/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200409.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, April 9, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 72

                            Headlines

24 HOUR FITNESS: Still Charges Clients Despite Closure, Suit Says
ADTRADER INC: AdWords Advertiser Class Certified
ALCOA CORP: Trial in Quebec Class Action May Start by May 1
ALLSTATE CORP: Appeal from Class Certification Order Pending
AMERICAN FINANCE: Appeal in St. Clair-Hibbard Suit Ongoing

AMERICAN FINANCE: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing in Maryland
AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks to Drop Shi Class Suit in California
ANDREW SAUL: Michener Seeks to Certify Class over Social Security
APOLLO GLOBAL: Named as Defendant in Amended Presidio Class Suit
APOLLO GLOBAL: Request to Remand Fongers Class Suit Still Pending

APOLLO GLOBAL: Settlement of IDT IPO Suits Awaits Court Approval
ARCONIC INC: Bid to Dismiss Howard Class Action Pending
ARCONIC INC: May 7 Oral Argument on Bid to Dismiss Behrens Suit
BACTOLAC PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Faris TILA Suit in E.D. New York
BANKROLL CAPITAL: River Chiropractic Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ad

BARING BDC: Appeal in Triangle Capital Securities Suit Ongoing
CANCER GENETICS: Securities Suit in New Jersey Dismissed
CASELLA WASTE: To Defend Against Vandemortel Suit in New York
CBOE GLOBAL: Bats Global Still Defends Providence Securities Suit
CBOE GLOBAL: Court Dismissed VIX-Related Class Suit with Prejudice

CIGNA CORP: Notice of Appeal Filed in Amara Class Action
CITIGROUP INC: Bid to Drop Amended Allianz Suit in NY Still Pending
CITIGROUP INC: Citibank Still Defends J Wisbey Suit in Australia
CITIGROUP INC: Settlement of Contant's Antitrust Suit Underway
CITIGROUP INC: Still Defends Allianz Lawsuit in London High Court

CITIGROUP: NYPL Suit over Forex Market Manipulation Still Ongoing
CORELOGIC INC: Petition for Review of Feliciano Cert. Order Denied
CREDIT PROCESS: Amended Bid to Certify Class Granted
CVS RX SERVICES: Cabrera Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
DATA MANAGEMENT: Mullins Seeks to Certify Collective Action

DUBELL LUMBER: Heinz Renews Bid to Certify Class
ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Dougherty Class Suit
ESTATES LLC: Williams Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
FEDERAL SIGNAL: Discovery Issues to be Discussed on April 30
FITBIT INC: Accord in Sleep Tracking Device Suit Wins Final OK

FITBIT INC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Calif. Class Suit Pending
FORTERRA INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for April 29
FTS INTERNATIONAL: Writ of Mandamus Filed in Glock Class Suit
GARFIELD BEACH: Bolivar Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
GARY LANIGAN: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in Rashid Suit

GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Awaits 11th Cir.'s Decision in TVPX ARX Suit
GLOBE LIFE: Renewed Bid for Final Settlement Approval Filed
GOLDEN STAR: Has Issued Misleading Statements, Grobler Alleges
GOODFELLA'S PIZZA: Certification of Collective Action Sought
HERC HOLDINGS: Dismissal of Ramirez Suit Under Appeal

HERSHEY COMPANY: Faces Lee Suit in California Superior Court
HOWROYD-WRIGHT AGENCY: Holtegaard Labor Suit Moved to C.D. Calif.
HYATT CORPORATION: Bickerton Labor Suit Moved to W.D. Washington
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated NJ Suit Pending
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Bid to Dismiss Fergus Suit Underway

IREPAIR WIRELESS: Acevedo Seeks to Recover Minimum & OT Wages
IVERIC BIO: Discovery Ongoing in New York Consolidated Class Suit
JEROME GOLDEN: Bid for Class Certification Granted in Part
KETORO INC: Reaves Suit Seeks to Certify Class
KEURIG DR PEPPER: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit

KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORT: Court Awards Damages in Julian Class Suit
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORT: Rudsell Settlement Wins Final Approval
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORT: Settlement in Burnell Suit Wins Final Okay
LEGG MASON: Post Securities Suit Balks at Franklin Resources Sale
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Faces Springmeyer Suit Over Data Breach

MATCH GROUP: Candelore Suit Stayed Pending Appeal in Kim Suit
MATCH GROUP: Continues to Defend Crutchfield Class Action
MDL 1869: Burlington Unit Still Faces Fuel Surcharge Litigation
MICHIGAN STATE: Court Certifies 4 Settlement Classes
MID-MINNESOTA MGMT: Debt Collection Violates FDCPA, Sheets Claims

MONSANTO CO: Settlement Reached in Jones Lawsuit
NATIONWIDE RECOVERY: Placeholder Class Cert Bid Filed in O'Boyle
NAVIENT CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Class Suit in NJ Denied
NAVIENT CORP: Discovery Ongoing in Lord Abbett Class Suit
NAVIENT CORP: Suits Over Breach of Consumer Laws Ongoing

NEW PRIME: Court Partly Grants Conditional Class Certification
NEW YORK & CO: Sanchez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Briefing on Bid to Dismiss PERS Mississippi Done
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Baleja Bid for Class Certification Granted
OASIS PETROLEUM: Solomon Class Suit Against Subsidiary Ongoing

OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit
OC FLASH DANCERS: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Parrish Says
PERRIGO CO: Overarching Conspiracy-Related Suits Ongoing
POPULUS GROUP: Taylor Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California
PROMETHEUS GLOBAL: Suris Sues Over Deaf-Inaccessible Web Site

RA PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend UCB Merger-Related Suits
REALPAGE INC: McIntyre Seeks to Certify Class
RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Securities Suits Consolidated in Minnesota
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Certification of Class & Subclasses Sought
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Bankruptcy Plan Discharges Company of Any Claims

SANTANDER CONSUMER: Deka Class Action Still Stayed
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: April 27 Trial on Merits in Anderson Suit
SISU ENERGY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage Under FLSA, Saunders Says
SOUTHEAST RESTAURANT: Class Conditionally Certified in Holt Suit
SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Loses Appeal from Dismissal Order

SUNRUN INC: Continues to Defend Loftus Class Action Suit
TANDEM DIABETES: CH Sues Over Leak of Confidential Patient Data
TARGET ENTERPRISE: Carlson Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
TENNCARE: Certification of Class & Subclass Sought in A.M.C.
TIVITY HEALTH: Faces Strougo Class Suit in Tennessee

TIVITY HEALTH: May 2021 Trial Set in Oklahoma Firefighters Suit
TWENTY-ONE-EIGHTY-FIVE: Arndt Seeks to Certify Class Action
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Verhines Suit in California Super. Ct.
UNITED CAR SALES: Davidson Seeks to Enforce Provisions of MLA
UPMC: Doe Suit Over Electronic Health Records Removed to W.D. Pa.

UTAH DOC: Court Certifies Class of Inmates with Hep C
VERIZON AMERICAS: Parks FCRA Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
VIVINT INC: Dorn Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
WALGREEN PHARMACY: Le Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Pharmacists
WONOLO: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Umeh Suit Claims

YOUDERIAN LLC: Court Granted Final Approval of Settlement in Thomas

                            *********

24 HOUR FITNESS: Still Charges Clients Despite Closure, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, BRENDA LABIB, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 24 HOUR FITNESS USA. INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-02134-KAW (N.D. Cal., March 27, 2020)
stems from the Defendant's unconscionable decision to keep charging
its millions of customers monthly membership fees while closing
100% of its gyms as the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, rages
throughout the world and the United States economy has gone into a
deep recession.

On March 16, 2020, Defendant announced that it was closing all of
its gyms nationwide indefinitely, starting at midnight that night.
However, unlike most of its competitor gyms, Defendant continued
charging its millions of customers monthly fees -- at full price.
Defendant is able to unilaterally charge its millions of customers
monthly fees without their consent, as it is in possession of its
customers' debit and credit card information. Thus, Defendant has
made the deliberate decision to bilk its customers out of roughly
$120 million per month while its customers do not have access to
Defendant's gyms.

Ms. Labib is a current member at Defendant's 24 Hour Fitness gyms,
paying $46.99 per month on a month-to-month basis. Plaintiff has
been a month-to-month member since at least 2019.

24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. is an operator of over 430 gyms
nationwide, including gyms in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq.
            L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
            Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq.
            BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
            1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
            Walnut Creek, CA 94596
            Telephone: (925) 300-4455
            Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
            Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
                   ykrivoshey@bursor.com

                       – and –

            Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
            BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
            2665 S. Bayshore Dr., Suite 220
            Miami, FL 33133
            Telephone: (305) 330-5512
            Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
            Email: scott@bursor.com

ADTRADER INC: AdWords Advertiser Class Certified
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ADTRADER, INC., et al. v.
GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 5:17-cv-07082-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Beth Labson Freeman entered an order granting in part and denying
in part Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Court certifies Plaintiffs' AdWords Advertiser Class consisting
of:

   "all persons and entities: (1) whose Google AdWords
   advertiser accounts were subject to the Google Inc.
   Advertising Program Terms for the United States; (2) who were
   charged by Google through their AdWords accounts for clicks
   or impressions on advertisements appearing on any DoubleClick
   Ad Exchange publisher website at any time during the
   applicable limitations period; (3) who did not receive
   refunds or credits from Google even though it withheld
   payment to that publisher for those clicks or impressions in
   connection with any invalid activity or any breach of
   contract, including any policy violation; and (4) who opted
   out of the arbitration clause of the Terms."

The AdWords Advertiser class is certified for claims of breach of
the AdWords Agreement, violation of the False Advertising Law, and
violation of the Unfair Competition Law.

The Court also appoints Specialized Collections Bureau, Inc. as the
class representative of the AdWords Advertiser Class and Gaw Poe as
class counsel. The Court denies Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification of the other proposed classes.

The Plaintiffs AdTrader, Inc., Classic and Food EOOD, LML CONSULT
Ltd., Ad Crunch Ltd., and Specialized Collections Bureau, Inc. seek
to recover refunds from Google which Plaintiffs allege that Google
owes Plaintiffs and other advertisers.

ALCOA CORP: Trial in Quebec Class Action May Start by May 1
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that following a recent case management
conference in the class action in Quebec related to the Company's
Baie Comeau smelter, the court has ordered the parties to file a
new timetable to prepare the case for trial by May 1, 2020.

In August 2005, Dany Lavoie, a resident of Baie Comeau in the
Canadian Province of Quebec, filed a Motion for Authorization to
Institute a Class Action and for Designation of a Class
Representative against Alcoa Canada Ltd., Alcoa Limitee, Societe
Canadienne de Metaux Reynolds Limitee and Canadian British Aluminum
in the Superior Court of Quebec in the District of Baie Comeau,
alleging that defendants, as the present and past owners and
operators of an aluminum smelter in Baie Comeau, had negligently
allowed the emission of certain contaminants from the smelter on
the lands and houses of the St. Georges neighborhood and its
environs causing property damage and health concerns.

In May 2007, the court authorized a class action suit on behalf of
all people who suffered property or personal injury damages caused
by the emission of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from the
Company's aluminum smelter in Baie Comeau.

In September 2007, plaintiffs filed the claim against the original
defendants.  The Soderberg smelting operations that plaintiffs
allege to be the source of emissions of concern ceased operations
in 2013 and has been dismantled.  A court appointed expert, engaged
to perform analysis of the potential impacts from the emissions in
accordance with a sampling protocol agreed by the parties,
submitted its report to the court in May 2019.  The parties are
currently reviewing the results of the report with their own
experts.  During a recent case management conference, the court
ordered the parties to file a new timetable to prepare the case for
trial by May 1, 2020.

The Company said, "At this stage of the proceeding, we are unable
to reasonably predict an outcome or to estimate a range of
reasonably possible loss."

Based in New York, Alcoa Corporation engages in mining and
production of bauxite, alumina, and aluminum products. The company
was formerly known as Alcoa Upstream Corporation and changed its
name to Alcoa Corporation on October 31, 2016. The separation of
Alcoa Corporation from Alcoa Inc. (now Arconic Inc.) became
effective on November 1, 2016.


ALLSTATE CORP: Appeal from Class Certification Order Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the defendants in the case styled, In re The Allstate
Corp. Securities Litigation, regarding a lower court's ruling
granting plaintiffs' motion for class certification remains pending
in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, according to The Allstate
Corporation's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 21, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2019.

In re The Allstate Corp. Securities Litigation is a certified class
action filed on November 11, 2016 in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company and
two of its officers asserting claims under the federal securities
laws.  Plaintiffs allege that they purchased Allstate common stock
during the class period and suffered damages as the result of the
conduct alleged.  Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages,
costs, attorney's fees, and other relief as the court deems
appropriate.  Plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain senior
officers made allegedly material misstatements or omissions
concerning claim frequency statistics and the reasons for a claim
frequency increase for Allstate brand auto insurance between
October 2014 and August 3, 2015.

Plaintiffs further allege that a senior officer engaged in stock
option exercises during that time allegedly while in possession of
material nonpublic information about Allstate brand auto insurance
claim frequency.  The Company, its chairman, president and chief
executive officer, and its former president are the named
defendants.  After the court denied their motion to dismiss on
February 27, 2018, defendants answered the complaint, denying
plaintiffs' allegations that there was any misstatement or omission
or other misconduct.

On June 22, 2018, plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification, which was fully briefed as of January 11, 2019.

On September 12, 2018, the court allowed the lead plaintiffs to
amend their complaint to add the City of Providence Employee
Retirement System as a proposed class representative.

The amended complaint was filed the same day.

On March 26, 2019, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and certified a class consisting of all persons who
purchased Allstate common stock between October 29, 2014 and August
3, 2015.

On April 9, 2019, defendants filed with the Seventh Circuit Court
of Appeals a petition for permission to appeal this ruling pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (f) and the Court of Appeals
granted that petition on April 25, 2019.  The appeal was fully
briefed as of July 31, 2019, and the Seven Circuit Court of Appeals
heard oral argument on September 18, 2019.

The Allstate Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides
property and casualty, and other insurance products in the United
States and Canada. The company operates through Allstate
Protection, Service Businesses, Allstate Life, and Allstate
Benefits segments. The Allstate Corporation was founded in 1931 and
is headquartered in Northbrook, Illinois.


AMERICAN FINANCE: Appeal in St. Clair-Hibbard Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
American Finance Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the
appellate briefing in the class action suit initiated by Carolyn
St. Clair-Hibbard is ongoing.

On February 8, 2018, Carolyn St. Clair-Hibbard, a purported
stockholder of ours, filed a putative class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the company, AR Global, the Advisor, Nicholas S. Schorsch
and William M. Kahane.

On February 23, 2018, the complaint was amended to, among other
things, assert some claims on the plaintiff's own behalf and other
claims on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
shareholders of the company as a class. On April 26, 2018,
defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

On May 25, 2018, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The
second amended complaint alleges that the proxy materials used to
solicit stockholder approval of the Merger at our 2017 annual
meeting were materially incomplete and misleading.

The complaint asserts violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange
Act against us, as well as control person liability against the
Advisor, AR Global, and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane under 20(a). It
also asserts state law claims for breach of fiduciary duty against
the Advisor, and claims for aiding and abetting such breaches, of
fiduciary duty against the Advisor, AR Global and Messrs. Schorsch
and Kahane.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, rescission of our advisory
agreement (or severable portions thereof) which became effective
when the Merger became effective, and a declaratory judgment that
certain provisions of our advisory agreement are void.

The company believes the second amended complaint is without merit
and intend to defend vigorously. On June 22, 2018, defendants moved
to dismiss the second amended complaint.

On August 1, 2018, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants'
motions to dismiss. Defendants filed reply papers on August 22,
2018, and oral argument was held on September 26, 2018.

On September 23, 2019, the Court granted defendants' motions and
dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiff has appealed
that order. Appellate briefing is ongoing and oral argument on the
appeal is not yet scheduled.

