/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201125.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, November 25, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 236

                            Headlines

22ND CENTURY GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Bull Class Suit Pending
ARGON TECHNOLOGIES: Thorne Alleges Violation under ADA
BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Robbins Geller Announces Class Action
BESA WINES LLC: Graciano Alleges Violation under ADA
BLUE APRON: $2 Million Accord in Employee Suit Wins Final OK

CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS: Palm & Pine Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Claims
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS: Post Oak Suit Removed to S.D. Texas
CHRONICLE BOOKS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CHUAO CHOCOLATIER: Paguada Alleges Violation under ADA
CLEAN SUPPS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of December 1 Deadline
DAIRYLAND USA: Orbetta Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Delivery Drivers
DICKEY'S BARBECUE: Fails to Protect Customers' PII, Marquez Claims
DISCOUNT DIVAS: Slade Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
ENDANGERED SPECIES: Paguada Alleges Violation under ADA

FACEBOOK INC: 3rd Amended Consolidated Securities Class Suit Filed
FAMILY FIRST: Chavarri Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
FARFETCH.COM US: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FIRST AMERICAN: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Dec. 24 Deadline
FOSSIL FARMS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Cracking Corvette Wheels
GENERAL NUTRITION: Sofoian Alleges Wiretapping of Website Visitors
GLENCORE LTD: Wants Steel Dynamics to Produce Docs
GLOBAL TRUST: Thompson Files RICO Suit in Virginia
GLOCK INC: Johnson Files Suit in Calif. Over Defective Hand Guns

GOOGLE LLC: Gamble Alleges Android Mobile App Market Monopoly
GREENWICH BBQ: Flores Sues Over Servers' Unpaid Wages, Tip Skimming
HARRIS & HARRIS: Adler Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
HECTOR TRANSPORT: Solano Sues Over Drivers' Improper Wages
HONG KONG KITCHEN: Quesada Seeks Minimum Pay, OT Under FLSA & NYLL

HOPEBRIDGE LLC: Myres Sues Over Unpaid OT for Behavior Technicians
HOT SPRINGS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hogan et al. Claim
IGLOO PRODUCTS: Chung Sues Over Deceptive Marketing of Ice Coolers
IMPERFECT FOODS: Paguada Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Breach
JELD-WEN HOLDINGS: Class Action Survives Dismissal Bid, Says Bragar

KEYBANK: Faces Urban Suit Over Overdraft & NSF Fees in N.D. Calif.
KIMBERLY-CLARK: Rothfeld Alleges Injury Over Contaminated Wipes
LA POLICE GEAR: Graciano Alleges Violation under ADA
LATTIMORE MATERIALS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Soileau Claims
LULULEMON USA: Yoon Alleges Wiretapping of Web Site Visitors

MADISON SQUARE: Settlement in Millien FCRA Suit Has Final Approval
MAESTRO FOOD CO: Paguada Alleges Violation under ADA
MAPLEBEAR INC: Faces Bolin Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Shoppers
MAPLEBEAR INC: Lopez Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
MATERION BRUSH: Lucyk Seeks Unpaid Wages for Production Workers

MDL 2286: Reply to Interrogatories-RFPs in TCPA Suit Not Compelled
MEDIX STAFFING: Galloway Suit Claims Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
MESOBLAST LIMITED: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Dec. 7 Deadline
METHODIST HOSPITALS: Kerley Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
MINDFINDERS INC: Dew Sues Over Unlawful Wage Pay & Retaliation

MODERN TIMES: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MOLLY MALONE'S: Faces Angeles Suit in S.D.N.Y Over ADA Violation
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Court Tosses Oreo False Advertising Class Action
MOUTH FOODS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MRS. FISHER'S INC: Paguada Asserts Breach of ADA in New York

NATIONAL WORKMAN'S: Faces Paulus TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: McAdams Suit Removed to S.D. California
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: DePasquale Balks at Denied Insurance Claims
NESTLE WATERS: Kendall Consumer Suit Removed to C.D. California
NEW JERSEY MENTOR: Kelly Sues Over Retaliation, Unlawful Discharge

NEXTCURE INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Class Action
NIKOLA CORP: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Class Action
NOVA HOME: Underpays Homecare Workers, Savinova et al. Claim
OCCASIONS GROUP: Thorne Alleges Violation under ADA
PAGE X CORP: Aguilar Sues Over Unpaid OT for Restaurant Staff

PB BRANDS: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind Users, Jaquez Says
PETER MILLAR: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Angeles Says
PETROSTAR SERVICES: Faces Barr Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PLAYAGS INC: Oklahoma Police is Lead Plaintiff in Consolidated Suit
PRECIGEN INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Dec. 4 Deadline

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Hair Care Products Aren't Natural, McGinity Says
QEP RESOURCES: Clark Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Geologists
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Less Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio
RAYMOND GROUP: Diaz Suit Transferred to S.D. California
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

RCI PLBG: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Foremen, Guzman et al. Say
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Rosen Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing
SEYAK CORP: Faces Abe Suit Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA and NYLL
SHADE STORE: Angeles Sues Over ADA Violation in S.D. New York
SHORE SYSTEMS: Faces Michaels Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

SMITH & WESSON: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SPECIALIZED LOAN: Mitchell FCRA Suit Goes to C.D. California
SPECIALTY CHEESE: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SPYDER ACTIVE: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
STANZEL INC: Fails to Properly Reimburse Drivers, Steele Suit Says

STRATEGIC FINANCIAL: Johnson Alleges Wage Discrimination
TARGET CORP: Castillo Sues Over Deceptive Labels on Acetaminophen
THEO CHOCOLATE INC: Paguada Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
TITAN CHAIR: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TOTAL LIFE CHANGES: Graciano Alleges Violation under ADA

TRIPP SCOTT: Kator Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
TURBO DRILL: Fails to Pay Overtime, Kennedy Claims
UEZU CORP: Abe Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages & OT Under FLSA & NYLL
UNITED COLLECTION: Hirsch Says Collection Letter "Deceptive"
UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO: Havarria Seeks Fee Refunds Due to COVID-19

VALSPAR CORP: Illegally Collects Employee Biometrics, Cordova Says
WALMART STORES: Lisowski Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
WELLS FARGO: Robbins Geller Files Class Action Suit
WEST PAW INC: Thorne Files ADA Suit in New York
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Chebegia Sues Over Defective Refrigerators

WILCO LIFE: West Suit Transferred to S.D. Indiana
WILDBERRY PANCAKES: Gonzales Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
WING KEUNG: Liu et al. Seek Proper Overtime Pay Under FLSA & NYLL
XST CORPORATION: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Alvarez Suit Alleges
Z RESTAURANT: Wins Dismissal of Counts VIII-XIII in Shibetti Suit

ZOSANO PHARMA: Kehoe Law Announces Securities Class Action
[*] SPAC Shareholder Securities Class Actions Expected to Rise

                            *********

22ND CENTURY GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Bull Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
22nd Century Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss the class action suit entitled, Matthew Bull, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. 22nd Century
Group, Inc., Henry Sicignano III, and John T. Brodfuehrer, Case No.
1:19-cv-00409, is still pending.

On January 21, 2019, Matthew Jackson Bull, a resident of Denver,
Colorado, filed a Complaint against the Company, the Company's then
Chief Executive Officer, Henry Sicignano III, and the Company's
then Chief Financial Officer, John T. Brodfuehrer, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
entitled: Matthew Bull, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. 22nd Century Group, Inc., Henry Sicignano
III, and John T. Brodfuehrer, Case No. 1:19-cv-00409.

On January 29, 2019, Ian M. Fitch, a resident of Essex County
Massachusetts, filed a Complaint against the Company, the Company's
then Chief Executive Officer, Henry Sicignano III, and the
Company's then  Chief Financial Officer, John T. Brodfuehrer, in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York entitled: Ian Fitch, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. 22nd Century Group, Inc., Henry Sicignano
III, and John T. Brodfuehrer, Case No. 2:19-cv-00553.

On May 28, 2019, the plaintiff in the Fitch case voluntarily
dismissed that action. On August 1, 2019, the Court in the Bull
case issued an order designating Joseph Noto, Garden State Tire
Corp, and Stephens Johnson as lead plaintiffs.

On September 16, 2019, pursuant to a joint motion by the parties,
the Court in the Bull case transferred the class action to federal
district court in the Western District of New York, where it
remains pending as Case No. 1:19-cv-01285.

Plaintiffs in the Bull case filed an Amended Complaint on November
19, 2019 that alleges three counts: Count I sues the Company and
Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer and alleges that the Company's
quarterly and annual reports, SEC filings, press releases and other
public statements and documents contained false statements in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5; Count II sues Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer pursuant to
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b5(a) and
(c); and Count III sues Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer for the
allegedly false statements pursuant to Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act.

The Amended Complaint seeks to certify a class, and unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, and attorney's fees and costs.

On January 29, 2020, the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and
Brodfuehrer filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. On
March 30, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition to the
motion to dismiss.

The company then filed its final reply brief on April 29, 2020. On
July 31, 2020, the Court heard oral arguments on our motion to
dismiss and we are awaiting the Court's decision.

22nd Century said, "We believe that the claims are frivolous,
meritless and that the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and
Brodfuehrer have substantial legal and factual defenses to the
claims. We intend to vigorously defend the Company and Messrs.
Sicignano and Brodfuehrer against such claims."

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

22nd Century Group, Inc., a plant biotechnology company, provides
technology that allows increasing or decreasing the level of
nicotine and other nicotine alkaloids in tobacco plants, and
cannabinoids in hemp/cannabis plants through genetic engineering
and plant breeding. 22nd Century Group, Inc. was founded in 1998
and is headquartered in Williamsville, New York.


ARGON TECHNOLOGIES: Thorne Alleges Violation under ADA
------------------------------------------------------
Argon Technologies, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Argon Technologies, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-09442 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 10, 2020).

ArgonTech provides bespoke development, consultancy and next-gen
technology services to global customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Robbins Geller Announces Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the District of New Jersey on behalf of
purchasers of Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft ("BMW")
(OTC:BMWYY; BAMXF) securities between November 3, 2015 and
September 24, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is
captioned Spanier v. Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft,
No. 20-cv-15081, and is assigned to Judge Claire C. Cecchi. The BMW
class action lawsuit charges BMW, BMW (US) Holding Corp. ("BMW US")
and certain of their officers with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased or acquired BMW securities during the Class
Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the BMW class
action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the
greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative
class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A
lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in
directing the BMW class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the BMW class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the BMW class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff
of the BMW class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your
rights regarding the BMW class action lawsuit, please provide your
information here or contact counsel, Michael Albert of Robbins
Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at
malbert@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the BMW class
action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than December
28, 2020.

BMW, together with its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures, and
sells automobiles and motorcycles and spare parts and accessories
worldwide.

The BMW class action lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class
Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) BMW kept a "bank" of retail vehicle
sales that it used to meet internal monthly sales targets
regardless of when the sales actually occurred; (2) BMW
artificially manipulated sales figures by having dealers register
cars as sold when the cars were still in inventory; and (3) BMW's
key operating metrics were inaccurate and misleading due to the
forgoing facts. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

On December 23, 2019, The Wall Street Journal reported that the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") was probing BMW's
sales practices, and stated, among other things, that: "The [SEC]
is looking into whether the Munich-based auto maker engaged in a
practice known as sales punching in the U.S., the people said. Sale
punching occurs when a company boosts sales figures by having
dealers register cars as sold when the vehicles actually are still
standing on car lots." On this news, the price of BMW's American
Depositary Receipts declined, damaging investors.

Then, on September 24, 2020, the SEC announced a settlement
agreement with BMW regarding the investigation. According to the
SEC's order, from January 2015 to March 2017, BMW US "used its
demonstrator and service loaner programs to boost reported retail
sales volume and meet internal targets, resulting in demonstrator
and loaner vehicles accounting for over one quarter of BMW [US]'s
reported retail sales in this period." On this news, the price of
BMW's American Depositary Receipts declined, further damaging
investors.

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

BESA WINES LLC: Graciano Alleges Violation under ADA
----------------------------------------------------
Besa Wines, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Sandy
Graciano, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Besa Wines, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-09264 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 4, 2020).

Besa is an organic canned wine from Southern California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



BLUE APRON: $2 Million Accord in Employee Suit Wins Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Fairley v. Blue Apron, LLC et al. Case No.
3:18-cv-07000 (N.D. Cal.), Judge Vince Chhabria approved the
parties' settlement on a final basis following a hearing November
19 via Zoom.

The Court also approved the Motion for Attorney Fees, Costs, and
Class Representative Enhancement Payment filed by Terrance Bailey,
the lead plaintiff.

Plaintiffs are to file a revised proposed order for the Court's
review.

Lawyersandsettlements.com reported in March 2020 that the deal is
for $2 million.

Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the Company is
subject to a lawsuit filed in California Superior Court under the
Private Attorneys General Act on behalf of certain non-exempt
employees in the Company's Richmond, California fulfillment center.


The complaint was filed on October 16, 2017, and alleges that the
Company failed to pay wages and overtime, provide required meal and
rest breaks, provide suitable resting facilities and provide
accurate wage statements, to non-exempt employees in violation of
California law.

Plaintiffs' counsel filed a separate class action lawsuit alleging
largely the same claims, but covering a longer period, which is now
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California. A mediation was held on November 20, 2019,
at which time the cases were not resolved.

On December 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification in federal court. On December 18, 2019, the parties
entered into a memorandum of understanding which, if finalized and
approved by the court, will resolve both actions in their entirety.


The parties finalized a settlement agreement on March 2, 2020 and
the court has vacated all other deadlines in the class-action case,
including the due date for the Company's opposition to the motion
for class certification.

In light of a reduced court schedule as a result of the COVID-19
pandemic, the court cancelled the hearing on the motion for
preliminary approval of the final settlement agreement which had
been scheduled for April 16, 2020, and notified the parties that it
will issue a determination on the motion without a hearing.

On July 6, 2020, the court granted preliminary approval of the
final settlement agreement.

A hearing for final approval was held November 19, 2020.

Blue Apron said, "If the court does not issue final approval of the
settlement agreement, the cases will continue."

As of September 30, 2020, the Company has an accrual of $2.1
million for an estimated legal settlement for which the Company
concluded the loss is probable and reasonably estimable.

Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. operates direct-to-consumer platform that
delivers original recipes, and fresh and seasonal ingredients. It
also operates Blue Apron Market, an e-commerce marketplace that
provides cooking tools, utensils, and pantry items. Blue Apron
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 2012 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.



CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS: Palm & Pine Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
PALM AND PINE VENTURES, LLC AND MDH GLOBAL, LLC v. CERTAIN
UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON, UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON
KNOWN AS SYNDICATE XLC 2003, CNP 4444, NVA 2007, QBE 1886, ARG
2121, and ASC 1414, and HDI GLOBAL SPECIALTY SE, Case No.
5:20-cv-00613-M (E.D.N.C., Nov. 18, 2020) is a class action brought
by the Plaintiffs arising from the Defendants' denial of coverage
for losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The insurance policies include Business Income coverage, Extra
Expense coverage, and coverage for loss due to the actions of a
Civil Authority, and contain no relevant virus exclusion.

The Plaintiffs are two small businesses with common ownership that
purchased Defendants' insurance policy and made premium payments
for a policy that, in the event of a catastrophe requiring a
shutdown of business operations, would require the Defendants to
honor their contractual obligation to provide coverage.

In March 2020, such a catastrophe took place when the Plaintiffs
were forced to close their vacation rental businesses due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. All across the country, including in North
Carolina, government authorities issued closure orders to
businesses, including the businesses operated by Palm & Pine and
MDH Global, in an effort to stop the rapid spread of the deadly
COVID-19 virus. Orders from Civil Authorities requiring businesses
to close have resulted in massive losses to businesses throughout
the country. As a result, many insureds, including Plaintiffs,
filed claims for Business Income coverage, Extra Expense coverage,
and coverage for losses due to the actions of a Civil Authority.

In response to the business interruption claims filed by the
Plaintiffs and thousands of other class members resulting from the
COVID-19 pandemic, Defendants have systematically denied and
continue to deny and refuse to provide payment for insurance claims
for coverage for similar losses and expenses by insureds holding
policies that are, in all material respects, identical.

The Defendants' decision to not provide coverage and/or its
decision to refuse to pay claims under the common policy forms
issued to Plaintiffs and the putative class members constitutes a
breach of contract and provides them with the right to seek a
declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2201(a) on
behalf of itself and the class members establishing that they are
entitled to receive the benefit of the insurance coverage it
purchased and for indemnification of the businesses losses it has
sustained.

The Defendants operate a vacation rental company.

Underwriters at Lloyd's London is composed of syndicates of
individual underwriters that share respective and several liability
under an insurance policy. Underwriters at Lloyd's London is, in
turn, comprised of entities known as "Names," which underwrite
insurance in a market known as Lloyd's of London. Each "Name" and
syndicate is organized under the laws of the United Kingdom and is
located in and has its principal place of business in England.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Beaujeaux de Lapouyade, Esq.
          William F. "Chip" Merlin, Jr.
          MERLIN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          777 S. Harbour Island Blvd., Suite 950
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 229-1000
          Facsimile: (813) 229-3692
          E-maiL: bdelapouyade@merlinlawgroup.com
                  cmerlin@merlinlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
          Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq.
          THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
          2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-1423
          E-mail: dam@moskowitz-law.com
                  adams@moskowitz-law.com

               - and -

          Lawrence E. Bathgate, II, Esq.
          John J. Reilly, Esq.
          Ryan M. Farrell, Esq.
          BATHGATE, WEGENER & WOLF, P.C.
          One Airport Road
          P.O. Box 2043
          Lakewood, NC 08701
          Telephone: (732) 363-0666
          E-mail: lbathgate@bathweg.com
                  jreilly@bathweg.com
                  rfarrell@bathweg.com

CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS: Post Oak Suit Removed to S.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Post Oak Grill dba LB Restaurants,
Individually and on Behalf of Those Similarly Situated v. Certain
Underwriters at Lloyd's, London Subscribing to Policy No. CLU
54563, Case No. 20-62534, was removed from the U.S. District Court
of Harris County, Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas on Nov. 12, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-03846 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Real Property: Foreclosure.

Lloyd's is the world's leading insurance market providing
specialist insurance services to businesses in over 200 countries
and territories.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Tony L. Draper, Esq.
          WALKER WILCOX MATOUSEK LLP
          1001 McKinney St., Ste. 2000
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: (713) 654-8001
          Fax: (713) 343-6571
          Email: tdraper@wwmlawyers.com


CHRONICLE BOOKS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chronicle Books LLC.
The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Chronicle Books LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-09533 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2020).

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

Chronicle Books is a San Francisco-based American publisher of
books for adults and children.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


CHUAO CHOCOLATIER: Paguada Alleges Violation under ADA
------------------------------------------------------
Chuao Chocolatier, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Chuao Chocolatier, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-09260 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 4, 2020).

Chuao Chocolatier (chew-WOW) was founded in 2002 by Chef Michael
Antonorsi, spreading joy to the world by arousing the senses with
delicious chocolate experiences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mars Khaimov, Esq.
   10826 64th Avenue
   Ste 2nd Floor
   Forest Hills, NY 11375
   Tel: (917) 915-7415
   Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


CLEAN SUPPS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Clean Supps LLC.
The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. The Clean Supps LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-09529 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2020).

