/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201120.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, November 20, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 233

                            Headlines

ABBVIE INC: Dismissal of Humira Antitrust Suit Appeale
ACADIA PHARMA: Hearing on Dismissal Bid Set for December 3
ADVANCE AUTO: Securities Litigation Wins Class Status
AGENTDESKS INC: Shanahan Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
APPLE INC: Says iPhone Users Agreed to Arbitrate Disputes

APPLE INC: Sued Over Subscription Mobile Gaming Service
AUSTRALIA: Students File Class Action to Prevent Coal Mine Approval
BIG PICTURE: Eventide Can't Intervene to Challenge Galloway Deal
CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Escobar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CEQUEL COMMUNICATIONS: Lopez Suit removed to E.D. California

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Class Action Settlement Wins Final Approval
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: ClaimsFiler Reminds of December 1 Deadline
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Rosen Law Firm Remind of December 1 Deadline
DAIMLER AG: Dec. 14 Securities Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
DEVA HOLDINGS: Vilorio Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

DIRECTV LLC: 4th Cir. Vacates Arbitration Denial in Mey TCPA Suit
EPION BRANDS: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
EVEREST RECEIVABLE: Hofstatter Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
EVOLUS INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of December 15 Deadline
EVOLUS INC: Kehoe Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims

EVOLUS INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds of December 15 Deadline
EVOLUS INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of December 15 Deadline
EVOLUS INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of December 15 Deadline
FLUIDIGM CORP: Howard G. Smith Reminds of November 20 Deadline
GOOGLE INC: Group of Law Firms in Canada Mull Privacy Class Action

HALLIBURTON ENERGY: Tippetts Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
HOLLAND HOSPITALITY: Mortland Files ADA Suit in N.D. Ohio
INTEGRATED TECH: Monplaisir Settlement Denied Preliminary Approval
J&B CLASSICS: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KAMP-RITE TENT: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

KFORCE INC: Facing Gofton and Kimbrel Class Suit
KIDKRAFT INC: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KIMBERLY KAY: Registered Nurses Class Conditionally Certified
KIRIN TRANSPORTATION: Wang Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
KROGER CO: Suit Over "0g Trans Fat" Label Wins Class Status

LIBRE BY NEXUS: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
LOOP INDUSTRIES: Faces Securities Class Action
LOOP INDUSTRIES: Glancy Prongay Reminds of December 14 Deadline
MAINE: Gov. Mills Wins Dismissal of Second Amended Savage Suit
MDL 2543: Declaratory Judgment Bids in GM Lawsuit Partly Granted

MIDLAND CREDIT: Antista Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
MOEN INCORPORATED: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
MONTANA STATE UNIV: Faces Class Action Seeking Tuition Fee Refunds
NORTH PACIFIC: Workers File Class Action Over Working Conditions
OLD TIME CANDY: Monegro Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website

ORIENTAL TRADING: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ORNAMENT SHOP: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PATTERSON COMPANIES: Bid to Stay Class Action Proceedings Denied
PEABODY ENERGY: Glancy Prongay Reminds of November 27 Deadline
PENETANGUISHENE: Waypoint Centre Faces $200MM Class Action

PHOENIX FINANCIAL: Perl Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
PRAIRIE FARMS: Tropp Files Suit in W.D. Wisconsin
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
REATA PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Dec. 14 Deadline
SILVER STAR: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

SIMPLE HOME: Abramson Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
STANFORD NEW YORK: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SUBCONTRACTING CONCEPTS: Ross Sues Over Worker  Misclassification
SUGAR CANE GROWERS: Hagens Berman Correct Amended Class Action
TD ASSET: January 18 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set

TD BANK: Sued for Refusing to Pay Travel Insurance
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Nov. 23 Deadline
UBER TECH: Loses Bid to Dismiss BRS Suit Over Securities Fraud
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Rogers Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Accrues $20MM Aearo-related Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Still Faces West Virginia's Pneumoconiosis Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has 29,308 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had 56,000 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX, Units Still Face Exposure Suits at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Asks Court to Dismiss ERISA Class Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Objects to Imerys Disclosure Statement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NexPoint Residential Incurs $500K Liability in 3Q
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Had $24MM Liabilities at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Still Defends Stearns PI Suits at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord's Prager Unit Still Has PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had $53.16MM Accrued Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had 1,540 Fibro Cases at Sept. 30


                            *********

ABBVIE INC: Dismissal of Humira Antitrust Suit Appeale
------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that the dismissal of the
complaint in the putative class action suit entitled, In re: Humira
(Adalimumab) Antitrust Litigation, has been appealed.

Between March and May 2019, 12 putative class action lawsuits were
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois by indirect Humira purchasers, alleging that AbbVie's
settlements with biosimilar manufacturers and AbbVie's Humira
patent portfolio violated state and federal antitrust laws.

The court consolidated these lawsuits as In re: Humira (Adalimumab)
Antitrust Litigation.

In June 2020, the court dismissed the consolidated litigation with
prejudice.

The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal.

AbbVie Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells
pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company offers HUMIRA, a
therapy administered as an injection for autoimmune diseases;
IMBRUVICA, an oral therapy for treating chronic lymphocytic
leukemia; and VIEKIRA PAK, an interferon-free therapy, with or
without ribavirin, to treat adults with genotype 1 chronic
hepatitis C. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in
North Chicago, Illinois.


ACADIA PHARMA: Hearing on Dismissal Bid Set for December 3
----------------------------------------------------------
ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the hearing on the
motion to dismiss the complaint in the consolidated putative class
action suit entitled, In re Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 18-cv-01647, is scheduled for December 3,
2020.

Between July 19 and August 3, 2018, following negative publicity
about NUPLAZID, three purported company stockholders filed putative
securities class action complaints (captioned Staublein v. Acadia
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-01647, Stone v. Acadia
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 18-cv-01672, and Barglow v. Acadia
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 18-cv-01812) in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California against the Company
and certain of its current and former executive officers.

Thereafter, several putative lead plaintiffs filed motions to
consolidate the cases and to appoint a lead plaintiff. On January
3, 2019, the Court consolidated the cases under the caption In re
Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
18-cv-01647, and took the lead plaintiff motions under submission.


On February 26, 2019, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel. Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on April 15,
2019. The consolidated complaint generally alleges that defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by making materially false and misleading statements regarding
the Company's business, operations, and prospects by failing to
disclose that adverse events and safety concerns regarding NUPLAZID
threatened initial and continuing Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) approval, and by failing to disclose that the Company engaged
in business practices likely to attract regulatory scrutiny.

The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on
June 7, 2019. On June 1, 2020, the Court granted the motion in part
and gave lead plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. On July
16, 2020, lead plaintiff filed the amended complaint.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
August 28, 2020. Lead plaintiff opposed the motion on September 15,
2020. Defendants' reply in support of the motion to dismiss was due
on November 11, 2020.

A hearing on the motion is scheduled for December 3, 2020.

ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on the development and commercialization of small molecule drugs
that address unmet medical needs in central nervous system
disorders. The Company was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in
San Diego, California.


ADVANCE AUTO: Securities Litigation Wins Class Status
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit re: ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00212-RGA (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge Richard G.
Andrews entered an order:

   1. certifying the case as a class action pursuant to
      Fed. R. Civ. P. Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) against the
      Defendants on behalf of:

      "all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
      acquired the common stock of Advance Auto Parts, Inc.
      between November 14, 2016 and August 15, 2017, inclusive,
      and were damaged thereby (the "Class")."

      Excluded from the Class are: (i) the Company; (ii)
      Starboard Value LP ("Starboard"); (iii) Thomas R. Greco,
      Thomas Okray, and Jeffrey C. Smith (the "Excluded
      Individuals"); (iv) members of the immediate families of
      the Excluded Individuals; (v) the Company's and
      Starboard's subsidiaries and affiliates; (vi) any person
      who is or was an officer or director of the Company,
      Starboard, or any of the Company's or Starboard's
      subsidiaries or affiliates during the Class Period; (vii)
      any entity in which the Company, Starboard, or any
      Excluded Individual has a controlling interest; and (viii)
      the legal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns
      of any such excluded person or entity.;

   2. appointing The Public Employees' Retirement System of
      Mississippi as Class Representative; and

   3. appointing Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as Class
      Counsel and deLeeuw Law, LLC as Liaison Counsel for the
      Class pursuant to Rule 23(g).

Advance Auto Parts, Inc. is an American automotive aftermarket
parts provider. Headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina, it serves
both professional installer and do-it-yourself customers. As of
July 13, 2019, Advance operated 4,912 stores and 150 Worldpac
branches in the United States and Canada.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 6, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fb6GHK at no extra charge.[CC]

AGENTDESKS INC: Shanahan Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Agentdesks Inc. The
case is styled as Terrence Shanahan, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Agentdesks Inc., Case No.
4:20-cv-07894-KAW (N.D. Cal., Nov. 9, 2020).

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

Agentdesks provides cloud based real-estate sales application for
realtors, agents, brokers, builders, investors, buyers, sellers,
and renters.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Louis Javitch, Esq.
          JAVITCH LAW OFFICE
          480 S. Ellsworth Avenue
          San Mateo, CA 94401
          Phone: (650) 781-8000
          Fax: (650) 648-0705
          Email: mark@javitchlawoffice.com


APPLE INC: Says iPhone Users Agreed to Arbitrate Disputes
---------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that unhappy
iPhone users agreed to arbitrate any disputes, Apple and T-Mobile
say in response to a class action lawsuit against them.

On Sept. 3, the companies filed a motion to compel arbitration of a
New York lawsuit that claims there is a "significant security flaw"
in iOS software that allowed iMessage correspondence and Facetime
calls to be directed to and accessed by third parties.

"Plaintiffs attempt to assert claims in this litigation that they
have contractually agreed to arbitrate rather than litigate in
court," the motion says.

"Moreover, they purport to bring these claims on behalf of a
putative class, but they have also contractually agreed to waive
any ability to participate in a class action. Plaintiffs' cannot
simply escape their contractual obligations."

Within T-Mobile's terms and conditions was an arbitration clause,
the motion says.

"Plaintiffs were notified of a simple process they could follow to
opt out of the arbitration agreement and class action waiver, but
they did not do so," the motion says.

T-Mobile is accused of marketing and selling iPhone-compatible SIM
cards while failing to disclose its practice of recycling phone
numbers linked to SIM cards and selling those cards without
requiring prior users to disassociate their Apple IDs from the
phone numbers. [GN]


APPLE INC: Sued Over Subscription Mobile Gaming Service
-------------------------------------------------------
MoginRubin, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that
Apple iPhone gamer John Pistacchio filed a proposed class action
against Apple, Inc. on behalf of purchasers of "Apple Arcade," a
subscription mobile gaming service by Apple. The lawsuit accuses
Apple of anti-competitive behavior in the iOS subscription-based
mobile gaming services market. The case was filed in the Northern
District of California, the same district hearing Epic Games, Inc.
v. Apple Inc., a case in which the maker the popularly Fortnite
game also alleges illegal monopolization practices by Apple. (See
our post on the Oct. 9, 2020, decision in Epic v. Apple.)

According to the complaint, "Apple excludes any subscription-based
mobile gaming service that has the potential of competing with
Apple Arcade." Pistacchio provided instances in which the tech
giant has either rejected an app entirely or has forced developers
to remove key features. In Google's case, consumers are able to
download its Stadia app from the App Store to manage Stadia on
other devices, but cannot play games on iOS. Likewise, Facebook
Gaming is available to iOS users but the game-playing feature was
stripped entirely from the iOS version of its app. As for Microsoft
and Nvidia, their apps have been barred all together.

The complaint accuses Apple of violating Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act, the California Cartwright Act, and
California Unfair Competition Law, which bar monopoly maintenance,
unreasonable restraint of trade, and unjust enrichment.

The complaint requests treble damages and punitive damages for
Apple's harmful practices which has "extinguished Plaintiff's and
the Class's freedom to choose between subscription services, caused
reduced innovation and quality of service, and caused Plaintiff and
the Class to pay more for Apple Arcade than they otherwise would
have in a competitive market." [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Students File Class Action to Prevent Coal Mine Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Swati Pandey, writing for Reuters, reports that eight young
Australian students have brought a class action in the country's
federal court seeking an injunction to prevent government approval
of a coal project, lawyers representing the claimants said.

The lawsuit against Environment Minister Susan Ley comes ahead of a
decision in September on whether to approve the Whitehaven
Coal-owned Vickery coal mine WHC.AX extension project in New South
Wales.

"The case is an Australian first, as it seeks to invoke the
Minister's common law duty of care to protect younger people
against climate change," Equity Generation Lawyers said in a
statement.

All the claimants are under the age of 18 years and Equity
Generation is urging other youngsters from across the world to
register for the class action.

"It is the only class action on climate change that includes every
single person under the age of 18 around the world as a result of
the likely harm each one will experience from climate change."

Ley's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment
while a spokeswoman for Whitehaven Coal declined to comment.

Climate change has been a divisive topic in Australia, which counts
coal and iron ore as its two top exports.

The country's reliance on coal-fired power also makes it one of the
world's largest per capita carbon emitters and just last year it
approved a huge new coal mine by India's Adani Enterprises
ADEL.NS.

"As a young person, I cannot vote to have my voice heard by
politicians," said 16-year-old Laura Kirwan from Sydney, one of the
litigants.

"I believe that the government has a duty to young people to
protect our futures from the impacts of climate change, including
stopping the climate impacts of the Vickery Extension Project."

The eight young Australians have all been involved in "School
Strike For Climate", which was initiated by student activist Greta
Thunberg in 2018 demanding that world leaders adopt urgent measures
to stop an environmental catastrophe.

The injunction comes less than two months after a 23-year-old
Melbourne student filed a class action against the government
alleging it had failed to disclose climate change-related risks to
investors in the country's sovereign bonds. [GN]


BIG PICTURE: Eventide Can't Intervene to Challenge Galloway Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert E. Payne of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, Richmond Division, denied Eventide Credit
Acquisitions, LLC's motion to intervene in the case, RENEE
GALLOWAY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JAMES WILLIAMS, JR., et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-470 (E. D. Va.), pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) to challenge the Class Action Settlement
Agreement and Release between the Plaintiffs and the Settling
Defendants.

The Plaintiffs filed -- in Williams v. Big Picture Loans, LLC,
3:17-cv-461 (E.D. Va.) ("Williams"), Galloway v. Big Picture Loans,
LLC, 3:18-cv-406 (E.D. Va.) ("Galloway I"), Galloway v. Martorello,
3:19-cv-314 (E.D. Va.) ("Galloway II"), and Galloway v. Williams,
3:19-cv-470 (E.D. Va.) ("Galloway III") -- four similar, but in
many respects substantively quite different, actions arising out of
a so-called "Rent A Tribe" scheme allegedly orchestrated by Matt
Martorello, members of his family, companies that he controls, and
investors who allegedly funded the scheme.  The Settling Defendants
have reached a settlement as to all claims asserted against them in
Williams, Galloway I, Galloway II, and Galloway III.  Eventide is a
named Defendant in Galloway II, but not in the other actions.

The proposed class in Williams includes only Virginia consumers.
Galloway I includes only the Plaintiffs who are citizens of
Virginia, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, New
Jersey, North Carolina, Texas, Ohio, and Washington.  Galloway II
also involves only the Plaintiffs who are citizens of Virginia,
California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, New Jersey, North
Carolina, Texas, Ohio, and Washington.

Galloway III is a national class action in which the proposed class
includes 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 the date of the
Preliminary Approval Order.  Because the Settlement Agreement
resolves claims of "all consumers residing within the United
States," the Settlement Agreement was filed in Galloway III, the
only action that defined the proposed class as consumers within the
United States, as opposed to consumers in specific enumerated
states.  And, considering that Galloway III involves a broad
spectrum of claims and a proposed national class, that decision is
a logical one.

In Galloway III, the Plaintiffs, with the agreement of the Settling
Defendants, seek certification of a settlement class action in
which all of the Plaintiffs' claims against the Settling Defendants
will be settled for a cash payment and other consideration.  In
return, and upon approval of the Settlement Agreement, the
Plaintiffs' claims against the Settling Defendants will be
released.  In December 2019, the Court entered an order
preliminarily approving the settlement in Galloway III.  Eventide,
which is not a party in Galloway III, has moved to intervene in
Galloway III for the limited purpose of challenging the Settlement
Agreement between Plaintiffs and the Settling Defendants.

The financial transaction that gives rise to Eventide's contention
that it needs to intervene in the action is a loan to Tribal
Economic Development Holding, LLC, a holding company owned by the
Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians ("LVD").

In October 2015, Eventide and Tribal Economic Development entered
into a Loan and Security Agreement ("LSA") by which Eventide loaned
LVD (through Tribal Economic Development) $300 million to help
start LVD's lending business that is the subject of the action.
Big Picture, Ascension Technologies, LLC, and LVD Tribal
Acquisition Co. are subsidiaries of Tribal Economic Development and
those companies executed the LSA as well.  According to Eventide,
as collateral for the loan, Tribal Economic Development and the
aforementioned subsidiaries assigned to Eventide its security
interest in the property of Tribal Economic Development and the
subsidiaries.  Along with the LSA, Tribal Economic Development and
the subsidiaries also executed a secured promissory note and agreed
therein to make future monthly payments to Eventide.

Eventide contends that certain provisions of the Settlement
Agreement under consideration have potential to impair the
collateral for the Note payments.  More specifically, it contends
that the Settlement Agreement (1) improperly uses its Collateral to
fund the Settlement Agreement and (2) lowers Remaining Note
Payments which LVD and its lending entities must fulfill to
complete its equity purchase of Bellicose Capital by capping future
debt collections.  Remaining Note Payments are the future monthly
payments Tribal Economic Development and the subsidiaries agreed to
make to Eventide consisting of the gross revenues deposited in
Tribal Economic Development and the subsidiaries' accounts less
certain distributions to LVD, interest, and expenses.

The LSA defines "Collateral" as "all of Borrower's Tribal Economic
Development and any Subsidiary's present and future right, title
and interest in, to and under the following described property
whether directly owned by Borrower or owned by a Subsidiary.
Additionally, the "Collateral Account" is defined as "any
account(s) of Borrower Tribal Economic Development or a Subsidiary
through which Borrower or the Subsidiary conducts its Business and
maintains a deposit account control agreements and lockbox
agreements to protect the interests of Lender (Eventide) unless
otherwise waived by Lender."