American Finance said, "Due to the early stage of the litigation,
no estimate of a probable loss or any reasonably possible losses
are determinable at this time."

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

American Finance Trust, Inc. is a publicly traded real estate
investment trust listed on the Nasdaq focused on acquiring and
managing a diversified portfolio of primarily service-oriented and
traditional retail and distribution related commercial real estate
properties in the U.S. The company is based in New York, New York.


AMERICAN FINANCE: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing in Maryland
------------------------------------------------------------------
American Finance Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit in Maryland.

On January 13, 2017, four affiliated stockholders of Retail Centers
of America, Inc. (RCA)filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland a putative class action lawsuit against
the company, American Realty Capital - Retail Centers of America,
Inc. ("RCA"), Edward M. Weil, Jr., Leslie D. Michelson, Edward G.
Rendell (Weil, Michelson and Rendell, the "Director Defendants"),
and AR Global, alleging violations of Sections 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by RCA and the Director Defendants,
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by AR Global and
the Director Defendants, breaches of fiduciary duty by the Director
Defendants, and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty by
AR Global and the company in connection with the negotiation of and
proxy solicitation for a shareholder vote on what was at the time
proposed merger of RCA with and into one of the company's wholly
owned subsidiaries and merger of American Realty Capital Retail
Operating Partnership, L.P. with and into the OP (together, the
"Merger") and an amendment to RCA's charter.  

The complaint sought on behalf of the putative class rescission of
the Merger, which was voted on and approved by RCA stockholders on
February 13, 2017, and closed on February 16, 2017, together with
unspecified rescissory damages, unspecified actual damages, and
costs and disbursements of the action. RCA was sponsored and
advised by affiliates of the Advisor.

On April 26, 2017, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff. Lead
plaintiff, along with other stockholders of RCA, filed an amended
complaint on June 19, 2017. The amended complaint named additional
individuals and entities as defendants (David Gong, Stanley Perla,
Lisa Kabnick, all of whom were independent directors of ours at the
time of the Merger which closed on February 16, 2017 ("Additional
Director Defendants"), Nicholas Radesca, the company's chief
financial officer at the time of the Merger, and RCA's advisor),
added counts alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act in connection with the Registration Statement
for the proposed merger, under Section 13(e) of the Exchange Act,
and counts for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

The company, in addition to RCA, the Director Defendants, the
Additional Director Defendants and Nicholas Radesca deny wrongdoing
and liability and intend to vigorously defend the action.

On August 14, 2017, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. On March 29, 2018, the Court granted defendants' motion
to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint. On April 26, 2018,
the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court's order.

On March 11, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court
dismissing the complaint. On March 25, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a
Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, which was
subsequently denied on April 9, 2019.

American Finance said, "Due to the stage of the litigation, no
estimate of a probable loss or any reasonable possible losses are
determinable at this time. No provisions for such losses have been
recorded in the accompanying consolidated financial statements for
the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 or 2017."

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

American Finance Trust, Inc. is a publicly traded real estate
investment trust listed on the Nasdaq focused on acquiring and
managing a diversified portfolio of primarily service-oriented and
traditional retail and distribution related commercial real estate
properties in the U.S. The company is based in New York, New York.


AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks to Drop Shi Class Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. has filed a motion to dismiss the Lead
Plaintiff's amended complaint in the securities class action case
initially styled, Shi v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.

On August 25, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company
commenced a putative class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, captioned
Shi v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-cv-07476
(the "Securities Class Action").  Plaintiff in the Securities Class
Action alleges that the Company and certain of its current and
former officers violated the federal securities laws by
misrepresenting and/or omitting material information regarding the
AP-003 Phase III clinical trial of Ampion.

The plaintiff asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, on behalf of a
putative class of purchasers of the Company's common stock from
December 14, 2017 through August 7, 2018.  Plaintiff in the
Securities Class Action seeks unspecified damages, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.  

On September 27, 2019, the Court presiding over the Securities
Class Action issued an order appointing a Lead Plaintiff and Lead
Counsel, pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.
Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in late 2019.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February
10, 2020.  Plaintiffs' opposition is due in March and the Company
then has the right to file a reply.

Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on the development of therapies for the treatment of prevalent
inflammatory conditions in the United States. The company is
developing compounds that decrease inflammation by inhibiting
specific pro-inflammatory compounds. Its product pipeline includes
Ampion, an intra-articular injection for the treatment of
osteoarthritis of the knee. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is
headquartered in Englewood, Colorado.


ANDREW SAUL: Michener Seeks to Certify Class over Social Security
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as RANCES MICHENER v. ANDREW M.
SAUL, ET AL., Case No. 5:19-cv-04377-SVK (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to grant his Motion for Class Certification.

Plaintiff contends that his Motion for Class Certification is
unchallenged in most respects. Defendants do not challenge
numerosity or adequacy of representation and, therefore, concede
that Plaintiff has established those requirements under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a).  Plaintiff also asserts that a class action is
superior to the process of applying the same questions of law
differently in thousands of individual cases to people faced with
an identical question -- whether they will receive the full U.S.
Social Security benefits that they earned, or whether SSA will
deduct substantial amounts from that because they also receive
benefits from a country with which the United States has a
bilateral Social Security agreement, the suit says.

Defendants contend that the named Plaintiff is not typical because
the member class spans 28 different countries with separate
Totalization Agreements. However what Plaintiff, as representative
of the Estate of Steven Rosell, shares in common with all proposed
class members is that they received both SSA disability benefits
and benefits from a country with which the United States has a
bilateral Social Security agreement.

Thus, the suit further asserts that all putative class members
suffer the identical injury of having their Social Security
disability benefits reduced because they also receive benefits from
a country with which the United States has a bilateral Social
Security agreement.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          William F. Murphy, Esq.
          DILLINGHAM & MURPHY, LLP
          601 Montgomery Street, Suite 1900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 397-2700
          Facsimile: (415) 397-3300
          E-mail: wfm@dillinghammurphy.com

               - and -

          Jonathan M. Bruce, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN BRUCE, LLC
          17350 South Ridgeview Road
          Olathe, KS 66062
          Telephone: (859) 905-9678
          Facsimile: (513) 386-7311
          E-mail: bruce@jonathanbrucelaw.com

               - and -

          Aaron M. Bernay, Esq.
          FROST BROWN TODD LLC
          301 East Fourth Street
          Great American Tower Suite 3300
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 651-6831
          Facsimile: (513) 651-6981
          E-mail: abernay@fbtlaw.com

APOLLO GLOBAL: Named as Defendant in Amended Presidio Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, Inc. (AGM Inc.) is defending itself
against an amended class action complaint in the case styled,
Firefighters Pension System of City of Kansas City, Missouri Trust
v. Presidio, Inc. et al, related to the acquisition of Presidio,
Inc., according to AGM Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.

On October 21, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Presidio,
Inc. ("Presidio"), all of the members of Presidio's board of
directors (including five directors who are affiliated with
Apollo), and BC Partners Advisors L.P. and Port Merger Sub, Inc.
(together, "BCP") challenging the then-pending acquisition of
Presidio by BCP (the "Merger").

The action is captioned Firefighters Pension System of City of
Kansas City, Missouri Trust v. Presidio, Inc. et al, C.A.  No.
2019-0839-JTL.  The original complaint alleged that the Presidio
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
negotiation of the Merger and that the disclosures Presidio made in
its filings with the SEC in connection with the Merger omitted
material information, and that BCP aided and abetted those alleged
breaches.

On November 5, 2019, the Court of Chancery held a hearing on a
motion by plaintiffs to preliminarily enjoin the stockholder vote
and denied that motion.  

On January 28, 2020, following the closing of the Merger,
plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint, adding as
defendants AGM Inc. and AP VIII Aegis Holdings, L.P. (together, the
"Apollo Defendants") and LionTree Advisors, LLC (Presidio's
financial advisor in connection with the Merger).  The amended
complaint alleges, among other things, that the Presidio directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger, that
the filings with the SEC in connection with the Merger omitted
material information, that the Apollo Defendants were controlling
stockholders of Presidio and breached their alleged fiduciary
duties to Presidio's public stockholders, and that BCP, LionTree
and the Apollo Defendants aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary
duties.

The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, declaratory
relief, class certification, and unspecified money damages.  The
defendants have filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint.

Apollo believes the claims in this action are without merit.  The
Company further stated, "Because this action is in the early
stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be
made at this time."

Apollo Global Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment
manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and
sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and
individual investors. It manages client focused portfolios.  The
firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC.  Apollo
Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in
New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and
Europe


APOLLO GLOBAL: Request to Remand Fongers Class Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff's motion to remand the putative class action
initiated by Benjamin Fongers from the Northern District of
Illinois to the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, remains
pending, according to Apollo Global Management, Inc.'s Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.

On November 1, 2019, plaintiff Benjamin Fongers filed a putative
class action in Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, against
CareerBuilder, LLC ("CareerBuilder") and AGM Inc.

Plaintiff alleges that in March 2019, CareerBuilder changed its
compensation plan so that sales representatives such as Fongers
would (i) receive reduced commissions; and (ii) only be able to
receive commissions for accounts they originated that were not
reassigned to anyone else, a departure from the earlier plan.
Plaintiff also claims that the plan applied retroactively to
deprive sales representatives of commissions to which they were
earlier entitled.  Plaintiff alleges that AGM Inc. exercises
complete control over CareerBuilder and thus, CareerBuilder acts as
AGM Inc.'s agent.  Based on these allegations, Plaintiff alleges
claims against both defendants for breach of written contract,
breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, violation of the
Illinois Sales Representative Act, and violation of the Illinois
Wage and Payment Collection Act.

The defendants removed the action to the Northern District of
Illinois on December 5, 2019, and Plaintiff moved to remand on
January 6, 2020.  That motion has not yet been fully briefed.

The Company said, "Defendants' deadline to respond to the complaint
is 21 days after the court rules on the remand motion.  Apollo
believes the claims in this action are without merit.  Because this
action is in the early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible
loss, if any, can be made at this time."

Apollo Global Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment
manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and
sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and
individual investors. It manages client focused portfolios.  The
firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC.  Apollo
Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in
New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and
Europe.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Settlement of IDT IPO Suits Awaits Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the settlement of the class
action suits entitled, In re ADT Inc. Shareholder Litigation and
Perdomo v. ADT Inc., remains subject to court approval.

Five shareholders filed substantially similar putative class action
lawsuits in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in
and for Palm Beach County, Florida in March, April, and May 2018,
alleging violations of the Securities Act in connection with the
January 19, 2018 IPO of ADT Inc. common stock.  The actions were
consolidated on July 10, 2018, and the case was re-captioned In re
ADT Inc. Shareholder Litigation.

On August 24, 2018, the state-court plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint naming as defendants ADT Inc., several ADT officers and
directors, the IPO underwriters (including Apollo Global
Securities, LLC), AGM Inc. and certain other Apollo affiliates.
Plaintiffs generally allege that the registration statement and
prospectus for the IPO contained false and misleading statements
and failed to disclose material information about certain
litigation in which ADT was involved, ADT's efforts to protect its
intellectual property, and competitive pressures ADT faced.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint on
October 23, 2018, and those motions are fully briefed.

On May 21, 2018, a similar shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Florida, naming as defendants ADT, several officers and
directors, and AGM Inc. The federal action, captioned Perdomo v.
ADT Inc., generally alleges that the registration statement was
materially misleading because it failed to disclose ongoing
deterioration in ADT's financial results, along with certain
customer and business metrics.

On July 20, 2018, several alleged ADT shareholders filed competing
motions to be named lead plaintiff in the federal action.

On November 20, 2018, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, and on
January 15, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint names the same Apollo-affiliated defendants
as the state-court action, along with three new Apollo entities.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss on March 25, 2019, and those
motions are fully briefed.

On July 26, 2019, the state court denied defendants' motions to
dismiss, except it reserved judgment on the question whether it has
personal jurisdiction over certain defendants, including the Apollo
defendants.

On September 12, 2019, all parties to the state and federal actions
reached a settlement in principle that would resolve both actions.
The plaintiffs in the federal action voluntarily dismissed their
action on October 28, 2019, and the settlement will be submitted to
the state court for approval.  The settlement requires no payment
from any Apollo defendants.

Apollo Global Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment
manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and
sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and
individual investors. It manages client focused portfolios.  The
firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC.  Apollo
Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in
New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and
Europe


ARCONIC INC: Bid to Dismiss Howard Class Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Arconic Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the defendants motion to
dismiss filed in Howard v. Arconic Inc. et al., is pending.

A purported class action complaint related to the Grenfell Tower
fire was filed on August 11, 2017 in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against Arconic Inc.
and Klaus Kleinfeld.

A related purported class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on
September 15, 2017, under the caption Sullivan v. Arconic Inc. et
al., against Arconic Inc., three former Arconic executives, several
current and former Arconic directors, and banks that acted as
underwriters for Arconic's September 18, 2014 preferred stock
offering (the "Preferred Offering").

The plaintiff in Sullivan had previously filed a purported class
action against the same defendants on July 18, 2017 in the Southern
District of New York and, on August 25, 2017, voluntarily dismissed
that action without prejudice.

On February 7, 2018, on motion from certain putative class members,
the court consolidated Howard and Sullivan, closed Sullivan, and
appointed lead plaintiffs in the consolidated case. On April 9,
2018, the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated purported class
action filed a consolidated amended complaint.

The consolidated amended complaint alleged that the registration
statement for the Preferred Offering contained false and misleading
statements and omitted to state material information, including by
allegedly failing to disclose material uncertainties and trends
resulting from sales of Reynobond PE for unsafe uses and by
allegedly expressing a belief that appropriate risk management and
compliance programs had been adopted while concealing the risks
posed by Reynobond PE sales.

The consolidated amended complaint also alleged that between
November 4, 2013 and June 23, 2017 Arconic and Kleinfeld made false
and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information about the Company's commitment to safety, business and
financial prospects, and the risks of the Reynobond PE product,
including in Arconic's Form 10-Ks for the fiscal years ended
December 31, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, its Form 10-Qs and
quarterly financial press releases from the fourth quarter of 2013
through the first quarter of 2017, its 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016
Annual Reports, its 2016 Annual Highlights Report, and on its
official website.

The consolidated amended complaint sought, among other things,
unspecified compensatory damages and an award of attorney and
expert fees and expenses.

On June 8, 2018, all defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint for failure to state a claim. On June 21, 2019,
the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in full,
dismissing the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety
without prejudice.

On July 23, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint. The second amended complaint alleges generally the same
claims as the consolidated amended complaint with certain
additional allegations, as well as claims that the risk factors set
forth in the registration statement for the Preferred Offering were
inadequate and that certain additional statements in the sources
identified above were misleading.

The second amended complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified
compensatory damages and an award of attorney and expert fees and
expenses.

On September 11, 2019, all defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint. Plaintiffs' opposition to that motion was filed
by November 1, 2019 and all defendants filed a reply brief on
November 26, 2019.

Arconic said, "Given the preliminary nature of this matter and the
uncertainty of litigation, the Company cannot reasonably estimate
at this time the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the
possible loss or range of losses in the event of an unfavorable
outcome."

Arconic Inc. engineers, manufactures, and sells lightweight metals
worldwide. The company operate in three segments: Engineered
Products and Solutions, Global Rolled Products, and Transportation
and Construction Solutions. The company was founded in 1888 and is
based in New York, New York.


ARCONIC INC: May 7 Oral Argument on Bid to Dismiss Behrens Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arconic Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the court has set May 7,
2020 to hold oral argument on the defendants' motion to dismiss
filed in Behrens et al. v. Arconic Inc. et al.

As previously reported, on June 6, 2019, 247 plaintiffs comprised
of survivors and estates of decedents of the Grenfell Tower fire
filed a complaint against "Arconic Inc., Alcoa Inc. and Arconic
Architectural Products, LLC" (collectively, for purposes of the
description of such proceeding, the "Arconic Defendants"), as well
as Saint-Gobain Corporation, d/b/a Celotex and Whirlpool
Corporation, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County.

