pandemic reached the
United States earlier this year, Airbnb announced that it would
allow guests to cancel their reservations for a full refund and no
cancellation fees. Airbnb is planning an IPO for later in the year
and needed the positive press. But that press came at the expense
of hosts, who had negotiated their own cancellation policies with
guests and were hurt as much as anyone by the pandemic's sudden
impact on travel. Airbnb soon apologized to hosts and announced
that it was establishing a $250 million fund to help pay hosts for
canceled bookings. It turns out, however, that this was yet another
ruse to burnish the company's public image, and that Airbnb was in
effect paying hosts with their own money.

The Plaintiff contends that Airbnb had not actually issued full
refunds to guests as it said it would. Instead, Airbnb rejected
many guests' refund requests, forced others to accept travel
credits that expire next year, and issued only partial refunds to
still more guests. Airbnb then kept the remaining funds for itself
-- ignoring its fiduciary and contractual obligations to remit any
such money to hosts. He is one of the hundreds of thousands of
hosts who have been shortchanged by Airbnb, he adds.

Plaintiff Anthony Farmer is a Texas citizen who previously offered
vacation rentals through the Airbnb platform.

Airbnb operates an online marketplace for vacation rentals. It
makes money by connecting "hosts" who own vacation properties with
"guests" in need of accommodations -- and taking a percentage of
each booking. The company recently 9 valued itself at more than $25
billion.

Airbnb Payments, Inc., is a subsidiary of Airbnb that is also
incorporated under the laws of Delaware and headquartered at the
same address in San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Schrag, Esq.
          Geoffrey A. Munroe, Esq.
          Joshua J. Bloomfield, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 1110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 350-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
          E-mail: mls@classlawgroup.com
                  gam@classlawgroup.com
                  jjb@classlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Enrico Schaefer, Esq.
          TRAVERSE LEGAL, PLC
          810 Cottageview Drive, Unit G-20
          Traverse City, MI 49684
          Telephone: (231) 932-0411
          Facsimile: (231) 932-0636
          E-mail: enrico@traverselegal.com

               - and -

          Adrianos Facchetti, Esq.
          TRAVERSE LEGAL, PLC
          301 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 520
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 793-8607
          Facsimile: (626) 793-7293
          E-mail: adrianos@facchettilaw.com

AKO RESTAURANT: Chen Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Delivery Staff
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ZHEN XING CHEN, individually and on behalf of all other
employees similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AKO RESTAURANT INC., NEW
AKO RESTAURANT INC. d/b/a AKO SUSHI, d/b/a AKO JAPANESE CUISINE,
ZHANG QI WANG, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05281 (E.D.N.Y.,
November 2, 2020) arises from the Defendants' alleged  violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a delivery person
from approximately April 1, 2019 to September 30, 2019.

The Plaintiff claims that he normally worked for the Defendants
from Sunday to Friday for more than 12 hours without breaks per
week, but he was only paid a total of $1000 per month regardless of
the hours he worked. Sometimes, he received tips for his delivery
work. The Defendants, however, never provide the Plaintiff with any
notices or information regarding "tip credit" and did not keep
records of the tips received by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants failed to:

     -- compensate him at a rate at least equal to the federal
minimum wage, overtime compensation for all the hours he worked
over 40 per week, and spread of hours compensation;

     -- provide him with proper wage stubs of hiring statement; and


     -- maintain accurate and sufficient time records or provide
accurate records to employees.

Ako Restaurant Inc. and New Ako Restaurant Inc. operate a Japanese
cuisine restaurant. Zhang Qi Wang is an owner or part owner,
manager, and principal of Corporate Defendants, and has the power
to hire and fire employees, set wages and schedules, and maintain
their records. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent S. Wong, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT S. WONG
          39 East Broadway, Suite 306
          New York, NY 10002
          Tel: (212) 349-6099
          Fax: (212) 349-6599


ALLEGIANT AIR: Rolle Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as PAMELA ROLLE, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general
public similarly situated v. ALLEGIANT AIR, LLC, a Nevada
corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV36871, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on Nov. 6, 2020.

The Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-10232 to the proceeding.

The Complaint alleges that the Defendant violated the California
Labor Code by failure to pay overtime wages and minimum wages, and
failure to pay meal and rest period premiums.

Allegiant Air is an American ultra-low cost airline that operates
scheduled and charter flights. As a major air carrier, it is the
ninth-largest commercial airline in the United States.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robert Jon Hendricks, Esq.
          Andrew P. Frederick, Esq.
          Linda Z. Shen, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market, Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
          Telephone: (415) 442-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 442-1001

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Ward Suit Seeks Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEE WARD, JAMES SAUNDERS,
and WILLIAM HOLLOWAY, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Case No.
4:20-cv-00371-O (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order:

   1. certifying the following proposed Class in this action
      under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3):

      "all persons in the United States who purchased tickets
      for travel on American Airlines flights scheduled to
      operate to, from, or within the United States from March
      1, 2020 to the date of Class certification and who were
      not issued a refund for canceled and/or significantly
      changed flights."

   2. designating the Plaintiffs as class representatives; and

   3. appointing Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Webb, Klase
      & Lemond, LLC as co-lead counsel for the Class, and Vaught
      Firm, LLC, as local counsel.

American Airlines is a major American airline headquartered in Fort
Worth, Texas, within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex. It is the
world's largest airline when measured by fleet size, scheduled
passengers carried, and revenue passenger mile.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3660qwM at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
          VAUGHT FIRM, LLC
          1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 675-8603
          Facsimile: (214) 261-5159
          E-mail: allen@vaughtfirm.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
          Whitney K. Siehl, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  dank@hbsslaw.com
                  whitneys@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          E. Adam Webb, Esq.
          G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq.
          WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
          1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (770) 444-9325
          Facsimile: (770) 217-9950
          E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com
                  Franklin@WebbLLC.com

ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Browning Sues Over False Marketing of Beverages
---------------------------------------------------------------
MEGAN BROWNING and ALLEN KESSELRING, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, LLC, Case No.
4:20-cv-00889-HFS (W.D. Mo., Nov. 6, 2020) is a consumer protection
class action arising out of the Defendant's false and misleading
advertising of its Ritas Margarita, Mojito, Rose, and Sangria
beverages sold in enclosed packages.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant has manufactured and sold
beverages it conspicuously packages as a "SPARKLING MARGARITA".
Based on this representation, reasonable consumers of the Margarita
Products believe that they contain tequila. However, unbeknownst to
those consumers, the Margarita Products do not contain tequila. The
Defendant also manufactured and sold beverages it conspicuously
packages as a "MOJITO" and "SPARKLING CLASSIC COCKTAILS". Based on
these representations, the consumers of the Mojito Products expect
that they contain rum. However, unbeknownst to those consumers, the
Mojito Products do not contain rum. Lastly, the Defendant has
manufactured and sold beverages t conspicuously packages as a
"ROSÉ" or "SANGRIA." Based on these representations, reasonable
consumers of the wine products expect that they contain wine.
However, unbeknownst to those consumers, the wine products do not
contain wine.

As a result of the Defendant's false and deceptive packaging, the
Plaintiffs and other members of the proposed Classes have purchased
products they otherwise would not have purchased or have paid more
for the products than they otherwise would have paid. Therefore,
Plaintiffs and other members of the Classes have been injured, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated to halt the dissemination of the
Defendant's false, misleading and deceptive packaging and
advertising, to correct the inaccurate perception it has created in
the minds of consumers, and obtain monetary redress for those who
have purchased Defendant's Products.

Plaintiff Browning is a citizen of the State of Missouri, resided
in Kansas City, Missouri. In mid-2019 and mid-2020, Ms. Browning
purchased the 12-pack Ritas Lime-A-Rita, Peach-A-Rita, and
Water-Melon-Rita, as well as the 12-pack Ritas Spritz Variety Pack,
from a Hy-Vee and Price Chopper in Kansas City, Missouri. Plaintiff
Allen Kesselring is a citizen of the State of Missouri, resided in
Saint Louis, Missouri. In October 2019, Mr. Kesselring purchased
the 12-pack Ritas Spritz Variety Pack from a Schnucks supermarket
located at 2030 Dorsett Road, Maryland Heights, Missouri.

Anheuser-Busch, LLC is an American brewing company that owns brands
such as Budweiser, Stella Artois, and Michelob Ultra. The Defendant
has manufactured and sold beverages it conspicuously calls a
"MARGARITA" on the packaging.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tim E. Dollar, Esq.
          DOLLAR BURNS & BECKER, L.C.
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 876-2600
          Facsimile: (816) 221-8763
          E-mail: timd@dollar-law.com

ARCHDIOCESE OF HALIFAX: Priest Sexual Abuse Class Suit Certified
----------------------------------------------------------------
Koskie Minsky LLP disclosed that the Nova Scotia Supreme Court has
certified a class action on behalf of survivors of sexual abuse by
a priest of the Archdiocese of Halifax, the Diocese of Yarmouth, or
the Archdiocese of Halifax-Yarmouth. The lawsuit seeks money and
other benefits for the survivors.

For more information, the lawyers working on behalf of the
survivors can be reached at: catholicabuseclassaction@kmlaw.ca or
1-833-630-1785 or by visiting www.halifaxdioceseclassaction.com.
Survivors who want to be excluded from this lawsuit were directed
to opt out last September 30, 2020. Individuals who opt out will
not be part of the lawsuit and will not be able to share in any
money or any other benefit obtained if the lawsuit is successful.
Individuals who wish to remain in the class action do not need to
do anything at this time. https://kmlaw.ca/ [GN]




ASTROS: Disgruntled Ticketholders' Class Suit Heads to Appeals Ct
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Barron, writing for Texas Sports Nation, reports that another
disgruntled ticketholder has filed a lawsuit against the Astros,
and a proposed class action lawsuit filed by other ticketholders
against the ballclub is headed for the 14th state Court of Appeals
on a procedural matter. [GN]

AURORA CANNIBAS: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 1 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against certain officers of Aurora Cannibas, Inc. ("Aurora" or the
"Company") (NYSE:ACB). The class action, filed in United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, and docketed under
20-cv-13819, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons
other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise, acquired Aurora
securities between February 13, 2020, and September 4, 2020, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Aurora securities during the
class period, you have until December 1, 2020, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

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

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

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

The complaint alleges that thought the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented
and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to
the Company's business, operations, and prospects, which were known
to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Aurora had significantly overpaid for previous
acquisitions and experienced degradation in certain assets,
including its production facilities and inventory; (ii) the
Company's purported "business transformation plan" and cost reset
failed to mitigate the foregoing issues; (iii) accordingly, it was
foreseeable that the Company would record significant goodwill and
asset impairment charges; and (iv) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

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

On this news, Aurora's stock price fell $0.99 per share, or 11.63%,
to close at $7.52 per share on September 8, 2020.

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

AUSTRALIA: Group of Teens File Climate Change Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Dana Drugmand, writing for Nation of Change, reports that a group
of eight Australian teens has brought a groundbreaking new climate
change lawsuit against Australia's Federal Minister for the
Environment in an effort to stop a proposed coal mine expansion in
the state of New South Wales, roughly 267 miles north of Sydney.

Filing a class action lawsuit in federal court, these students are
representing not just themselves but young people under age 18
across Australia and around the world, as the generation that is
particularly imperiled from the climate crisis and the continued
fossil fuel expansion driving climate breakdown.

"The climate crisis will disproportionately impact young people as
many of us will live into the second half of this century, far
beyond many projections of climate catastrophe," said Laura Kirwan,
a 16-year-old plaintiff from Sydney who is active in Australia's
School Strike 4 Climate.

The lawsuit is the latest in several climate cases brought by young
Australians in recent months.

In July a 23-year-old Melbourne law student named Katta O'Donnell
filed a class action lawsuit against the Australian government for
allegedly failing to disclose to government bondholders the
climate-related risks of their investments.

In May, a group of young Queenslanders under the name Youth Verdict
filed a lawsuit against the developer Waratah Coal, challenging the
Galilee Coal Project. That project in central Queensland, with its
multiple underground and open-pit mines, is expected to produce 40
million tons of coal per year and would generate nearly 3 billion
tons of greenhouse gas emissions over three decades. Youth Verdict
is suing on the grounds that the Galilee Coal Project will
exacerbate climate change and violate these young people's human
rights under the Queensland Human Rights Act. Passed in 2019, this
new law recognizes fundamental rights such as rights to life,
security of the person, equality before the law, and the protection
of families and children.  

This latest youth-led lawsuit, Sharma et al. v. Minister for the
Environment, is challenging a coal mine expansion in New South
Wales known as the Vickery Extension. In August, state authorities
approved the project, which was proposed by Whitehaven Coal. The
mine expansion would allow Whitehaven to extract another 10 million
tons of coal annually, an increase of 250 percent over its original
mine. Furthermore, the expansion is expected to release an extra
100 million tons of climate pollution, bringing the mine's total to
roughly 370 million tons or the equivalent of about 70 percent of
Australia's total carbon emissions from 2019.

Australia's Environment Minister Sussan Ley is the federal official
currently weighing whether to approve the Vickery Extension
project, which is broadly opposed by local communities. The youth
lawsuit, brought by students between age 13 and 17, seeks a court
order directing Ley to squash the project. The lawsuit argues that
climate change is causing grave harm and that new coal projects
exacerbate that harm, particularly for young people as climate
impacts worsen over time.

"Burning coal is the single largest contributor to this crisis and
Australia is the world's largest coal exporter," Equity Generation
Lawyers explains on the case's website. "To make it worse, we know
that young people and children are particularly vulnerable to the
impacts of climate change." Equity Generation Lawyers is an
Australian law firm specializing in climate change law and is
representing the youth in this class action suit. It is the same
firm representing Katta O'Donnell in her case against the federal
government.

Equity Generation Lawyers argues in the Sharma case that the
environment minister has an obligation, or "duty of care" under
Australian common law, to prevent foreseeable harm to vulnerable
people. If successful, the case could have a real impact in terms
of "preventing all new coal mines from being approved in this
country," according to the law firm.

"Such an approach to a climate change case has not been tested
before in Australia, and would chart new territory if successful,"
Laura Schuijers, a research fellow in environmental law at the
University of Melbourne, wrote in The Conversation. "Although a
legal victory would appear difficult on these grounds, the
implications of this case are already significant. They show young
people, determined to fight for action on climate, will continue to
find new ways to hold powerful people to account."

Australia has already seen a court decision striking down a coal
project largely due to environmental and climate concerns. In
February 2019 the Land and Environment Court in New South Wales
rejected a mining company's appeal of a government decision not to
permit a new open-pit coal mine. Chief Judge Brian Preston wrote
that the coal project "would be in the wrong place at the wrong
time." He explained that this is not the time to be building new
coal mines because coal "will increase global total concentrations
of [greenhouse gases] at a time when what is now urgently needed,
in order to meet generally agreed climate targets, is a rapid and
deep decrease in [greenhouse gas] emissions."

On September 9, just one day after the Australian teens filed their
class action against the Vickery coal project, United Nations
Secretary General Antonio Guterres said in a press conference on
the release of a new international climate science report: "The
coal business is going up in smoke."

"Climate action is the only way to ensure a livable planet for this
and future generations," he added.

But according to young climate activists like the Australian teens
suing the federal environment minister, governments are not taking
climate action seriously, which they say forces them to turn to the
courts.

"I have grown up listening to conversations about the climate
crisis but I've not seen governments do anything significant in the
form of climate action. As a young person, I cannot vote to have my
voice heard by politicians," said Laura Kirwan, the 16-year-old
plaintiff from Sydney. "I believe that the government has a duty to
young people to protect our futures from the impacts of climate
change, including stopping the impact of the Vickery Extension
Project." [GN]


AVA PORK: Garris Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA & NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------------
IVAN GARRIS and SHON FRAZIER, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. AVA PORK PRODUCTS, INC., "JOHN DOE" AS
PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ALBERT L. GIRGENTI,
DECEASED, and LEONARD E. LOMBARDI, JR., Jointly and Severally, Case
No. 1:20-cv-05400 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 6, 2020) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime premiums under Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs are former warehouse workers and "supervisors" at
the Defendants' meatpacking company based in Hicksville, New York.
For their work, the Plaintiffs contend that despite the fact that
they performed primarily non-exempt manual labor, they were paid
either a flat salary or at a straight-time hourly rate for all
hours worked, such that they did not receive overtime premiums for
hours worked over 40 each week. Additionally, the Defendants failed
to provide them with a wage notice when they were hired, annually
or when their wage rate(s) changed, or wage statements along with
their weekly wage payments.

AVA Pork Products, Inc. produces, processes, and distributes meat
and meat products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
          PELTON GRAHAM LLC
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 385-9700

AVEO: Levitt Robinson Invites Residents to Join Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Weekly Source reports that lawyers Levitt Robinson were
advertising in prime time on the 2GB breakfast show seeking past
Aveo residents or their families to join the class action they
initiated in August 2017. The ads are vicious, implying Aveo has
been duplicitous with their contracts.

This followed the Four Corners expose on the Aveo Way contract in
June 2017. Aveo has since been sold to the Canadian-based property
fund Brookfield. It is likely they will be responsible for
defending the action.

In 2018 Levitt Robinson successfully attracted New York litigation
funder Galactic Litigation Partners LLC to fund the action. Aveo
then asked the courts to require them to stump up $1.8 million on
top of the $180,000 they had already deposited to show they have
the cash to pay Aveo's costs if they lose.

Aveo had briefed Arnold Bloch Lieber lawyer Leon Zwier. The
Australian describes him as "the man . . . who is loved by his
clients and feared -- even hated at times -- by his opponents. . .
His fans laud his brilliant legal mind and his trademark aggressive
advocacy".

The expectation was for the case to run to 2019 but it appears it
has a long way to run. [GN]


BARRY UNIVERSITY: Bid to Strike Rosado Class Claims Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARLENA ROSADO, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. BARRY UNIVERSITY
INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-21813-JEM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Jose
E. Martinez entered an order denying without prejudice the Motion
to Strike Class Action Allegations filed by the Defendant, Barry
University Inc.

The Defendant may present its arguments in response to a future
class certification motion, if and when it may be filed, the court
says.

Barry University is a private Catholic university in Miami Shores,
Florida. Founded in 1940 by the Adrian Dominican Sisters, it is one
of the largest Catholic universities in the Southeast and is within
the territory of the Archdiocese of Miami.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 2, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3llehWm at no extra charge.[CC]

BLACKBAUD INC: Faces Class Action Following Ransomware Attack
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Vittorio, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Blackbaud
Inc., a cloud services provider, faces a potential class action for
allegedly failing to stop a ransomware attack that exposed
nonprofit membership data.

Two people whose data was held by Bread for the World and Planned
Parenthood, which use the company as a vendor, also allege
Blackbaud was too slow to disclose the breach, according to a Sept.
11 filing in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida. [GN]


BOJANGLES RESTAURANTS: Stafford Suit Wins Collective Status
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT E. STAFFORD, JR. on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. BOJANGLES
RESTAURANTS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-266-MOC (W.D.N.C.), the Hon.
Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr. entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiff's Motion to Conditionally Certify a
      Collective Action and Facilitate Notice;

   2. approving the Notice and Consent Form submitted by the
      Plaintiff;

   3. directing the Defendants within 21 days of entry of this
      Order, to provide the Plaintiff's counsel (in computer-
      readable electronic format) the names, addresses, e-mail
      addresses, telephone numbers and dates of employment, of
      all persons who are, have been, or will be employed by the
      Defendants as non-exempt hourly employees at any of
      Defendants' United States locations from July 14, 2017 to
      the present;

   4. directing the Plaintiff to send the Notice by first class
      mail and e-mail to all potential members of the collective
      action informing them of their right to opt-in; and

   5. scheduling the opt-in period to commence seven days after
      the Defendant produces the requested information
      pertaining to potential Plaintiffs and shall remain open
      for opt-ins to join this action for 60 days thereafter.

The Court held that the Plaintiff has met the lenient standard of
demonstrating that the Plaintiff and opt-in plaintiffs are
similarly situated. Therefore, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion
at this early stage in the proceedings and ordered that notice be
sent to the class.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a crew member on April
14, 2018, and he became a shift manager in November 2018. The
Plaintiff typically worked Wednesday through Sunday. He was
scheduled to work 40-hour shifts, but he was frequently required to
work off the clock. This off the clock work resulted in the
Plaintiff working more than 40 hours per week during at least one
workweek. In fact, the Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours per week
in each workweek during his entire employment with Bojangles. The
Plaintiff was often required to perform tasks before and after his
scheduled shift, of which Defendant was fully aware and required,
says the complaint.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 2, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pbCwZv at no extra charge.[CC]

BRANDON ZANOTTI: Court Strikes Class Claims in Gaddis Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONALD D. GADDIS, v.
BRANDON ZANOTTI, Case No. 3:19-cv-00781-DWD (S.D. Ill.), the Hon.
Judge David W. Dugan entered an order:

   1. granting the Defendant's motion to strike class
      allegations; and

   2. granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's
      motion to dismiss.

The Court said, "Count I may proceed only as to the Plaintiff's
individual claim and not as a class action. Count III is dismissed
as barred by the Eleventh Amendment and by prosecutorial immunity.
Counts I and II are dismissed to the extent that Plaintiff seeks
money damages. Plaintiff's requests for injunctive and declaratory
relief only may proceed in Counts I, II, and IV. No preliminary
injunction shall issue. Further, this case is stayed in its
entirety pursuant to the abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris,
401 U.S. 37, 43-44 (1971). The parties shall submit a joint status
report on the progress of the Plaintiff's pending state court
actions on or before February 1, 2021, unless events before that
date (e.g. the conclusion of all relevant pending actions) warrant
an earlier report. As a result of the stay, the motion to stay
discovery and the motion for extension of time to complete
discovery are denied as as moot."

In Count I, Gaddis asks the Court to enter an injunction barring
Defendant, in his role as State's Attorney, from seeking to include
a mental health evaluation as a condition of release absent a
showing of a compelling state interest. In Count II, Gaddis seeks
an injunction barring Zanotti from instituting any criminal or
civil actions against him and barring attorneys working for Zanotti
from appearing on behalf of the State of Illinois in any criminal
proceedings. Similarly, in Count IV, Gaddis seeks a declaration
that Zanotti has a conflict of interest and injunctive relief
barring Zanotti from prosecuting him in the future, says the
complaint.

A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/32kUgb6 at no extra charge.[CC]


C&W FACILITY: Collective Status Sought in Knecht FLSA Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHAD KNECHT, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. C&W FACILITY SERVICES
INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-03899-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act:

   1. conditionally certifying this case as an FLSA collective
      action against the Defendant, on behalf of Named Plaintiff
      and others similarly situated, and implementing a
      procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of FLSA claims is
      sent by regular mail and email to:

      "all current and former hourly, non-exempt maintenance
      employees of Defendant who were scheduled to work 40 or
      more hours in any workweek during the three years
      preceding the filing of this Motion and continuing through
      the final disposition of this case";

   3. approving the proposed Notice and Consent to Join forms;

   4. directing Defendant to provide, within 14 days of an order
      granting conditional certification, a roster of all
      persons who fit the definition above (the "Potential Opt-
      In Plaintiffs") that includes their full names, their
      dates of employment, job titles, locations worked, their
      last known home addresses, and their personal email
      addresses; and

   5. directing that the Court-approved Notice and Consent to
      Join forms be sent to such present and former employees
      within 14 days of receipt of the roster using the
      Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs' mailing and email addresses.

The case involves the Defendant's meal deduction policy. The
Plaintiff has submitted allegations and evidence averring that the
Defendant has a company-wide policy of requiring a 30-minute
deduction from its hourly, non-exempt maintenance employees' daily
hours worked for meal breaks that are either never taken or are
interrupted by substantive work duties, the complaint says.

C&W is an integrated facility services provider.

A copy of the Plaintiff's pre-discovery motion for conditional
class certification dated Nov. 2, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/32vdStd at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and those similarly situated, are:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite No. 26
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: 614 949-1181
          Facsimile: 614-386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com

CALERES INC: Meza Labor Class Suit Goes to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SERGIO MEZA, GABRIEL SORIA, and OMAR ORTEGA, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. CALERES, INC.
and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVDS2018557, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of San Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on November 5, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:20-cv-02318 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code including failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest
period premiums, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, and failure to timely pay wages.

Caleres, Inc. is an American footwear company located in Clayton,
Missouri. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
                  
         Christopher W. Decker, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 239-9800
         Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
         E-mail: christopher.decker@ogletree.com

CANADA: Grand Forks Flooding Victims File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Ben Parfitt, writing for The Narwhal, reports that two years after
a catastrophic flood caused tens of millions of dollars in damage
to homes and businesses in the Grand Forks area, the B.C.
government and several timber companies are being sued on grounds
that excessive logging caused the devastation.

In a notice of civil claim filed in B.C. Supreme Court by Peter
Waldmann, a lawyer specializing in class action lawsuits, B.C.'s
Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, the
major logging companies Interfor, Weyerhaeuser and Tolko, three
First Nation-owned companies and pulp producer Mercer Celgar are
accused of negligence for logging local forests too quickly,
creating the conditions that caused the devastating flooding in May
2018.

The claim alleges that too much clear-cut logging occurred on lands
higher up mountain slopes where deep snow packs can build,
releasing torrents of water in the spring; many of the clear-cuts
greatly exceeded size limits; road networks were excessive; too
many trees were logged before previously logged forests had
recovered sufficiently, and that all of this and more set the stage
for the devastating flooding that began on May 8, 2018.

"The defendants' overharvesting of timber resources has
significantly increased the rate of sedimentation from their land,
increased the stream flow into the Kettle Basin watershed and
increased the frequency, duration and magnitude of major flooding
events," the civil claim alleges.

Three Grand Forks residents or family members of residents whose
homes were either destroyed or seriously damaged during the flood
are named as plaintiffs in the claim. It is expected that others
whose homes, properties and livelihoods were disrupted by the flood
will join as part of a broader class action or civil lawsuit in
which damages are being sought.

The "proposed class" in the Grand Forks case are "all persons"
living within 15 kilometres of the community whose homes,
businesses, health or livelihoods were "lost or destroyed" in the
extensive flooding.

Of the three major logging companies named in the claim, Interfor's
operations are notably singled out. The company has by far the
largest share of logging rights in the region, and owns and
operates a sawmill in Grand Forks.

"The defendant, Interfor, has unsustainably clear-cut tens of
thousands of hectares of land during the last several decades in
the Kettle River basin and has extensively profited from the timber
resources. This has increased the frequency, duration and magnitude
of peak flows that resulted in the May 8-11, 2018 flooding event,"
the claim alleges.

The Narwhal, which reported extensively on the human toll of the
flooding and on allegations by Grand Forks residents and
independent foresters and hydrologists that logging was behind the
flooding, asked the company to respond and received a short email
in reply.

"We are aware of this claim and cannot provide much comment on
pending litigation, except to say that Interfor has acted in
accordance with its permits, licences and applicable regulations,
and intends to defend itself fully," said Xenia Kristos, Interfor's
chief counsel and corporate secretary.

Jennifer Houghton, one of the plaintiffs, had two feet of water in
her home when flooding occurred in 2017. Worse flooding the
following spring doubled the amount of water in her home, prompting
the yoga teacher and local realtor to build a small home on wheels
so that she could get it out of harm's way if another flood
occurred.

Houghton declined to comment on the civil suit on the advice of
Waldmann. She did say that what has been filed with the court
thoroughly captures what she and others believe are the relevant
events that increased the severity of the floods and that upended
her life and the lives of so many others in her community.

"I think that the lawyers did a very thorough job of putting the
filing together. I've put my faith in them," Houghton told The
Narwhal.

Next to Interfor, the provincial government itself is directly
responsible for much of the logging that is alleged to have caused
the horrendous flooding. BC Timber Sales is an arm of the Ministry
of Forests that auctions blocks of forest for logging on a one-time
basis, whereas the logging by Interfor and other companies is done
under long-term licences awarded by the Ministry of Forests and
covering multiple years. The claim alleges that BC Timber Sales had
"the responsibility to establish and auction" those forests in ways
that "sustainably managed" water runoff from those lands.

But that didn't happen for a number of reasons, the claim
contends.

Both logging under the BC Timber Sales program and logging by
Interfor and others often resulted in clear-cuts that were larger
than the 40-hectare limit set out in regulations. The lawsuit
alleges that for 20 years beginning in 1998, fully 41 per cent of
all the logging cutblocks in the Kettle River basin, which feeds
into the Grand Forks area, were larger than 40 hectares in size.
And BC Timber Sales was the worst offender, with fully half of the
cutblocks on lands that it auctioned for logging exceeding 40
hectares.

In addition, the vast majority of clear-cuts were on lands higher
up hills and mountain slopes in the region, where snow packs are
deeper and become major sources of water as temperatures climb and
the sun beats down on exposed snow in the cutblocks. The lawsuit
alleges that in the four years ending in 2017, right before the
devastating 2018 flood, 69 per cent of all the cutblocks were in
that critical zone.

The larger cutblocks meant that more snow accumulated on the ground
where it was not shaded by trees, which made it prone to a fast
melt.

Regulations were also in place that were supposed to limit how many
forests could be logged based on the healthy regrowth of trees in
nearby areas that had been previously logged. That re-growth is
known in forest industry parlance as "green-up." But the suit
alleges that healthy green-up in previously logged areas had not
been achieved before new logging commenced, even though senior
Ministry of Forests personnel had been warned this was endangering
the "hydrological recovery" of logged lands, leading to increases
in peak water flows.

The suit also alleges the Ministry of Forests, which has key powers
to set the rate at which forests are logged, used a suspect
computer model for predicting how much forest was available to be
logged. The model actually over-estimated how much forest was
available by 20 per cent, according to the suit. Based on this, the
ministry's chief forester allocated more timber to logging
companies than was "available and sustainable for the region."

"This has led to increasing the frequency, duration and magnitude
of peak flows. Without sufficient timber regrowth and watershed
recovery the result is increased sediment transport, increased
water quantity and stream channel discharge associated with
flooding that caused the major flooding events in the Kettle and
Granby river systems resulting in the damages to the plaintiffs'
and class members' property," the suit alleges.

The Narwhal asked the ministry for comment, but it refused to
respond saying that it would be "inappropriate" to do so given that
the matter is now before the courts.

Anthony Britneff, who worked at several senior positions during his
40 years as a professional forester employed by the ministry, has
kept a close eye on events in the Grand Forks area since his
retirement and has been highly critical of logging rates and
road-building in the region and the threats posed to grizzly bear
populations.

He said the filing of the claim could be a pivotal moment in
ongoing disputes across the province about how forests are managed,
particularly in community watersheds.

"This is a landmark lawsuit," Britneff told The Narwhal in an
email. "The allegations likely apply to many watersheds throughout
B.C.'s southern interior. If other communities, First Nations,
farmers and ranchers dependent on water have incurred damage due to
drought or flooding caused by upstream logging, then they should
consider joining this class action. Good luck to the residents of
Grand Forks; they deserve full restitution."

Contacted at his law offices in Toronto, Waldmann said it can be
anticipated that if the matter proceeds to trial, arguments may be
made by the defendants that a whole host of things caused or
contributed to the flooding.

"There are multiple causes of everything in life. And you have to
put before the court scientific evidence that this is the one that
really matters," Waldmann told The Narwhal. "Our basic test is
whether the actions of the defendants contributed to or were part
of what caused the harm, even if it wasn't the only factor." [GN]


CARDONE EQUITY: Rosen Law Reminds of Nov. 20 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds persons
or entities who acquired interests in Cardone Equity Fund V, LLC
and Cardone Equity Fund VI, LLC (the "Funds") pursuant to their
public offerings (the "Class") of the important November 20, 2020
lead plaintiff deadline in securities class action.