Neither LVD nor Tribal Economic Development are among the Settling
Defendants in the case.  However, Big Picture and Ascension
("Tribal Defendants") are parties to the Settlement Agreement.

The Settlement Agreement provides for a cash payment of $8.7
million and substantial relief from disputed collection activities
for over 450,000 class members.  More specifically, it provides
that Big Picture and Ascension (1) will not collect more than 2.5
times the original principal amount of the loan in payments over
the life of the loan; (2) will cancel and cease collection of all
loans that are more than 210 days in default; and (3) will not
sell, transfer, or assign any nterest in these charged-off loans
and/or future loan proceeds from the charged-off loans.  In return,
all claims against the Settling Defendants in nine class actions
cases will be resolved. Under the Settlement Agreement, the
consumer loans made by Big Picture will continue to be serviced by
Ascension and the proceeds thereof will be collected and will be
available to make payments on the Note to Eventide.

Galloway III was filed on June 26, 2019.  The Plaintiffs' Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement in Galloway III
was filed on Nov. 26, 2019.  Eventide filed the insant motion on
Dec. 18, 2019, two days before the Court held a hearing regarding
preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement.  Two days
earlier, on Dec. 16, 2019, Eventide filed a Demand for Arbitration
with the American Arbitration Association against LVD, Tribal
Economic Development, Big Picture, Ascension, and LVD Tribal
Acquisition pursuant to the LSA and the Note.  In that arbitration,
Eventide asserts that the terms of the Settlement Agreement to
which it proposes to object in this action constitute violations of
the LSA.  The arbitration is ongoing, and the Court is told that it
will be decided perhaps within the next few months.

Then, on Dec. 17, 2019, Eventide filed suit against Big Picture,
Ascension, and Tribal Economic Development in the Western District
of Michigan and sought a temporary restraining order barring the
Defendants from taking any action that would constitute a Material
Adverse Effect under the relevant contract.  Eventide voluntarily
dismissed the action without prejudice on Jan. 28, 2020.

In another effort to foreclose the settlement process in the Court,
on Jan. 28, 2020, Eventide filed a Notice of Suggestion of
Bankruptcy and Automatic Stay of Proceedings in Galloway II.  The
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas recently
dismissed Eventide's bankruptcy case on June 9 after finding that
the Eventide has not filed and prosecuted the Bankruptcy Case in
good faith.

It is against this background that Eventide's motion to intervene
to object to the Settlement Agreement must be decided.  Judge Payne
has considered the motion, the supporting, opposing, and reply
memoranda, and the arguments of counsel.

As a threshold matter, Judge Payne holds that Eventide lacks
standing to challenge the Settlement Agreement.  Eventide has not
demonstrated that it has suffered formal legal prejudice.
Eventide's ability to initiate arbitration proceedings shows that
the Settlement Agreement does not prevent it from asserting its
contract claims against the parties with which it has contracted.
Although Eventide may have to bring suit against the Settling
Defendants, a settlement which does not prevent the later assertion
of a non-settling party's claims, although it may force a second
lawsuit against the dismissed parties, does not cause plain legal
prejudice to the non-settling party.

Because the Settlement Agreement does not strip Eventide of its
legal claims or causes of action and does not interfere with
Eventide's contract rights or ability to assert its claims,
Eventide has not suffered formal legal prejudice, the Court holds.
Eventide thus lacks standing to challenge the Settlement Agreement,
the Court avers.

Even if Eventide had standing to intervene (which it does not), the
motion will be denied for the additional reason that it is
untimely.  The Judge finds that the many cases that the Settlement
Agreement resolves have progressed well along the protracted and
complex litigation journey.  Allowing Eventide to intervene at this
stage would derail a lawsuit within sight of the terminal.  The
first timeliness factor, progression of the suit(s), weighs
strongly against intervention.  

This derailment and the consequent time and resources the parties
would have to expend to reach a new settlement agreement or to
continue the litigation clearly constitutes prejudice to the
Plaintiffs and the Settling Defendants.  Moreover, the Settlement
Agreement benefits approximately 450,000 potential members of the
proposed settlement class by conferring on them significant
financial benefits and by significantly limiting, or eliminating,
their obligations under quite burdensome loan agreements.  These
individuals would be significantly prejudiced by Eventide's
last-minute intervention.  Consequently, the second timeliness
factor also weighs against intervention.

Becuase each of the timeliness factors weighs strongly against
intervention, the Judge finds that Eventide did not timely file the
motion, and the motion will be denied.

Even if Eventide had standing and its motion were timely,
Eventide's motion will be denied for the additional reason that
Eventide has not adequately shown that it has an interest in the
litigation.  Eventide's statement that the LSA requires that
Eventide be paid before all others, including the Plaintiffs, is
conclusory and does not explain how the Settlement Agreement
actually impacts Eventide's collateral.  Eventide has also failed
to show that it has an interest in the litigation because Eventide
does not stand to gain or lose by the Court approving the
Settlement Agreement.

Accordingly, Eventide may assert its claims through binding
arbitration under a bargained-for and agreed-to provision of the
LSA.  The Court's future approval of the Settlement Agreement (if
that is done) does nothing to impair Eventide's ability to pursue
its claims through arbitration.  Consequently, because Eventide's
statements regarding its alleged interest are entirely conclusory
and because Eventide does not stand to gain or lose by the Court
approving the Settlement Agreement, Eventide has failed to show
that it has a significantly protectable interest in the litigation
and its motion will thus be denied.

Accordingly, Judge Payne denied Eventide's motion.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 7, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y24k7h5p from
Leagle.com.


CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Escobar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capstone Logistics,
LLC. The case is styled as Ivan Escobar, as an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Capstone Logistics, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2020-0009429 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Nov. 9,
2020).

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

Capstone Logistics, Inc. offers customized & integrated solutions
to create efficiencies that reduce costs, enhance visibility &
eliminate waste.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Larry W. Lee, Esq.



CEQUEL COMMUNICATIONS: Lopez Suit removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jamie Lopez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Cequel Communications, LLC doing
business as: Suddenlink Communications, Case No. TCU20-7694, was
removed from the Nevada County Superior Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California on Nov. 9, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-at-01102 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Cequel Communications, LLC provides cable broadband services. The
Company offers paid cable television services, internet, phone,
digital programming, and video on demand services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Archis A. Parasharami, Jr.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1999 K St NW
          Washington, DC 20006-1101
          Phone: (202) 263-3328
          Fax: (202) 263-5328
          Email: aparasharami@mayerbrown.com


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Class Action Settlement Wins Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN SCHNEIDER, et al.,
v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., Case No. 4:16-cv-02200-HSG (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of
      Class Action Settlement;

   2. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's Motion
      for Class Counsel's Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses,
      and Incentive Award;

   3. awarding attorneys' fees in the amount of $1,950,000,
      costs in the amount of $636,556.28, and denying the
      request to award the Named Plaintiffs an incentive award
      of $5,000;

   4. directing the parties to implement this Final Order and
      the settlement agreement in accordance with the terms of
      the settlement agreement; and

   5. directing the parties to file a stipulated final judgment
      within 21 days from the date of this order.

The Court said it shares the Ninth Circuit's concern that "if class
representatives expect routinely to receive special awards in
addition to their share of the recovery, they may be tempted to
accept suboptimal settlements at the expense of the class members
whose interests they are appointed to guard.". The Court questions
the appropriateness of multi-thousand dollar incentive awards in a
case like this one in which absent Settlement Class members are
receiving a very small monetary award, and where the actual value
of the purported harm at issue is questionable (to the extent it
even mattered in any way to the vast majority of Chipotle's
customers, which is far from clear given Plaintiffs' labeling
theory).

According to the Court, in a consumer case like this, there is no
reason to believe that any financial or reputational risk is likely
to attach to the Named Plaintiffs (unlike, for example, the
circumstance faced by an employee suing a current or former
employer in a wage-and-hour class action case). Moreover, the Named
Plaintiffs apparently were willing to sign off on a settlement that
would have funneled a disproportionate amount of the settlement
fund to cy pres recipients rather than to Settlement Class members,
based solely on the arbitrary cap insisted upon by Defendant.
Granting the Named Plaintiffs' request for incentive awards under
these circumstances would amount to drastically preferential
treatment as compared to the other Settlement Class members, who
will receive up to $4.00 per product. If $4.00 per product is a
positive result for the absent Settlement Class members, it should
be a positive result for the Named Plaintiffs. Accordingly,
considering all the circumstances of this case, the Court finds
that an incentive award of $5,000 (or any amount) is unwarranted,
and in its discretion denies the request for incentive awards.

The Plaintiffs brought this consumer class action against the
Defendant alleging that Defendant's "non-GMO" claims about its food
products were false and misleading. According to the Plaintiffs,
Chipotle consistently advertised its food products as "non-GMO" and
"GMO free." However, these claims were purportedly false because as
alleged, the meat and dairy products "are all sourced from animals
that are fed with a genetically engineered or GMO derived feed,"
and the soft drinks contain corn syrup, a GMO. The Plaintiffs
contend that had they known of the "true character and quality of
the ingredients," they would not have purchased, or would have paid
less for, Chipotle's food products. Based on those facts, the
complaint asserted the following ten causes of action: California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act; California's False Advertising Law;
California's Unfair Competition Law; Florida's Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act; Maryland's Consumer Protection Act; New York's
Consumer Protection Statute; and New York's False Advertising Law.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 4, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ffUC8p at no extra charge.[CC]


CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: ClaimsFiler Reminds of December 1 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:

BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. (BMRN)
Class Period: 2/28/2020 - 8/18/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 24, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-biomarin-pharmaceutical-inc-securities-litigation

Peabody Energy Corp. (BTU)
Class Period: 4/3/2017 - 10/28/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 27, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-peabody-energy-corporation-securities-litigation

Credit Acceptance Corporation (CACC)
Class Period: 11/1/2019 - 8/28/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 1, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-credit-acceptance-corporation-securities-litigation-1

Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd. (TRQ)
Class Period: 7/17/2018 - 7/31/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 14, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-turquoise-hill-resources-ltd-securities-litigation-1

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
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit 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 ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.

To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com [GN]


CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Rosen Law Firm Remind of December 1 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Oct. 19
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Credit Acceptance Corporation
(NASDAQ: CACC) between November 1, 2019 and August 28, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Credit Acceptance investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Credit Acceptance class action, go to [To enable links
contact MENAFN] or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653
or email or for information on the class action.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) the Company was topping off the pools of loans that they
packaged and securitized with higher-risk loans; (2) Credit
Acceptance was making high-interest subprime auto loans to
borrowers that the Company knew borrowers would be unable to repay;
(3) the borrowers were subject to hidden finance charges, resulting
in loans exceeding the usury rate ceiling mandated by state law;
(4) Credit Acceptance took excessive and illegal measures to
collect debt from defaulted borrowers; (5) as a result, the Company
was likely to face regulatory scrutiny and possible penalties from
various regulators or lawsuits; and (6) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendant's positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and adherence to appropriate laws and
regulations were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
1, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to [To enable links contact MENAFN]
or 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 or .

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 [GN]


DAIMLER AG: Dec. 14 Securities Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VANCOUVER ALUMNI ASSET HOLDINGS INC.,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated,

                                Plaintiffs,

                v.

DAIMLER AG, DIETER ZETSCHE, BODO UEBBER,
and THOMAS WEBER,

                                Defendants.

MARIA MUNRO, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated,

                                Plaintiffs,

                v.

DAIMLER AG, DIETER ZETSCHE, BODO UEBBER,
and THOMAS WEBER,

                                Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-02942-DSF-KS
Judge:    Hon. Dale S. Fischer
Case No. 16-cv-03412-DSF-KS

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION,
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, AND MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES

TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
DAIMLER AMERICAN DEPOSITORY RECEIPTS AND/OR GLOBAL REGISTERED
SHARES, IN THE UNITED STATES, DURING THE PERIOD FROM FEBRUARY 22,
2012 THROUGH APRIL 21, 2016, INCLUSIVE, AND WERE ALLEGEDLY DAMAGED
THEREBY ("SETTLEMENT CLASS").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, that Court-appointed Lead
Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all members of the proposed
Settlement Class, and Daimler AG ("Daimler" or the "Company"), and
Dieter Zetsche, Bodo Uebber, and Thomas Weber (collectively,
"Defendants"), have reached a proposed settlement of the claims in
the above-captioned class action (the "Action") in the amount of
$19,000,000 (the "Settlement").

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Dale S. Fischer, on
December 14, 2020 at 1:30 p.m., either in person or telephonically
at the Court's discretion, in Courtroom 7D of the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, First Street
Courthouse, 350 West 1st Street, Los Angeles, California 90012 (the
"Settlement Hearing") to, among other things, determine whether the
Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as
provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated
April 20, 2020 and amended by the Parties' Agreement Regarding
Amendments to the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated
September 14, 2020; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation
for distribution of the settlement funds available for distribution
to Settlement Class Members (the "Net Settlement Fund"); and (iv)
approve Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application.  The Court may
change the date of the Settlement Hearing, or hold it
telephonically, without providing another notice.  You do NOT need
to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the
Net Settlement Fund.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A
MONETARY PAYMENT.  If you have not yet received a Notice and Claim
Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting the
website for the Settlement, www.DaimlerSecuritiesSettlement.com, or
by contacting the Claims Administrator at:

Daimler AG Securities Litigation
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173112
Milwaukee, WI  53217
www.DaimlerSecuritiesSettlement.com
info@DaimlerSecuritiesSettlement.com
877-883-9246

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice/Claim Form or for
information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Lead
Counsel:

James W. Johnson Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
www.labaton.com
settlementquestions@labaton.com
888-219-6877

If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than December 7,
2020.  If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely
submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless
be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court relating
to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable.  

If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for
exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice such that it is received no later November 23, 2020.  If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court relating
to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will
not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Lead Counsel's Fee and
Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be
mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the
instructions in the Notice, such that they are received no later
than November 23, 2020.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR
DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

DATED: OCTOBER 19, 2020

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [GN]


DEVA HOLDINGS: Vilorio Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Roberto Vilorio, Walter Perez, Jarvin J. Garcia, Armando
Mejia Bonilla, Jose Garcia, Joaquine Zabala, Manuel Cantor, Jose
Velasquez, Jorge Armando, Julio Cesar Maldonado, and Jose
Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DEVA HOLDINGS, LLC AND DEVA LITTLE NECK INC. d/b/a
TOSKANA PIZZERIA RESTAURANT and JEFFREY DEVA, as an individual,
Case No. 1:20-cv-05389 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 6, 2020), is brought against
the Defendants to recover damages for egregious violations of state
and federal wage and hour laws arising out of the Plaintiffs'
employment, under the Federal and the New York Labor Law.

Although the Plaintiff worked for 60-84 or more hours per week
during their employment by the Defendants, the Defendants did not
pay the Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, a
blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA
and NYLL. The Defendant also willfully failed to post notices of
the minimum wage and overtime wages requirements in a conspicuous
place at the location of their employees as required by both the
NYLL and the FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants at the Defendant's
pizza restaurant.

DEVA HOLDINGS, LLC is a corporation organized under the laws of New
York with a principal executive office located in Great Neck, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Phone: 718-263-9591


DIRECTV LLC: 4th Cir. Vacates Arbitration Denial in Mey TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DIANA MEY, individually and on behalf of a class of
all persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
DIRECTV, LLC, Defendant-Appellant, and ADAM COX; AC1
COMMUNICATIONS; IQ MARKETING 2, CORP., d/b/a Pacificom; MICHAEL
ASGHARI, Defendants, Case No. 18-1534 (4th Cir.), the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled 2-1 to vacate the district
court's order denying DIRECTV's motion to compel arbitration.

Diana Mey sued DIRECTV and others, alleging that they violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), by calling her cellular
telephone to advertise DIRECTV products and services even though
her telephone number is listed on the National Do Not Call
Registry.

On March 16, 2012, at an AT&T retail store, Mey opened a new line
of service under her husband's existing AT&T Mobility account, for
which she was an authorized user. During that transaction, Mey was
electronically presented with the AT&T Wireless Customer Agreement,
which she could read on the screen or print.  After she pressed an
on-screen button to "accept" the agreement, Mey electronically
signed an acknowledgment.  The Wireless Customer Agreement includes
an arbitration agreement.

The arbitration agreement outlines the procedures to be used,
including, among others, provisions forbidding class proceedings,
requiring AT&T to pay at least $10,000 and double attorneys' fees
for any claim found in the customer's favor if the award is greater
than the value of AT&T's last written settlement offer, requiring
AT&T to pay all arbitration costs for any nonfrivolous claim under
$75,000, and preserving both parties' right to bring a claim in
small claims court as an alternative to arbitration.  Issues
relating to the scope and enforceability of the arbitration
agreement are reserved for courts; otherwise, all issues are for
the arbitrator to decide.

In 2015, AT&T, Inc. acquired DIRECTV.  AT&T now owns both AT&T
Mobility and DIRECTV through other corporate entities.

In December 2017, Mey filed a class action complaint against
DIRECTV and its hired agents, alleging that DIRECTV's agents
unlawfully made automated and pre-recorded telemarketing calls to
her AT&T Mobility phone number earlier that year when her number
was listed on the National Do Not Call Registry.  She alleged three
counts of violating the TCPA and sought class certification,
statutory damages, and injunctive relief.

DIRECTV moved to compel arbitration based on the arbitration
agreement in AT&T Mobility's Wireless Customer Agreement.  It
asserted that the dispute was covered by an arbitration agreement
in the contract governing Mey's cellular phone service from AT&T
Mobility LLC, a DIRECTV affiliate.  The district court denied the
motion, concluding that the dispute did not fall within the scope
of the arbitration agreement.

DIRECTV filed the interlocutory appeal.  On appeal, Mey defends the
district court's scope ruling and alternatively argues that no
agreement was formed.