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

The Clean Supps LLC offers dietary and nutritional
supplements.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of December 1 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Credit Acceptance Corporation (NASDAQ:
CACC) investors that acquired shares between November 1, 2019 and
August 28, 2020. Investors have until December 1, 2020 to seek an
active role in this litigation.

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

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

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.

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

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

DAIRYLAND USA: Orbetta Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Delivery Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MAURICIO ORBETTA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAIRYLAND USA CORPORATION
and THE CHEF'S WAREHOUSE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-09000
(S.D.N.Y., October 27, 2020) is brought by the Plaintiff against
the Defendants for their alleged willful violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL).

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a food distribution
delivery driver from in or around February 18, 2019 until on or
around May 6, 2020.

The Plaintiff claims that despite working approximately 70 hours
each week, the Defendants did not pay him overtime at one and
one-half times his regular rate of pay for the hours he worked over
440 in workweek throughout his employment with the Defendants.
Additionally, the Defendants failed to provide him with a written
notice of his pay rate and with accurate paystub.

Dairyland USA Corporation is a wholesale food distribution company
owned by the Chef's Warehouse, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan El-Hag, Esq.
          EL-HAG & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          777 Westchester Ave., Suite 101
          White Plains, NY 10604
          Tel: (914) 218-6190
          Fax: (914) 206-4176
          E-mail: Jordan@elhaglaw.com


DICKEY'S BARBECUE: Fails to Protect Customers' PII, Marquez Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LUIS MARQUEZ, on behalf of himself and a class of others
similarly situated v. DICKEY'S BARBECUE RESTAURANTS, INC., a Texas
corporation; and DICKEY'S CAPITAL GROUP, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-02251-BEN-MSB (S.D. Cal., Nov. 18,
2020) asserts that the Defendants failed to exercise reasonable
care in securing and safeguarding their customers' personal
identifying information (PII), including names, payment card
numbers, payment card expiration dates, and payment card security
codes.

On October 15, 2020, a daily blog that covers computer security and
cybercrime, KrebsOnSecurity.com, revealed that payment card data
had been stolen from the Defendants' customers at more than 100 of
Defendants' restaurant locations around the country.

The article revealed that on October 12, 2020, a "dark web" payment
card bazaar, "Joker's Stash," debuted a batch of more than three
million stolen payment card records and advertised "valid rates" of
between 90 to 100 percent. Companies that track the sale of stolen
payment card data found one common theme among all the accounts for
sale: They were used at one or more of the Defendants' restaurants
over the preceding 13 to 15 months, from May 2019 through September
2020.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are no stranger to data
breaches. In 2015, the Defendants experienced a ransomware attack
that demanded $6,000 to return the company's marketing files.
Following that attack, the Defendants published an article
detailing the incident and committing to a robust cybersecurity
posture. The article, complete with security best practices and an
endorsement of investing in proactive measures, featured quotes
from then-CEO Laura Rea Dickey.

Despite its past experience with data security incidents and
promises to implement state of the art data security practices,
Defendants again failed to protect its customers' PII with adequate
data security, the Plaintiff contends.
As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff's and Class members'
PII has been exposed to criminals for misuse. The damages to
Plaintiff and the Class include the following which have or may be
suffered as a direct result of the data
breach.

Plaintiff Marquez is a citizen of the State of California and
resides in Riverside, California.

Dickey's Barbecue is a Texas corporation with its principal place
of business located at 4514 Cole Avenue, Suite 20 1015, Dallas,
Texas. The Defendant operates a chain of corporate and franchise
restaurants known as Dickey's Barbecue Pit.

Dickey's Capital Group is the holding company of Dickey's Barbecue
Restaurants, Inc., and has an estimated value of $400 million.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
          Jeremy Robinson, Esq.
          P. Camille Guerra, Esq.
          James M. Davis, Esq.
          CASEY GERRY SCHENK
          FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP
          110 Laurel Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1811
          Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
          E-mail: gmb@cglaw.com
                  jrobinson@cglaw.com
                  camille@cglaw.com
                  jdavis@cglaw.com

DISCOUNT DIVAS: Slade Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discount Divas, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Linda
Slade, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Discount Divas, LLC and Discount Divas Boutique, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-09234 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 4, 2020).

Discount Divas, LLC is a Women's clothing store in Huntsville,
Alabama.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
   Scarsdale, NY 10583
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com



ENDANGERED SPECIES: Paguada Alleges Violation under ADA
-------------------------------------------------------
Endangered Species Chocolate, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Endangered Species Chocolate, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-09259 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 4, 2020).

Endangered Species Chocolate, LLC manufactures confectionery
products. The Company offers chocolate bars and bites, candy, and
truffles. Endangered Species Chocolate serves customers in the
United States and Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mars Khaimov, Esq.
   10826 64th Avenue
   Ste 2nd Floor
   Forest Hills, NY 11375
   Tel: (917) 915-7415
   Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


FACEBOOK INC: 3rd Amended Consolidated Securities Class Suit Filed
------------------------------------------------------------------
A third amended consolidated class action complaint has been filed
in the case captioned IN RE FACEBOOK, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Case No. 5:18-cv-01725-EJD (N.D. Cal.) on Oct. 16, 2020.

The Plaintiffs are persons who purchased shares of Facebook common
stock between Feb. 3, 2017 and July 25, 2018, who believe that
Defendant Facebook and Executive Defendants Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl
K. Sandberg, and David W. Wehner made materially false and
misleading statements and omissions in connection with the purchase
and sale of Facebook stock.  They allege that the Defendants made a
total of 83 materially misleading statements or omissions in press
releases, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings, earnings
calls, and public remarks at conferences.   

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated Section 10(b),
20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b5
promulgated thereunder because the Defendants made guarantees that
the Cambridge Analytica, and related data-privacy scandals, would
not impact Facebook stock while knowing this to be false.
Specifically, they focus on the Defendants' statements and
omissions concerning Facebook's "privacy and data protection
practices" and their impact on Facebook's stock prices during the
Class Period.

The Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Class Action Complaint in
October 2018.  The Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint in September 2019 after finding that the
Plaintiffs had failed to carry their burden to plead with
particularity falsity and scienter - the Court did not address
reliance or loss causation in that order.

The Plaintiffs filed their second amended consolidated complaint in
November 2019.  Thereafter, the Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the second amended consolidated class action complaint,
arguing that the Plaintiffs have failed to (for a second time) meet
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)'s heightened pleading
requirements for securities fraud.  They challenge the sufficiency
of the Plaintiffs' Section 10b and Rule 10b-5 claim as to (1)
misrepresentation, (2) scienter, (3) reliance, and (4) causation.


The Plaintiffs filed an opposition and the Defendants then filed a
reply.

In their Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege 13
categories of allegedly misleading statements: (1) statements about
control; (2) statements about respecting users' privacy; (3)
statements about risk factors; (4) statements about the Cambridge
Analytica investigation; (5) statements about data misuse; (6)
statements about user consent; (7) statements about compliance with
the FTC consent decree; (8) statements about user notification; (8)
statements about GDPR compliance; (9) statements about Russian
interference in U.S. elections; (10) statements about user metrics;
(11) statements about 1Q18 results; and (12) statements about the
sale of user data.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs fail to plead actual
misrepresentations -- that is, statements by them that are actually
false and/or omit material facts.  The Court agrees that some of
the alleged misrepresentations are not actionable or that the
Plaintiffs have failed to plead with particularity the
circumstances that make the alleged misrepresentations actionable.
However, the Court finds that Statements 1 to 21, 35, 67, 69, and
parts of Statements 82 and 83 are actionable.

Having determined that Statements 1-21, 35, 67, 69, and parts of
Statements 82 and 83 are actionable, the next issue is whether the
Plaintiffs have adequately pled a strong inference of scienter.
The Defendants next argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to plead
scienter.  

The Court disagrees.  The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have
alleged sufficient facts to connect the alleged misrepresentations
with a wrongful state of mind.  Allegations show that Defendants
Zuckerberg and Sandberg were actively involved in the whitelisting
process and thus support an inference that Defendants Zuckerberg
and Sandberg knew of Facebook's illicit whitelisting practices.  

Likewise, the Plaintiffs have plead sufficient facts showing that
the Defendants knew that Facebook had little control over the
deletion of misappropriated data and that the risk of a Cambridge
Analytica type scandal could again occur due to its whitelisting
practices.  Because Statements 35, 67, 69, and the relevant
portions of 82 and 83 rely on the same theory of falsity, the
Plaintiffs have shown scienter as to these statements also.  For
these reasons, the Court holds that the Plaintiffs have plead
scienter as to Statements 1 to 5, 7 to 21, 35, 67, 69, and the
relevant portions of 82 and 83.  The Court thus denies the
Defendants' motion to dismiss these statements on scienter
grounds.

However, the Court cannot say that the Defendant Wehner's sales are
suspicious in light of his trading history.  It is the only other
grounds for scienter alleged as to Defendant Wehner.  Because the
Plaintiffs have provided no particularized facts from which this
Court can infer that Defendant Wehner consciously lied, the Court
finds that the Plaintiffs fail to plead scienter as to Statement 6
as required by the PSLRA and so the Court grants the Defendants'
motion to dismiss as to this statement.

Third, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to
plead reliance.  The Court disagrees.  Because the alleged
misrepresentations were publicly known; material; Facebook stock
traded in an efficient market; and the Plaintiffs' traded the stock
between the time the misrepresentations were made and when the
truth was revealed, the Plaintiffs have established a presumption
of reliance.  Hence, the Plaintiffs have established the
presumption of reliance.  The Defendants have not presented
evidence rebutting this presumption and so the Judge presumes
investors relied on Statements 1 to 5, 7 to 21, 35, 67, 69, and the
relevant portions of 82 and 83.

Fourth, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to
plead loss causation.  The Court agrees.  The Plaintiffs have not
connected the alleged loss with alleged misrepresentations.  Having
determined that the only viable theory of falsity plead in the SAC
is that the Defendants mislead investors as to their privacy
policies based on their alleged whitelisting practices, the
relevant timeframe is stock sales from Feb. 3, 2017 to June 3, 2018
(which is when the whitelisting was revealed).  The Plaintiffs
allege no facts from which the Judge can infer the stock price fell
in June 2018.  The only point that they identify after the June
2018 revelations is July 26, 2018 (i.e., following Defendants 2Q18
Earnings Release).

While the Court could find that the whitelisting practices affected
the stock prices following the 2Q18 Earnings Release, it is unclear
if this is the ultimate reason for the drop.  The Court thus cannot
conclude that information about whitelisting was the "ultimate
reason" for a stock decline.  For this reason, the Court grants the
Defendant's motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiffs also bring claims for violations of Sections 20(a)
and (A) of the Exchange Act.  Both these claims, however, depend on
a primary violation of Section 10(b) or Rule 10b-5.  Because the
Judge determines the Plaintiffs' claim under Section 10(b) and Rule
10b-5 fail, the Defendants motion to dismiss these claims is also
granted.

Although the Judge has determined that they fail to state a claim,
it is possible the Plaintiffs can cure their allegations by
alleging, among other things, that Facebook embedded employees in
the 2016 Trump campaign and thus knew that the deletion
certifications were false and by alleging more facts about the
stock price following the June 3, 2018 whitelisting revelation.
Accordingly, because the Plaintiffs may salvage their Complaint,
the Court finds amendment would not be futile.  The Plaintiffs'
claims are therefore dismissed with leave to amend.  The Plaintiffs
are advised that it will be their final opportunity to amend.

Thus, in an Aug. 7, 2020 Order available at
https://tinyurl.com/y6ky9y47 from Leagle.com, Judge Edward J.
Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint with leave to
amend.  

Subsequently, the Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint
against Facebook Inc.


FAMILY FIRST: Chavarri Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE CHAVARRI, MONICA ABBOUD, AND ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING, INC.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
FAMILY FIRST LIFE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case
No. 3:20-cv-01546 (D. Conn., Oct. 13, 2020) arises from the
Defendant's unlawful conduct in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant conducted (and continues
to conduct) a wide-scale telemarketing campaign that features the
repeated making of unsolicited autodialed calls and consumers'
cellphones, including the Plaintiffs', without any prior express
consent to make such calls. The Defendant place these calls to
telephones using an automatic telephone dialing system in an
attempt to promote its business and to generate leads.

The Plaintiffs seek an injunction requiring the Defendant and its
agents to cease all unauthorized calling activities and an award of
statutory damages to the class members to be placed into a common
fund for the benefit of the class.

First Family Life, LLC is a life insurance company headquartered in
Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen Taylor, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW LLC
          43 Danbury Road
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Telephone: (203) 653-2250
          Facsimile: (203) 653-3424

               - and -

          Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
          Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213-0675
          Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
          E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
                  ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com

FARFETCH.COM US: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Farfetch.com US, LLC.
The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Farfetch.com US, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-09537 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2020).

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

Farfetch is a British-Portuguese online luxury fashion retail
platform that sells products from over 700 boutiques and brands
from around the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


FIRST AMERICAN: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Dec. 24 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces 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 First American
Financial Corp. ("First American" or the "Company") (NYSE: FAF)
securities during the period from February 17, 2017 through October
22, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until
December 24, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company failed to implement basic security standards
to protect its customers' sensitive personal information and data;
(2) the Company faced a heightened risk of cybersecurity failure
due to its automation and efficiency initiatives; and (3) as a
result, defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On May 24, 2019, KrebsOnSecurity.com ("KrebsOnSecurity"), a noted
cybersecurity blog, reported a massive data exposure by First
American in which Approximately 885 million customer files were
exposed by First American. On this news, shares of First American
fell $3.46, or over 6%, to close at $51.80 on May 25, 2019.

On October 22, 2020, First American filed a quarterly report on
Form 10-Q with the SEC, announcing that the Company had received a
Wells Notice regarding its massive security breach. On this news,
the price of First American shares fell approximately $4.83 per
share, or 9%, to close at $46.75 per share on October 22, 2020.

If you acquired First American securities, have information, or
would like to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas
W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney at 212-371-6600, by email at
investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to
discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters
without any cost to you.

Kirby McInerney is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney's website: www.kmllp.com. [GN]

FOSSIL FARMS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fossil Farms, L.L.C.
The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Fossil Farms, L.L.C., Case No.
1:20-cv-09536 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2020).

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

Fossil Farms is a diversified purveyor of farm raised wild game,
game birds, exotic meats and all natural meats.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Cracking Corvette Wheels
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Anderson, writing for Carscoops, reports that General Motors
is facing a second class-action lawsuit over 2015-2019 C7 Corvette
Z06 and 2017-2019 Grand Sport wheels that can bend and crack.

A class-action lawsuit filed on September 10 in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan is seeking millions of
dollars in reimbursement for 18 owners named in the lawsuit, and
all others who have reported issues with the wheels. In April, a
separate class-action lawsuit over the same issue was filed in
California.

The Detroit Free Press notes that the lawsuit alleges the wheels of
said models are "prone to deforming and cracking, without impact
damage." It adds that GM made the wheels with inferior material
that is "cast, rather than forged, and is of insufficient strength,
and insufficient quality, to withstand the torque and power input
from the drivetrain."

Lawyers named in the lawsuit haven't provided a figure for the
exact amount of compensation they are seeking, but The Detroit Free
Press estimates it could cost GM upwards of $18 million for each
year of affected Corvette Z06 and Grand Sport models.

Sixty-six-year-old Vanessa Bishop Diggs is one of the hundreds of
owners to report of wheels cracking and bending. Speaking with the
media, she said she purchased a 2019 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 in May
2019, but just one year later and after driving roughly 15,000
miles, noticed the car started to "simmer and shimmy." She soon
discovered that she had four bent wheels. The warranty didn't cover
them and she was forced to pay $3,000 to replace them.

"I don't want the car now, even with the new rims on it, because it
was sick," Diggs said. "I don't want to deal with it and the way
General Motors is treating me, I don't want it now."

Dozens of complaints have been made by owners at the Corvette Forum
over the years. In 2017, Corvette chief engineer Tadge Juechter
took to the forum to defend GM, stating that the company designs
wheels "to withstand extreme pothole loads" and that "people are
often surprised that a wheel can be bent or cracked without any
visible damage to the tire or obvious scratches on the wheel."

GM has declined to comment on this latest class-action lawsuit and
believes the damage is caused by regular wear and tear. While cast
wheels can indeed bend and crack during every day driving, the fact
that 250 complaints have been made to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration's website indicates there probably is a
specific issue with the Corvette's wheels, even if GM has yet to
admit it. [GN]


GENERAL NUTRITION: Sofoian Alleges Wiretapping of Website Visitors
------------------------------------------------------------------
RAFFI SOFOIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GENERAL NUTRITION CORPORATION and FULLSTORY, INC., Case
No. 2:20-cv-10586 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 19, 2020) is a class action suit
brought against GNC and FullStory for wiretapping the electronic
communications of visitors to the Defendant GNC's Website, GNC.com.


According to the complaint, the wiretaps, which are embedded in the
computer code on the Website, are used by the Defendants to
secretly observe and record Website visitors' keystrokes, mouse
clicks, and other electronic communications, including the entry of
Personally Identifiable Information (PII), in real time. By doing
so, the Defendants have violated the California Invasion of Privacy
Act (CIPA) and invaded the Plaintiff's and Class Members' privacy
rights in violation of the California Constitution.

Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that in July 2020 and August
2020, he visited the Website. During the visit, the Defendants
recorded his electronic communications in real time, including his
mouse clicks and keystrokes.

Plaintiff Raffi Sofoian is a resident of West Hills, California.

General Nutrition Corporation is a company incorporated under the
laws of Pennsylvania with its principal place of business 300 Sixth
Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. GNC owns and operates the
Website. GNC has used FullStory's "Session Replay" product on the
Website.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Joel D. Smith, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER PA
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  jsmith@bursor.com

GLENCORE LTD: Wants Steel Dynamics to Produce Docs
--------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: ZINC ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No.
14-cv-3728 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.), Defendants Glencore Ltd. and Access
World (USA) LLC request the Court to grant its motion and compel
Steel Dynamics, Inc. to produce documents responsive to the
Defendants' Rule 45 subpoena issued to it on November 15, 2016.

The antitrust suit is pending before Judge Paul A. Engelmayer. The
suit is brought by purchasers of zinc claiming that the Defendants'
conduct inflated the price for so-called "Special High Grade"
physical zinc by, inter alia, causing an increase in the benchmark
rate called the Midwest Premium, which the Plaintiffs claim is
reflected in nearly all, if not all, physical zinc purchases.