To join the Cardone class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1951.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and omissions of material fact regarding,
among other things, investors' expected rates of return on their
investment. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, an award of
rescission or rescissory damages and prejudgment interest under the
federal securities laws.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
20, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1951.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

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

CARNIVAL CORP: Archer Appeals Ruling in COVID-19 Related Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Robert Archer, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ROBERT ARCHER; MARLENE
ARCHER; JACQUELINE GRAHAM; ROBERT GRAHAM; PAMELA GUISTI; MICHAEL
GUISTI; VALERIE PASQUINI WILLSEA; MICHAEL R. NEKY; and GINA M.
PALLOTA on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION & PLC; PRINCESS CRUISE LINES LTD.; and
FAIRLINE SHIPPING INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, LTD., Case No.
2:20-cv-04203-RGK-SK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, a proposed
class of Princess Cruise Line passengers have asked a California
federal judge for certification of their suit alleging the company
allowed them to board the Grand Princess ship despite knowing
passengers from a previous voyage were suffering from COVID-19
symptoms.

Robert Archer and other named plaintiffs asked U.S. District Judge
R. Gary Klausner on Aug. 31 to grant class certification in the
proposed class action accusing Princess Cruise Lines Ltd. and its
parent company Carnival Corp. of negligently exposing more than
2,400 passengers to the novel coronavirus on its Grand Princess
vessel traveling from San Francisco to Hawaii.

The suit claims Princess knew that at least one passenger suffered
from COVID-19 symptoms during a previous voyage to Mexico but
didn't tell the next group of passengers who embarked Feb. 21. The
passengers assert that 62 passengers who had traveled to Mexico --
including two that were sick -- and more than 1,000 crew members
remained on board to travel to the ship's next destination in
Hawaii.

Despite this, no medical screenings for disembarking or embarking
passengers were put in place and no efforts were made to sanitize
or disinfect the ship before new passengers arrived, according to
the complaint. The passengers were only made aware of the risks
when they were informed March 4 that a passenger from the previous
voyage had died, according to court papers.

Judge R. Gary Klausner denied Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class
in an October 20 ruling.

The appellate case is captioned as Robert Archer, et al. v.
Carnival Corporation, et al., Case No. 20-80152, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners ROBERT ARCHER, MARLENE ARCHER, JACQUELINE
GRAHAM, VALERIE PASQUINI WILLSEA, JORDAN BLYNN, BRENDA SKINNER,
GARY PILGRAM, MARISSA SMITH, JOSEPH BALLIN, AMY ROTHMAN, RAUL
PANGILINAN, LEIGH NURRE, GURVINDER BHASIN, SHARON PILGRAM, DOROTHY
OWEN, JOSEPH CLARK, HARVINDER BHASIN, EDNA PELAYO, LEONARD OWEN,
VIOLA CLARK, DIANA GONG, ROSANN EADS, MARITESS MILLER, SUZANNE
SUWANDA, PATRICIA MCGINNIS, JOHN BEKHAZI, ALLEN MCFADDEN, PATRICIA
MCFADDEN, KATHERINE HINTON, JULIAN SMITH, GLORIA PRESLEY, NANCY
ALVIS, VICTORIA BALLIN, ARLINDA PANGILINAN, MARIA MAGOS, ANNA
ALLEN, JESSE PRESLEY, SAMUEL ARREAGA, CHARLES NURRE, DEBRA
LEONELLI, BILL J. EADS, Sr., RAYMOND PENA, NICHOLAS ALLEN, NORMA
BERKOWITZ, GENE QIN, DAVID REGE, DAVID LEANDRES, JULIE PHILLIPS,
JEAN CHEN, MIRNA BEKHAZI, JANIE HARRISON, DENCY PANGILINAN, JEFFREY
SKINNER, DIANNE LEANDRES, RIZALINA RUNAS, HILDA ARREAGA, DAVID
CHEN, ROBERT GRAHAM, PAMELA GUISTI, MICHAEL GUISTI, MICHAEL R.
NEKY, and GINA M. PALLOTA, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111  
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com  

               - and -

          Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
          Andrew Kaufman, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN
          222 2nd Avenue South, Suite 1640
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 313-9000
          E-mail: mchalos@lchb.com   

               - and -

          Carlos Felipe Llinas Negret, Esq.
          Gretchen M. Nelson, Esq.
          NELSON & FRAENKEL LLP
          601 S. Figeroa Street, Suite 2050
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 943-6074
          E-mail: cllinas@nflawfirm.com  

               - and -

          Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com   

Defendants-Respondents CARNIVAL CORPORATION, CARNIVAL PLC, and
PRINCESS CRUISE LINES, LTD. are represented by:

          Angel Tang Nakamura, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          777 S. Figueroa Street, 44th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 243-4094
          E-mail: angel.nakamura@arnoldporter.com

               - and -

          Jonathan W. Hughes, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4024
          Telephone: (415) 434-1600
          E-mail: jonathan.hughes@arnoldporter.com  

               - and -

          Jeffrey Maltzman, Esq.
          MALTZMAN & PARTNERS, P.A.
          55 Miracle Mile, Suite 300
          Coral Gables, FL 33134-4551
          Telephone: (305) 779-5665
          E-mail: jeffreym@maltzmanpartners.com  

               - and -

          Edgar Nield, Esq.
          Gabrielle DeSantis Nield, Esq.
          NIELD LAW GROUP
          681 Encinitas Boulevard, Suite 315
          Encinitas, CA 92024
          Telephone: (760) 942-9880
          E-mail: enield@nieldlaw.com
                  gnield@nieldlaw.com

CG CONSULTING: Ousley Suit Seeks to Certify Collective FLSA Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alicia Ousley, v. CG
Consulting, LLC d/b/a Scores Columbus, et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-01744-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court
pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for entry
of an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the proposed collective FLSA
      class of, and implementing an Opt-In period of 75 days
      with a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of the
      Plaintiff's FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-mail)
      to:

      "all current and former hourly workers of CG Consulting
      who worked in a tipped position for which a tip credit was
      applied in any workweek beginning three years prior to the
      filing of the Motion and continuing through the date of
      judgment";

   2. approving a Reminder Email to be sent to Putative Class
      Members halfway through the 75-day notice period; and

   3. requiring the Defendants to, within 14 days of this Court's
      order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by
      providing a list in electronic and importable format, of
      the names, addresses, phone numbers, positions, location
      of worksite, and e-mail addresses of all potential opt-in
      plaintiffs who worked for the Defendants at any time from
      the three years preceding the filing of this Motion
      through the present.

On October 20, 2020, the Plaintiff Alicia Ousley filed her Second
Amended Collective and Class Action Complaint against the
Defendants. In her complaint, with respect to her wage and hour
claims, she seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act,
and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2JAzZb6 at no
extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and those similarly situated are:

          Laren E. Knoll, Esq.
          THE KNOLL LAW FIRM, LLC
          7240 Muirfield Drive, Suite 120
          Dublin, OH 43017
          Telephone: (614) 372-8890
          Facsimile: (614) 452-4850
          E-mail: lknoll@knolllaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
          BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: 614 704-0546
          Facsimile: 614-573-9826
          E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com

CHAAC PIZZA: Mullen Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unrefunded Expenses
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT MULLEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHAAC PIZZA MIDWEST, LLC; LUIS
IBARGUENGOYTIA; CFL PIZZA, LLC; ANDY ROSEN; DOE CORPORATION 1-10;
JOHN DOE 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00893-MWM (S.D. Ohio,
November 5, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Constitution,
and the Ohio Minimum Wage Fairness Act by failing to adequately
reimburse the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated delivery
drivers for their delivery-related expenses, thereby failing to pay
them the legally mandated minimum wages for all hours worked.

The Plaintiff has worked at the Pizza Hut store located in
Harrison, Ohio since approximately 2016.

Chaac Pizza Midwest, LLC is an operator of Pizza Hut stores located
in Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana.

CFL Pizza, LLC is an operator of Pizza Hut stores located in Ohio,
Kentucky, and Indiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                  
                                    
         Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
         BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
         4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
         Columbus, OH 43219
         Telephone: (614) 604-8759
         Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
         E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com

                  - and –

         Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
         Nathan B. Spencer, Esq.
         Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
         BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
         8044 Montgomery Rd., Ste. 515
         Cincinnati, OH 45236
         Telephone: (513) 715-8711
         Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
         E-mail: akimble@billerkimble.com
                 nspencer@billerkimble.com
                 pkrzeski@billerkimble.com

CHESAPEAKE & DELAWARE: Reynolds' PMWA Claim Denied Class Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINA MARY REYNOLDS,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v.
CHESAPEAKE & DELAWARE BREWING HOLDINGS, LLC, et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-02184-JS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Juan R. Sanchez entered
an order denying Reynolds' motion for class certification on the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA) claim.

The Plaintiff Christina Mary Reynolds, a former server at Iron Hill
Brewery and Restaurant, alleges her former employers failed to pay
her (and other servers) the minimum wage because they improperly
calculated her pay using a tip credit for time she spent performing
untipped side work.

The Court said, "Because Ms. Reynolds has failed to show the Court
committed a clear error of law, the Court will deny her motion. The
Court will nonetheless clarify its rulings, although the result is
still a denial of class certification on the PMWA claim."

On May 12, 2020, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order denying
the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. A week later, on May
19, 2020, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order granting
Reynolds's motion for conditional collective action certification
on the FLSA claim but denying her motion for class certification on
the PMWA claim. Ms. Reynolds seeks reconsideration of both rulings.
Specifically, she argues the Court improperly placed the burden of
proof on her to establish violations of the FLSA and PMWA and
erroneously relied on this burden to conclude that she could not
show predominance, as required for class certification.

Ms. Reynolds brings this putative collective and class action
against her former employers, alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and the PMWA.

Chesapeake & Delaware was founded in 2000. The company's line of
business includes holding or owning securities of companies other
than banks.

A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/38y8Y2D at no extra charge.[CC]

CLEARVIEW TREE: Underpays Tree Care Workers, Valle Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ILMER PERAZA VALLE, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OSCAR VALENCIA and CLEARVIEW TREE AND LAND
CORP., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-05375 (E.D.N.Y., November 5,
2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including
failure to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated workers accurate minimum wages and overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failure to pay
spread-of-hours premium for all hours worked in excess of 10 hours
in a day, failure to furnish a wage notice upon hiring, and failure
to provide accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a tree pruner,
cutter, planter, trimmer, and overall worker in New York from about
2009 to May 2020.

Clearview Tree and Land Corp. is a company that provides tree care
services based in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                  
                                    
         Marcus Monteiro, Esq.
         MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP
         91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108
         Hempstead, NY 11550
         Telephone: (516) 280-4600
         Facsimile: (516) 280-4530
         E-mail: mmonteiro@mflawny.com

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Mediator Tapped to Resolve Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Columbia
University employees and the trustees of the school's retirement
plans have tapped a professional mediator to resolve the ongoing
class action challenging the plans' fees and investment options,
according to court papers filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The parties on Sept. 11 asked Judge George B. Daniels to call off
the case's January 2021 trial date so they can attempt to resolve
things out of court during a mediation session scheduled for that
month. The parties will request a trial date no later than March
2021 if mediation is unsuccessful. [GN]


CONAGRA BRANDS: Michael's Suit Goes to Trial
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ICKI MICHAEL, individually
and as representative on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons, v. CONAGRA BRANDS, INC. PENSION PLAN FOR HOURLY RATE
PRODUCTION WORKERS, an employee pension benefit Plan; CONAGRA
BRANDS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, the Plan
Administrator; CONAGRA BRANDS APPEALS COMMITTEE, and DOES I-XX,
individual members of the Plan administrative and/or appeals
committees, Case No. 4:18-cv-00277-DCN (D. Idaho), the Hon. Judge
David C. Nye entered an order:

   1. denying Michael's Motion for Summary Judgment; and

   2. granting Conagra's Motion for Summary Judgment; and

The Court said, "Michael has not presented any evidence to support
a finding that the Administrative Committee was biased or tainted
by any conflict of interest. Michael seeks a surcharge, or
recalculation and reimbursement, of past missed benefits. As the
Court finds the Defendants' interpretation is accurate, there is no
lost benefits that need to be recalculated or repaid. Finally, any
other equitable relief or reformation alluded to by Michael in her
briefing is inapplicable in light of the Court's finding above."

On June 18, 2018, Michael filed the Complaint. The Defendants filed
a Motion for More Definite Statement which the Court granted.
Michael dutifully filed an Amended Complaint. In her Amended
Complaint, Michael brings three causes of action; each based on the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Michael brings
these claims on behalf of herself and others similarly situated.

Vicki Michael began working for Amfac Foods, Inc. at the
Lamb-Weston plant in American Falls, Idaho, on October 7, 1974. In
June 1988, Conagra Foods, Inc. took over the Lamb-Weston plant.
Michael continued working at the plant until she retired on
November 9, 2016. In total, Michael worked at the Lamb-Weston plant
for 42 years, 13.5 years for Amfac and 28.5
years for Conagra.

Conagra Brands, Inc. is an American packaged foods company
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Conagra makes and sells
products under various brand names that are available in
supermarkets, restaurants, and food service establishments.

A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3l9Mcl3 at no extra charge.[CC]


COTY INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Sept. 29 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of tCoty Inc.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the
case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

COTY Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/coty-inc-information-request-form?prid=9653&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

Coty Inc. (NYSE:COTY)

COTY Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 3, 2016
- May 28, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 3, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/coty-inc-information-request-form?prid=9653&wire=1

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

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

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

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

COULTER VENTURES: Braun et al. Seek to Certify FLSA Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT LEE BRAUN, et al.,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. COULTER
VENTURES, LLC, DBA ROGUE FITNESS, et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-05050-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs Scott Lee Braun,
Robert E. Hessler, Allen D. Bishop III, Marcellus Murray and Larry
Benn ask the Court for an order pursuant to Section 16(b) of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA):

   1. conditionally certifying the proposed collective FLSA
      class of and implementing a procedure whereby Court-
      approved Notice of the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent
      (via U.S. Mail and e-mail) to:

      "all current or former non-exempt employees in the
      Defendants' warehouse, customer service, and/or
      manufacturing divisions and employed during the past three
      years who were paid from the beginning of their shift
      until the end of their shift despite being clocked in more
      than seven minutes prior to their shift and/or remaining
      clocked in more than seven minute after their scheduled
      shift end time"; and

   2. requiring the Defendants to, within 14 days of this
      Court's order, identify all potential opt-in Plaintiffs by
      providing a list in electronic and importable format, of
      the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of all
      potential opt-in Plaintiffs who worked for Defendants at
      any location at any time within the past three years.

The Plaintiff Braun commenced this action against Coulter Ventures,
LLC dba Rogue Fitness, William "Bill" Henniger, and Caity Matter
Henniger on December 11, 2019, alleging violations of the FLSA, the
Ohio Wage Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. Joined by Named
Plaintiffs Hessler, Bishop, Murray and Benn, their Second Amended
Complaint was filed on April 22, 2020. The Plaintiffs allege the
Defendants' common business practices throughout their operations
violated these acts by not paying them, the Putative Plaintiffs,
and those similarly situated for tasks necessary to the primary job
duties which they were required to perform before and after their
scheduled shift start and end time.

Rogue Fitness is an American manufacturer and distributor of
strength and conditioning equipment, including weightlifting
barbells, plates, racks and other fitness related equipment for
CrossFit boxes, personal garage gyms, military, collegiate, and
professional sports teams.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John S. Marshall, Esq.
          Edward R. Forman, Esq.
          Samuel M. Schlein, Esq.
          Helen M. Robinson, Esq.
          Madeline J. Rettig, Esq.
          MARSHALL AND FORMAN LLC
          250 Civic Center Dr., Suite 480
          Columbus, OH 43215-5296
          Telephone: (614) 463-9790
          Facsimile (614) 463-9780
          E-mail: jmarshall@marshallforman.com
                  eforman@marshallforman.com
                  sschlein@marshallforman.com
                  hrobinson@marshallforman.com
                  mrettig@marshallforman.com

               - and -

          Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
          Jessica R. Doogan, Esq.
          4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
          Columbus, OH 43219
          Telephone: (614) 221-4221
          Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
          E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
                  jdoogan@barkanmeizlish.com

               - and -

          Louis A. Jacobs, Esq.
          177 19th St., Apt. 9C
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (614) 203-1255
          Facsimile: (510) 250-9007
          E-mail: LAJOhio@aol.com

CYTOSPORT INC: Court OKs Class Action Settlement in Clay Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHAYLA CLAY, ERICA
EHRLICHMAN, LOGAN REICHERT, and CHRIS ROMAN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CYTOSPORT, INC., a
California corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00165-L-AGS (S.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge M. James Lorenz entered an order:

   1. granting the plaintiffs' motion for final approval of
      class action settlement on behalf of:

      The Shake Class:

      "All consumers in the United States (including its states,
      districts or territories) who purchased Cytosport Whey
      Isolate Protein Drink; Monster Milk: Protein Power Shake;
      Genuine Muscle Milk: Protein Nutrition Shake; and Muscle
      Milk Pro Series 40: Mega Protein Shake from January 23,
      2011 to the date of entry of the Preliminary Approval
      Order. For members of the Michigan subclass only, the
      starting date of the class period will be January 23,
      2009."

      Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendant and any
      affiliate or subsidiary of Defendant, and any 4 entities
      in which Defendant has a controlling interest, as well as
      all persons who validly exclude themselves from the
      Settlement Class.

      The Powder Class:

      "All consumers in the United States (including its states,
      districts, or territories) who purchased Muscle Milk: Lean
      Muscle Protein Powder; Muscle Milk Light: Lean Muscle
      Protein Powder; Muscle Milk Naturals: Nature's Ultimate
      Lean Muscle Protein; Muscle Milk Gainer; High Protein
      Gainer Powder Drink Mix; Muscle Milk Pro Series 50: Lean
      Muscle Mega Protein Powder; and Monster Milk: Lean Muscle
      Protein Supplement that had the phrase "lean lipids,"
      "lean protein," "lean muscle protein," or "new leaner
      formula" on the label from January 23, 2011 to December
      31, 2018."

      Excluded from the Settlement Class are the Defendant and
      any affiliate or subsidiary of Defendant, and any entities
      in which Defendant has a controlling interest, as well as
      all persons who validly exclude themselves from the
      Settlement Class.;

   2. granting the plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees,
      expenses, and incentive awards; and

   3. granting final order of dismissal.

The Court said, "A total of 227 Settlement Class Members submitted
timely and proper Requests for Exclusion, as reported in the
declaration of the Claims Administrator. The Court orders that each
of the individuals listed by the Claims Administrator as having
submitted a valid Request for Exclusion is excluded from the
Settlement Classes. Those individuals will not be bound by the
Settlement Agreement, and neither will they be entitled to any of
its benefits. Class Counsel request attorneys' fees in the sum of
$3,883,682.34, costs and litigation expenses in the sum of
$265,902.66, and Class Representatives' incentive awards totaling
$40,000. The request for attorneys' fees represents 31.14% of the
Settlement benefit to Settlement Classes and exceeds the 25%
benchmark for reasonable attorneys' fees in common fund settlements
such as this."

The Defendant manufactures and markets the Muscle Milk branded
protein shakes sold in powder and liquid forms. During the class
period, the Defendant labeled its Powder Products with a number of
claims, including claims that they contained a specific amount of
"lean protein" and that they contained "lean lipids." The
Plaintiffs alleged that the "lean" claims were misleading and
illegal under federal law and that the products contained less
protein than stated on the product labels.

On behalf of a national class, the Plaintiffs asserted causes of
action for violation of California Unfair Competition Law and False
Advertising Law. The Plaintiffs also claimed, on behalf of classes
of purchasers in California, Michigan, and Florida, that
the advertisements violated their respective state's consumer
protection statutes, warranty laws, and the Magnuson–Moss
Warranty Act.

A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/366scJw at no extra charge.[CC]

DAIMLER AG: Reaches Settlement in Emissions Litigation
------------------------------------------------------
Daimler AG and its subsidiary Mercedes-Benz USA LLC (MBUSA) have
taken another important step toward resolution of various diesel
proceedings: The U.S. regulatory authorities have approved a
settlement of civil and environmental claims, thereby
comprehensively resolving the respective regulatory proceedings
regarding emission control systems of approx. 250,000 diesel
vehicles in the United States. On Sept. 14, the U.S. authorities
have lodged the Consent Decrees with the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia, which has to ultimately approve the
settlement.

The involved U.S. authorities are the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the
Environment and Natural Resources Division of the U.S. Department
of Justice (DOJ), the California Attorney General's Office, and
U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

On August 13, 2020, Daimler first disclosed the company's agreement
in principle with the authorities.

The company has fully cooperated with the U.S. authorities. Daimler
has not received a Notice of Violation (NOV) from the EPA or the
CARB during this process.

As previously disclosed, the company has also agreed with
plaintiffs' counsel to settle the consumer class action "In re
Mercedes-Benz Emissions Litigation," which is pending before the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. That settlement
was submitted last September for court approval as well.

By concluding the proceedings, Daimler avoids lengthy court actions
with respective legal and financial risks.

As stated in the consent decrees and the class action settlement,
the company denies the authorities' allegations as well as the
class action plaintiffs' claims and does not admit any liability to
the United States, California, plaintiffs, or otherwise. The
settlement resolves the company's pending civil proceedings with
the U.S. authorities without reaching any determinations as to
whether functionalities in Daimler's vehicles are defeat devices.

Settlement with U.S. authorities
As part of the settlement and in addition to the payment of civil
penalties in the amount of USD 875 million (approx. EUR 738,5
million), the company will further enhance its technical Compliance
Management System and conduct an Emission Modification Program for
certain diesel vehicles. The company will also conduct mitigation
measures nationwide, and furthermore provide funding for additional
NOx emissions mitigation initiatives in the State of California.

Compliance
Unlike with other OEMs' diesel settlements, the consent decrees do
not require an external compliance monitor.

Since 2016, Daimler has built on its longstanding compliance
program with an innovative group-wide technical Compliance
Management System (tCMS), thereby massively strengthening its
technical compliance measures and controls. For this purpose,
significant resources have been invested and relevant new jobs have
been created. tCMS's elements are spelled out in Daimler's
Compliance Operating Plan, included as an appendix to the US/CA
Consent Decree, which serves as the first-ever tCMS blueprint to be
so published for the automobile industry.

As part of the settlement, Daimler has committed to continue its
work to further enhance its tCMS.

With the tCMS, Daimler's compliance systems can stay current with
the ever-increasing legal complexity and ever-changing risk
environment in the regulatory world. In addition to delineating
responsibility and processes for prompt decision-making in
connection with technical questions of engineering judgment and
regulatory interpretation, the tCMS includes regular trainings for
employees and special programs, comprehensive dialog events, and
guidelines to support Daimler's specialists in the development
departments. In fact, Daimler has already conducted in-person
training for over 25,000 company engineers on technical and
regulatory compliance issues.

Emission Modification Program
As part of the settlement with the U.S. authorities, Daimler will
offer an emission modification program to owners and lessees of
eligible model year (MY) 2009 through 2016 Mercedes-Benz BlueTEC II
diesel passenger cars and MY 2010 through 2016 Mercedes-Benz and
Freightliner BlueTEC II diesel Sprinter vans registered in the
United States.

The emission modifications for the various vehicle models will be
rolled out in different phases. Customers will be informed about
the measure by mail as soon as the emission modification can be
undertaken for their vehicle. With the start of the Emission
Modification Program (estimated late 2020), the company will also
publish a website from which customers can gather information.

US customers can call the MBUSA Customer Assistance Center at
1-800-FOR-MERC for any questions related to passenger cars and at
1-877-762-8267 for questions related to Mercedes-Benz or
Freightliner Sprinter.

Through the Emission Modification Program in the United States,
Daimler will update the vehicles' control units with a software
update; and will replace certain components of the emission control
system, like sensors and catalysts.

The vehicles subject to the U.S. settlement were not sold in the
same configurations in Europe and the emission control system of
the U.S. vehicles is different from the models sold in Europe due
to the differing certification and legal frameworks.

NOx Mitigation Measures
As part of the settlement, the company will fund the engine
repowering of 15 line-haul locomotives in the United States in
order to reduce NOx emissions. The project shall be completed
within 40 months. In addition, Daimler will pay to CARB USD 110
million (approx. EUR 93 million) for the implementation of
additional measures to reduce NOx emissions in the State of
California.

Consumer Class Action Settlement
Daimler has also reached a settlement in the consumer class action
"In re Mercedes-Benz Emissions Litigation" in order to thereby
fully resolve the proceeding by mutual agreement.

Daimler has agreed to settle this litigation to avoid further costs
of litigation, and return focus to its core business. Daimler
denies the material factual allegations and legal claims asserted
by the plaintiffs and settlement class members.

The settlement applies to MY 09-16 Mercedes-Benz diesel passenger
cars and diesel-powered MY 10-16 Mercedes-Benz and Freightliner
Sprinters with BlueTEC II emission control systems sold or leased
in the United States.

Current owners and lessees who have an Approved Emission
Modification installed at an authorized repair facility and meet
certain other requirements will be eligible to claim a payment of
up to USD 3,290.

Former owners and lessees of the vehicles who meet certain
requirements are eligible to claim a share of USD 822.50, which in
case of a claim will be deducted from the amount available to the
current owners and lessees of those vehicles. If more than one
former owner or lessee makes a claim on the same vehicle, the
amount will be equally divided among the former owners and
lessees.

Class members will find detailed information about the settlement,
including eligibility and benefits, on the class settlement
website. Class members will also be notified with further details
by mail after the settlement receives preliminary approval from the
court, and can use the claim form in their mailer or on the website
to file claims for benefits.

Daimler will also pay class counsel's attorneys' fees and costs in
an amount to be determined by the court. Daimler has agreed not to
oppose class counsel's request for attorneys' fees and costs up to
USD 83.4 million (approx. EUR 70.4 million).

Overview Settlement Related Costs
As disclosed on August 13, 2020, the company has made sufficient
provisions for the expected total costs of the settlements.

For the settlements with the U.S. authorities, Daimler expects
costs of approx. USD 1.5 billion (approx. EUR 1.27 billion)
including civil penalties as well as expected costs for mitigation
and the implementation of the Emission Modification Program. The
estimated cost of the class action settlement is approx. USD 700
million (approx. EUR 591 million) including the court's anticipated
award of attorneys' fees and costs. In addition, Daimler estimates
further expenses of a mid-three-digit-million EUR amount to fulfill
requirements of the settlements.

Daimler expects a corresponding impact on the Free Cash Flow of the
industrial business over the next 3 years with the main impact
within the next 12 months.

Exchange rate USD to EUR as of September 11, 2020, 1 USD = 0,844
EUR. [GN]


DANCING SANDWICH: Blind Can't Access Web Site, Monegro Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
FRANKIE MONEGRO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. DANCING SANDWICH ENTERPRISES, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-09323-ALC (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 6, 2020) is brought against the
Defendant for its failure 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.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Website, www.zingermans.com, 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 is not equally accessible to blind
and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA.

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

The Defendant is a an online food company that owns and operates
www.zingermans.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.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David P. Force, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com

DAVINCI'S RESTAURANT: Faces Gutierrez Labor Suit Over Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE GUTIERREZ, JUAN MONTENEGRO, NOEL BAQUEDANO, WILLIAN RODRIGUEZ,
ANGEL RODRIGUEZ and HAROLD VENTURA, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, v. DAVINCI'S RESTAURANT & LOUNGE,
CHRISTINA A. l/n/u, GEORGE l/n/u, JOSE BONILLA, and JOHN/JANE DOES
1-10, Case No. 2:20-cv-05380 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 5, 2020), seeks to
recover unpaid wages for overtime work performed, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, interest, and all costs and disbursements
associated with the action under New York Labor Law and the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs contend that they and the collective and Class
plaintiffs, worked in excess of 40 hours a week, but the Defendants
willfully failed to pay them minimum wage and overtime compensation
for the overtime hours worked.

Davinci's Restaurant & Lounge advertises as "one of the finest
restaurants in the Island Park, Long Beach area" and is a pizzeria,
bar, restaurant and caterer with party space for private parties.
It specializes in Italian dishes served in the old family style and
is located at 118 Long Beach Road, Island Park, New York. The
Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marcus Monteiro, Esq.
          MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP
          91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108
          Hempstead, NY 11550
          Telephone: (516) 280-4600
          Facsimile: (516) 280-4530
          E-mail: mmonteiro@mflawny.com

EQUIFAX: Plaintiffs' Lawyer Files Amicus Brief at 11th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that Jay Edelson is a
class action plaintiffs' lawyer who specializes in privacy cases.
His eponymous firm has had a lead role in some of the biggest cases
of the past few years, including a $650 million biometric privacy
settlement with Facebook in 2020 and a 2019 jury verdict of more
than $900 million in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case
against the telemarketer ViSalus. Edelson has a powerful interest,
in other words, in the integrity of the class action system.

He claims that Equifax's $380.5 million data breach settlement
undermines public faith in that system, accusing the judge and
class counsel of adding to cynicism about the benefits of class
actions.

Edelson made that assertion in an amicus brief filed on Sept. 11 to
the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where objectors are
challenging final approval (2020 WL 256132) of the settlement by
U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash of Atlanta.

Edelson echoed arguments by objectors' lawyers from the Hamilton
Lincoln Law Institute that Judge Thrash and class counsel neglected
to account for potential damages for class members in jurisdictions
with robust statutory penalties for privacy violations, like Utah
and the District of Columbia. At the very least, Edelson said,
Judge Thrash should have required class counsel from Doffermyre
Shields Canfield & Knowles, DiCello Levitt Gutzler and Stueve
Siegel Hanson to submit evidence of the range of potential
recovery, based on statutory damages, for the nearly 150 million
people whose personal information was compromised in the 2017
Equifax breach. Instead, Edelson's brief argued, class counsel
merely asserted that the settlement would avert the prospect that
their entire case might be tossed if they could not show concrete
injuries from the breach. Judge Thrash, he said, abused his
discretion by failing to calculate how much of a discount the
settlement imposes on class members.

I emailed class counsel for a response to Edelson's brief. They did
not provide a statement. It's worth noting that, according to a
declaration class counsel filed to bolster their $77.5 million fee
request, state regulators -- who presumably have an interest in
enforcing the statutory penalties cited by Edelson and objectors --
had a strong say in the settlement Judge Thrash approved. For his
part, Edelson represented the city of Chicago in the data breach
litigation against Equifax. (The company, broadly speaking, claimed
that plaintiffs could not trace any alleged injuries to the breach
of its data safeguards.) Chicago alleged violations of its consumer
fraud statute, which carries penalties of up to $10,000 for each
offense. The city settled its claims last April for $1.5 million.

Edelson's amicus brief doesn't just assert legal arguments about a
trial judge's discretion, though. The filing alleges that the
Equifax settlement process eroded confidence that class actions
protect consumers. As you may recall, and as Edelson's brief
recounts, early news of the settlement -- including the initial,
short-form notice to class members -- suggested that class members
who had not suffered out-of-pocket losses would be entitled either
to credit monitoring or a $125 cash payment. Millions of people
attempted to sign up for the $125 payment. But in a subsequent
notice to the class, class counsel underscored that the cash
payment was available only to class members who could prove they
already had credit monitoring services -- and that $125 was a
ceiling, not a guarantee, from a $31 million cash fund for class
members without out-of-pocket claims. Edelson's brief noted that
class counsel have not said precisely what individual class members
will end up getting from the fund, but objectors have estimated the
amount to be just a few dollars.

Confusion about the settlement terms is entirely the fault of class
counsel, Edelson's brief said. And its effects will taint the
entire class action bar, he argued. "This case involved an issue
that affected nearly every (if not every) adult American," the
brief said. "The whole country was watching. And when the class
action bar stepped up to do its part to help right this wrong, our
representatives provided inadequate compensation, misleading
notice, and an ad hoc and confusing claims process. It seems no
understatement to say that, because of what happened here, no class
action notices for some time will carry any air of credibility."