Mey first argues that she did not sign the arbitration agreement
with AT&T Mobility, therefore it does not bind her under West
Virginia law.  The Fourth Circuit disagrees.  It opines that the
arbitration provision to which Mey agreed covers all authorized or
unauthorized users or beneficiaries of services or Devices under it
or prior Agreements; therefore, it does not matter, as Mey
contends, that the account was in her husband's name and she was
merely an authorized user who purportedly signed on his behalf.
Because Mey signed an acknowledgement expressly agreeing to the
arbitration provision of the Wireless Customer Agreement, which
provision applies to her as an authorized user, the Court rejects
Mey's argument that she did not form an agreement to arbitrate.

Mey next contends that, even if she consented to arbitration, she
did not form an agreement to arbitrate with DIRECTV.  As an initial
matter, the Court concludes -- as the district court appears to
have acknowledged and Mey does not dispute -- that DIRECTV is
currently an affiliate of AT&T Mobility.  Since 2015, AT&T, Inc.
has owned both AT&T Mobility and DIRECTV through other corporate
entities, making them affiliates under common ownership or control.
Although Mey considers the relationship attenuated, she does not
contest that DIRECTV is currently an affiliate of AT&T Mobility and
was an affiliate at the time of the underlying events by virtue of
their common ownership.  

The arbitration agreement explicitly applies to "successors" and
"assigns," terms that by definition refer to parties whose
identities cannot be known until some point in the future.  The
ordinary meaning of "affiliates" and the contractual context
convinces the Court that the term includes affiliates acquired
after the agreement was signed.  As a result, Mey formed an
agreement to arbitrate with DIRECTV.

The next question is whether that agreement covers the dispute.
Mey argues, and the district court agreed, that her claims alleging
violations of the TCPA by DIRECTV are not within the scope of the
arbitration agreement.  Both Mey and the district court rely on
cases analyzing arbitration clauses providing that any dispute
"arising out of or related to" the underlying contract will be
resolved by arbitration.

The Court acknowledges that construing the broadest language of the
arbitration agreement in the abstract could lead to troubling
hypothetical scenarios.  But the question before it is not
abstract; it is tethered to the facts of the dispute and the
categories of claims specifically included in this arbitration
agreement.  It need not define the outer limits of the arbitration
agreement to conclude, based on the arbitration provisions and the
contract as a whole, that Mey's TCPA claims about DIRECTV's
advertising calls fall within its scope.  

Having interpreted the arbitration agreement to which Mey agreed in
accordance with traditional contract principles, and applying the
presumption in favor of arbitrability, the Court must enforce the
contract according to its terms.  As with any contract, it is not
the Court's place to disturb the parties' bargain or relieve a
party of the obligations to which it agreed.

Finally, although the district court concluded that the dispute
does not fall within the ambit of the arbitration agreement, it
opined in passing that a construction which does not so limit the
scope of the arbitration clause would be unconscionably overbroad.
On appeal, DIRECTV argues that Mey waived any unconscionability
challenge to the arbitration agreement by failing to raise it in
the district court; DIRECTV also contends that the agreement is
neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable.  The
district court did not address waiver or analyze unconscionability
under West Virginia law.  The Court therefore leaves the issue for
the parties and the district court to address on remand.

For the foregoing reasons, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district
court's order denying the motion to compel arbitration, and
remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its
Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Fourth Circuit's Aug. 7, 2020 Opinion is
available at
https://tinyurl.com/y4odhjel from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Evan Mark Tager -- etager@mayerbrown.com -- MAYER BROWN
LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Ryan McCune Donovan --
rdonovan@baileyglasser.com -- HISSAM FORMAN DONOVAN RITCHIE PLLC,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF: Archis A. Parasharami -- aparasharami@mayerbrown.com --
Daniel E. Jones -- djones@mayerbrown.com -- MAYER BROWN LLP,
Washington, D.C., for Appellant. J. Zak Ritchie, HISSAM FORMAN
DONOVAN RITCHIE PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia; John W. Barrett --
jbarrett@baileyglasser.com -- Jonathan R. Marshall, BAILEY GLASSER
LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.


EPION BRANDS: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Epion Brands LLC. The
case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. Epion Brands LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-05438 (E.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 9, 2020).

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

Epion is a marketing and communications firm that specializes in
providing services for federal agencies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
          175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


EVEREST RECEIVABLE: Hofstatter Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Everest Receivable
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Annie Hofstatter, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Everest
Receivable Services, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-05577 (E.D.N.Y., Nov.
16, 2020).

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

Everest Receivable Services Inc. is a licensed, full-service
consumer receivable asset management company that focuses on
recovery of delinquent consumer debt.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
          735 Central Avenue
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Phone: (516) 668-6945
          Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


EVOLUS INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of December 15 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, on Oct. 19 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 Evolus,
Inc. (NASDAQ: EOLS) common stock between February 1, 2019 and July
6, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until December 15,
2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

Beginning in February 2019, Evolus embarked on a public campaign to
hype the market right before the commercial launch of its sole
leading product Jeuveau(TM). To secure an aggressive growth and an
rapid influx of revenue, Evolus disseminated dozens of public
statements in which they promoted Jeuveau(TM) as a proprietary
formulation of the botulinum toxic type A complex, purportedly
developed by Korean bioengineering company Daewoong through years
of clinical research and millions of dollars' worth of investment
in research and development. Among other things, Evolus promised
investors that it would attain the number two U.S. market position
within 24 months of launch.

The investing public learned the real truth about Jeuveau(TM) on
July 6, 2020 when the U.S. International Trade Commission ("ITC")
issued its Initial Final Determination in a case brought by
Allergan and Medytox against Evolus, alleging that Evolus stole
certain trade secrets to develop Jeuveau(TM). Coming as a great
surprise to the unsuspecting investors, the ITC Judge found that
Evolus misappropriated the botulinum toxin strain as well as the
manufacturing processes that led to its development and
manufacture. To make things even more catastrophic, the ITC Judge
recommended a ten-year long ban on Evolus' ability to import
Jeuveau(TM) into the United States and a ten-year long cease and
desist order preventing Evolus from selling Jeuveau(TM) in the
United States.

On this news Evolus's share price declined sharply, falling 37%
over the course of two trading days, to close at $3.35 on July 8,
2020. Following the news of the ITC's Initial Final Determination
and the subsequent price drop of Evolus's common shares, several
securities analysts downgraded Evolus's rating and significantly
lowered the Company's price target.

The complaint, filed on October 16, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operational, and compliance policies.
Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and failed to disclose to investors that: (i) the real source of
botulinum toxin bacterial strain as well as the manufacturing
processes used to develop Jeuveau(TM) originated with and were
misappropriated from Medytox; (ii) sufficient evidentiary support
existed for the allegations that Evolus misappropriated certain
trade secrets relating to the botulin toxin strain and the
manufacturing processes for the development of Jeuveau(TM); (iii)
as a result, Evolus faced a real threat of regulatory and/or court
action, prohibiting the import, marketing, and sale of Jeuveau(TM);
which in turn (iv) seriously threatened Evolus' ability to
commercialize Jeuveau(TM) in the United States and generate
revenue; and (v) any revenues generated from the sale of
Jeuveau(TM) were based on Evolus' unlawful activities, including
the misappropriation of trade secrets and secret manufacturing
processes belonging to Allergan and Medytox.

If you purchased Evolus common stock during the Class Period and
suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information,
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact 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]


EVOLUS INC: Kehoe Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential securities claims
on behalf of investors of Evolus, Inc. ("Evolus" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: EOLS) to determine whether the Company engaged in
securities fraud or other unlawful business practices.

Evolus investors who purchased, or otherwise acquired, the
Company's securities between February 1, 2019 and July 6, 2020,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), and suffered losses
greater than $50,000 are encouraged to complete Kehoe Law Firm's
Securities Class Action Questionnaire or contact Michael Yarnoff,
Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com,
securities@kehoelawfirm.com, to discuss the securities
investigation or potential legal claims.

A class action lawsuit was filed against Evolus and certain of its
officers in United States District Court, Southern District of New
York, seeking to recover damages for investors caused by the Evolus
Defendants' alleged violations of federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against
the Company and certain of its top officials.

According to the class action complaint, Defendants made materially
false and misleading statements, and failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operational, and
compliance policies.

The Evolus Defendants, according to the class action complaint,
made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose to
investors that: (i) the real source of botulinum toxin bacterial
strain, as well as the manufacturing processes used to develop
Jeuveau,(TM) originated with and were misappropriated from Medytox;
(ii) sufficient evidentiary support existed for the allegations
that Evolus misappropriated certain trade secrets relating to the
botulin toxin strain and the manufacturing processes for the
development of Jeuveau(TM); (iii) as a result, Evolus faced a real
threat of regulatory and/or court action, prohibiting the import,
marketing, and sale of Jeuveau(TM); which, in turn, (iv) seriously
threatened Evolus' ability to commercialize Jeuveau(TM) in the
United States and generate revenue; and (v) any revenues generated
from the sale of Jeuveau(TM) were based on Evolus' unlawful
activities, including the misappropriation of trade secrets and
secret manufacturing processes belonging to Allergan and Medytox.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., with offices in New York and Philadelphia, is
a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to
protecting investors from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary
duties, and corporate misconduct.  Combined, the partners at Kehoe
Law Firm have served as Lead Counsel or Co-Lead Counsel in cases
that have recovered more than $10 billion on behalf of
institutional and individual investors.  [GN]


EVOLUS INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds of December 15 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP on Oct. 19 disclosed that a
class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who acquired
Evolus, Inc. ("Evolus" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EOLS) securities
during the period February 1, 2019 through July 6, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Investors have until December 15, 2020 to
apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the real source of botulinum toxin bacterial
strain as well as the manufacturing processes used to develop
Jeuveau(TM) originated with and were misappropriated from Medytox;
(2) sufficient evidentiary support existed for the allegations that
Evolus misappropriated certain trade secrets relating to the
botulin toxin strain and the manufacturing processes for the
development of Jeuveau(TM); (3) as a result, Evolus faced a real
threat of regulatory and/or court action, prohibiting the import,
marketing, and sale of Jeuveau(TM); (4) which in turn seriously
threatened Evolus' ability to commercialize Jeuveau(TM) in the
United States and generate revenue; and (5) any revenues generated
from the sale of Jeuveau(TM) were based on Evolus' unlawful
activities, including the misappropriation of trade secrets and
secret manufacturing processes belonging to Allergan and Medytox.

If you acquired Evolus 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]


EVOLUS INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of December 15 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Oct. 19
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Evolus, Inc. (NASDAQ: EOLS) between
February 1, 2019 and July 6, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Evolus investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Evolus class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1954.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) the real source of botulinum toxin bacterial strain as
well as the manufacturing processes used to develop Jeuveau(TM)
originated with and were misappropriated from Medytox; (2)
sufficient evidentiary support existed for the allegations that
Evolus misappropriated certain trade secrets relating to the
botulin toxin strain and the manufacturing processes for the
development of Jeuveau(TM); (3) as a result, Evolus faced a real
threat of regulatory and/or court action, prohibiting the import,
marketing, and sale of Jeuveau(TM); (4) which in turn seriously
threatened Evolus' ability to commercialize Jeuveau(TM) in the
United States and generate revenue; and (5) any revenues generated
from the sale of Jeuveau(TM) were based on Evolus' unlawful
activities, including the misappropriation of trade secrets and
secret manufacturing processes belonging to Allergan and Medytox.
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 December
15, 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-1954.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.

Contacts:
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
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]


EVOLUS INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of December 15 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Oct. 19 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Evolus, Inc. ("Evolus" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: EOLS) for
violations of Secs. 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
1, 2019 and July 6, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before December 15, 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. Evolus misappropriated from Medytox its
source of botulinum toxin and the processes used to develop the
Jeuveau product. Evidence exists proving the Company's
misappropriation of trade secrets in the product's development. The
Company faced a threat of regulatory or court action prohibiting
the importation and marketing of Jeuveau. Any revenues the Company
generated from Jeuveau were based on its unlawful activities
including the misappropriation of trade secrets from Allergan and
Medytox. 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 Evolus, investors suffered
damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

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


FLUIDIGM CORP: Howard G. Smith Reminds of November 20 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that class action
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Investors have until the deadlines
listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal
rights in these class actions at 888-638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

Fluidigm Corporation (NASDAQ: FLDM)
Class Period: February 7, 2019 - November 5, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 20, 2020

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Fluidigm was experiencing longer sales cycles;
(2) that, as a result, Fluidigm's revenue was reasonably likely to
decline; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish
to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith,
Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215)
638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.

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


GOOGLE INC: Group of Law Firms in Canada Mull Privacy Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Premila D'Sa, writing for Canada's National Observer, reports that
a group of law firms across Canada has teamed up to propose a
class-action lawsuit against Google in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia alleging the company turns Canadians' electronics into
tracking devices.

The proposed lawsuit was filed on behalf of millions of Canadians
by law firms from British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario. In a
release, the firms said they are seeking compensation for the
invasion of privacy, trespass, and consumer protection violations
with the intention of getting Google to stop these alleged invasive
practices.

"The claim alleges that Google turns Canadians' electronics into
tracking devices, which it uses to build profiles on almost every
Internet user in Canada; even people Google has no relationship
with, all without their consent," said Luciana P. Brasil, a partner
at B.C. firm Branch MacMaster LLP, in the release. "There is no
reason Canadians should tolerate what we say is extensive
surveillance of their daily online activities, especially because
Canada has laws specifically intended to protect them from such
actions."

The allegations point specifically to programs such as Google
Analytics and Google Ads, which the suit claims are installed in
"more than half of global websites." In 2012, Google said more than
10 million websites used its analytics software, but it hasn't
released updated figures since then.

The lawsuit claims Google creates "profiles" on people based on the
websites they visit, and then uses this information for practices
such as targeted advertising without the user's consent.

"Our governments have passed laws that govern the collection of
personal information, and usually when the governments pass law,
you have to use that law to fight for your rights," said Kris
Klein, a lawyer at nNovation LLP who has dealt with privacy issues
for more than two decades.

Klein said the lawsuit has to get through some procedural hurdles
before the allegations are even dealt with. The lawsuit has been
filed in B.C. Supreme Court, but needs to be approved by a judge
before it can go any further.

But Klein said the case could be interesting given the provincial
and federal regulations that are in place to regulate privacy
issues. In B.C., there's the Personal Information Protection Act
(PIPA), and federally there is the Personal Information Protection
and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), which regulates private
companies in Canada.

"These two laws work hand-in-hand to govern tech companies like
Google with respect to the concept of personal information," said
Klein. "Admittedly, these laws don't really have much in terms of
providing individuals with actual remedies."

Klein, who has also advised the Privacy Commissioner of Canada,
said Canadian laws haven't really kept up with technology, with
some existing before the onset of programs like Google Analytics.

In some cases, Klein said, lawyers will band together for a
class-action lawsuit just to prove that existing legislation isn't
enough to keep ever-growing tech companies in check.

"What happens in Canada is that there's a general frustration that
we're kind of helpless in terms of the laws catching up and
providing meaningful remedies," he said. "This is why you've got
some courageous and inventive class-action lawyers trying to invent
new ways to go after these issues."

Making a big enough deal could even get the attention of Google,
which might try to shut the lawsuit down through an out-of-court
settlement, said Klein, adding that publicity generated from the
case could even make Canadians and lawmakers more aware of
persisting privacy issues -- regardless if the suit is successful
or not.

This isn't the first time Google has been taken to court for
privacy issues. It's one of many lawsuits specifically calling out
the American technology giant, which operates under the parent
company Alphabet Inc., for issues specifically related to tracking
people.

In 2019, the company agreed to pay $13 million US to resolve a
class-action lawsuit when it was found that Google cars sent out to
capture images for the Street View feature were also collecting
private information such as emails and passwords through people's
wi-fi networks.

In June, a class-action lawsuit was filed in California seeking at
least $5 billion US in damages for collecting information on people
using Google's private "incognito mode."

In August, some Google users were informed they were eligible for a
payment of $12 US after the company found out that a security flaw
let third-party companies take private data from Google Plus user
profiles.

In this case, the Canadian firms say they are representing millions
of Canadians. Klein said if the case goes further, the firms will
likely set up a website advertising the class-action lawsuit, where
potential claimants would have to prove that their device was
affected by the alleged invasive tracking measures. [GN]


HALLIBURTON ENERGY: Tippetts Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HALLIBURTON ENERGY
SERVICES. The case is styled as Lloyd Allen Tippetts, as an
individual and on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, Case No.
BCV-20-102626 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Nov. 9, 2020).

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

Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. operates as an oil field service
company. The Company provides products, services, and solutions for
oil and gas exploration, development, and production, as well as
offers oil field equipment, parts, logistics, and personnel to
petroleum exploration and production companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.


HOLLAND HOSPITALITY: Mortland Files ADA Suit in N.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Holland Hospitality
LLC. The case is styled as Derek Mortland, individually, and on
behalf of individuals similarly situated v. Holland Hospitality
LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-02567 (N.D. Ohio, Nov. 16, 2020).

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

Holland Hospitality was founded by Clark David Holland Jr. Clark
has been associated with the restaurant and hospitality business
for almost 4 decades.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Owen B. Dunn , Jr., Esq.
          4334 West Central Avenue, Ste. 222
          Toledo, OH 43615
          Phone: (419) 241-9661
          Fax: (419) 241-9737
          Email: dunnlawoffice@sbcglobal.net


INTEGRATED TECH: Monplaisir Settlement Denied Preliminary Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL MONPLAISIR, et al.,
v. INTEGRATED TECH GROUP, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-01484-WHA
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered an order denying
preliminary settlement approval.

The Court said, "In this wage and hour collective and putative
class action, the parties move for conditional class certification
and preliminary approval of a proposed class and collective
settlement. Because the proposal unduly rewards counsel, appears
detached from the merits of the plaintiffs' claims, and unfairly
burdens a discrete subset of plaintiffs, preliminary approval is
denied."

The Court explained the proposed settlement unduly rewards counsel
at plaintiffs' expense, appears more a product of arbitration
agreements than the merits, and unfairly burdens a discrete portion
of the class and collective members. "It remains conceivable that
an amended proposal could be better justified. The undersigned's
role, however, is not to amend the proposed settlement, but to
either approve or deny it. This order need not reach the question
of conditional class certification. The parties shall please submit
the requested supplemental numerosity discovery by November 27 at
5:00 p.m.," the Court said.