The motion asserts that for nearly 10 months, the Defendants have
attempted to reach Steel Dynamics' counsel to discuss Steel
Dynamics' response to the said subpoena, but have not received any
response. Because the requested materials are relevant to the
litigation and because Steel Dynamics has failed to provide written
objections as required by Rule 45, the Defendants request that the
court issue an order compelling Steel Dynamics to product materials
responsive to the subpoena.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Patrick Fitzgerald, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          155 N. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 407-0700
          Facsimile: (312) 407-0411
          E-mail: Patrick.fitzgerald@skadden.com

               - and -

          Boris Bershteyn, Esq.
          Julia York, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          One Manhattan West
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 735-3834
          Facsimile: (917) 777-3834
          E-mail: boris.bershteyn@skadden.com

               - and -

          Eliot Lauer, Esq.
          CURTIS, MALLET-PREVOST, COLT & MOSLE LLP
          101 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10178
          Telephone: (212) 696-6000
          Facsimile: (212) 697-1559

GLOBAL TRUST: Thompson Files RICO Suit in Virginia
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Global Trust
Management, LLC. The case is styled as Tonona Thompson,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. Global Trust Management, LLC and Quick Processing
Solutions, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00844 (E.D. Va., Nov.
4, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as
Racketeer/Corrupt Organization filed pursuant to the Racketeering
(RICO) Act.

Global Trust Management, LLC is a fully Licensed & Bonded accounts
receivable firm located in Tampa Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
   Kelly Guzzo PLC
   3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
   Fairfax, VA 22030
   Tel: (703) 424-7570
   Fax: (703) 591-9285
   Email: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com

     - and -

   Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
   Kelly Guzzo PLC
   3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
   Fairfax, VA 22030
   Tel: (703) 424-7576
   Fax: (703) 591-0167
   Email: aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com

     - and -

   Casey Shannon Nash, Esq.
   Kelly Guzzo PLC
   3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
   Fairfax, VA 22030
   Tel: (703) 424-7571
   Fax: (703) 591-0167
   Email: casey@kellyguzzo.com

     - and -

   Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
   Consumer Litigation Associates
   763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A
   Newport News, VA 23601
   Tel: (757) 930-3660
   Fax: (757) 930-3662
   Email: craig@clalegal.com

     - and -

   Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
   Consumer Litigation Associates
   763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A
   Newport News, VA 23601
   Tel: (757) 930-3660
   Fax: (757) 930-3662
   Email: lenbennett@clalegal.com



GLOCK INC: Johnson Files Suit in Calif. Over Defective Hand Guns
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN C. JOHNSON, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. GLOCK, INC., a Georgia Corporation;
GLOCK Ges.m.b.H, an Austrian entity; JOHN and JANE DOES 1 through
V; ABC CORPORATIONS I-X,XYZ PARTNERSHIPS, SOLE PROPRIETORSHIPS
and/or JOINT VENTURES I-X, GUN COMPONENT MANUFACTURERS 1-V, Case
No. RG20075498 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., Oct. 1, 2020) arises
from the Defendants' conduct of designing, manufacturing and
marketing defective hand guns, in violation of the California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty
Act, and the California Business & Professions Code.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants' hand guns are defective
and unreasonably dangerous because the common design of the hand
guns will not prevent and has not prevented a "blow out" or
"Kaboom" which can, and does, result in personal injury. The
unsupported chamber defect results from the inadequate design,
manufacturing, and testing of the hand guns, and the continued
failure of the Defendants to remedy the defect. The defect has
created an unreasonably dangerous situation for a person owning
and/or possessing a hand gun, and has substantially reduced, or
eliminated completely, the value of the hand guns.

The Defendants fraudulently concealed and intentionally failed to
warn the Plaintiff and class members of the unsupported chamber
defect with the intent to deceive the Plaintiff, class members, and
general public without knowledge of the defect. The Defendants also
falsely and fraudulently represented that their hand guns were safe
for normal and intended use, when in fact the hand guns were not
safe for normal and intended use, the suit says.

Glock Inc. is a global manufacturer of firearms.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
          Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
          NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
          225 Broadway, 19th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 325-0492
          Facsimile: (619)325-0496
          E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
                  atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org

               - and -

          Robert K. Lewis, Esq.
          Christopher A. Treadway, Esq.
          LEWIS LAW FIRM, PLC
          2302 N. 3rd Street
          Phoenix, AZ 85004    
          Telephone: (602) 889-6666
          Facsimile: (602) 252-1446
          E-mail: rob@lewisandporka.com
                  chris@lewisandporka.com

               - and -

          Amy M. Pokora, Esq.
          POKORA LAW, PLC
          2302 N. 3rd Street
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 889-6666
          Facsimile: (602) 252-1446
          E-mail: amv@lewisandporka.com

GOOGLE LLC: Gamble Alleges Android Mobile App Market Monopoly
-------------------------------------------------------------
ZACHARIA GAMBLE; and NICHOLAS HESS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOOGLE LLC; and
ALPHABET INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-07984 (N.D. Cal., Nov.
12, 2020) alleges violation of the Sherman Act.

According to the complaint, the Play Store's dominance over app
distribution on Android devices has enabled Google to effectively
become the middleman between app developers and their customers by
mandating use of its own in-app payment system -- Google Pay -- for
transactions accomplished using the Play Store. Google's
requirements in this regard have evolved over time to require more
app developers to use Google's payment tool. In 2014, for example,
only certain categories of applications were required to use Google
Pay. Recently, however, Google has begun insisting that a broader
category of apps will be required to use Google's in-app payment
tool exclusively, no longer permitting the option of a third-party
payment processor.

Similarly, Google uses a series of anticompetitive covenants in
agreements to maintain its monopoly in the Android Mobile App
Market and charge supra-competitive prices for apps and in-app
purchases. Google's Mobile Application Distribution Agreement
requires manufacturers seeking to license the Android operating
system to agree to preinstall select apps, including the Google
Play Store, on the device, alongside other rotating apps to be
selected by Google. If a manufacturer refuses these restrictive
terms and conditions, it loses access to the Android operating
system.

As a result of the Mobile App Agreement's terms and conditions,
Google has successfully prevented competition in the Android Mobile
App Market, allowing it to charge supra-competitive prices for apps
and in-app purchases, and harming Plaintiffs and Class Members by
limiting consumer choice.

Google LLC is a global technology company that specializes in
Internet-related services and products. The Company is primarily
focused on Web-based search and display advertising tools, search
engine, cloud computing, software, and hardware. Google serves
customers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          Andre M. Mura, Esq.
          Amanda M. Karl, Esq.
          Alexander J. Bukac, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 1110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 350-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
          E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
                  amm@classlawgroup.com
                  amk@classlawgroup.com
                  ajb@classlawgroup.com


GREENWICH BBQ: Flores Sues Over Servers' Unpaid Wages, Tip Skimming
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BRENDA FLORES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GREENWICH BBQ LLC d/b/a MIGHTY QUINN'S
BARBEQUE; CMH BBQ HOLDINGS LLC d/b/a MIGHTY QUINN'S BARBEQUE;
BROADWAY BBQ LLC d/b/a MIGHTY QUINN'S BARBEQUE; UPPER EAST BBQ LLC
d/b/a MIGHTY QUINN'S BARBEQUE; BATTERY BBQ LLC d/b/a MIGHTY QUINN'S
BARBEQUE; WESTCHESTER BBQ LLC d/b/a MIGHTY QUINN'S BARBEQUE; MICHA
MAGID; and CHRISTOS GOURMOS, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-09514
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2020) is an action seeking from the Defendants
unpaid minimum wage due to invalid tip credit, unlawfully retained
tips, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as server.

Greenwich Bbq LLC d/b/a Mighty Quinn's Barbeque owns and operates a
restaurant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HARRIS & HARRIS: Adler Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harris & Harris, Ltd.
The case is styled as Rachel Adler, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Harris & Harris, Ltd., Case No.
7:20-cv-09521-PMH (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2020).
  
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Harris & Harris, Ltd. is a nationwide provider of accounts
receivable management services, and performs collections for
clients in healthcare, utility, and government.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Michael Barshay, Esq.
          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Ste 5th Floor
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 203-7600
          Fax: (516) 706-5055
          Email: dbarshay@bakersanders.com
                 csanders@barshaysanders.com


HECTOR TRANSPORT: Solano Sues Over Drivers' Improper Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, JUAN SOLANO, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. HECTOR TRANSPORT, INC., YENYSLEYS CRUZ ESPINOSA, LUIS
ALMEIDA and OSMEL BARRIOS ALCOLEA, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-24646 (S.D. Fla., November 12, 2020) arises from the
Defendants' alleged unlawful payroll practices in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff asserts that while she was employed by the Defendants
as a driver, the Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to
pay him any wages for one entire pay period, since October 2, 2020.
Moreover, the Defendants failed to post any notice, as required by
the FLSA.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover monetary damages for unpaid wages
pursuant to the FLSA.

Hector Transport, Inc. provides non-emergency medical transport
(van). [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Franklin A. Jara, Esq.
          JARA LAW FIRM
          10271 Sunset Drive, Suite 103
          Miami, FL 33173
          Tel: (305) 372-0290
          E-mail: Franklin@JaraLaw.com
                  Joanna@JaraLaw.com

                - and –

          Jennifer C. Pratt, Esq.
          PRADA LAW
          1450 NW 87th Ave., Ste. 210
          Miami, FL 33172-3009
          Tel: (305) 203-1059
          Fax: (786) 513-4627
          E-mail: jcpratt@prada.law


HONG KONG KITCHEN: Quesada Seeks Minimum Pay, OT Under FLSA & NYLL
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN ARMANDO QUESADA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. HONG KONG KITCHEN INC. (D/B/A HONG KONG) and
WU J. LIN, Case No. 1:20-cv-05639 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2020) seeks
to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, and the New York Labor Law including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.

The Plaintiff contends that he worked for the Defendants in excess
of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime
compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants
failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and
failed to pay him appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. He
adds that the Defendants paid him at a rate that was lower than the
required tip-credit rate. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond
him to all other similarly situated employees.

Plaintiff Quesada is a former employee who worked as a delivery
worker of Defendants Hong Kong Kitchen Inc. and Wu J. Lin.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a Chinese restaurant,
located at 62-97 Forest Ave, Ridgewood, New York under the name
"Hong Kong".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

HOPEBRIDGE LLC: Myres Sues Over Unpaid OT for Behavior Technicians
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Myres, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
Hopebridge, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-05390-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Oct.
14, 2020) arises from the Defendant's failure to pay employees
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt
Pay Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant suffered or permitted the
Plaintiff and others similarly situated to work more than 40 hours
in one or more workweeks, entitling them to overtime compensation
under the FLSA. However, the employees are owed unpaid overtime
because the Defendant does not compensate employees for interrupted
meal breaks or short rest breaks.

Mr. Myres was employed by the Defendant as a registered behavior
technician from approximately January, 2020 until approximately
September 15, 2020.

Hopebridge, LLC is a Cleveland, Ohio-headquartered company that
provides healthcare services, including personalized therapy for
children and their families affected by behavioral, physical,
social, communication, and sensory challenges, as well as
outpatient services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

               - and -

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

HOT SPRINGS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hogan et al. Claim
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, ANTHONY HOGAN; and CASSANDRA HOGAN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HOT SPRINGS
NURSING AND REHABILITATION – A WATERS COMMUNITY, LLC, Case No.
6:20-cv-6130-RTD (W.D. Ark., Nov. 12, 2020), seeks declaratory
judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest, and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs as a result of
the Defendant's failure to pay proper overtime compensation under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as nursing
assistants.

Hot Springs Nursing And Rehabilitation – A Waters Community, LLC
offers health care services. The Company provides short term
rehabilitation, long term residential care, music therapy, and long
term home health care. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          April Rheaume, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: april@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


IGLOO PRODUCTS: Chung Sues Over Deceptive Marketing of Ice Coolers
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Chung, Steven Hargrove, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Igloo Products Corp., Case No.
1:20-cv-04926-MKB-SJB (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2020) arises from the
Defendant's deceptive business practice in marketing, advertising
and promotion of a line of ice coolers labeled "3 Day," "5 Day," "7
Day" or "120 Hour" ice retention, in violation of the New York's
Deceptive Acts or Practices Law and the New York General Business
Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has led the Plaintiffs
and reasonable consumers to falsely believe that the products will
retain ice for certain period of time as labeled. The Plaintiffs
assert that the products did not perform as represented on the
labeling, that was only designed to encourage consumers to purchase
the products and misled into purchasing the products.

Further, based on the claims purported in the labeling, the
Defendant is able to price the product at a premium over other
products sold by their competitors, making it reaped huge profits
from false, misleading and deceptive marketing and sale of the
products, the suit says.

Igloo Products Corp. manufactures various models of ice coolers and
sells the products throughout the United States through a network
of brick and mortar and online stores.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cutter Mill Road, Suite 409
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 268-7080
          Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
  
               - and -

          James Chung, Esq.
          Telephone: (718) 461-8808
          Facsimile: (929) 381-1019
          E-mail: jchung_77@msn.com

IMPERFECT FOODS: Paguada Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Imperfect Foods, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Josue Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Imperfect Foods, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-09253 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 4, 2020).

Imperfect Foods Inc distributes food products. The Company supplies
fruits and vegetables which are rejected by grocery stores.
Imperfect Foods serves customers in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mars Khaimov, Esq.
   10826 64th Avenue
   Ste 2nd Floor
   Forest Hills, NY 11375
   Tel: (917) 915-7415
   Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


JELD-WEN HOLDINGS: Class Action Survives Dismissal Bid, Says Bragar
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, announces that the Shareholder Class Action
Against Jeld-Wen Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: JELD) has survived the
motions to dismiss in the pending securities class action and may
face damages. Long-term investors are encouraged to contact the
firm.

According to the securities class action complaint, throughout the
Class Period defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud and made
materially false and misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts, regarding the Company's business,
operations, growth prospects, and competitive positioning.
Specifically, defendants stated that Jeld-Wen products, including
doors, compete against other manufacturers on price, and described
the market in which the Company sells its doors as "highly
competitive." Defendants also attributed Jeld-Wen's strong margins
and anticipated margin growth to legitimate business factors, such
as "making strategic pricing decisions based on an analysis of
customer and product level profitability" and increasing its
emphasis on "pricing optimization." These and similar statements
made by defendants during the Class Period were false and
misleading because defendants knew that Jeld-Wen was engaged in a
price-fixing conspiracy with another door manufacturer to
artificially increase or maintain prices of interior molded doors.
As a result of defendants' misrepresentations, shares of Jeld-Wen's
common stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the
Class Period. On October 26, 2020, U.S. District Judge John A.
Gibney, Jr. denied defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiffs'
claims, finding that plaintiffs had plausibly alleged securities
fraud claims.

If you are a long-term stockholder of Jeld-Wen, 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,
or telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact
form. There is no cost or obligation to you.

                    About Bragar Eagel

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

KEYBANK: Faces Urban Suit Over Overdraft & NSF Fees in N.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
PETER URBAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KEYBANK, Case No. 3:20-cv-08182 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 19,
2020) alleges that KeyBank wrongfully and unlawfully charged the
Plaintiff and class members Overdraft fees and Non-Sufficient Funds
(NSF) fees in breach of its contracts with its customers.

At the moment debit card transactions are authorized on an account
with positive funds to cover the transaction, KeyBank immediately
decrements consumers' checking accounts for the amount of the
purchase and sets aside funds in a checking account to cover that
specific transaction. As a result, and with limited exceptions,
customers' accounts always have sufficient available funds to cover
these transactions throughout their entire life-cycle. However,
KeyBank still assesses crippling $38.50 Overdraft fees on many of
these transactions, in violation of its contractual promises not to
do so, says the complaint.

The case is brought as a civil action seeking monetary damages,
restitution, and injunctive and declaratory relief from KeyBank
arising from its unfair and unconscionable assessment and
collection of Overdraft/NSF Fees in breach of KeyBank's contracts
with its customers.

While a citizen of California, residing in San Francisco,
California, the Plaintiff Peter Urban formed a contract with
KeyBank to open a checking account using his California address,
phone number, and zip code.

KeyBank is a national bank with its headquarters in Cleveland,
Ohio. KeyBank operates numerous branches throughout the United
States with corporate offices throughout California. Among other
things, KeyBank is engaged in the business of providing retail
banking services to consumers, including Plaintiff and members of
the putative classes, throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Joseph I. Marchese , Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  jmarchese@bursor.com

KIMBERLY-CLARK: Rothfeld Alleges Injury Over Contaminated Wipes
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAWN ROTHFELD, individually and on behalf of and all others
similarly situated v. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION, Case No.
2:20-cv-05647 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 2020) is a class action lawsuit
seeking recovery for the harms caused by millions of contaminated,
dangerous, and worthless flushable wipes manufactured by
Kimberly-Clark and sold throughout the state of New York.

According to the complaint, Kimberly-Clark neglected the safety and
sanitation responsibilities it owed to its customers and the public
at large. On February of 2020, a dangerous bacterial strain called
Pluralibacter gergoviae contaminated certain lots of
Kimberly-Clark's Cottonelle Flushable Wipes and Cottonelle
GentlePlus Flushable Wipes products.

Lacking appropriate safeguards to detect and/or remediate bacterial
contamination in its products (or otherwise failing to execute them
with reasonable care or competence), Kimberly-Clark proceeded to
sell the contaminated Cottonelle Wipes to the Plaintiff and other
consumers throughout New York through third-party retailers.
Indeed, Kimberly-Clark continued its mass, New York statewide
distribution of contaminated Wipes for another seven months -- all
the while failing to detect the bacterial contamination, warn the
public, or otherwise take any steps whatsoever to remediate the
serious health risks to which it had exposed Plaintiff, similarly
situated consumers, and the public at large, the Plaintiff
contends.

By this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover, on behalf of
herself and the putative New York class of similarly situated
consumers, the total losses they have sustained on their purchase
of Kimberly-Clark's Cottonelle Wipes, as well as statutory damages
under New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350.

Plaintiff, Dawn Rothfeld, is a resident of Oceanside, New York. The
Plaintiff bought the Product on or about February 2020 through and
including October 2020 at Costco in Oceanside, New York. Following
the purchase of the Cottonelle Wipes, she alleges that she utilized
the same after urinating and after bowel movements on a daily basis
through October 2020. Upon utilizing the Cottonelle Wipes, she
began to suffer serious injury, including urinary tract infections;
bladder pressure; incomplete bladder emptying; voiding urgency;
painful urination; and increased frequency of urination. As a
result of her use of Cottonelle Wipes, she was placed on antibiotic
therapy and underwent radiological studies, including ultrasounds
of the abdomen and ultrasounds of the bladder. Further, as a result
of her use of Cottonelle Wipes, she suffered and continues to
suffer from pain; weakness; fatigue; stomach discomfort; nausea;
vomiting; difficulty walking; stress; anxiety; apprehension; mental
distress; fear; tension; and severe emotional trauma, she adds.

Kimberly-Clark Corporation is a corporation formed and existing
under the laws of Delaware. Kimberly-Clark describes "Cottonelle
(TM) Flushable Wipes [as] fresh, gentle and effective for a truly
refreshing clean. They are designed with CleaningRipples (TM)
Texture and the cleansing power of water to deliver long-lasting
freshness." On February of 2020, Kimberly-Clark began distributing
retail packages of its Cottonelle Wipes that that it knew or should
have known were contaminated with a dangerous bacterium called
Pluralibacter gergoviae.