That's strong stuff -- and from a plaintiffs' lawyer who will
almost certainly cross paths in some future case with the fellow
class action lawyers whose work the brief slams. In an email,
Edelson told me there's an "unwritten rule in the plaintiff's bar
that we are not supposed to do things like file amicus briefs
criticizing settlements or speaking out against bad settlements
publicly." But the Equifax deal, he said, undermines his firm's
push for class action settlements that deliver cash to class
members.

"It will undermine public confidence in class actions generally and
privacy deals in particular," Edelson said. "That is the headwind
we are fighting against and why we decided to file the brief."

Edelson is generally no friend to so-called "serial" class action
objectors: His firm last year forced a lawyer who had objected to
one of his TCPA settlements to agree not to practice in Illinois.
He said, however, that he and Ted Frank of the Hamilton Lincoln Law
Institute, who is one of the objectors appealing the Equifax deal,
"have some overlapping goals, even though we see the broader world
very differently."

Edelson previously represented Frank as the lead plaintiff in a
TCPA suit but the two have not joined forces in a class action
objection. Frank joked in an email that if the 11th Circuit
overturns approval of the Equifax settlement, Edelson could
represent a subclass -- with Frank as the class representative.

The appeal is Huang v. Spector and Equifax, No. 20-10249 at the
11th Circuit. [GN]


FCA US: Peralta Sues Over Dodge Challenger SRT's Hood Scoop Defect
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOE PERALTA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FCA US LLC and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-02307 (C.D. Cal., November
5, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the California Business & Professions Code, the Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and for
breach of express warranty, fraudulent concealment, negligent
misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged false advertising and
misrepresentations of FCA USA's limited edition 2018 Dodge
Challenger SRT Demon vehicle. The Defendants have concealed to the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated consumers that the
vehicle contains a defect in Air-Grabber hood scoop, which results
in a sagging, buckling, bulging, and vibrating hood scoop insert.
This in turn warps the insert and strips, cracks, and chips the
original, factory paint, causing further damage and rust to the
hood. Further, the Defendants have failed to honor express and
implied warranties by failing to offer a timely or adequate fix to
the hood scoop defect.

As a result of the Defendants' misrepresentations, the Plaintiff
and Class members paid a premium price for a vehicle that did not
have the functionality, performance features, qualities, grade, or
value promised by the Defendants.

FCA US LLC is an automobile manufacturing company with its
headquarters in Auburn Hills, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                  
                                    
         Connor W. Olson, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF CONNOR W. OLSON
         520 Capitol Mall, Suite 150
         Sacramento, CA 95814
         Telephone: (916) 905-7276
         E-mail: office@cwo-law.com

                  - and –
         
         Tianguy M. Kemokai, Esq.
         TIANGAY KEMOKAI LAW, P.C.
         520 Capitol Mall, Suite 150
         Sacramento, CA 95814
         Telephone: (916) 213-0908
         E-mail: info@tiangaykemokai-law.com

FIRST MARINER: Bezek et al. Seek Approval of Class Notice
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JILL BEZEK, et al., v.
FIRST MARINER BANK, Case No. 1:17-cv-02902-SAG (D. Md.), the
Plaintiffs Jill Bezek and Michelle Harris ask the Court for an
order granting approval of their plan of notice to the First
Mariner Class and the Proposed Form of Notice.

According to the complaint, the notice plan developed by Class
Counsel conforms with the due process requirements of Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(b)(3) as well as corresponding case law, and, together with
the Proposed Notice of Class Certification will ensure that all
First Mariner Class members will be provided the proper due process
afforded to them under Rule 23(b)(3).

On March 2, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class
Certification. The Defendants' filed their Response in Opposition
on July 24, 2020. The Plaintiffs filed their Reply in Support on
August 17, 2020 and a hearing was held on September 10, 2020. On
October 2, 2020, this Court granted the Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Certify a Class Action and certified under Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure the following First Mariner Class:

   "all individuals in the United States who were borrowers on a
   federally related mortgage loan (as defined under the Real
   Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. section 2602)
   originated or brokered by First Mariner Bank for which
   Genuine Title provided a settlement service, as identified in
   Section 1100 on the HUD-1, between January 1, 2009 and
   December 31, 2014. Exempted from this class is any person
   who, during the period of January 1, 2009 through December
   31, 2014, was an employee, officer, member and/or agent of
   First Mariner Bank, Genuine Title LLC and/or Competitive
   Advantage Media Group, LLC."

First Mariner is a Maryland-chartered trust company operating as a
commercial bank headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland through its 14
branches located in Baltimore.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for for approval of notice plan is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2UdP8kO at no
extra charge.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and Class Members, are:

          Timothy F. Maloney, Esq.
          Veronica B. Nannis, Esq.
          JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A.
          6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
          Greenbelt, MD 20770
          Telephone: (301) 220-2200
          Facsimile: (301) 220-1214
          E-mail: tmaloney@jgllaw.com
                  vnannis@jgllaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Paul Smith, Esq.
          Melissa L. English, Esq.
          SMITH, GILDEA & SCHMIDT, LLC
          600 Washington Avenue, Suite 200
          Towson, MD 21204
          Telephone: (410) 821-0070
          Facsimile: (410) 821-0071
          E-mail: mpsmith@sgs-law.com
                  menglish@sgs-law.com

FLUIDIGM CORP: Rosen Law Reminds of Nov. 20 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Fluidigm Corporation (NASDAQ: FLDM)
between February 7, 2019 and November 5, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period") of the important November 20, 2020 lead plaintiff
deadline. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Fluidigm
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Fluidigm class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1955.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Fluidigm was experiencing longer sales cycles; (2) as a
result, Fluidigm's revenue was reasonably likely to decline; and
(3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements
about Fluidigm's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
20, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1955.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

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

FRITO-LAY: Court Approves Amended Revised Settlement Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIAZAR SANCHEZ, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. FRITO-LAY, INC,
Case No. 1:14-cv-00797-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Court has entered
an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiff's renewed motion for preliminary
      approval of the parties' amended revised settlement
      agreement;

   2. approving the proposed amended revised settlement on a
      preliminary basis and consistent with the court's order
      issued September 30, 2019;

   3. approving the proposed notice in accordance with Federal
      Rule of Civil Procedure 23;

   4. setting the hearing for final approval of the proposed
      settlement for May 4, 2021 at 12:30 pm before the
      undersigned in Courtroom 5, with the motion for final
      approval of class action settlement to be filed at least
      28 days in advance of the final approval hearing, in
      accordance with Local Rule 230(b); and

   5. directing the parties to implement the settlement in
      accordance with the following schedule:

      --  Deadline for the defendant to provide ILYM with
          a list of Class Members:

               No later than 14 days after entry of
               Preliminary Approval Order.

      --  Deadline for ILYM to send the class notice to each
          Class Member:

               No later than 30 days after receipt of the Class
               List.

      --  Deadline to file any Objections, Opt-Out
          Request, or Pay Period Disputes

               No later than 30 days after the Notice Mailing
               (the Response Deadline).

      --  Deadline for ILYM to compile and submit to the parties
          a report as provided in the amended revised settlement
          agreement

               Within 10 days after the close of the
               Response Deadline

     --  Deadline for distribution of individual settlement
         payments to be mailed to Class Members

               Within 10 days of the date of final
               judgment in this action, as described in the
               amended revised settlement agreement

    --  Deadline for recipients to cash their settlement
        checks

               120 after the date of issuance

    --  Deadline for ILYM to distribute any
        remaining funds to the cy-pres beneficiaries,
        as provided in the amended revised settlement
        agreement.

               Within 60 days after the Cashing Deadline

Adequacy of the Settlement Amount:

The court previously concluded that the total settlement amount of
$710,473.33, with $490,355.00 of that amount allocated for
distribution to the two subclasses under the revised settlement
agreement, was substantively fair, reasonable, and adequate. In
light of the parties reallocating the $5,000.00 they previously
allocated to PAGA penalties to the payout fund to be distributed to
the class members, the amount to be paid to the two subclasses has
now increased to $495,355.00.

Attorneys' Fees:

In its previous order, the court noted that the plaintiff's
attorneys' fee request -- which is not to  exceed $177,618.33, or
25% of the total settlement amount of $710,473.33 -- was within the
benchmark for the Ninth Circuit and approved the attorneys’ fee
request on a preliminary basis.

A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3k6WrVT at no extra charge.[CC]


GARRETT MOTION: Bragar Eagel Reminds of November 24 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, on Sept. 29 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of investors that purchased Garrett
Motion Inc. (NYSE: GTX) securities between October 1, 2018 and
September 18, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until
November 24, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The complaint, filed on September 25, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that,
due to its agreement to indemnify and reimburse Honeywell for
certain asbestos-related liability, Garrett was saddled with an
unsustainable level of debt; (2) that, as a result, Garrett had a
highly leveraged capital structure that posed significant
challenges to its overall strategic and financial flexibility; (3)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Garrett's ability to gain or
hold market share was impaired; (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, the Company was reasonably likely to seek bankruptcy
protection; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

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

                  About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

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

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


GARRETT MOTION: Faces Froehlich Suit Over 12% Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH FROEHLICH, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. OLIVIER RABILLER, ALLESANDRO GILI, PETER
BRACKE, SEAN DEASON, and SU PING LU, Case No. 1:20-cv-09279
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 5, 2020) is a class action on behalf of persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Garrett securities
between October 1, 2018 and September 18, 2020, inclusive, pursuing
claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

On August 26, 2020, before the market opened, the Company disclosed
that its "leveraged capital structure poses significant challenges
to its overall strategic and financial flexibility and may impair
its ability to gain or hold market share in the highly competitive
automotive supply market, thereby putting Garrett at a meaningful
disadvantage relative to its peers."

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

On Sunday, September 20, 2020, Garrett announced that it had filed
for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. On Monday, September 21, 2020, the New
York Stock Exchange announced that it would commence proceedings to
delist Garrett's stock from the NYSE after the Company's disclosure
that it had filed for bankruptcy.

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

The Plaintiff contends that throughout the Class Period the
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that because of
Garrett's agreement to indemnify and reimburse Honeywell for
certain asbestos-related liability, the Company was saddled with an
unsustainable level of debt. As a result of Defendants' wrongful
acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value
of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages.

The Plaintiff purchased Garrett securities during the Class Period,
and suffered damages as a result of the alleged federal securities
law violations and false and/or misleading statements and/or
material omissions.

Garrett designs, manufactures and sells turbocharger,
electric-boosting and connected vehicle technologies for original
equipment manufacturers and the aftermarket. In October 2018, the
Company formed as a spin-off of Honeywell's Transportation Systems
business. The Individual Defendants are officers of the
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, New York 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

GARRETT MOTION: Rosen Law Reminds of Nov. 24 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Garrett Motion Inc. (NYSE: GTX)
(OTC: GTXMQ) between October 1, 2018 and September 18, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important November 24, 2020
lead plaintiff deadline in securities class action. The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Garrett Motion investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Garrett Motion class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1950.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) due to its agreement to indemnify and reimburse Honeywell
for certain asbestos-related liability, Garrett was saddled with an
unsustainable level of debt; (2) Garrett had a highly leveraged
capital structure that posed significant challenges to its overall
strategic and financial flexibility; (3) Garrett's ability to gain
or hold market share was impaired; (4) Garrett was reasonably
likely to seek bankruptcy protection; and (5) as a result of the
foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Garrett's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
24, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1950.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

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

GO HEALTH: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of November 20 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the following securities class action
lawsuits:

Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (COG)
Class Period: 10/23/2015 - 6/12/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: October 13, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-cog/    


Coty, Inc. (COTY)
Class Period: 10/3/2016 - 5/28/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 3, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-coty/

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

If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

                            About KSF

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

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

Contact:

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


GOHEALTH INC: November 20 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Fistel, LLP on Sept. 22 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of GoHealth, Inc.
(NASDAQ: GOCO) Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to
the registration statement issued in connection with GoHealth's
July 2020 initial public offering (the "IPO"). GoHealth provides an
end-to-end health insurance marketplace that purportedly
specializes in matching consumers with Medicare Advantage plans.

On June 19, 2020, GoHealth filed with the SEC a registration
statement for the IPO on Form S-1 (the "Registration Statement"),
which was used to sell to the investing public 43.5 million shares
of GoHealth Class A common stock at $21 per share, for total gross
proceeds of $913.5 million.

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

Since the IPO, the price of GoHealth Class A common stock has
suffered significant price declines. By September 15, 2020,
GoHealth Class A common stock closed at just $12.53 per share --
over 40% below the $21 per share price investors paid for the stock
in the IPO less than two months previously.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must move the Court no later than November 20, 2020.  A lead
plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the GoHealth class action lawsuit.  The lead plaintiff
can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the GoHealth
class-action lawsuit.  An investor's ability to share any potential
future recovery of the GoHealth class action lawsuit is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.  If you are interested in
learning more about the case, please contact Jim Baker
(jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471.  If you email, please
include your phone number.

                   About Johnson Fistel, LLP

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


GOL LINHAS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminded
purchasers of the securities of Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes S.A.
(NYSE: GOL) between March 14, 2019 and July 22, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), of the important November 10, 2020 lead
plaintiff deadline in the securities class action commenced by the
firm. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for GOL investors under
the federal securities laws.

To join the GOL class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1912.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) GOL had material weaknesses in its internal controls; (2)
there was substantial doubt as to GOL's ability to continue to
exist as a going concern because of negative net working capital
and net capital deficiency; and (3) as a result, defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant time. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
10, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1912.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

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

Contact Information:

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


GOLAR LNG: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Nov. 23 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action that has been filed on behalf
of investors that purchased or acquired the common stock of Golar
LNG Limited ("Golar" or the "Company") ( GLNG) between April 30,
2020, and August 10, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors:
(1) that certain employees, including Hygo's CEO, had bribed third
parties, thereby violating anti-bribery policies; (2) that, as a
result, the Company was likely to face regulatory scrutiny and
possible penalties; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing
reputational harm, Hygo's valuation ahead of its IPO would be
significantly impaired; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

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

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

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 23, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Golar securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/golarlnglimited-glng-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-315/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

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

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

GOOGLE LLC: Monopolizes Android Apps Market, Roberts Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
SMITH ROBERTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOOGLE LLC and ALPHABET INC., Defendants,
Case No. 5:20-cv-07824 (N.D. Cal., November 5, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the Sherman Act and
the California Unfair Competition Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have deterred
competition in the market for Android apps and products sold within
those apps through the Google Play Store to ensure monopolization
of this market. Google solidified market dominance of Android
Operating System (OS) through a series of contracts with
distributors designed to minimize competition. Google requires
original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to enter anti-forking
agreements, which specifically forbid OEMs from developing or
distributing versions of Android that do not comply with onerous
Google-controlled technical standards. Google exercised its
monopoly power to establish the Google Play Store as the dominant
store by which other applications can be downloaded for use by
consumers on the Android OS. Further, Google limits basic app
functions for third-party apps that are available to apps
downloaded on the Google Play Store, including making it more
difficult for users to update apps compared to automatic updates in
the mobile device's background.

As a result of its monopolistic conduct, Google has extracted
supra-competitive prices for its Android app distribution services
and in-app purchases made through the Google Play Store.

Google LLC is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products, with its
principal place of business located in Mountain View, California.

Alphabet Inc. is an American multinational conglomerate
headquartered in Mountain View, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
              
         R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
         Geoffrey C. Rushing, Esq.
         Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
         Sarah Van Culin, Esq.
         SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
         706 Sansome Street
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 217-6810
         Facsimile: (415) 217-6813
         E-mail: rick@saveri.com
                 geoff@saveri.com
                 cadio@saveri.com
                 sarah@saveri.com

                - and –

         Randy Renick, Esq.
         HADSELL STORMER & RENICK LLP
         The Marine Building
         128 N. Fair Oaks Ave.
         Pasadena, CA 91103
         Telephone (626) 585-9600
         Facsimile (626) 577-7079
         E-mail: rrr@hadsellstormer.com

GRAMERCY SURGERY: Gaymon Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA & NYLL
------------------------------------------------------------------
DESHIKA GAYMON, et al., v. GRAMERCY SURGERY CENTER, INC. (D/B/A
GRAMERCY SURGERY CENTER) AUSTIN CHENG, JEFFREY FLYNN, NELSON
GRAMERCY, Case No. 1:20-cv-09298 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 5, 2020), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff contends that she worked for the Defendants in excess
of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime compensation for
the hours that she worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to
maintain accurate record keeping of the hours worked and failed to
pay her appropriately for any hours worked, she adds.

Plaintiff Gaymon is a former employee of the Defendants. She was
employed as a surgical technician employee at Defendants' facility.


The Defendants own, operate, or control a medical facility, located
at 59-25 Kissena Boulevard Flushing, New York operating under the
name "Gramercy Surgery Center."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

GREENWAY HEALTH: Court Narrows Claims in Altamonte Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALTAMONTE PEDIATRIC
ASSOCIATES, P.A., v. GREENWAY HEALTH, LLC, Case No.
8:20-cv-00604-VMC-JSS (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Virginia
Hernandez-Covington entered an order granting in part and denying
in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's claims for
violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
(FDUTPA).

The Court said, "Although Altamonte does not sufficiently plead the
elements of an unfair practice, the amended complaint appears to
claim an FDUTPA violation based only a deceptive practice. Because
FDUTPA creates a cause of action for either a deceptive or unfair
practice, and Altamonte has sufficiently alleged a deceptive
practice regarding statements or omissions made by Greenway to
Altamonte, this basis does not warrant dismissal of Count I at the
current juncture."

Altamonte initially filed this class action on March 13, 2020. On
May 29, 2020, Greenway moved to dismiss the complaint, which the
Court granted in part on September 4, 2020, dismissing three counts
without prejudice. Notably, the Court dismissed Altamonte's claim
for violations of the FDUTPA because it was not pled with
particularity. With leave of Court, Altamonte filed an amended
complaint on September 18, 2020. Altamonte seeks class
certification on behalf of similarly situated Intergy customers.
The amended complaint includes claims against Greenway for
violations of FDUTPA (Count I) and breach of contract (Counts IV
and V).

Altamonte is a pediatric healthcare provider that was in the market
for certified Electronic Health Record (EHR) software.

A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2IgtvgY at no extra charge.[CC]

GURUNANDA LLC: Blind Can't Access Web Site, Graciano Says
---------------------------------------------------------
SANDY GRACIANO, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. GURUNANDA, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-09049
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2020), asserts claims against the Defendant for
its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web
site 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 Web site,
​https://gurunanda.com/, and therefore denial of its goods and
services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to the
complaint. Because the Defendant's Web site is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, the Defendant
violates the ADA.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site 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 Web site 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.

Gurunanda is located in Buena Park, California, and is part of the
chemical wholesalers industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com

HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Kilpatrick Atty. Discusses Ruling in Greene Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Bogan III, Esq. -- jbogan@kilpatricktownsend.com -- of
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, in an article for JDSupra,
reports that class defendants prefer federal court.  In any
putative class action filed in state court, the first issue to
analyze is whether the case can be removed to federal court, and
any such analysis typically involves whether the case satisfies the
$5 million jurisdictional threshold of the Class Action Fairness
Act (CAFA).  While CAFA largely has eliminated the judicial
anti-removal bias that prevailed prior to its enactment, district
courts are still tempted -- sometimes as a docket-clearing
mechanism -- to kick cases back to state court.  In two recent
Ninth Circuit cases, the appellate court overturned decisions
remanding putative class actions to state court, on the ground that
the district courts applied overly strict standards relative to the
establishment of CAFA's jurisdictional threshold.  These decisions
serve as a reminder a class defendant need only make a plausible
case that $5 million or more is at stake to remove under CAFA.    

In Greene v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 965 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 2020),
Matthew Greene purchased a Harley-Davidson motorcycle from a
California dealership for roughly $23,800.  In connection with that
purchase, he paid a $1,399 freight and prep charge.  After the
purchase, he allegedly discovered the services represented by the
charge were already included in the $23,800 list price, such that
the charge was duplicative and fraudulent.

He filed a putative class action against Harley-Davidson in
California state court, asserting a number of claims, including a
claim under California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and a
claim for fraud and deceit.  In terms of monetary relief, he sought
compensatory damages, statutory attorneys' fees, and punitive
damages.

Harley-Davidson removed the case to federal court, invoking federal
jurisdiction under CAFA and asserting that the alleged damages
satisfied CAFA's $5 million amount in controversy requirement,
Harley-Davidson contended the complaint sought (1) more than $2
million in compensatory damages (based on the prayer for relief in
the complaint), (2) the same amount (more than $2 million) in
punitive damages (based on a 1:1 punitive damages/compensatory
damages ratio); and (3) more than $1 million in attorneys' fees
(based on a 25 percent multiplier of the total amount of
compensatory and punitive damages).  Further, the complaint alleged
that all applicable statutes of limitation were subject to
equitable tolling, due to Harley-Davidson's alleged fraudulent
conduct.

Greene moved to remand.  In opposition, Harley-Davidson submitted
evidence California juries had awarded punitive damages in excess
of a 1:1 ratio in four prior CLRA cases, as well as evidence class
counsel had sought attorneys' fees consisting of 35 percent of the
recovery in a similar class action.  The district court granted the
motion to remand, but the Ninth Circuit granted Harley-Davidson's
petition to pursue an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1453, the rule of appellate procedure applicable to CAFA removals.

Focusing on the issue of punitive damages, the Ninth Circuit
concluded the district court held Harley-Davidson to an overly
strict burden of proof in terms of showing the amount of punitive
damages in controversy.  To prove jurisdiction, "a defendant needs
to plausibly show that it is reasonably possible that the potential
liability exceeds $5 million."  965 F.3d at 772.  The amount in
controversy is the "amount at stake" in the case, meaning "possible
liability" as opposed to "likely or probable liability."  Id.  The
district court, however, ruled Harley-Davidson could not simply
cite cases involving awards of punitive damages on the same types
of claims.  Instead, the district court required Harley-Davidson to
delve into the facts of those other CLRA cases to show they were
truly analogous, to support its position a 1:1
punitive/compensatory damages ratio was truly in controversy.  But,
according to the panel, this required Harley-Davidson to prove
"likely or probable liability" on punitive damages, as opposed to
showing the amount at stake, or "possible liability" for punitive
damages.  The panel concluded that Harley-Davidson's showing --
simply citing the other CLRA cases showing 1:1 or greater punitive
damages awards -- was sufficient.

Harley-Davidson also appealed the district court's ruling on the
amount of attorneys' fees in controversy, which (according to
Harley-Davidson) was appropriately calculated at 25% of the total
amount in controversy (more than $1 million, based on compensatory
and punitive damages exceeding $4 million).  On this point, the
district court accepted at face value Greene's argument that, due
to the statute of limitations defense set up by Harley-Davidson in
response to his tolling allegations, the limitations statutes could
only be could be tolled with respect to his individual claims.  In
other words, a 1:1 ratio on his individual claim meant that the
punitive damages claim could only be $1,399 (the amount of the
freight and prep charge that he individually paid), vastly reducing
the amount of attorneys' fees subject to Harley-Davidson's 25%
multiplier.

According to the panel, the district court erred in "assum[ing]
that Harley-Davidson would prevail on a statute of limitations
defense against the rest of the class."  Id. at 774.  In doing so,
the district court reached a merits question as opposed to
analyzing the amount in controversy based on the allegations in
Greene's complaint.  Said the panel:  "Greene put more than $5
million in controversy.  Greene is the master of his complaint, and
he owns the allegations that have landed him in federal court."
Id.

Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order
granting Greene's motion to remand.

In the other Ninth Circuit case, Salter v. Quality Carriers, Inc.,
--- F.3d. ---, No. 20-55709, 2020 WL 5361459 (9th Cir. Sep. 8,
2020), Clayton Salter, a truck driver, filed a putative class
action against Quality Carriers, Inc., and Quality Distribution,
Inc. (Quality), alleging that Quality misclassified the truck
drivers as independent contractors rather than employees.  He
further alleged that Quality failed to provide the putative class
members with (among other things) reimbursement for necessary
expenditures, as required under California law.

Quality removed the case to federal court, alleging the amount in
controversy exceeded $5 million.  Salter moved to remand, and
Quality responded by submitting a declaration.  The district court
ruled the declaration was inadequate proof of the amount in
controversy and granted the motion to remand.

The declaration, provided by Quality's Chief Information Officer,
focused on Salter's allegation that the class was not reimbursed
for necessary expenditures.  According to that declaration, Quality
deducted over $14 million from the truck drivers' weekly
settlements during the class period, including over $11.5 million
for fuel purchases alone.

The district court found the declaration inadequate because it was
based on conclusory statements, given that it did not attach any
business records or other supporting documents to corroborate the
testimony, and also given that the declaration assumed Salter's
complaint sought all of the expenses identified in the declaration.
The Ninth Circuit disagreed.

Citing prior Ninth Circuit cases, the panel distinguished between a
"facial" attack and a "factual" attack.  A facial attack, on the
one hand, assumes the truth of allegations, while a factual attack,
on the other, contests the truth of allegations (usually by
introducing outside evidence).  According to the panel, Salter
merely mounted a facial attack.  It did not mount a factual attack,
which would have required Quality to submit evidence satisfying a
summary judgment evidentiary standard.

Indeed, the panel treated Quality's declaration not as an
evidentiary declaration but as a series of plausible allegations,
and thus an extension of the allegations set out in the removal
petition:  "Here, Salter mounted only a facial attack, rather than
a factual attack.  In other words, he has not really challenged the
truth of Quality's 'plausible allegations.'  He did not question
that there are over a hundred contractors who performed work for
Quality between October 2015 and January 2020.  Nor did he dispute
that Quality deducted over $11 million from the weekly settlements
for fuel purchases.  Salter did not assert that Quality
misinterpreted the thrust of his complaint and did not offer any
declaration or evidence that challenged the factual bases of
Quality's plausible allegations."  2020 WL 5361459, at *3.

The panel held "the district court erred by applying the standard
for reviewing a factual attack on jurisdiction to Salter's facial
attack on Quality's presentation.  Salter did not challenge the
rationality, or the factual basis, of Quality's assertions.
Instead, he argued only that Quality 'must support its assertion
with competent proof.'  But such a challenge is foreclosed by the
Supreme Court's decision in Dart [which requires only allegations
and not evidence in support of a removal petition] and our opinion
in Arias [which requires only plausible allegations in support of
removal]."  Id. at *4 (citing Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Sys.
Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (2014), and Arias v. Residence Inn
by Marriott, 936 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2019)).   

Because Quality plausibly alleged the basis for CAFA jurisdiction,
and because Salter mounted nothing more than a facial attack,
Quality's opposition to Salter's motion to remand should have
carried the day.  Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit vacated the
district court's order remanding the case to California state
court. [GN]


HEALING TOUCH: Welch Seeks Overtime Wages Under OMFWSA & FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELE WELCH, for herself and all others similarly situated, v.
HEALING TOUCH HEALTH SERVICES LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00894-TSB (S.D.
Ohio, Nov. 5, 2020), alleges that the Defendant failed to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has failed to compensate
its hourly employees at a rate of one and one-half times their
respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked in a single
workweek in excess of 40. She adds that the Defendant routinely
compensates its employees at their regular rate of pay for all
hours worked -- even if in excess of 40 hours per workweek.

Plaintiff Welch began her employment with the Defendant on August
24, 2020 as a direct support professional.

Healing Touch Health Services LLC is in the business of providing
home healthcare staffing services to clients throughout central and
southwestern Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

HILL COUNTRY STAFFING: Hourly Employees Class Sought
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERASAMO DURAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
HILL COUNTRY STAFFING COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00445-RP (W.D.
Tex.), the Hon. Judge Robert Pitman entered an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the following class of similarly
      situated persons, pursuant to U.S.C. section 216(b), for
      purposes of this case:

      "Individuals who performed work for Hill Country Staffing
      Company, LLC as Equipment Operators and/or other hourly
      non-exempt employees from April 27, 2017 to the present";
      and

   2. approving the Parties' proposed forms for notice to
      putative class members, consent to join, and email
      notification.

The Parties have further agreed to and propose the following
schedule:

  --  10 business days from order approving notice to Potential
      Class Members

      Defendant to provide to Plaintiff’s Counsel in Excel
      (.xlsx) format the following information regarding all
      Putative Class Members: full name; last known address(es)
      with city, state, and zip Code; last known e-mail
      address(es) (non-company address if applicable); beginning
      date(s) of engagement; and ending date(s) of engagement
      (if applicable).

  --  21 days from order approving notice to Potential Class
      Members

      Plaintiff’s Counsel shall send a copy of the Court-
      approved Notice and Consent Form to the Putative Class
      Members by First Class U.S. Mail and by email

  --  30 days from order approving notice to Potential Class
      Members

      Plaintiff’s Counsel may resend a copy of the Court-
      approved Notice and Consent Form to the Putative Class
      Members by First Class U.S. Mail and by email.

  --  60 days from mailing of Notice and Consent Forms to
      Potential Class Members

      The Putative Class Members shall have 60 days from the
      initial mailing of Court- approved Notice to return
      their signed Consent forms to Plaintiff’s Counsel for
      filing with the Court.

Hill Country Staffing connects workers in the oil and gas industry
with companies that need them.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 2, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lh8ykA at no extra charge.[CC]

HOMES.COM: TCPA Class Action Transferred to E.D. Va.
----------------------------------------------------
Christina Tabacco, writing for Law Street, reports that a District
of Arizona judge ordered a putative Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA) class action filed against Homes.com, Incorporated to be
transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia. The court granted
the defendant's contested motion to transfer the suit and denied
its motions to dismiss, strike the proposed class definition, and
stay the case pending resolution of a TCPA case before the Supreme
Court without prejudice, to be refiled in the case's new district.

According to the complaint, the defendant is a Norfolk, Va.
headquartered company that operates a real estate website which,
among other things, generates listing leads for real estate agents.
The order reported the plaintiff's contentions that Homes.com
markets these leads through the use of unsolicited, autodialed text
messages that are blasted out to thousands of customers' cellular
telephone numbers, allegedly in violation of the TCPA.

In her March 2020 complaint, plaintiff Lisa Pierucci argued that
she was a victim of Homes.com's text messaging spam. She reportedly
complained that the text message she received "was a nuisance that
aggravated her, wasted her time, invaded her privacy, diminished
the value of the cellular services she paid for, caused her to
temporarily lose the use and enjoyment of her phone, and caused
wear and tear to her phone's data, memory, software, hardware, and
battery components."

The court analyzed Homes.com's motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 1404(a), weighing several factors to determine whether it was
appropriate. It concluded that, on balance, transfer was warranted,
noting that "the only factor weighing against transfer is
Pierucci's choice of forum, but because this is a class action,
that choice is only entitled to modest weight."

It further held that "court congestion and Virginia's interest in
this case strongly favor transfer and the convenience to the
parties and witnesses both add to that weight." It acknowledged
that the Eastern District of Virginia, sometimes referred to as
"the rocket docket," handles civil cases twice as fast as the
District of Arizona, on average. It concluded that overall, the
decision to grant Homes.com's motion to transfer, was "not a
particularly close call."

The plaintiff is represented by Kaufman PA, Brown Patent Law, and
Ahdoot & Wolfson. The defendant is represented by Squire Patton
Boggs. [GN]


HONEST COMPANY: Website Not ADA Compliant, Thorne Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
BRAULIO THORNE, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. THE HONEST COMPANY, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-09308-AT (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 5, 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 products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Because the Defendant's Website,
https://www.honest.com, is not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA, the Plaintiff
contends.