The complaint alleges claims under Pennsylvania state law for
products liability and wrongful death related to the fire.

In particular, the plaintiffs allege that the Arconic Defendants
knowingly supplied a dangerous product (Reynobond PE) for
installation on the Grenfell Tower despite knowing that Reynobond
PE was unfit for use above a certain height. The Arconic Defendants
removed the case to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 19, 2019.

On August 29, 2019, the Arconic Defendants moved to dismiss the
complaint on the bases, among other things, that: (i) the case
should be heard in the United Kingdom, not the United States; (ii)
there is no jurisdiction over necessary parties; and (iii)
Pennsylvania products liability law does not apply to manufacture
and sale of product overseas. On December 23, 2019, the Court
issued an order denying the motion to dismiss the complaint on
bases (ii) and (iii) and suggesting a procedure for limited
discovery followed by further briefing on those subjects.

Discovery is ongoing on defendants' motion to have the case
dismissed in favor of a UK forum (forum non conveniens).

On January 23, 2020, the Court ordered that the parties complete
discovery relating to forum non conveniens by March 16, 2020, and
that briefing conclude on April 13, 2020.

The Court will hold oral argument on this motion on May 7, 2020.

Arconic said, "Given the preliminary nature of this matter and the
uncertainty of litigation, the Company cannot reasonably estimate
at this time the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the
possible loss or range of losses in the event of an unfavorable
outcome."

Arconic Inc. engineers, manufactures, and sells lightweight metals
worldwide. The company operate in three segments: Engineered
Products and Solutions, Global Rolled Products, and Transportation
and Construction Solutions. The company was founded in 1888 and is
based in New York, New York.


BACTOLAC PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Faris TILA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bactolac
Pharmaceutical, Inc. The case is captioned as Jeffrey Faris,
Antonia Hampton, Raul Robles, and Kathleen Cannon, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bactolac
Pharmaceutical, Inc.; NaturMed, Inc., doing business as: Institute
for Vibrant Living; and Independent Vital Life, LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-01338-FB-PK (E.D.N.Y., March 12, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Frederic Block.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Truth in Lending Act.

Bactolac is a vitamin manufacturer in nutraceutical products and
services. The Company is a product development company, which
offers packaging solutions, label design and compliance, and
shipping strategies.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James Jackson Bilsborrow, Esq.
          Katherine Lauren Hansson, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG P.C.
          700 Broadway
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 558-5856
          Facsimile: (212) 344-5461
          E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com
                  khansson@weitzlux.com


BANKROLL CAPITAL: River Chiropractic Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ad
-----------------------------------------------------------------
River Chiropractic and Wellness, on behalf of itself and all those
similarly situated v. BANKROLL CAPITAL, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-00688 (N.D. Ohio, April 1, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
relating to unsolicited fax advertisement.

The TCPA prohibits the use of facsimile machines to send
unsolicited advertisement to businesses and individuals without the
express permission of the recipient, and which creates a private
right of action to redress violations thereof.

On July 24, 2018, the Plaintiff received a facsimile on its fax
machine from the Defendant. The Defendant has no employees in Ohio,
and the area code and number were spoofed (faked) and were
forwarded to a number in Orange County, CA, where the Defendant is
located. The Plaintiff says it had no business relationship with
Defendant, did not give Defendant its number, and had not consented
to be sent the fax. No opt out notice was provided as required on
all faxes. The Defendant continues to send similar facsimiles
nationwide without prior consent to do so, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an Ohio business entity engaged in providing
Chiropractic and health services.

The Defendant provides business loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald I. Frederick, Esq.
          Michael L. Berler, Esq.
          Michael L. Fine, Esq.
          FREDERICK & BERLER LLC
          767 East 185th Street
          Cleveland, OH 44119
          Phone: (216) 502-1055
          Fax: (216) 566-9400
          Email: ronf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
                 mikeb@clevelandconsumerlaw.com


BARING BDC: Appeal in Triangle Capital Securities Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barings BDC, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the appeal in the class
action suit entitled, In re Triangle Capital Corp. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 5:18-cv-00010-FL, is ongoing.

The Company and certain of its former executive officers have been
named as defendants in two putative securities class action
lawsuits, each filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (and then transferred to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina)
on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's common stock between May 7, 2014 and November 1, 2017.

The first lawsuit was filed on November 21, 2017, and was captioned
Elias Dagher, et al., v. Triangle Capital Corporation, et al., Case
No. 5:18-cv-00015-FL (the "Dagher Action").

The second lawsuit was filed on November 28, 2017, and was
captioned Gary W. Holden, et al., v. Triangle Capital Corporation,
et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-00010-FL (the "Holden Action").

The Dagher Action and the Holden Action were consolidated and are
currently captioned In re Triangle Capital Corp. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 5:18-cv-00010-FL.

On April 10, 2018, the plaintiff filed its First Consolidated
Amended Complaint. The complaint alleged certain violations of the
securities laws, including, among other things, that the defendants
made certain materially false and misleading statements and
omissions regarding the Company's business, operations and
prospects between May 7, 2014 and November 1, 2017.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs, among other relief, but did not specify the amount of
damages being sought.

On May 25, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On March 7, 2019 the court entered an order granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss.

On March 28, 2019, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to
file a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. On September 20,
2019, the court entered an order denying the plaintiff's motion for
leave to file a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint and
dismissing the action with prejudice.

On October 17, 2019, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal seeking
review of the court's September 20, 2019 order.

The plaintiff filed its opening brief with the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on January 6, 2020. The time for
the defendants to respond has not yet expired.

Barings BDC, Inc. is a business development company specializing in
private equity and mezzanine investments. Triangle Capital
Corporation was incorporated on October 10, 2006 and is based in
Raleigh, North Carolina.


CANCER GENETICS: Securities Suit in New Jersey Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Cancer Genetics, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on February 27, 2020, that
the court has granted the company's motion to dismiss the class
action suit entitled In re Cancer Genetics, Inc. Securities
Litigation.

On February 25, 2020, the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey granted Cancer Genetics, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss with prejudice a purported class action complaint filed on
April 5, 2018 against the Company and members of its management,
captioned In re Cancer Genetics, Inc. Securities Litigation.

The complaint alleged that the Company and members of its
management violated federal securities laws by making allegedly
false and misleading statements.

The Court's written order dismissed the case in its entirety with
prejudice, resulting in a termination of all claims.

The plaintiffs have not indicated whether they will appeal the
dismissal.

Cancer Genetics, Inc. develops, commercializes, and provides
molecular and biomarker-based tests and services in the United
States, Europe, and Asia. Cancer Genetics, Inc. was founded in 1999
and is based in Rutherford, New Jersey.

CASELLA WASTE: To Defend Against Vandemortel Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Casella Waste Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that it is still reviewing the class action
complaint initiated by Richard Vandemortel and Deb Vandemortel, and
intends to present a "vigorous" defense.

On or about September 17, 2019, Richard Vandemortel and Deb
Vandemortel filed a class action complaint against the Company on
behalf of similarly situated citizens in Ontario County, New York.

The lawsuit has been filed in Ontario County (the "New York
Litigation").  It alleges that over one thousand (1,000) citizens
constitute the putative class in the New York Litigation, and it
seeks damages for diminution of property values and infringement of
the putative class' rights to live without interference to their
daily lives due to odors emanating from the Ontario County
Landfill, which is operated by the Company pursuant to a long-term
Operation, Maintenance and Lease Agreement with Ontario County.
The New York Litigation was served on the Company on October 14,
2019.

The Company said, "We are reviewing the New York Litigation and
intend to present a vigorous defense."

Casella Waste Systems, Inc. provides integrated and non-hazardous
solid waste services throughout the Eastern United States. The
Company offers collection, transfer, disposal, and recycling
services, generates steam, and manufactures finished products
utilizing recyclable materials. The company is based in Rutland,
Vermont.


CBOE GLOBAL: Bats Global Still Defends Providence Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cboe Global Markets, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2019, that its wholly owned subsidiary Bats
Global Markets, Inc., now known as Cboe Bats, LLC, remains a
defendant in a securities class action lawsuit initiated by the
City of Providence, Rhode Island.

On April 18, 2014, the City of Providence, Rhode Island filed a
securities class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New
York against Bats and Direct Edge Holdings LLC, as well as 14 other
securities exchanges.  The action purports to be brought on behalf
of all public investors who purchased and/or sold shares of stock
in the United States since April 18, 2009 on a registered public
stock exchange ("Exchange Defendants") or a U.S.-based alternate
trading venue and were injured as a result of the alleged
misconduct detailed in the complaint, which includes allegations
that the Exchange Defendants committed fraud through a variety of
business practices associated with, among other things, what is
commonly referred to as high frequency trading.

On May 2, 2014 and May 20, 2014, American European Insurance
Company and Harel Insurance Co., Ltd. each filed substantially
similar class action lawsuits against the Exchange Defendants which
were ultimately consolidated with the City of Providence, Rhode
Island securities class action lawsuit.

On June 18, 2015, the Southern District of New York (the "Lower
Court") held oral argument on the pending Motion to Dismiss and
thereafter, on August 26, 2015, the Lower Court issued an Opinion
and Order granting Exchange Defendants' Motion to Dismiss,
dismissing the complaint in full.  Plaintiff filed a Notice of
Appeal of the dismissal on September 24, 2015 and its appeal brief
on January 7, 2016.  Respondent's brief was filed on April 7, 2016
and oral argument was held on August 24, 2016.  Following oral
argument, the Court of Appeals issued an order requesting that the
SEC submit an amicus brief on whether the Lower Court had
jurisdiction and whether the Exchange Defendants have immunity in
the claims alleged.  The SEC filed its amicus brief with the Court
of Appeals on November 28, 2016 and Plaintiff and the Exchange
Defendants filed their respective supplemental response briefs on
December 12, 2016.

On December 19, 2017, the Court of Appeals reversed the Lower
Court's dismissal and remanded the case back to the Lower Court.

On March 13, 2018, the Court of Appeals denied the Exchange
Defendants' motion for re-hearing.  The Exchange Defendants filed
their opening brief for their motion to dismiss May 18, 2018,
Plaintiffs' response was filed June 15, 2018 and the Exchange
Defendants' reply was filed June 29, 2018.

On May 28, 2019, the Lower Court issued an opinion and order
denying the Exchange Defendants' motion to dismiss.

On June 17, 2019, the Exchange Defendants filed a motion seeking
interlocutory appeal of the May 28, 2019 dismissal order, which was
denied July 16, 2019.  Exchange Defendants filed their answers on
July 25, 2019.

Cboe Global said, "Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings,
the Company is unable to estimate what, if any, liability may
result from this litigation.  However, the Company believes that
the claims are without merit and intends to litigate the matter
vigorously."

Cboe Global Markets, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
options exchange in the United States. It operates in five
segments: Options, U.S. Equities, Futures, European Equities, and
Global FX. Cboe Global Markets, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


CBOE GLOBAL: Court Dismissed VIX-Related Class Suit with Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
The federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois
has granted Cboe Global Markets, Inc.'s second motion to dismiss
the class action lawsuit related to the Cboe Volatility Index
methodology (VIX), and all counts against the Company were
dismissed with prejudice, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
21, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.

The Company also noted that the plaintiffs have indicated to the
federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois that
they intend to seek leave of the court to take an immediate
appeal.

On March 20, 2018, a putative class action complaint captioned
Tomasulo v. Cboe Exchange, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-02025 was filed
in federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois
alleging that the Company intentionally designed its products,
operated its platforms, and formulated the method for calculating
VIX and the Special Opening Quotation, (i.e., the special VIX value
designed by the Company and calculated on the settlement date of
VIX derivatives prior to the opening of trading), in a manner that
could be collusively manipulated by a group of entities named as
John Doe defendants.  A number of similar putative class actions,
some of which do not name the Company as a party, were filed in
federal court in Illinois and New York on behalf of investors in
certain volatility-related products.

On June 14, 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
centralized the putative class actions in the federal district
court for the Northern District of Illinois.

On September 28, 2018, plaintiffs filed a master, consolidated
complaint that is a putative class action alleging various claims
against the Company and John Doe defendants in the federal district
court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The claims asserted
against the Company consist of a Securities Exchange Act fraud
claim, three Commodity Exchange Act claims and a state law
negligence claim.  Plaintiffs request a judgment awarding class
damages in an unspecified amount, as well as punitive or exemplary
damages in an unspecified amount, prejudgment interest, costs
including attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses and such other
relief as the court may deem just and proper.

On November 19, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
master consolidated complaint and the plaintiffs filed their
response on January 7, 2019.  The Company filed its reply on
January 28, 2019.

On May 29, 2019, the federal district court for the Northern
District of Illinois granted the Company's motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' entire complaint against the Company.  The state law
negligence claim was dismissed with prejudice and the other claims
were dismissed without prejudice with leave to file an amended
complaint, which plaintiffs filed on July 19, 2019.

On August 28, 2019, the Company filed its second motion to dismiss
the amended consolidated complaint and plaintiffs filed their
response on October 8, 2019.

On January 27, 2020, the federal district court for the Northern
District of Illinois granted the Company's second motion to dismiss
and all counts against the Company were dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiffs have indicated to the federal district court for the
Northern District of Illinois that they intend to seek leave of the
court to take an immediate appeal.

Cboe Global said, "The Company currently believes that the claims
are without merit and intends to litigate the matter vigorously.
The Company is unable to estimate what, if any, liability may
result from this litigation."

Cboe Global Markets, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
options exchange in the United States. It operates in five
segments: Options, U.S. Equities, Futures, European Equities, and
Global FX. Cboe Global Markets, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


CIGNA CORP: Notice of Appeal Filed in Amara Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Cigna Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that plaintiffs in the class
action suit initiated by Janice Amara have filed a motion for an
equitable accounting and a notice of appeal.

In December 2001, Janice Amara filed a class action lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against Cigna
Corporation (now Old Cigna) and the Plan on behalf of herself and
other similarly situated Plan participants affected by the 1998
conversion to a cash balance formula.

The plaintiffs allege various violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), including that the Plan's
cash balance formula discriminates against older employees; that
the conversion resulted in a wear-away period (when the
pre-conversion accrued benefit exceeded the post-conversion
benefit); and that the Plan communications contained inaccurate or
inadequate disclosures about these conditions.

In 2008, the District Court (1) affirmed the Company's right to
convert to a cash balance plan prospectively beginning in 1998; (2)
found for plaintiffs on the disclosure claim only; and (3) required
the Company to pay pre-1998 benefits under the pre-conversion
traditional annuity formula and post-1997 benefits under the
post-conversion cash balance formula.

From 2008 through 2015, this case has undergone a series of court
proceedings that resulted in the original District Court Order
being largely upheld. In 2015, the Company submitted to the
District Court its proposed method for calculating the additional
pension benefits due to class members and plaintiffs responded in
August 2015.

Since then, there has been continued litigation regarding the
calculation of benefits and attorneys' fees and administration of
the remedy payments. On November 29, 2018, the Court ordered the
Pension Plan to pay attorneys' and incentive fees of $32 million,
and to pay any past due lump sums and back benefits within 90 days
of the Order.

The attorneys' fees were paid as ordered in December 2018. In the
first quarter of 2019, the Company amended the Plan, notified class
participants of their increased benefits and commenced remedy
benefit payments out of the Plan, including the past due lump sums
and back benefits.

In April 2019, plaintiffs challenged certain aspects of the
methodology used to calculate and pay benefits. In August 2019, the
Court denied plaintiffs' challenge in all but one minor respect
that did not result in a material change to the pension obligation.
The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration that the Court
denied on January 10, 2020. On January 15, 2020, plaintiffs filed a
motion for an equitable accounting and a notice of appeal.