Integrated Tech Group, LLC and ITG Communications LLC install cable
and communication equipment across the nation. In March 2019, ITG's
employees sued for violation of both federal and California law.
The complaint alleged a slew of minimum-wage and overtime, meal and
rest-break, expense-
reimbursement, and wage-statement violations by ITG. An August 2019
order conditionally certified a nationwide collective under the
Fair Labor Standards Act An order dated March 2, 2020, however,
compelled many plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims and appeared to
cut the collective from nearly 380 members to 132.  Undaunted, the
plaintiffs moved to certify a Rule 23 class of California
employees.  Despite full briefing and a hearing, the putative class
size remained unknown because the parties' dueling motions targeted
different groups. ITG targeted the nationwide FLSA collective for
arbitration. Th Plaintiffs' class certification motion, however,
shifted to California employees, of unknown count, potentially
sidestepping the arbitration order.

A copy of the Court's Order denying preliminary settlement approval
dated Nov. 9, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2UEYw0T at no extra charge.[CC]

J&B CLASSICS: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against J & B Classics, LLC.
The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, On Behalf Of Himself And All
Other Persons Similarly Situated v. J & B Classics, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-09379 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2020).

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

J & B Classics LLC aka Piper Classics is a store featuring country
reproduction furniture, country collectibles, and country primitive
decorating items.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

KAMP-RITE TENT: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kamp-Rite Tent Cot
Inc. The case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Kamp-Rite Tent Cot
Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-09606 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2020).

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

Kamp-Rite Tent Cot, Inc was founded in 2002. The company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of sporting and
recreation goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KFORCE INC: Facing Gofton and Kimbrel Class Suit
------------------------------------------------
Kforce Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that the company is facing a class
action suit entitled, Hope Gofton and Adam Kimbrel, et al. v.
Kforce Inc., Case No.: 2:20-cv-04886 on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated current and former employees.

On October 13, 2020, Kforce Inc. was served with a complaint
brought in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

Hope Gofton and Adam Kimbrel, et al. v. Kforce Inc., Case No.:
2:20-cv-04886 on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated
current and former employees.

The plaintiffs purport to bring a collective action for alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201,
et seq., and a class action for alleged violations of the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, 43 P.S. Sections 333.101, et seq.,
based upon the defendant's purported failure to pay federal and
state overtime wages.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendant improperly classified as
exempt the plaintiffs and other putative collective and class
members, and allegedly failed to pay overtime wages.

The plaintiffs seek payment of unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, interest, attorney's fees, costs and other relief deemed
equitable by the Court.

Kforce said, "At this stage in the litigation, it is not feasible
to predict the outcome of this matter or reasonably estimate a
range of loss, should a loss occur, from this proceeding."

Kforce Inc. provides professional staffing services and solutions
in the United States and internationally.  It operates through
Technology (Tech) and Finance and Accounting (FA) segments. Kforce
Inc. was founded in 1962 and is headquartered in Tampa, Florida.


KIDKRAFT INC: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kidkraft, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, On Behalf Of Himself And
All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Kidkraft, Inc., Kidkraft
Group Holdings, LLC, Kidkraft Partners, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-09378
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2020).

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

KidKraft, Inc. manufactures and sells wooden toys and furniture.
The Company offers easels, puzzles, dollhouses, tables, chairs, and
toddler beds.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KIMBERLY KAY: Registered Nurses Class Conditionally Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN ROWE, CHRISTINE M.
KLEIBER, TAMMY D. BURDEN, JULIE A. SCHROPP, and STACEY L. GOOD, v.
KIMBERLY KAY REYNOLDS, in her official capacity as Governor State
of Iowa, JAMES M. KURTENBACH, in his official capacity with Iowa
Department of Administrative Services, and the STATE OF IOWA,, Case
No. 4:19-cv-00256-JAJ-SBJ (S.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge John A.
Jarvey entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiffs' Motion to Conditionally Certify
      Collective Class Under Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), on
      behalf of:

      "all current and former Registered Nurses of the State of
      Iowa in Job Classifications 02020 and 82020, at any time
      during the period July 1, 2017 to present."

   2. directing the Defendants to produce an updated list of
      names and addresses for: "all current and former employees
      of the State of Iowa who meet the definition of the
      conditionally certified class." The Defendants shall do so
      within 14 days of the issuance of this order.;

   3. issuing notice to all current and former State of Iowa
      employees who meet the definition of the class defined
      above by first class mail.

   4. issuing notices to all potential class members who have
      not responded to opt-in to this matter within 90 days of
      the first issuance of the notice;

   5. denying the Plaintiffs' Motion to Delay Rule 23 Class
      Certification Under Iowa Wage Payment Collection Act; and

   6. directing the Plaintiffs to file their motion for class
      certification under the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Act
      within 30 days of the issuance of this order. No
      extensions will be granted.

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the
others similarly situated, have met the FLSA requirements to
certify the proposed collective action and provide notice."

The Plaintiffs Susan Rowe, Christine, Kleiber, Tammy Burden, Julie
Schropp, and Stacey Good are registered nurses (RNs) employed by
the State of Iowa, providing care and assistance to patients or
residents at state facilities. The Plaintiffs work at either the
Woodward Resource Center, the Iowa Medical and Classification
Center, or the Iowa State Penitentiary. The Plaintiffs are
classified as "02020" and "82020" employees.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 9, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38WzS4e at no extra charge.[CC]

KIRIN TRANSPORTATION: Wang Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Qian Wang a/k/a Sarah Wang, and Zhanwen Chi, on their own behalf
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. KIRIN TRANSPORTATION
INC. d/b/a Kirin Transportation; QIANG CHEN a/k/a Frank Chen,
MARRIANA YUHUA SONG a/k/a Nancy Song, and QIUXIANG SHI a/k/a Qiu
Xiang Shi, Case No. 1:20-cv-05410 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 6, 2020), is
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and New York
Labor Law, alleging that the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover
from the Defendants unpaid minimum wage and unpaid overtime wages,
unreimbursed expenses, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgement interest, and/or attorney's fees and cost.

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

The Plaintiff Qian Wang a/k/a Sarah Wang was employed by Defendants
to work as a Billing, Payroll, and Sanitation Worker; and Zhanwen
Chi was employed by Defendants to work as a Commuter Van Driver.

KIRIN TRANSPORTATION INC. d/b/a Kirin Transportation is a domestic
business corporation organized under the laws of the State of New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Phone: (718) 762-1324


KROGER CO: Suit Over "0g Trans Fat" Label Wins Class Status
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAVONDA HAWKINS, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. THE KROGER
COMPANY, Case No. 3:15-cv-02320-JM-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Jeffrey T. Miller entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification;

   2. certifying the following class pursuant to Federal Rule
      of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3):

      "all citizens of California who purchased, between January
      1, 2010 and December 31, 2015, Kroger Bread Crumb
      containing partially hydrogenated oil and the front label
      claim "0g Trans Fat";

   3. appointing The Weston Firm as class counsel; and

   4. appointing Plaintiff Shavonda Hawkins as class
      representative.

The Court said, "Even if the named plaintiffs have relied heavily
on the advice of attorneys and others, it is hardly a badge of
inadequacy to seek help from those with relevant expertise,
particularly in a complex case like this one. Accordingly, the
adequacy requirement is satisfied. The predominance requirement
under Rule 23(b)(3) is satisfied as well. The parties do not
identify any other cases challenging Kroger's "0g Trans Fat" label
under California's consumer protection statutes, and the proposed
class involves only California citizens, making this forum
desirable for the class. The likely difficulties in managing this
class appear no greater than in multiple other cases in which the
class consisted of persons who purchased a product years prior to
the litigation. Accordingly, the superiority requirement is
satisfied."

On October 15, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action in
federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). She
alleges violations of California's False Advertising law, the
Unfair Competition Law, and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. She
also brings claims for breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability and breach of express warranty. On March 17, 2016,
the court granted Kroger's motion to dismiss, with prejudice, under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court found that the
Plaintiff lacked standing, and, alternatively, her labeling claims
were preempted by federal law. On November 16, 2018, the Ninth
Circuit reversed and remanded the case. On November 8, 2019, Kroger
filed a second motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which the
court denied on April 4, 2019. On January 21, 2020, the Plaintiff
filed the instant motion for class certification. The court
requested additional briefing on June 15, 2020, to which the
parties responded on July 16, 2020 and July 27, 2020, respectively.
With leave of court, the Plaintiff also submitted a reply to
Kroger's supplemental briefing.

The Plaintiff purchased Kroger breadcrumbs in San Diego about six
times per year from 2000 to July 2015. She purchased the
breadcrumbs for use in her weekly family meatloaf. "During much of
the class period," the breadcrumbs were made with partially
hydrogenated oil (PHO), but displayed "0g 6 Trans Fat" on the front
label. PHO is artificial trans fat. Kroger admits that because the
breadcrumbs contained PHO, they contained "trace amounts" of trans
fat. Kroger also claims, and the Plaintiff does not dispute, that
the back label of the breadcrumbs listed PHO as an ingredient as
early as 2005.

A copy of the Court's Order on motion for class certification dated
Nov. 9, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3kIRfb1 at no extra charge.[CC]

LIBRE BY NEXUS: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN QUINTANILLA VASQUEZ,
GABRIELA PERDOMO ORTIZ, VICTOR HUGO CATALAN MOLINA, and KEVIN
CALDERON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. LIBRE BY NEXUS, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-50, Case No.
4:17-cv-00755-CW (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on
Dec. 9, 2020 for an order:

   1. granting final approval of the Parties' proposed
      Settlement Agreement and Release ("Agreement");

   2. retaining jurisdiction over the litigation and the Parties
      throughout the term of the Settlement Agreement; and

   3. granting service awards of $10,000 to each of the three
      Class Representatives, and award Class Counsel reasonable
      attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $800,000.

The proposed Settlement Agreement and Release (Agreement)
establishes a $3.2 million settlement fund that will provide cash
payments and debt relief to class members, and cover administration
costs, reasonable attorney's fees and expenses, and service awards,
says the complaint.

On February 15, 2017, the Plaintiffs Vasquez and Ortiz filed a
Class Action Complaint alleging that Defendant Libre by Nexus
failed to translate its contracts, made misleading representations
about monthly payments, required oppressive ankle monitors that
forced participants to be tethered to a wall, leveraged oppressive
terms like monthly payments that in total exceeded the amounts of
the hefty immigration bonds maintained by the participants, and
harassed participants for payment by making ICE-related threats.

Libre by Nexus is an immigration bond company offering legal aid to
defend immigrant rights.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 9, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2IOuG7R at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          10880 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1101
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone (510) 254-6808
          Facsimile (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Jesse Newmark, Esq.
          Aidin Castillo, Esq.
          CENTRO LEGAL DE LA RAZA
          3022 International Blvd., Suite 410
          Oakland, CA 94601
          Telephone (510) 437-1863
          E-mail: jnewmark@centrolegal.org
                  acastillo@centrolegal.org

               - and -

          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          MIGLICACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H St NE, Suite 302
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone (202) 470-3520
          E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
                  jrathod@classlawdc.com

LOOP INDUSTRIES: Faces Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Clare Goldsberry, writing for Plastics Today, reports that
Montreal-based Loop Industries Inc. has been making headlines over
the past three years for its PET recycling technology, but
according to a report, headlines are the only thing it's been
making. Now, backlash from investors has started. Based on the Oct.
13 release of the in-depth research report on Loop's activities by
Hindenburg Research, investor Olivier Tremblay (Plaintiff) has
filed a class action lawsuit "on behalf of all others" who
purchased or otherwise acquired Loop securities between Sept. 24,
2018, and Oct. 12, 2020.

The 31-page suit -- Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Case 7:20-cv-08538-NSR)
-- outlines complaints based on the findings in the Hindenburg
Research report. It states that "wrongful acts and omissions"
resulted in the "precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's securities" causing the "Plaintiff and other Class
members" to suffer "significant losses and damages."

Loop Industries is incorporated in Nevada; the company's
headquarters are in Montreal. Loop's common stock trades on the
NASDAQ exchange under the symbol "LOOP." On Sept. 24, 2018, Loop
announced its joint venture with Indorama Ventures Public Company
Ltd. via a press release stating that the two companies intend to
combine their technologies "to invest in multi-billion dollar
sustainable PET and polyester market opportunity." The 50/50 JV's
intent was "to manufacture and commercialize sustainable polyester
resin to meet the growing global demand from beverage and consumer
packaged goods (CPG) companies."

"This partnership brings together Indorama Venture's world-class
manufacturing footprint and Loop's proprietary science and
technology to become a reliable world leader in the 'circular'
economy for 100% sustainable and recycled PET resin and polyester
fiber," stated the class action complaint. The complaint also
stated that Loop described its purported technology as follows:

"The power of [Loop's] technology lies in its ability to divert and
recover what is currently considered plastic waste from landfills,
rivers, oceans, and natural areas for us as feedstock to create
new, sustainable, infinitely recyclable Loop PET plastic resin and
polyester fiber.

"Our Generation 1 technology process yielded polyethylene
terephthalate ('PTA') and monoethylene glycol ('MEG'), two common
monomers of PET plastic, through depolymerization. While monomers
were of excellent purity and strong yield, we continued to
challenge ourselves to drive down cost and eliminate inputs. It was
during this process that we realized we could eliminate water and
chlorinated solvents from the purification process, reduce the
number of reagents from five to two, and reduce the number of
purification steps from 12 to four if we shifted from the
production of PTA to the production of dimethyl terephthalate
('DMT'), another proven monomer of PET plastic that is far simpler
to purify. Since June 2018, when we transitioned to our Generation
II technology and our newly built industrial pilot plant, we
continue to see consistently high monomer yields, excellent purity,
and improved conversion costs."

A pivitol moment for Loop Industries
"This shift, from producing the monomer PTA to the monomer DMT was
a pivotal moment for Loop," the company's technology information
continued. "The Generation II technology is more cost-effective,
easier to commercialize, more economical for our customers, and
requires less energy and fewer resource inputs than conventional
PET production processes. We believe it to be one of the most
environmentally sustainable methods for producing virgin-quality,
food-grade PET plastic in the world."

Loop also stated in its Feb. 29, 2020, fiscal year-end 2020 10-K
that the company planned to continue to execute its "corporate
strategy where Loop Industries focused on developing two distinct
business models for the commercialization of Loop PET resin and
polyester fiber to customers: 1) from our joint venture with
Indorama, and 2) from our Infinite Loop Greenfield facilities. We
continue to develop the engineering of the Infinite Loop platform
and we have increased our focus on the development of Infinite Loop
projects in Europe and in North America."

In addition to the extensive information in Loop's fiscal year-end
10-K, the complaint next offers the Hindenburg Research report as
further proof of the validity of the plaintiff's action. The
Hindenburg report revealed to the plaintiff and the class the
"dysfunctional dynamics at play within" Loop, including two labs
and the "miracle results and successes that were being produced at
Loop" that came from one of the labs" that was "secret."

In the section of the complaint titled Applicability of Presumption
of Reliance (Fraud-on-the-Market Doctrine), the complaint states:
"The market for Loop's securities was open, well-developed, and
efficient at all relevant times. As a result of the materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failures to disclose,
Loop's securities traded at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period. On September 23, 2019, the Company's share prices
closed at a Class Period high of $17.98 per share. Plaintiff and
other members of the Class purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's securities relying upon the integrity of the market price
of Loop's securities and market information relating to Loop, and
have been damaged thereby."

The plaintiff is seeking for "relief and judgment" for the class by
"awarding compensatory damages . . . against all defendants,
jointly and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of
Defendants' wrongdoing, in an amount to be proven at trial,
including interest thereon; [a]warding Plaintiff and the Class
their reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action,
including counsel fees and expert fees; and [s]uch other and
further relief as the Court may deem just and proper." [GN]


LOOP INDUSTRIES: Glancy Prongay Reminds of December 14 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming December 14, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the securities fraud class action filed on behalf of investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired Loop Industries, Inc. ("Loop"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LOOP) securities between September 24,
2018 and October 12, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

LOOP Investor Update: Company Receives SEC Subpoena; Glancy Prongay
& Murray LLP Filed First Securities Fraud Class Action Against Loop
Industries, Inc.

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

On October 13, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report
alleging, among other things, that "[a] former Loop employee told
us that Loop's scientists, under pressure from CEO Daniel Solomita,
were tacitly encouraged to lie about the results of the company's
process internally. We have obtained internal documents and
photographs to support their claims." The report also stated that
"Loop's previous claims of breaking PET down to its base chemicals
at a recovery rate of 100% were 'technically and industrially
impossible,'" according to a former employee. Moreover, the report
alleged that "Executives from a division of key partner
Thyssenkrupp, who Loop entered into a 'global alliance agreement'
with in December 2018, told us their partnership is on 'indefinite'
hold and that Loop 'underestimated' both costs and complexities of
its process."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.78, or over 32%, to
close at $7.83 per share on October 13, 2020, thereby injuring
investors.

Then, on October 16, 2020, after the market closed, Loop disclosed
that it had received a subpoena from the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") for information "regarding testing,
testing results and details of results from [Loop's] Gen I and Gen
II technologies and certain of [its] partnerships and agreements."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell as much as 7% in
intraday trading on October 19, 2020, the first trading session
after the SEC subpoena was disclosed.

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Loop
scientists were encouraged to misrepresent the results of Loop's
purportedly proprietary process; (2) that Loop did not have the
technology to break PET down to its base chemicals at a recovery
rate of 100%; (3) that, as a result, Loop was unlikely to realize
the purported benefits of Loop's announced partnerships with
Indorama and Thyssenkrupp; and (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Loop securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than December 14,
2020 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a
member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you
may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Charles H. Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

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


MAINE: Gov. Mills Wins Dismissal of Second Amended Savage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICK SAVAGE, individually and on behalf of TWO
BROTHERS, LLC d/b/a SUNDAY RIVER BREWING COMPANY, MIKE MERCER,
JAMES FAHEY, and LINDSEY CROSBY, Plaintiffs, v. JANET T. MILLS, in
her official capacity as the Governor of the State of Maine,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00165-LEW (D. Me.), Judge Lance E.
Walker of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine granted
Mills' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint.