According to the FDA, Pluralibacter gergoviae poses a particular
risk of infection to "[i]ndividuals with weakened immune systems,
who suffer from a serious pre-existing condition, who have been
treated surgically or belong to another sensitive group of
persons."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James F. Murphy, Esq.
          LEWIS JOHS AVALLONE AVILES, LLP
          One CA Plaza, Suite 225
          Islandia, NY 11749
          Telephone: (631) 755-0101
          Facsimile: (631) 755-0117
          E-mail: jfmurphy@lewisjohs.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com

LA POLICE GEAR: Graciano Alleges Violation under ADA
----------------------------------------------------
LA Police Gear Inc is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Sandy
Graciano, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LA Police Gear Inc, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-09263 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 4, 2020).

L.A. Police Gear, Inc. sells law enforcement and tactical
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



LATTIMORE MATERIALS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Soileau Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH SOILEAU JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LATTIMORE MATERIALS CORP.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-03853 (S.D. Tex., November 12, 2020)
files this complaint as a collective action against the Defendant
for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by
failing to pay overtime at an appropriate rate of pay.

The Plaintiff, who worked for the Defendant as an hourly employees,
claims that although he and all those similarly to him regularly
worked in excess of 40 hours a week, the Defendant failed to pay
them accurate overtime compensation at the proper overtime rate not
less than one and one-half times their proper regular rate because
the Defendant improperly excluded their non-discretionary bonuses
in calculating their regular rate of pay.

Lattimore Materials Corp. mines aggregates (gravel, sand, and
limestone) and produces and delivers concrete, primarily in the
Dallas/Ft. Worth area but also in Houston, San Antonio, and
southern Oklahoma. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
          TRAN LAW FIRM
          2537 S. Gessner, Suite 104
          Houston, TX 77063
          Tel: (713) 223-8855
          E-mail: trang@tranlf.com
                  service@tranlf.com


LULULEMON USA: Yoon Alleges Wiretapping of Web Site Visitors
------------------------------------------------------------
MARY YOON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LULULEMON USA INC. and QUANTUM METRIC, INC., Case No.
5:20-cv-02439 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 19, 2020) is a class action suit
brought against the Defendants for wiretapping the electronic
communications of visitors to Defendant Lululemon's Website,
Lululemon.com.

According to the complaint, the wiretaps, which are embedded in the
computer code on the Website, are used by Defendants to secretly
observe and record Website visitors' keystrokes, mouse clicks, and
other electronic communications, including the entry of Personally
Identifiable Information (PII), in real time. By doing so, the
Defendants have violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act
(CIPA), and invaded the Plaintiff's and Class Members' privacy
rights in violation of the California Constitution.

Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that or April 2020, she visited
the Website. During the visit, the Defendants recorded her
electronic communications in real time, including her mouse clicks,
keystrokes, and payment card information.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and a class
of all persons whose electronic communications were intercepted
through the use of the Defendants' wiretap on the Website.

Lululemon is an athletic apparel retailer.

Quantum Metric provides software solutions. The Company offers
real-time cross-device digital intelligence analytics
platform.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Joel D. Smith, Esq.
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  jsmith@bursor.com

MADISON SQUARE: Settlement in Millien FCRA Suit Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Clint Millien, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The Madison
Square Garden Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 17 CIVIL 4000
(AJN) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Alison J. Nathan of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York granted (i) the
Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action
Settlement, and (ii) the Plaintiffs' Motions for an Award of
Service Payments to Class Representatives, and an Award of
Attorney's Fees and Costs.

Lead Plaintiff Millien filed the lawsuit against the Defendants on
April 26, 2017 in New York Supreme Court.  The Defendants then
removed the case to federal court, and Plaintiff Millien amended
his Complaint, adding another Plaintiff, Felipe Kelly.  The Amended
Complaint brings several claims.  First, the Plaintiffs allege that
the Defendants failed to provide them and proposed class members
with copies of their background check report and other required
notices before deciding not to hire them as required by the federal
Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") (Count 1) and New York Fair
Credit Reporting Act ("NY FCRA") (Count 2).

A few weeks before discovery closed, but before the bulk of the
depositions were conducted, the parties engaged in private
mediation.  The result of that mediation is the present settlement.
There are three kinds of relief under the agreement.  All 508
class members ("FCRA Class") will receive a payment of $200.  A
subclass of 281 members who applied to jobs in New York City ("NYC
Class") will get an opportunity to receive an additional $1,700
payment.  After preliminary certification, the NYC class members
were required to submit claims forms.  

For the 132 members that did so, the Defendants will then conduct
an Article 23-A analysis and determine whether the class member, in
light of that analysis, would have been eligible for employment,
regardless of whether the class member fully disclosed his or her
criminal record.  Class members who submitted claims forms and were
otherwise eligible for employment would then receive $1,700 each.
MSG also agrees to implement various policy changes regarding
hiring and employment of those with criminal records.  The Lead
Plaintiffs would each receive $7,500 service awards.  The agreed
upon amount of attorneys' fees and costs is $750,000.

In exchange, the Defendants are released from all claims under any
legal or equitable theory under the FCRA and/or NY FCRA.
Additionally, the NYC Class would release Defendants from all
claims relating to their criminal records, including discrimination
claims under Title VII the NY FCRA, the Correction Law, and the
NYCHRL.

The FCRA Class is defined as individuals who were denied employment
with MSG based on the content of his or her Background Check Report
from April 26, 2015 through the date of Preliminary Approval of the
Settlement.  The NYC Class is defined as individuals who applied
for employment with MSG in New York City, New York and who were
denied employment based on MSG's determination that they failed to
fully or accurately disclose their criminal conviction history from
May 8, 2014 through the date of Preliminary Approval of the
Settlement.

Judge Nathan finds that (i) the Classes satisfy the requirements of
Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure; (ii) the settlement, together with the distribution
plan, to be fair, reasonable, and adequate; (iii) the award of
$750,000 for fees and costs to be reasonable; and (iv) the
incentive award of $7,500 for each Lead Plaintiff is appropriate in
light of the efforts they expended for the benefit of the class.

For these reasons, Judge Nathan granted (i) the Plaintiff's Motion
for Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement, and (iii) their
Motions for an Award of Service Payments and an Award of Attorney's
Fees and Costs.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 7, 2020 Judgment is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6d2xs7o from Leagle.com.


MAESTRO FOOD CO: Paguada Alleges Violation under ADA
----------------------------------------------------
Maestro Food Co. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Josue
Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Maestro Food Co., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-09255
(S.D. N.Y., Nov. 4, 2020).

Maestro Food Co. is located in Chicago, IL, United States and is
part of the Internet & Mail-Order Retail Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mars Khaimov, Esq.
   10826 64th Avenue
   Ste 2nd Floor
   Forest Hills, NY 11375
   Tel: (917) 915-7415
   Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com



MAPLEBEAR INC: Faces Bolin Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Shoppers
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHANDA BOLIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAPLEBEAR, INC. D/B/A INSTACART AND DOES 1
THROUGH 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-05945-SDM-CMV
(S.D. Ohio, November 18, 2020) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio
Constitution, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, Ohio
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and Ohio Common Law by failing to
compensate the Plaintiff and Class members appropriate minimum
wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek, failing to reimburse them for business-related expenses,
failing to record and keep payroll records, and crediting tips
against their wages.

Ms. Bolin has worked for the Defendants as a shopper since
approximately May of 2020.

Maplebear, Inc., d/b/a Instacart, is a provider of online grocery
shopping and delivery service, with its principal place of business
located in San Francisco, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN
         8 N. Court St. Suite 403
         Athens, OH 45701
         Telephone: (847) 986-5889
         Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
         E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com

MAPLEBEAR INC: Lopez Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-------------------------------------------------------
NIEVES LOPEZ v. MAPLEBEAR, INC. d/b/a INSTACART, Case No.
1:20-cv-04064-ELR-JCF (N.D. Ga., Oct. 1, 2020) is brought on behalf
of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated individuals
against Defendant for violations of the Family and Medical Leave
Act of 1993.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant violated the FMLA's prohibition
on retaliatory discharge when her employment was terminated after
she requested medical leave due to her worsening post-traumatic
stress disorder, adjustment disorder, anxiety and depression. She
also contends that the Defendant improperly refused to allow her to
use her paid time off benefits in connection with her extended FMLA
leave.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant on February 19, 2019, as a
customer care manager and was terminated effective July 10, 2020.

Maplebear, Inc., more popularly known as Instacart, is a nationwide
grocery delivery service based in San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Larry Stine, Esq.
          Elizabeth K. Dorminey, Esq.
          WIMBERLY, LAWSON, STECKEL, SCHNEIDER & STINE, P.C.
          Suite 400, Lenox Towers 3400
          Peachtree Road, N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Telephone: (404) 365-0900
          Facsimile: (404) 261-3707
          E-mail: jls@wimlaw.com
                  ekd@wimlaw.com

               - and -

          Hipolito M. Goico, Esq.
          Albert J. Bolet, III, Esq.
          GOICO & BOLET, P.C.
          2021 North Druid Hills Road, N.E. Suite 200
          Atlanta, GA 30329
          Telephone: (404) 320-3456
          Facsimile: (404) 320-3026
          E-mail: hgoico@goicobolet.com
                  abolet@goicobolet.com

MATERION BRUSH: Lucyk Seeks Unpaid Wages for Production Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
GARETT LUCYK, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals v. MATERION BRUSH INC. and MATERION
CORPORATION, Case No. 3:20-cv-02340 (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 14, 2020)
arises from the Defendants' willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the Ohio
Prompt Pay Act, and the common law.

The Plaintiff and the similarly situated production employees are
and were employed in Materion Corporation's manufacturing
facilities. Due to the hazardous nature of beryllium, the
Defendants require Plaintiff and the production employees to wear
company-issued protective clothing and safety gear during their
work shifts in order to protect them from inhaling or contacting
beryllium in the air or on surfaces and to comply with federal and
state governmental safety and health regulations and mandates. The
Plaintiff and the production employees spend substantial amounts of
time each day donning and doffing PPE and walking to and from the
locker room and the production area before and after their work
shifts.

The Defendants, however, do not pay the Plaintiff and the
production employees for all of this time. Instead, the Defendants
pay the Plaintiff and the production employees based on their
scheduled shift start times and end times (e.g. 7:00 a.m. to 3:30
p.m., with an unpaid 30-minute lunch period), not the time that the
Plaintiff and the production employees perform their first and last
principal activities of the workday, the suit says.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an hourly production
employee at their Elmore, Ohio manufacturing facility since June
2018.

Materion Corporation, through its wholly owned subsidiaries, is an
integrated producer of high-performance advanced engineered
materials used in a variety of electrical, electronic, thermal, and
structural applications with $1.2 billion in net sales in
2019.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew L. Turner, Esq.
          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          Rod M. Johnston, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: mturner@sommerspc.com
                  kstoops@sommerspc.com
                  rjohnston@sommerspc.com

MDL 2286: Reply to Interrogatories-RFPs in TCPA Suit Not Compelled
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., TELEPHONE
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT LITIGATION, Case No. 11md2286-MMA-MDD (S.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California denied the
Plaintiffs' motion to compel further responses to the identified
Interrogatories and Requests for Production.

Before the Court is a joint motion to determine a discovery
dispute, filed on July 15, 2020.  On the Plaintiffs' side, the
motion was brought by member Plaintiffs Nicholas Martin and Jeremy
Johnson and was joined by several other member Plaintiffs.  On
March 24, 2020, Plaintiffs Martin and Johnson and the Defendants
filed a joint motion presenting their agreement that certain
requests for written discovery be served upon the Defendants.  The
Defendants agreed to accept service and agreed to respond to the
requests, reserving their rights to object under the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.  The Court accepted the agreement on April 27,
2020.  At a status hearing on June 29, 2020, the Court Ordered that
any dispute regarding these discovery requests be brought forward
no later than July 15, 2020.  The joint motion was timely filed.

The MDL originated in 2011.  The Defendants are alleged to have
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").  It was
initially comprised of four member actions, all purported class
actions.  As of January 2018, there were roughly 264 actions.  The
first consolidated complaint was filed on July 11, 2012.  The Court
approved the settlement of the class action, alleging calls prior
to Sept. 1, 2014, on Dec. 2, 2016.  Only eight member cases
resolved in the settlement of the first class action.  A second
class action involving calls after Sept. 1, 2014, was commenced
with the filing of an amended consolidated complaint on Oct. 20,
2017.  That complaint was dismissed without prejudice on July 2,
2020, following a settlement with the Plaintiff representing the
class.  Remaining in the MDL are dozens of individual cases with
Plaintiffs who opted out of the first class settlement and who were
prospective class members in the second class.

The Defendants answered the amended consolidated complaint on Dec.
8, 2017.  On Jan. 30, 2018, the Court ordered the Defendants to
file a responsive pleading in all cases so that discovery could
commence.  On April 25, 2018, an initial case management conference
was held on all remaining cases.  Following the case management
conference, the Court ordered the parties to complete the
conference required by Rule 26(f), and file a joint discovery plan.
As contemplated in the case management conference, on Aug. 10,
2018, the parties filed a joint motion to implement a plaintiff
questionnaire, a protective order, and to provide for certain
preliminary discovery.

By September 2018, the Court issued an order implementing the
questionnaire process.  In June 2019, the Court ordered the parties
to file a status report confirming that the questionnaire discovery
process was complete and requiring the parties to meet and confer
regarding the next phase of discovery.

Following receipt of the status reports, including reports from
some of the Plaintiffs bringing the motion, the Court issued an
order setting discovery parameters and deadlines.  It also ordered
the parties to meet and confer regarding other depositions
pertinent to the post-Sept. 1, 2014 Plaintiffs, and any proposed
depositions and disputes regarding pre-September 2014 Plaintiffs.
The Court required that any summary judgment motion and any motion
for class certification be filed no later than Jan. 24, 2020.

In the Sept. 4, 2019 order, the Court provided a deadline to bring
any discovery dispute stemming from the questionnaire process to
the Court no later than Dec. 2, 2019.   On Dec. 16, 2019, following
the submission of status reports and motions, the Court issued
orders regarding discovery.  

On June 29, 2020, a status conference was held regarding the
possible remand of the cases remaining in the MDL.  Following the
conference, the Court issued an order requiring that any discovery
dispute regarding the April 27, 2020 discovery order be brought to
the Court's attention by July 15, 2020, and that any request for
additional discovery also must be filed on or before July 15, 2020.


At issue are Interrogatories 1 and 2 and Requests for Production 1,
2, 4, 8, 10, 13,14, 15,16, 17,18, 19 and 20.

Interrogatory No. 1 calls for the Defendants to identify the date,
time, source and circumstances under which the cell phone number
for each individual Plaintiff was obtained.  The Defendants object
primarily on the grounds that these Interrogatories call for
case-specific information as opposed to common discovery.

Magistrate Judge Dembin agrees.  Discovery in the MDL has been
limited to common discovery except for the case-specific discovery
provided in response to questionnaires.  The Plaintiffs had the
opportunity to participate in the crafting of the questionnaires
and the required responses from the Defendants, had the opportunity
to object to the questionnaire process and related discovery and
had the opportunity to bring discovery disputes regarding the
questionnaire process and related discovery to the Court.  Having
not taken advantage of these opportunities, the requested
case-specific discovery is out of bounds.  The Defendants'
objection is sustained.

Requests for Production Nos. 1, 2 and 4 call for the Defendants to
produce all data concerning inbound and outbound calls to/from the
individual Plaintiffs' cellular numbers at issue (RFP No. 1); all
recordings of telephone calls to and from the individual
Plaintiffs' cellular numbers at issue (RFP. No. 2); all documents,
including the recordings themselves, of any pre-recorded message
(RFP No. 4).  These RFPs suffer the same flaws as doomed
Interrogatories 1 and 2.  The Defendants' objections are
sustained.

In RFP No. 8, the Defendants are asked to produce all
communications with any call recording vendor regarding
preservation, retention or deletion of call recordings.  The
Defendants have responded all recordings were handled in-house so
that there are no documents responsive to the request.  They have
agreed to produce an email exchange with vendor LiveVox confirming
that no LiveVox calls were recorded.  The Magistrate finds their
response sufficient.  So they must produce the information that
they have agreed to produce within 14 days of the filing of the
Order.

In RFP Nos. 10 and 13, the Defendants are asked to produce all
complaints from consumers pertaining the TCPA, calling without
consent or high volume of calls (RFP No. 10) or received through
the Better Business Bureau (RFP No 13).  The Magistrate finds that
for the Defendants to collect this information from its internal
sources is not proportional, is of marginal relevance and would be
duplicative of the public evidence of complaints against
Defendants.  Moreover, to the extent that these RFPs call for the
production of common evidence, that issue should have been raised
during the questionnaire process or in the dispute resolution
process provided by the Court.  The Defendants' objection is
sustained.

In RFP No. 14, the Defendants are asked to produce all documents
concerning any audit, investigation or other inquiry into TCPA
compliance and/or consent to make calls using a dialer.  First, the
Magistrate finds that the request to produce "all" documents is
overbroad: a more appropriate inquiry is to request production of
the results of any internal audit or investigation into TCPA
compliance regarding calls made prior to Sept. 1, 2014.  The
Magistrate also finds that to the extent this constitutes common
discovery, the matter could have and should have been raised during
the questionnaire process or in the dispute resolution process
provided by the Court.  The Defendants need not respond further.

RFP No. 15 calls for the production of "all" emails and other
documents pertaining to the TCPA.  The RFP is overbroad on its face
and will not be enforced.

RFP No. 16 calls for the production of all deposition transcripts
and declarations from TCPA cases between 2007 and 2014.  To the
extent that a deposition has been designated confidential, the
Plaintiffs request the case caption and identification of their
lawyer.  In response, the Defendants have agreed to produce
declarations and depositions filed in TCPA cases outside the MDL
during the relevant period and have identified the single case in
which the deposition was designated confidential.  Their response
is adequate provided that the requested materials are promptly
produced.  To eliminate needless bickering, the Magistrate orders
that the responsive transcripts and declarations be produced no
later than 14 days following the docketing of the Order.

In RFP No. 17, the Plaintiffs request that the Defendants produce
all sworn and unsworn statements that pertain to their use of
dialers, consent to call cellular numbers or the TCPA.  The
Magistrate finds it overbroad on its face and not proportional.  To
some extent it is duplicative of RFP No. 16.  He does not require a
further response from the Defendants.

RFP No. 18 requests the production of all documents concerning any
"whistleblower," including Albert Collins that relates to dialers
or consent practices "without regard to time."  The Defendants
object for relevance, vagueness and overbreadth.  The Magistrate
does not enforce this RFP.  Other than identifying Albert Collins,
it is vague and overbroad and its relevance to calls preceding
Sept. 1, 2014, is not obvious.

RFP No. 19 asks the Defendants to produce all audits,
investigations and other documents that concern their use of
dialers or the TCPA "without regard to time" including the Collins
matter.  For the same reasons as provided regarding RFP No. 18, the
Magistrate does not enforce this RFP.

Finally, RFP No. 20 asks tge Defendants to produce "all"
communications concerning the capabilities of any dialer used
pre-2014.  Such request falls squarely within the process
contemplated by the Court.  The Plaintiffs offer no justification
for not seeking relief at that time.  Hence, it will not be
enforced.