Cigna Corporation, a health services organization, provides
insurance and related products and services in the United States
and internationally. It operates through Global Health Care, Global
Supplemental Benefits, Group Disability and Life, and Other
Operations segments. Cigna Corporation was founded in 1792 and is
headquartered in Bloomfield, Connecticut.


CITIGROUP INC: Bid to Drop Amended Allianz Suit in NY Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' second amended
complaint in the case styled, ALLIANZ GLOBAL INVESTORS, ET AL. v.
BANK OF AMERICA CORP., ET AL., remains pending, according to
Citigroup Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.

In 2018, a number of institutional investors who opted out of the
previously disclosed August 2018 final settlement filed an action
against Citigroup, Citibank, CGMI and other defendants, captioned
ALLIANZ GLOBAL INVESTORS, ET AL. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORP., ET AL.,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants manipulated, and colluded to
manipulate, the foreign exchange markets.  Plaintiffs assert claims
under the Sherman Act and unjust enrichment claims, and seek
consequential and punitive damages and other forms of relief.

In July 2019, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' second
amended complaint.

Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin
America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company
operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in
1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


CITIGROUP INC: Citibank Still Defends J Wisbey Suit in Australia
----------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that Citibank, N.A. (Citibank) continues to
defend itself in the putative class action styled, J WISBEY &
ASSOCIATES PTY LTD v. UBS AG & ORS, in Australia.

On May 27, 2019, a putative class action was filed against Citibank
and other defendants, captioned J WISBEY & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD v.
UBS AG & ORS, in the Federal Court of Australia.  Plaintiffs allege
that defendants manipulated the foreign exchange markets.
Plaintiffs assert claims under antitrust laws, and seek
compensatory damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.

Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin
America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company
operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in
1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


CITIGROUP INC: Settlement of Contant's Antitrust Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. has not provided updates in its Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, regarding the antitrust suit styled,
CONTANT, ET AL. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORP., ET AL.  The parties to
this case have previously obtained the Court's preliminary approval
of a settlement.

In 2017, putative classes of indirect purchasers of certain foreign
exchange instruments filed an action against Citigroup, Citibank,
Citicorp, CGMI and other defendants, captioned CONTANT, ET AL. v.
BANK OF AMERICA CORP., ET AL., in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix
currency prices.  Plaintiffs assert claims under the Sherman Act
and various state antitrust laws, and seek compensatory damages and
treble damages.

In July 2019, the court granted preliminary approval of a
settlement between plaintiffs and Citigroup, Citibank, Citicorp and
CGMI.

Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin
America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company
operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in
1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


CITIGROUP INC: Still Defends Allianz Lawsuit in London High Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. is still defending itself against an antitrust claim
filed by a group of institutional investors in the High Court in
London, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.

In December 2018, a group of institutional investors issued a claim
against Citibank, Citigroup and other defendants, captioned ALLIANZ
GLOBAL INVESTORS GMBH AND OTHERS v. BARCLAYS BANK PLC AND OTHERS,
in the High Court in London.

Claimants allege that defendants manipulated, and colluded to
manipulate, the foreign exchange market in violation of EU and U.K.
competition laws.

In July 2019, defendants responded to plaintiffs' claims, and in
September 2019, claimants filed their reply.

Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin
America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company
operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in
1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


CITIGROUP: NYPL Suit over Forex Market Manipulation Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that the Company is still facing antitrust
action styled, NYPL v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., ET AL.

In 2015, a putative class of consumers and businesses in the United
States who directly purchased supracompetitive foreign currency at
benchmark exchange rates filed an action against Citigroup and
other defendants, captioned NYPL v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., ET AL.,
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  Subsequently, plaintiffs filed a third amended class
action complaint, naming Citigroup, Citibank and Citicorp as
defendants.

Plaintiffs allege that they suffered losses as a result of
defendants' alleged manipulation of, and collusion with respect to,
the foreign exchange market.  Plaintiffs assert claims under
federal and California antitrust and consumer protection laws, and
seek compensatory damages, treble damages and declaratory and
injunctive relief.

The Company has previously disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the court has
denied plaintiffs' motion to reconsider the court's earlier denial
of plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint to add new
allegations concerning credit card, ATM, debit card, and wire
transactions.

Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin
America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company
operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in
1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


CORELOGIC INC: Petition for Review of Feliciano Cert. Order Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
CoreLogic, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Second Circuit Court
of Appeals has denied the petition for review of the certification
order in the class action suit entitled, Feliciano, et. al., v.
CoreLogic SafeRent, LLC.

In July 2017, Rental Property Solutions, LLC ("RPS") was named as a
defendant in Claudinne Feliciano, et al., v. CoreLogic SafeRent,
LLC, a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

The named plaintiff alleges that RPS prepared a background
screening report about her that contained a record of a New York
Housing Court action without noting that the action had previously
been dismissed.

On this basis, she seeks damages under the Fair Credit Reporting
Act and the New York Fair Credit Reporting Act on behalf of herself
and a class of similarly situated consumers with respect to reports
issued during the period of July 2015 to the present.

In July 2019, the District Court issued an order certifying a class
of approximately 2,000 consumers.

The company filed a petition for review of the certification order
to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which was denied in
November 2019.

CoreLogic, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides property
information, insight, analytics, and data-enabled solutions in
North America, Western Europe, and the Asia Pacific. The company
operates in two segments, Property Intelligence & Risk Management
Solutions (PIRM) and Underwriting & Workflow Solutions (UWS). The
company was formerly known as The First American Corporation and
changed its name to CoreLogic, Inc. in June 2010. CoreLogic, Inc.
was incorporated in 1894 and is headquartered in Irvine,
California.


CREDIT PROCESS: Amended Bid to Certify Class Granted
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as INNOVATIVE ACCOUNTING
SOLUTIONS, INC. v. CREDIT PROCESS ADVISORS, INC., et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-00793-PLM-PJG (W.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Paul L. Maloney
entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's amended motion to certify a class of;

      "all persons sent one or more telephone facsimile messages
      on April 23 or April 24, 2015 about a "Know Your Customer"
      seminar by Credit Process Advisors to be held on April 29,
      2015, at Hawthorne Suites of Troy, Michigan";

   2. appointing Plaintiff’s attorneys as class counsel; and

   3. directing Plaintiff to file a complete, unredacted copy of
      the fax transmission report that shows the fax numbers
      within 14 days of this order. Failure to do so may result
      in decertification of the class.

Innovative is a certified public accounting firm specializing in
tax, consulting, and outsourced bookeeping.

Credit Process offers credit risk management services.[CC]

CVS RX SERVICES: Cabrera Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as SIGFREDO CABRERA and ENKO, as
individuals, on behalf of themselves, and all other persons
similarly situated v. CVS RX SERVICES, INC., a New York
corporation, CVS PHARMACY, INC., a Rhode Island corporation,
GARFIELD BEACH CVS, LLC, a California limited liability company,
and DOES 1 to 10 inclusive, Case No. RG17870184 (Filed Aug. 3,
2017), was removed from the California Superior Court, County of
Alameda, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on March 12, 2020.

The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-02401-DDP-PJW to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to pay minimum
wage and overtime compensation and failed to provide legally
compliant meal and rest periods, in violation of the California
Labor Code.

The Defendants employed well over 3,700 persons in California as
non-exempt pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, pharmacy managers,
and/or pharmacy service associates, says the complaint.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Tyler R. Andrews, Esq.
          Roger L. Scott, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          316I Michelson Dr., Suite 1000
          Irvine, CA 92162
          Telephone: (949) 732-6500
          Facsimile: (949) 732-6501
          E-mail: andrewst@gtlaw.com
                  scottro@gtlaw.com


DATA MANAGEMENT: Mullins Seeks to Certify Collective Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Paul Mullins, On behalf of
himself and those similarly situated v. Data Management Co., et
al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00214-MWM (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying this action as a collective
      action under the Fair Labor Standards and designating
      Plaintiff as the representative of a class consisting of:

      "all current and former LaRosa's Pizza delivery drivers
      who worked at any location owned/operated by Defendants
      Data Management Co. and/or Tarik Daoud within the three
      years prior to the filing of this Class Action Complaint
      and the date of final judgment in this matter";

   2. approving the Plaintiff's proposed notices and methods
      of disseminating notice;

   3. directing the Defendants to provide contact information
      for all potential opt-in plaintiffs within 14 days of the
      court's order; and

   4. authorizing a 90-day opt-in period.

Mr. Mullins filed this lawsuit on behalf of the pizza delivery
drivers who work at Defendants' LaRosa's Pizza stores around the
country. He alleges that Defendants' pizza delivery drivers are all
employed according to the same terms: they receive minimum wage
minus a tip credit for all hours worked while completing
deliveries, they drive their own cars to deliver pizzas, and they
are not properly reimbursed for their automobile expenses.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Louise M. Roselle, Esq.
          Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
          Columbus, OH 43219
          Telephone: (614) 604-8759
          Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
          E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
                  akimble@billerkimble.com
                  lroselle@billerkimble.com
                  pkrzeski@billerkimble.com

DUBELL LUMBER: Heinz Renews Bid to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as BERNARD HEINZ v. DUBELL
LUMBER COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-08778-RBK-KMW, the Plaintiff filed
a renewed motion asking the Court to certify a class consisting
of:

   "all similarly situated former employees of Defendant DuBell
   Lumber Company terminated without 60 days' advance written
   notice as required by (1) the Worker Adjustment and
   Retraining Notification Act and (2) the New Jersey Millville
   Dallas Airmotive Plant Job Loss Notification Act."

Dubell Lumber Co. provides wood building materials. [CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Murphy, Esq.
          MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
          Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000
          1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 273-1054
          Facsimile: (215) 525-0210
          E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DAVID A. SMITH, PLLC
          500 Old Country Road, Suite 109
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 294-7301
          Facsimile: (516) 393-7594
          E-mail: dave153@aol.com

ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Dougherty Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Kevin L.
Dougherty v. Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., et al. (No.
16-cv-10089).

On January 12, 2016, a purported stockholder of the company filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, against the company and Tim
Mayleben, captioned Kevin L. Dougherty v. Esperion Therapeutics,
Inc., et al. (No. 16-cv-10089).

The lawsuit alleges that the company and Mr. Mayleben violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
SEC Rule 10b-5 by allegedly failing to disclose in an August 17,
2015, public statement that the FDA would require a cardiovascular
outcomes trial before approving the company's lead product
candidate.

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages in
connection with an allegedly inflated stock price between August
18, 2015, and September 28, 2015, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs.

On May 20, 2016, an amended complaint was filed in the lawsuit and
on July 5, 2016, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On December 27, 2016, the court granted the company's
motion to dismiss with prejudice and entered judgment in its favor.
On January 24, 2017, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit filed a motion
to alter or amend the judgment. In May 2017, the court denied the
plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment.

On June 19, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and on September 14, 2017, they
filed their opening brief in support of the appeal. The appeal was
fully briefed on December 7, 2017, and it was argued before the
Sixth Circuit on March 15, 2018.

On September 27, 2018, the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion in which
it reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded for further
proceedings. On October 11, 2018, the company filed a petition for
rehearing en banc and, on October 23, 2018, the Sixth Circuit of
Appeals directed plaintiffs to respond to that petition.

On December 3, 2018, the Sixth Circuit denied our petition for en
banc rehearing, and on December 11, 2018, the case was returned to
the federal district court by mandate from the Sixth Circuit.

On December 26, 2018, we filed our answer to the amended complaint,
and on March 28, 2019, we filed our amended answer to the amended
complaint.

Esperion said, "We are unable to predict the outcome of this matter
and are unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range
of loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable outcome."

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

Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., a lipid management company, focuses on
developing and commercializing oral therapies for the treatment of
patients with elevated low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C).
Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is
headquartered in Ann Arbor, Michigan.



ESTATES LLC: Williams Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as BRIAN C. WILLIAMS, et al. v.
THE ESTATES LLC, et al., Case 1:19-cv-01076-CCE-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the
Plaintiffs Brian C. Williams, Maricol Yunaira Tineo de Leon, and
Jairo Vensrique ask the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a National Sherman Act Class defined as:

      "all persons and entities whose properties were sold
      through foreclosure proceedings at which a Member of the
      Estates was the high bidder and at which the Estates
      placed the bid deposit on their behalf";

   2. certifying a North Carolina Subclass defined as:

      "all persons and entities whose properties were sold
      through foreclosure proceedings in North Carolina at which
      a Member of the Estates was the high bidder and at which
      the Estates placed the bid deposit on their behalf who
      have standing to bring North Carolina state law claims";

   3. approving distribution of the proposed short form notice
      and long form notice to all putative class members
      included in the class definitions; and

   4. appointing JC White Law Group and Blue LLP as co-Class
      Counsel or, in the event the Court defers certification to
      a later date, appointing their attorneys as co-Interim
      Counsel.

The Plaintiffs commenced this action on October 18, 2019. The
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants conspired to rig bids at public
foreclosure sales.

The Defendants are engaged in bid rigging business.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James C. White, Esq.
          J.C. WHITE LAW GROUP
          100 Europa Drive, Suite 401
          Chapel Hill, NC 27517
          Telephone: (919) 246-4676
          Facsimile: (919) 246-9113
          E-mail: jwhite@jcwhitelaw.com

               - and -

          Dhamian A. Blue, Esq.
          BLUE LLP
          205 Fayetteville Street, Suite 300
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Telephone: (919) 833-1931
          Facsimile: (919) 833-809
          E-mail: sdab@bluellp.com

FEDERAL SIGNAL: Discovery Issues to be Discussed on April 30
------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Signal Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a U.S. court has
directed the parties to appear on April 30, 2020, to address the
issue of discovery and other matters.

The Company has been sued for monetary damages by firefighters who
claim that exposure to the Company's sirens has impaired their
hearing and that the sirens are therefore defective.

There were 33 cases filed during the period of 1999 through 2004,
involving a total of 2,443 plaintiffs, in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois. These cases involved more than 1,800 firefighter
plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago.

In 2009, six additional cases were filed in Cook County, involving
299 Pennsylvania firefighter plaintiffs. During 2013, another case
was filed in Cook County involving 74 Pennsylvania firefighter
plaintiffs.

The trial of the first 27 of these plaintiffs' claims occurred in
2008, whereby a Cook County jury returned a unanimous verdict in
favor of the Company.

An additional 40 Chicago firefighter plaintiffs were selected for
trial in 2009. Plaintiffs' counsel later moved to reduce the number
of plaintiffs from 40 to nine. The trial for these nine plaintiffs
concluded with a verdict against the Company and for the plaintiffs
in varying amounts totaling $0.4 million. The Company appealed this
verdict.

On September 13, 2012, the Illinois Appellate Court rejected this
appeal. The Company thereafter filed a petition for rehearing with
the Illinois Appellate Court, which was denied on February 7, 2013.
The Company sought further review by filing a petition for leave to
appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court on March 14, 2013.

On May 29, 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a summary order
declining to accept review of this case. On July 1, 2013, the
Company satisfied the judgments entered for these plaintiffs, which
resulted in final dismissal of these cases.

A third consolidated trial involving eight Chicago firefighter
plaintiffs occurred during November 2011. The jury returned a
unanimous verdict in favor of the Company at the conclusion of this
trial.

Following this trial, on March 12, 2012 the trial court entered an
order certifying a class of the remaining Chicago Fire Department
firefighter plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether the
Company’s sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous.

The Company petitioned the Illinois Appellate Court for
interlocutory appeal of this ruling. On May 17, 2012, the Illinois
Appellate Court accepted the Company's petition. On June 8, 2012,
plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal, agreeing with the Company
that the trial court had erred in certifying a class action trial
in this matter. Pursuant to plaintiffs' motion, the Illinois
Appellate Court reversed the trial court's certification order.

Thereafter, the trial court scheduled a fourth consolidated trial
involving three firefighter plaintiffs, which began in December
2012. Prior to the start of this trial, the claims of two of the
three firefighter plaintiffs were dismissed. On December 17, 2012,
the jury entered a complete defense verdict for the Company.