Governor Mills began to exercise executive power on March 15, 2020,
when she proclaimed a State of Civil Emergency to Protect Public
Health in response to the COVID-19 outbreak.  Subsequently, the
Governor issued a series of Executive Orders to contain the spread
of the virus and protect Maine's health care system.

On March 18, 2020, the Governor issued Executive Order 14 FY 19/20,
which required all restaurants and bars statewide to close except
for carry out and delivery service, and prohibited gatherings of
more than 10 people.  The next week, she issued Executive Order 19
FY 19/20, which required all "non-essential" businesses to cease
"public facing" activities.  At all times, non-essential businesses
that were not public facing could continue to operate, provided
that the workplace could accommodate appropriate social distancing
or had 10 or fewer employees.

On March 31, 2020, the Governor issued Executive Order 28 FY 19/20,
which required people to stay at home except when performing
"essential activities" and to "stay six feet apart when outside the
home."  On April 3, 2020, she issued Executive Order 34 FY 19/20,
which required that any person, resident or non-resident, traveling
into Maine must immediately self-quarantine for 14 days.

On April 29, 2020, the Governor issued Executive Order 49 FY 19/20,
which extended Orders 14, 19, 28 and 34 through May 31, 2020.
Executive Order 49 also directed the Commissioner of the Maine
Department of Economic and Community Development ("DECD") to
implement a Restarting Plan, which would identify businesses and
activities where current restrictions may be adjusted to safely
allow for more economic and personal activity.  Under the
Restarting Plan, barber shops and hair salons (among other
businesses) could open as of May 1, 2020, and restaurants (among
other businesses) could open as of June 1, 2020, provided that they
comply with detailed checklists.  Additional types of businesses
could open on July 1, 2020.

The Plaintiffs filed suit on May 8, 2020, alleging that the
Governor's executive orders negatively affected their respective
businesses.  By that time, the complete closure of so-called
non-essential, public-facing businesses was ended.

On May 29, 2020, the Governor issued Executive Order 55 FY 19/20.
The order, effective May 31, 2020, modified Executive Order 14 by
increasing the size of permissible gatherings to 50 people.  It
also allowed people to leave home to access all reopened
businesses.

On June 9, 2020, the Governor issued Executive Order 57 FY 19/20.
The order repealed and replaced Executive Order 34, which had
required those entering Maine to self-quarantine for 14 days.
However, persons traveling from New Hampshire and Vermont are
exempt from these requirements (and thus need not self-quarantine
upon arrival in Maine regardless of whether they have a negative
COVID-19 test).

The Plaintiffs are Maine residents.  They also purport to bring the
lawsuit as a class action on behalf of over 20 identified Maine
businessowners, businesses, customers, and employees adversely
impacted by the Governor's executive orders, the partial shutdown
of the State, and the mass quarantine of its citizens.

Through the Motion to Dismiss, the Governor contends the Plaintiffs
lack Article III standing and have failed to state a claim for
which relief can be granted.  Alleging Article III standing
requires the Plaintiffs to describe with particularity how their
alleged injuries result from some actions on the part of the
Defendant, Governor Mills.

Judge Walker finds that the Plaintiffs' failure to link their harm
to a specific Executive Order rather than the Defendant's
regulations as a whole is not fatal to Article III standing.  At
the pleading stage, general factual allegations of injury resulting
from the Defendant's conduct may suffice, for on a motion to
dismiss, the Court presumes that general allegations embrace those
specific facts that are necessary to support the claim.  Because
the Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to establish a
concrete injury-in-fact, the Judge finds they have Article III
standing to sue in the Court and denies the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss on jurisdictional grounds.

The Defendant alternatively moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' case
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.  The
Plaintiffs do not object to the dismissal of Counts II, VI, and XI,
their claims under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article
IV, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution and the Equal Protection
Clause, and their claim that the Governor's Orders failed to comply
with Maine's statutory requirements for notice and comment
rulemaking.  The Defendant's Motion is, therefore, granted as to
these three claims.

In Count I, the Plaintiffs assert a violation of the dormant
Commerce Clause.  Their allegations  describe only generalized harm
to their businesses, and their failure to substantiate how the
Defendant's Orders, as applied to them, disfavor out-of-state
businesses or hinder interstate commerce generally, is fatal to
their dormant Commerce Clause claim.  Consequently, the Judge finds
the Plaintiffs fail to state a dormant Commerce Clause claim, and
thus granted the Defendant's Motion as to Count I.

In Count III, the Plaintiffs assert a violation of the right to
travel, claiming a violation of their rights and their customers'
rights.  They have failed to provide the needed factual allegations
to sustain a right to travel claim under the Privileges and
Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  They have not
alleged they are seeking to travel interstate.  And even if they
did, it is not clear from the Complaint how the Governor's Orders
would have prevented them from doing so.  Because they have not
pled the basis for a right to travel claim, the Judge granted the
Defendant's motion to dismiss Count III.

Count IV asserts a claim for violation of procedural due process.
The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to any sort of
pre-deprivation process when it comes to a generalized police
policy imposed during this type of public health emergency.  The
Plaintiffs have failed to state a procedural due process claim that
would entitle them to injunctive relief lifting existing
restrictions on the operation of their businesses.  The Judge,
therefore, granted the Defendant's Motion to dismiss the procedural
due process claim in Count IV.

In Count V, the Plaintiffs assert a substantive due process claim.
Because the Complaint fails to make the case that the Orders are
outside the realm of protecting public health, or that they are a
plain, palpable infringement a cognizable Fourteenth Amendment
right, the Judge granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count
V.

The Plaintiffs' final federal claim is found in Count X, where they
contend the Defendant violated the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause
(as incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment).  The concern, then,
is whether the Plaintiffs have alleged a temporary regulatory
taking arising from the shuttering of their businesses for a time.
The Judge holds that to state a taking claim, it is not enough to
allege that government conduct frustrated a business enterprise, as
the Plaintiffs have allege.  They do not allege that they conduct
their businesses from real property shuttered by executive order.
Nor do they allege any fact to suggest why a fact finder would
conclude that personal property associated with their businesses
was effectively taken from them.  Because the Plaintiffs have
failed to plead sufficient facts to state a claim under the Takings
Clause, the Judge granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count
X.

With the exception of the claim contained in Count XI, which the
Plaintiffs concede, the Plaintiffs' state law claims (Counts VII,
VIII, and IX) are dismissed without prejudice.  In the absence of a
viable federal claim that is part of the same case or controversy,
or diversity of citizenship between the parties, a state court
should resolve the merits of the unconceded state law claims.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, Judge Walker granted the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.  Counts I, II, III, IV, V, VI, X,
and XI are dismissed with prejudice.  Counts VII, VIII, and IX are
dismissed without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 7, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yxm4vggn from Leagle.com.


MDL 2543: Declaratory Judgment Bids in GM Lawsuit Partly Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE GENERAL MOTORS LLC IGNITION SWITCH LITIGATION,
Case Nos. 14-MD-2543 (JMF), 14-MC-2543 (JMF) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge
Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted in part and denied in part the motions
for declaratory judgment filed by the Plaintiffs' law firms, Bailey
Cowan Heckaman PLLC ("BCH") and The Potts Law Firm.

In February 2014, New GM announced the recall of certain General
Motors vehicles that had been manufactured with a defective
ignition switch that moved too easily from the "run" position to
the "accessory" and "off" positions, causing moving stalls and
disabling critical safety systems.  In the months that followed,
New GM recalled millions of other vehicles, some for reasons
relating to the ignition switch and some for other reasons.  Not
surprisingly, litigation followed, in both state and federal
courts.  The federal cases were ultimately consolidated in the
Court by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.  The Court
later appointed Steve W. Berman, Elizabeth J. Cabraser, and Robert
C. Hilliard as the Lead Counsel and also appointed 10 other
attorneys to serve as a Plaintiffs' Executive Committee.

As the Court has previously explained, complex aggregate litigation
often raises a classic free-rider problem.  A subset of the
plaintiffs' lawyers do the lion's share of the work, but that work
accrues to the benefit of all the plaintiffs.  If those other
Plaintiffs were not required to pay any costs of that work,
high-quality legal work would be under-incentivized and,
ultimately, under-produced.  To solve this problem, courts
frequently invoke what is known as the "common-benefit doctrine"
and impose assessments on the recoveries of those who benefit from
the work done for the benefit of all; those assessments are
deposited into a "common-benefit fund," and the counsel that did
the work for the common benefit are then paid from the fund.

In the multidistrict litigation ("MDL") -- arising from alleged
defects in the ignition switches and other features of certain
General Motors vehicles and general familiarity with which is
assumed -- the Court did just that.  In Order No. 42, the Court
created a common-benefit fund and prescribed the terms of the Fund
-- most notably for present purposes, identifying the categories of
plaintiffs and claimants whose recoveries from Defendant General
Motors, LLC ("New GM") would be subject to the required
assessments.

For almost half a decade, there were no disputes or controversies
relating to the Fund.  Late last year, however, the Court was
confronted with a dispute between the Court-appointed Lead Counsel
for the Plaintiffs ("Lead Counsel") and one Plaintiff's law firm
over whether recoveries obtained by the law firm's clients with
cases pending in state courts or not filed in any court were
subject to assessment.  Relying on the fact that it had been called
upon to play a role in the settlement of those claims, the Court
ruled in the Lead Counsel's favor without having to resolve the
questions at the heart of the dispute: whether, as a general
matter, Order No. 42 requires an assessment for recoveries in cases
filed by MDL lawyers in state court or unfiled claims and, if so,
whether such assessments exceed the Court's authority.

Shortly thereafter, the Court was confronted with two new motions
presenting those questions new -- from the Plaintiffs' law firms,
BCH and Potts.  Like the first law firm, the Firms represent some
clients in the MDL and an even larger number of clients who are not
in the MDL -- either with cases pending in state courts or unfiled
claims.  Last year, they reached global settlements with New GM
resolving all of these claims.  Like the first law firm, they now
seek a ruling that recoveries arising out of their state-court
cases and unfiled claims are not subject to assessment -- on the
grounds that Order No. 42 does not require such assessments and
that, to the extent that the Order does, it exceeds the Court's
jurisdiction and authority.

Both BCH and Potts entered into global settlements with New GM that
resolved, in one fell swoop, claims asserted by their clients both
within the MDL and elsewhere.  On June 23, 2017, Potts and New GM
informed the Court that they had reached a global settlement in
which hundreds of both MDL Plaintiffs and others among Potts'
clients were eligible to participate.

On March 5, 2018, BCH and New GM announced a global settlement that
resolved all of the claims asserted by BCH clients relating to
personal injury and wrongful death claims arising after the
bankruptcy of Old GM, "the vast majority of which" were pressed in
the MDL.  On Dec. 17, 2018, they announced that they had also
settled one hundred such claims arising before the bankruptcy --
only 62 of which were asserted in the case.  And on June 25, 2019,
Potts and New GM informed the Court of another settlement
agreement, in which nearly 130 Plaintiffs, including 20 not in the
MDL, were eligible to participate.

On Nov. 6, 2019, BCH moved for a declaratory judgment clarifying
that settlements and judgments resolving its clients' claims
asserted in state court (all of which were filed in Missouri) and
outside of court are not subject to assessment.  On Nov. 14, 2019,
Potts filed a similar motion with respect to all of its state-filed
cases and unfiled matters.

Two significant matters are not in dispute.  First, no one
questions that the Court had authority to establish the Common
Benefit Fund in the first place.  Indeed, it is well established
that, in complex aggregate litigation, attorneys designated with
responsibilities for actions beyond those in which they are
retained may be compensated for their work not only by their own
clients, but also by those other parties on whose behalf the work
is performed and on whom a benefit has been conferred.  The
creation of a fund under judicial supervision allows a court to
prevent inequity by assessing attorney's fees against the entire
fund, thus spreading fees proportionately among those benefited by
the suit.  

Second, all agree that the Lead Counsel (and the others who
performed Common Benefit Work) performed a remarkable amount of
work on behalf of the Plaintiffs in the Common Benefit Actions for
which they deserve to be compensated.  

The sole dispute is whether the Firms are required to pay
assessments -- that is, make contributions to the Common Benefit
Fund -- with respect to the settlements of cases that they
litigated in state court and the settlements of claims never filed
in any court.  The Firms argue that Order No. 42 does not require
assessments with respect to such settlements.  And to the extent
that Order No. 42 does require assessments with respect to such
settlements, they contend that the Order exceeds the Court's
authority.

Judge Furman agrees in part and disagrees in part.  First, he holds
that Order No. 42, by its terms, requires assessments for
recoveries arising out of (1) the Firms' unfiled claims and (2) any
state-court cases in which work product generated within the MDL
for the common benefit of all the Plaintiffs was "used," but does
not require assessments for recoveries in the Firms' state-court
cases generally.  Drawing this distinction between unfiled claims
and state-court cases makes good sense.  

For one thing, imposing assessments with respect to state-court
cases (absent use) risks intruding on the prerogatives of the state
courts presiding over those cases; for unfiled claims, there is no
such risk.  And while there is a mechanism to solve the free-rider
problem in state-court cases -- namely, the state courts -- there
is no such mechanism for unfiled claims.

Second, resolving a complicated question that has divided other
courts (and on which the Supreme Court and Second Circuit have not
yet ruled), the Judge holds that the Court has both jurisdiction
and inherent authority to do what Order No. 42 does: order New GM
to hold back assessments in connection with its settlements with
MDL counsel's clients who have not filed claims in any court.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Furman granted in part and denied in
part the Firms' motions.  In particular, he concludes that Order
No. 42 applies to the Firms' clients' related unfiled claims and to
state-court cases in which the Firms used Common Benefit Work
Product, but it does not apply to state-court cases in which the
Firms did not use Common Benefit Work Product.  Further, he
concludes that Order No. 42 is a permissible exercise of its
inherent authority over the litigation and the parties and the
counsel appearing before it.

Additionally, the Firms are ordered to review their files relating
to each of their related state-court matters, including those not
at issue in the matter, to determine whether they used Common
Benefit Work Product within the meaning of Order No. 42.  No later
than three weeks from the date of the Opinion and Order, each Firm
must file an affidavit that (1) identifies its related state-court
cases and (2) with respect to each, either confirms that the Firm
did not use Common Benefit Work Product or concedes that it did.
If the Court later concludes that a Firm incorrectly represented in
its affidavit that it did not use Common Benefit Work Product, it
will impose the assessment, plus appropriate sanctions.

Finally, pursuant to Order No. 77, if the Lead Counsel, the Firms,
or New GM believe that sealed or redacted materials related to the
motion should remain sealed or redacted, they will file a letter
brief regarding the propriety of doing so without delay.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2020 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3vmylp9 from Leagle.com.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Antista Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Lynn Antista,
Camilla A. Toft, on behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., John Does 1 to 10,
Case No. 3:20-cv-02234-BEN-JLB (S.D. Cal., Nov. 16, 2020).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott C. Borison, Esq.
          BORISON FIRM LLC
          1900 South Norfolk Street, Suite 350
          San Mateo, CA 94403
          Phone: (301) 620-1016
          Fax: (301) 620-1018
          Email: scott@borisonfirm.com


MOEN INCORPORATED: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moen Incorporated.
The case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Moen Incorporated, Case No. 1:20-cv-05439
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2020).

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

Moen Inc. manufactures kitchen and bath faucets, showerheads,
accessories, bath safety products and kitchen sinks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
          175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


MONTANA STATE UNIV: Faces Class Action Seeking Tuition Fee Refunds
------------------------------------------------------------------
Liz Weber, writing for Bozeman Daily Chronicle, reports that
Montana State University faces a lawsuit claiming it broke a
contractual agreement with its students when it canceled in-person
classes without offering to refund or reduce tuition and fees.

The class-action lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in
September, is on behalf of students who paid tuition at MSU for
in-person learning but received online learning in the spring due
to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Anthony Cordero, who was an MSU undergraduate student in the Spring
2020 semester, filed the lawsuit on behalf of himself and other
students. Cordero, who is a resident of California, paid roughly
$6,586 in tuition and fees for that semester, according to the
suit.

"Cordero has not been provided a pro-rated refund of the tuition
for his in-person classes that were discontinued and moved online,
or the Mandatory Fee he paid after MSU's facilities were closed and
events were canceled," the complaint says.

In early March, the university announced it would transition to
full online learning on March 23 due to growing public health
concerns around the coronavirus pandemic. It did not offer
in-person classes again until August 17.

The complaint argues that since the students did not choose to
attend an online-only higher education institution, but chose MSU
and its advertised in-person educational programs, they were
deprived of both the education and on-campus experiences they paid
for.

"MSU's failure to provide the services for which tuition and the
mandatory fees were intended to cover since approximately March 23,
2020, is a breach of the contracts and breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing between MSU and Plaintiff Anthony
Cordero and the members of the Class and is unjust," the complaint
says.

Dale Cockrell, a Kalispell-based lawyer representing Montana State
University, confirmed he had received the complaint and said he was
reviewing it. He said he expected to file a response toward the end
of November.

Tracy Ellig, a spokesman for MSU, said the university doesn't
comment on pending litigation.

The lawsuit says the terms of the contractual agreement between MSU
and the students was established in MSU publications, including its
website and marketing materials, the admission application
completed by students, and the acceptance letters MSU sent to
students.

In addition to tuition, students also pay mandatory fees for
on-campus services. The lawsuit says many of those were terminated
or canceled around the same time as classes, including health and
wellness facilities, fitness facilities, on-campus student and
sport events, and an in-person commencement.

As an example, Cordero said he could not complete a computer
engineering class project that required collaborative work with
other students and access to an MSU lab that had closed.

The lawsuit argues students should be refunded or reimbursed for
those fees, in addition to tuition.

Adrian Miller and Michelle Sullivan of Sullivan Miller Law in
Billings are representing Cordero in the suit.

"The COVID-19 pandemic has created disruptions in all of our lives;
that is not the fault of the students or MSU," Miller said in an
email to the Chronicle. "Yet, MSU has unfairly shifted the
pandemic's financial burden to its students, who have paid for
benefits that they did not receive."

The lawsuit says the online learning that was offered to MSU
students was "sub-par in practically every aspect" compared to the
in-person learning they once received.