The Joint Motion to Determine a Discovery Dispute, presenting the
Plaintiffs' motion to compel further responses to the identified
Interrogatories and Requests for Production is denied.  Regarding
RFP Nos. 8 and 16, Magistrate Judge Dembin ordered the Defendants
to provide the responsive information that they have agreed to
produce.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 7, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3hnomk3 from Leagle.com.


MEDIX STAFFING: Galloway Suit Claims Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
KERI GALLOWAY and LISA GEORGES, individually and on behalf all
other aggrieved employees, Plaintiffs v. MEDIX STAFFING SOLUTIONS,
INC.; THE ILLUMINATION FOUNDATION; LOGISTICS HEALTH INC.; DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV44053 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., November 17, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code
including failure to pay minimum wages and overtime pay, failure to
provide meal and rest periods, failure to issue itemized wage
statements, failure to timely pay wages during employment and after
separation, failure to maintain adequate and accurate payroll,
failure to pay for accrued time off upon separation, failure to
provide required written notice, and failure to pay for all hours
worked.

Plaintiff Galloway worked as a medical assistant at Illumination
Foundation's locations in California from May 2020 until June
2020.

Plaintiff Georges worked as an administrator assistant at Logistics
Health's locations in California from May 8, 2020 until August 17,
2020.

Medix Staffing Solutions, Inc. is a staffing and workforce
solutions company, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.

The Illumination Foundation is a nonprofit public benefit
corporation, with its principal place of business in Orange,
California.

Logistics Health Inc. is a provider of health care solutions to
government and commercial organizations, with its principal place
of business in Lacrosse, Wisconsin. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                  
         Arin Norijanian, Esq.
         James H. Demerjian, Esq.
         ARIN | JAMES LLP
         100 North Brand Blvd., Suite 620
         Glendale, CA 91203
         Telephone: (818) 476-0133
         Facsimile: (818) 230-5243
         E-mail: arin@arinjames.com
                 james@arinjames.com

                - and –

         Ashkan Y. Shakouri, Esq.
         SHAKOURI LAW FIRM
         11601 Wilshire Blvd., FL 5
         Los Angeles, CA 90025
         Telephone: (310) 575-1827
         Facsimile: (310) 575-1890
         E-mail: ash@skakourilawfirm.com

MESOBLAST LIMITED: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Dec. 7 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Mesoblast Limited  ("Mesoblast" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
MESO) and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed in
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
and docketed under 20-cv-09111, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise,
acquired Mesoblast securities between April 16, 2019 and October 1,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Plaintiff pursues claims
against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Mesoblast securities during
the class period, you have until December 7, 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.

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

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

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) comparative analyses between
Mesoblast's Phase 3 trial and three historical studies did not
support the effectiveness of remestemcel-L for steroid refractory
aGVHD because of design differences between the four studies; (ii)
as a result, the FDA was reasonably likely to require further
clinical studies; (iii) as a result, the commercialization of
remestemcel-L in the U.S. was likely to be delayed; and (iv) as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

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

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

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

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]

METHODIST HOSPITALS: Kerley Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD A. KERLEY, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. THE METHODIST HOSPITALS, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00369
(N.D. Ind., Oct. 14, 2020) arises under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and Indiana state law for the Defendant's failure to pay the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees overtime and
regular wages.

The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated persons are current and former hourly paid employees of
Methodist who were not paid for all hours worked and reported.
Specifically, the Defendant maintains a practice of time shaving
that causes the Plaintiff and the class members to be underpaid by
at least 30 minutes each shift worked. The Defendant also failed to
pay overtime wages as required by the FLSA for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in individual work weeks.

Mr. Kerley is employed by Methodist as a Cardiology Technician I
and has been since September 24, 2018.

The Methodist Hospitals, Inc. is located in the City of Gary in the
State of Indiana and operates as a non-profit healthcare
system.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert J. Hunt, Esq.
          Robert F. Hunt, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. HUNT, LLC
          1905 South New Market Street, Ste 168
          Carmel, IN 46032
          Telephone: (317) 743-0614
          Facsimile: (317) 743-0615
          E-mail: rob@indianawagelaw.com
                  rfh@indianawagelaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher S. Wolcott, Esq.
          THE WOLCOTT LAW FIRM LLC
          450 East 96th Street, Suite 500
          Indianapolis, IN 46240
          Telephone: (317) 500-0700
          Facsimile: (317) 732-1196
          E-mail: indybuck@hotmail.com

MINDFINDERS INC: Dew Sues Over Unlawful Wage Pay & Retaliation
--------------------------------------------------------------
EBONY DEW and KRYSTAL OWENS, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MINDFINDERS, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-02930 (D.D.C., Oct. 13, 2020) arises from the Defendant's
various unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the D.C. Minimum Wage Act, the D.C. Wage Payment and
Collection Law, supporting District of Columbia and Department of
Labor regulations, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the Maryland
Wage Payment and Collection Law.

The complaint contends the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiffs
and the class members one and one-half times their regular hourly
rate for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, failed to pay its
employees at least $15 an hour as of July 1, 2020, failed to pay
discharged employees all wages earned not later than the working
day following discharge and/or to pay all employees who quit or
resign on the next payday or within seven days, and failed to
provide the Plaintiffs and other employees with paid sick leave.

Plaintiff Dew was employed by the Defendant from approximately
August 2018 through approximately September 28, 2020 as an access
control alarm monitor contractor.

Plaintiff Owens was employed by the Defendant from approximately
April 2017 through approximately August 8, 2019 as an access
control alarm monitor contractor.

Mindfinders, Inc.  provides staffing and IT project solutions to
state governments, the federal government, and Fortune 500
corporations.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          335 18th Pl. NE
          Washington, D.C. 20002
          Telephone: (202) 744-1407
          E-mail: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Lore, Esq.
          MICHAEL D. LORE, P.C.
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 782-5291
          E-mail: mlore@lorefirm.com

MODERN TIMES: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Modern Times Drinks,
Inc. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Modern Times Drinks, Inc., Case
No. 1:20-cv-09534 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2020).

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

Modern Times Drinks, Inc. is located in San Diego, California and
is part of the Bars & Nightclubs Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


MOLLY MALONE'S: Faces Angeles Suit in S.D.N.Y Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Molly Malone's
Boutique, LLC. The case is captioned as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Molly Malone's
Boutique, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-08138-VSB (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 1,
2020).

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

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Vernon S. Broderick.

Molly Malone's Boutique, LLC is an American fashion retail
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Court Tosses Oreo False Advertising Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence I Weinstein, Esq., Anisha Shenai-Khatkhate, Esq., and Marc
Palmer, Esq., of Proskauer Rose LLP, in an article for National Law
Review, report that Judge Edward R. Korman of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York recently granted
Mondelez Global's motion to dismiss a putative class action
challenging the advertising for its signature Oreo cookies. Harris
v. Mondelez Global, No. 19-cv-2249-ERK (E.D.N.Y. July 28, 2020).

Plaintiffs alleged the Oreo manufacturer's front label statement
"Always Made With Real Cocoa" is misleading because the cocoa used
to make Oreos is refined through an alkalizing process. Although
Plaintiffs conceded Oreos are in fact made with cocoa, they claimed
"the addition of alkali diminishes the quality and taste of the
cocoa" and that a reasonable consumer would expect "'real cocoa' to
indicate a higher quality cocoa than if the ingredient been
identified just as 'cocoa' (minus the 'real')." Plaintiffs asserted
claims under various state deceptive or misleading business
practices statutes and for unjust enrichment.

Cutting to the core of Plaintiffs' claim, Judge Korman found
Plaintiffs' failure to dispute that Oreos contain cocoa to be
"fatal to their case." Plaintiffs relied on Mantikas v. Kellogg to
argue that technical accuracy does not dispel a plaintiff's claim
that conduct is plausibly deceptive. In Mantikas, the Second
Circuit found the phrase "Made with Whole Grain" in Cheez-Its
advertisements falsely implied the products contained more whole
grain than white flour. Judge Korman distinguished Mantikas because
Plaintiffs did not allege that the Oreo label misrepresents the
quantity or proportion of cocoa, or that the amount of cocoa is de
minimis relative to the amount of alkali.

Judge Korman explained "a representation that a food is 'made with'
a 'real' ingredient does not necessarily mislead from the truth
that the advertised ingredient may have been combined with
another." Drawing on examples from other cases concerning mashed
potatoes advertised as "made with real butter" (while containing
additional fats) and graham crackers packaged as "made with real
honey" (while also containing other sweeteners), the Court
explained that the Oreo label did not foreclose the use of other
ingredients. A reasonable consumer viewing the words "made with
real cocoa" on the Oreo label would not expect the cocoa to be
present in any particular form or not mixed with other ingredients,
particularly in the absence of any modifiers like "only" or
"exclusively" before the phrase "real cocoa."

Based on this analysis, the Court held Plaintiffs failed to
plausibly allege that a reasonable consumer would be misled by a
made with "real cocoa" representation when the product did in fact
contain cocoa, and dismissed Plaintiffs' claims. The Court denied
Plaintiffs' leave to amend because their complaint's "substantive
problem could not be cured through better pleadings."

This case once again demonstrates that claims based only on
consumer assumptions unsupported by the text of the advertising are
ripe for a motion to dismiss. That's just how the cookie crumbles.
Continue to watch this space for further developments.
[GN]


MOUTH FOODS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mouth Foods, Inc. The
case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Mouth Foods, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-09535 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2020).

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

Mouth Foods is an online destination for small-batch foods. It
features products such as beverages, condiments, candy, snacks,
spreads, and other foods from hundreds of talented makers around
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


MRS. FISHER'S INC: Paguada Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Fisher's, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Josue
Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Mrs. Fisher's, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-09252
(S.D. N.Y., Nov. 4, 2020).

Mrs. Fisher's, Inc., also known as Mrs. Fishers Potato Chips, is a
regional manufacturer of potato chips founded in Rockford,
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mars Khaimov, Esq.
   10826 64th Avenue
   Ste 2nd Floor
   Forest Hills, NY 11375
   Tel: (917) 915-7415
   Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com



NATIONAL WORKMAN'S: Faces Paulus TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RON VON PAULUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL WORKMANS COMP SOLUTIONS INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-24633 (S.D. Fla., November 12, 2020)
brings this class action complaint against the Defendant for its
alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff claims that he received a prerecorded call to his
cellular telephone number ending in 3091 on or about November 3,
2020 from the Defendant's telephone numbers 480-594-0072. The
Defendant allegedly engaged in unsolicited telemarketing to promote
its services and goods by transmitting prerecorded messages to the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated consumers without obtaining
their prior express written consent.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant's unsolicited voice
messages have caused actual harm to him and other similarly
situated persons, including invasion of their privacy, aggravation,
annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, conversion, and
inconvenience. Thus, they seek injunctive relief to halt the
Defendant's illegal conduct.

National Workman's Comp Solutions Inc. sells insurance. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Tel: (954) 400-4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and –

          Michael Eisenband, Esq.
          EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
          515 E. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 120
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Tel: 954-533-4092
          E-mail: meisenband@eisenbandlaw.com


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: McAdams Suit Removed to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Pia McAdams, on behalf of herself and those
similarly situated v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC doing business as:
Mr. Cooper, a Delaware limited liability company; Does 1 through
10, Inclusive; Case No. 37-02020-00033451-CU-OR-CTL, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on Nov. 12,
2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-02202-L-BLM to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Real Property: Foreclosure.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald Marron, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RONALD MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Phone: (619) 696-9006
          Fax: (619) 564-6665
          Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Patrick J. Kane, Esq.
          TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
          11682 El Camino Real, Suite 400
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Phone: (858) 509-6000
          Email: patrick.kane@troutman.com


NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: DePasquale Balks at Denied Insurance Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALISHA DEPASQUALE and TRAYTON COX, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-05370-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Oct. 13, 2020)
is a civil action seeking relief arising from the Plaintiffs'
contract with Nationwide for travel insurance.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and others across the
United States purchased travel insurance from Nationwide to protect
their travel from cancellations, interruptions, missed connections,
delay, and certain emergencies. The Plaintiffs expected
Nationwide's form travel insurance policy to provide reimbursement
for trips in the event that those trips were prohibited from taking
place. However, despite collecting premium payments from the
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated travelers, Nationwide is
now refusing to pay legitimate travel cancellation claims.

The Plaintiffs were scheduled to travel from Portland, Oregon to
Los Cabos, Mexico on April 3, 2020 and return to Portland on April
7, 2020. But due to the COVID-19 Civil Authority Orders and Travel
Advisories, the Plaintiffs were unable to travel internationally,
and could not complete their intended trip.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company is one of the largest insurance
and financial companies in the world and is affiliated with dozens
of other insurance and financial companies, through which it
provides travel insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
          4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
          Cincinnati, OH 45242
          Telephone: (513) 345-8297
          Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
          E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
                  tschneider@gs-legal.com

               - and -

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          Michael Ols, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (610) 891-9880
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com
                  mols@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          John F. Edgar, Esq.
          Ryan J. Loehr, Esq.
          EDGAR LAW FIRM LLC
          2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 400
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 531-0033
          Facsimile: (816) 531-3322
          E-mail: jfe@edgarlawfirm.com
                  rjl@edgarlawfirm.com

NESTLE WATERS: Kendall Consumer Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as DONELL COREY KENDALL, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. NESTLE WATERS NORTH
AMERICA INC., doing business as READY REFRESH, BY NESTLE, and DOES
1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV36528, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of
Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on November 17, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-10511 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged excessive charging of
late payment fees for its water delivery services.

Nestle Waters North America Inc., doing business as Ready Refresh,
By Nestle, is a company that produces and distributes numerous
brands of bottled water across North America, with principal place
of business in Stamford, Connecticut. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
                  
         Bryan A. Merryman, Esq.
         Catherine S. Simonsen, Esq.
         WHITE & CASE LLP
         555 S. Flower Street, Suite 2700
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-2433
         Telephone: (213) 620-7700
         Facsimile: (213) 452-2329
         E-mail: bmerryman@whitecase.com
                 catherine.simonsen@whitecase.com

                 - and –

         Thomas B. Mayhew, Esq.
         FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP
         Russ Building
         235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Telephone: (415) 954-4400
         Facsimile: (415) 954-4480
         E-mail: tmayhew@fbm.com

NEW JERSEY MENTOR: Kelly Sues Over Retaliation, Unlawful Discharge
------------------------------------------------------------------
SAMIYAEE KELLY v. NEW JERSEY MENTOR; NATIONAL MENTOR HEALTHCARE,
LLC; MENTOR NETWORK; ZENIDA DRIVER Individually and JOHN DOES 1-5
AND 6-10, Case No. MER-L-001758-20 (N.J. Sup., Mercer Cty., Oct. 1,
2020) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other individuals
similarly situated arising from the Defendants' violation of the
New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges she was retaliatorily discharged by the
Defendants for having engaged in legally protected conduct, to wit,
having objected to, having disclosed internally, having threatened
to disclose, and refusing to participate in, conduct that she
believed violated a compelling mandate of New Jersey public policy
concerning treatment of people under the age of 18 in group home
settings.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a youth services
specialist from approximately September 2017 through June 26,
2020.

New Jersey-based companies New Jersey Mentor, National Mentor
Healthcare, LLC and Mentor Network offer a range of home- and
community-based services to help youth of all ages and their
families lead healthy, stable lives.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
          COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
          18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (856) 727-9700

NEXTCURE INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminded
purchasers of the securities of NextCure, Inc. (NASDAQ: NXTC): (1)
between November 5, 2019 and July 14, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"); and/or (2) pursuant or traceable to NextCure's November
2019 secondary public offering of the important November 20, 2020
lead plaintiff deadline in securities class action. The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for NextCure investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the NextCure class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1952.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
to investors that: (1) NextCure possessed NC318 data that showed a
lack of efficacy and objective responses; (2) NC318 was not, in
fact, effective in treating most tumor types; (3) the NC318
application was proving to be limited (if even useful at all); (4)
as a result of the foregoing, there was a significant realizable
risk that NC318 would not be nearly as popular as then-existing
blockbuster drugs, such as Keytruda; and (5) as a result,
defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market,
the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
20, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1952.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

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

NIKOLA CORP: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds Nikola
Corporation (NASDAQ:NKLA)(NASDAQ:NKLAW) ("Nikola") investors that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of
those who purchased or otherwise acquired Nikola securities between
March 3, 2020 and September 20, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Nikola securities
during the Class Period were reminded that they may, no later than
November 16, 2020, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff
representative of the class. For additional information or to learn
how to participate in this litigation please click
https://www.ktmc.com/nikola-corporation-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=nikola.

According to the complaint, Nikola operates as an integrated zero
emissions transportation systems provider, which designs and
manufactures battery-electric and hydrogen-electric vehicles,
electric vehicle drivetrains, vehicle components, energy storage
systems, and hydrogen fueling station infrastructure. The merger of
VectoIQ and Nikola closed on June 3, 2020.

The Class Period commences on March 3, 2020 when Nikola issued a
press release entitled, "Nikola Corporation, a Global Leader in
Zero Emissions Transportation Solutions, to Be Listed on NASDAQ
Through a Merger with VectoIQ." In connection with the merger
announcement, Nikola released an investor presentation on March 3,
2020, which touted Nikola founder and Executive Chairman Trevor R.
Milton's ("Milton") experience in the clean energy and technology
field and Nikola's hydrogen production capabilities.

The complaint alleges that, on September 10, 2020, before market
hours, Hindenburg Research published a report describing, among
other things, how: (i) Nikola claims to design key components in
house, but they appear to simply be buying or licensing them from
third parties; (ii) Nikola has not produced hydrogen; (iii) a
spokesman for Powercell AB, a hydrogen fuel cell technology company
that formerly partnered with Nikola, called Nikola's battery and
hydrogen fuel cell claims "hot air"; (iv) Nikola staged a "test"
video for its Nikola Two (a prototype truck); (v) some of Nikola's
team, including Milton, are not experts and do not have relevant
experience; and (vi) Nikola did not have five Tre trucks completed.
Following this news, shares of Nikola fell $10.24, or 24%, over the
next two trading days, to close at $32.13 per share on September
11, 2020.

Then, on September 15, 2020, before trading hours, Hindenburg
Research published another report, focused on Nikola's responses
and nonresponses to its initial report, entitled "We View Nikola's
Response As a Tacit Admission of Securities Fraud." Following this
news, shares of Nikola fell $2.96, or 8%, to close at $32.83 per
share on September 15, 2020.

Finally, on September 20, 2020, Nikola issued a press release
entitled "Nikola Board of Directors Announces Leadership
Transition: Trevor Milton Steps Down as Executive Chairman; Stephen
Girsky Appointed Chairman of the Board." Following this news, the
price of Nikola's shares fell in pre-market trading on September
21, 2020, further damaging investors.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) VectoIQ did not engage in proper due diligence
regarding its merger with Nikola; (2) Nikola overstated its
"in-house" design, manufacturing, and testing capabilities; (3)
Nikola overstated its hydrogen production capabilities; (4) as a
result, Nikola overstated its ability to lower the cost of hydrogen
fuel; (5) Milton tweeted a misleading "test" video of the Nikola
Two truck; (6) the work experience and background of key Nikola
employees, including Milton, had been overstated and obfuscated;
(7) Nikola did not have five Tre trucks completed; and (8) as a
result, the defendants' public statements were false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.