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

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

The Defendant offers the commercial Website,
https://www.honest.com/, to the public. The Website offers features
which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services
offered by the Defendant and which it ensures delivery of such
goods throughout the United States including New York State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
                  Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com

HP INC: Faces York County Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
YORK COUNTY ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY OF YORK RETIREMENT FUND,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. HP
INC., DION J. WEISLER and CATHERINE A. LESJAK, Case No.
3:20-cv-07835 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 5, 2020) is a securities fraud class
action on behalf of all purchasers of HP common stock between
November 6, 2015 and June 21, 2016, inclusive.

This action is brought against HP, its former chief executive
officer, Dion J. Weisler and its former chief financial officer,
Catherine A. Lesjak for violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

HP began operations after spinning off from Hewlett Packard
Enterprise Company (HPE) on or about November 1, 2015. Following
the spinoff, HP operated the Printing and Personal Systems
businesses, while HPE retained the enterprise technology
infrastructure, software, services, and financing businesses.

The Plaintiff contends that during the Class Period, HP, Weisler,
and Lesjak misrepresented the Company's business and financial
condition by issuing false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial performance, and particularly the Company's
revenue, profit margin, and earnings.

On November 5, 2015, following its spinoff from HPE, the Company
announced its financial results, including revenues, profit
margins, and earnings. The Company blamed slightly reduced revenues
and profit margins on "competitive pricing pressures." On November
24, 2015, the Company announced marginal decreased Supplies revenue
but reassured the market that Supplies revenue was "stabiliz[ing]."
Following this announcement, the price of HP stock declined 14% to
a closing price of $12.64 per share on November 25, 2015, on
trading volume of 72 million shares.

On June 21, 2016, the Company announced an overhaul to its Printing
sales model and revealed that it would reduce Supplies channel
inventory by $450 million, resulting in a corresponding reduction
of $450 million in Supplies revenue over the remainder of 2016.
Following this announcement, the price of HP stock declined 5.4% to
a closing price of $12.61 per share on June 22, 2016, on trading
volume of 18.3 million shares.

The Plaintiff York County on behalf of the County of York
Retirement Fund purchased HP common stock during the Class Period,
and suffered damages as a result of the alleged violations of the
federal securities laws.

HP provides personal computers, printers, and related supplies,
solutions, and services. The Company conducts business primarily
through two segments: Printing and Personal 17 Systems. The
Printing segment provides consumer and commercial printer hardware,
supplies, solutions, and services. The Personal Systems segment
provides commercial and consumer computers and related software,
support, and services. The Individual Defendants are former
officers of the company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          Darryl J. Alvarado, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
                  dalvarado@rgrdlaw.com

INTER-CONTINENTAL HOTELS: Tipped Employees Class Certified
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALISHA ASKEW, DEBORAH
WILLIAMS, and SHAVONNA ASKEW, Individually and on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated current and former
employees, v. INTER-CONTINENTAL HOTELS CORPORATION; LINGATE
HOSPITALITY, an assumed name of GLENN ENTERPRISES, INC.; LINGATE, a
subsidiary of Glenn Enterprises, Inc.; BURGER THEORY, an assumed
name of BIG BLUE BAR, INC.; and GLENN HIGDON, Individually, Case
No. 5:19-cv-00024-GNS-LLK (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Greg N.
Stivers entered an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "Hourly-Paid Tipped Employees classified as bartenders
      and servers” employed by Defendants, which operate hotels
      and restaurants throughout the United States"; and

   2. directing the parties to meet, confer, and file agreed-
      upon notice and consent forms consistent with the
      Memorandum, Opinion and Order.

This action is brought as a collective action to recover unpaid
compensation allegedly owed to the Plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs' claims arise from their
employment at the Burger Theory restaurant in Paducah, Kentucky.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum, Opinion and Order dated Nov. 3,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/32BOthz
at no extra charge.[CC]


IRAN: Says Canadian Court Has No Jurisdiction in PS752 Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Burke, writing for CBC News, reports that Iran's public
rejection of two proposed Canadian class-action lawsuits over the
downing of Flight PS752 could help victims' families in their
battle for compensation, said a lawyer representing plaintiffs in
Canada.

A spokesperson for Iran's foreign minister, Saeed Khatibzadeh, said
that "the Canadian court has no jurisdiction" in the case and all
"judicial proceedings will be conducted inside Iran," according to
IRNA, an Iranian state news agency.

The class-action lawsuits, which have not yet been given the
go-ahead by a judge, are seeking financial compensation and other
damages from Iran, which admitted its military forces mistakenly
shot down Ukraine International Airlines Flight PS752 shortly after
takeoff from Tehran on Jan. 8, killing everyone onboard.

Mark Arnold, the lawyer behind one of the lawsuits, said the case
is indeed within the Canadian court's jurisdiction based on the
Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act -- which came into force in
2012 and which allows victims to sue perpetrators of terrorism and
their supporters, including foreign states.

If Tehran chooses not to file a defence by Oct. 30, the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice could find Tehran in default, Arnold said
-- opening the door for the plaintiffs' lawyers to seek a default
judgment, meaning the victims' families could win based on Iran's
failure to respond.

"I would prefer if Iran would defend the claim," said Arnold. "If
they did, we would have access to all of their documents
surrounding this terrible tragedy.

"If they don't defend, they are deemed under the procedural rules
in Ontario to admit the truth of all the facts set out in the
claim. The truth of the facts are that we allege that the shooting
of two missiles at this aircraft is an act of terrorism."

None of the claims have been proven in court.

Competing legal claims
As first reported by the National Post, Canada's federal government
served Iran with two proposed class-action lawsuits on Sept. 1
after several months of delay.

The federal government has to serve lawsuits to Iran under Ontario
law since a foreign country is named as a defendant.

The two lawsuits are different in their approaches and are
competing to win compensation for victims' families from Iran, the
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and other Iranian officials.

The lawsuit Arnold is representing alleges the plane's destruction
was a "terrorist act" because two missiles hit the plane 25 seconds
apart.

The other lawsuit, proposed by Toronto-based attorney Tom Arndt,
alleges it was negligent for Iran to shoot down the plane. It's
also seeking damages from Ukraine International Airlines. The
airline served a notice of intent on Feb. 28 to defend itself
against the proposed class action.

Arndt said he has not received a formal response from the Iranian
defendants to the lawsuit and there have been inconsistencies in
news reports from Iran in the past. Along with the airline, his
proposed lawsuit names Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard
Corps.

"We will address those issues if and when appropriate in court,"
Arndt said.

The court will decide in February 2021 whether it will certify the
lawsuits. Lawyers for the plaintiffs in one of the lawsuits said if
the case goes ahead, they will be bringing in experts to recommend
the damages the suit will seek from Iran.

It's unclear how plaintiffs would collect those damages in the
event of a successful claim.

Payam Akhavan, a professor of international law and senior fellow
at the University of Toronto, said "it would be quite difficult but
not impossible" to get Iran to pay if the plaintiffs won the
lawsuit.

He said it would be necessary to identify assets belonging to the
Iranian government in Canada or in another jurisdiction that would
be willing to enforce judgments of the Canadian court.

Arnold said he has been involved in several prior lawsuits against
Iran. In those cases, he said, Iran did not file a defence but
later sent a lawyer to appear in court to beat back a default
judgment.

In the case of Tracy v. Iran -- involving a group of lawyers with
individual claims arising from separate terror-related incidents --
the courts ordered the seizure and sale of all non-diplomatic
property of Iran in Canada, which brought in approximately $30
million, Arnold said.

'The whole world is shattered'
Habib Haghjoo lost his daughter, Saharnaz Haghjoo, and
nine-year-old granddaughter Elsa Jadidi on the flight. He's taking
part in one of the lawsuits in order to put pressure on Iran to
take responsibility.

"They are my loved ones. Without them, I feel the whole world is
shattered for me," said Haghjoo. "I don't really want to live. The
only reason I'm breathing is because I want justice."

He said he thought the pain would get easier with time but it's
only gotten worse. He said he's pursuing justice, not money, and he
wants the international community to condemn Iran for shooting down
the plane.

"I want to know the truth," he said. "Otherwise, how can I have
closure?"

In July, a group representing countries who lost citizens on Flight
PS752 had their first meeting with Iranian officials to start
negotiations about reparations for families.

Victims' families in Canada already have each received one-time
payments of $25,000 from the federal government for immediate
support, including the costs of repatriating loved ones. Global
Affairs Canada told CBC News it has paid out more than $2.1 million
in financial assistance.

The government also matched donations for a total of $3.3 million
for victims' families to "navigate through the long-term impacts of
these tragic losses," according to the government's website.

After months of mounting international pressure, Iran sent the
plane's black boxes to France in July to be analyzed and downloaded
since it didn't have the capabilities. The head of Iran's Civil
Aviation Organization said there was a 19-second conversation
following the first missile hitting the aircraft. The second
missile hit the plane 25 seconds later. The first explosion sent
shrapnel into the plane. No other details have been offered about
what audio the cockpit captured.

Several Canadian MPs said the preliminary report was "limited" and
only "select information was provided." They demanded more answers.
[GN]


JACOB KOSTECKI: Gentry Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY GENTRY,
individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
JACOB KOSTECKI, an individual, Case No. 1:20-cv-01284-WJM-STV (D.
Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying her claims against the Defendant to be
      litigated as a class action on behalf of the following
      class:

      "all individuals or entities who: (1) purchased tickets,
      sponsorships and/or travel packages from Defendant
      KOSTECKI, and (2) have been denied a refund from Defendant
      KOSTECKI to date";

   2. appointing herself as Class Representative; and

   3. granting such other and further relief the Court may deem
      just and proper.

As a result of the Defendant pocketing large sums of money paid by
would-be attendees of the Massive Adoption conference and his
failure to honor his promises to repay those individuals who
purchased tickets, sponsorships, and travel packages, the Plaintiff
-- on behalf of herself and the other members of the Class --
brought this action to seek redress for the harms caused by the
Defendant, the complaint says.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C. Silver, Esq.
          SILVER MILLER
          11780 W. Sample Road
          Coral Springs, FL 33065
          Telephone: (954) 516-6000
          E-mail: DSilver@SilverMillerLaw.com

JAMES WILLIAMS: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RENEE GALLOWAY, et al., v.
JAMES WILLIAMS, JR., Case No. 3:19-cv-00470-REP (E.D. Va.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. granting final approval of a class action settlement;

   2. certifying a settlement class consisting of:

      "all consumers residing within the United States or its
      territories who executed loan agreements with Red Rock
      Tribal Lending, LLC or Big Picture Loans, LLC (including
      loans assigned to Big Picture Loans, LLC) from June 22,
      2013 to December 20, 2019."

      Excluded from the Class are all consumers who would
      otherwise qualify for membership in the Settlement Class
      for which the consumer previously has released all claims
      as to the Settling Defendants; the Settling Defendants'
      officers, directors, and employees; the Settling
      Defendants attorneys; the named Plaintiffs' attorneys; and
      any judge who has presided over either mediation or
      disposition of this case and the members of his or her
      immediate family.

   3. awarding attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards, and
      entering final judgment.

The salient terms of the Settlement Agreement are:

  -- The Settling Defendants are establishing a fund of at least
     $8.7 million that will result in distributions to
     qualifying Settlement Class Members for part of the
     excessive interest that they paid on their loans, and which
     will also fund the costs of settlement administration, the
     reimbursement of litigation expenses, the payment of
     attorneys' fees, and the payment of service awards to class
     representatives.

  --  The Plaintiffs may request a Service Award to be paid from
      the Settlement Fund, provided such awards do not exceed
      $5,000 to each Class Representative.

  --  Class Counsel may request reasonable attorneys' fees and
      reimbursement of costs to be paid from the Settlement
      Fund, provided that the total amount of such request does
      not exceed 33% of the Settlement Fund.

The Plaintiffs include Lula Williams; Gloria Turnage; George
Hengle; Dowin Coffy; Marcella Singh, as administrator of the Estate
of Felix Gillison, Jr.; Renee Galloway; Dianne Turner; Earl Browne;
Rose Marie Buchert; Regina Nolte; Kevin Minor; Teresa Titus; Lisa
Martinez; Anthony Green; Sonji Grandy; Anastasia Sherman; Burry
Pough; Linda Madison; Dominque de la Bay; Lucinda Gray; Andrea
Scarborough; Jerry Avent; Lori Fitzgerald; Derek Geter; Keisha
Hamm; Faith Thomas; Sharon Paavo; Latanya Tarleton; Christina
Cumming; Lamesha Kondo; Andrea Mendez; Tammy Wangeline; Kimberly
Pool; Tasha Pettiford; Richard L. Smith, Jr.; Victoria Renee McKoy;
Desiree Wright Lovins; Sandra Monsalve; Carrie Samantha Smith;
Chris Kobin; Dana Duggan; and John Actis.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class action
settlement is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3l7O65n at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and Proposed Classes are:

          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  craig@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
          Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
          Casey S. Nash, Esq.
          KELLY GUZZO, PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7572
          Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
          E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
                  aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
                  casey@kellyguzzo.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Adams, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
          E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
                  jmurray@terrellmarshall.com
                  eadams@terrellmarshall.com

               - and -

          Matthew Wessler, Esq.
          GUPTA WESSLER PLLC
          1735 20th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 888-1741
          Facsimile: (202) 888-7792
          E-mail: matt@guptawessler.com

Attorneys for the Defendants James Williams, Jr., Michelle Hazen,
Henry Smith, Alice Brunk, Andrea Russell, Tina Caron, Mitchell
McGeshick, Jeffrey McGeshick, Robert Ivey and June Saad, are:

          H. Scott Kelly, Esq.
          Timothy J. St. George, Esq.
          Alan D. Wingfield, Esq.
          Cindy Dawn Hanson, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
          1001 Haxall Point
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 697-2202
          Facsimile: (804) 697-1339
          E-mail: scott.kelly@troutman.com
                  tim.stgeorge@troutmansanders.com
                  alan.wingfield@troutman.com
                  cindy.hanson@troutman.com

Attorneys for the Defendants Brian Jedwab and Amlaur Resources,
LLC, are:

          Robert Allen Rosette, Esq.
          ROSETTE LLP
          565 West Chandler Blvd., Suite 212
          Chandler, AZ 85225
          Telephone: (480) 889-8990
          Facsimile: (480) 889-8997
          E-mail: rosette@rosettelaw.com

               - and -

          Craig T. Merritt, Esq.
          Shannan M. Fitzgerald, Esq.
          CHRISTIAN & BARTON, LLP
          909 East Main Street, Suite 1200
          Richmond, VA 23219-3095
          Telephone: (804) 697-4100
          Facsimile: (804) 697-4112
          E-mail: cmerritt@Dcblaw.com
                  sfitzgerald@cblaw.com

Attorneys for the Defendants Big Picture Loans, LLC, Ascension
Technologies, LLC, James Williams, Jr., Michelle Hazen, Henry
Smith, Andrea Russell, Alice Brunk, Tina Caron, Mitchell McGeshick,
Gertrude McGeshick, Susan McGeshick, Giiwegiizhigookway Martin,
Jeffrey McGeshick, Robert Ivey, June Saad, Simon Liang, and Brian
McFadden, are:

          Robert H. Cox, VSB No. 33118
          BRIGLIA HUNDLEY, P.C.
          1921 Gallows Road, Suite 750
          Tysons, VA 22182
          Telephone: (703) 883-0880
          Facsimile: (703) 883-0889
          E-mail: rcox@brigliahundley.com

Attorneys for the Defendant James Dowd, are:

          Cortland C. Putbrese, Esq.
          Benjamin S. Barlow, Esq.
          DUNLAP BENNETT & LUDWIG PLLC
          8003 Franklin Farms Drive, Suite 220
          Richmond, VA 23229
          Telephone: (804) 977-2688
          Facsimile: (804) 977-2680
          E-mail: cputbrese@dbllawyers.com
                  bbarlow@dbllawyers.com

               - and -

          Michael Stinson, Esq.
          E-mail: stinson.mike@dorsey.com
          DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
          50 South Sixth Street, Suite 1500
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 340-2600
          Facsimile: (612) 340-2868

Attorneys for the Defendants Columbia Pipe & Supply Co., Timothy
Arenberg, Terrance Arenberg, DTA Trinity Wealth Transfer Trust,
Deborah M. Arenberg Living Trust, are:

          Andrew K. Clark, Esq.
          Elizabeth C. Burneson, Esq.
          HIRSCHLER FLEISCHER, PC
          2100 East Cary Street
          P.O. Box 500
          Richmond, VA 23218-0500
          Telephone: (804) 771-9528
          Facsimile: (804) 644-0957
          E-mail: aclark@hirschlerlaw.com
                  lburneson@hirschlerlaw.com
                  lburneson@hf-law.com

KARMAS FAR: Velasquez Sues Over Failure to Pay OT & Retaliation
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHNY R. VELASQUEZ, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. KARMAS FAR INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-01244-BJD-JBT (M.D. Fla., November 2, 2020) is a collective
action complaint brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant to
recover damages for their alleged unlawful retaliation and failure
to pay overtime wages in violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant approximately from
January 2, 2020 to October 28, 2020 as a non-exempted full-time,
hourly-paid warehouse employee to perform warehousing duties.

The Plaintiff claims that he always worked more than 40 hours a
week, but he was not paid for overtime hours. Allegedly, the
Defendant automatically deducted 1 hour of lunch break daily or 5
hours per week, which constitutes 5 unpaid overtime hours per week.
As a result, the Defendant willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff
overtime hours at the rate of one and one-half times his regular
rate of pay for every hour that he worked over 40.

Although the Plaintiff was paid for his overtime hours when he
complained about it, the Defendant required him to provide a good
faith estimate of unpaid overtime hours based on his recollections
since he has no time and payment records, in which the Plaintiff
need to adjust his statement of claim accordingly.

The Plaintiff also asserts that the Defendant violated the
record-keeping ad posting requirements of FLSA by failing to
maintain time accurate records of hours worked by the Plaintiff and
other employees and failing to post any notice to inform employees
of their federal rights to overtime and minimum wage payments.

Karmas Far, Inc. is an importer/exporter and distributor of home
furnishings that sells its merchandise online and throughout the
U.S. of America. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Tel: (305) 446-1500
          Fax: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com



KENNETH REES: Settlement Reached in Brice Litigation
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMETRA BRICE, et. al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. KENNETH
REES, Case No. 3:20-cv-00732-MHL (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs Darlene
Gibbs, Stephanie Edwards, Lula Williams, Patrick Inscho, Lawrence
Mwethuku, Kimetra Brice, Earl Browne, Jill Novorot, India Banks,
Alicia Patterson, JoAnn Griffiths and Jeri Brennan ask the Court
for an order:

   1. granting preliminary approval of the class settlement;

   2. granting certification of a settlement class:

      "all persons within the United States to whom Great Plains
      has lent money; all persons within the United States to
      whom Plain Green had lent money prior to June 1, 2016; and
      all persons within the United States who received a cash
      advance from Mobiloans prior to May 6, 2017";

   3. appointing Class Counsel the law firms of Kelly Guzzo PLC,
      and Tycko & Zavareei LLP; and

   4. approving form and manner of notice.

      -- The Consideration Provided To The Settlement Class
         Under The Settlement Agreement.

         Generally, Class Members are eligible for cash
         payments. The Plaintiffs achieved the proposed
         settlement in the face of substantial defenses,
         including substantial Rule 23 defense leverage.
         Plaintiffs also recognized that Rees faced multiple
         actions, threatening both the options and resources
         available for Class Settlement. Nevertheless,
         Plaintiffs were able to negotiate a settlement
         structure that will provide real benefits to consumers
         nationwide in the form of cash payments to Class
         Members. The Defendant Rees will pay $3,302,00.00 for
         distribution to the Class Members. In addition to the
         payment of $3,302,000.00 cash, the Rees Defendants will
         also transfer all right, title, interest and possession
         of the 924,495 NYSE-traded stock shares of Elevate
         Credit, Inc. they own. The shares will be held and
         liquidated for the benefit of the consumer Class by the
         TFLT pursuant to the Plan and the Class Action
         Settlement. Alternately, Rees is permitted to
         substitute an additional cash payment of $4,003,063.35.
         (The Rees Defendants shall have until the date of the
         Preliminary Approval Order to make this election).
         Consumers are eligible to receive a financial benefit
         in the form of a cash payment, the Rees Defendants will
         either surrender Elevate shares or pay $4,003,063.35
         into the TFLT, and Rees will continue to cooperate in
         the pending actions. The total cash value of the
         settlement is $7,305,063.35, and the continued
         cooperation of Rees in the pending in the pending
         matters will serve to promote the fair resolution of
         the remaining cases.

      -- Attorneys' Fees and Expenses; Service Award.

         Class Counsel shall make an application to the Court
         for an award for attorneys' fees, costs, and class
         administration expenses in an amount not to exceed the
         acumulative 33% of the Monetary Consideration. The
         Parties have agreed that the award of attorneys' fees
         and costs will be paid out of the Settlement Fund in
         the amount approved by the Court. The Plaintiffs will
         also apply for a service award for their role as Class
         Representatives to compensate each Plaintiff for
         his/her effort in prosecuting this case, including
         retaining counsel, assisting in discovery, and keeping
         abreast of the litigation. Service awards will be
         sought in an amount not to exceed $7,500 for each of
         the Class Representatives and the Gringas Plaintiffs.
         The Parties have agreed that the Named Plaintiff
         service awards will be paid out of the Monetary
         Consideration in the amount approved by the Court.

The litigation arises from alleged violations of state and federal
laws related to high interest online loans involving now-settled
Think Finance. The Defendant is the former President of Think
Finance.

The Court has already approved a groundbreaking class settlement
that resulted in Think Finance and others: (1) repaying more than
$53 million in cash; and (2) forgiving more than $380 million of
debt owed by consumers who took out loans with Plain Green, Great
Plains, and MobiLoans, the complaint says.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  craig@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
          Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
          Casey S. Nash, Esq.
          KELLY GUZZO, PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7572
          Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
          E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
                  aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
                  casey@kellyguzzo.com

               - and -

          Anna C. Haac, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: ahaac@tzlegal.com

KENTUCKY: Certification of UK Healthcare Patients Class Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCY ALEXANDER, MARY
BAUGHMAN, ROBERT MOODY, DANNY METTS, and RANDALL ROACH, On behalf
of themselves and all those similarly situated, v. THOMAS B.
MILLER, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Kentucky
Department of Revenue, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00044-GFVT (E.D.
Ky.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying this
action as a class action under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the
Federal Rules for Civil Procedure, on behalf of:

"all UK Healthcare patients whose bills have been or will be
referred by UK Healthcare (or its subsidiaries, including but not
limited to KMSF and CKMS) to the Department of Revenue for
collection and who have not yet satisfied the amount the DOR states
is owed, but excluding the 158 individuals listed in Defendants'
Capilouto and Cox's response to Interrogatory 2 as having requested
a hearing or independent review of their accounts."

The Kentucky Department of Revenue administers the Commonwealth's
tax laws.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' amended and supplemental motion for class
certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2IbJflu at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Claudia Wilner, Esq.
          Edward P. Krugman, Esq.
          NATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW
          and Economic Justice
          275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1506
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 633-6967
          E-mail: wilner@nclej.org
                  krugman@nclej.org

               - and -

          Elizabeth Davis Stone, Esq.
          Ben Carter, Esq.
          KENTUCKY EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER
          201 W. Short Street, Suite 310
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Telephone: (859) 759-2005
          E-mail: betsy@kyequaljustice.org
                  ben@kyequaljustice.org

LANSING TRADE: Budicak Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BUDICAK, INC., BLUE MARLIN
ARBITRAGE, LLC, and PRIME TRADING, LLC, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, v. LANSING TRADE GROUP, LLC, CASCADE
COMMODITY CONSULTING, LLC, and JOHN DOES NOS. 6-10, Case No.
2:19-cv-02449-JAR-ADM (D. Kan.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for
an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons or entities who, at any point during the
      period March 5-13, 2015 inclusive, held-(a) a short
      position in CBOT soft red winter wheat March, May, July or
      September 2015 futures contracts; (b) a short position in
      CBOT call options on CBOT soft red winter wheat May, July
      or September 2015 futures contracts; or (c) a long
      position in CBOT put options on CBOT soft red winter wheat
      May, July or September 2015 futures contracts -- and
      subsequently liquidated the position through an
      offsetting market transaction."

      Excluded from the Class are the Defendants and any parent,
      subsidiary, affiliate or agent of any Defendant.; and

   2. appointing themselves as class representatives; and

   3. appointing Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Cafferty Clobes
      Meriwether & Sprengel LLP as Class Counsel.

Lansing Trade operates as a commodity merchandising company. The
Company trades whole grains and oil seeds, feed ingredients,
biofuels, natural gas liquids, freight, and other commodities, as
well as offers logistic services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36gVR34 at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary D. McCallister, Esq.
          McCALLISTER LAW GROUP, LLC
          200 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: 312-345-0611
          Facsimile: 312-345-0612
          E-mail: gdm@mccallisterlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Jennifer W. Sprengel, Esq.
          Anthony F. Fata, Esq.
          Brian P. O'Connell
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER
          & SPRENGEL LLP
          150 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 782-4880
          E-mail: jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com
                  afata@caffertyclobes.com
                  boconnell@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Vincent Briganti, Esq.
          Raymond P. Girnys, Esq.
          Craig C. Maider, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com
                  rgirnys@lowey.com
                  cmaider@lowey.com

               - and -

          Eric I. Unrein, Esq.
          CAVANAUGH, BIGGS & LEMON, P.A.
          3200 S.W. Huntoon
          Topeka, KS 66604
          Telephone: 785-440-4000
          E-mail: eunrein@cavlem.com

LITIES CORP: Velasquez et al. Seek Class Status of FLSA Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alicia Velasquez, Adrian
Hernandez Flores, Marino Pinzon, Gonzalo Munoz, and Domingo Rojas,
individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly
situated, v. Lities Corp. D/B/A Munch Time Diner, Karikan Donut
Corp. D/B/A Munch Time Diner, Edison Rivera, Rafaela Estrada;
Roberto "Doe" (Last Name Unknown),Vasilos Lambos, and Achiles
Polygerinos, Case No. 1:20-cv-04208-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court for an order:

   1. granting conditional certification of the FLSA claims as a
      representative collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
      section 216(b);

   2. approving Court-facilitated notice of this FLSA action to
      Covered Employees, including a consent form (or opt-in
      form) as authorized by the FLSA;

   3. granting approval of the proposed FLSA notice of this
      action and the consent form;

   4. directing production of names, e-mails, last known mailing
      addresses, alternate addresses, telephone numbers, job
      titles and dates of employment of all Covered Employees;
      and

   5. posting of the Notice, along with consent forms, in a
      conspicuous location of the Defendants' restaurant located
      at 21E 170th St. Bronx, New York.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay proper
minimum wage, overtime payment, spread-of-hour premiums and failed
to provide wage notice at the time of hiring and wage statements to
their non-exempt employees for all hours worked to their non-exempt
employees for all hours worked. The members of the putative
collective class are the Defendants' employees. Through this
motion, the Plaintiffs seek to protect the rights of current and
former non-exempt employees employed by the the Defendants within
the last three years (Covered Employees), by sending all putative
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) class members Court-approved notice
of this action and allowing them to have the opportunity to join
the instant action and recover their unpaid wages.

The Plaintiffs are former and current employees who worked at the
Restaurant.

The Defendants operate a restaurant under the name of "Munch Time
Dine" at 21E 170th ST, Bronx, New York.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective
certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/32nuKSv at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Yuezhu Liu, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC.
          136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353-8588
          Facsimile: (718) 353-6288

LITTLE ROCK, AR: Must Face Class Action Over Rental Inspection Code
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Satter, writing for Northwest Arkansas Democrat Gazette,
reports that a landlord who contends the city's rental inspection
code requires searches that violate the constitutional rights of
landlords and tenants alike was given the go-ahead to pursue his
federal lawsuit as a class-action case with him representing more
than 1,000 property owners.

Robert Moore, who owns rental properties across the city,
previously determined through a check of city records that 1,138
landlords were subjected to searches or requests for searches as a
result of the code between Nov. 3, 2014, and Dec. 31, 2017, when
the lawsuit was filed.

Little Rock attorney Chris Corbitt, who represents Moore and the
class of plaintiffs, said on Sept. 14 that after he finds out how
many other landlords have been affected by the city code since the
lawsuit was filed, the number of class members may increase.

The case started out in Pulaski County Circuit Court but the city
transferred it last year to federal court, where U.S. District
Judge James Moody Jr. said in an order filed on Sept. 14 that he
will allow it to proceed as a class-action.

He noted that it alleges claims that are common to all class
members, and, "Resolving the issues on a class-wide basis will be
more efficient and cost-effective than litigating the issues as to
each of the hundreds of owners or agents of rental housing units."

Moody earlier denied the city's motion to dismiss the case.

"It's a big deal for some landlords," Corbitt said on Sept. 14,
referring to the class-action order.

Moody's order says that the rental inspection code applies to all
rental housing units in Little Rock, including houses, apartments,
manufactured homes and mobile homes. He noted that under the code,
it is unlawful for an owner to rent any housing unit without a
certificate of compliance for that unit.

The lawsuit alleges that to obtain a certificate of compliance, a
property owner must pay for a business license and preemptively
agree to unlawful searches. It alleges the city has an established
custom of coercing unlawful searches through threat of loss of
property, privacy or liberty.

Claims common to the class, Moody said, involve the
constitutionality of the rental inspection code, including
potential violations of procedural and substantive due process,
unlawful searches, excessive fines and equal protection violations.
The judge noted the plaintiffs also raise claims under the Arkansas
Civil Rights Act including retaliation, interference, coercion and
intimidation.

Corbitt said on Sept. 14 that while all rental units in the city
are required under the code to obtain a certificate before they can
be rented to the next tenant, it isn't practical for the city to
enforce those provisions citywide because there simply aren't
enough code inspectors. He said it consequently "doesn't get done"
unless the city decides to enforce it selectively.

"I guarantee you not one apartment in Chenal has been inspected"
pursuant to the ordinance, Corbitt said. "It's arbitrary
enforcement."

He said the code also has a provision that applies the code to
whoever is "in possession" of the rental unit, which requires
tenants to give way to any inspector who comes knocking, without a
finding of probable cause by a judge that something is wrong inside
the home.

Moore wants the code to be declared unconstitutional and invalid,
and wants all evidence obtained during illegal searches to be
suppressed. The suit also seeks a refund of fines and fees levied
as a result of the inspections, compensatory and punitive damages,
and payment of attorneys' fees.

Corbitt says Moore has always taken good care of his rental
properties but has been subjected to random inspections without
warning. While agreeing that landlords should be required to
maintain rental property that is safe for tenants, Corbitt said
tenants can use other means to seek relief for maintenance and
security concerns.

He said a criminal citation was issued to Moore for refusing to
allow an inspection in 2016, and although the citation was later
dismissed, inspectors later retaliated against Moore for
complaining about them, by "focusing a laser on him."

Two of Moore's 11 properties were searched after tenants let
inspectors in, requiring Moore to make several unnecessary, costly
repairs, Corbitt said. [GN]


LOOMIS ARMORED: Fitzlaff Employment Suit Removed to D. Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JORDAN FITZLAFF, on his own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LOOMIS
ARMORED US, LLC, Case No. 2020CV33399, was removed from the the
District Court of Denver County, Colorado to the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado on Nov. 6, 2020.

The Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-03317-SKC to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff brought this action over the Defendant's alleged
violations of the Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers Act. Mr.
Fitzlaff asserts that Loomis failed to pay Armored Service
Technicians, also known as drivers, messengers, and guards,
overtime wages for hours worked between 40 and 46 each workweek and
beyond each workday.