"MSU does not get to keep the students' money when they were unable
to provide all of the services," Miller said.

Spring 2020 tuition, including mandatory fees, was about $3,685 for
in-state undergraduate students and about $13,700 for out-of-state
undergraduate students, according to the lawsuit. Tuition for
in-state graduate students was about $12,812 and $18,425 for
out-of-state graduate students for the spring 2020 semester.

Michael Tompkins of the New York-based firm Leeds Brown Law is also
listed as an attorney for the plaintiffs, alongside Sullivan Miller
Law firm.

An early October article by Law.com estimates roughly 200
class-action suits were filed against colleges after they closed
campuses in the spring. The majority of the cases argued there was
a breach of contract by the universities.

Leeds Brown Law is associated with about 60 of those lawsuits,
according to Law.com. Tompkins did not respond to a request for
comment on Oct. 19. [GN]


NORTH PACIFIC: Workers File Class Action Over Working Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Sapin, writing for Intrafish, reports that workers for
Marubeni-owned North Pacific Seafoods in Alaska have filed a class
action lawsuit, citing untenable working conditions and wage theft.


Lawyers on behalf of the workers are demanding a jury trial for the
case. [GN]



OLD TIME CANDY: Monegro Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. OLD TIME CANDY COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-09320-ER
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 6, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.

The complaint alleges that Defendant's denial of full and equal
access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and
services offered, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act. Because the Defendant's website,
www.oldtimecandy.com, is not equally accessible to blind and
visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff
seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's
corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen reading software to read website content using his
computer.

The Defendant is a retro candy company that owns and operates
www.oldtimecandy.com.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David P. Force, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 107
          Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


ORIENTAL TRADING: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oriental Trading
Company, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, On
Behalf Of Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated v.
Oriental Trading Company, Inc., Oriental Trading Group LLC,
Oriental Trading Ltd., Case No. 1:20-cv-09377 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 9,
2020).

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

Oriental Trading Company, Inc. operates as a direct retailer. The
Company markets and retails party supplies, arts, crafts, toys,
home decor products, and novelties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ORNAMENT SHOP: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Ornament Shop,
Inc. The case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself
and all other persons similarly situated v. The Ornament Shop,
Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-09607 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2020).

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

The Ornament Shop, Inc. distributeS Hallmark ornaments as well as
Enesco, Christopher Radko ornaments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PATTERSON COMPANIES: Bid to Stay Class Action Proceedings Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PLYMOUTH COUNTY RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC., and SCOTT P. ANDERSON, Case
No. 0:18-cv-00871-MJD-HB (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge entered an
order denying the Defendants' motion to stay all proceedings in
this action, including dissemination of notice to class members,
pending a ruling by the Eighth Circuit on their petition and
appeal.

Th Court said, "The Defendants' alternative argument for a stay of
the dissemination of class notice is premature. The Plaintiffs have
not yet submitted a proposed class notice. The Court has not
approved a form of class notice; nor has it set any schedule for a
motion to approve class notice. When the Plaintiffs file a motion
for Court approval of their class notice, the Court will set the
schedule for class notice. If,
at that time, Defendants' Rule 23(f) petition is still pending
before the Eighth Circuit, or if the petition has been granted and
an appeal is pending, then this Court can decide whether to delay
dissemination of class notice until the Eighth Circuit has resolved
the issues before it. At this time, there is no need to stay the
proceedings."

On October 13, 2020, the Defendants filed a petition under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) with the Eighth Circuit seeking
interlocutory review of the Court's decision to certify the class.

On September 28, 2020, the Court granted the Lead Plaintiffs'
Motion to Certify Class and certified a class consisting of:

   "all person or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
   Patterson Companies, Inc., common stock between June 26, 2013
   and February 28, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period")."

   Excluded from the Class are Defendants, the officers and
   directors of Patterson at all relevant times, members of
   their immediate families, and their legal representatives,
   heirs, agents, affiliates, successors or assigns, Defendants'
   liability insurance carriers, and any affiliates or
   subsidiaries thereof, and any entity in which Defendants or
   their immediate families have or had a controlling interest.

A copy of the Court's memorandum of law & order dated Nov. 9, 2020
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35JwUhs at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lucas F. Olts, Esq.
          Jonah H. Goldstein, Esq.
          Jennifer N. Caringal, Esq.
          Alexi H. Pfeffer-Gillett, Esq.
          Heather G. Schlesier, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP;

               - and -

          Anne M. Lockner, Esq.
          Robins Kaplan LLP

               - and -

          Steven B. Singer, Esq.
          Kyla Grant, Esq.
          Joshua Saltzman, Esq.
          Maya Saxena, Esq.
          Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
          Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
          Dianne Anderson, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.;

               - and -

          Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Esq.
          Brant D. Penney, Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD;

               - and -

          Robert D. Klausner, Esq.
          KLAUSNER, KAUFMAN, JENSEN & LEVINSON

Counsel for the Defendants are

          Patrick S. Williams, Esq.
          Mark G. Schroeder, Esq.
          Aaron G. Thomas, Esq.
          Jordan L. Weber, Esq.
          TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP

PEABODY ENERGY: Glancy Prongay Reminds of November 27 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming November 27, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Peabody Energy Corporation ("Peabody" or the
"Company") (NYSE: BTU): common stock between April 3, 2017 and
October 28, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

Peabody is the largest coal mining company in the world with 23
coal mines organized into six business segments. Its largest
segment is the Australian Metallurgical Mining segment, which
accounted for 23.1% of Peabody's revenue in 2016. Peabody's most
profitable operation is the North Goonyella mine, which is within
the Australian Metallurgical Mining segment, and in 2017, the mine
generated 20% of the Company's total operating profit.

On September 28, 2018, Peabody announced that it did "not expect
any production from North Goonyella in the fourth quarter of 2018"
due to a fire occurring within the mine.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $5.54, or over 13%, to
close at $35.64 per share on September 28, 2018, thereby injuring
investors.

Then, on February 6, 2019, Peabody reported disappointing financial
results for fourth quarter 2018 due to remediation costs and lack
of production at the North Goonyella mine. The Company also
announced that production would not resume at the mine until the
"early months of 2020."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.80, or 11%, to
close at $32.05 per share on February 6, 2019, thereby injuring
investors further.

Then, on October 29, 2019, Peabody disclosed that operations at the
North Goonyella mine would not resume for three or more years due
to local regulators' strict restrictions.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.56, or 22%, to
close at $12.48 per share on October 29, 2019, thereby injuring
investors further.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company had failed to
implement adequate safety controls at the North Goonyella mine to
prevent the risk of a spontaneous combustion event; (2) the Company
failed to follow its own safety procedures; (3) as a result, the
North Goonyella mine was at a heightened risk of shutdown; (4) the
Company's low-cost plan to restart operations at the North
Goonyella mine posed unreasonable safety and environmental risks;
(5) the Australian body responsible for ensuring acceptable health
and safety standards, the Queensland Mines Inspectorate ("QMI"),
would likely mandate a safer, cost-prohibitive approach; (7) as a
result, there would be major delays in reopening the North
Goonyella mine and restarting coal production; and (5) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Peabody common stock during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than November 27,
2020 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a
member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you
may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit
our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

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


PENETANGUISHENE: Waypoint Centre Faces $200MM Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Marg. Bruineman, writing for Orillia Matters, reports that the
province's only maximum-security psychiatric facility is facing a
proposed class-action lawsuit in excess of $200 million over its
use of solitary confinement, segregation and seclusion.

The lawsuit, which hasn't been certified by a court, accuses
Penetanguishene's Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care of being
liable in negligence, assault, battery, and breach of fiduciary
duty to patients, and breach of their human rights.

"As a part of these programs, patients are confined in seclusion
rooms, step-down rooms, or their own rooms for days, weeks, and
sometimes months at a time, without receiving the minimum timeout
and social stimuli required by widely recognized and accepted
medical and international standards," the lawsuit charges.

In a statement issued on Oct. 19, Waypoint officials said the
allegations are untrue and deny that patients are confined or
segregated.

Restraints and seclusion are used only when necessary "to protect a
patient, other patients, staff and/or others from the immediate
risk of serious bodily harm and only as a last resort," the
statement adds.

And it distinguishes between solitary confinement and seclusion,
which is used for hospital patients who are "therapeutically
engaged and assessed rigorously while in seclusion."

The proposed class-action centres around representative plaintiff,
Reuben Stolove, now 25, an involuntary patient who was admitted to
Waypoint in December 2015, when he was deemed unfit to stand trial
due to his mental disorder. He is still being held there.

Stolove is represented in the lawsuit by his litigation guardians,
his father, Micha Stolove and his grandmother, Linda Hindrea.

Stolove, who was diagnosed with schizophrenia as a teenager and has
experienced bouts of paranoia and auditory hallucinations, attacked
a woman in Toronto in September 2015 during an acute schizophrenia
episode. He was found not criminally responsible for the attack in
August 2019.

Not long after his arrival at Waypoint, he was placed in solitary
confinement, where he has been "subjected to prolonged periods"
which the statement of claim says violates the standards, which
include being allowed out for at least two hours daily and is not
to exceed 15 consecutive days.

Stolove has had no meaningful social contact while in seclusion,
the suit alleges.

The suit names Waypoint, its president and CEO Carol Lambie,
vice-president of clinical services Rob Desroches and
vice-president of quality of professional practice and chief
nursing executive Linda Adams.

"It's a case that seeks to ensure that involuntary patients,
particularly in a maximum secure psychiatric facility, are treated
with the appropriate level of care and dignity that they are
entitled to," said lawyer Golnaz Nayerahmadi, who initiated the
suit. "The fact that this is taking place in the context of a
hospital obviously adds a new dimension and additional concerns."

She said there are well-established standards on seclusion that are
recognized by the medical community and the courts, but were not
followed at Waypoint and that prolonged seclusion has been found to
be harmful. The facility, Nayerahmadi added, currently routinely
employs solitary confinement in its behaviour modification programs
which are not properly monitored by psychiatrists.

She points out that there's a difference between using solitary
confinement in behaviour management programming, considered
harmful, and its use for medical seclusion that is ordered and
closely monitored by psychiatrists.

"Confinement of mentally ill patients for weeks and months at a
time breaches every ethical, professional and legal standard and
seriously harms vulnerable people," Nayerahmadi said.

The lawsuit references Canadian and international protocols on
confinement, seclusion and restraints.

Waypoint patients, often held there involuntarily, have been
routinely subjected to solitary confinement "in violation of
acceptable medical and ethical standards, including internationally
recognized norms against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment," the lawsuit alleges.

Solitary confinement and the use of restraints, it continues, is
abused and has been used at Waypoint to punish and manage patients
despite how it might harm the patients. The lawsuit also states it
is inconsistent with medical treatment standards.

The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of
Prisoners, known as The Mandela Rules, prohibit any period of
solitary confinement exceeding 15 days, even where the individual
is provided with two hours of social contact per day.

They also prohibit the use of solitary confinement for prisoners
with mental disabilities whose condition would be exacerbated by
solitary confinement.

The allegations further that confinement or seclusion as a form of
constraint in the psychiatric setting is non-therapeutic and should
only be used as a last resort -- an approach it indicates is
recognized by the Canadian Psychiatric Association.

The Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care has 160 provincial
forensic mental health program beds and another 141 beds for
regional acute mental health care. The facility, formerly known as
the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre, also runs community
mental health programs and conducts research.

Earlier this year, Rochon Genova LLP, the law firm handling this
proposed class-action, had success in another lawsuit involving
mental health patients in Penetanguishene.

The provincial government and two doctors at the former Oak Ridge
division of the former Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre were
found liable for subjecting patients to experimental treatment
involving the use of LSD, alcohol and the collective confinement of
naked men days on end between 1966 and 1983.

The hearing around damages, expected to be in the millions of
dollars, is scheduled to be heard Nov. 23.

The lawsuit involving 28 patients, eight of them now dead, was
originally launched 20 years ago. The doctors and the institutions
have filed notices of appeal, although they are being held in
abeyance until after the November hearing. [GN]


PHOENIX FINANCIAL: Perl Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Phoenix Financial
Services LLC. The case is styled as Moshe Perl, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Phoenix Financial
Services LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-05435 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2020).

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

Phoenix Financial is a revenue cycle management firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PRAIRIE FARMS: Tropp Files Suit in W.D. Wisconsin
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prairie Farms Dairy,
Inc. The case is styled as Stacey Tropp, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Prairie Farms Dairy, Inc., Case
No. 3:20-cv-01035-jdp (W.D. Wis., Nov. 16, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Prairie Farms Dairy, Inc. manufactures dairy products. The Company
offers milk, cottage cheese, sour cream, dips, yogurt, juices,
butter, ice cream, and frozen dessert products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311
          Great Neck, NY 11024
          Phone: (516) 303-0552
          Fax: (516) 234-7800
          Email: Spencer@spencersheehan.com


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Procter & Gamble
Company. The case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated v. The Procter & Gamble Company, Case
No. 1:20-cv-05440 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2020).

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

The Procter & Gamble Company is an American multinational consumer
goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, founded in
1837 by William Procter and James Gamble.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
          175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com



REATA PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Dec. 14 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Oct. 19 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Reata" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:RETA) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas, Sherman Division, and docketed under
20-cv-00796, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons
other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise, acquired Reata
securities between October 15, 2019 and August 7, 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 Reata securities during the
class period, you have until December 14, 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.

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").

The Complaint 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.

On August 10, 2020, during pre-market hours, 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 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]


SILVER STAR: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Silver Star Brands,
Inc. The case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Silver Star Brands,
Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-09605 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2020).

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

Silver Star Brands sells cards, gifts, helpful household items, and
food products through its catalogs and online.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SIMPLE HOME: Abramson Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Simple Home 360 Inc.
The case is styled as Stewart Abramson, individually and on behalf
of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Simple
Home 360 Inc., Case No. 0:20-cv-62325-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 16,
2020).

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

Simple Home 360 Inc. offers home maintenance and remodeling.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN PA
          31 Samana Drive
          Miami, FL 33133
          Phone: (305) 469-5881
          Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com


STANFORD NEW YORK: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stanford New York
LLC. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Stanford New York LLC, Case
No. 1:20-cv-09616 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2020).

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

Stanford New York is a hotel and a boutique urban retreat offering
124 cozy rooms and suites.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ALEXANDER ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 229-2249
          Fax: (212) 229-2246
          Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


SUBCONTRACTING CONCEPTS: Ross Sues Over Worker  Misclassification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Ross, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons
v. SUBCONTRACTING CONCEPTS, LLC, AUTO-WARES, LLC, and JOHN DOES
1-10, Case No. 2:20-cv-12994-LVP-DRG (E.D. Mich., Nov. 6, 2020), is
brought on behalf of individuals who perform or have performed
delivery services for Defendants who are misclassified by
Defendants as independent contractors and as a result are deprived
of compensation in violation of minimum wage and overtime
protections pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff utilizes their own automobiles to deliver goods and
products. The Defendants pay a straight hourly rate for all hours
worked, failing to provide the overtime premium required by the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the complaint asserts. The Defendants
also do not reimburse their drivers the reasonable per-mile expense
of using their own vehicles for the Defendants' benefit. As a
result of the Defendants' reimbursement practices, the drivers'
wages fall below the federal minimum wage during some or all work
weeks, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an adult resident of Detroit, Michigan who
provided last-mile delivery services using his own automobile for
the Defendants.

Subcontracting Concepts, LLC is a company having a principal place
of business in Queensbury, New York, out of which it provides
employment services to companies throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Blanchard, Esq.
          Frances J. Hollander, Esq.
          BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC
          221 North Main Street, Suite 300
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Phone: (734) 929.4313
          Email: blanchard@bwlawonline.com
                 hollander@bwlawonline.com


SUGAR CANE GROWERS: Hagens Berman Correct Amended Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman disclosed that on August 26, 2020, Florida residents
sought leave of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida court to file an amended and corrected
class-action lawsuit that alleges that Defendants, major sugarcane
growers in southern Florida, continue to burn vast acreages of
sugarcane, knowingly inundating residents of Belle Glade, Canal
Point, Clewiston, Indiantown, Moore Haven, Pahokee, and South Bay,
i.e., the "Hazard Zone," with toxic smoke and blanketing their
homes and cars with soot and cane residue, according to Hagens
Berman and Berman Law Group. The correction concerns the specific
amount of pollutants allegedly discharged into the airshed by
Defendants.

Plaintiffs' newly amended complaint continues to maintain that in
Palm Beach County alone, Defendants burned approximately 3.2
million acres of sugarcane field over the course of over 80,000
individual burn events between 2009 and 2019. The lawsuit alleges
that the smoke from the millions of acres of burning sugarcane
exposes residents to a wide range of pollutants, including
particulate matter, dioxins, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,
volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides,
nitrogen oxides, ammonia, elemental carbon and organic carbon.

According to the complaint, sugarcane growers around the
world—including growers in Louisiana, Australia, Thailand, South
Africa, and Brazil—have increasingly abandoned pre-harvest
burning in favor of mulching their plant waste, thereby boosting
their yields and reducing their dependence on chemical fertilizers
and pesticides. Yet Defendants, who receive $4 billion a year in
federal subsidies, persist in using a dangerous and anachronistic
harvesting method that rains toxic ash down on some of Florida's
poorest communities. Defendants continued to burn their crops even
as COVID-19 has rendered these communities particularly fragile.
According to researchers at Harvard University, even small
increases in the amount of PM2.5 in the air -- fine particulate
matter that Defendants' burns release in extremely large quantities
-- may increase the COVID-19 mortality rate.

According to the complaint, fallout from the Defendants'
pre-harvest burning disproportionately burdens residents in the
Hazard Zone. Current state regulations deny burn permits to
sugarcane growers if the Florida Forest Service projects that the
winds will blow smoke and ash plumes toward the more affluent
Eastern Palm Beach County and Eastern Martin County communities
near the coast. But the Florida Forest Service regularly grants
permits for burn events—as many as 60 burn permits a day—when
the prevailing winds blow smoke and ash plumes toward the poorer
communities within the Hazard Zone. The complaint alleges that the
burn permits violate residents' civil rights and that Defendants
jointly engaged with state officials in depriving residents of
their constitutionally protected property rights.