Investors who wish to discuss this securities fraud class action
lawsuit and their legal options are encouraged to contact Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell,
Esq.) at (844) 877-9500 (toll free) or at info@ktmc.com.

Nikola investors may, no later than November 16, 2020, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and
federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and
federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force
behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of
dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from
the United States and around the world. The firm represents
investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who
report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the
recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was
not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. For more information
about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, please visit www.ktmc.com.
[GN]

NOVA HOME: Underpays Homecare Workers, Savinova et al. Claim
------------------------------------------------------------
YELENA SAVINOVA and YEMILIYA MAZUR, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NOVA HOME CARE, LLC,
SOUTHERN HOME CARE SERVICES, INC., ALEH HULIAVATSENKA, and YULIYA
NOVIKAVA, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01612 (D. Conn., October 27,
2020) is a class and collective action complaint brought against
the Defendants for their alleged unlawful practices that violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Connecticut Minimum
Wage Act (CMWA).

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as homecare workers
-- Savinova was from around August 6, 2016 until the present, while
Mazur was from around August 9, 2016, until around June 14, 2020.

The Plaintiffs assert that although the Defendants knew that the
Plaintiffs and other homecare workers could not sleep at least five
hours during a period scheduled for sleep, the Defendants did not
pay them and other homecare workers for all hours they worked and
at the rate of one and one-half times their regular hourly rate of
pay for all hours worked over 40 in a given workweek. The
Defendants allegedly reduced the number of hours paid at overtime
rates by splitting the pay of the homecare workers between Nova and
Southern. Moreover, the Defendants failed to keep accurate records
of the hours Plaintiffs and other homecare workers actually
worked.

Nova Home Care, LLC and Southern Home Care Services, Inc. provide
homemaker and companion services. Aleh Huliavatsenka and Yuliya
Novikava are owners of both Corporate Defendants. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mariusz Kurzyna, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          8757 Georgia Ave., Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Tel: 301-587-9373
          Fax: 240-839-9142
          E-mail: mkurzyna@zagfirm.com


OCCASIONS GROUP: Thorne Alleges Violation under ADA
---------------------------------------------------
The Occasions Group, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Occasions Group, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-09441 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 10, 2020).

The Occasions Group Inc is located in North Mankato, MN, United
States and is part of the Commercial Printing Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PAGE X CORP: Aguilar Sues Over Unpaid OT for Restaurant Staff
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN CARLOS AGUILAR; JOSE ANTONIO ZAVALA; and JOSE CARLOS ZAVALA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. PAGE X CORP d/b/a LA GROTTA RISTORANTE; and JUAN
FERNANDEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05527 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 13,
2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as staffs.

Page X Corp d/b/a La Grotta Ristorante is engaged in the restaurant
business. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591
          Facsimile: (718) 263-9598


PB BRANDS: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind Users, Jaquez Says
------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON JAQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. PB BRANDS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-09553 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2020) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Website
-- www.patelbrothersusa.com -- is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of 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.

PB Brands, LLC is an Indian food distribution company that owns and
operates the Website, www.patelbrothersusa.com, offering features
which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com


PETER MILLAR: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Angeles Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JENISA ANGELES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. PETER MILLAR LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-08150-ER (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 1, 2020) arises from the Defendant's failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

The complaint contends that on multiple occasions, the last
occurring in September of 2020, the Plaintiff visited the
Defendant's website, www.petermillar.com, to make a purchase.
Despite her efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping
experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the Web
site's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which
effectively barred her from being able to determine what specific
products were offered for sale.

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

Peter Millar LLC is a luxury clothing company that owns and
operates the Web site, offering features which should allow all
consumers to access the goods and services and which the Company
ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States,
including New York State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

PETROSTAR SERVICES: Faces Barr Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN BARR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PETROSTAR SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-01180 (D.N.M., November 12, 2020) is a class and collective
action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an operator from
approximately mid-2016 through 2019.

According to the complaint, the Defendant misclassified the
Plaintiff and all other similarly situated workers as exempt
employees and paid them a purportedly salary plus a day rate with
additional compensation disguised as reimbursements with no
overtime compensation. Despite regularly working more than 40 hours
each week for the Defendant, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated workers did not receive overtime compensation for all hour
worked in excess of 40 in a single workweek.

PetroStar Services, LLC provides oilfield services throughout the
U.S., including in New Mexico. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: (713) 352-1100
          Fax: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  cfitz@mybackwages.com

                - and –

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


PLAYAGS INC: Oklahoma Police is Lead Plaintiff in Consolidated Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Mahan of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada has consolidated three securities actions against Playags,
Inc., et al.; and has appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel
in the case.

The three cases are (1) MANJAN CHOWDHURY, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PLAYAGS,
INC., DAVID LOPEZ, and KIMO AKIONA, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-01209-JCM-NJK; (2) ANDREW MILLER, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PLAYAGS,
INC., DAVID LOPEZ, and KIMO AKIONA, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-01428-JAD-EJY; and (3) OKLAHOMA POLICE PENSION AND
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PLAYAGS, INC., DAVID LOPEZ, KIMO
AKIONA, DAVID SAMBUR, DANIEL COHEN, ERIC PRESS, YVETTE LANDAU, ADAM
CHIBIB, GEOFF FREEMAN, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, DEUTSCHE
BANK SECURITIES INC., JEFFERIES LLC, MACQUARIE CAPITAL (USA) INC.,
MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, CITIGROUP
GLOBAL MARKETS INC., STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY INCORPORATED,
SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY, INC., NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL,
INC., ROTH CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, UNION GAMING SECURITIES LLC, THE
WILLIAMS CAPITAL GROUP, L.P., APOLLO GLOBAL SECURITIES, LLC, MORGAN
STANLEY & CO LLC, APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, APOLLO GAMING
HOLDINGS, L.P., APOLLO INVESTMENT FUND VIII, L.P., and AP GAMING
VOTECO, LLC Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01443-GMN-NJK.

The Master File is now captioned In re PlayAGS, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 20-cv-01209 (D. Nev.).

Oklahoma Police is appointed to serve as Lead Plaintiff in the
Action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(3)(B).

Oklahoma Police's selection of Labaton Sucharow as Lead Counsel for
the Class is also approved pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec.
78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v).

Oklahoma Police's selection of Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman &
Rabkin, LLP as Liaison Counsel to the Class is further approved.

Under the Consolidated Complaint, the Plaintiff asserts federal
securities claims arising under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, which are governed by the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995, against the Defendants, on behalf of an alleged
class.

A copy of Judge Mahan's Oct. 28, 2020 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/3m4Ff5d from PacerMonitor.com.

Judge Mahan previously approved a stipulation for the process of
naming a lead counsel in an order available at
https://tinyurl.com/y6xhnt5x from Leagle.com.

Lead Counsel for the Class is:

  LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
  Christopher J. Keller (pro hac vice)
  Eric J. Belfi (pro hac vice)
  Francis P. McConville (pro hac vice)
  140 Broadway
  New York, New York 10005
  Telephone: (212) 907-0700
  Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
  Emails: ckeller@labaton.com
          ebelfi@labaton.com
          fmcconville@labaton.com

Liaison Counsel for the Class is:

  WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP
  Don Springmeyer (SBN 1021)
  Bradley S. Schrager (NSB 10217)
  Daniel Bravo (NSB 13078)
  3556 E. Russell Road, 2nd Floor
  Las Vegas, Nevada 89120
  Telephone: (702) 341-5200
  Facsimile: (702) 341-5300
  Emails: dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com
          bschrager@wrslawyers.com
          dbravo@wrslawyers.com


PRECIGEN INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Dec. 4 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Precigen, Inc. f/k/a Intrexon
Corporation (NASDAQ: PGEN, XON) between May 10, 2017 and September
25, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important December
4, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action
commenced by the firm. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Precigen f/k/a Intrexon investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the Precigen class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1964.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
to investors that: (1) the Company was using pure methane as
feedstock for its announced yields for its methanotroph
bioconversion platform instead of natural gas; (2) yields from
natural gas as a feedstock were substantially lower than the
aforementioned pure methane yields; (3) due to the substantial
price difference between pure methane and natural gas, pure methane
was not a commercially viable feedstock; (4) the Company's
financial statements for the quarter ended March 31, 2018 were
false and could not be relied upon; (5) the Company had material
weaknesses in its internal controls over financial reporting; (6)
the Company was under investigation by the SEC since October 2018;
and (7) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When
the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

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
4, 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-1964.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

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


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Hair Care Products Aren't Natural, McGinity Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
SEAN MCGINITY, on behalf of himself and 22 all others similarly
situated v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No.
4:20-cv-08164-KAW (N.D. Cal., Nov. 19, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought on behalf of a Class of California consumers who
purchased personal care products (PCPs) manufactured, marketed,
advertised, sold and labeled by Defendant as: "PANTENE PRO-V
NATUREFUSION" shampoos and conditioners.

According to the Defendant represents that the Products are
natural, when, in fact, they contain non-natural and synthetic
ingredients, harsh and potentially harmful ingredients, and are
substantially unnatural. The Defendant's claims pertaining to the
natural qualities of the Products are false, misleading, designed
to deceive consumers into paying a price premium for the Products,
and designed to mislead reasonable consumers into selecting the
Defendant's Products over other competing PCPs.

Indeed, a recent consumer survey of more than 400 consumers
conducted by an independent third party evidences that more than
77% of consumers were deceived to believe the product contained
more natural ingredients than artificial ingredients, when in fact
that was not true. This lawsuit seeks to enjoin the Defendant's
false and misleading practices and to recover damages and
restitution on behalf of the class under applicable state laws.

The Plaintiff purchased Defendant's Products -- Pantene Pro-V
NatureFusion Smoothing Shampoo and Pantene Pro-V NatureFusion
Smoothing Conditioner -- on June 19, 2019 at a Safeway grocery
store in Santa Rosa, California. The Plaintiff purchased the
Products, for which he paid a price premium, because he wanted to
use personal care products that were natural.

The Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises and sells personal
care products, also known as PCPs, including the NATUREFUSION
Products, one or more of which were purchased by Plaintiff and
members of the proposed Class.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          Sue J. Nam, Esq.
          George V. Granade, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
                  snam@reesellp.com
                  ggranade@reesellp.com

               - and -

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          505 Northern Blvd Ste 311
          Great Neck, NY 11021-5101
          Telephone: (516) 303-0552
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

QEP RESOURCES: Clark Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Geologists
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHANE CLARK, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. QEP RESOURCES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-03415-NRN (D. Colo., November 18, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act by misclassifying the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated geologists as independent contractors and failing to
compensate them overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek.

Mr. Clark worked for the Defendant as a wellsite geologist from
approximately October 2017 until December 2018.

QEP Resources, Inc. is an independent crude oil and natural gas
exploration and production company, headquartered in Denver,
Colorado. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
         Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
         Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
         JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
         11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 352-1100
         Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
         E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 adunlap@mybackwages.com
                 rschreiber@mybackwages.com

                - and –

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

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Less Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quest Diagnostics
Incorporated. The case is styled as Debora Less, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Quest Diagnostics
Incorporated doing business as: MedXM, Case No. 3:20-cv-02546-JZ
(N.D. Ohio, Nov. 12, 2020).

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

Quest Diagnostics Inc. is one of the largest clinical laboratory
testing companies in the United States. It offers a broad range of
routine and esoteric services used by the medical profession in the
diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of disease and other medical
conditions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com



RAYMOND GROUP: Diaz Suit Transferred to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Felix Diaz, individually and on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Raymond
Group, a California corporation, Raymond-Southern California, Inc.,
a California Corporation and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, was
transferred from the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego with the assigned Case No. 37-2020-00034760-CU-OE-CTL to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego) on Nov. 4, 2020, and assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-02155-BEN-AHG.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Labor:
Labor/Mgt. Relations filed pursuant to the Labor Management
Disclosure Act.

The Raymond Group is one of the wall and ceiling industry's
interior and exterior contractors. Established in 1936, Raymond
remains a family owned company with office locations throughout
California and Nevada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Anthony E. Rivera, Esq.
   2235 Encinitas Blvd., Suite 210
   Encinitas, CA 92024
   Tel: (760) 942-9432

The Defendants are represented by:

   Richard S Zuniga, Esq.
   Hill Farrer & Burrill LLP
   300 South Grand Avenue
   37th Floor
   Los Angeles, CA 90071-3147
   Tel: (213) 621-0874
   Fax: (213) 624-4840
   Email: rzuniga@hillfarrer.com




RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Raytheon Technologies Corporation f/k/a Raytheon
Company (NYSE: RTX, RTN) between February 10, 2016 and October 27,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Raytheon investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Raytheon class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1975.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) Raytheon had inadequate disclosure controls and
procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (2)
Raytheon had faulty financial accounting; (3) as a result, Raytheon
misreported its costs regarding Raytheon's Missiles & Defense
business since 2009; (4) as a result of the foregoing, Raytheon was
at risk of increased scrutiny from the government; (5) as a result
of the foregoing, Raytheon would face a criminal investigation by
the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ"); and (6) as a result,
defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
29, 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-1975.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

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

RCI PLBG: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Foremen, Guzman et al. Say
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ENRIQUE GUZMAN; and JAVIER GUZMAN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RCI PLBG, INC.;
CHRISTOPHER CHIERCHIO; and ROBERT DIMICELI, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-09513 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2020) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as foreman.

RCI PLBG, Inc. is engaged in the plumbing & HVAC contracting
industry. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


RESTAURANT BRANDS: Rosen Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Restaurant Brands International Inc. (NYSE: QSR)
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's secondary public
offerings conducted in August and September 2019 (the "SPOs" or
"Offerings"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Restaurant
Brands investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Restaurant Brands class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1977.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, the Shelf Registration Statements of the
SPOs featured false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Contrary to the Shelf Registration Statement's
claim that the Company had "three thriving, independent brands with
significant global growth potential," the Tim Hortons brand was not
positioned for growth; (2) the Tims Rewards and its significant
discounting was not increasing profitability as evidenced by weekly
sales data because, as would later be admitted, the program could
not be supported by existing customer traffic and instead
negatively affected sales; (3) product offerings were not driving
growth or expanding the Company's customer base and as a result, as
the Company would later admit, the Company's product offerings
resulted in a gap in sales of its sandwiches and wraps; (4) despite
its purported "steps to address this part of the menu," the Company
was reporting weak year-over-year sales comparisons based on its
product offerings and was unable to compete effectively; (5) the
discounting associated with Tims Rewards was not sustainable, as
customer traffic was not offsetting the program's discounts; (6)
the Company was not realizing the purported benefit of the loyalty
program as evidenced by weekly sales reports; (7) the Company's
product offerings were similarly not increasing customer traffic,
especially as compared to its competitors; and (8) as a result of
the negative effect on Tim Horton's sales, the Company was not
"maintain[ing] its competitive position." When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. 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-1977.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

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

SEYAK CORP: Faces Abe Suit Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA and NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------------
HISAMI ABE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
SEYAK CORP. d/b/a Restaurant Yamaguchi, AKIRA YAMAGUCHI, and YASUKO
YAMAGUCHI, Case No. 2:20-cv-05631 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2020) is a
class action lawsuit brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees against the Defendants for violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, arising
from the Defendants' various willful, malicious, and unlawful
employment policies, patterns, and/or practices.

Abe alleges that she is entitled to recover from the Defendants:
unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, misappropriated tips,
liquidated damages prejudgment and postjudgment interest, and/or
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

Abe was employed by the Defendants from May 1, 2019 through March
22, 2020 to work as a server at Defendants' Japanese restaurant.

Corporate Defendant operates a Japanese restaurant. The Individual
Defendants are husband and wife who own the restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 103
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324
          E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com

SHADE STORE: Angeles Sues Over ADA Violation in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Shade Store, LLC.
The case is captioned as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. The Shade Store, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-08154-LGS (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2020).

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

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Lorna G. Schofield.

The Shade Store, LLC operates a chain of window treatment stores.
The Company offers solar and roman shades, metal blinds, valances,
and drapery hardware products. Shade Store serves customers
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

SHORE SYSTEMS: Faces Michaels Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRADLEY MICHAELS, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHORE SYSTEMS INC. and CHRISTOPHER
GUIDO, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-05160 (E.D.N.Y., October 27,
2020) brings this complaint against the Defendants for their
alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
and the New York Labor Law (NYLL).

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a field technician
from about August 2018 until on or about March 26, 2020.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked more
than 40 hours per week without receiving overtime compensation at
the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for al
the hours he worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Moreover, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants failed to pay
him on a weekly basis and not later than seven calendar days after
the end of the week in which the wages are earned; and failed to
provide him written notice of his rate of pay, and with accurate
wage statements each pay period indicating the number of overtime
hours worked and overtime rate of pay.

Shore Systems Inc. provides commercial computer repair and
surveillance installation services. Christopher Guido is an owner
and/or officer who has authority to make payroll and personal
decisions for the Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter A Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          825 Veterans Highway-Ste. B
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Tel: (631) 257-5588
          E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com


SMITH & WESSON: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smith & Wesson
Brands, Inc. The case is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-09538-GHW (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2020).

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

Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. manufactures firearms. The Company
offers pistols, revolvers, rifles, handcuffs, and other related
products and accessories for consumers, law enforcement, and
security agencies.[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


SPECIALIZED LOAN: Mitchell FCRA Suit Goes to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ERIC T. MITCHELL, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. SPECIALIZED LOAN
SERVICING LLC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
20STCV37533, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on November 16, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-10455 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, the California's Business and Professions
Code, breach of contract and negligence.

Specialized Loan Servicing LLC is a mortgage loan servicing company
based in Littleton, Colorado. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                           
         
         Marcos D. Sasso, Esq.
         Susan N. Nikdel, Esq.
         BALLARD SPAHR LLP
         2029 Century Park East, Suite 1400
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-2915
         Telephone: (424) 204-4400
         Facsimile: (424) 204-4350
         E-mail: sassom@ballardspahr.com
                 nikdels@ballardspahr.com

SPECIALTY CHEESE: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Specialty Cheese
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Specialty Cheese
Company, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-09528 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2020).

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

Specialty Cheese Company is one of the nation's manufacturers of
Hispanic, Indian, Middle Eastern, Greek, Polish, Filipino and other
ethnic cheeses. They also manufacture their unique Crunchy Baked
Cheese snacks--a healthy, crunchy snack that is shelf-stable and
nutritious.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


SPYDER ACTIVE: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spyder Active Sports,
Inc. The case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Spyder Active Sports,
Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-09539 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2020).

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

Spyder is an American Colorado-based manufacturer of high-end
skiing apparel. According to the company's website, it is the
world's largest ski specialty brand.[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


STANZEL INC: Fails to Properly Reimburse Drivers, Steele Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JESSE STEELE, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. STANZEL, INC. d/b/a PAPA JOHN'S and CHARLES
H. ZOELLERS, individually, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-00180-TBR
(W.D. Ky., November 12, 2020) alleges the Defendants of employing
flawed automobile reimbursement policy that violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from October 2014
until October/November 2019 as a delivery driver at the Defendants'
Papa John's stores located in London, Kentucky.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant reimburses delivery
drivers on a per-delivery basis which equates to below the IRS
business mileage reimbursement rate and/or much less than a
reasonable approximation of its drivers' automobile expenses. As a
result of the Defendants' reimbursement policy, the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated delivery drivers were paid by the
Defendants below the federal minimum wage requirements.