Loomis is a cash handling company. The modern company was formed in
1997 by the consolidation of two armoured security concerns, Wells
Fargo Armored Service and Loomis Armored Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joanna L. Fox, Esq.
          Brandt Milstein, Esq.
          2400 Broadway, Suite B
          Boulder, CO 80304
          E-mail: brandt@milsteinlawoffice.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jennifer S. Harpole, Esq.
          Grace L. McGuire, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          1900 Sixteenth Street, Suite 800
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 629-6200
          Facsimile: (303) 629-0200
          E-mail: jharpole@littler.com
                  gmcguire@littler.com

LOS ANGELES, CA: Safaie Suit Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REZA SAFAIE, on behalf of
herself and a class of all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF
LOS ANGELES, et al., inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-03921-FMO-PJW
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on Dec. 3, 2020 for
an order granting class certification of the proposed class defined
as follows:

   "all persons who have had and/or will have a chalk mark
   placed on one of the tires of a vehicle they owned or
   permissively operated from May 4, 2017 to the present, by an
   employee or agent of the City of Los Angeles or the Los
   Angeles Department of Transportation, throughout the
   territorial limits of the City of Los Angeles, to obtain
   information to justify the issuance of a parking ticket, and
   who received and paid a parking ticket as a result of such
   action."

Los Angeles is a sprawling Southern California city and the center
of the nation's film and television industry.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/356IyCF at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ramin R. Hariri, Esq.
          HARIRI LAW GROUP
          12707 High Bluff Drive, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (619) 363-2889
          Facsimile: (619) 810-0791
          E-mail: ramin@haririlaw.com

               - and -

          Daryoosh Khashayar, Esq.
          Taylor Marks, Esq.
          KHASHAYAR LAW GROUP
          12636 High Bluff Dr., Ste. 400
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 509-1550
          Facsimile: (858) 509-1551
          E-mail: daryoosh@mysdlawyers.com

M&T BANK: Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA SILVEIRA, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. M&T BANK, Case No.
2:19-cv-06958-ODW-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order
denying preliminary approval of Settlement Agreement.

Lisa Silveira initiated this putative class action against the
Defendant, on behalf of a class of homeowners, alleging that M&T
charged borrowers convenience fees when they made mortgage payments
online and over the phone ("Pay-to-Pay Fees"). The parties have
reached a settlement on behalf of the class. Silveira now moves,
without opposition, for preliminary approval of the parties'
agreement. The Court has reviewed Silveira's Motion and finds that
Silveira fails to provide the Court with adequate information by
which to determine the fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of
the settlement. As a result, the Court denies Silveira's Motion
without prejudice.

In December 2008, Silveira purchased a home in San Luis Obispo
County, California, through a loan that was secured by a mortgage
on the property. In 2016, M&T acquired the loan and became the loan
servicer. Silveira alleges she frequently pays her mortgage over
the phone, and that M&T has charged her a $15 fee each time
("Pay-to-Pay Fee"). Silveira contends the Pay-to-Pay Fees are a
direct breach of her mortgage agreement and a violation of federal
and state laws. On August 9, 2019, Silveira filed this lawsuit on
behalf of homeowner borrowers throughout the United States,
including California, whose mortgage loans are serviced by M&T.
Silveira alleges that M&T's conduct breached the class members'
mortgage agreements and violated the federal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, California's Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, and California's Unfair Competition Law. On February
12, 2020, the parties reached a settlement.

A copy of the Court's Amended Order is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ewL20s at no extra charge.[CC]

MAPLEWOOD, MN: Webb Suit Seeks to Certify 3 Classes
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CECELIA ROBERTS WEBB, et
al., v. THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, Case No. 4:16-cv-01703-CDP (E.D.
Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. certifying the following Classes pursuant to Federal Rule
      of Civil Procedure 23:

      the Injunctive Class:

      "all persons, whether or not such person has ever been
      jailed, who have paid or currently owe warrant recall fees
      or warrant bonds to the City of Maplewood arising from
      cases in the Maplewood court";

      the Paid Fines Class:

      "all persons, whether or not such person has ever been
      jailed, who have paid any amount to the City of Maplewood
      from fines, fees, costs, or surcharges, including warrant
      recall fees or warrant bonds arising from cases in the
      Maplewood court and who have not been provided an
      opportunity to prove indigence"; and

      the Jailed Class:

      "all persons who have been jailed by the City of Maplewood
      for nonpayment of fines, fees, costs, or surcharges,
      including warrant recall fees and/or warrant bonds arising
      from cases in the Maplewood court and who (1) were not
      been provided an opportunity to prove indigence prior to
      jailing; (2) were not considered a danger to the community
      by notation in Maplewood's file; and (3) were not
      designated as a flight risk at the time of jailing";

   2. appointing the Plaintiffs Darron Yates, Cecelia Roberts-
      Webb and Anthony Lemicy seek as Class Representatives for
      the Jailed Class;

   3. appointing the Plaintiffs Frank Williams, Darron Yates,
      and Cecelia Roberts-Webb as Class Representatives for the
      Paid Fines Class;

   4. appointing the Plaintiffs Frank Williams, Darron Yates,
      Cecelia Roberts-Webb and Anthony Lemicy as Class
      Representatives for the Injunctive Class; and

   5. appointing John Waldron, Nathaniel Carroll and Blake
      Strode of ArchCity Defenders, Inc.; Andrea R. Gold of
      Tycko & Zavareei LLP; and Ryan Keane of Keane Law LLC as
      Class Counsel.

According to the complaint, the Defendant City of Maplewood is a
relatively small municipality in the St. Louis region. Yet,
Maplewood created a system by which it arrested and detained
thousands of people per year, far more than its neighboring
municipalities with whom it shared a jail. Maplewood developed a
scheme of highly profitable -- but grossly unconstitutional --
incarceration. Arrestees were jailed for as many as twelve days on
Maplewood's authority without a single Maplewood employee inquiring
into their ability to pay their bond. For years, Maplewood police
officers issued warrants, without any judicial involvement, to
justify warrantless arrests and the subsequent detention of
arrestees. In this same scheme, there was no process by which an
arrestee was brought in front of a judge, despite the potential of
being jailed for over a week.

The Plaintiffs seek relief for Maplewood's systemic abusive
practices of arresting and indefinitely jailing individuals in
order to extract money.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Blake A. Strode, Esq.
          Michael-John Voss, Esq.
          John M. Waldron, Esq.
          Nathaniel R. Carroll, Esq.
          ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, INC.
          440 N. 4th Street, Suite 390
          St. Louis, MO 63103
          Telephone: (855) 724-2489
          Facsimile: (314) 925-1304
          E-mail: bstrode@archcitydefenders.org
                  mjvoss@archcitydefenders.org
                  jwaldron@archcitydefenders.org
                  ncarroll@archcitydefenders.org

               - and -

          Ryan A. Keane, Esq.
          KEANE LAW LLC
          7777 Bonhomme Ave., Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 391-4700
          Facsimile: (314) 244-3778
          ryan@keanelawllc.com

               - and -

          Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: agold@tzlegal.com


MERCEDES: Settles Diesel Emissions Class-Action for $700 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys at consumer-rights law firms Hagens Berman; Carella,
Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C.; and SeegerWeiss
announced details of a $700 million settlement reached on behalf of
owners and lessees of affected diesel Mercedes vehicles as part of
a class-action lawsuit against Mercedes for its diesel emissions
deficiencies.

The lawsuit was originally brought against Mercedes in 2016 in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by the Hagens
Berman, Carella and Seeger firms that helped to achieve the $14.7
billion Volkswagen Dieselgate settlement.

According to the lawsuit, Mercedes joined forces with Bosch to
program its BlueTEC vehicles to release illegally high, dangerous
levels of emissions via a defeat device that turned off or limited
emissions reductions during real-world driving conditions but not
during vehicle emissions tests.

Recently, the lawsuit culminated in a $700 million settlement for
U.S. Mercedes owners in which current owners and lessees can get
$3,290 or more, and former owners and lessees can get $822.50.

"Owners of Mercedes' dirty diesel cars will finally be able to
receive the compensation they deserve and repairs to ensure their
vehicles are not emitting illegal levels of harmful pollutants,"
said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman and attorney
representing vehicle owners in the class action. "We consider this
an immense win for consumers, the environment and for class-action
law, bringing forward real results through independent testing and
research thoughtfully brought to the Court."

The law firms representing Mercedes owners continue to pursue
claims against Bosch, Mercedes' alleged coconspirator, and the
separate suit may result in additional recovery if a settlement or
judgment is reached.

"We are incredibly pleased at the settlement for Mercedes owners
that will carefully ensure that both current and former owners and
lessees are offered compensation," said Jim Cecchi at Carella,
Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C. "The complexity of
this case deserved a well-structured settlement agreement, and we
believe we have achieved exactly that for the thousands of affected
owners who will receive payment."

What Can Mercedes Owners Expect from the Settlement?

Owners of affected Mercedes diesel vehicles can receive the
following:

   * An Approved Emissions Modification (AEM) free of charge and an
extended modification warranty. From a separate settlement with
federal and California regulators, these benefits are available
even if you do not participate in the class action.

   * Protection pending the modification's effects to your vehicle.
AEMs installed in affected vehicles will come with additional
protection, should the AEM affect your vehicle's performance.
Affected owners are slated to receive compensation depending on
whether the AEM affected fuel economy, horsepower, torque and/or
other aftereffects of the emissions modification. Owners may also
be able to receive payment for transportation costs in the event
their installation of an AEM takes more than three hours to
complete.

   * Payment for Mercedes' diesel emissions deficiencies. Under the
settlement, current owners and lessees can receive $3,290 if no
former owner/lessee submits a claim for the same vehicle. If a
former owner/lessee does submit a claim for the same vehicle,
current owners and lessees can receive $2,467.50. Former owners and
lessees can receive $822.50, divided equally among former
owners/lessees who submit claims for the same vehicle.

   * Additional payment. For current owners and lessees who have an
AEM installed, additional payments may be available under various
circumstances. Owners may also receive additional payment if an AEM
is not available by October 2022.

More information can be found at the settlement website,
www.mbbluetecsettlement.com.

What Do Mercedes Owners Need to do Now?

To obtain a payment under the settlement, eligible former
owners/lessees must submit a complete claim by the later of 75 days
after the notice date, or the date the Court finally approves the
settlement. Current owners/lessees must have the AEM installed and
submit a claim by October 1, 2022 in order to be eligible to
receive money. AEMs will become available on a rolling basis after
Mercedes' separate settlement with U.S. authorities is approved;
please continue to check the Settlement Website for updated
information. You may also call 1-877-313-0170 toll-free to find out
whether an AEM is available for your Subject Vehicle. For more
details about the AEMs and Extended Modification Warranty, please
visit bluetecupdate.mbusa.com.

In the coming weeks, there will be a Settlement Website
(www.mbbluetecsettlement.com) with further information about the
settlement, as well as updates about the deadline to submit your
claim.

Affected Models

Affected BlueTEC vehicles include:

E250 BlueTEC 2014-2016
E350 BlueTEC 2011-2013
GL320 BlueTEC 2009
GL350 BlueTEC 2010-2016
GLE300d 2016
GLE350d 2016
GLK250 BlueTEC 2013-2015
ML250 BlueTEC 2015
ML320 BlueTEC 2009
ML350 BlueTEC 2010-2014
R320 BlueTEC 2009
R350 BlueTEC 2010-2012
S350 BlueTEC 2012-2013
Mercedes-Benz or Freightliner Sprinter (4-cylinder) 2014-2016
Mercedes-Benz or Freightliner Sprinter (6-cylinder) 2010-2016

Find out more about the class-action lawsuit against Mercedes.

                       About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP is a consumer-rights class-action
law firm with 10 offices across the country. The firm's tenacious
drive for plaintiffs' rights has earned it numerous national
accolades, awards and titles of "Most Feared Plaintiff's Firm," and
MVPs and Trailblazers of class-action law. More about the law firm
and its successes can be found at www.hbsslaw.com. [GN]


MERCER UNIVERSITY: Student's Class Action Seeks Tuition Refund
--------------------------------------------------------------
13WMAZ Staff reports that a Mercer University senior says the
school should refund some tuition and fees for moving classes
online due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In a federal lawsuit filed on Sept. 14, Olivier Williams claims
that Mercer isn't giving students the education it promised in
exchange for its $37,508-a-year tuition.

Williams, who's from Dacula, filed a class-action lawsuit, meaning
she expects other students to join her in demanding refunds.

Her lawsuit argues that she and classmates paid "for a first-rate
education and an on-campus, in-person educational experience."

Instead, they're getting a "deficient and insufficient
alternative."

That violates Mercer's contract with its students, the lawsuit
argues.

The school has also refused to refund mandatory fees for programs
and services that were canceled, the lawsuit says.

After March 15, all Mercer spring semester classes were offered
online.The school returned to in-person classes in August.

Williams' complaint argues that the online format waters down
learning and cheapens their grades.

Students are deprived of labs, libraries, study rooms and other
facilities. They're also losing out on career networking.

Williams wrote that she paid the school around $8,550 in tuition
and $6,145 in fees this spring. The lawsuit estimates that more
than $5 million could be at stake.

Mercer enrolled more than 8,500 undergraduate and graduate students
last year, and the complaint says they should be notified of the
lawsuit.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Macon.

By email, Mercer spokesman Kyle Sears told 13WMAZ, "The University
does not comment on frivolous lawsuits." [GN]


MESOBLAST LIMITED: Klein Law Remind of Dec. 7 Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Mesoblast Limited (NASDAQ: MESO)
alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws.

Class Period: April 16, 2019 and October 1, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 7, 2020

Learn more about your recoverable losses in MESO:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/mesoblast-limited-loss-submission-form?id=10234&from=5

The filed complaint alleges that Mesoblast Limited made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) comparative analyses between Mesoblast's Phase 3 trial and
three historical studies did not support the effectiveness of the
Company's lead product candidate, remestemcel-L, for steroid
refractory acute graft versus host disease due to design
differences between the four studies; (2) as a result, the US Food
and Drug Administration was reasonably likely to require further
clinical studies; (3) as a result, the commercialization of
remestemcel-L in the U.S. was likely to be delayed; 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 have until December 7, 2020 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

For additional information about the MESO lawsuit, please contact
J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click the link
above.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes. [GN]

MESOBLAST LTD: Faces Mauskopf Securities Suit Over ADS Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALAN MAUSKOPF, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. MESOBLAST LIMITED, SILVIU ITESCU, and JOSH MUNTNER,
Case No. 1:20-cv-09111 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2020), is a class action
suit on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired Mesoblast securities between April 16, 2019 and October 1,
2020 (Class Period), inclusive, pursuing claims against the
Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Mesoblast develops allogeneic cellular medicines using its
proprietary mesenchymal lineage cell therapy platform. Its lead
product candidate, RYONCIL (remestemcel-L), is an investigational
therapy comprising mesenchymal stem cells derived from bone marrow.
In February 2018, the Company announced that remestemcel-L met its
primary endpoint in a Phase 3 trial to treat children with steroid
refractory ("SR") acute graft versus host disease ("aGVHD"). In
early 2020, Mesoblast completed its rolling submission of its
Biologics License Application ("BLA") with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") to secure marketing authorization to
commercialize remestemcel-L for children with steroid refractory
aGVHD.

On August 11, 2020, the FDA released briefing materials for its
Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee ("ODAC") meeting to be held on
August 13, 2020. Therein, the FDA stated that Mesoblast provided
post hoc analyses of other studies "to further establish the
appropriateness of 45% as the null Day-28 ORR" for its primary
endpoint. The briefing materials stated that, because of design
differences between these historical studies and Mesoblast's
submitted study, "it is unclear that these study results are
relevant to the proposed indication."On this news, the Company's
American Depositary Share ("ADS") price fell $6.09
per share, or approximately 35%, to close at $11.33 per share on
August 11, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume.

On October 1, 2020, Mesoblast disclosed that it had received a
Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA regarding its
marketing application for remestemcel-L for treatment of SR-aGVHD
in pediatric patients. According to the CRL, the FDA recommended
that the Company "conduct at least one additional randomized,
controlled study in adults and/or children to provide further
evidence of the effectiveness of remestemcel-L for SR-aGVHD." The
CRL also "identified a need for further scientific rationale to
demonstrate the relationship of potency measurements to the
product's biologic activity." On this news, the Company's ADS price
fell $6.56 per share, or over 35%, to close at $12.03 per share on
October 2, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to
investors that comparative analyses between Mesoblast's Phase 3
trial and three historical studies did not support the
effectiveness of remestemcel-L for steroid refractory aGVHD because
of design differences between the four studies.

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

The Plaintiff purchased Mesoblast securities during the Class
Period, and suffered damages as a result of the federal securities
law violations.

Mesoblast is incorporated under the laws of Australia with its
principal executive offices located in Melbourne, Australia.
Mesoblast's ADSs trade in an efficient market on the NASDAQ
exchange ("NASDAQ") under the symbol "MESO." The Individual
Defendants are officers of the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

MOHAN GROUP: Misclassifies Housekeeping Employees, Dixon Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
KATHRYN DIXON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MOHAN GROUP, LLC and MOHAN HIRANI,
Defendants, Case No. 6:20-cv-00577 (E.D. Tex., November 2, 2020) is
a collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for
their alleged intentional and willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a housekeeping
employee from February 2020 to the present.

According to the complaint, the Defendant misclassified the
Plaintiff and other housekeeping employees as exempt from the
overtime requirements of the FLSA. Despite regularly working over
40 hours in a one-week period, approximately 70 hours per week, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated housekeeping employees'
hourly rate frequently fell below the applicable minimum wage and
their overtime premium at one and one-half times their regular rate
of pay for all hours worked over 40.

Mohan Group LLC is the premier real estate brokerage in the central
valley and provides a full range of real estate services. Mohan
Hirani is a principal, director, officer, and/or owner of Mohan
Group. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NANO-X IMAGING: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of November 16 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Nano-X Imaging Ltd. (NASDAQ: NNOX),
between August 21, 2020 and September 15, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), of the important November 16, 2020 lead plaintiff
deadline in the securities class action commenced by the firm. The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Nano-X investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Nano-X class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1945.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Nano-X's commercial agreements and its customers were
fabricated; (2) Nano-X's statements regarding its "novel" Nanox
System were misleading as the Company never provided data comparing
its images with images from competitors' machines; (3) Nano-X's
submission to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
admitted the Nanox System was not original; and (4) as a result,
defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
16, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1945.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

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

Contact Information:

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


NANO-X IMAGING: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of November 16 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Sept. 22 disclosed
that a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York on behalf of those who acquired Nano-X Imaging Ltd. ("Nano-X"
or the Company") (NASDAQ: NNOX) securities during the period from
August 21, 2020 through September 15, 2020 (the "Class Period").

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

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

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

Nano-X's commercial agreements and its customers were fabricated;

Nano-X's statements regarding its "novel" Nanox System were
misleading as the Company never provided data comparing its images
with images from competitors' machines;

Nano-X's submission to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") admitted the Nanox System was not original; and

as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On September 15, 2020, Citron Research published a report alleging,
among other things, that Nano-X "is nothing more than a science
project with a simple rendering, minimal R&D, fake customers, no
FDA approval, and fraudulent claims that are beyond the realm of
possibility."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $11.21, or nearly 23%,
to close at $38.00 per share on September 15, 2020,

On September 22, 2020, Nano-X Imaging fell to as low as $22.30 per
share, intraday, as much as 22% to the lowest in after Muddy Waters
named the company a short in a new report, comparing it to Nikola.
It came a week after Citron released their negative call on the
Company.

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

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

Contact:

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


NATIONAL DEALER: Sends Unwanted Robocalls, Pepper Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
TERRI PEPPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL DEALER SERVICES, LLC A/K/A NATIONAL
DEALER PROTECTION, LEGION AUTO PROTECTION SERVICE, and PALMER
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-02171-MMA-LL (S.D. Cal., November 5, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants placed several
telemarketing calls to the phone numbers of the Plaintiff and Class
members using an automatic telephone dialing system from
approximately November 5, 2016 without obtaining prior express
consent. The Plaintiff and Class members received the unwanted
telephone robocalls despite the inclusion of their numbers to the
National Do-Not-Call Registry.

National Dealer Services, LLC, a/k/a National Dealer Protection, is
a dealer services provider located at 2550 Fifth Avenue, Suite 520,
San Diego, California.

Legion Auto Protection Service is a provider of auto protection
services located at 363 S. Park Avenue, Suite 200b, Pomona,
California.

Palmer Administrative Services, Inc. is a company that offers a
range of extended auto protection plans and services, located at
3430 Sunset Avenue, Ocean, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                  
                                    
         Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
         EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
         425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
         Telephone: (954) 524-2820
         Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
         E-mail: seth@epllc.com

               - and –

         Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
         EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI
         7450 Griffin Road., Suite 230
         Davie, FL 33314
         Telephone: (954) 889-3359
         Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
         E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com

               - and –

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

NATIONAL SECURITIES: Ginzkey Suit Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES GINZKEY, RICHARD
FITZGERALD, CHARLES CERF, BARRY DONNER, and on behalf of the class
members, v. NATIONAL SECURITIES CORPORATION, a Washington
Corporation, Case No. 2:18-cv-01773-RSM (W.D. Wash), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court for an order certifying a Class and Sub-Classes
defined as:

  --  Beamreach Class:

      "all persons who invested in Beamreach Offerings through
      the Defendant, at any time between February 6, 2015 and
      February 9, 2017 inclusive (the Class Period)";

  --  Series D Sub-Class

      "all persons who invested in Beamreach Series D through
      the Defendant, at any time between February 6, 2015 and
      December 31, 2016 inclusive";

  --  Series D-1 Sub-Class:

      "all persons who invested in Beamreach Series D-1 through
      the Defendant, at any time between June 1, 2016 and
      February 9, 2017 inclusive"; and

  --  Series D-2 Sub-Class:

      "all persons who invested in Beamreach Series D-1 through
      the Defendant, at any time between October 1, 2016 and
      February 9, 2017 inclusive"

This litigation relates solely to the issue of whether the
Defendant breached the applicable standard of care in conducting
due diligence and approving for sale to its customers private
placement securities issued by Beamreach Solar -- a late stage
solar company that had raised hundreds of millions of dollars with
little to show for it.

The Plaintiffs, who, along with the putative class members, were
all customers of National Securities Corporation, allege that
Beamreach failed to conduct proper due diligence as required by
rules set forth by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
(FINRA), of which the Defendant was a member.

National Securities Corporation is a securities broker-dealer with
both investment banking and retail brokerage operations.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov.
3, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3kw91hK at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph Wojciechowski, Esq.
          Alex Loftus, Esq.
          Sara Hanley, Esq.
          STOLTMANN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          161 N. Clark St., 16th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 332-4200
          E-mail: joe@stoltlaw.com
                  alex@stoltlaw.com
                  sara@stoltlaw.com

               - and -

          Joshua B. Kons, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSHUA B. KONS, LLC
          92 Hopmeadow St., Lower Level
          Weatogue, CT 06089
          Telephone: (860) 920-5181
          E-mail: joshuakons@konslaw.com

               - and -

          David Neuman, Esq.
          ISRAELS NEUMAN PLC
          10900 NE 8th Street, Suite 1000
          Bellevue, WA 98004
          E-mail: dave@israelsneuman.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Danilo (Daniel) Buzzetta, Esq.
          Douglas W Greene, Esq.
          James Raymond Morrison, Esq.
          Fred Knopf, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          45 ROCKFELLER PLAZA
          New York, NY 10111
          E-mail: dbuzzetta@bakerlaw.com
                  dgreene@bakerlaw.com
                  jmorrison@bakerlaw.com
                  fknopf@bakerlaw.com

NEW YORK: Bid for FLSA Collective Status Granted in Part
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Anthony Drayton et al., v.
The City of New York et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-10138-ALC-SDA
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Stewart D. Aaron entered an order
granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to
conditionally certify a Fair Labor Standards Act collective and
permitting court-supervised notification to putative collective
members.

The Court finds the Plaintiffs have made their modest showing that
the employees in the putative collective were subject to the same
policies with respect to wage differentials and overtime. The
Defendants argue that the job titles and responsibilities of the
representative Plaintiffs differ from those of the putative
collective, such that they are not similarly situated. However, the
Defendants have not shown how the employment settings of the
representative Plaintiffs differ from those in the putative
collective with respect to the policy at issue. Those issues
outweigh the Defendants' concerns about Plaintiffs' varying job
titles, locations, and work schedules. Accordingly, the Court finds
that conditional certification is appropriate.

The Plaintiffs define their putative collective as follows:

   "all individuals who opted-in to this action prior to
   November 4, 2019, as well as all other current and former
   employees who worked for the New York City Department of
   Parks and Recreation or Department of Transportation, were
   classified as non-exempt employees, who worked overtime and
   received any type of differential payment at any time from
   October of 2015 to the present."

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants engaged in a pattern and
practice of failing to pay them and putative class members all of
their earned overtime wages.

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Nov. 3, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3njo3sU at no
extra charge.[CC]

NEW YORK: Chinese American Citizens Alliance Files Suit v. NYCDOE
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York City
Department Of Education. The case is styled as Chinese American
Citizens Alliance Greater New York, Phillip Yan Hing Wong, Siu-Lin
Linda Lam, Lucas Liu, George Lee and Xuhui Ni, individually and on
behalf of all other Asian-Americans similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. New York City Department Of Education, City of New York,
Chancellor Richard A. Carranza, as Chancellor in his official
capacity, Mayor Bill De Blasio, as Mayor of the City of New York in
his official capacity, Jason Marino Asst. Principal, individually
and in his official capacity, John Doe No. 2 Asst. Principal,
individually and in his official capacity, Police Officer John Doe
No. 3 School Safety Officer, individually and in his official
capacity, Police Officer John Doe No. 4 Police Officer,
individually and in his official capacity, John Doe No. 5 Police
Officer, individually and in his official capacity, John Doe No. 6
School Safety Officer, individually and in his official capacity,
John Doe No. 7 School Safety Officer, individually and in his
official capacity and John Doe No. 8 School Safety Officer,
individually and in his official capacity, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-08964 (S.D. N.Y., Oct. 27, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as filed pursuant
to the Civil Rights Act.

The New York City Department of Education is the department of the
government of New York City that manages the city's public school
system. The City School District of the City of New York is the
largest school system in the United States, with over 1.1 million
students taught in more than 1,800 separate schools.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Laura Dawn Barbieri, Esq.
   Advocates for Justice, Chartered Attorneys
   225 Broadway, Suite 1902
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 284-1400
   Fax: (646) 349-2986
   Email: ldbarbieri@advocatesny.com



NEW YORK: Disabled Firefighters Sue Over OT, Promotion Bias
-----------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Dorrian, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that the city
of New York and its fire department discriminates against
firefighters who become disabled and transfer into light or
modified duty by denying them overtime hours and promotions, a
proposed class action filed on  Sept. 14 in federal court in
Brooklyn alleges.

Edward Reardon says New York's Bravest "put their lives on the line
to protect all New Yorkers" and have frequently paid the price by
getting injured or developing deadly or debilitating illnesses,
including many who contracted cancer after the Sept. 11, 2001
terrorist attacks. [GN]



NEXTCURE INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of November 20 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action that has been filed on behalf
of investors that: (i)  purchased or acquired the securities of
NextCure, Inc. ("NextCure" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NXTC)
securities between November 5, 2019 to July 14, 2020; and  (ii)
purchased or acquired NextCure common stock pursuant to or
traceable to the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-1 which
was filed with and declared effective by the SEC on November 12,
and November 14, 2019. The lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York alleges
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

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

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants misled investors regarding
its leading treatment candidate, NC318, which was a first-in-class
immunomedicine targeting a novel immunomodulatory receptor, called
Siglec-15, or S15, particularly in patients with advanced or
metastatic solid tumors.

On July 13, 2020, NextCure made a shocking admission.
Specifically, in a press release entitled, "NextCure provides an
Interim update of the Phase 2 Portion of the NC318 Monotherapy
Phase 1/2 Trial and Announces Departure Chief Medical Officer,"
NextCure announced that the Company was no longer planning to
"advance the nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and ovarian cancer
cohorts in the stage 2 portion of the Simon 2-stage trial," citing
"clinical response data" and "current enrollment criteria." The
July 13, 2020 announcement continued, stating, in relevant part,
"The analysis of biomarker data for these cohorts has been delayed
and is not yet complete.  The company will evaluate whether to
pursue additional monotherapy studies in NSCLC and ovarian cancer
after a review of that information."

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

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

If you purchased NextCure securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/nextcureinc-nxtc-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-313/apply/
contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

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

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


NEXTCURE INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of November 20 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Sept. 22 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against NextCure, Inc. ("NextCure" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: NXTC) in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased
or acquired the securities of NextCure between November 5, 2019 and
July 14, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The action also
asserts claims under Secs. 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired NextCure common
stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement
and Prospectus filed with the SEC on November 12 and 18, 2019,
respectively, and were damaged thereby.

The Complaint alleges that statements made by Defendants concerning
the effectiveness of NC318, the responses observed in patients
treated with NC318, and NC318's potential to treat patients'
refractory to PD-1 therapies were false and misleading. NextCure
had been developing NC318 using proceeds from a 2018 research and
development collaboration agreement with Eli Lilly. On January 13,
2020, NextCure announced that Eli Lilly had ended its deal with the
Company. Following this news, NextCure's stock plunged, falling
$4.70 per share, or approximately 8.3%, to close at $52.00 per
share on January 13, 2020.

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

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

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of NextCure
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the
November 20, 2020 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]


NIKOLA CORP: Kahn Swick Reminds of Nov. 16 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors with
losses in excess of $100,000 that they have until November 16, 2020
to file lead plaintiff applications in securities class action
lawsuits against Nikola Corporation (NasdaqGS: NKLA, NKLAW) f/k/a
VectoIQ Acquisition Corp. (NasdaqCM: VTIQ, VTIQW, VTIQU), if they
purchased the Company's securities between March 3, 2020 and
September 20, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). These actions
are pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona.

What You May Do

If you purchased securities of Nikola and would like to discuss
your legal rights and how these cases might affect you and your
right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn
toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email ( ), or visit [To enable
links contact MENAFN] to learn more. If you wish to serve as a lead
plaintiff in these class actions, you must petition the Court by
November 16, 2020 .

                        About the Lawsuits

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

On September 10, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report
alleging that evidence showed the Company was "an intricate fraud
built on dozens of lies." Subsequently, it was reported that the
Company was the subject of probes by both the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission and the Justice Department. Then, on September
21, 2020, the Company announced the sudden resignation of Founder
and Executive Chairman, Trevor Milton.

The first-filed case is Borteanu v. Nikola Corporation et al.,
20-cv-01797.

                          About Kahn Swick

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

NIKOLA CORP: Kessler Topaz Reminds of November 16 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on Sept. 29
disclosed that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona against Nikola Corporation (NASDAQ: NKLA, NKLAW) ("Nikola")
on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired Nikola
securities between March 3, 2020 and September 20, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

Important Deadline: Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Nikola securities during the Class Period may, no later than
November 16, 2020, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff
representative of the class. For additional information or to learn
how to participate in this litigation please click
https://www.ktmc.com/nikola-corporation-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=nikola.

According to the complaint, Nikola operates as an integrated zero
emissions transportation systems provider, which designs and
manufactures battery-electric and hydrogen-electric vehicles,
electric vehicle drivetrains, vehicle components, energy storage
systems, and hydrogen fueling station infrastructure. The merger of
VectoIQ and Nikola closed on June 3, 2020.