Following this defense verdict, plaintiffs again moved to certify a
class of Chicago Fire Department plaintiffs for trial on the sole
issue of whether the Company's sirens were defective and
unreasonably dangerous.

Over the Company's objection, the trial court granted plaintiffs'
motion for class certification on March 11, 2013 and scheduled a
class action trial to begin on June 10, 2013. The Company filed a
petition for review with the Illinois Appellate Court on March 29,
2013 seeking reversal of the class certification order.

On June 25, 2014, a unanimous three-judge panel of the First
District Illinois Appellate Court issued its opinion reversing the
class certification order of the trial court.

Specifically, the Appellate Court determined that the trial court's
ruling failed to satisfy the class-action requirements that the
common issues of the firefighters' claims predominate over the
individual issues and that there is an adequate representative for
the class.

During a status hearing on October 8, 2014, plaintiffs represented
to the Court that they would again seek to certify a class of
firefighters on the issue of whether the Company's sirens were
defective and unreasonably dangerous.

On January 12, 2015, plaintiffs filed motions to amend their
complaints to add class action allegations with respect to Chicago
firefighter plaintiffs, as well as the approximately 1,800
firefighter plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago. On March
11, 2015, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ motions to amend
their complaints.

On April 24, 2015, the cases were transferred to Cook County
chancery court, which will decide all class certification issues.

On March 23, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify as a class
all firefighters from the Chicago Fire Department who have filed
lawsuits in this matter. The parties have requested discovery from
each other related to this motion.

The court has directed the parties to appear on April 30, 2020 to
address the issue of discovery and other matters. The Company
intends to continue its objections to any attempt at
certification.

Federal Signal Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
designs, manufactures, and supplies a suite of products and
integrated solutions for municipal, governmental, industrial, and
commercial customers in the United States, Canada, Europe, and
internationally. It operates through two segments, Environmental
Solutions Group and Safety and Security Systems Group. Federal
Signal Corporation was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Oak
Brook, Illinois.


FITBIT INC: Accord in Sleep Tracking Device Suit Wins Final OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitbit, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that court granted final
approval of the settlement in the Sleep Tracking Device-related
suit.

On May 8, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging that the sleep tracking function available in
certain trackers does not perform as advertised.

Plaintiffs sought class certification, restitution, unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, and reasonable costs and
expenses including attorneys' fees.

On January 31, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was
granted on November 20, 2017. On April 20, 2017, the Company filed
a motion for summary judgment, which the court denied on December
8, 2017.

The parties subsequently agreed to a settlement, and on August 1,
2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
class action settlement. At the hearing on September 13, 2018, the
court denied preliminary settlement approval without prejudice and
ordered revised settlement papers be filed.

On November 29, 2018, the court granted preliminary settlement
approval and the final approval hearing was scheduled for August 1,
2019. On May 10, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a request for
attorneys' fees and expenses. The Company opposed that request.

At the hearing on August 1, 2019, the court asked the parties to
submit a re-notice plan in order to achieve a higher claims rate.
On the fee request, the court offered the plaintiffs alternative
conditions, and on August 18, 2019, the plaintiffs filed their fee
election, opting for a 90% reduction of challenged fees and
expenses.

The re-notice plan was approved on October 16, 2019, and the
re-notice resulted in approximately 80,000 more claims, for a total
of approximately 141,000 claims.

The court granted final approval of the settlement on February 6,
2020, in an amount that is not material to the Company. The court
has not yet ruled on plaintiffs' request for fees and expenses.

Fitbit, Inc., incorporated on March 26, 2007, is a provider of
health and fitness devices. The Company's platform combines
connected health and fitness devices with software and services,
including an online dashboard and mobile applications, data
analytics, motivational and social tools, personalized insights and
virtual coaching through customized fitness plans and interactive
workouts. Its platform includes family of wearable connected health
and fitness trackers. The company is based in San Francisco,
California.


FITBIT INC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Calif. Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitbit, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the court has not yet
issued a ruling on the company's motion to dismiss filed in the
consolidated class action suit pending before the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

On November 1, 2018, a putative securities class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended arising out of alleged
materially false and misleading statements about the Company's
guidance for the fourth quarter of 2016 and full fiscal year 2016
that was provided during the third and fourth quarters of 2016.

On November 15, 2018, a second putative securities class action was
filed in the same court alleging similar claims against the same
defendants.

On April 25, 2019, the two actions were consolidated, and a
consolidated amended class action complaint was filed on June 24,
2019. The consolidated complaint also alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act against the Company and
certain officers relating to the Company's 2016 guidance, on behalf
of a putative class of stockholders who purchased Fitbit stock from
August 2, 2016 through January 30, 2017.

Plaintiffs seek class certification, unspecified compensatory
damages, and reasonable costs and expenses including attorneys'
fees.

On August 23, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. The
January 8, 2020 hearing was taken off calendar. The court has not
issued a ruling.

The Company believes that the plaintiffs’ allegations are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. Because
the Company is in the early stages of this litigation matter, the
Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range
of loss, if any, that may result from this matter.

Fitbit, Inc., incorporated on March 26, 2007, is a provider of
health and fitness devices. The Company's platform combines
connected health and fitness devices with software and services,
including an online dashboard and mobile applications, data
analytics, motivational and social tools, personalized insights and
virtual coaching through customized fitness plans and interactive
workouts. Its platform includes family of wearable connected health
and fitness trackers. The company is based in San Francisco,
California.


FORTERRA INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for April 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
Forterra, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a New York court will
hold a hearing April 29, 2020, to consider final approval of the
settlement in a securities class action.

Beginning on August 14, 2017, four plaintiffs filed putative class
action complaints in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against various defendants. On July
27, 2018, an order was entered consolidating the lawsuits into a
single action (the "Securities Action"), and transferring the venue
of the case from the Eastern District of New York to the Northern
District of Texas. Pursuant to an agreed scheduling order,
plaintiffs in the Securities Action filed their Consolidated
Amended Complaint on November 30, 2018.

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

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

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

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

On November 4, 2019, the parties to the Securities Action entered
into a settlement agreement that is intended to fully and finally
resolve all claims in the Securities Action.

On January 4, 2020, the court issued an order granting preliminary
approval for the settlement and providing for notice.

Approval of the settlement in the Securities Action is set for
final hearing on April 29, 2020, but approval cannot be guaranteed.
The terms of the settlement are expected to be paid by the
Company's insurance.

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


FTS INTERNATIONAL: Writ of Mandamus Filed in Glock Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
FTS International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a Petition for Writ
of Mandamus has been filed in the class action suit initiated by
Carol Glock.

On February 22, 2019, Carol Glock filed a purported securities
class action in the 160th Civil District Court of Dallas County,
Texas (Cause No. DC-19-02668) against the Company, certain of its
officers, directors and stockholders, and certain of the
underwriters of the company's initial public offering (IPO).

The petition is brought on behalf of an alleged class of persons or
entities who purchased the company's common stock in or allegedly
traceable to its IPO, and purports to allege claims arising under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The
petition generally alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws relating to the disclosure in the registration
statement and prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the company's IPO.

The petition seeks, among other relief, class certification,
damages in an amount in excess of $1.0 million, and reasonable
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.

The Company has insurance coverage on this matter and has hired
counsel to vigorously defend the case, but several of the Company's
co-defendants have tendered requests for indemnification that are
not covered by the Company's insurance. The Company has agreed to
indemnify the IPO underwriter co-defendants. The Company is
otherwise analyzing these indemnification requests.

Defendants Special Exceptions to the petition requesting dismissal
if the defects cannot be cured were overruled on November 22, 2019,
but Defendants are appealing this ruling through a Petition for
Writ of Mandamus which was filed on February 12, 2020.

FTS International said, "While the outcome of this case is
uncertain, we do not expect the ultimate resolution of this case to
have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial
statements."

FTS International, Inc. provides hydraulic fracturing services in
North America. Its services enhance hydrocarbon flow from oil and
natural gas wells drilled by exploration and production companies
(E&P), in shale and other unconventional resource formations. FTS
International, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in
Fort Worth, Texas.


GARFIELD BEACH: Bolivar Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE DORIA BOLIVAR, an individual v. GARFIELD BEACH CVS, L.L.C., a
California Limited Liability Company; THOMAS S. MOFFATT, an
individual; PAUL STUMPE, an individual; and DOES 1 through 30,
inclusive, Case No. 20STCV09979 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
March 11, 2020), seeks to restore wages, which the Defendants have
allegedly failed to pay to the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees, in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that he was not being properly paid overtime
and that employees were not being properly paid for all hours
worked. Employees would perform work for the Defendants while off
the clock and would not receive compensation for these "off the
clock" hours. He adds that he worked an average of 5-10 overtime
hours a week and he typically was not compensated for these
overtime hours worked.

In April of 2014, the Plaintiff began working at the Defendants'
CVS location at 1747 N. Cahuenga Blvd., in Los Angeles,
California.

The Defendants provide medical supplies and equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gavril T. Gabriel, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF GAVRIL T. GABRIEL
          8255 Firestone Blvd., Suite 209
          Downey, CA 90241
          Telephone: (562)758-8210
          Facsimile: (562)758-8219
          E-mail: GGabriel@GTGLaw.org


GARY LANIGAN: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in Rashid Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CHARLES RASHID, et al. v.
GARY LANIGAN, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-02805-FLW-TJB (D.N.J.), the
Hon. Judge Freda L. Wolfson entered an order denying Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs, pro se prisoners, cannot
adequately and fairly represent the interests of the putative class
members.

The case has been opened to the Court by pro se prisoner plaintiffs
Charles Rashid, Ibn Pasha and William McCray, who are practicing
Muslims.[CC]


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Awaits 11th Cir.'s Decision in TVPX ARX Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the plaintiff's
appeal and the company's cross-appeal in the class action suit
entitled, TVPX ARX INC., as Securities Intermediary for
Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance
Company, is now fully briefed and waiting for disposition by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

In September 2018, Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company
("GLAIC"), the company's indirect wholly-owned subsidiary,, was
named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit pending in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia captioned TVPX ARX INC., as Securities Intermediary for
Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance
Company.

Plaintiff alleges unlawful and excessive cost of insurance charges
were imposed on policyholders. The complaint asserts claims for
breach of contract, alleging that Genworth improperly considered
non-mortality factors when calculating cost of insurance rates and
failed to decrease cost of insurance charges in light of improved
expectations of future mortality, and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, costs, and equitable relief.

On October 29, 2018, the company filed a motion to enjoin the case
in the Middle District of Georgia, and a motion to dismiss and
motion to stay in the Eastern District of Virginia. The company
moved to enjoin the prosecution of the Eastern District of Virginia
action on the basis that it involves claims released in a prior
nationwide class action settlement that was approved by the Middle
District of Georgia.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 13, 2018. On
December 6, 2018, the company moved the Middle District of Georgia
for leave to file its counterclaim, which alleges that plaintiff
breached the covenant not to sue contained in the prior settlement
agreement by filing its current action.

On March 15, 2019, the Middle District of Georgia granted the
company's motion to enjoin and denied its motion for leave to file
its counterclaim. As such, plaintiff is enjoined from pursuing its
class action in the Eastern District of Virginia.

On March 29, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the Middle
District of Georgia, notifying the Court of its appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from the
order granting the company's motion to enjoin.

On March 29, 2019, the company filed its notice of cross-appeal in
the Middle District of Georgia, notifying the Court of its
cross-appeal to the Eleventh Circuit from the portion of the order
denying its motion for leave to file its counterclaim.

On April 8, 2019, the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the
case without prejudice, with leave for plaintiff to refile an
amended complaint only if a final appellate Court decision vacates
the injunction and reverses the Middle District of Georgia’s
opinion. On May 21, 2019, plaintiff filed its appeal and memorandum
in support in the Eleventh Circuit.

The company filed its response to plaintiff's appeal memorandum on
July 3, 2019. Plaintiff's appeal and the company's cross-appeal are
now fully briefed and waiting for disposition by the Eleventh
Circuit.

Genworth said, "We intend to continue to vigorously defend the
dismissal of this action."

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

Genworth Financial, Inc. provides insurance and homeownership
solutions in the United States and internationally. It operates
through five segments: U.S. Mortgage Insurance, Canada Mortgage
Insurance, Australia Mortgage Insurance, U.S. Life Insurance, and
Runoff. Genworth Financial, Inc. was founded in 1871 and is
headquartered in Richmond, Virginia.


GLOBE LIFE: Renewed Bid for Final Settlement Approval Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Globe Life Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the plaintiffs in the
case, Joh v. American Income Life Insurance Company/Hamilton v.
American Income Life Insurance Company, have filed a renewed Motion
for Final Settlement Approval.

On September 12, 2018, putative class action litigation was filed
against American Income Life Insurance Company (American Insurance
Life) in California's Contra Costa County Superior Court (Joh v.
American Income Life Insurance Company, Case No. C18-01863) (Joh
Action).

An amended complaint was filed on October 18, 2018. American Income
Life removed the case to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (Case No. 3:18-cv-06364-TSH).

A second amended complaint was filed on May 20, 2019. The
plaintiffs, former insurance sales agents of American Income Life,
are suing on behalf of all current and former trainees and sales
agents who sold insurance for American Income Life in the State of
California for the four years prior to the filing of the complaint.


The second amended complaint alleges that such individuals are
employees and asserts claims under the California Labor Code,
California Business and Professions Code, and California Private
Attorney General Act.

The complaint seeks compensatory damages, penalties and attorney
fees on claims for failure to pay wages/commissions, failure to
appropriately pay agents at termination, failure to provide
itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse expenses,
misclassification and unfair business practices.

On October 18, 2018, putative class action litigation was filed
against Torchmark Corporation and American Income Life in
California’s Los Angeles County Superior Court (Golz v. American
Income Life Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 18STCV01354) (Golz
Action).

American Income Life removed the case to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California (Case No.
2:18-cv-09879 R (SSx)).

An amended complaint was filed on February 5, 2019. On February 6,
2019, Torchmark Corporation was dismissed without prejudice and the
case proceeded with respect to American Income Life. On April 2,
2019, the District Court granted American Income Life's motion to
dismiss four of the five causes of action asserted.

The amended complaint's remaining claim alleges that plaintiff, as
an American Income Life insurance agent trainee in California, was
an employee who should have been compensated accordingly.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of individuals in
California who trained to contract as American Income Life agents
and who subsequently worked as contracted agents. The class period
is alleged to begin four years prior to the complaint's filing.

The complaint seeks restitution under the California Business and
Professions Code for alleged unfair business practices such as
failure to pay minimum wage and overtime, failure to provide meal
and rest breaks, and failure to reimburse business expenses.

On December 14, 2018, putative class action litigation was filed
against American Income Life in United States District Court for
the Northern District of California (Hamilton v. American Income
Life Insurance Company, Case No. 4:18-cv-7535-KAW) (Hamilton
Action). An amended complaint was filed on January 23, 2019.

The plaintiffs, former insurance sales agents of American Income
Life, are suing on behalf of all current and former trainees and
sales agents who sold insurance for American Income Life in the
State of California for the last four years prior to the filing of
the complaint.

The lawsuit alleges that putative class members are employees and
asserts claims under the California Labor Code, California Business
and Professions Code, and California Private Attorney General Act.


The complaint seeks compensatory damages, penalties and attorney
fees on claims for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime,
failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to appropriately
pay agents at termination, failure to provide itemized wage
statements, failure to reimburse expenses, misclassification and
unfair business practices.

On January 16, 2019, putative class action litigation was filed
against American Income Life in Orange County, California Superior
Court (Putros v. American Income Life Insurance Company, Case No.
30-2019-01044772-CU-OE-CXC) (Putros Action). An amended complaint
was filed on January 22, 2019.