Stanzel, Inc. d/b/a Papa John's operates numerous Papa John's
franchise stores.  Charles H. Zoellers is an owner and director of
Stanzel. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David O'Brien Suetholz, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          515 Park Avenue
          Louisville, KY 40208
          Tel: (502) 636-4333
          E-mail: davids@bsjfirm.com

                - and –

          Joe P. Leniski, Jr.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Ste. 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Tel: (615) 254-8801
          Fax: (615) 255-5419
          E-mail: joeyl@bsjfirm.com


STRATEGIC FINANCIAL: Johnson Alleges Wage Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. STRATEGIC FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, RYAN SASSON, DANIEL BLUMKIN,
and KIMBERLY CELIC, Case No. 1:20-cv-08565 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 14,
2020) arises from the Defendants' engagement in wage discrimination
on the basis of sex, in violation of the Equal Pay Act under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Equal Pay Act, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants engaged in wage
discrimination on the basis of sex, and seeks to recover back pay,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, for the
deprivation of their statutory rights resulting from the
Defendants' discriminatory employment practices pursuant to various
federal and state laws.

The Plaintiff is an African American female who was employed by
Strategic Financial Solutions in its New York City office for over
eight years from on or around March 12, 2012 until on or around
April 14, 2020. Ms. Johnson was terminated for her numerous
complaints about the gender pay gap between male and female
employees and about the sexually hostile work environment.

Strategic Financial Solutions, LLC is a New York-based financial
services company that tailors debt relief options including debt
consolidation loans, and debt resolution and credit card
modification programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Angela Kwon, Esq.
          William Brown, Esq.
          BROWN KWON & LAM LLP
          521 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1174
          New York, NY 10175
          Telephone: (718) 971-0326
          Facsimile: (718) 795-1642
          E-mail: akwon@bkllawyers.com
                  wbrown@bkllawyers.com

TARGET CORP: Castillo Sues Over Deceptive Labels on Acetaminophen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHIRLEY CASTILLO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TARGET CORP., Case No. 2:20-cv-09367 (C.D.
Cal., Oct. 13, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the
California Unfair Competition Law, and the California False
Advertising Law.

According to the complaint, Target's advertisements, marketing
representations, and labeling of its pain reliever and fever
reducer products, namely Dye-Free Infants' Acetaminophen and
Children's Acetaminophen, in its brick-and-mortar stores are
misleading, untrue, and likely to deceive reasonable consumers. The
Defendant purposely packages infants' products with distinctive
lettering of the word "Infants" on the product's front-label, while
packaging children's products with distinctive lettering of the
word "Children's" on the product's front-label.

Through Target's packaging and labeling of the products, Target
attempts to deceive reasonable consumers including the Plaintiff,
into believing that infants' products and children's products are
different, when Target knows that the two products are exactly the
same in terms of their active ingredient (acetaminophen) and
dosage. Accordingly, Target distributes, markets, and sells the
products in a manner which deceives reasonable consumers into
thinking that infants cannot safely take children's products, the
suit says.

Furthermore, despite the fact that the products contain the same
exact amount of acetaminophen in the same dosage amounts, Target
allegedly markets and sells infants' products to consumers, such as
the Plaintiff, at a substantially higher price than children's
products.

Target Corporation is an American retail corporation. It is the
8th-largest retailer in the United States, and is a component of
the S&P 500 Index.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher L. Rudd, Esq.
          THE RUDD LAW FIRM
          4650 Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 205
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (310) 663-0705
          Facsimile: (310) 359-0258
          E-mail: clrudd@ruddlawpc.com

               - and -

          Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          David K. Lietz, Esq.
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
          E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
                  dperry@masonllp.com
                  dlietz@masonllp.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinge, Esq.
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
          227 W. Monroe Street, Ste. 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (202) 640-1160
          Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
          E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com

THEO CHOCOLATE INC: Paguada Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Theo Chocolate, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Theo Chocolate, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-09257 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 4, 2020).

Theo Chocolate, Inc. distributes confectionery products like
chocolates and coca products. Theo Chocolate serves customers
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mars Khaimov, Esq.
   10826 64th Avenue
   Ste 2nd Floor
   Forest Hills, NY 11375
   Tel: (917) 915-7415
   Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com



TITAN CHAIR: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Titan Chair LLC. The
case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Titan Chair LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-09532 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2020).

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

Titan Chair LLC distributes electronic chairs. The Company offers
massage chairs, fitness and health, and back and sleep
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


TOTAL LIFE CHANGES: Graciano Alleges Violation under ADA
--------------------------------------------------------
Total Life Changes, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Total Life Changes, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-09262 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 4, 2020).

Total Life Changes, LLC. is a debt-free direct-selling company
offering health & wellness supplements world-wide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



TRIPP SCOTT: Kator Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA KATOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRIPP SCOTT, P.A., Defendant, Case No.
CACE-20-018989 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Nov. 13, 2020) seeks to
stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt.

Tripp Scott, P.A. is a law firm in Fort Lauderdale, FL. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Kantor, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN Z. KANTOR
          304 Indian Trace Suite 117
          Weston, FL 33326
          Telephone: (786) 200-0710


TURBO DRILL: Fails to Pay Overtime, Kennedy Claims
--------------------------------------------------
The case, NICHOLAS KENNEDY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TURBO DRILL INDUSTRIES,
INC., MYLES WOLOSHYN and SHELDON RITCHIE, Defendants, Case No.
7:20-cv-00251 (W.D. Tex., October 27, 2020) arises from the
Defendants' alleged unlawful pay practices in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a directional
driller from July 2018 to July 2020 whose primary duties were
non-exempt.

The Plaintiff claims he regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per
week, but the Defendants did not pay him for the hours he worked in
excess of 40 per week at a rate not less than one and one-half
times his regular rate of pay. Instead, the Defendants paid him on
a salary-plus-daily-rate basis on a bi-weekly basis by direct
deposit.

Moreover, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate time and pay
records and failed to post and keep posted any notice.

Turbo Drill Industries, Inc. manufactures and supplies downhole
drilling products and services throughout the U.S.

Myles Woloshyn is the President and CEO, while Sheldon Ritchie is
the COO. Both individual Defendants are responsible for the
Corporate Defendant's pay practices and exercises substantial
control over the Company's finances and operations. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UEZU CORP: Abe Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages & OT Under FLSA & NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------------
HISAMI ABE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
UEZU CORPORATION d/b/a Kurumazushi II, TOSHIHIRO UEZU, and KUMIKO
UEZU, Case No. 1:20-cv-09725 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2020) is a class
action lawsuit brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees against the Defendants for violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, arising
from the Defendants' various willful, malicious, and unlawful
employment policies, patterns, and/or practices.

Abe alleges that she is entitled to recover from the Defendants:
unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, misappropriated tips,
liquidated damages prejudgment and postjudgment interest, and/or
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

Abe was employed by the Defendants from January 6, 2020 through
February 15, 2020 to work as a server at Defendants' Japanese
restaurant.

Corporate Defendant operates a Japanese restaurant. The Individual
Defendants are husband and wife who own the restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 103
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324
          E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com

UNITED COLLECTION: Hirsch Says Collection Letter "Deceptive"
------------------------------------------------------------
MAYER HIRSCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., LVNV FUNDING
LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05166
(E.D.N.Y., October 27, 2020) is a class action complaint brought
against the Defendants for their alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

The Plaintiff has a debt that was allegedly incurred to Citibank
N.A.

According to the complaint, the Defendant LVNV, who is a subsequent
owner of the Citibank N.A. debt, contracted with the Defendant UCB
to collect the alleged debt. Subsequently, the Defendant UCB sent a
collection letter to the Plaintiff on or about January 2, 2020.
However, the letter is deceptive and misleading because the
breakdown of the Plaintiff's debt contains a negative interest
charge but without any explanation.

The FDCPA provides that a debt collector may not use any false,
deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with
the collection of any debt.

United Collection Bureau, Inc. and LVNV Funding LLC are debt
collectors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Tel: (201) 282-6500
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO: Havarria Seeks Fee Refunds Due to COVID-19
-------------------------------------------------------------------
EDGAR C. HAVARRIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-02215-DMS-RBB (S.D. Cal., Nov. 13,
2020) seeks to recover proportionate amount of the tuition fee paid
to the Defendant caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has not refunded any
amount of the tuition fee, even though it announced on March 12,
2020 that classes would be canceled for one week starting in or
around March 14, 2020 and it would implement online only distance
learning starting in or around March 23, 2020.

Because of the Defendant's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, on
March 14, 2020, the Defendant also stopped providing services or
facilities the tuition fees were intended to cover. The Defendant's
failure to provide the services for which tuition and the tuition
fees were intended to cover since March 14, 2020 is a breach of the
contracts between the Defendant and the Plaintiff and the members
of the Class and is unjust.

The University of San Diego is a private Roman Catholic research
university in San Diego, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David R. Shoop, Esq.
          Thomas S. Alch, Esq.
          SHOOP A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 620-9533
          E-mail: David.shoop@shooplaw.com
                  Thomas.alch@shooplaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550
          E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
                  mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com

               - and -

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          Jeremy Francis, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
          270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 969-7810
          E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                  francisj@thesultzerlawgroup.com


VALSPAR CORP: Illegally Collects Employee Biometrics, Cordova Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JODIE CORDOVA and STEVEN HART, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE VALSPAR CORPORATION
and THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-02325-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill., November 18, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants required their
employees, including the Plaintiffs, to have their fingerprints
collected and/or captured so that the Defendants could store their
fingerprints and use them as an employee authentication method
doing forward. The Plaintiffs and Class members were not informed
of the specific limited purposes or length of time for which the
Defendants collected, stored, or used their biometric identifiers
and biometric information. Further, the Defendants failed to inform
their employees about their biometric practices or policies and
also failed to provide them with written notice about the
collection of their biometric information.

The Valspar Corporation is a manufacturer of paint and coatings
with its headquarters in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

The Sherwin-Williams Company is a manufacturer, distributor and
seller of paints and coatings with its headquarters in Cleveland,
Ohio. [BN]

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

WALMART STORES: Lisowski Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Christopher Lisowski, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. WALMART STORES, INC. trading
and doing business as WALMART, Case No. GD-20-10605, was removed
from the Allegheny County, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania on Nov. 12, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-01729-NR to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

Walmart Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank G. Salpietro, Esq.
          ROTHMAN GORDON, P.C.
          310 Grant Street, Third Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 338-1185
          Fax: (412) 281-7304
          Email: fgsalpietro@rothmangordon.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael P. Pest, Esq.
          Thomas E. Sanchez
          ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC
          600 Grant Street, 44th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 566-6128
          Fax: (412) 566-6000
          Email: mpest@eckertseamans.com
                 tsanchez@eckertseamans.com



WELLS FARGO: Robbins Geller Files Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announced that it filed a class
action seeking to represent purchasers of Wells Fargo & Company
(NYSE:WFC) common stock during the period between October 13, 2017
and October 13, 2020 (the "Class Period"). This action was filed in
the Northern District of California and is captioned Mullen v.
Wells Fargo & Company, No. 20-cv-7674.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Wells Fargo common stock during the Class
Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Wells Fargo
class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with
the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the
putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative
class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members
in directing the Wells Fargo class action lawsuit. The lead
plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Wells
Fargo class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery of the Wells Fargo class action lawsuit
is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff in the Wells Fargo class action lawsuit,
you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you
wish to discuss the Wells Fargo class action lawsuit or have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact plaintiff's counsel, Brian E. Cochran of Robbins
Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at
bcochran@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy of the complaint as filed
at https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-wfc-class-action-lawsuit.html.

The Wells Fargo class action lawsuit charges Wells Fargo and
certain of its current and former officers with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Wells Fargo is a global financial
services company that provides banking, investment and mortgage
products and services, as well as other consumer and commercial
financial services. Since 2009, Wells Fargo has dramatically ramped
up its commercial lending activities and has become a leading
market participant in the securitization of commercial loans,
originating and distributing as well as investing in billions of
dollars' worth of collateralized loan obligations ("CLOs") and
commercial mortgage backed securities ("CMBS") backed by corporate
debt.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse
information regarding Wells Fargo's business and operations.
Specifically, during the Class Period, defendants reassured
investors that Wells Fargo's commercial credit portfolios were of
exceptional credit quality and the product of robust,
industry-leading underwriting and due diligence policies and
procedures. In truth, however, Wells Fargo fueled its rapid
commercial loan growth by lending to businesses that posed a
heightened risk of default. Wells Fargo systematically concealed
these credit risks by artificially inflating the incomes generated
by borrowing businesses, relaxing or failing to follow applicable
underwriting procedures, and circumventing applicable risk
controls. Wells Fargo exacerbated the threat posed by its defective
commercial debt by packaging the loans into CLOs and CMBS and
widely distributing these securitized products throughout the
financial system.
On April 14, 2020, in connection with the release of its first
quarter 2020 financial results, Wells Fargo revealed it was taking
a massive $4 billion provision expense to account for expected
credit delinquencies. On this news, the price of Wells Fargo stock
fell 14% over three trading days. On July 14, 2020, Wells Fargo
released its second quarter 2020 results, which disclosed that the
Company had suffered a $2.4 billion loss during the quarter, or
($0.66) per share, and was taking a $9.5 billion provision expense
to account for expected credit delinquencies. On this news, the
price of Wells Fargo stock fell 5% to $24.25 per share.

Then, on October 14, 2020, Wells Fargo released its third quarter
2020 results, with the Company announcing that it had recognized
another provision expense of $769 million and that non-accrual
loans had increased $2.5 billion, or 45%, to $8 billion during the
quarter. The price of Wells Fargo stock fell 6% on this news to
close at $23.25 per share on October 14, 2020.

The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.

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

WEST PAW INC: Thorne Files ADA Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------
West Paw, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Braulio
Thorne, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. West Paw, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-09440 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 10, 2020).

West Paw is a founding member of the Pet Sustainability Coalition,
a Certified B Corp, and Montana's First Benefit Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Chebegia Sues Over Defective Refrigerators
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY CHEBEGIA; and KRISTOPHER SPEAR, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WHIRLPOOL
CORPORATION; DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-02217-BEN-JLB (S.D. Cal., Nov. 13, 2020) is an action
against the Defendants for manufacturing and selling
refrigerator-freezers equipped with defective control panel parts.

According to the complaint, the Defendants designed, manufactured
and sold combination refrigerator-freezers equipped with control
panel parts, including "cntrl-elec" (Org. Manu. No.
W10665178/Current Manu. No. W10830278) and "cntrl-elec" (Org. Manu.
No. W10635302, W10790783, W10814803, W11113852 or
W11185975)/Current Manu. No. W10830288) ("Control Panels"). The
Defendants designed, created product materials for, designed
instructions for, caused the manufacture of, marketed, advertised,
distributed and sold refrigerator-freezer models equipped with the
Control Panels ("Class Refrigerators"), and the Plaintiffs and the
Class purchased one of the Class Refrigerators with the Control
Panels in them during the Class Period.

The Control Panels are defective in that their premature failure
and malfunction causes (i) the defrost function to fail; (ii) ice
to accumulate on the outside of the Class Refrigerators' doors,
which if left to continue, the ice build up will prevent the doors
from closing, and resulting in leaks to areas within, below, and
surrounding the Class Refrigerators; and (iii) an impediment to the
useful life of Class Refrigerators. The Control Panels' defects
also damage and impede the useful life of other components in Class
Refrigerators including, but not limited to, the evaporator coils,
panels, and/or thermistors, and homes including, but not limited
to, places near and around one of the Class Refrigerators. The
Control Panels fail in performing their intended purposes as a
result of their defects. The Control Panels' defects also cause
other components in the Plaintiffs' Class Refrigerators, including
but not limited to its evaporator coils and/or defrost function, to
fail to perform their intended purposes.

Whirlpool Corporation manufactures and markets major home
appliances. The Company provides principal products include laundry
appliances, refrigeration, room air conditioning equipment, cooking
appliances, dishwashers, and mixers and other small household
appliances. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Patrick N. Keegan, Esq.
          KEEGAN & BAKER, LLP
          2292 Faraday Avenue, Suite 100
          Carlsbad, CA 92008
          Telephone: (760) 929-9303
          Facsimile: (760) 929-9260
          E-mail: pkeegan@keeganbaker.com


WILCO LIFE: West Suit Transferred to S.D. Indiana
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Sherri West on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. WILCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY formerly known
as: CONSECO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00464, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana on Nov. 12, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-02961-TWP-DLP to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Wilco Life Insurance Company operates as an insurance company. The
Company provides life, accident, and health insurance services to
individuals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Gerard Stranch, III, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS
          227 Second Avenue North, 4th Floor
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Phone: ((615) 254-8801
          Fax: (615) 255-5419
          Email: jstranch@branstetterlaw.com

               - and -

          Joey P. Leniski, Jr., Esq.
          BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Phone: (615) 254-8801

               - and -

          Paul Sweeny, Esq.
          Stephen J. Fearon, Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          32 E 57th Street, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 421-6492
          Fax: (212) 421-6553

The Defendant is represented by:

          Carl Scherz, Esq.
          Taylor Brinkman, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD LLP
          2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2800
          Dallas, TX 75201

               - and -

          Sara K. Morgan, Esq.
          W. Brantley Phillips, Jr., Esq.
          Bass, Berry & Sims (Nashville Office)
          150 Third Avenue South, Suite 2800
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Phone: (615) 742-7740


WILDBERRY PANCAKES: Gonzales Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS GARCIA GONZALES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WILDBERRY PANCAKES & CAFE III,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-06373 (N.D. Ill., October 27,
2020) brings this collective action complaint against the Defendant
for its alleged unlawful pay practices in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law
(IMWL).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked a
minimum of approximately 54 hours per week. The Defendant, however,
failed to compensate the Plaintiff for all overtime hours he worked
in excess of 40 at the overtime rate as required by the FLSA and
the IMWL.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant from August 2013 through
July 2020.

Wildberry Pancakes & Cafe III, Inc. is a restaurant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
          Madeline K. Engel, Esq.
          CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD.
          224 N. Michigan Ave, Ste. 300
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Tel: (312) 763-6880
          E-mail: acaffarelli@caffarelli.com
                  mengel@caffarelli.com


WING KEUNG: Liu et al. Seek Proper Overtime Pay Under FLSA & NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JIAN CHENG LIU and FUQIANG GAO v. KEUNG CHAN, MAY TONG, SIMON CHAN,
FEN ZHEN CHEN a/k/a FENG ZHEN CHEN, WING KEUNG ENTERPRISES, INC.
d/b/a WK FOODS, WK TRUCKING LLC. d/b/a WK FOODS, and WKFC LLC.
d/b/a WK FOODS, Case No. 1:20-cv-05651 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2020),
is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
labor Law to recover unpaid wages owed to the Plaintiffs as well as
injunctive and declaratory relief against the Defendants' unlawful
actions, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants willfully failed to pay
each of them overtime pay for hours worked beyond 40 hours in a
workweek, in violation of the FLSA, the NYLL, and the supporting
New York State Department of Labor regulations. In addition, the
Defendants refused to provide each Plaintiff written notice of
their regular rate of pay or overtime rate of pay in violation of
NYLL Section 195.1 and the Wage Theft Prevention Act.