The Class Period commences on March 3, 2020 when Nikola issued a
press release entitled, "Nikola Corporation, a Global Leader in
Zero Emissions Transportation Solutions, to Be Listed on NASDAQ
Through a Merger with VectoIQ." In connection with the merger
announcement, Nikola released an investor presentation on March 3,
2020, which touted Nikola founder and Executive Chairman Trevor R.
Milton's ("Milton") experience in the clean energy and technology
field and Nikola's hydrogen production capabilities.

The complaint alleges that, on September 10, 2020, before market
hours, Hindenburg Research published a report describing, among
other things, how: (i) Nikola claims to design key components in
house, but they appear to simply be buying or licensing them from
third parties; (ii) Nikola has not produced hydrogen; (iii) a
spokesman for Powercell AB, a hydrogen fuel cell technology company
that formerly partnered with Nikola, called Nikola's battery and
hydrogen fuel cell claims "hot air"; (iv) Nikola staged a "test"
video for its Nikola Two (a prototype truck); (v) some of Nikola's
team, including Milton, are not experts and do not have relevant
experience; and (vi) Nikola did not have five Tre trucks completed.
Following this news, shares of Nikola fell $10.24, or 24%, over the
next two trading days, to close at $32.13 per share on September
11, 2020.

Then, on September 15, 2020, before trading hours, Hindenburg
Research published another report, focused on Nikola's responses
and nonresponses to its initial report, entitled "We View Nikola's
Response As a Tacit Admission of Securities Fraud." Following this
news, shares of Nikola fell $2.96, or 8%, to close at $32.83 per
share on September 15, 2020.

Finally, on September 20, 2020, Nikola issued a press release
entitled "Nikola Board of Directors Announces Leadership
Transition: Trevor Milton Steps Down as Executive Chairman; Stephen
Girsky Appointed Chairman of the Board." Following this news, the
price of Nikola's shares fell in pre-market trading on September
21, 2020, further damaging investors.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) VectoIQ did not engage in proper due diligence
regarding its merger with Nikola; (2) Nikola overstated its
"in-house" design, manufacturing, and testing capabilities; (3)
Nikola overstated its hydrogen production capabilities; (4) as a
result, Nikola overstated its ability to lower the cost of hydrogen
fuel; (5) Milton tweeted a misleading "test" video of the Nikola
Two truck; (6) the work experience and background of key Nikola
employees, including Milton, had been overstated and obfuscated;
(7) Nikola did not have five Tre trucks completed; and (8) as a
result, the defendants' public statements were false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.

If you wish to discuss this securities fraud class action lawsuit
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests with respect to this litigation, please contact Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell,
Esq.) at (844) 877-9500 (toll free) or (610) 667–7706, or via
e-mail at info@ktmc.com.

Nikola investors may, no later than November 16, 2020, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and
federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and
federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force
behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of
dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from
the United States and around the world. The firm represents
investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who
report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the
recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was
not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. For more information
about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, please visit www.ktmc.com.

CONTACT:

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 877-9500 (toll free)
(610) 667-7706
info@ktmc.com [GN]


NIKOLA CORP: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of November 16 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP reminds
investors of the upcoming deadline to move for appointment as lead
plaintiff in the class action litigation has been filed on behalf
of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of
Nikola Corporation ("Nikola" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NKLA)
between March 3, 2020 and September 20, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Nikola securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead
plaintiff by no later than November 16, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions
will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.

Nikola investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and
how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or
contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at
1-800-541-7358.

Background on the Nikola Securities Class Litigation

Nikola, headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, describes itself as a
designer and manufacturer of zero-emission battery-electric and
hydrogen-electric vehicles, electric vehicle drivetrains, vehicle
components, energy storage systems, and hydrogen station
infrastructure. The actions allege that during the Class Period,
defendants made materially false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose that: (1) Nikola founder and then-Chairman,
Trevor Milton, repeatedly overstated and mischaracterized Nikola's
financial, technological, and operational profile; (2) Milton's
misrepresentations were designed to falsely portray Nikola as a
successful and growing company; and (3) the foregoing
misrepresentations would likely subject Nikola to regulatory
scrutiny and enforcement actions, as well as reputational harm
after the truth emerged.

On September 10, 2020, before the market opened, research firm
Hindenburg Research published a report describing Nikola as "an
intricate fraud built on dozens of lies over the course of its
Founder and Executive Chairman Trevor Milton's career." According
to Hindenburg, the report was based on "extensive evidence –
including recorded phone calls, text messages, private emails and
behind-the-scenes photographs—detailing dozens of false
statements by" defendant Milton. Hindenburg claimed that "[w]e have
never seen this level of deception at a public company, especially
of this size." Following this news, the price of Nikola common
stock fell $4.80 per share, or 11.3%, from its closing price of
$42.37 on September 9, 2020 to close at $37.57 on September 10,
2020.

On September 14, 2020, after the market closed, Bloomberg reported
that the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") was examining
the merits of the Hindenburg report.

On September 15, 2020, The Wall Street Journal reported that the
U.S. Department of Justice joined the SEC in examining allegations
that Nikola misled investors by making exaggerated claims about its
technology. On that day, the price of Nikola stock fell $2.96 per
share, or 8.3%, from its closing price of $35.79 on September 14,
2020 to close at $32.83 on September 15, 2020.

On Sunday, September 20, 2020, Nikola announced that defendant
Milton had resigned as Chairman of the Company. Following this
news, the price of Nikola stock fell another $6.61 per share, or
19.3%, from its closing price of $34.19 on September 18, 2020, to
close at $27.58 on September 21, 2020.

                     About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law
firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting
corporate responsibility.

The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of
the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In
compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent
verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the
best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual
dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as
one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting
our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds
itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest
defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named
Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America."

For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's
representation of investors, please visit
https://www.lieffcabraser.com/.

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

CONTACT:
Sharon M. Lee
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
Telephone: 1-800-541-7358 [GN]


NORDIC CONSULTING: Howard et al. Seek Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------
HELEN HOWARD, CYRIL EMIKO, AND FELICIA BELL, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NORDIC CONSULTING,
INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-05392 (E.D. Pa., Oct. 28, 2020), is a class
action complaint pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Pennsylvania law, seeking payment of unpaid wages.

The Plaintiffs also seek liquidated damages for the failure to pay
overtime wages, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiffs allege they and other similarly situated consultants
were knowingly and improperly classified by Nordic as exempt
employees, and, as a result, did not receive compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 in a workweek in violation of the FLSA and
Pennsylvania law. The Plaintiffs also allege that Nordic made
improper deductions from their pay in violation of Pennsylvania
law. The following allegations are based on personal knowledge as
to Plaintiffs' own conduct and are made on information and belief
as to the acts of others.

Nordic Consulting provides electronic medical record consulting
services. The Company focuses on Epic software implementation,
optimization, remote support, and Connect projects consulting
services. Nordic Consulting Partners serves clients in the United
States.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as a consultant providing
support and training.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: sschalman-bergen@bm.net
                  apiazza@bm.net
                  Olena Savytska

               - and -

          Harold Lichten, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
          E-mail: osavytska@llrlaw.com
                  hlichten@llrlaw.com

NUTANIX INC: Barr Law Investigates Actions of Officers, Board
-------------------------------------------------------------
National law firm Barr Law Group is investigating the actions of
the officers and board of directors of Nutanix, Inc., Maxar
Technologies Inc., Align Technology, Inc., and Inogen, Inc.  If you
are a current owner of shares of any of these stocks, contact
leo@barrlaw.com or call (619) 400-4966.         

Nutanix, Inc. (NASDAQ: NTNX) Accused of Misleading Investors

On September 11, 2020, Judge William H. Orrick of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California issued an
order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss in the pending
securities class action, paving the way for litigation to proceed.
According to the complaint against Nutanix, Inc. (NASDAQ: NTNX) for
alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between
March 2, 2018 and February 28, 2019, Nutanix executives repeatedly
reassured investors of the company's pipeline strategy by noting
the development and growth of its global sales force in various
filings and conference calls. However, Nutanix failed to disclose
that it had reallocated lead generation spending to other
priorities. This decision caused a large disruption in Nutanix's
sales execution, which negatively impacted Nutanix's sales pipeline
and sales growth. On February 28, 2019, Nutanix announced its
second quarter fiscal 2019 results and reported third quarter
guidance that was below analysts' expectations. Management
acknowledged that "inadequate marketing spend for pipeline
generation and slower than expected sales hiring" were the reasons
for the weak guidance. Additionally, Nutanix acknowledged that,
despite earlier contrary assertions, its product portfolio was in
"chaos." On this news, Nutanix's stock price fell $16.39 per share,
more than 32%, to close at $33.70 per share on March 1, 2019.  The
stock is currently trading around $24 a share.

Maxar Technologies Inc. (NYSE: MAXR) Accused of Misleading
Investors

On September 11, 2020, Judge William J. Martínez of the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado issued an order
granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion to
dismiss in the pending securities class action, paving the way for
litigation to proceed.  According to the complaint, in October
2017, MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associated Ltd. purchased
DigitalGlobe and acquired DigitalGlobe's satellites, including the
WorldView-4 satellite, and rebranded itself as Maxar. In March
2018, Maxar announced a contract to build a satellite called
AMOS-8, touting the contract as a win. A few months later, on
August 7, 2018, Spruce Point Capital Management issued a report
questioning Maxar's financial statements and alleging that "Maxar's
balance sheet [was] inflated with goodwill and overcapitalized
intangible assets," estimating an impairment in intangible assets
in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Then, in September 2018,
Maxar revealed the loss of its AMOS-8 contract. In October 2018,
the Company disclosed $345.9 million in impairment losses and $37.7
million impairment charges related to its GeoComm business. In
addition to these disclosures, on January 7, 2019, Maxar announced
its WorldView-4 "[would] no longer produce useable energy" because
it had lost stability.

Align Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: ALGN) Accused of Misleading
Investors

On September 9, 2020, Judge Lucy H. Koh of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California issued an
order granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion
to dismiss in the pending securities class action, paving the way
for litigation to proceed.  According to the complaint against the
company's officers and directors for alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between July 25, 2018 and October
24, 2018, Align's President and CEO Joe Hogan stated that the
company's 37.5% year-over-year revenue growth was due to momentum
from Invisalign doctors and increased adoption of Invisalign
treatment for teenage patients. Hogan further touted that
Invisalign's customer base was over 50,000 for the first time and
included more than 5,000 Invisalign-trained doctors. However,
Align's higher discounts to promote Invisalign were negatively
impacting the company's revenue. On October 24, 2018, Align
reported that its Invisalign average selling price had declined
from $1,315 to $1,230 and that its Chief Marketing Officer would
reduce his responsibilities and transition to a part-time position.
On this news, Align's stock fell over 20% on October 25, 2018.

Inogen, Inc. (NASDAQ: INGN) Accused of Misleading Investors

On September 2, 2020, Judge Fernando M. Olguin of the United States
District Court for the Central District of California issued an
order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss in the pending
securities class action, paving the way for litigation to proceed.
The complaint alleges that the company had discovered potential
accounting matters, prompting an internal investigation by the
Audit Committee and independent advisors to determine if any of the
company's accounting policies were violated.  The complaint further
alleges that Inogen made false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose material information regarding the accuracy of
its financial statements and the effectiveness of its disclosure
control and internal controls over financial reporting.

Concerned shareholders are encouraged to contact Leo Kandinov to
learn more:

leo@barrlaw.com
(619) 400-4966
www.barrlaw.com

Barr Law Group is a boutique law firm consisting of highly
experienced and specialized litigators who represent investors in
securities litigation and corporate governance matters.  The firm
would be happy to further discuss this matter, and any legal rights
or remedies potentially available to you, at no charge.

Contact:

Leo Kandinov, Partner
leo@barrlaw.com
619-400-4966
501 W Broadway Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
www.barrlaw.com [GN]


ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Geller Reminds of Nov. 16 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Sept. 22 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the Southern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of Odonate Therapeutics, Inc.
(NASDAQ:ODT) securities between December 7, 2017 and August 21,
2020 (the "Class Period"). The case is captioned Kendall v. Odonate
Therapeutics, Inc., No. 20-cv-01828, and is assigned to Judge
Marilyn Huff. The Odonate class action lawsuit charges Odonate and
certain of its officers with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Odonate securities during the Class Period
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Odonate class action
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class
members in directing the Odonate class action lawsuit. The lead
plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the
Odonate class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery of the Odonate class action lawsuit is
not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff of the Odonate class action lawsuit or have
questions concerning your rights regarding the Odonate class action
lawsuit, please provide your information here or contact counsel,
J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or
via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the
Odonate class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later
than November 16, 2020.

Odonate is a pharmaceutical company that develops therapeutics for
the treatment of cancer. Odonate is focused on developing
tesetaxel, an orally administered chemotherapy agent. Tesetaxel is
in a Phase 3 clinical study for patients with locally advanced or
metastatic breast cancer ("MBC"), called the CONTESSA trial, which
is evaluating tesetaxel in combination with capecitabine in
patients with MBC.

The Odonate class action lawsuit alleges that during the Class
Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) tesetaxel was not as safe or
well-tolerated as Odonate had led investors to believe; (ii)
consequently, tesetaxel's commercial viability as a cancer
treatment was overstated; and (iii) as a result, Odonate's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On August 24, 2020, Odonate issued a press release announcing
top-line results from the CONTESSA trial. Although the study met
its primary endpoint, tesetaxel plus capecitabine was associated
with Grade 3 or higher neutropenia (low levels of white blood
cells), which occurred in 71.2% of patients with the combination
treatment versus 8.3% for capecitabine alone. Various other Grade 3
or higher treatment-emergent adverse events were also associated
with tesetaxel plus capecitabine versus capecitabine alone.
Further, discontinuation rates were 4.2% from neutropenia and 3.6%
from neuropathy, and the overall discontinuation rate was 23.1% in
the treatment group compared to 11.9% in the capecitabine alone
group. On this news, Odonate's stock price fell more than 45%,
damaging investors.

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

Contacts:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]


OUTSCHOOL INC: Jaquez Seeks Blind Users' Full Access to Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON JAQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OUTSCHOOL, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-09288-JPC (S.D.N.Y., November 5, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans With
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has denied him and all
others similarly situated blind or visually-impaired consumers full
and equal access to its Website. The Defendant's Website,
www.outschool.com, contains access barriers that hinder blind
consumers to fully use and enjoy the products and services offered
by the Defendant to the public. These access barriers include, but
not limited to: (1) website features fail to accurately describe
the contents of graphical images; (2) features fail to contain
proper label elements or titles; (3) pages contain a host of broken
links; and (4) keyboard user interfaces lack a mode of operation
where the keyboard focus indicator is visible.

As a result of the Defendant's failure and refusal to remove these
access barriers to its Website, the Plaintiff and visually-impaired
persons have been and are still being denied equal access to the
Website, and the numerous goods and services and benefits offered
to the public through it.

Outschool, Inc. is an online school company based in San Francisco,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
              
         Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
         MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
         701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
         Asbury Park, NJ 07712
         Telephone: (732) 695-3282
         Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
         E-mail: Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com

PEABODY ENERGY: Kahn Swick Reminds of November 27 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors with
losses in excess of $100,000 that they have until November 27, 2020
to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action
lawsuit against Peabody Energy Corp. (NYSE: BTU), if they purchased
the Company's shares between April 3, 2017 and October 28, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of Peabody and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost
to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email ( ), or visit [To enable links contact
MENAFN] to learn more. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in
this class action, you must petition the Court by November 27, 2020
.

                      About the Lawsuit

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

On September 28, 2018, a fire erupted at the Company's North
Goonyella mine, resulting in operations being suspended
indefinitely. Following a series of negative disclosures relating
to delays in resuming operations at the mine, on October 29, 2019,
the Company disclosed that regulators were placing strict
restrictions on restarting operations resulting in drastic
adjustments to its reentry plan, ultimately announcing a minimum
three year delay.

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

The case is Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v.
Peabody Energy Corp., 20-cv-08024.

                     About Kahn Swick

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

PEOPLES TRUST: Miller Thomson Atty. Discusses Court Ruling in Tucci
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David Krebs, Esq. -- dkrebs@millerthomson.com -- of Miller Thomson
LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that following in the
footsteps of Jones v. Tsige from the Court of Appeal for Ontario in
2012, the recent British Columbia Court of Appeal decision in Tucci
v. Peoples Trust Co. (2020 BCCA 246) appears to be solidifying the
future of a common law tort of breach of privacy in Canada. Based
on the facts and the appeal, the Court did not feel it was required
to ultimately decide whether or not the tort of breach of privacy
(or "intrusion upon seclusion") exists in British Columbia, but the
decision signalled that a future data breach case may lead to
reconsideration of this issue.

The Court made specific note that the issue poses an "interesting
question" for a future appeal and that the law may need to be
rethought in this respect. The Court recognized a changing attitude
towards the importance of information in today's society, stating:
"personal data has assumed a critical role in people's lives, and a
failure to recognize at least some limited tort of breach of
privacy may be seen by some to be anachronistic."

It also of interest in that it touches on the complexities of
making a determination of whether limitation of liability clauses
in website terms of use cover negligent data exposure.

What happened?
People's Trust Co. is a federally regulated financial services
business based in British Columbia. For that reason, the federal
Privacy Commissioner had jurisdiction over the data breach.

The basis for the claim was a data breach suffered by the
defendant, which impacted the personal information of over 12,000
customers. Social insurance numbers, contact information and dates
of birth were all kept in a database that had not been protected by
encryption. The defendant also had failed to install certain
software updates and patches. This was said to have created
vulnerabilities that were exploited by cyber attackers operating
out of China.

People's Trust Co. had made a timely report on the breach to the
federal Privacy Commissioner's Office ("OPC") and notified
individuals in accordance with applicable federal law, the Personal
Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act ("PIPEDA").
Based on the report, the OPC initiated an investigation into the
matter. The OPC recommended certain enhancements and mitigative
measures. The OPC noted numerous deficiencies in the program of the
defendant, which are published in PIPEDA Report of Findings
#2015-007, including the lack of: "(i) adequate safeguards in the
development, implementation and redesign of its online application
web portal; (ii) ongoing monitoring and maintenance of its system
to ensure continued protection against evolving security threats;
and (iii) adequate privacy procedures to ensure sufficient
protection in the development and implementation of
information-handling systems."

The Report concluded by noting that the investigation had been
resolved and People's Trust had implemented appropriate mitigative
measures, including completely redesigning its web portal and
monitoring its online application system.

The class action is based on claims for harms caused by the bad
actors' dissemination of the claimants' personal information. There
had been some indication that the data was used in phishing scams,
but to date, no other harms had been established. The plaintiffs
alleged breach of contract and negligence (for failing to
adequately protect data), breach of confidence and breach of
privacy.

The defendant's response included a contention that PIPEDA
precludes the bringing of a civil action, claiming it is a
"complete code" as it relates to personal information processing in
Canada. This was clearly rejected by the Court:

"Nothing in the PIPEDA suggests that it is intended to abolish
existing private law duties or to eliminate the ability of
aggrieved parties to pursue common law causes of action. In my
view, the judge was correct in finding that it is not a
comprehensive code that precludes the plaintiffs from bringing a
common law claim."

People's Trust Co. also claimed that its website terms of use,
specifically the limitation of liability clauses, precluded an
action for breach of contract. The Court declined to decide this
issue at the certification stage, noting that the application of
this clause is not "straightforward" and determination of whether
it covers the situation at hand (leaving sensitive data exposed on
a publically accessible network) will require "considerable
analysis."

Conclusions
This case will be one to follow as there is a dearth of Canadian
precedent on the merits of breach of privacy claims in mass data
breach incidents. If nothing else, it signals that a common law
tort is more likely than not to gain traction in Canada going
forward as something that should factor into any organizations'
risk assessment processes. It is also a clear sign that claims in
negligence for organizations failing to take the appropriate data
security measures are most likely to receive the attention of the
Court. Relying on broad limitations of liability in website terms
of use may not be sufficient to counter these claims. [GN]


PLAINS MARKETING: Price Trust Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Henry Price Trust,
successor co-trustees Henry Price Bradley and Patricia Bradley
Scott, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v.
Plains Marketing, L.P., Case No. 6:19-cv-00390-RAW (E.D. Okla.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
      of Civil Procedure for the claim that Plains breached
      its statutory obligation to pay interest under the PRSA:

      "all non-excluded persons or entities who: (1) received
      Untimely Payments from the Defendant (or Defendant's
      designees) for oil proceeds from Oklahoma wells on or
      after October 11, 2014, and (2) who have not already
      been paid statutory interest on Untimely Payments."

      The persons or entities excluded from the Class are: (1)
      agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of the United
      States of America or the State of Oklahoma; (2) publicly
      traded oil and gas companies and their affiliates; (3)
      persons or entities that Plaintiff's counsel may be
      prohibited from representing under Rule 1.7 of the
      Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct; and (4) officers
      of the court.;

   2. appointing himself as class representative; and

   3. appointing his counsel as class counsel.

According to the complaint, Plains openly violates Oklahoma's
Production Revenue Standards Act ("PRSA") as a matter of policy.
Specifically, the Plains admits it requires a written demand before
it will pay owners the statutory interest they're owed -- a policy
that violates Oklahoma law. The Plaintiff moves the Court to
certify this case as a class action so that the class members may
recover the damages they've suffered from Plains' blatant breaches
of the PRSA.

Plains is a first purchaser of oil production, and it purchases oil
production in Oklahoma.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/32lD317 at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          James U. White, Jr., Esq.
          WHITE , COFFEY AND FITE, P.C.
          P.O. Box 54783
          Oklahoma City, OK 73154
          Telephone: (405) 842-7545
          E-mail: jwhite@wcgflaw.com

PLAN BENEFIT SERVICES: Certification of Beneficiaries Class Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Heriberto Chavez;
Evangelina Escarcega, as the legal representative of her son, Jose
Escarcega; and Jorge Moreno, v. Plan Benefit Services, Inc.; Fringe
Insurance Benefits, Inc.; and Fringe Benefit, Case No.
1:17-cv-00659-LY (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order certifying a class of:

   "all participants in and beneficiaries of plans that provide
   employee benefits through Contractors Plan Trust (CPT) and
   Contractors and Employees Retirement Trust (CERT), other than
   officers and directors of the Defendants and their family
   members, from July 6, 2011 until trial."

The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants have engaged in prohibited
transactions under Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
section 406(b)(1) by paying themselves excessive compensation out
of plan assets, and under ERISA section 406(b)(3) by receiving
excessive compensation from other service providers to the plans in
connection with transactions involving plan assets.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are pension and health
care plan administrators that siphon off sky-high fees from the
employees whose employers offer plans through the trusts Defendants
operate. Liability in this case turns on whether FBG and FIBI are
subject to ERISA's fiduciary duties because they exercise
sufficient authority and control over plan assets in their
retirement trust, called CERT, and their health benefits trust,
called the CPT, and whether they breached these duties.

On remand from the Fifth Circuit, a more complete analysis and
explanation will support the same result previously reached by this
Court: certifying the proposed class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1).
Alternatively, the Court should also certify the class under Rule
23(b)(3), because common issues predominate and a class action is a
superior method for resolving this dispute, the Plaintiffs say.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oY98Gi at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Catha Worthman, Esq.
          Nina Wasow, Esq.
          FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW, LLP
          2030 Addison Street, Suite 500
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Telephone: (510) 269-7998
          Facsimile: (510) 269-7994
          E-mail: nina@feinbergjackson.com
                  catha@feinbergjackson.com

               - and -

          Danielle Leonard, Esq.
          Eileen B. Goldsmith, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151
          Facsimile: (415) 362-8064
          E-mail: dleonard@altshulerberzon.com

               - and -

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

PRECIGEN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Dec. 4 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of
Precigen Inc. ("Precigen" or the "Company") ( PGEN, XON) between
May 10, 2017 and September 25, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

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

The complaint alleges that the Defendants throughout the Class
Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose to investors that: (1) the Company was using pure methane
as feedstock for its announced yields for its methanotroph
bioconversion platform instead of natural gas; (2) yields from
natural gas as a feedstock were substantially lower than the
aforementioned pure methane yields; (3) due to the substantial
price difference between pure methane and natural gas, pure methane
was not a commercially viable feedstock; (4) the Company's
financial statements for the quarter ended March 31, 2018 were
false and could not be relied upon; (5) the Company had material
weaknesses in its internal controls over financial reporting; (6)
the Company was under investigation by the SEC since October 2018;
and (7) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When
the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

On September 25, 2020, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
announced that a cease and desist order against Precigen. The cease
and desist order involved "inaccurate reports concerning the
company's purported success converting relatively inexpensive
natural gas into more expensive industrial chemicals using a
proprietary methane bioconversion ('MBC') program." The order noted
that the Company was "primarily using significantly more expensive
pure methane for the relevant laboratory experiments but was
indicating that the results had been achieved using natural gas."

The cease-and-desist order further stated that the Company "pitched
the MBC program privately to numerous potential business partners
over the course of 2017 and 2018. A number of these potential
partners performed due diligence on the MBC program including
reviewing lab results and plans for commercialization. [The
Company] has not yet found a partner for the MBC program."

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 4, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Precigen securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/precigeninc-pgen-xon-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-321/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

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

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

PRUDENTIAL SECURITY: Cowley Seeks to Certify Security Guards Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA COWLEY, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. PRUDENTIAL
SECURITY, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-01472-NONE-JLT (E.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff will move the Court on Jan. 15, 2021 for an order
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, for conditional certification to proceed as a collective
action and for an order facilitating Notice in this case, on behalf
of:

   "all current and former non-exempt, hourly security guards of
   the Defendant Prudential Security, Inc. throughout the United
   States during the time period from three years prior to the
   filing of the complaint until resolution of this action."

The Plaintiff seeks to redress the Defendant's failure to fulfill
its obligations under the FLSA to pay security guards for all hours
worked and to pay them overtime premiums.

The Plaintiff and proposed Collective members worked for the
Defendant as security guards.

Prudential Security, Inc. is a security company operating at
varying businesses locations in multiple states throughout the
United States, with larger concentrations of employees in Illinois
and Michigan.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/352LfoW at no
extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective and Class,
are:

          Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq.
          David C. Leimbach, Esq.
          Caroline N. Cohen, Esq.
          Scott L. Gordon, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE
          COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                  dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com
                  ccohen@schneiderwallace.com
                  sgordon@schneiderwallace.com

R&L INTERIOR: Duran Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
--------------------------------------------------------------
NELSON DURAN, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly-situated v. R&L INTERIOR RENOVATIONS AND
CONSTRUCTION, CORP., and LUIS FERMIN, individually, Case No.
1:20-cv-09344 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 6, 2020) is a civil action seeking
damages and equitable relief based upon the Defendants' willful
violations of the Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by the
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants -- a Bronx-based
construction and remodeling company and its owner and day-to-day
overseer -- as a laborer from July 24, 2017 until November 24,
2018. He contends that throughout the entirety of his employment,
the Defendants willfully failed to pay him overtime wages lawfully
due to him under the FLSA and the NYLL, or at the minimum wage rate
required under the NYLL. Specifically, the Defendants required him
to work, and he did in fact work, in excess of 40 hours virtually
each week, yet the Defendants failed to compensate him at the rate
of one and one-half times his regular rate, or one and one-half
times the minimum wage, if greater, for any hours that he worked in
excess of 40 in a week.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 248-5550
          Facsimile: (516) 248-6027


REATA PHARMA: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Dec. 14 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Texas on behalf of investors that purchased Reata
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: RETA) securities between October 15,
2019 and August 7, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until
December 14, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Reata is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company that develops
novel therapeutics for patients with serious or life-threatening
diseases by targeting molecular pathways that regulate cellular
metabolism and inflammation.

Among Reata's drug candidates under development is omaveloxolone,
which is in Phase 2 clinical development to treat Friedreich's
ataxia ("FA").  Following the announcement of positive data from
the MOXIe Part 2 study of omaveloxolone for FA in October 2019, the
Company represented that it would seek submission for marketing
approval of omaveloxolone for the treatment of FA in the U.S. with
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA").

On August 10, 2020, Reata issued a press release announcing its
second quarter 2020 financial results, wherein it disclosed that
the FDA is "not convinced that the MOXIe Part 2 results" of the
Company's study assessing omaveloxolone for the treatment of FA
"will support a single study approval without additional evidence
that lends persuasiveness to the results," and that, "[i]n
preliminary comments for [a] meeting, the FDA stated that
[Defendants] will need to conduct a second pivotal trial that
confirms the mFARS [modified Friedreich's Ataxia Rating Scale]
results of the MOXIe Part 2 study with a similar magnitude of
effect."

On this news, Reata's stock price fell $51.79 per share, or 33.16%,
to close at $104.41 per share on August 10, 2020.

The Complaint, filed on October 15, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business.  Specifically,
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that:  (i) the MOXIe Part 2 study results were
insufficient to support a single study marketing approval of
omaveloxolone for the treatment of FA in the U.S. without
additional evidence; (ii) as a result, it was foreseeable that the
FDA would not accept marketing approval of omaveloxolone for the
treatment of FA in the U.S. based on the MOXIe Part 2 study
results; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

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

                    About Bragar Eagel

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

RED APPLE: Overcharges Apartment Rentals, Flynn Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
JASON FLYNN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. RED APPLE 670 PACIFIC STREET, LLC, Case No.
159187/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Oct. 29, 2020), alleges that
the Defendant charged the Plaintiffs and the Class rents in excess
of the correct legal regulated rent for their apartments.

According to the complaint, the Defendant overcharged the
Plaintiffs and the members of the Class an amount equal to the
difference between their monthly rents and the appropriate legal
regulated rent-stabilized rents.

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

The Plaintiff resides in Apartment 311 at 670 Pacific, and was the
first tenant to occupy that unit.

The Defendant is the owner-in-fee of the apartment building located
at 670 Pacific Street (the "Building") in Brooklyn.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: Settlement Wins Final Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: REGULUS THERAPEUTICS INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:17-cv-00182-BTM-RBB (S.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz entered an order granting final
approval of the parties' settlement and attorneys' fees.

The Court said, "Class Counsel is awarded $225,000.00 in attorneys'
fees and $10,993.45 in litigation costs. Lead Plaintiff Michael
Spitters is granted an enhancement award of $2,000.00. The motion
for attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards is Without affecting
the finality of this order in any way, the Court retains
jurisdiction of all matters relating to the interpretation,
administration, implementation, effectuation and enforcement of
this order and the Settlement. The parties shall file a
post-distribution accounting no later than April 19, 2021. The
Court Sets a compliance hearing on April 26, 2021 on the Court's
2:00 p.m. calendar. The parties shall submit a proposed judgment to
the Court by November 13, 2020."

The Court previously granted the motion for preliminary approval of
the parties' Class Action Settlement on May 27, 2020. The
Plaintiffs filed the putative class action complaint on December
21, 2017 against the Defendants alleging that the Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements about adverse events relating to
Regulus's signature drug RG-101, a hepatitis C treatment, in
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. RG-101 was
intended to cut hepatitis C treatment time in half. The Plaintiffs,
however, allege that Defendants downplayed or ignored a series of
preclinical and nonclinical data and serious adverse events
indicating that RG-101 was prone to hepatoxicity (liver toxicity),
which leads to jaundice.

Regulus is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company focused on
the development of first-in-class drugs that target microRNAs to
treat a broad range of diseases. Regulus was established in
September 2007 by Alnylam Pharmaceuticals and Isis
Pharmaceuticals.

A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3n3vVOV at no extra charge.[CC]

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Fails to Warn Customers on Stock Trading Halt
------------------------------------------------------------------
SHTERNA PINCHASOV, on her own behalf and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 116189528 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 11th Jud. Ct.,
Miami-Dade Cty., November 5, 2020) is a class action against the
Defendant for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to prevent its
customers from using an interface for certain stocks that had been
the subject of a T1 Halt, a trade halt code representing when trade
is halted on a particular company's stock because said company is
pending the release of material news which is likely to lead to
abnormal volatility in said company's stock price. Moreover, the
Defendant failed to provide its customers the knowledge of the T1
Halt. As a result of the Defendant's failure to inform its targeted
customers regarding the T1 Halt placed on a company's stock, the
Plaintiff and Class members lost significant amount of money.