The plaintiff, a former insurance sales agent of American Income
Life, sued on behalf of all current and former sales agents who
sold insurance for American Income Life in the State of California
for the year prior to the filing of the complaint.

The lawsuit alleged that American Income Life sales agents were
employees and asserted claims under the California Private Attorney
General Act.

The complaint sought penalties for failure to pay minimum wage,
failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to appropriately
pay agents at termination, failure to provide itemized wage
statements, failure to reimburse expenses, and misclassification.
The case was dismissed on November 20, 2019.

With respect to the related cases, on August 1, 2019, Plaintiffs in
the Joh/Hamilton Actions jointly moved for preliminary approval of
a settlement of all class and representative claims—which broadly
covers "all individuals who trained to become and/or worked as
sales agents in California for Defendant during the last four years
prior to the filing of the original Complaint in Joh and whose
training and/or work began before the date of preliminary approval
of this Settlement."

Plaintiffs' preliminary motion anticipated that the proposed
settlement would resolve all claims in Joh and Hamilton, and in
doing so, encompass all pending claims asserted in Putros and Golz.


On August 16, 2019, the Northern District of California granted the
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and
scheduled a hearing for final approval of the settlement for
January 9, 2020.

The Court denied final approval of the class settlement but invited
plaintiff’s counsel to submit a renewed Motion for Final
Settlement Approval to address certain issues the court had raised
during the final approval hearing.

On February 20, 2020, Plaintiffs in the Joh/Hamilton Actions filed
a renewed Motion for Final Settlement Approval.

Globe Life Inc. (formerly Torchmark Corporation), incorporated on
November 29, 1979, is an insurance holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, provides a range of life and health
insurance products and annuities to a base of customers. The
Company's segments include life insurance, health insurance,
annuities and investment. The life insurance segment includes
traditional and interest-sensitive whole life insurance as well as
term life insurance. Effective August 8, 2019, Torchmark
Corporation changed its corporate name to Globe Life Inc. The
company is based in McKinney, Texas.


GOLDEN STAR: Has Issued Misleading Statements, Grobler Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Grobler, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GOLDEN STAR RESOURCES LTD., SAM COETZER, ANDREW WRAY,
DANIEL OWERIDU, and ANDRE VAN NIEKERK, Case No. 2:20-cv-03047 (C.D.
Cal., April 1, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by publishing false and misleading
statements to artificially inflate the Company's stock price.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Golden Star common stock on the New
York Stock Exchange American from February 20, 2019, through July
30, 2019, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Substantially all the Company's revenue is generated through two
underground mines called Wassa and Prestea. Prior to the start of
the Class Period, the Prestea mine, which had previously not been
in commercial operation for over 15 years, was experiencing
operational issues that were negatively affecting the mine's
performance. Specifically, Golden Star claimed that Prestea was
performing poorly because of various issues related to drilling and
blasting and positioning of equipment.

As a result of Prestea's issues, Golden Star completed an
operational review of the Prestea mine in September 2018, whereby,
the Company supposedly implemented significant changes to improve
the mine's performance, including changes to its drilling
techniques and training of its workforce. At the start of the Class
period, Golden Star claimed that the operational changes and
"right-sizing" of the Prestea mine were "complete." The Company
also repeatedly claimed that it was seeing "tremendous improvement"
in the operational metrics and performance of the Prestea mine and
that previous "blasting" issues had been rectified, stating that
"we had issues with blasting and we've got over those issues and we
are blasting consistently now."

In reality, however, Golden Star's statements about improvements at
Prestea were false, and the Company's financial guidance for both
Prestea and Wassa was baseless, according to the complaint.
Investors learned the truth on July 31, 2019, when Golden Star
announced disappointing second quarter 2019 financial results
whereby the Company was forced to materially cut its production
guidance and increase its cash operating cost estimates. In doing
so, the Company admitted that a laundry list of issues had
negatively impacted its mines, including the use of insufficient
geological and geotechnical data and poor drilling strategies and
techniques, such as continued improper "blasting."

In reaction to the Company's shocking disclosures, Golden Star's
stock price declined $0.75 per share, or 17%, from a closing price
of $4.30 per share on July 30, 2019, to a closing price of $3.55
per share on July 31, 2019, wiping out tens of millions in market
capitalization on unusually high trading volume. The Plaintiff and
the other Class members have suffered significant damages due to
Defendants' false and misleading statements and omissions, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Company's securities at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.

Golden Star is a mid-tier gold mining company with operating mines
located in Ghana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
          Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


GOODFELLA'S PIZZA: Certification of Collective Action Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MEGHAN MARIE NEIRA,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v.
GOODFELLA'S PIZZA, INC. and AARON FOX, Case No. 1:19-cv-280-MOC-WCM
(W.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying this case as collective action
      and authorizing to send initial and subsequent Court-
      supervised Notices to:

      "all current and former pizza delivery drivers employed by
      Defendants from three years prior to the entry of an Order
      granting the instant Motion to the present";

   2. approving her proposed Notice of Collective Action Lawsuit
      and the corresponding Consent to Become Party Plaintiff
      form;

   3. granting her leave to send initial and subsequent notices
      to Potential Plaintiffs, containing the Court's approved
      Notice of Collective Action Lawsuit and corresponding
      Consent to Become Party Plaintiff form and a postage-paid
      return envelope addressed to Named Plaintiff's counsel;

   4. approving a 75-day "opt-in period," during which Potential
      Plaintiffs may choose to opt-in to this suit by returning
      a signed Consent to Become Party Plaintiff form by mail,
      electronic mail, or facsimile to Named Plaintiff's
      counsel; and

   5. compelling Defendants to produce to Plaintiff's counsel,
      within 10 days of the entry of the order, a computer-
      readable data file containing the names, addresses,
      telephone numbers, and email address of all Potential
      Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiff seeks payment of unpaid minimum wages and overtime
wages owed to her and other similarly situated employees due to
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Goodfella's Pizza is in restaurant business.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob J. Modla, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JASON E. TAYLOR
          454 South Anderson Rd., No. 303
          Rock Hill, SC 29730
          Telephone: 803-328-0898
          E-mail: jmodla@jasonetaylor.com

               - and -

          Jay Forester, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          400 N St Paul St, Ste 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 210-2100
          Facsimile: (214) 346-5909
          E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com

HERC HOLDINGS: Dismissal of Ramirez Suit Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------
Herc Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the plaintiff in Pedro
Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., filed a notice
of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

In November 2013, a putative shareholder class action, Pedro
Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commenced
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey naming
Hertz Holdings and certain of its officers as defendants and
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

The complaint alleged that Hertz Holdings made material
misrepresentations and/or omission of material fact in its public
disclosures during the period from February 25, 2013 through
November 4, 2013, in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The complaint sought unspecified monetary
damages on behalf of the purported class and an award of costs and
expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

In June 2014, Hertz Holdings moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. In October 2014, the court granted Hertz Holdings'
motion to dismiss without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to
amend the complaint a second time. In November 2014, plaintiff
filed a second amended complaint which shortened the putative class
period and made allegations that were not substantively very
different than the allegations in the prior complaint. In early
2015, Hertz Holdings moved to dismiss the second amended complaint.


In July 2015, the court granted Hertz Holdings' motion to dismiss
without prejudice, allowing plaintiff to file a third amended
complaint. In August 2015, plaintiff filed a third amended
complaint which included additional allegations, named additional
then-current and former officers as defendants and expanded the
putative class period to extend from February 14, 2013 to July 16,
2015. In November 2015, Hertz Holdings moved to dismiss the third
amended complaint. The plaintiff then sought leave to add a new
plaintiff because of challenges to the standing of the first
plaintiff. The court granted plaintiff leave to file a fourth
amended complaint to add the new plaintiff, and the new complaint
was filed on March 1, 2016.

Hertz Holdings and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the
fourth amended complaint with prejudice on March 24, 2016. In April
2017, the court granted Hertz Holdings' and the individual
defendants' motions to dismiss and dismissed the action with
prejudice.

In May 2017, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and, in June 2018,
oral argument was conducted before the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit. In September 2018, the court affirmed the
dismissal of the action with prejudice. On February 5, 2019,
plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the judgment against it, and
for leave to file a fifth amended complaint.  

The proposed amended complaint would add allegations related to the
settlement with the SEC that, among other things, ordered New Hertz
to cease and desist from violating certain of the federal
securities laws and imposed a civil penalty of $16.0 million. On
February 26, 2019, New Hertz filed an opposition to plaintiff's
motion for relief from judgment and leave to file a fifth amended
complaint. On March 8, 2019, plaintiff filed a reply in support of
that motion.

On September 30, 2019, the court denied plaintiff's motion for
relief from judgment and leave to file a fifth amended complaint.
On October 30, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the
Third Circuit.

Herc Holdings Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
equipment rental supplier. It rents aerial, earthmoving, material
handling, trucks and trailers, air compressors, compaction, and
lighting equipment, as well as generators, and safety supplies and
expendables; and provides ProSolutions, an industry specific
solution based services, such as pumping solutions, power
generation, climate control, remediation and restoration, and
studio and production equipment. Herc Holdings Inc. is based in
Bonita Springs, Florida.


HERSHEY COMPANY: Faces Lee Suit in California Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Hershey Company.
The case is captioned as RAYMOND LEE and SUZANNE MIRZOYAN,
INDIVIDUALLY, ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND THE
GENERAL PUBLIC v. THE HERSHEY COMPANY,, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, and
DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC20583659 (Cal. Super., San
Francisco Cty., March 12, 2020).

The lawsuit alleges violation of fraud-related laws.

A case management conference will be held on Aug. 12, 2020.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC
          651 Arroyo Dr.
          San Diego, CA 92103-6401
          Telephone:  (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com


HOWROYD-WRIGHT AGENCY: Holtegaard Labor Suit Moved to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MORIAH HOLTEGAARD AND ANTHONY
LEON, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. HOWROYD-WRIGHT AGENCY, INC. DBA APPLEONE CORPORATION SERVICES, a
California corporation; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. RIC
1905611 (Filed Nov. 8, 2019), was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Riverside to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Riverside)
on March 12, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:20-cv-00509 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants violated the Private
Attorneys General Act, California Labor Code.

Howroyd-Wright is an employment agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachary Crosner, Esq.
          Michael Crosner, Esq.
          David Watson, Esq.
          CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
          433 N. Camden Dr., Suite 400
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 496-5818
          Facsimile: (818) 700-9973


HYATT CORPORATION: Bickerton Labor Suit Moved to W.D. Washington
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ELI BICKERTON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HYATT
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, HYATT CORPORATION DBA HYATT
OLIVE 8, a Delaware corporation, HYATT CORPORATION DBA GRAND HYATT
SEATTLE, a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
20-42-03711-7-SEA (Filed Feb. 11, 2020), was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of
King at Seattle to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington on March 12, 2020.

The Western District of Washington Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-00397 to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to pay minimum
wages and failed to compensate for missed meal and rest periods, in
violations of the Seattle Municipal Code.

Hyatt is an American multinational hospitality company
headquartered in the Riverside Plaza area of Chicago that manages
and franchises luxury and business hotels, resorts, and vacation
properties.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Helen M. McFarland, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          999 Third Avenue, Ste. 3000
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 946-4923
          Facsimile: (206) 260-8839
          E-mail: hmcfarland@seyfarth.com


IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated NJ Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Immunomedics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion seeking
dismissal of the consolidated case, Odeh v. Immunomedics, Inc., et
al. and Choi v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al., is pending.

A purported class action case was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey; namely, Odeh v.
Immunomedics, Inc., et al., filed December 27, 2018. The complaint
in this action alleges that the Company failed to disclose the
results of observations made by the FDA during an inspection of the
Company's manufacturing facility in Morris Plains, New Jersey in
August 2018.

The complaint alleges that Immunomedics misled investors by failing
to disclose the Form 483 inspection report issued by the FDA which
set forth the observations of the FDA inspector during the
inspection.

Such observations purportedly included, inter alia, manipulated
bioburden samples, misrepresentation of an integrity test procedure
in the batch record, and backdating of batch records.

The complaint further alleges that the Company's failure to
disclose the Form 483 resulted in an artificially inflated price
for our common stock, and that the Company and certain of its
officers are thus liable under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

On February 8, 2019, a purported class action case was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey;
namely, Choi v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al.

The complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws
based on claims that the Company violated the federal securities
laws by making alleged misstatements in various press releases and
securities filings from February 8, 2018 to November 7, 2018 and by
failing to disclose the substance of its interactions with the FDA
in connection with the Company's submission of its BLA for
sacituzumab govitecan.

Motions for the appointment of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel
and to consolidate the Odeh and Choi actions were granted on
September 10, 2019.

Pursuant to a scheduling order entered by the court on October 7,
2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 18,
2019. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated,
amended complaint on January 17, 2020. The motion has a return date
of April 20, 2020.

Immunomedics, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company,
develops monoclonal antibody-based products for the targeted
treatment of cancer. The company was founded in 1982 and is
headquartered in Morris Plains, New Jersey.


IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Bid to Dismiss Fergus Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
Immunomedics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion to
dismiss filed in the consolidated Fergus v. Immunomedics, Inc., et
al. class action suit, is still pending.

Two purported class action cases were filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey; namely, Fergus v.
Immunomedics, Inc., et al., filed June 9, 2016; and Becker v.
Immunomedics, Inc., et al., filed June 10, 2016.

These cases arise from the same alleged facts and circumstances and
seek class certification on behalf of purchasers of the company's
common stock between April 20, 2016 and June 2, 2016 (with respect
to the Fergus matter) and between April 20, 2016 and June 3, 2016
(with respect to the Becker matter).

These cases concern the Company's statements in press releases,
investor conference calls, and filings with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC") beginning in April 2016 that the
Company would present updated information regarding its IMMU-132
breast cancer drug at the 2016 American Society of Clinical
Oncology ("ASCO") conference in Chicago, Illinois.

The complaints allege that these statements were false and
misleading in light of June 2, 2016 reports that ASCO had canceled
the presentation because it contained previously reported
information.

The complaints further allege that these statements resulted in
artificially inflated prices for the company's common stock, and
that the Company and certain of its officers are thus liable under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act").

An order of voluntary dismissal without prejudice was entered on
November 10, 2016 in the Becker matter. An order granting motion to
consolidate cases, appoint lead plaintiff, and approve lead and
liaison counsel was entered on February 7, 2017 in the Fergus
matter.

A consolidated complaint was filed on October 4, 2017. The Company
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on January 26,
2018. On March 31, 2019, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss, without prejudice, and left plaintiffs with the ability to
file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days.

Counsel for the Company has consented to an extension of time for
plaintiffs to file the proposed amended complaint for an additional
thirty (30) days.

On May 30, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging
many of the same allegations that were set forth in the previously
filed complaints, and the Company has filed a motion to dismiss.

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

Immunomedics, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company,
develops monoclonal antibody-based products for the targeted
treatment of cancer. The company was founded in 1982 and is
headquartered in Morris Plains, New Jersey.


IREPAIR WIRELESS: Acevedo Seeks to Recover Minimum & OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
JULIO ACEVEDO, an individual v. IREPAIR WIRELESS INC., a California
corporation; DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV09922
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 11, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay minimum and overtime wages, and meal and
rest periods premiums to the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees, in violation to the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff contends that since he was working over 40 hours per
week, he should have been receiving overtime pay at one and one
half times his regular rate for each hour worked beyond 40 hours
per week. As a result of this practice, he did not receive his
regular wages for time worked over 40 hours nor additional
compensation for overtime hours worked and does not know whether he
was paid all regular wages for all regular hours worked because the
Defendants did not provide him with an accurate wage statement of
his hours worked, he added.

The Plaintiff was employed as a store employee for the Defendants
from August 2018 until April 2019.