The Plaintiffs are individuals residing in the State of New York.

Wing Keung is an entity formed in the State of New York on May 2,
2001. Since its inception, Wing Keung had been operating a
wholesale business located at 3140 College Point Blvd, Flushing,
New York for over 15 years.

WK Trucking is an entity formed in the State of New York on May 4,
2017. WK is a trucking company related to the other Defendant
business entities.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          HENG WANG & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          305 Broadway, Suite 1000
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 203-5231
          Facsimile: (212) 203-5237

XST CORPORATION: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Alvarez Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RIGOBERTO ALVAREZ and JOSE MAURICIO CERNA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. XST
CORPORATION d/b/a NEW HYDE PARK DINER, XENTHO REALTY LLC, and XENIS
THOMA, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05605 (E.D.N.Y., November 17,
2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including
failure to pay appropriate minimum wages and overtime pay, failure
to pay spread-of-hours premium, failure to provide wage notices,
and failure to furnish accurate wage statements.

Mr. Alvarez was employed by Defendants as a busser and a server at
New Hyde Park Diner located at 160 Hillside Avenue, New Hyde Park,
New York from June 28, 2018 through August 30, 2020.

Mr. Cerna was employed by Defendants as a busser at New Hyde Park
Diner located at 160 Hillside Avenue, New Hyde Park, New York from
September 2001 through September 2, 2020.

XST Corporation is a restaurant operator doing business as New Hyde
Park Diner, with a principal place of business at 160 Hillside
Avenue, New Hyde Park, New York.

Xentho Realty LLC is a restaurant operator, with a principal place
of business at 160 Hillside Avenue, New Hyde Park, New York. [BN]

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

Z RESTAURANT: Wins Dismissal of Counts VIII-XIII in Shibetti Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BONNIE SHIBETTI and KATHLEEN PUCCINI, individually and
on behalf of all: others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Z
RESTAURANT, DINER AND LOUNGE, INC., ADEL FATHELBAB, ADAM FATHELBAB,
KAMAL FATHELBAB, and ESSAM ELBASSIONY, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-856 (BMC) (E.D. N.Y.), Judge Brian M. Cogan of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York

   (i) granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification as a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") action, and
for a court-authorized notice;

  (ii) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment; and

(iii) granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts VIII
through XIII for lack of supplemental jurisdiction.

Two Plaintiffs bring the action under the FLSA, and New York Labor
Law ("NYLL"), for the Defendants' alleged failure to pay minimum
wage, overtime, spread-of-hours pay, and other requirements under
the NYLL.  They also include numerous claims of gender
discrimination and sexual harassment under state law.

Defendant Z Diner, Restaurant and Lounge, Inc., doing business as
Parkview Diner, owns and runs a diner in Brooklyn.  Father and son
Adel Fathelbab and Adam Fathelbab, own 80% and 20% of Parkview,
respectively, with Adel as the President and Adam as the VP.  Kamal
Fathelbab, Adel's brother and Adam's uncle, served as a manager of
the diner and is accused of sexual harassment.  Plaintiff Shibetti
worked at Parkview as a waitress from June 2015 through April 2016.
Plaintiff Puccini worked at Parkview as a waitress from late 2015
to late 2018.

Bafore the Court are three motions: (1) the Defendants' motion to
dismiss all of the state law claims except the wage claims for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction; (2) the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment; and (3) the Plaintiffs' motion for leave
to proceed as a collective action under the FLSA.

The Plaintiffs contend that both their New York State Labor Law
claims and their state and New York City law sexual harassment
claims are within my supplemental jurisdiction because of their
FLSA claims.  The Defendants contend that the sexual harassment
claims are not part of the same case or controversy as the FLSA
claims under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a), and that the Court has no
supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

Although Judge Cogan can easily see why the Plaintiffs want to
place the sexual harassment proof before the same jury that
considers the wage claims -- the discrimination claims make the
Defendants look terrible -- those claims simply have nothing to do
with whether the Plaintiffs were paid the minimum wage and overtime
as required under the FLSA.  The arguments the Plaintiffs have
raised fail to convince the Judge that the wage and discrimination
claims here arise out of the same case or controversy.

Turning to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,
Plaintiff Shibetti contends that at the beginning of her
employment, she worked three separate shifts of eight hours per day
as a "training period" for which she was not paid.  Plaintiff
Puccini contends that she worked one shift of four hours as her
"training period" for which she was not paid.  The Defendants
concede that every new employee is required to undergo an unpaid
training period.  They further concede that this is impermissible
under the FLSA and the NYLL.

Drawing every inference in favor of the Defendants, as the Judge is
required to do on the motion, it is for a jury to determine
Shibetti's credibility or, in contrast, whether to credit Adel's
description of a policy and further infer that it was applied to
Shibetti.  However, that is not the case with Puccini.  Her
testimony is fully consistent with Adel's professed policy and
defendants have offered no evidence to contradict her testimony.
Summary judgment on this issue is therefore granted to Puccini and
denied as to Shibetti.

Next, it is undisputed that the Defendants have no records showing
the Plaintiffs' acknowledgment that they received notice of a "tip
credit," i.e., a deduction from their pay to reflect tips they
received, as part of their minimum wage.  New York Labor Law
requires an employer to maintain such records for six years.
Because the Defendants did not, no tip credit will be included when
calculating the Plaintiffs' regular and overtime rates based on
hours worked.

Also, under the FLSA, an employer includes any person acting
directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation
to an employee.  An employer need not necessarily have direct
control over the plaintiff employees; an individual's authority
over management, supervision, and oversight of a company's affairs
in general may be sufficient.  But ownership of or a stake in a
company alone is insufficient to establish that an individual is an
"employer" without some further involvement.

The Defendants do not seriously contest Adel's liability.  His 80%
ownership and day-to-day management, including authority to hire
and fire employees and set their work and compensation schedules,
is obviously sufficient.  The Defendants do contest Adam's
liability, and the Judge cannot find that he satisfies the economic
reality test as a matter of law.  He has no evidence before him
that Adam ever made a decision to hire anyone; that he ever set
time the Plaintiffs' work schedules; or that he determined their
wage rates.  In addition, although Adam's 20% ownership by itself
is not sufficient by itself for individual liability, Adam
acknowledged the practicalities of father-son ownership at his
deposition.  However, it is a marginal issue on which the
Plaintiffs may be likely to prevail, but it is an issue of fact.

Finally, the Plaintiffs propose to post and send an opt-in notice
to waiters, waitresses, bus persons, hosts and hostesses, and other
non-exempt tipped positions for the period 2015 through the
present.  It is not the first time they have sought such relief in
the action.  The Defendants contend that it suffers from the same
defect as the prior motion, and, indeed, the two Plaintiffs'
affidavits contain the same conclusory language that Judge Tiscione
found inadequate.  However, the Judge finds there is more proof
this time around.

The Plaintiffs seek a list of names, last known addresses,
telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of workers employed by the
Defendants at any time between September 2015 through the present
at the Parkview Diner.  The Judge grants the Plaintiffs' motion to
the extent necessary to facilitate providing notice by first-clas
mail and e-mail to viable members of the collective, except that
the time period involved will be three years prior to the date of
the Order.  

The Plaintiffs further request to post a notice, along with consent
forms, in a conspicuous location at Parkview.  The Judge adopts the
Plaintiffs' proposed notice and it will be posted at the Parkview
Diner, along with sufficient consent forms, in a conspicuous
location within seven days of the Order.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Cogan concludes that: (i) the minimal
overlap between the Plaintiffs' wage claims (state and federal) and
their state/city discrimination claims is not substantial enough to
vest the Court with supplemental jurisdiction over their state/city
gender discrimination claims; (ii) Plaintiff Puccini is owed a
nominal but undisputed amount for unpaid training time, and
Plaintiff Shibetti is also owed money for unpaid training time, but
there is an issue of fact as to how much the Defendants owe
Plaintiff Shibetti; (iii) the claim for unpaid training time is not
time barred because the Defendants' failure to pay was willful;
(iv) Defendant Adel is personally liable for any unpaid wages and
wage compliance requirements, but there is an issue of fact as to
whether Adam  shares that liability; (v) the Defendants are liable
as a matter of NYLL for violating the requirements for providing
notices relating to wages and tip credits, wage statements, and
keeping records, but the amount owed for these violations is
subject to the resolution of factual issues; and (vi) the
Plaintiffs may proceed as a collective action on their FLSA
claims.

Accordingly, Judge Cogan granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification as an FLSA action, and for
court-authorized notice, in accordance with the guidelines he set
forth.  

Without delay, the Defendants will post the notice, along with
sufficient consent forms, in a conspicuous location at the Parkview
location.  Furthermore, they are directed to disclose to the
Plaintiffs, without delay, a computer-readable list of full names,
addresses, and e-mail addresses of its current and former employees
as set forth.  The Plaintiffs who wish to participate in the FLSA
collective action must opt in by Oct. 21, 2020.

The Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is granted in
part and denied in part.  The Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts
VIII through XIII for lack of supplemental jurisdiction is
granted.

In light of the disposition of the other motions in the Order, the
class certification motion is denied without prejudice to renewal
consistent with the rulings in the Order within 14 days after the
opt-in period has expired.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 7, 2020 Memorandum
Decision & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4h5pzrg from
Leagle.com.


ZOSANO PHARMA: Kehoe Law Announces Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. continues its investigation of potential
securities claims on behalf of investors of Zosano Pharma
Corporation ("Zosano" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ZSAN) to determine
whether the Company engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful
business practices.

ZOSANO INVESTORS WHO PURCHASED, OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED, THE
COMPANY'S SECURITIES BETWEEN FEBRUARY 13, 2017 AND SEPTEMBER 30,
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 KEVIN
CAULEY, DIRECTOR, BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, (215) 792-6676, EXT. 802,
KCAULEY@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM, SECURITIES@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM,
INFO@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM, TO DISCUSS THE SECURITIES INVESTIGATION OR
POTENTIAL LEGAL CLAIMS.

On September 30, 2020, Zosano disclosed that it ". . . received a
discipline review letter ('DRL') from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ('FDA') in connection with the
Qtrypta(TM)(zolmitriptan transdermal microneedle system) 505(b)(2)
New Drug Application ('NDA')." According to Zosano, the FDA ". . .
raised questions regarding unexpected high plasma concentrations of
zolmitriptan observed in five study subjects from two
pharmacokinetic studies, and how the data from these subjects
affect the overall clinical pharmacology section of the
application." The FDA also ". . . raised questions regarding
differences in zolmitriptan exposures observed between subjects
receiving different lots of Qtrypta in the Company's clinical
trials."

ON THIS NEWS, ZOSANO'S STOCK PRICE FELL $0.92 PER SHARE, OR 57%, TO
CLOSE AT $0.70 PER SHARE ON OCTOBER 1, 2020.

On October 21, 2020, Zosano announced receipt of a Complete
Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA. According to Zosano, "[t]he
CRL cited inconsistent zolmitriptan exposure levels observed across
clinical pharmacology studies, which had been previously identified
in the FDA's discipline review letter received by the Company in
September. Specifically, the CRL noted differences in zolmitriptan
exposures observed between subjects receiving different lots of
Qtrypta in the Company's trials and inadequate pharmacokinetic
bridging between the lots that made interpretation of some safety
data unclear."

Further, Zosano reported that "[t]he CRL referenced unexpected high
plasma concentrations of zolmitriptan observed in five study
subjects enrolled in the Company's pharmacokinetic studies. The FDA
recommended that the Company conduct a repeat bioequivalence study
between three of the lots used during development. The NDA included
data on a total of 774 subjects across 5 trials who were
administered or dosed with Qtrypta."

ON THIS NEWS, ZOSANO'S STOCK PRICE FELL $0.17 PER SHARE, OR 27%, TO
CLOSE AT $0.4441 PER SHARE ON OCTOBER 21, 2020.

On October 29, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in United
States District Court, Northern District of California, on behalf
of Zosano investors who purchased, or otherwise acquired, Zosano
securities during the Class Period.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the Zosano
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. The Zosano
Defendants, allegedly, failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
the Company's clinical results reflected differences in
zolmitriptan exposures observed between subjects receiving
different lots; (2) that pharmacokinetic studies submitted in
connection with the Company's NDA included patients exhibiting
unexpected high plasma concentrations of zolmitriptan; (3) that, as
a result of the foregoing differences among patient results, the
FDA was reasonably likely to require further studies to support
regulatory approval of Qtrypta; (4) as a result, regulatory
approval of Qtrypta was reasonably likely to be delayed; and (5) as
a result of the foregoing, the Zosano Defendants' public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

ZOSANO INVESTORS WHO PURCHASED, OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED, THE
COMPANY'S SECURITIES BETWEEN FEBRUARY 13, 2017 AND SEPTEMBER 30,
2020, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE, AND SUFFERED LOSSES GREATER THAN
$50,000 ARE ENCOURAGED TO CONTACT KEHOE LAW FIRM TO DISCUSS THE
SECURITIES INVESTIGATION OR POTENTIAL LEGAL CLAIMS.

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]

[*] SPAC Shareholder Securities Class Actions Expected to Rise
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marie C. Bafus, Esq., Nicolas Dumont, Esq., David Michaels, Esq.,
and Jay Pomerantz, Esq., of Fenwick & West LLP, in an article for
JDSupra, report that special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs)
are increasingly being used as an alternate vehicle to traditional
initial public offerings. Companies that go public through a
traditional IPO process are often subject to shareholder securities
class actions. Inevitably, securities class actions will be filed
against companies that become publicly traded and file public
reports with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as a
result of a merger with a SPAC.

One often-referenced advantage of the SPAC process as compared to a
traditional IPO is the ability to directly communicate financial
projections to the market. Such projections may become a greater
area of focus for shareholder-driven SPAC securities litigation.
With increasing numbers of companies going public through the SPAC
process, companies should be mindful of the litigation risks
attendant with such projections and take proactive measures to
mitigate that risk.

What is a SPAC?
A SPAC is a shell company with no commercial operations that is
formed to raise capital in an IPO solely in anticipation of
identifying and acquiring an existing private company. The
acquisition of the private company by the SPAC (often referred to
as the "de-SPAC transaction"), results in the target merging into
the SPAC and thereby becoming a public reporting company with
publicly traded shares.

Financial Projections - Traditional IPO vs. SPAC
Companies typically do not include financial projections in a
registration statement and related prospectus for an IPO because of
the liability risks associated with such disclosures. In
particular, the safe harbor for forward-looking statements under
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) that generally
applies to statements made by SEC registrants expressly does not
apply to statements "made in connection with initial public
offering[s]." The same constraints do not apply to de-SPAC
transactions. In a de-SPAC transaction, the target becomes a
publicly traded company by virtue of its merger into the SPAC, and
the target company can include financial projections in the proxy
statement and S-4 registration statement filed with the SEC in
connection with the de-SPAC transaction.

The ability to provide projections directly to the investors is a
key feature of de-SPAC transactions. Because projections provide
investors visibility into the target's future financial growth,
they may be especially attractive to companies that will not be
profitable for a few years. Moreover, assuming projections provided
in connection with de-SPAC transactions are identified as
forward-looking and are accompanied by meaningful cautionary
language, the projections will be protected under the PSLRA's safe
harbor for forward-looking statements.

The Litigation Risk
With the increasing popularity of de-SPAC transactions as an
alternative to the traditional IPO, we expect to see a rise in the
number of shareholder securities class actions challenging
statements made in connection with de-SPAC transactions. While
projections and other forward-looking statements have been
challenged in recent SPAC litigation, they have not been the
primary focus of the lawsuits, and have simply been included among
a litany of other challenged statements. With an uptick in SPAC
litigation, projections will likely receive increased scrutiny from
the plaintiffs' bar.

The recently filed securities class action related to the Waitr
de-SPAC transaction is illustrative. The Waitr complaint (Welch v.
Meaux (W.D. La.)) asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 14(a), 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that various statements
(including 2018-2020 financial projections) included in the proxy
and registration statement filed in connection with the Waitr
de-SPAC transaction, along with other statements made after the
de-SPAC transaction, were false and misleading. The plaintiffs
allege that the Waitr de-SPAC transaction was completed in haste --
just two weeks before the expiration of the SPAC's deadline to
complete a business combination -- and that the proxy and
registration statement deceived investors as to Waitr's true
prospects for profitability. After the de-SPAC transaction, Waitr
performed poorly. When it announced disappointing financial and
operational results several quarters after the de-SPAC transaction,
Waitr's stock dropped over 50%. In challenging the projections and
other forward-looking statements, the complaint alleges that the
PSLRA safe harbor does not apply to those statements because they
were either (1) not accompanied by meaningful cautionary
statements; or (2) the defendants knew the forward-looking
statements were false when made. Although the Waitr case is still
in its early stages, it may serve as a blueprint for how plaintiffs
and their counsel frame these cases going forward.

Steps Companies Can Take to Mitigate the Litigation Risk Related to
Projections Provided in Connection with a De-SPAC Transaction
Projections should have a reasonable basis. If a company chooses to
provide financial projections, it needs to ensure that they are
based on assumptions that have a reasonable basis and represent the
company's balanced view. To achieve those objectives, the company
should ensure that it has followed an appropriate process for
vetting the assumptions underlying the projections, which typically
includes critical review of these assumptions by the board of
directors, with input from financial advisors.

Document the process used to generate projections in real-time.
Securities class actions are often filed long after the challenged
events or statements occurred. If a lawsuit is filed long after the
events in question, it can be difficult to gather all of the facts
necessary to defend against the suit. Accordingly, a company
disclosing projections should ensure that it adequately documents
the process used to generate and vet these projections at the same
time they are created. By documenting the process in real-time, the
company will ensure that it has a clear, well-documented and
contemporaneous record in the event a suit challenging the
projections is subsequently filed.

Projections should be identified as forward-looking and accompanied
by meaningful cautionary statements. Under the PSLRA's safe harbor
provision, forward-looking statements -- such as projections -- are
generally not actionable so long as they are: (1) identified as
forward-looking; and (2) accompanied by "meaningful cautionary
statements identifying important factors that could cause actual
results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking
statement." In order to ensure safe harbor coverage for
projections, companies should ensure that they not only identify
that forward-looking statements are being made, but also provide
meaningful cautionary language. Although the safe harbor provides
broad protection, boilerplate risk disclosures may not be
sufficient. Courts may decline safe harbor protection to
forward-looking statements where the cautionary language does not
identify the risks that ultimately caused the prediction not to
come to pass. Cautionary statements should be tailored to fit the
guidance and should disclose the risks that may cause the
anticipated results not to be realized. Cautionary language should
also clearly attribute the source of the projections, and describe
the process through which they were generated. [GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***