Robinhood Financial, LLC is a brokerage firm based in Menlo Park,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                  
                                    
         Michael A. Citron, Esq.
         MAC LEGAL, P.A.
         3100 N 29th Ct., Suite 100
         Hollywood, FL 33020
         Telephone: (954) 395-2954
         E-mail: Michael@maclegalpa.com

                 - and –

         Igor Hernandez, Esq.
         CORNISH HERNANDEZ GONZALEZ, PLLC
         2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd, Suite 300
         Coral Gables, FL 33134
         Telephone: (305) 780-6058
         E-mail: ihernandez@chglawyers.com

                 - and –

         Ely R. Levy, Esq.
         Venessa Valdes Solis, Esq.
         LEVY & PARTNERS, PLLC
         3230 Stirling Road, Suite 1
         Hollywood, FL 33021
         Telephone: (954) 727-8570
         E-mail: elevy@lawlp.com
                 venessa@lawlp.com
                 Maritza@lawlp.com

ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 7 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Royal
Caribbean Cruises Ltd. ("Royal Caribbean" or "the Company")
(NYSE:RCL) for violations of 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between February
4, 2020 and March 17, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before December 7, 2020.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Royal Caribbean told investors that the
impact of COVID-19 would be minor. The Company falsely stated that
global bookings outside of China were strong and not slowing. In
fact, the Company was suffering from significant drops in bookings
due to customer concerns about COVID-19. While the Company touted
rigorous safety protocols, its ships were actually following wholly
inadequate procedures to prevent the spread of the virus. Based on
these facts, the Company's public statements were false and
materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market
learned the truth about Royal Caribbean, investors suffered
damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

SAN JOSE RESTAURANT: Motion for Class Decertification Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURA PONTONES, v. SAN
JOSE RESTAURANT INCORPORATED, et al., Case No. 5:18-CV-219-D
(E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge James Dever III entered an order:

   1. denying the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment;

   2. denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment;

   3. denying the Defendants' motion for decertification;

   4. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's
      motion to strike;

   5. denying the Plaintiff's motion for equitable tolling;

   6. granting in part and denying in part the Defendants'
      motion to strike and for sanctions;

   7. denying the Plaintiff's motion for sanctions; and

   8. directing the parties to participate in a court-hosted
      settlement conference with United States Magistrate
      Judge James Gates. If the case does not settle, the
      parties shall submit proposed trial dates.

The Court said, "The Defendants argue the court should decertify
the The North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA) Rule 23
conditional class action because Pontones cannot demonstrate
numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequate representation, or a
common question oflaw or fact based on the same underlying facts
the defendants offer in support of decertifying the Fair Labor
Standards Act conditional collective action. The court denies the
Defendants' motion for decertification without prejudice to
refiling following resolution of the joint-employment issue.
Genuine issues of material fact exist concerning joint employment.
The court cannot resolve the collective action analysis and Rule 23
class analysis until that dispute is resolved. Accordingly, the
court denies without prejudice the Defendants' motion to decertify
Pontones's conditional FLSA collective action and conditional NCWHA
Rule 23 class action."

A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 2, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3phVPR2 at no extra charge.[CC]

SBE RESTAURANT: Flores Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as BENJAMIN FLORES,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
SBE/KATSUYA USA, LLC; SPOONFUL MANAGEMENT, LLC; SBE RESTAURANT
GROUP, LLC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
20STCV27450, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Los Angeles to the to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on Nov. 6, 2020.

The Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-10230 to the proceeding.

The suit alleges violation of Labor Code resulting from the
Defendant's unlawful failure to pay wages, failure to provide meal
and rest periods, and failure to provide accurate itemized wage and
hour statements.

The Plaintiff was employed at the Defendant's restaurant location
on 800 West 22 Olympic Blvd., Los Angeles, California.

SBE is a privately held, lifestyle hospitality company that
develops, manages and operates hotels, residences, restaurants and
nightclubs.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mia Farber, Esq.
          Michael D. Thomas, Esq.
          Jade M. Brewster, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
          Telephone: (213) 689-0404
          Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
          E-mail: mia.farber@jacksonlewis.com
                  michael.thomas@jacksonlewis.com
                  jade.brewster@jacksonlewis.com

SCHWAB CHARITABLE: Pinkert Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Pinkert, individually and on behalf of a Class of similarly
situated individuals, and on behalf of the general public, v.
Schwab Charitable Fund, Charles Schwab Corporation, Schwab
Charitable Board of Directors, and Schwab Charitable Investment
Oversight Committee, Case No. 3:20-cv-07657-LB (N.D. Cal., Oct. 30,
2020), is a class action suit under California common law and
California Business and Professions Code section asserting claims
against Schwab Charitable Fund, the Schwab Charitable Board of
Directors, and the Schwab Charitable Investment Oversight
Committee, who collectively failed to manage the Schwab Charitable
donor-advised fund ("Schwab DAF") in a prudent manner, and against
Charles Schwab Corporation, who facilitated and knowingly profited
from these fiduciary breaches and statutory violations.

The Plaintiff contends that Schwab Charitable, the Board, and the
Committee have breached their fiduciary duties with respect to
their management of the Schwab DAF under the common law and
California's Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act,
to the detriment of donors to the Schwab DAF and the charitable
organizations that are the ultimate recipients of its assets and
who suffer when excessive fees are deducted from those assets.

As a result of these breaches and violations, the Defendants have
in turn violated Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200. The
Plaintiff brings this action to remedy this unlawful conduct,
prevent further mismanagement of the Schwab DAF, recover the losses
caused by the Defendants' violations and fiduciary breaches, and
obtain equitable and other relief as provided by California law.

The Private charitable giving is critically important to funding
public and social goods in the United States. Since as early as the
Great Depression with the creation of the New York Philanthropic
Trust, the donor-advised fund ("DAF") has served as an important
philanthropic vehicle and a staple of community foundations.

DAFs are non-profit entities. When donors contribute assets to
their DAF account, the nonprofit organization takes legal title to
the assets, but donors typically direct how funds are invested
(from among several investment options offered by the DAF) and
ultimately distributed to charitable organizations.

The Plaintiff Philip Pinkert is a resident of Greenwich,
Connecticut. Mr. Pinkert opened an account with Schwab Charitable
in approximately 2007. For at least the past five years, his
account on behalf of the Pinkert Family Trust has been invested in
the Schwab Treasury Inflation Protected Securities Index Fund, one
of the pre-selected investment pools made available by Schwab
Charitable.

The Defendant Schwab Charitable is an independent public charity
created in 1999. Schwab Charitable is based in San Francisco,
California and is the sponsoring organization of the Schwab DAF, a
donor-advised fund with over $15 billion in assets. Schwab
Charitable is governed by a seven-person Board of Directors. The
Board has full discretion over Schwab Charitable and its
activities, including overseeing and appointing members to the
Investment Oversight Committee. Schwab Charitable, the Board, and
the Committee are referred to collectively as the "Fiduciary
Defendants."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
          Kai H. Richter, Esq.
          Brock J. Specht, Esq.
          Jennifer K. Lee, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4700 IDS Center
          80 S 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
          E-mail: lukas@nka.com
                  krichter@nka.com
                  bspecht@nka.com
                  jlee@nka.com

SEFCU: Settlement Class Preliminary Certified in Story et al. Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMY STORY, CHRISTOPHER M.
SOTIR, and JENNY LEA RANDALL, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. SEFCU and DOES 1-100, Case No.
1:18-cv-00764-MAD-DJS (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mae A. D'Agostino
entered an order:

   1. provisionally certifying the Settlement Class, which is
      composed of the following four classes:

      The "Sufficient Funds Class" defined as:

      "those members of the Defendants who paid an overdraft fee
      from June 28, 2012 to April 19, 2019 when there was enough
      money in the member's current balance to cover the
      transaction that resulted in the fee, and such fees were
      not refunded by the Defendant.";

      The "No Benefit Opt-In Class" defined as:

      "those members of the Defendants who from February 5,
      2016, through December 2, 2018, paid an overdraft fee on a
      non-recurring debit card transaction that was not
      refunded";

      The "Multiple NSF Fees on a Single Item Class" defined as:

      "those members of the Defendants who from July 23, 2016
      through March 31, 2020 were assessed and paid more than
      one non-sufficient funds or returned item for an ACH or
      check transaction that was re-submitted after being
      declined and was not refunded by Defendants"; and

      The "Sweep From Savings to Checking Account Class" defined
      as:

      "any member of the Defendants who paid an overdraft fee
      assessed from July 23, 2016 through March 31, 2020, which
      was not refunded for transactions where sufficient funds
      were transferred the day after the fee was assessed from a
      member's savings account into the checking account in an
      amount that would have been sufficient to avoid the
      overdraft had the transfer been made the prior day";

   2. provisionally appointing Amy Story, Christopher M. Sotir,
      and Jenny Lea Randall as the Class Representatives of the
      Settlement Class;

   3. appointing KCC LLC as the Claims Administrator under the
      terms of the Settlement Agreement;

   4. provisionally approving Richard McCune of McCune Wright
      Arevalo LLP, and Taras Kick of The Kick Law Firm, APC as
      counsel for the Settlement Class; and

   5. setting the following dates and deadlines:

      --   Claims Administrator Sends Notice and Website Goes
           Live:

              Within Thirty Days After the Date of this Order

      --   Last Day to Opt Out:

              Thirty Days After Claims Administrator Sends
              Notice.

      --   Motion for Final Approval and Attorneys'
           Fees Filed with Court:

              Thirty-Five Days After Claims Administrator Sends  
              Notice.

      --   Last Day to Object:

              Fifteen Days After Motion for Final Approval  
              and Attorneys' Fees is Filed with the Court.

      --   Last Day to File Responses to Objections and Class  
           Counsel's and Defendants' Replies in Support of  
           Motion for Final Approval and Attorneys' Fees:

              Ten Days After Last Day to Object.

      --   Final Approval Hearing:

              Twenty Days After Last Day to Object.

      --   Filing by Claims Administrator of Final Report:

              Thirty Days After Time to Cash Checks has Expired.

The Court said, "This certification of a preliminary Settlement
Class under this Order is for settlement purposes only and shall
not constitute, nor be construed as, an admission on the part of
the Defendant in this Action that any other proposed or certified
class action is appropriate for class treatment pursuant to the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any similar statute, rule or
common law. Entry of this Order is without prejudice to the rights
of the Defendants to oppose class certification in this action
should the settlement not be approved or not be implemented for any
reason or to terminate the Settlement Agreement as provided in the
Settlement Agreement."

A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 2, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nbaeN6 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Patrick Lannon, Esq.
          CHERUNDOLO LAW FIRM, PLLC
          AXA Tower One 17th Floor
          100 Madison Street
          Syracuse, NY 13202

               - and -

          Richard Dale McCune, Jr., Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
          3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100
          Ontario, CA 91781

The Defendants are represented by:

          Taras kick, Esq.
          THE KICK LAW FIRM
          815 Moraga Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90049

               - and -

          Andrew J. Demko, Esq.
          Craig Convissar, Esq.
          Stuart M. Richter, Esq.
          KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 2600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067

SONIC CORP: Court Certifies Rule 23 Class in Data Breach Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: SONIC CORP. CUSTOMER DATA BREACH
LITIGATION (Financial Institutions), Case No. 1:17-md-02807-JSG
(N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge James S. Gwin entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;

   2. appointing the Plaintiffs American Airlines Federal Credit
      Union, Arkansas Federal Credit Union, and Redstone Federal
      Credit Union as class representatives;

   3. appointing the law firms of Zimmerman Reed LLP and Berman
      Fink Van Horn P.C. as class counsel; and

   4. certifying the following Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3) class
      consisting of:

      "all banks, credit unions, and financial institutions in
      the United States that received notice and took action to
      reissue credit cards or reimbursed a compromised account
      involved in the Sonic Data Breach."

The parties dispute the appropriate class definition. The
Plaintiffs propose a class defined as: "All banks, credit unions,
financial institutions, and other entities in the United States
that received an alert of a potentially compromised account from
any card brand in the Sonic Data Breach." The Defendants argue it
is overbroad and vague.

The Court said it will amend the Plaintiffs' proposed language and
certify a class consisting of: "all banks, credit unions, and
financial institutions in the United States that received notice
and took action to reissue credit cards or reimbursed a compromised
account from any card brand in the Sonic Data Breach."

Between April 7, 2017, and October 28, 2017, hackers used malware
installed on point-of-sale systems at 762 Sonic restaurants to
steal sales transaction payment card data. Sonic required franchise
restaurants to use only certain types of point-of-sale systems. In
2017, many Sonic restaurants used obsolete technology that was
vulnerable to hacking. The hackers targeted Sonic franchises that
used a particular point-of-sale system and were able to obtain
cardholder data.

The Plaintiffs claim the industry standard requires encryption of
stored credit card data, but Sonic's franchisees used outdated
technology—mandated by Sonic corporate policy -- and did not
encrypt the stolen card data. A following investigation revealed
that the stolen data had been sold online. The hackers were able to
steal credit card data with impunity for more than six months
because Sonic had set up security alerts using an invalid e-mail
address. Five million payment cards' data were sold online. The
Plaintiffs allege that "Visa and other card brands determined" that
the compromised cards had all been used at Sonic restaurants.

Sonic Corp., more commonly known as Sonic, is the operator of an
American drive-in fast-food restaurant chain that is owned by
Inspire Brands, the parent company of Arby's and Buffalo Wild
Wings.

A copy of the Court's Opinio and Order dated Nov. 2, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2IpSCOz at no
extra charge.[CC]

SOUTH DADE: Rendon Sues Over Unpaid Sick Leave, Abrupt Termination
------------------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA P. RENDON, Plaintiff v. SOUTH DADE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, INC.
and KERRY BLACK, individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-24505-UU (S.D. Fla., November 2, 2020) brings this
complaint on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
individuals against the Defendants for their alleged willful
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Family
Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and the Families First Coronavirus
Response Act (FFCRA) as amended by The Emergency Paid Sick Leave
Act (EPSLA).

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from approximately June 21,
2018 through March 27, 2020 as an office clerk and bookkeeper at
the Organization's offices located in Florida.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked five days per week
more than 40 hours weekly throughout her employment with the
Defendant. Unfortunately, on or about March 18, 2020, the Plaintiff
got sick and she was admitted to West Kendall Baptist Hospital on
or about March 23, 2020 because her condition got worsened. The
Plaintiff tested positive for COVID-19 test and was intubated from
March 23, 2020 to April 6, 2020. Then, on or about April 13, 2020,
she was discharged from the hospital to continue treatment at
home.

During her sickness, the Plaintiff informed and updated her
superior Kerry Black at all times through her family members.
However, the Plaintiff was fired by the Defendants on or about
March 27, 2020 while she was intubated and critically ill, which is
a willful and intentional retaliation against the Plaintiff.

The complaint asserts that since the Plaintiff had worked for the
Defendants for more than 30 days before her need for medical leave,
she is covered by the FFCRA. However, the Defendants failed to pay
the Plaintiff up to two weeks or 80 hours of paid sick leave,
thereby violating the Plaintiff's protected rights under the FFCRA.
Additionally, the Defendants was prohibited from terminating the
Plaintiff for her physician-ordered time off work due to COVID-19
pursuant to the FFCRA, which violation is punishable under FLSA, 29
U.S.C. Section 215(a)(3).

South Dade Chamber of Commerce, Inc. is a private organization
created to promote and protect the interests of businesspeople, and
to advocate on behalf of its members. Kerry Black is the CEO and
manager of SD Chamber of Commerce. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Tel: (305) 446-1500
          Fax: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Class Status Sought in Securities Litig.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:17-cv-02978-FLW-ZNQ (D.N.J.), the
Lead Plaintiff Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii
will move the Court on March 1, 2021, for an order:

   1. certifying this action as a class action pursuant to
      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3);

   2. appointing Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative of the
      proposed Class; and

   3. appointing Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. as Class Counsel and
      Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C. as
      Liaison Counsel for the Class.

Synchronoss provides e-commerce transaction management solutions to
the communications services marketplace.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2JK75FA at no
extra charge.[CC]

Counsel for the Lead Plaintiff and Proposed Liaison Counsel for the
Class, are:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700

               - and -

          Daniel L. Berger, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Park, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          485 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8500
          Facsimile: (646) 722-8501

               - and -

          Kyle J. McGee, Esq.
          Rebecca A. Musarra, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          123 Justison Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622-7000
          Facsimile: (302) 622-7100


TAKEOUT TAXI: Former Employee Files Labor Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Connelly, writing for Buffalo Business First, reports that
a former employee of Takeout Taxi, a Buffalo-based food-delivery
service, filed a lawsuit on behalf of workers that asks the court
to approve a class-action case over poor working conditions and
violations of state labor law. [GN]


TAYLOR FARMS: Court Certifies 4 Subclasses in "Pena" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA DEL CARMEN PENA, et
al., v.TAYLOR FARMS PACIFIC, INC., et al.,, Case No.
2:13-cv-01282-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Court has entered an order:

   1. preliminarily approving the donning and doffing
      subclass for Settlement purposes, which includes:

      "people who were required to wear protective equipment
      but did not receive pay for time spent putting on and
      taking off that equipment."

   2. granting preliminary approval of the rest-break
      subclass, which includes:

      "people who were not permitted to take full rest
      breaks or who were not offered rest breaks";

   3. approving a "waiting time penalties" subclass, which
      includes:

      "people who either resigned or were terminated and did
       not receive a timely or complete paycheck"; and

   4. granting certification of "wage statement" subclass,
      which includes:

      "people who did not receive wage statements containing
      all of the information required by California law."

With respect to the donning and doffing subclass, the Court said it
focused on Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement when it
originally denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify the donning and
doffing subclass. The Court said it again focused on this issue
here, but in the context of the Settlement.

According to the Court, in their original motion for class
certification, the plaintiffs did "not carr[y] their burden to show
the predominance of common questions" because "the issue of
compensation [was] individualized." The adequacy requirement is
also satisfied, the Court added. Rule 23(a) refers to the adequacy
of both class representatives and class counsel. The Court is
satisfied that the subclass is sufficiently numerous. As the Court
found in its previous order on class certification, the parties do
not dispute that the class is sufficiently numerous; it includes
more than 4,000 people. The Court therefore concluded the donning
and doffing subclass may be preliminarily approved for settlement.

Unlike the donning and doffing subclass, the rest break subclass
was unified by evidence of a single policy that did not comply with
California law, the Court said.  However, the Court held in its
previous order that the predominance requirement was not satisfied;
contradictory testimony about whether and how different supervisors
implemented the rest break policy created individualized factual
disputes. The rest break sub-class is a subset of the "Mixed Hourly
Worker Sub-Class," which includes class-members who "were not
offered at least two rest breaks, during work days of 8–10 hours.
The Court therefore could not conclude that common issues
predominated. The plaintiffs do not now offer more evidence or
information to alleviate these concerns. Again, however, the Court
has consulted the record and relevant legal authorities
independently. In light of the settlement agreement, the
individualized issues appear unlikely to divide the class against
itself. For example, employees who did not receive adequate rest
breaks will receive compensation, and the court perceives no reason
that employees who received adequate rest breaks would object to
that recovery. Some employees might also have received rest breaks
inconsistently, but these employees would share interests with
those who never received any rest breaks at all; that shared
interest is in compensation for all inadequate breaks. Any
differences in the amount of compensation are no obstacle to class
certification. The Court also concludes the rest break subclass
satisfies the remaining Rule 23 requirements given that a
settlement agreement has materialized. The motion for preliminary
approval of the rest-break subclass is thus granted.

The Court previously found that, as long as the claims of the
waiting time sub-class are "entirely derivative of the meal break
claims of the mixed hourly worker sub-class," the waiting time
penalties sub-class met the commonality and predominance
requirements. The Plaintiffs have not provided any supplemental
briefing on the waiting time penalties sub-class, presumably
because they pursue only the derivative waiting time claims.
Accordingly, the waiting time sub-class meets the requirements of
Rule 23 to the extent it is derivative of the meal break sub-class.
The Plaintiffs' motion is granted in this respect. The Court has
now also determined that the rest break subclass may be approved
preliminarily. This waiting-time penalties subclass is thus
approved on a preliminary basis to the extent it is also derivative
of the rest-break subclass.

The court originally denied certification of the wage statement
subclass, because the plaintiffs did not meet their burden to show
common issues existed and predominated. The Court's primary concern
was the scant evidence plaintiffs offered: one non-compliant wage
statement from one named plaintiff. The Paintiffs now explain they
"have since discovered that the purported omissions on the
Plaintiff Hernandez's paystub were also present on other employees'
wage statements." The Court finds this new evidence is sufficient
to establish common questions, i.e., whether defendants' paystubs
violated the Labor Code, that predominate over individual questions
such that commonality and predominance are satisfied for the
purpose of settlement. Plaintiffs' motion is granted in this
respect.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 2, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kl7Cu0 at no extra charge.[CC]

TELENAV INC: Faces Assad Suit in Del. Over Going Private Proposal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE P. ASSAD, JR., directly on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated stockholders of TELENAV, INC. v. TELENAV, INC.,
H.P. JIN, SAMUEL CHEN, DOUGLAS MILLER, KEN XIE, WES CUMMINS, and
RANDY ORTIZ, Case No. 2020-0950 (Del. Ch., Nov. 6, 2020) is a
verified stockholder class action complaint brought by the
Plaintiff, directly on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated stockholders of Telenav, against the members of the board
of directors of Telenav for violating Title 8 Delaware Code Section
203.

This action arises from a clear and unambiguous violation of
Section 203 in connection with Telenav chief executive officer and
chairman H.P. Jin's opportunistic attempt to take the Company
private while its stock is trading near record low prices. On
September 23, 2020, Jin implemented a plan to take the Company
private. First, Jin contacted fellow board member Samuel Chen, the
beneficial owner of approximately 15.6% of Telenav's shares
outstanding, to discuss Jin's going-private plans. Later on
September 23, 2020, Chen informed Jin that Chen "intend[ed] to vote
[his] shares of [Telenav] in support of a transaction" and that he
"intend[ed] to provide funding for the transaction", says the
complaint.

On November 2, 2020, the Telenav Board agreed to sell the Company
to Jin and his wholly-owned acquisition vehicle V99, Inc. As agreed
in September 2020, Chen has entered into (a) an agreement to vote
his shares of Telenav stock in support of the Merger and (b) a
commitment letter to provide debt financing to fund the Merger.

The Merger is subject to approval by a simple majority of (i) the
aggregate voting power of the issued and outstanding shares of
Telenav common stock and (ii) the outstanding shares of Company
stock owned by stockholders other than Jin, Chen, Changbin Wang,
and each of their affiliates and related parties. The Merger,
however, is not subject to a 66 2/3% unaffiliated voting condition
as required by Section 203. Thus, the Merger violates Section 203,
and its closing would be legally invalid, the Plaintiff contends.

This action seeks prompt injunctive relief due to the Section 203
violation.

The Plaintiff is a stockholder of Telenav and has owned Telenav
common stock.

Telenav is a provider of connected car and location-based services.
Jin co-founded Telenav, currently owns approximately 5% of its
outstanding stock and serves as the Company's CEO, President and
Board Chairman. The Individual Defendants are directors of the
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
          Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
          Jacqueline Y. Ma, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901
          Wilmington, DE 19801

               - and -

          Jeremy S. Friedman, Esq.
          David F.E. Tejtel, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
          493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D
          Bedford Hills, NY 10507
          Telephone: (888) 529-1108

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800

TPUSA INC: Cazeau Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACQUELINE CAZEAU, DAWN
STOJKOVIC, MICHAEL ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. TPUSA, INC. dba TELEPERFORMANCE USA,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00321-RJS-CMR (D. Utah), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court for an order:

   1. certifying this Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Action
      for purposes of settlement;

   2. approving the Amended and Restated Settlement Agreement as
      fair and reasonable;

   3. directing the class administrator to distribute the
      individual settlement payments to class members;

   4. awarding class counsel attorneys' fees and costs pursuant
      to the Amended and Restated Settlement Agreement;

   5. authorizing incentive payments to the Plaintiffs in this
      action; and

   6. authorizing payment to the class administrator for
      administration fees.

The Parties have agreed that the Defendant will pay a Gross
Settlement Amount of $550,000 (GSA), which is inclusive of
attorneys' fees and costs, incentive payments for the Plaintiffs,
settlement payments to the class members, employee and employer
share of payroll taxes, and other payroll deductions and settlement
administration costs. After the GSA is reduced by court-approved
attorneys' fees (33.33% of the GSA or $183,315), litigation costs
and expenses ($11,573.34), class representative incentive payments
(assuming the Court approves Plaintiffs' requested amount of
$27,500), and administration costs ($103,500), the resulting amount
is $224,511.66 and constitutes the "Distribution Amount."

In this FLSA Collective Action, the Parties entered a Settlement
Agreement and on October 16, 2019 filed their Joint Motion for
Certification and Approval of Collective Action Settlement. On July
2, 2020, the Court issued a Memorandum Decision and Order Denying
Joint Motion for Certification and Approval of Collective Action
Settlement. The denial was without prejudice.

On April 17, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed this class and collective
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Utah, against their former employer, Teleperformance, USA. The
Litigation alleged that from approximately April 2016 through the
date of the action, the Defendant failed to compensate the
Plaintiffs for pre-shift work in violation of the FLSA and the Utah
Payment of Wages Act.

A copy of the second joint motion for certification and approval of
collective action settlement is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2Gq6UOi at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher B. Snow, Esq.
          Shaunda L. McNeill, Esq.
          CLYDE SNOW & SESSIONS
          201 South Main Street, 13th Floor
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111

The Defendant is represented by:

          Eric Gordon, Esq.
          Christopher S. Carver, Esq.
          Sarah J. Lis, Esq.
          Robert H. Scott, Esq.
          AKERMAN LLP
          350 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1600 Fort
          Lauderdale, FL 33301

U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS: Morton Seeks to Certify Residents Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMAL A. MORTON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS, The Honorable ALBERT BRYAN, JR., in
his official capacity as the Governor of the United States Virgin
Islands, JOEL A. LEE, in his official capacity as the Director of
the Bureau of Internal Revenue, KIRK CALLWOOD SR., in his official
capacity as the Commissioner of the Department of Finance, Case No.
3:20-cv-00109-RAM-RM (D.V.I.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order certifying a class of:

   "all USVI residents who: (a) are or were incarcerated (i.e.,
   confined in a jail, prison, or other penal institution or
   correctional facility pursuant to their conviction of a
   criminal offense) under the custody and control of the USVI
   and/or BOC, or have been held to have violated a condition of
   parole or probation imposed under federal, state, or
   territorial law, at any time from March 27, 2020 to the
   present; (b) filed a tax return in 2018 or 2019, or were
   exempt from a filing obligation because they earned an income
   below $12,000 (or $24,400 if filing jointly) in the
   respective tax year; (c) were not claimed as a dependent on
   another person’s tax return; and (d) filed their taxes with a

   valid Social Security Number, and, if they claimed qualifying
   children or filed jointly with another person, those
   individuals also held a valid Social Security Number."

Excluded from the class are estates and trusts; Defendants; the
officers, directors, or employees of any of Defendants’ agencies;
and, any judicial officer presiding over this action and his/her
immediate family and judicial staff.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Nov. 3,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nivlx6
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph A. DiRuzzo, III
          DIRUZZO & COMPANY
          401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954 615 1676
          Facsimile: 954 827 0340
          E-mail: jd@diruzzolaw.com

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

If you are a shareholder who purchased Ultra Petroleum securities
during the class period, you have until November 9, 2020, to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy
of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To
discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free,
Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares
purchased.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER: Class Action Seeks Tuition Refund
----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Molineaux, writing for WHEC, reports that the University of
Rochester's switch from in-person classes to remote learning may
have kept classes going, but they weren't what students signed up
for and didn't give them their money's worth, according to a new
class-action lawsuit.

"It's really a case about not getting what you paid for," explained
attorney James Francis who represents one student in the lawsuit
but says he's doing this for thousands more.

On Sept. 10, Francis filed a lawsuit against the university on
behalf of music student Daniel Carstairs over Carstairs's
springtime classes suddenly going from in-person to online for the
pandemic, but still costing the same. He's demanding a refund.

"No one is challenging that University of Rochester's decision to
go online and shut the campus down for the health of its students.
It's simply…. Why is there no discount? Why is the discount not
significant, why isn't there an effort, an attempt even to discount
the students?" Francis said.

Francis pointed out that U of R already had remote classes, priced
at only 30% of what in-person learning costs and said that kind of
discount or something similar should have happened for other
classes that went online.

"The reality is, across the country, there are a lot of schools and
colleges that have provided discounts," he said. "Georgetown and
Princeton came out ahead of the curve on this and offered 10%
discount as did a lot of other schools."

A statement from the university says "The University was just
recently made aware of this proposed class-action lawsuit. We will
review it carefully and prepare a vigorous defense against these
claims."

It goes on to say "The University's transition to online classes in
spring 2020 was legal and appropriate and involved a tremendous
effort from our faculty, staff, and students to successfully
complete the academic year."

The lawsuit only names Carstairs as a plaintiff but Francis is
asking for class-action status which would make for some big
numbers.

"There are over 11,000 students," he said. "And the tuition alone
is a little over $57,000 a year. So, even with a modest discount,
if you took 10 or 20%, we are talking serious refunds here."

The University pointed out that it did offer students prorated
refunds for unused room and board expenses after the campus closed
down. [GN]


VIRGINIA TECHNICAL COLLEGE: Deskins Case Settlement OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA DESKINS, v.
SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGE, Case No.
2:18-cv-01109 (S.D. W.Va.), the Hon. Judge John T. Copenhaver Jr.
entered an order:

   1. granting the parties' joint motion to approve settlement;

   2. dismissing the action with prejudice and removing from the
court's docket; and

   3. directing the Clerk to transmit copies of this memorandum
opinion and order to all counsel of record and to any unrepresented
parties.

The parties have agreed to settle for a total sum of $20,000.00, of
which $9,000.00 is to be paid for fees and
expenses to the plaintiffs’ counsel. The plaintiff would receive
the $11,000.00 balance to compensate her for her claim of unpaid
overtime wages; however, the defendant would temporarily reactivate
her employment (or use some equivalent means) in order to provide
her a check for less than that amount, after withholdings and taxes
are assessed. The parties state that the $11,000.00 amount
represents a compromise figure accounting for what the named
plaintiff calculates she is owed in unpaid overtime wages and
liquidated damages and what the parties expect she could reasonably
prove. Both the parties state they understand that the court's
approval of the proposed settlement would foreclose their ability
to further pursue claims they raised or could have raised in this
action.

On August 22, 2019, the court conditionally certified this matter
as a collective action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section
216(b), with the class consisting of:

   "all non-exempt, full-time employees who have worked for
   defendant at any time during the three years preceding [May
   29, 2018]."

Thereafter, the court approved the notice of collective action,
which the parties had agreed to, and the named plaintiff
disseminated the notice to eighty potential class members
identified by the defendant.

Ms. Deskins commenced this action on May 29, 2018, in Kanawha
County circuit court to recover unpaid overtime wages from her
former employer, Defendant Southern West Virginia Community and
Technical College, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Her
complaint alleges that she and other employees consistently worked
in excess of 40 hours per workweek without being compensated on the
basis of one-and-a-half times the regular hourly rate; that these
excessive hours were not recorded; and that the defendant knowingly
permitted her and others to work these excessive hours while
failing to pay the required overtime rates.