Irepair offers mobile devices repair and diagnosing errors
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Roven, Esq.
          JONNY LAW
          P.O. Box 3989
          Valley Village, CA 91617-3989
          Telephone: (818) 639-3997
          Facsimile: (818) 471-4164
          E-mail: jon@calljonnylaw.com


IVERIC BIO: Discovery Ongoing in New York Consolidated Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IVERIC bio, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that discovery is ongoing in
the consolidated Frank Micholle v. Ophthotech Corporation, et al.
and Wasson v. Ophthotech Corporation, et al. class action suits.

On January 11, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the company and certain of its current and former executive
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned Frank Micholle v. Ophthotech
Corporation, et al., No. 1:17-cv-00210.

On March 9, 2017, a related putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the company and the same group of its current and former
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned Wasson v. Ophthotech
Corporation, et al., No. 1:17-cv-01758.

These cases were consolidated on March 13, 2018.

On June 4, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint, the CAC. The CAC purports to be brought on behalf of
shareholders who purchased the company's common stock between March
2, 2015 and December 12, 2016. The CAC generally alleges that the
company and certain of its officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading
statements concerning the results of the company's Phase 2b trial
and the prospects of the company's Phase 3 trials for Fovista in
combination with anti-VEGF agents for the treatment of wet AMD.

The CAC seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and other
costs.

The company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the CAC on July 27, 2018. On September 18, 2019, the court issued
an order dismissing some, but not all, of the allegations in the
CAC. On November 18, 2019, the company and the individual
defendants filed an answer to the complaint.

This case is currently in the discovery phase.

IVERIC bio, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, develops novel
therapies to treat ophthalmic diseases with a focus on age-related
and orphan retinal diseases. The company was formerly known as
Ophthotech Corporation and changed its name to IVERIC bio, Inc. in
April 2019. IVERIC bio, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


JEROME GOLDEN: Bid for Class Certification Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JOYCE JONES and MARGARET
SCHNITZER, on behalf of themselves and  a class of those others
similarly situated v. THE JEROME GOLDEN CENTER FOR BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH, INC., Case No. 9:19-cv-81422-RLR (S.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge Robin L. Rosenberg entered an order:

   1. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion
      for class certification;

   2. certifying class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
      Procedure 23:

      "all former employees of The Jerome Golden Center who were
      not given a minimum of 60 days' written notice of
      termination and whose employment was terminated during any
      90-day period surrounding October 8, 2019 as a result of
      "mass layoff" or "plant closing" as defined by the Worker
      Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988";

   3. appointing Joyce Jones and Margaret Schnitzer as Class
      Representatives;

   4. appointing Ryan D. Barack and Michelle Erin Nadeau are as
      Class Counsel;

   5. denying as moot Plaintiffs' request for discovery in light
      of the appearance of Defendant and the discovery being
      conducted; and

   6. directing the Parties to confer regarding the
      submission of revised form of notice and the most
      efficient process for obtaining the last known addresses
      of class members. By no later than March 31, 2020, the
      parties shall jointly file:

      (1) a revised form of notice, and

      (2) a brief description of the parties' plan for obtaining
          the last known addresses of class members, and the
          date by which Class Counsel estimates that notice
          could be sent.

The Plaintiffs sue under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act of 1988, on behalf of themselves and other
terminated employees. They allege that they did not receive the
notice required under the WARN Act for a mass layoff or plant
closing. The Defendant filed an Answer on January 3, 2020,
generally denying Plaintiffs' allegations and asserting various
affirmative defenses.

The Court said, "the Plaintiffs argue that class certification is
appropriate under Rule 23 because Defendant employed approximately
350 individuals and terminated most of them on or about October 8,
2019, without proper notice. This litigation is based on a single
legal theory entitling aggrieved employees to the same categories
of damages, albeit in varying amounts. Because the Court concludes
that Rule 23 is satisfied, the Court certifies the  proposed
class."[CC]

KETORO INC: Reaves Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DERRICK REAVES, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. KETORO INC. D/B/A ORO
LOS ANGELES, Case No. 8:19-cv-01421-DOC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff will move the Court for an order certifying a Class and
appointing C.K. Lee and Ted K. Lippincott as Class Counsel.

Ketoro is in the human resource consulting services business.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class are:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: 212-465-1188
          Facsimile: 212-465-1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com

               - and -

          Ted. K. Lippincott, Esq.
          LEVINE & BLIT, PLLC
          6300 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 1870
          Los Angeles, CA 90048
          Telephone: (310) 281-0100
          Facsimile: (310) 281-0140
          E-mail: tlippincott@levineblit.com

KEURIG DR PEPPER: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated putative class action complaints by direct
purchaser and indirect purchaser plaintiffs.

On February 11, 2014, TreeHouse Foods, Inc., Bay Valley Foods, LLC,
and Sturm Foods, Inc. filed suit against Keurig Green Mountain,
Inc. (f/k/a Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc.) in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (TreeHouse
Foods, Inc. et al. v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. et al).


The TreeHouse complaint asserted claims under the federal antitrust
laws and various state laws, contending that Keurig had monopolized
alleged markets for single serve coffee brewers and single serve
coffee pods.

The TreeHouse complaint sought monetary damages, declaratory
relief, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.

On March 13, 2014, JBR, Inc. (d/b/a Rogers Family Company) filed
suit against Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California (JBR, Inc. v. Keurig Green
Mountain, Inc.).

The claims asserted and relief sought in the JBR complaint were
substantially similar to the claims asserted and relief sought in
the TreeHouse complaint.

Additionally, beginning on March 10, 2014, twenty-seven putative
class actions asserting similar claims and seeking similar relief
were filed on behalf of purported direct and indirect purchasers of
Keurig's products in various federal district courts.

On June 3, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
granted a motion to transfer these various actions, including the
TreeHouse and JBR actions, to a single judicial district for
coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings.

An additional class action on behalf of indirect purchasers,
originally filed in the Circuit Court of Faulkner County, Arkansas
(Julie Rainwater et al. v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc.), was
similarly transferred on November 10, 2015. The actions are now
pending before Judge Vernon S. Broderick in the Southern District
of New York (In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee
Antitrust Litigation) (the "Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation").


Discovery in the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation has commenced.

Consolidated putative class action complaints by direct purchaser
and indirect purchaser plaintiffs were filed on July 24, 2014.

On September 30, 2014, a statement of claim was filed against
Keurig and Keurig Canada Inc. in Ontario, Canada by Club Coffee
L.P., a Canadian manufacturer of single serve beverage pods,
claiming damages of CDN $600 million and asserting a breach of
competition law and false and misleading statements by Keurig.

On January 11, 2019, McLane Company, Inc. filed suit against Keurig
Green Mountain, Inc. (McLane Company, Inc. v. Keurig Green
Mountain, Inc.) in the U.S. District Court Southern District of New
York asserting claims and seeking relief substantially similar to
the claims asserted and relief sought in the Multidistrict
Antitrust Litigation.

KDP intends to vigorously defend all of the pending lawsuits. At
this time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these
lawsuits, the potential loss or range of loss, if any, associated
with the resolution of these lawsuits or any potential effect they
may have on the Company or its operations.

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


KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORT: Court Awards Damages in Julian Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 27, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019,
that the court in the class action suit initiated by Pamela Julian
has awarded damages for Defendant's failure to pay minimum wage for
16 hours per day.

On December 29, 2015, Pamela Julian, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a class action suit in the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

The plaintiffs generally allege one or more of the following: 1)
failure to minimum wage for the first day of orientation; 2)
failure to pay minimum wage for time spent studying; 3) failure to
pay minimum wage for 16 hours per day; and 4) failure to pay
minimum wage for the first eight hours of sleeper berth time.

In December 2019, the court awarded damages for failure to pay
minimum wage for 16 hours per day.

Knight-Swift said, "The likelihood that a loss has been incurred is
probable and estimable, and the loss has accordingly been accrued
as of December 31, 2019."

Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Inc., together with its
subsidiaries, provides truckload transportation and logistics
services in the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The company
operates through six segments: Knight Trucking, Knight Logistics,
Swift Truckload, Swift Dedicated, Swift Refrigerated, and Swift
Intermodal. The Company was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona.


KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORT: Rudsell Settlement Wins Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 27, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019,
that the court has granted final approval of the settlement in the
class action suit initiated by James R. Rudsell.

On April5, 2012, James R. Rudsell, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a class action suit in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

The plaintiffs generally allege one or more of the following: that
the Company 1) failed to pay the California minimum wage; 2) failed
to provide proper meal and rest periods; 3) failed to timely pay
wages upon separation from employment; 4) failed to pay for all
hours worked; 5) failed to pay overtime; 6) failed to properly
reimburse work-related expenses; and 7) failed to provide accurate
wage statements.

In April 2019, the parties reached settlement of this matter. In
January 2020, the Court granted final approval of the settlement.

Knight-Swift said, "The likelihood that a loss has been incurred is
probable and estimable, and the loss has accordingly been accrued
as of December 31, 2019."

Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Inc., together with its
subsidiaries, provides truckload transportation and logistics
services in the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The company
operates through six segments: Knight Trucking, Knight Logistics,
Swift Truckload, Swift Dedicated, Swift Refrigerated, and Swift
Intermodal. The Company was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona.


KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORT: Settlement in Burnell Suit Wins Final Okay
------------------------------------------------------------------
Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 27, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019,
that the court has granted final approval to the settlement in the
class action suit initiated by John Burnell.

On March 22, 2010, John Burnell, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a class action suit in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.

The plaintiffs generally allege one or more of the following: that
the Company 1) failed to pay the California minimum wage; 2) failed
to provide proper meal and rest periods; 3) failed to timely pay
wages upon separation from employment; 4) failed to pay for all
hours worked; 5) failed to pay overtime; 6) failed to properly
reimburse work-related expenses; and 7) failed to provide accurate
wage statements.

In April 2019, the parties reached settlement of this matter. In
January 2020, the Court granted final approval of the settlement.

Knight-Swift said, "The likelihood that a loss has been incurred is
probable and estimable, and the loss has accordingly been accrued
as of December 31, 2019."

Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Inc., together with its
subsidiaries, provides truckload transportation and logistics
services in the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The company
operates through six segments: Knight Trucking, Knight Logistics,
Swift Truckload, Swift Dedicated, Swift Refrigerated, and Swift
Intermodal. The Company was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona.

LEGG MASON: Post Securities Suit Balks at Franklin Resources Sale
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Post, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. LEGG MASON, INC., ROBERT E. ANGELICA, CAROL ANTHONY
DAVIDSON, EDWARD P. GARDEN, MICHELLE J. GOLDBERG, STEPHEN C.
HOOLEY, JOHN V. MURPHY, NELSON PELTZ, ALISON A. QUIRK, JOSEPH A.
SULLIVAN, FRANKLIN RESOURCES, INC., and ALPHA SUB, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-00462-UNA (D. Del., April 1, 2020), stems from a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which Legg Mason will be acquired by
Franklin Resources, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Alpha Sub,
Inc.

On February 17, 2020, Legg Mason's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
Franklin. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Legg
Mason's stockholders will receive $50.00 in cash for each share of
Legg Mason common stock they own. On March 27, 2020, the Defendants
filed a proxy statement with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff contends that the Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders
the Proxy Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement. The
Plaintiff asserts that the Proxy Statement omits material
information regarding: the Company's financial projections; the
analyses performed by the Company's financial advisors in
connection with the Proposed Transaction, PJT Partners LP and J.P.
Morgan Securities LLC; and potential conflicts of interest of the
Company's financial advisors.

The omissions and false and misleading statements in the Proxy
Statement are material in that a reasonable stockholder will
consider them important in deciding how to vote on the Proposed
Transaction, says the complaint. The Proxy Statement is an
essential link in causing plaintiff and the Company's stockholders
to approve the Proposed Transaction. Because of the false and
misleading statements in the Proxy Statement, the Plaintiff and the
Class are threatened with irreparable harm.

The Plaintiff owns Legg Mason common stock.

Legg Mason helps investors globally achieve better financial
outcomes by expanding choice across investment strategies,
vehicles, and investor access through independent investment
managers with diverse expertise in equity, fixed income,
alternative, and liquidity investments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 295-5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
                 gms@rl-legal.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Phone: (484) 324-6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
          Email: rm@maniskas.com


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Faces Springmeyer Suit Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pati Springmeyer, an individual and Nevada Resident, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. MARRIOTT
INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Montgomery County, Maryland Resident, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00867 (D. Md., April 1, 2020), asserts claims for
negligence, breach of confidence, and violation of the Maryland's
Consumer Protection Act, and seeks to compel the Defendant to adopt
reasonably sufficient security practices to safeguard guest
personal identifiable information that remains in its custody in
order to prevent incidents like a data breach from reoccurring in
the future.

As part of the reservation and booking process for staying at a
Marriott property, Marriott's guests create, maintain, and update
profiles containing significant amounts of personal identifiable
information (PII). On March 31, 2020, Marriott announced that the
login credentials of two of its employees had been compromised and
"an unexpected amount of guest information" had been improperly
accessed as early as mid-January 2020.

This Data Breach comes on the heels of another massive breach
Marriott announced in November 2018, wherein the PII of 500 million
guests contained in Marriott's Starwood reservation database was
exposed due to a flaw in its reservation and database systems. This
Data Breach was a direct result of Marriott's failure to implement
adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols
necessary to protect its guests' PII, the Plaintiff contends.

According to the complaint, Marriott disregarded the rights of the
Plaintiff and Class Members by, inter alia, intentionally,
willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and
reasonable measures to ensure their data systems were protected
against unauthorized intrusions; failing to disclose that it did
not have adequately robust computer systems and security practices
to safeguard guest PII; failing to take standard and reasonably
available steps to prevent the Data Breach; failing to monitor and
timely detect the Data Breach; and failing to provide the Plaintiff
and Class Members with prompt and accurate notice of the Data
Breach.

As a result of Marriott's failure to implement and follow basic
security procedures, guest PII is now in the hands of thieves, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff Springmeyer has stayed at a number of Marriott properties
and hotels over the past 10 years, entrusting Marriott with her
PII.

Marriott is one of the largest hotel chains in the world servicing
tens of millions of customers every year.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William H. Murphy III, Esq.
          MURPHY, FALCON & MURPHY
          One South Street, Ste. 2300
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Phone: (410) 951-8744
          Fax: (410) 539-6599
          Email: hassan.murphy@murphyfalcon.com

               - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Jean S. Martin, Esq.
          Ryan J. McGee, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 223-5505
          Fax: (813) 223-5402
          Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                 jeanmartin@forthepeople.com
                 rmcgee@forthepeople.com


MATCH GROUP: Candelore Suit Stayed Pending Appeal in Kim Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Match Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the court issued an order
staying the class claims in the Allan Candelore v. Tinder, Inc.,
No. BC583162 case pending the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit on the appeal related to the case, Lisa Kim
v. Tinder, Inc., No. 18-cv-3093.  

On May 28, 2015, a putative state-wide class action was filed
against Tinder in state court in California. Allan Candelore v.
Tinder, Inc., No. BC583162 (Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles).

The complaint principally alleged that Tinder violated California's
Unruh Civil Rights Act by offering and charging users age 30 and
over a higher price than younger users for subscriptions to its
premium Tinder Plus service.

The complaint sought certification of a class of California Tinder
Plus subscribers age 30 and over and damages in an unspecified
amount. On September 21, 2015, Tinder filed a demurrer seeking
dismissal of the complaint.

On October 26, 2015, the court issued an opinion sustaining
Tinder's demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend, ruling
that the age-based pricing differential for Tinder Plus
subscriptions did not violate California law in essence because
offering a discount to users under age 30 was neither invidious nor
unreasonable in light of that age group's generally more limited
financial means. On December 29, 2015, in accordance with its
ruling, the court entered judgment dismissing the action.

On February 1, 2016, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from
the judgment, and the parties thereafter briefed the appeal. On
January 29, 2018, the California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate
District, Division Three) issued an opinion reversing the judgment
of dismissal, ruling that the lower court had erred in sustaining
Tinder's demurrer because the complaint, as pleaded, stated a
cognizable claim for violation of the Unruh Act.