If you live in an area of Florida affected by toxic smoke and ash
created by the sugar industry's sugarcane burning, find out your
rights

According to the Florida Forest Service database, between 2014 and
2018, Defendants collectively burned 1.5 million acres of sugarcane
in the course of over 40,000 burn events. Plaintiffs' air
dispersion modeling analyzed the impact of each Defendant's toxic
emissions in this period on 3,500 receptors within a 130km by 100km
grid. The model examined the following emissions for each
Defendant: PM0.5, PM2.5, and PM10, carbon monoxide and carbonyl;
sulfur oxides; nitrogen oxides; ammonia; volatile organic
compounds; elemental carbon; organic carbon; polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons; and dioxins/furans over standard averaging times
(1-hour, 4-hour, 8-hour, 24-hour, and annual time intervals).

An inadvertent formula error in the EPA-approved AERMOD model used
by Plaintiffs' expert caused the prior complaint to overstate
pollutant levels. However, the corrected figures in Plaintiffs'
proposed amended complaint still demonstrate that each defendant
causes pollution impacts throughout the Hazard Zone, and that air
quality standards for certain pollutants were exceeded in many
parts of the airshed.

Specifically, the corrected modeling performed by Plaintiffs shows
that the byproducts of each Defendant's burning have effectively
blanketed the entire Hazard Zone. Each Defendant's individual
burning had a measurable impact on every receptor within Belle
Glade, Canal Point, Clewiston, Indiantown, Moore Haven, Pahokee,
and South Bay in all categories of particulate matter and every
other pollutant measured over every standard averaging time.
Collectively, Defendants caused air concentration levels of
hazardous or carcinogenic pollutants to exceed national standards
in the Hazard Zone. During the five years modeled, approximately
16.3% of the receptors in the 13,000 square kilometers evaluated
exceeded the 24-hour U.S. National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for PM2.5, particulate matter that is especially damaging to human
health. In some cases, this modeling found an extreme impact: in
2014, for example, one receptor in Pahokee exceeded the national
standard by roughly 5.7 times. The Plaintiffs' model also estimates
that benzo[a]pyrene, a confirmed human carcinogen emitted by
Defendants, exceeded the US EPA's May 2020 Regional Screening Level
in all seven communities. 100% of the receptors were impacted by
each Defendant's burning activities.

THE HAZARD ZONE

The Hazard Zone encompasses the towns of Belle Glade, Canal Point,
Clewiston, Indiantown, Moore Haven, Pahokee, and South Bay, whose
residents are hardest hit by sugarcane burning.

THE CLASSES

The lawsuit brings claims on behalf of three classes: a Battery
Class, for all residents of the Hazard Zone, who have been exposed
without consent to carcinogens, hazardous pollutants, and
particulate matter from Defendants' sugarcane burning; a Medical
Monitoring Class, for residents over the age of 40, whose exposure
to the sugarcane burning puts them at an increased risk of
developing lung cancer; and a Property Owner Class, for those who
own real property within the Hazard Zone and have suffered property
damage from the accumulation of the "black snow" that rains down
from Defendants' nearby burns.

The lawsuit seeks a court supervised monitoring program for lung
cancer, and compensation for property and personal injury.

Find out more about the class-action lawsuit against Florida's
sugar industry.

                      About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP is a consumer-rights class-action
law firm with nine 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 hbsslaw.com.

                      About Berman Law Group

Established in 2008, Berman Law Group has expanded to numerous
offices in Florida and across the U.S., after quickly garnering a
well-deserved reputation as an indefatigable and fearless defender
of its clients' rights. The firm is headquartered in Boca Raton and
has four other offices in Florida, as well as offices in New York
City, Atlanta, New Orleans, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles. For
additional information see: bermanlawgroup.com. [GN]

TD ASSET: January 18 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF CERTIFICATION THIS NOTICE IS IMPORTANT TO YOU.

This notice is directed to:

All persons, wherever they reside, who hold or held at any time
from January 1, 2010 to July 31, 2020, one or more units of the TD
Canadian Equity Fund or a Portfolio Fund (the "Class Members" or
the "Class").

A "Portfolio Fund" refers to a TD mutual fund which holds or held
the TD Canadian Equity Fund at any time from January 1, 2010 to
July 31, 2020.  The following is a list of the Portfolio Funds:

TD Advantage Balanced Growth (previously TD Advantage Balanced
Portfolio)
TD Advantage Balanced Income (previously TD Advantage Conservative
Portfolio)
TD Advantage Aggressive Growth (previously TD Advantage Equity
Portfolio)
TD Advantage Growth Portfolio
TD Advantage Balanced Portfolio (previously TD Advantage Moderate
Portfolio)
TD Managed Aggressive Growth Portfolio
TD Managed Balanced Growth Portfolio
TD Managed Income & Moderate Growth Portfolio
TD Managed Income Portfolio
TD Managed Maximum Equity Growth Portfolio
TD Canadian Equity Pool
TD Comfort Aggressive Growth Portfolio
TD Comfort Balanced Growth Portfolio
TD Comfort Balanced Income Portfolio
TD Comfort Balanced Portfolio
TD Comfort Conservative Income Portfolio
TD Comfort Growth Portfolio
THE CERTIFICATION ORDER

On July 31, 2020, the Supreme Court of British Columbia (the
"Court") certified the action Turpin v. TD Asset Management Inc.,
Court File No.  VLC-S-S-19422 (the "Class Action") as a class
proceeding and appointed Dean Turpin as representative plaintiff
(the "Representative Plaintiff") for the Class.  The defendant in
the Class Action is TD Asset Management Inc. ("TDAM"), which is the
trustee and manager of the TD Canadian Equity Fund and the
Portfolio Funds.

The Representative Plaintiff alleges that throughout the Class
Period the defendant did not actively manage the TD Canadian Equity
Fund, instead employing a passive investment strategy, the Closet
Indexing Strategy, the purpose of which was to closely track or
replicate, and not exceed, the Canadian Equity Fund's benchmark,
the S&P/TSX Composite Index.

The Representative Plaintiff pleads claims including breach of
trust, prospectus misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.  He
seeks compensation on behalf of all persons who hold or have held
units of the TD Canadian Equity Fund or a Portfolio Fund from
January 1, 2010 to July 31, 2020.  He also seeks disallowance of
expenses and disgorgement of fees allegedly received by TDAM.

TDAM denies the allegations made by the Representative Plaintiff.
In its response, TDAM pleads that it managed the TD Canadian Equity
Fund in a diligent and prudent manner, in line with the objectives
set out in the offering documents. TDAM also pleads that, as
manager of the TD Canadian Equity Fund, TDAM makes investment
decisions based on quantitative and qualitative research and has
never engaged in 'closet indexing'.

The certification order means that the Class Action may proceed to
trial on certain issues on a common basis.  Certification is a
preliminary procedural matter.  The merits of the claims in the
Class Action, and the allegations of fact on which the claims are
based, have not yet been considered by the Court.

DO NOTHING IF YOU WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CLASS ACTION

Class Members who want to participate in the Class Action are
automatically included and need not do anything at this time.

YOU MUST OPT OUT IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CLASS
ACTION

Class Members who do not want to participate in the Class Action
must opt out.  If you want to exclude yourself from the Class
Action, you must send written notice to Class Counsel expressing
your desire to opt out of the TD Closet Indexing Class Action.
Your written notice must include your name, address, telephone
number, and signature.  If you are submitting an opt-out request on
behalf of a corporation or other entity, you must state your
position with and authority to bind the corporation or entity.

Your opt-out request must be sent by email, fax or mail to:

Investigation Counsel P.C.
Re: Closet Indexing Class Action
350 Bay Street, Suite 300
Toronto ON   M5H 2S6
Email:  tdclosetindexing@investigationcounsel.com
Fax:  416-637-3445

In order for your opt out request to be valid, it must be
postmarked or received no later than January 18, 2021 and it must
contain all of the required information.

Each Class Member who does not opt out of the Class Action will be
bound by the terms of any judgment or settlement, whether
favourable or not, and will not be allowed to prosecute an
independent action against TDAM for any of the factual matters
raised in the Class Action.  If the Class Action is successful, you
may be entitled to share in the amount of any award or settlement
recovered.  A Class Member who opts out will not be entitled to
participate in the Class Action and will not be entitled to share
in the amount of any award or settlement.

A minor or a mentally incapable Class Member cannot be opted out of
the Class without permission of the Court. The Children's Lawyer or
the Public Guardian and Trustee, as applicable, must receive notice
of such an opt-out request.

NO DIRECT COST TO YOU

The Representative Plaintiff has entered into a contingency fee
retainer agreement with law firm Investigation Counsel P.C. which
provides that counsel will be paid only if the Class Action is
successful or costs are recovered from the defendant. If the action
is successful, either through judgment on the common issues or by
way of an approved settlement, the legal fees will be set by the
Court, and the Court may order that these fees be paid out of the
settlement proceeds or by the defendant.

If the class action is not successful, you will NOT be responsible
for any legal costs of the Class Action and will NOT have any other
financial obligations because of the Class Action.

Publication of this notice has been authorized by the Supreme Court
of British Columbia.

For further information: Class Members can contact Class Counsel as
follows: Investigation Counsel P.C., Attn: John Archibald, 350 Bay
Street, Suite 300, Toronto ON M5H 2S6, (416) 637-3152,
tdclosetindexing@investigationcounsel.com [GN]


TD BANK: Sued for Refusing to Pay Travel Insurance
--------------------------------------------------
Rosa Saba, writing for Welland Tribune, reports that a Canadian law
firm has launched a class-action lawsuit against TD Bank and TD
Home and Auto Insurance, alleging the financial giant is refusing
to pay travel insurance claims to customers who have been offered
credits or vouchers for trips cancelled due to COVID-19.

The lawsuit, launched by Samfiru Tumarkin LLP, alleges that TD has
been denying trip cancellation claims on the basis that customers
have been offered credits or vouchers by the airline or other
company, despite such a circumstance not appearing in the insurance
policies.

A spokesperson for TD's insurance arm said in an email that the
firm does not comment on matters before the courts.

Co-founding partner and Toronto insurance lawyer Sivan Tumarkin
said he has heard from individuals in this situation from across
the country dealing with a number of insurance providers, but that
the story of Kevin Lyons seemed so clear-cut that he decided to
launch the first such class action in Canada.

Lyons is the first plaintiff in the lawsuit. According to the law
firm, Lyons had booked a 12-day trip for his family, beginning with
a cruise out of Italy on March 8. But the family doctor told them
not to go, as COVID-19 had begun to spread and Lyons' 16-year-old
is a leukemia survivor.

Lyons cancelled the trip after the government issued advisories,
and put in a trip cancellation claim with TD. Out of the $6,673.36
he claimed, he received just under $80 for part of his Airbnb
reservation. The rest was denied because TD said Lyons had future
credit available from the companies he cancelled with, according to
the statement of claim.

Lyons isn't alone, said Tumarkin.

"I've spoken with quite a few individuals who had submitted claims,
and they are getting denied. They're not being told by the
insurance companies that you don't have coverage," Tumarkin said.
"What they're told is because you are being offered a credit or a
voucher by the airline, by the cruise line … that somehow
disentitles you to reimbursement under the insurance policy."

But Tumarkin said Lyons' policy, and others like it, do not mention
such a clause.

"I mean, it's so plain and simple in my mind that they ought to
have paid," he said of TD.

The class action covers people insured by TD for trip cancellation
benefits back to March 16, 2018.

Tumarkin said while Canada hasn't seen much in the way of
individual claims against insurance companies, which he attributes
to the cost, he expects to see class-action claims against travel
insurance companies climb — which they already have in the United
States, he said.

"I think this is the first time in history where so many people
have had to cancel their trips en masse," he said. "This is
unprecedented." [GN]


TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Nov. 23 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Oct. 19 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited ("Teva"
or the "Company") (NYSE:TEVA) and certain of its officers. The
class action, filed in United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, and docketed under 20-cv-04660, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants
who purchased or otherwise, acquired Teva securities between
October 29, 2015 and August 18, 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 Teva securities during the
class period, you have until November 23, 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.

Teva, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets,
and distributes generic medicines, specialty medicines, and
biopharmaceutical products in North America, Europe, and
internationally.

Among Teva's products is Copaxone (glatiramer acetate), a
prescription drug that is used to treat relapsing forms of multiple
sclerosis ("MS"). Throughout the Class Period, Teva consistently
described Copaxone as the Company's "leading specialty medicine,"
reporting Copaxone sales and revenues that consistently dwarfed the
same metrics for other Teva specialty products. Teva attributed
Copaxone's commercial success to "having the right mix" of, among
other things, "a fantastic underlying demand," "patients hav[ing]
access to it," and an "unparalleled . . . track record of both
efficacy and safety."

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Teva had made substantial
illegal kickback payments to charitable foundations to cover
Medicare co-payment obligations of patients taking Copaxone; (ii)
accordingly, Teva's revenues derived from Copaxone were in part the
product of unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; (iii) the
foregoing misconduct subjected Teva to a foreseeable risk of
heightened regulatory scrutiny and enforcement, as well as
reputational harm when the truth became known; and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On August 18, 2020, the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ")
issued a press release announcing that it had filed a complaint
against Teva under the False Claims Act. Specifically, "[t]he
government alleges that, from 2007 through 2015, Teva paid The
Assistance Fund (TAF) and Chronic Disease Fund (CDF) with the
intent and understanding that the foundations would use Teva's
money to cover the Medicare co-pays of patients taking Copaxone.
During the same period, Teva raised the price of Copaxone from
approximately $17,000 per year to over $73,000 per year."

On this news, Teva's American depositary receipt ("ADR") price fell
$1.11 per ADR from its previous close on August 17, 2020, or 9.6%,
to close at $10.48 per ADR on August 18, 2020, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

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]


UBER TECH: Loses Bid to Dismiss BRS Suit Over Securities Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BOSTON RETIREMENT SYSTEM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-06361-RS
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California denied the Defendants' motion
to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).

Lead plaintiff Boston Retirement System ("BRS") brings the putative
class action against Defendants Uber, several of its current and
former executives, and the underwriters of its initial public
offering ("IPO").  BRS alleges the Defendants made false or
misleading statements and omissions in connection with Uber's IPO
in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933.

Uber is a transportation company which provides on demand rides and
food delivery.  On May 10, 2019, it conducted its IPO, in which it
sold 180 million shares of common share stock to the public.  The
IPO was priced at $45 per share and generated nearly $8 billion in
proceeds for Uber.  The IPO was conducted pursuant to several
documents filed by defendants with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, including an April 11, 2019 Registration Statement on
Form S-1 ("RS"), which, after amendment, was declared effective by
the SEC on May 5, 2019.

BRS purchased Uber's common stock in the IPO, and from an
underwriter of the IPO, pursuant to the offering documents,
including the RS.  At the time BRS purchased this stock, only Uber
shares offered in the IPO were available in the market.  Uber's
share price subsequently declined from $45 to an all-time low of
$25.99 on Nov. 14, 2019.  

The action was brought, alleging violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act.  In January 2020, BRS was
appointed the Lead Plaintiff.  

The Defendants now move to dismiss the complaint under Rule
12(b)(6).  In support of their motion to dismiss, the Defendants
seek incorporation by reference and/or judicial notice of 29
documents, termed "exhibits" for ease of reference.  Exhibit A is
the amended RS for Uber's IPO, as filed with the SEC on Form S-1/A
on April 26, 2019.   Exhibits B and C are Uber's press releases
announcing its financial results for the first and second quarters
of 2019.  These were filed with the SEC on May 30 and Aug. 8, 2019,
respectively.  The remaining 26 exhibits are news articles written
in various publications about Uber between 2014 and 2019.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the motion is suitable for
disposition without oral argument, and the hearing set for Aug. 13,
2020 is vacated.

The parties disagree as to whether the heightened Rule 9(b)
pleading standard applies.  Rule 9(b) only applies to Section 11
claims which are "grounded in fraud."  Each cause of action in the
complaint explicitly disclaims a fraud theory.

The Defendants' first argument in favor of dismissal is that BRS
has engaged in impermissible "puzzle pleading."  Judge Seeborg
finds that the complaint is not so deficient that the Defendants
are incapable of figuring out what statements are alleged to be
false.  BRS has emphasized the portions of the RS that it alleges
to be false or misleading.  Furthermore, BRS set forth the reasons
why it believes each statement to be false or misleading.  While
the complaint might be "repetitive" and "hard to follow, it is not
so deficient as to amount to puzzle pleading.  BRS has not engaged
in impermissible puzzle pleading.

The Defendants' next argument favoring dismissal is that they did
not omit any material fact necessary to render the RS not
misleading, because the facts BRS alleges were omitted were in fact
disclosed.  BRS alleges the Defendants omitted material facts about
the legality (or lack thereof) of Uber's business model, its
passenger safety record, and its financial condition.

The Judge holds that the RS affirmatively created an impression of
an optimistic state affairs: no matter what trouble Uber had faced
in the past, Khosrowshahi was leading the company down a new path.
The RS represented that, while Uber's future was not blemish-free,
the company had turned over a new leaf.  Unfortunately, given the
facts BRS has plausibly alleged, this state of affairs differs in a
material way from the one that actually existed.  Similarly, BRS
plausibly alleges that Uber intentionally delayed layoffs and
restructuring it knew were inevitable given its financial position
at the time of its IPO, in order to mislead the markets.

The Defendants' final argument favoring dismissal is that the
misstatements BRS alleges are not actionable for a variety of
reasons.  Each argument is unavailing, the Judge holds.  First, the
alleged misstatements, considered in context, are not mere
corporate puffery.  Second, the complaint does not engage in
impermissible hindsight pleading.  Finally, the alleged
misstatements are not inactionable opinions.  

For the reasons he set forth, Judge Seeborg denied the motion to
dismiss.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 7, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yxvfwent from Leagle.com.


WERNER ENTERPRISES: Rogers Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Rogers, Individually, and on behalf herself and other
similarly situated individuals as a class v. WERNER ENTERPRISES,
INC., and DRIVERS MANANGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 8:20-cv-00468 (D.
Neb., Nov. 6, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and under the Nebraska Wage and Hour Act, to recover unpaid minimum
wages and other damages owed to Plaintiff.