A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated Nov. 2,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pdcIfP
at no extra charge.[CC]

VITRO FLAT: Romero Employment Suit Removed to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as AARON ROMERO on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public v. VITRO FLAT GLASS, LLC; and DOES 1-100, Case No.
20CECG02929, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Fresno to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California on Nov. 6, 2020.

The Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-at-00883 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges claims for failure to pay straight time
wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal
periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, and failure
to provide itemized employee wage statements.

Vitro Flat Glass, LLC is a glass producer in North America.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Sandra McCandless, Esq.
          Anna S. Youssefi, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          One Market Plaza
          Spear Tower, 24th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 267-4000
          Facsimile: (415) 267-4198
          E-mail: sandra.mccandless@dentons.com
                  anna.youssefi@dentons.com

VOLVO CARS: Neale Suit Seeks to Certify 4 Classes
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOANNE NEALE, KERI HAY,
KELLY MCGARY, SVEIN A. BERG, GREGORY P. BURNS, DAVID TAFT,
JEFFREY KRUGER and KAREN COLLOPY individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, v. VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, and
VOLVO CAR CORPORATION, Case No. 2:10-cv-04407-MCA-JAD (D.N.J.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying four statewide
classes:

   New Jersey Class:

   "All persons who at any time between April 29, 2004 and
   December 31, 2015, purchased or leased a Class Vehicle from
   an authorized Volvo dealership in New Jersey and also resided
   in New Jersey at the time of that purchase or lease; and, as
   of the date of the Court's class certification order, either:
   (a) still own that Class Vehicle; or (b) can offer proof or
   otherwise be identified as having incurred prior out-of-
   pocket expenses related to repairs associated with the
   Sunroof Defect, regardless of whether such person still owns
   or leases that Class Vehicle."

   Specifically excluded from the class is any person who is or
   was a lessor of the Class Vehicle.;

   California Class:

   "All persons who at any time between April 29, 2004 and
   December 31, 2015, purchased or leased a Class Vehicle from
   an authorized Volvo dealership in California and also resided
   in California at the time of that purchase or lease; and, as
   of the date of the Court's class certification order, either:
   (a) still own that Class Vehicle; or (b) can offer proof or
   otherwise be identified as having incurred prior out-of-
   pocket expenses related to repairs associated with the
   Sunroof Defect, regardless of whether such person still owns
   or leases that Class Vehicle."

   Specifically excluded from the class is any person who is or
   was a lessor of the Class Vehicle.;

   Massachusetts Class:

   "All persons who at any time between April 29, 2004 and
   December 31, 2015, purchased or leased a Class Vehicle from
   an authorized Volvo dealership in Massachusetts and also
   resided in Massachusetts at the time of that purchase or
   lease; and, as of the date of the Court's class certification
   order, either: (a) still own that Class Vehicle; or (b) can
   offer proof or otherwise be identified as having incurred
   prior out-of-pocket expenses related to repairs associated
   with the Sunroof Defect, regardless of whether such person
   still owns or leases that Class Vehicle."

   Specifically excluded from the class is any person who is or
   was a lessor of the Class Vehicle.; and

   Florida Class:

   "All persons who at any time between April 29, 2004 and
   December 31, 2015, purchased or leased a Class Vehicle from
   an authorized Volvo dealership in Florida and also resided in
   Florida at the time of that purchase or lease; and, as of the
   date of the Court's class certification order, either: (a)
   still own that Class Vehicle; or (b) can offer proof or
   otherwise be identified as having incurred prior out-of-
   pocket expenses related to repairs associated with the
   Sunroof Defect, regardless of whether such person still owns
   or leases that Class Vehicle."

   Specifically excluded from the class is any person who is or
   was a lessor of the Class Vehicle."

Volvo Cars of North America, LLC manufactures, markets, and sells
automobiles. The Company offers wholesale distribution of new and
used passenger automobiles, trucks, trailers, and components.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/366pIet at no
extra charge.[CC]

W & W ENERGY: Hourly Employees Class Certified in Campos Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDGAR PEREZ CAMPOS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. W &
W ENERGY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 7:20-cv-00102-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.),
the Hon. Judge Ronald C. Griffin entered an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "Individuals employed by W & W Energy Services, Inc. As
      laborers and/or other hourly employees who were paid a per
      diem from September 22, 2017 to the present.";

   2. approving conditional certification of the proposed class
      as agreed to by the parties and authorizing the Notice
      attached to the parties' Unopposed Motion for Conditional
      Certification;

   3. disseminating the Notice and Consent forms, submitted with
      the parties' Unopposed Motion for Conditional
      Certification, by first class U.S. mail and by e-mail;

   4. scheduling requirements for the notice process at the
      request of the parties:

      -- 14 days from order approving notice to Potential Class
         Members

         Defendant to provide, to the extent available, to
         Plaintiff's Counsel in Excel (.xlsx) format the
         following information regarding all Putative Class
         Members: full name; last known address(es) with city,
         state, and zip Code; last known e-mail address(es)
         (non-company address if applicable); beginning date(s)
         of engagement; and ending date(s) of engagement (if
         applicable).

      -- 21 days from order approving notice to Potential Class
         Members

         Plaintiffs' counsel shall send a copy of the Court-
         approved Notice and Consent Form to the Putative Class
         Members by first class U.S. Mail and by email.

      -- 30 days from order approving notice to Potential
         Members

         Plaintiff's Counsel may resend an identical copy of the
         Court-approved Notice and Consent Form to the Putative
         Class Members who have not submitted a Consent Form
         by First Class U.S. Mail and by email.

      -- 60 days from mailing of Notice and Consent forms to
         Potential Class Members

         The Putative Class Members shall have 60 days to file
         their signed Consent forms to Plaintiff's Counsel for
         filing with the Court.; and

   5. directing the Plaintiff to provide the Court and opposing
      counsel with a notice indicating the date on which the
      Court-approved Notice and Consent forms were sent.

W&W is a provider of production infrastructure-related services to
oil and gas producers operating in the Permian Basin.

A copy of the Court's Order granting unopposed motion for
conditional certification dated Nov. 2, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Ud6rCk at no extra charge.[CC]


WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Kirby McInerney Reminds of November 23 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of those who acquired Wrap
Technologies, Inc. ("Wrap" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: WRTC)
securities during the period from July 31, 2020 through September
23, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until
November 23, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

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

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

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

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

WVMF FUNDING: Renois Sues Over Additional Hazard Insurance Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIANNE RENOIS AS ADMINISTRATOR, FIDUCIARY AND BENEFICIARY OF AND
FOR THE ESTATE OF ELLIS DEANGELO, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WVMF FUNDING, LLC, and
COMPU-LINK CORPORATION D/B/A CELINK, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-09281 (S.D.N.Y., November 5, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act (RESPA) and RESPA Regulation X, New York Real
Property Law (RPL) Sec. 280-B, the New York General Business Law,
and the State Consumer Protection Laws, and for breach of contract
and unjust enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendants' unlawful practice of imposing
unnecessary force placed hazard insurance and related charges to
borrowers of reverse mortgages and Home Equity Conversion Mortgages
(HECMs) as they already had existing hazard insurance policies.
Further, despite the Plaintiff's action to repeatedly provide
notice to the Defendants, in writing and orally, that she already
maintained a hazard insurance on the home, the Defendants refused
to timely remove, refund and/or credit back those charges in
conformity with federal law, state law and borrower's loan
agreements.

WVMF Funding, LLC is a reverse mortgage loan servicing company,
with its place of business located at 1251 Avenue of the Americas,
New York, New York.

Compu-Link Corporation, d/b/a Celink, is a reverse mortgage loan
servicing company, with its principal place of business in Lansing,
Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
              
         Joseph S. Tusa, Esq.
         TUSA P.C.
         P.O. Box 566
         55000 Main Road, 2nd Floor
         Southold, NY 11971
         Telephone: (631) 407-5100
         E-mail: joseph.tusapc@gmail.com

                - and –

         Oren Giskan, Esq.
         Catherine E. Anderson, Esq.
         GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP
         90 Broad Street, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10004
         Telephone: (212) 847-8315
         E-mail: ogiskan@gslawny.com
                 canderson@gslawny.com

XPO LOGISTICS: Class Certification Bid Denied with Leave to Renew
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMERITA CORADO-CORTEZ, v.
XPO LOGISTICS, INC., et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-00670-TJH-SHK (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Terry J. Hatter entered an order denying,
with leave to renew, the Plaintiff's motion for conditional class
certification and preliminary approval of the class action
settlement.

The parties reached a proposed class action settlement with the
following key provisions:

     (1) The putative class will include approximately 3,450
members, who cumulatively worked approximately 60,900 pay periods;

     (2) The gross settlement amount is $1,450,000.00, with the
possibility of an increase if either the number of class members
exceed 3,450 or the number of pay periods exceeds 60,900 by more
than 7%;

     (3) The gross settlement amount would be reduced by $50,000.00
for a PAGA penalty, of which $37,500.00 would be paid to the
California Labor & Workforce Department Agency and the remaining
$12,500.00 would revert back to the settlement amount, see Cal.
Lab. Code Sec. 2699(i);

     (4) The gross settlement amount would be, further, reduced for
Corado-Cortez's attorneys' fees, which will not exceed $483,285.00,
for costs not to exceed $15,000.00, for settlement administration
costs not to exceed $25,000.00, and an incentive award for
Corado-Cortez not to exceed $10,000.00;

     (5) The net settlement amount will, then, be distributed to
the class members on a pro rata basis, using the number of
workweeks each member worked as the basis for the distribution.

Ms. Corado-Cortez seeks a $10,000.00 incentive award for herself.
In support of the incentive award, Corado-Cortez declared that she
performed approximately 60 hours of work as the named plaintiff.
Based on the hours worked, Corado-Cortez seeks $166.67 per hour of
her time.

According to the Court, Corado-Cortez declared, in a conclusory
fashion, that she consulted with attorneys, prepared discovery,
responded to written questions, provided documents, and assisted
her attorneys in preparing for depositions and mediation.
Nevertheless, Corado-Cortez's vague description of her
participation in this action does not warrant an incentive award of
$10,000.00, especially where the proposed pro rata distribution of
the net settlement amount will range between $254.00 and $1,092.00
per class member.

The Court said it will approve an incentive award of $5,000.00.

The Court also held that Corado-Cortez failed to establish that the
proposed distribution plan, based on workweeks, is fair to the
class members. The proposed distribution plan does not appear to
take into account the number of California Labor Code violations
each putative class member may have suffered on any given day, or
the number of shifts each class member worked each week during the
class period.

According to the Court, it is possible that, during any given
shift, one putative class member might have suffered no violations
while another class member might have suffered multiple violations.
It is, also, possible that various class members worked fewer
shifts in a workweek than other class members. Thus, under the
proposed distribution plan, some of the class members might receive
an unwarranted windfall, while other, more aggrieved, class members
might get short changed. Thus, Corado-Cortez failed to establish
that the proposed attorneys' fees award, incentive award, and pro
rata distribution plan are fair, reasonable, or adequate."

On January 14, 2019, Corado-Cortez filed this putative class action
against XPO, on behalf of herself and other XPO employees, in the
San Bernardino County Superior Court, alleging various claims under
the California Labor Code and the Private Attorneys General Act.
The crux of Corado-Cortez's claims is that XPO failed to provide
proper rest breaks, duty free minute meal periods, and second meal
periods for those employees who worked shifts that exceeded 10
hours.

From July, 2018, to November, 2018, the Plaintiff was employed as a
non-exempt, hourly employee by the Defendants XPO Logistics, Inc,
XPO Logistics, Freight, Inc., XPO Logistics Supply Chain Corporate
Services, Inc., XPO Logistics Supply Chain, Inc., and XPO Logistics
Worldwide, Inc.

XPO 1s a freight transportation and logistics service provider.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 2, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2IooP98 at no extra charge.[CC]


YAYYO INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminded
purchasers of the securities of YayYo, Inc. (OTC: YAYO) pursuant
and/or traceable to the registration statement and related
prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with YayYo's November 2019 initial public offering (the
"IPO") of the important November 9, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in
the federal class action commenced by the firm. The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for YayYo investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the YayYo class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1915.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, the Registration Statement featured false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
defendant El-Batrawi continued to exercise supervision, authority,
and control over YayYo, and was intimately involved, on a
day-to-day basis, with the business, operations, and finances of
the Company, including assisting the Underwriter Defendants in
marketing YayYo's IPO; (2) defendant El-Batrawi never sold the
12,525,000 "Private Shares" and continued to own a controlling
interest in YayYo despite the NASDAQ's insistence that he retain
less than a 10% equity ownership interest in connection with the
listing agreement; (3) defendants promised certain creditors of
YayYo that in exchange to their agreeing to purchase shares in the
IPO -- in order to permit the Underwriter defendants to close the
IPO -- YayYo would repurchase those shares after the IPO; (4)
defendants intended to repurchase shares purchased by creditors of
YayYo in the IPO using IPO proceeds: (5) YayYo owed its former
President, CEO, and Director a half of million dollars at the time
of the IPO; (6) YayYo owed SRAX, Inc. (formerly Social Reality,
Inc.) $426,286 in unpaid social media costs, most of which was more
than a year overdue as payment had been delayed while YayYo
attempted to complete its IPO; and (7) as a result, defendants'
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
9, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1915.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

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

Contact Information:

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


ZOSANO PHARMA: Faces Becerra Suit Over 27.8% Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROB BECERRA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ZOSANO PHARMA CORPORATION, STEVEN LO, JOHN P. WALKER,
and KONSTANTINOS ALATARIS, Case No. 3:20-cv-07850 (N.D. Cal., Nov.
6, 2020) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Zosano securities between February
13, 2017 and September 30, 2020, inclusive, seeking to pursue
claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Zosano's lead product candidate is Qtrypta (M207), a formulation of
zolmitriptan coated onto the Company's microneedle patch. The
Company's pivotal efficacy trial, called ZOTRIP, began in July
2016. In December 2019, Zosano submitted its New Drug Application
("NDA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration seeking regulatory
approval for Qtrypta.

On September 30, 2020, after the market closed, Zosano disclosed
receipt of a discipline review letter ("DRL") from the FDA
regarding its NDA for Qtrypta and stated that approval was not
likely.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.92 per share, or
56.79%, to close at $0.70 per share on October 1, 2020, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

On October 21, 2020, Zosano disclosed receipt of a Complete
Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA. As a result of the previously
identified deficiencies, the FDA recommended that Zosano conduct a
repeat bioequivalence study between three of the lots used during
development.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.171 per share, or
27.8%, to close at $0.444 per share on October 21, 2020, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

Throughout the Class Period, the Plaintiff contends that the
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. As a result of the
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages.

The Plaintiff purchased or otherwise acquired Zosano securities
during the Class Period, and suffered damages as a result of the
alleged federal securities law violations and false and/or
misleading statements and/or material omissions.

Zosano is a clinical stage pharmaceutical company. Its proprietary
intracutaneous delivery system purports to offer rapid absorption
of drug, consistent drug delivery, improved ease of use, and
room-temperature stability. Its intracutaneous patch consists of an
array of titanium microneedles that is coated with Zosano's
proprietary formulation of a previously approved drug that is
attached to an adhesive patch. The patch purports to offer rapid
and consistent delivery of the drug via the microneedles that
penetrate the skin, resulting in dissolution and absorption of the
drug.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 405-7190
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ &
          GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Accrues $586MM for Respirator Suits at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company has an accrual of US$586 million as of September 30,
2020, for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities (excluding those
related to Aearo Technologies), according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020.

3M Company states, "The Company regularly conducts a comprehensive
legal review of its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities.  The
Company reviews recent and historical claims data, including
without limitation, (i) the number of pending claims filed against
the Company, (ii) the nature and mix of those claims (i.e., the
proportion of claims asserting usage of the Company's mask or
respirator products and alleging exposure to each of asbestos,
silica, coal or other occupational dusts, and claims pleading use
of asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured by the
Company), (iii) the costs to defend and resolve pending claims, and
(iv) trends in filing rates and in costs to defend and resolve
claims, (collectively, the "Claims Data").  As part of its
comprehensive legal review, the Company regularly provides the
Claims Data to a third party with expertise in determining the
impact of Claims Data on future filing trends and costs.  The third
party assists the Company in estimating the costs to defend and
resolve pending and future claims.  The Company uses these
estimates to develop its best estimate of probable liability.

"Developments may occur that could affect the Company's estimate of
its liabilities.  These developments include, but are not limited
to, significant changes in (i) the key assumptions underlying the
Company's accrual, including, the number of future claims, the
nature and mix of those claims, the average cost of defending and
resolving claims, and in maintaining trial readiness (ii) trial and
appellate outcomes, (iii) the law and procedure applicable to these
claims, and (iv) the financial viability of other co-defendants and
insurers.

"As a result of its review of its respirator mask/asbestos
liabilities, of pending and expected lawsuits and of the cost of
resolving claims of persons who claim more serious injuries,
including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease,
the Company increased its accruals in the first nine months of 2020
for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities by US$23 million.  In the
first nine months of 2020, the Company made payments for legal
defense costs and settlements of US$45 million related to the
respirator mask/asbestos litigation.  During the first quarter of
2019, the Company recorded a pre-tax charge of US$313 million in
conjunction with an increase in the accrual as a result of the
March and April 2019 settlements-in-principle of the coal mine dust
lawsuits and the Company's assessment of other current and expected
coal mine dust lawsuits (including the costs to resolve all current
and expected coal mine dust lawsuits in Kentucky and West
Virginia).

"As of September 30, 2020, the Company had an accrual for
respirator mask/asbestos liabilities (excluding Aearo accruals) of
US$586 million.  This accrual represents the Company's best
estimate of probable loss and reflects an estimation period for
future claims that may be filed against the Company approaching the
year 2050.  The Company cannot estimate the amount or upper end of
the range of amounts by which the liability may exceed the accrual
the Company has established because of the (i) inherent difficulty
in projecting the number of claims that have not yet been asserted
or the time period in which future claims may be asserted, (ii) the
complaints nearly always assert claims against multiple defendants
where the damages alleged are typically not attributed to
individual defendants so that a defendant's share of liability may
turn on the law of joint and several liability, which can vary by
state, (iii) the multiple factors that the Company considers in
estimating its liabilities, and (iv) the several possible
developments that may occur that could affect the Company's
estimate of liabilities.

"As of September 30, 2020, the Company's receivable for insurance
recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation was
US$4 million.  The Company continues to seek coverage under the
policies of certain insolvent and other insurers.  Once those
claims for coverage are resolved, the Company will have collected
substantially all of its remaining insurance coverage for
respirator mask/asbestos claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/fxx1RX


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Still Faces 1,884 Claimants at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company remains a named defendant, with multiple co-defendants,
in numerous lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent
approximately 1,884 individual claimants, as of September 30, 2020,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2020.

The Company states, "The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims
resolved by and currently pending against the Company allege use of
some of the Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages
from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury
from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or
other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace.  A minority of the
lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the
Company generally allege personal injury from occupational exposure
to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the Company,
which are often unspecified, as well as products manufactured by
other defendants, or occasionally at Company premises.

"The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is
substantially lower than it experienced at the peak of filings in
2003.  The Company expects that filing of claims by unimpaired
claimants in the future will continue to be at much lower levels
than in the past.  Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more
serious injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and
black lung disease, will represent a greater percentage of total
claims than in the past.  Over the past twenty plus years, the
Company has prevailed in fourteen of the fifteen cases tried to a
jury (including the lawsuits in 2018).  In 2018, 3M received a jury
verdict in its favor in two lawsuits – one in California state
court in February and the other in Massachusetts state court in
December – both involving allegations that 3M respirators were
defective and failed to protect the plaintiffs against asbestos
fibers.

"In April 2018, a jury in state court in Kentucky found 3M's 8710
respirators failed to protect two coal miners from coal mine dust
and awarded compensatory damages and punitive damages.

"In August 2018, the trial court entered judgment and the Company
appealed.  During March and April 2019, the Company agreed in
principle to settle a substantial majority of the coal mine dust
lawsuits in Kentucky and West Virginia for US$340 million,
including the jury verdict in April 2018 in the Kentucky case.
That settlement was completed in 2019, and the appeal has been
dismissed.

"The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that
its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when
used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances.
Consequently, the Company believes that claimants are unable to
establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are
attributable to the Company's respiratory protection products.
Nonetheless, the Company's litigation experience indicates that
claims of persons alleging more serious injuries, including
mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease, are
costlier to resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it
therefore believes the average cost of resolving pending and future
claims on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it
experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were
asserted by medically unimpaired claimants."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/fxx1RX


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AEP Units Transfer Liabilities for Oklaunion Plant
-------------------------------------------------------------------
American Electric Power Company, Inc. (AEP) disclosed in its Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that AEP Texas Inc.,
Public Service Company of Oklahoma and a non-affiliated joint-owner
executed an Environmental Liability and Property Transfer and Asset
Purchase Agreement with a non-affiliated third-party related to the
Oklaunion Power Station site wherein the purchaser took ownership
of the assets and assumed responsibility for environmental
liabilities, including ash pond closure, asbestos abatement and
decommissioning and demolition of the Oklaunion Power Station site.


The Oklaunion Power Station is a single unit coal-fired generation
plant totaling 650 MW located in Vernon, Texas.

The Company states, "In October 2020, AEP Texas, PSO and a
non-affiliated joint-owner executed an Environmental Liability and
Property Transfer and Asset Purchase Agreement with a
non-affiliated third-party related to the Oklaunion Power Station
site.  The purchaser took ownership of the assets and assumed
responsibility for environmental liabilities, including ash pond
closure, asbestos abatement and decommissioning and demolition of
the Oklaunion Power Station site.  The sale is expected to have an
immaterial impact on the financial statements in the fourth quarter
of 2020."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/kDZEoq


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Defends 95 Cases at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. still defends itself against 95
asbestos cases pending as of September 30, 2020, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020.

Aerojet Rocketdyne states, "The Company has been, and continues to
be, named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury or
death and seeking various monetary damages due to exposure to
asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing
operations.  The majority of cases are pending in Illinois state
courts.  There were 95 asbestos cases pending as of September 30,
2020.

"Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as
to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed
against the Company, the Company is generally unable to make a
reasonable estimate of the future costs of pending claims or
unasserted claims.  The aggregate settlement costs and legal and
administrative fees associated with the Company's asbestos
litigation has been immaterial for the last three years.  As of
September 30, 2020, the Company has accrued an immaterial amount
related to pending claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/ykQVCK


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has $679MM Liability at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. has US$679 million as of September 30, 2020, for the
estimated cost of asbestos claims now pending or subsequently
asserted through 2059, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020.

The Company states, "In June 2016, the New York State Court of
Appeals issued its opinion in Dummitt v. Crane Co., affirming a
2012 verdict for US$4.9 million against us.  In that opinion, the
court ruled that in certain circumstances we are legally
responsible for asbestos-containing materials made and sold by
third parties that others attached post-sale to our equipment.
This decision provided clarity regarding the nature of claims that
may proceed to trial in New York and greater predictability
regarding future claim activity.  We also reflected the impact of
the Dummitt decision on our expected settlement values.
Accordingly, on December 31, 2016, we updated and extended our
asbestos liability estimate through 2059, the generally accepted
end point.

"Following our experience in the tort system post the Dummitt
decision, we entered into several, increasingly similar, group
settlements with various plaintiff firms, the most recent of which
was in the fourth quarter of 2019.  We expect this new trend of
these types of group settlements to continue, and accordingly,
effective as of December 31, 2019, we updated our estimate of the
asbestos liability, including revised costs of settlement or
indemnity payments and defense costs relating to currently pending
claims and future claims projected to be filed against us through
the same expected end point of 2059.  Our estimate of the asbestos
liability for pending and future claims through 2059 is based on
the projected future asbestos costs resulting from our experience
using a range of reference periods for claims filed, settled and
dismissed.  Based on this estimate, we recorded an additional
liability of US$255 million as of December 31, 2019.

"An aggregate liability of US$712 million is recorded as of
December 31, 2019 to cover the estimated cost of asbestos claims
now pending or subsequently asserted through 2059, of which
approximately 85% is attributable to settlement and defense costs
for future claims projected to be filed through 2059.  The
liability is reduced when cash payments are made in respect of
settled claims and defense costs.  The liability was US$679 million
as of September 30, 2020.  It is not possible to forecast when cash
payments related to the asbestos liability will be fully expended;
however, it is expected such cash payments will continue for a
number of years past 2059, due to the significant proportion of
future claims included in the estimated asbestos liability and the
lag time between the date a claim is filed and when it is resolved.
None of these estimated costs have been discounted to present
value due to the inability to reliably forecast the timing of
payments.  The current portion of the total estimated liability at
December 31, 2019 and September 30, 2020 is US$65 million and
represents our best estimate of total asbestos costs expected to be
paid during the twelve-month period.  Such amount is based upon the
actuarial model together with our prior year payment experience for
both settlement and defense costs."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/YXf99C


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had $261MM Accrual at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc. (fka Crown Cork & Seal Co Inc.) has accrued
US$261 million as of September 30, 2020, for pending and future
asbestos-related claims and related legal costs, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020.

The Company states, "As of September 30, 2020, the Company's
accrual for pending and future asbestos-related claims and related
legal costs was US$261 million, including US$215 million for
unasserted claims.  The Company determines its accrual without
limitation to a specific time period."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/eU67EM


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Discovery Still Underway in Class Suit vs. J&J
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still underway in a securities class action lawsuit
against Johnson & Johnson and certain named officers in New Jersey
related to alleged violations of federal securities laws by failing
to disclose alleged asbestos contamination in body powders
containing talc, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 27, 2020.

The Company states, "In February 2018, a securities class action
lawsuit was filed against Johnson & Johnson and certain named
officers in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, alleging that Johnson & Johnson violated the federal
securities laws by failing to disclose alleged asbestos
contamination in body powders containing talc, primarily
JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder, and that purchasers of Johnson &
Johnson's shares suffered losses as a result.  Plaintiff is seeking
damages.

"In April 2019, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint and
briefing on the motion was complete as of August 2019.

"In December 2019, the Court denied, in part, the motion to
dismiss.

"In March 2020, Defendants answered the complaint.  Discovery is
underway."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/3gEf7J


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson & Johnson Talc Derivative Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson continues to face a consolidated talc stockholder
derivative litigation related to asbestos contamination in body
powders with talc, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 27, 2020.

The Company states, "In October 2019, December 2019, and January
2020, four shareholders filed four separate derivative lawsuits
against Johnson & Johnson as the nominal defendant and its current
directors and certain officers as defendants in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging a breach of
fiduciary duties related to the alleged asbestos contamination in
body powders containing talc, primarily JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder,
and that Johnson & Johnson has suffered damages as a result of
those alleged breaches.

"In February 2020, the four cases were consolidated into a single
action under the caption In re Johnson & Johnson Talc Stockholder
Derivative Litigation."

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

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/3gEf7J


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Had 2,774 Claims at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that the Company was a
co-defendant as of September 30, 2020, in cases alleging
asbestos-induced illness involving claims by approximately 2,774
plaintiffs, which is a net decrease of 16 claims from those
previously reported.

The Company states, "In each instance, the Company is one of a
large number of defendants.  The asbestos claimants seek
compensatory and punitive damages, in most cases for unspecified
sums.  Since January 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant
in other similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 55,481
of those claims were dismissed, 23 were tried to defense verdicts,
7 were tried to plaintiff verdicts (which were reversed or resolved
after appeal), 1 was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount
and 1,007 were decided in favor of the Company following summary
judgment motions."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/lOwSKT


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Still Faces Falk PI Suits at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation still faces multiple lawsuits alleging personal
injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain
clutches and drives previously manufactured by The Falk
Corporation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2020.

The Company states, "In connection with the Company's acquisition
of The Falk Corporation ("Falk"), Hamilton Sundstrand provided the
Company with indemnification against certain products-related
asbestos exposure liabilities.  The Company believes that, pursuant
to such indemnity obligations, Hamilton Sundstrand is obligated to
defend and indemnify the Company with respect to the asbestos
claims, and that, with respect to these claims, such indemnity
obligations are not subject to any time or dollar limitations.

"Falk, through its successor entity, is a defendant in multiple
lawsuits pending in state or federal court in numerous
jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the
alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives
previously manufactured by Falk.  There are approximately 100
claimants in these suits.  The ultimate outcome of these lawsuits
cannot presently be determined.  Hamilton Sundstrand is defending
the Company in these lawsuits pursuant to its indemnity obligations
and has paid 100% of the costs to date."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/yIP9Xe


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Subsidiary Had 6,000 Lawsuits at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
There were approximately 6,000 asbestos-related lawsuits
representing approximately 7,000 claims against Rexnord
Corporation's Zurn subsidiary as of September 30, 2020, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2020.

The Company states, "As of September 30, 2020, Zurn and numerous
other unrelated companies were defendants in approximately 6,000
asbestos related lawsuits representing approximately 7,000 claims.
Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by exposure to
asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly manufactured
by a segment of Zurn.  Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or
asbestos components.  Instead, Zurn purchased them from suppliers.
These claims are being handled pursuant to a defense strategy
funded by insurers.

"As of September 30, 2020, the Company estimates the potential
liability for the asbestos-related claims as well as the claims
expected to be filed in the next ten years to be approximately
US$50.0 million, of which Zurn expects its insurance carriers to
pay approximately US$38.0 million in the next ten years on such
claims, with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in
subsequent years.  The US$50.0 million was developed based on
actuarial studies and represents the projected indemnity payout for
current and future claims.  There are inherent uncertainties
involved in estimating the number of future asbestos claims, future
settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense strategies and
settlement initiatives.  As a result, actual liability could differ
from the estimate described herein and could be substantial.  The
liability for the asbestos-related claims is recorded in Other
liabilities within the condensed consolidated balance sheets.

"Management estimates that its available insurance to cover this
potential asbestos liability as of September 30, 2020, is in excess
of the 10 year estimated exposure, and accordingly, believes that
all current claims are covered by insurance.

"As of September 30, 2020, the Company had a recorded receivable
from its insurance carriers of US$50.0 million, which corresponds
to the amount of this potential asbestos liability that is covered
by available insurance and is currently determined to be probable
of recovery.  However, there is no assurance the Company's current
insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that this
asbestos liability will not ultimately exceed the Company's
coverage limits.  Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount
of available coverage or create gaps in coverage include: changes
in law governing the policies, potential disputes and settlements
with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and insolvencies
of one or more of the Company's carriers.  The receivable for
probable asbestos-related recoveries is recorded in Other assets
within the condensed consolidated balance sheets."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/yIP9Xe


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $1.12BB Liability at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dow Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2020, that Union Carbide Corporation's total asbestos-related
liability for pending and future claims and defense and processing
costs was US$1,117 million at September 30, 2020.

The Company states, "Union Carbide is and has been involved in a
large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state
courts during the past four decades.  These suits principally
allege personal injury resulting from exposure to
asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and
punitive damages.  The alleged claims primarily relate to products
that Union Carbide sold in the past, alleged exposure to
asbestos-containing products located on Union Carbide's premises
and Union Carbide's responsibility for asbestos suits filed against
a former Union Carbide subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc.
("Amchem").  In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate
that they have suffered any compensable loss as a result of such
exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure
to Union Carbide's products.  Union Carbide expects more
asbestos-related suits to be filed against Union Carbide and Amchem
in the future, and will aggressively defend or reasonably resolve,
as appropriate, both pending and future claims.

"Union Carbide's total asbestos-related liability for pending and
future claims and defense and processing costs was US$1,117 million
at September 30, 2020, and approximately 19 percent of the recorded
claim liability related to pending claims and approximately 81
percent related to future claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/a9WKBt



                            *********

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 ***