The Defendants have a centralized, unified and common plan, policy
and practice (scheme) of failing to compensate the Plaintiff and
class members at the FLSA minimum wage hourly rate of pay of $7.25
per hour and the Nebraska minimum wage hourly rate of pay of $9.00
per hour for all hours worked as "over-the-road" truck driver
trainees during all times material to this collective action,
asserts the complaint. The Defendants' failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and similarly situated "over-the-road" truck driver
trainees in the amount owed them was willful and with reckless
disregard to established minimum wage requirements of the FLSA and
the NWHA, the complaint adds.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an "over the road"
truck driver trainee.

The Defendants are a trucking and training company headquartered in
Omaha, Nebraska with terminals and facilities throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Phone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
                 rturner@jsyc.com


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Accrues $20MM Aearo-related Claims at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, through its Aearo Technologies subsidiary, had accruals
of US$20 million as of September 30, 2020, for product liabilities
and defense costs related to current and future Aearo-related
asbestos and silica-related claims, 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, "On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company
acquired the stock of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo
Technologies ("Aearo").  Aearo manufactured and sold various
products, including personal protection equipment, such as eye,
ear, head, face, fall and certain respiratory protection products.

"As of September 30, 2020, Aearo and/or other companies that
previously owned and operated Aearo's respirator business (American
Optical Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and Cabot
Corporation ("Cabot")) are named defendants, with multiple
co-defendants, including the Company, in numerous lawsuits in
various courts in which plaintiffs allege use of mask and
respirator products and seek damages from Aearo and other
defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to
asbestos, silica-related, coal mine dust, or other occupational
dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or
generally in the workplace.

"As of September 30, 2020, the Company, through its Aearo
subsidiary, had accruals of US$20 million for product liabilities
and defense costs related to current and future Aearo-related
asbestos and silica-related claims.  This accrual represents the
Company's best estimate of Aearo's probable loss and reflects an
estimation period for future claims that may be filed against Aearo
approaching the year 2050.  The accrual was reduced by US$37
million during the second quarter of 2020 after paying Aearo's
share of certain settlements under the informal arrangement.  The
accrual reflects the Company's assessment of pending and expected
lawsuits, its review of its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities,
and the cost of resolving claims of persons who claim more serious
injuries.  Responsibility for legal costs, as well as for
settlements and judgments, is currently shared in an informal
arrangement among Aearo, Cabot, American Optical Corporation and a
subsidiary of Warner Lambert and their respective insurers (the
"Payor Group").  Liability is allocated among the parties based on
the number of years each company sold respiratory products under
the "AO Safety" brand and/or owned the AO Safety Division of
American Optical Corporation and the alleged years of exposure of
the individual plaintiff."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/fxx1RX


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Still Faces West Virginia's Pneumoconiosis Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company faces a pending petition from respiratory protection
manufacturers challenging a trial court's 2019 ruling in the
occupational pneumoconiosis suit filed by the State of West
Virginia through its Attorney General, according to 3M Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020.  The Company
disclosed that the petition was heard in September 2020.

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

The Company states, "The State of West Virginia, through its
Attorney General, filed a complaint in 2003 against the Company and
two other manufacturers of respiratory protection products in the
Circuit Court of Lincoln County, West Virginia, and amended its
complaint in 2005.  The amended complaint seeks substantial, but
unspecified, compensatory damages primarily for reimbursement of
the costs allegedly incurred by the State for worker's compensation
and healthcare benefits provided to all workers with occupational
pneumoconiosis and unspecified punitive damages.

"In October 2019, the court granted the State's motion to sever its
unfair trade practices claim.

"In January 2020, the manufacturers filed a petition with the West
Virginia Supreme Court, challenging the trial court's rulings; that
petition was heard in September 2020.

"No liability has been recorded for this matter because the Company
believes that liability is not probable and estimable at this time.
In addition, the Company is not able to estimate a possible loss
or range of loss given the lack of any meaningful discovery
responses by the State of West Virginia, the otherwise minimal
activity in this case, and the assertions of claims against two
other manufacturers where a defendant's share of liability may turn
on the law of joint and several liability and by the amount of
fault, if any, a jury may allocate to each defendant if the case
were ultimately tried."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/fxx1RX


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has 29,308 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. has 29,308 pending asbestos-related claims 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, "Of the 29,308 pending claims as of September
30, 2020, approximately 18,000 claims were pending in New York,
approximately 100 claims were pending in Texas, approximately 300
claims were pending in Mississippi, and approximately 200 claims
were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions in which legislation or
judicial orders restrict the types of claims that can proceed to
trial on the merits.

"We have tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts by the
jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court.  We further
have pursued appeals of certain adverse jury verdicts that have
resulted in reversals in favor of the defense.  We have also tried
several other cases resulting in plaintiff verdicts which we paid
or settled after unsuccessful appeals."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/YXf99C


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had 56,000 Claims at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc. (fka Crown Cork & Seal Co Inc.) had 56,000
outstanding claims related to asbestos matters at 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 also disclosed that during the nine months ended
September 30, 2020, the Company paid US$7 million to settle
outstanding claims. In the same period, there were 1,000 new claims
and 1,000 settlements or dismissals.

The Company states, "Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. ("Crown Cork")
is one of many defendants in a substantial number of lawsuits filed
throughout the U.S. by persons alleging bodily injury as a result
of exposure to asbestos.  These claims arose from the insulation
operations of a U.S. company, the majority of whose stock Crown
Cork purchased in 1963.  Approximately ninety days after the stock
purchase, this U.S. company sold its insulation assets and was
later merged into Crown Cork.

"Prior to 1998, amounts paid to asbestos claimants were covered by
a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985 settlement with
carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976, when Crown Cork became
self-insured.  The fund was depleted in 1998 and the Company has no
remaining coverage for asbestos-related costs.

"In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted
legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of
Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate merger
to companies involved with asbestos.  The legislation limits the
successor's liability for asbestos to the acquired company's asset
value adjusted for inflation.  Crown Cork has paid significantly
more for asbestos-related claims than the acquired company's
adjusted asset value.

"In November 2004, the legislation was amended to address a
Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision (Ieropoli v. AC&S Corporation,
et al., No. 117 EM 2002) which held that the statute violated the
Pennsylvania Constitution due to retroactive application.  The
Company cautions that the limitations of the statute, as amended,
are subject to litigation and may not be upheld.

"In June 2003, the state of Texas enacted legislation that limits
the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies such
as Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because
they are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been
involved with asbestos.  The Texas legislation, which applies to
future claims and pending claims, caps asbestos-related liabilities
at the total gross value of the predecessor's assets adjusted for
inflation.  Crown Cork has paid significantly more for
asbestos-related claims than the total adjusted value of its
predecessor's assets.

"In October 2010, the Texas Supreme Court held that the Texas
legislation was unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution when
applied to asbestos-related claims pending against Crown Cork when
the legislation was enacted in June 2003.  The Company believes
that the decision of the Texas Supreme Court is limited to
retroactive application of the Texas legislation to
asbestos-related cases that were pending against Crown Cork in
Texas on June 11, 2003 and therefore, in its accrual, continues to
assign no value to claims filed after June 11, 2003.

"In recent years, the states of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas,
Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan,
Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West
Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming enacted legislation that limits
asbestos-related liabilities under state law of companies such as
Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because they
are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been
involved with asbestos.  The legislation, which applies to future
and, with the exception of Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, South
Dakota, West Virginia and Wyoming, pending claims, caps
asbestos-related liabilities at the fair market value of the
predecessor's total gross assets adjusted for inflation.  Crown
Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims than
the total value of its predecessor's assets adjusted for inflation.
Crown Cork has integrated the legislation into its claims defense
strategy.

"The Company further cautions that an adverse ruling in any
litigation relating to the constitutionality or applicability to
Crown Cork of one or more statutes that limits the asbestos-related
liability of alleged defendants like Crown Cork could have a
material impact on the Company."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/eU67EM


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX, Units Still Face Exposure Suits at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corporation and six of its subsidiaries remain defendants in a
number of lawsuits claiming various asbestos-related personal
injuries, allegedly as a result of exposure to products
manufactured with components that contained asbestos, 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, "These components were acquired from third
party suppliers and were not manufactured by the Company or any of
the defendant subsidiaries.  To date, the majority of the Company's
settlements and legal costs, except for costs of coordination,
administration, insurance investigation and a portion of defense
costs, have been covered in full by insurance, subject to
applicable deductibles.  However, the Company cannot predict
whether and to what extent insurance will be available to continue
to cover these settlements and legal costs, or how insurers may
respond to claims that are tendered to them.  Claims have been
filed in jurisdictions throughout the United States and the United
Kingdom.  Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed
without payment.  The balance of the claims have been settled for
various immaterial amounts.  Only one case has been tried,
resulting in a verdict for the Company's business unit.  No
provision has been made in the financial statements of the Company,
other than for insurance deductibles in the ordinary course, and
the Company does not currently believe the asbestos-related claims
will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial position, results of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/HGVYxq


ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Asks Court to Dismiss ERISA Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson has sought the Court's order to dismiss the
amended complaint in the ERISA class action lawsuits related to
failure to disclose alleged asbestos contamination, 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 January 2019, two ERISA class action
lawsuits were filed by participants in the Johnson & Johnson
Savings Plan against Johnson & Johnson, its Pension and Benefits
Committee, and certain named officers in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by offering Johnson & Johnson stock
as a Johnson & Johnson Savings Plan investment option when it was
imprudent to do so because of failures to disclose alleged asbestos
contamination in body powders containing talc, primarily
JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder.  Plaintiffs are seeking damages and
injunctive relief.

"In September 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

"In April 2020, the Court granted Defendants' motion but granted
leave to amend.

"In June 2020, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and in July
2020, Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/3gEf7J


ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Objects to Imerys Disclosure Statement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 27, 2020, that it has objected to the Disclosure
Statement filed by Imerys Talc America, Inc., certain
of its affiliates, and the asbestos claimants' committee in May
2020 with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.
The Company also disclosed that it intends to object to the Plan of
Reorganization as currently structured.

The Company states, "In February 2019, the Company's talc supplier,
Imerys Talc America, Inc. and two of its affiliates, Imerys Talc
Vermont, Inc. and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc. (collectively, Imerys)
filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition commencing a reorganization
under the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Imerys Bankruptcy).
The Imerys Bankruptcy relates to Imerys' potential liability for
personal injury from exposure to talcum powder sold by Imerys (Talc
Claims).  In its bankruptcy filing, Imerys noted certain claims it
alleges it has against the Company for indemnification and rights
to joint insurance proceeds.  Based on such claims as well as
indemnity and insurance claims the Company has against Imerys, the
Company petitioned the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware to establish federal jurisdiction of the state
court talc lawsuits under the Bankruptcy Code.  The Company's
petition was denied and the state court talc lawsuits that have
been removed to federal court on such basis have been remanded.
The Company previously proposed to resolve Imerys' (and the
Company's) obligations arising out of the Talc Claims by agreeing
to assume the defense of litigation of all Talc Claims involving
the Company's products, waiving the Company's indemnification
claims against Imerys, and lifting the automatic stay to enable the
Talc Claims to proceed outside the bankruptcy forum with the
Company agreeing to settle or pay any judgment against Imerys.

"In May 2020, Imerys and the asbestos claimants' committee filed
their Plan of Reorganization and the Disclosure Statement related
thereto agreeing to put its North American operations up for
auction which was subsequently amended.  The Company has objected
to the Disclosure Statement and intends to object to the Plan of
Reorganization as currently structured.  Additionally, in June
2020, Cyprus Mines Corporation and its parent filed an adversary
proceeding against the Company as well as Imerys seeking a
declaration of indemnity under certain contractual agreements.  The
Company denies such indemnification is owed and filed a motion to
dismiss the adversary complaint arguing, among other things, that
the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Cyprus's
claims against the Company."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/3gEf7J


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NexPoint Residential Incurs $500K Liability in 3Q
------------------------------------------------------------------
NexPoint Residential Trust, Inc. incurred an environmental
liability of US$0.5 million at Cutter's Point property in
Richardson, Texas, involving asbestos during the three months ended
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, "Environmental liabilities could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, assets, cash
flows or results of operations.  During the three months ended
September 30, 2020, the Company incurred an environmental liability
of US$0.5 million at Cutter's Point involving asbestos.  There can
be no assurance that other material environmental liabilities do
not exist."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/AurfDn



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Had $24MM Liabilities at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Otis Worldwide Corporation recorded US$24 million as of September
30, 2020, for estimated liabilities to resolve all pending and
unasserted potential future asbestos claims 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, "We have been named as defendants in lawsuits
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.
While we have never manufactured any asbestos-containing component
parts, and no longer incorporate asbestos in any current products,
certain of our historical products have contained components
manufactured by third parties incorporating asbestos.  A
substantial majority of these asbestos-related claims have been
dismissed without payment or were covered in full or in part by
insurance or other forms of indemnity.  Additional cases were
litigated and settled without any insurance reimbursement.  The
amounts involved in asbestos related claims were not material
individually or in the aggregate as of and for the periods ended
September 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019.

"The estimated range of total liabilities to resolve all pending
and unasserted potential future asbestos claims through 2059 is
approximately US$24 million to US$45 million.  Because no amount
within the range of estimates is more likely to occur than any
other, we have recorded the minimum amount of US$24 million, which
is principally recorded in Other long-term liabilities on our
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2020 and
December 31, 2019.  Amounts are on a pre-tax basis, not discounted,
and excludes the Company's legal fees to defend the asbestos claims
(which will continue to be expensed as they are incurred).  In
addition, the Company has an insurance recovery receivable for
probable asbestos related recoveries of approximately US$5 million,
which is included in Other assets on our Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/E4qqkN


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Still Defends Stearns PI Suits at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation is still facing multiple lawsuits relating to
alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos
in certain brakes and clutches of the Company's Stearns division,
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, "Multiple lawsuits (with approximately 300
claimants) are pending in state or federal court in numerous
jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the
alleged presence of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches
previously manufactured by the Company's Stearns division and/or
its predecessor owners.  Invensys and FMC, prior owners of the
Stearns business, have paid 100% of the costs to date related to
the Stearns lawsuits.

"In connection with its sale, Invensys plc ("Invensys") provided
the Company with indemnification against certain contingent
liabilities, including certain pre-closing environmental
liabilities.  The Company believes that, pursuant to such indemnity
obligations, Invensys is obligated to defend and indemnify the
Company with respect to the matters relating to the Ellsworth
Industrial Park Site and to various asbestos claims.  The indemnity
obligations are subject, together with indemnity obligations
relating to other matters, to an overall dollar cap equal to the
purchase price, which is an amount in excess of US$900 million."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/yIP9Xe


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord's Prager Unit Still Has PI Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation's Prager subsidiary is the subject of claims by
multiple claimants alleging personal injuries due to the alleged
presence of asbestos in a product allegedly manufactured by Prager,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2020.

Rexnord states, "The Company's Prager subsidiary is the subject of
claims by multiple claimants alleging personal injuries due to the
alleged presence of asbestos in a product allegedly manufactured by
Prager.  However, all these claims are currently on the Texas
Multi-district Litigation inactive docket, and the Company does not
believe that they will become active in the future.  To date, the
Company's insurance providers have paid 100% of the costs related
to the Prager asbestos matters.  The Company believes that the
combination of its insurance coverage and the Invensys indemnity
obligations will cover any future costs of these matters.

"In connection with its sale, Invensys plc ("Invensys") provided
the Company with indemnification against certain contingent
liabilities, including certain pre-closing environmental
liabilities.  The Company believes that, pursuant to such indemnity
obligations, Invensys is obligated to defend and indemnify the
Company with respect to the matters relating to the Ellsworth
Industrial Park Site and to various asbestos claims.  The indemnity
obligations are subject, together with indemnity obligations
relating to other matters, to an overall dollar cap equal to the
purchase price, which is an amount in excess of US$900 million."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/yIP9Xe



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had $53.16MM Accrued Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc. recorded accrued asbestos liabilities
of US$53,164,000 at 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, "In evaluating our potential asbestos-related
liability, we have considered various factors including, among
other things, an actuarial study of the asbestos related
liabilities performed by an independent actuarial firm, our
settlement amounts and whether there are any co-defendants, the
jurisdiction in which lawsuits are filed, and the status and
results of such claims.  As is our accounting policy, we consider
the advice of actuarial consultants with experience in assessing
asbestos-related liabilities to estimate our potential claim
liability; and perform an actuarial evaluation in the third quarter
of each year and whenever events or changes in circumstances
indicate that additional provisions may be necessary.  The
methodology used to project asbestos-related liabilities and costs
in our actuarial study considered: (1) historical data available
from publicly available studies; (2) an analysis of our recent
claims history to estimate likely filing rates into the future; (3)
an analysis of our currently pending claims; and (4) an analysis of
our settlements to date in order to develop average settlement
values.  Based on the information contained in the actuarial study
and all other available information considered by us, we have
concluded that no amount within the range of settlement payments
and awards of asbestos-related damages was more likely than any
other and, therefore, in assessing our asbestos liability we
compare the low end of the range to our recorded liability to
determine if an adjustment is required."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/YpwrlA


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had 1,540 Fibro Cases at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 1,540 asbestos-related cases were outstanding at
September 30, 2020, for which Standard Motor Products, Inc. may be
responsible for any related liabilities, 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 1986, we acquired a brake business, which
we subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a
discontinued operation in the accompanying statement of operations.
When we originally acquired this brake business, we assumed future
liabilities relating to any alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
products manufactured by the seller of the acquired brake business.
In accordance with the related purchase agreement, we agreed to
assume the liabilities for all new claims filed on or after
September 2001.  Our ultimate exposure will depend upon the number
of claims filed against us on or after September 2001, and the
amounts paid for settlements, awards of asbestos-related damages,
and defense of such claims.

"At September 30, 2020, approximately 1,540 cases were outstanding
for which we may be responsible for any related liabilities.  Since
inception in September 2001 through September 30, 2020, the amounts
paid for settled claims are approximately US$33.9 million.  We do
not have insurance coverage for the indemnity and defense costs
associated with the claims we face."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/YpwrlA



                            *********

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 ***