Because the company believes that the appellate court's reasoning
was flawed as a matter of law and runs afoul of binding California
precedent, on March 12, 2018, Tinder filed a petition with the
California Supreme Court seeking interlocutory review of the Court
of Appeal's decision. On May 9, 2018, the California Supreme Court
denied the petition. The case was then returned to the trial court
for further proceedings.

On September 13, 2019, Tinder filed a motion to stay the Candelore
case pending the Ninth Circuit's decision on the appeal of the
court-approved settlement in the Lisa Kim v. Tinder, Inc., No.
18-cv-3093 (U.S. District Court, Central District of California).

On November 13, 2019, the court issued an order staying the class
claims in the Candelore case pending the Ninth Circuit's decision
on the Kim appeal.

Match Group said, "We believe that the allegations in the Candelore
lawsuit are without merit and will continue to defend vigorously
against it."

Match Group, Inc. provides dating products worldwide. It operates a
portfolio of brands, including Tinder, Match, PlentyOfFish, Meetic,
OkCupid, OurTime, Pairs, and Hinge, as well as other brands. Match
Group, Inc. offers its dating products through its applications and
Websites in approximately 40 languages. The company was
incorporated in 2009 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Match
Group, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp.


MATCH GROUP: Continues to Defend Crutchfield Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Match Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Phillip R. Crutchfield v.
Match Group, Inc., Amanda W. Ginsberg, and Gary Swidler, No.
3:19-cv-02356-C.

On October 3, 2019, a Match Group shareholder filed a securities
class action lawsuit in federal court in Texas against Match Group,
Inc., its CEO, and its CFO, on behalf of a class of acquirers of
Match Group securities between August 6, 2019 and September 25,
2019, Phillip R. Crutchfield v. Match Group, Inc., Amanda W.
Ginsberg, and Gary Swidler, No. 3:19-cv-02356-C (Northern District
of Texas, Dallas Division).

Invoking the allegations in the FTC lawsuit, the complaint alleges
(i) that Defendants failed to disclose to investors that the
Company induced customers to buy and upgrade subscriptions using
misleading advertisements, that the Company made it difficult for
customers to cancel their subscriptions, and that, as a result, the
Company was likely to be subject to regulatory scrutiny; (ii) that
the Company lacked adequate disclosure controls and procedures; and
(iii) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On January 6, 2020, the court approved a stipulation appointing two
lead plaintiffs as well as co-lead counsel. On January 23, 2020,
the Court entered a scheduling order, which allows Lead Plaintiffs
to file an amended complaint on or before March 23, 2020.

Match Group believes that the allegations in this lawsuit are
without merit and will defend vigorously against them.

Match Group, Inc. provides dating products worldwide. It operates a
portfolio of brands, including Tinder, Match, PlentyOfFish, Meetic,
OkCupid, OurTime, Pairs, and Hinge, as well as other brands. Match
Group, Inc. offers its dating products through its applications and
Websites in approximately 40 languages. The company was
incorporated in 2009 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Match
Group, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp.


MDL 1869: Burlington Unit Still Faces Fuel Surcharge Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC disclosed in its Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that its principal operating
subsidiary, BNSF Railway Company (BNSF Railway), remains a
defendant in the consolidated case styled, In re: Rail Freight Fuel
Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1869.

Beginning May 14, 2007, some 30 similar class action complaints
were filed in six federal district courts around the country by
rail shippers against BNSF Railway and other Class I railroads
alleging that they have conspired to fix fuel surcharges with
respect to unregulated freight transportation services in violation
of the antitrust laws.  The complaints seek injunctive relief and
unspecified treble damages.  These cases were consolidated and are
currently pending in the federal District Court for the District of
Columbia for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.  (In
re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.
1869).  Consolidated amended class action complaints were filed
against BNSF Railway and three other Class I railroads in April
2008.

On June 21, 2012, the District Court certified the class sought by
the plaintiffs.  BNSF Railway and the other three Class I railroads
appealed the class certification decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals.

On August 9, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals vacated the District
Court's class certification decision and remanded the case to
permit the District Court to reconsider its decision in light of
the United States Supreme Court case of Comcast Corp. v. Behrend.

In September 2016, the District Court held a hearing to determine
whether to certify a class.

On October 10, 2017, the District Court denied the plaintiffs'
motion to certify a class.  The plaintiffs appealed the denial of
class certification to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

In September 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals held a hearing on the
appeal of the denial of class certification.  

On August 16, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the District
Court's denial of class certification.  The Company continues to
believe that these allegations are without merit and will continue
to vigorously dispute any such claims in any subsequent litigation
by individual parties involving such allegations.  The Company does
not believe that the outcome of these proceedings will have a
material effect on its financial condition, results of operations,
or liquidity.

Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC, through its subsidiaries,
provides freight rail transportation services in North America. The
company was incorporated in 1994 and is based in Fort Worth, Texas.
As of February 22, 2019, Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC operates
as a subsidiary of National Indemnity Company.


MICHIGAN STATE: Court Certifies 4 Settlement Classes
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as TIFFANY K.
COLEMAN-WEATHERSBEE, individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY FEDERAL CREDIT
UNION and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 5:19-cv-11674-JEL-DRG (E.D.
Mich.), the Hon. Judge Judith E. Levy entered an order:

   1. certifying these settlement classes:

      Sufficient Funds Class:

      Those members of Defendant who, between June 6, 2013 and
      December 9, 2019, were assessed and paid an overdraft fee
      on a Sufficient Funds Damage Transaction that was not
      refunded.

      Multiple NSF Fees on a Single Item Class:

      Those members of Defendant who, from and including June 6,
      2013 through December 9, 2019, were assessed more than one
      NSF fee on a single payment transaction that was not
      refunded.

      The Pre-Litigation Regulation E Class:

      Those members of Defendant who, from and including June 6,
      2013 through June 5, 2019, were assessed and paid an
      overdraft fee on a debit card or ATM transaction that was
      not refunded.

      The Post-Litigation Regulation E Class:

      Those members of Defendant who, from and including June 6,
      2019 through December 11, 2019, were assessed and paid an
      overdraft fee on a debit card or ATM transaction that was
      not refunded or from and including December 12, 2019 to
      when the member opted-in to the Regulation E overdraft
      program under the revised Opt-In Agreement sent in
      December 2019 and was assessed and paid an overdraft fee
      on a debit card or ATM transaction that was not refunded.;

   2. provisionally appointing Tiffany K. Coleman-Weathersbee as
      the Class Representative of the four settlement classes;

   3. appointing the lowest bidder between KCC and Epiq as the
      Claims Administrator under the terms of the Settlement
      Agreement;

   4. provisionally approving Richard D. McCune of McCune Wright
      Arevalo, LLP and Taras Kick of The Kick Law Firm, APC, and
      local counsel, Phillip Goodman, Of Counsel of Hubbard
      Snitchler & Parzianello, as Class Counsel, for purposes of
      the Settlement Agreement;

   5. approving and adopting the procedures, deadlines, and
      manner governing all requests to be excluded from the
      settlement classes, or for objecting to the proposed
      settlement, as provided for in the Settlement Agreement;
      and

   6. approving all costs incurred in connection with providing
      the Notice and settlement administration services to the
      class members shall be paid from the Settlement Fund.

The Court sets the following dates and deadlines as defined in the
Settlement Agreement:

-- No later than 45 days After the Preliminary Approval Order
    is Signed:

    The Claims Administrator Sends Notice and Website Goes Live.

-- 30 Days After the Claims Administrator Sends Notice:

    The Last Day to Opt-Out

-- 35 Days After Claims Administrator Sends Notice:

    The Motion for Final Approval and Attorneys' Fees Filed with
    the Court

-- 15 Days After the Motion for Final Approval and Attorneys'
    Fees is Filed with the Court

    Last Day to Object

-- 10 Days After the Last Day to Object

    Last Day to File Responses to Objections and Class Counsel's
    and Defendant's Replies in Support of the Motion for Final
    Approval and Attorneys' Fees

-- If Convenient to this Court's Calendar, 20 Days After the
    Last Day to Object or Whatever Date is Convenient to this
    Court's Calendar.

    Final Approval Hearing

-- 30 Days After the Time to Cash Checks has Expired

    The Claim Administrator's Filing of the Final Report.

MSUFCU is a federal credit union chartered and regulated under the
authority of the National Credit Union Administration.[CC]

MID-MINNESOTA MGMT: Debt Collection Violates FDCPA, Sheets Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chadwick Sheets, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Mid-Minnesota Management Services, d/b/a Collection
Resources, a Minnesota corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-01024-JPH-TAB
(S.D. Ind., April 1, 2020), seeks a finding that the Defendant's
debt collection actions violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

On April 10, 2018, Mr. Chadwick filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy
petition in the matter styled In re: Chadwick, S.D.Ind.Bankr. No.
18-02571-RLM-7. Among the debts included in Mr. Chadwick's
bankruptcy was a medical debt that he allegedly owed to Center for
Diagnostic Imaging. Accordingly, on April 14, 2018, Center for
Diagnostic Imaging, via U.S. Mail, received notice of the
bankruptcy by the court. Moreover, on July 18, 2018, Mr. Chadwick
received a discharge of his debts, and on July 20, 2018, Center for
Diagnostic Imaging was sent, via U.S. Mail, notice of the discharge
by the court.

Nonetheless, the Plaintiff says, Defendant Collection Resources
sent a collection letter, dated December 12, 2019, directly to Mr.
Chadwick, demanding payment of the Center for Diagnostic Imaging
debt he allegedly owed prior to the bankruptcy. In fact, Center for
Diagnostic Imaging has not filed a lawsuit against any consumer in
Indiana for over five years.

The Defendant's letter was false, deceptive or misleading, the
Plaintiff contends. Thus, Collection Resources' letter violates the
FDCPA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Chadwick Sheets is a citizen of the State of Indiana,
from whom the Defendant attempted to collect a defaulted consumer
debt.

Mid-Minnesota Management Services, doing business as Collection
Resources, is a Minnesota corporation that acts as a debt
collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
          Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
          PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
          9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
          Palos Hills, IL 60465
          Phone: (708) 974-2900
          Fax: (708) 974-2907
          Email: davephilipps@aol.com
                 mephilipps@aol.com
                 angie@philippslegal.com

               - and -

          John T. Steinkamp, Esq.
          JOHN STEINKAMP & ASSOCIATES
          5214 S. East Street, Suite D1
          Indianapolis, IN 46227
          Phone: (317) 780-8300
          Fax: (317) 217-1320
          Email: John@johnsteinkampandassociates.com


MONSANTO CO: Settlement Reached in Jones Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as LISA JONES, et al. v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 19-0102-CV-W-BP (W.D. Mo.), the
Plaintiffs move the Court for an order:

   1. preliminary approving the parties' class settlement;

   2. certifying a class for purposes of settlement; and

   3. approving the form and manner of notice.

The Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural
biotechnology corporation founded in 1901. In 2018, it was acquired
by Bayer as part of its crop science division.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Class are:

          Kim E. Richman, Esq.
          Clark A. Binkley, Esq.
          RICHMAN LAW GROUP
          8 West 126th St.
          New York, NY 10027
          Telephone: 718-705-4579
          E-mail: krichman@richmanlawgroup.com
                  cbinkley@richmanlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Bryce B. Bell, Esq.
          Mark W. Schmitz, Esq.
          BELL LAW, LLC
          2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 580
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: 816-886-8206
          Facsimile: 816-817-8500
          E-mail: Bryce@BellLawKC.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Baum, Esq.
          R. Brent Wisner, Esq.
          BAUM, HEDLUND, ARISTEI &
          GOLDMAN, P.C.
          12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 207-3233
          E-mail: mbaum@baumhedlund.com
                  bwisner@baumhedlund.com

NATIONWIDE RECOVERY: Placeholder Class Cert Bid Filed in O'Boyle
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as BARBARA O'BOYLE, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. NATIONWIDE
RECOVERY SYSTEMS, LTD, Case No. 2:20-cv-00486-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in
order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action
defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from
proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to
"moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff
individual (but not classwide) relief.

The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's
attorneys as class counsel.

In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).

In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                 meldridge@ademilaw.com
                 jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                 bslatky@ademilaw.com

NAVIENT CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Class Suit in NJ Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the consolidated class action suit entitled, IN RE Navient
Corporation Securities Litigation, has been denied.

Two putative class actions have been filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey captioned Eli Pope v. Navient
Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak Chivavibul and Christian Lown,
and Melvin Gross v. Navient Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak
Chivavibul and Christian M. Lown, both of which allege violations
of the federal securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

After the cases were consolidated by the Court in February 2018
under the caption IN RE Navient Corporation Securities Litigation,
the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in April 2018
and the Company filed a motion to dismiss in June 2018.

In December 2019, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss
and discovery is expected to commence shortly.

Navient said, "The Company continues to deny the allegations and
intends to vigorously defend itself."

Navient Corporation, incorporated on November 7, 2013, provides
asset management and business processing services to education,
healthcare and government clients at the federal, state and local
levels. The Company holds the portfolio of education loans insured
or federally guaranteed under the Federal Family Education Loan
Program (FFELP). The Company operates through four segments: FFELP
Loans, Private Education Loans, Business Services and Other. It
also holds the portfolio of Private Education Loans. The company is
based in Wilmington, Delaware.


NAVIENT CORP: Discovery Ongoing in Lord Abbett Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that discovery is ongoing
in the consolidated class action suit entitled, Lord Abbett
Affiliated Fund, Inc., et al. v. Navient Corporation, et al.   

During the first quarter of 2016, Navient Corporation, certain
Navient officers and directors, and the underwriters of certain
Navient securities offerings were sued in three putative securities
class action lawsuits filed on behalf of certain investors in
Navient stock or Navient unsecured debt.

These three cases, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware, were consolidated by the District Court,
with Lord Abbett Funds appointed as Lead Plaintiff. The caption of
the consolidated case is Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund, Inc., et al.
v. Navient Corporation, et al.

The plaintiffs filed their amended and consolidated complaint in
September 2016. In September 2017, the Court granted the Navient
defendants' motion and dismissed the complaint in its entirety with
leave to amend.

The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint with the court in
November 2017 and the Navient defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint in January 2018. In January 2019, the
Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part the Navient defendants'
motion to dismiss.

The Navient defendants deny the allegations and intend to
vigorously defend against the allegation in this lawsuit. Discovery
is on-going.

Navient Corporation, incorporated on November 7, 2013, provides
asset management and business processing services to education,
healthcare and government clients at the federal, state and local
levels. The Company holds the portfolio of education loans insured
or federally guaranteed under the Federal Family Education Loan
Program (FFELP). The Company operates through four segments: FFELP
Loans, Private Education Loans, Business Services and Other. It
also holds the portfolio of Private Education Loans. The company is
based in Wilmington, Delaware.


NAVIENT CORP: Suits Over Breach of Consumer Laws Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend class action suits over alleged violations of
consumer protection laws.

The Company has been named as defendant in a number of putative
class action cases alleging violations of various state and federal
consumer protection laws including the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Consumer Financial Protection Act of
2010 ("CFPA"), the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and various other state
consumer protection laws.

The Company has also been named as a defendant in putative class
actions alleging violations of various state and federal consumer
protection laws related to borrowers and the Public Service Loan
Forgiveness program.

The Company denies the allegations and intends to vigorously defend
against the allegations.

In January 2017, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the
"CFPB") and Attorneys General for the State of Illinois and the
State of Washington initiated civil actions naming Navient
Corporation and several of its subsidiaries as defendants alleging
violations of certain Federal and State consumer protection
statutes, including the CFPA, FCRA, FDCPA and various state
consumer protection laws.

In October 2017, the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania initiated a civil action against Navient Corporation
and Navient Solutions, LLC, containing similar alleged violations
of the CFPA and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law.

Additionally, in 2018 the Attorneys General for the States of
California and Mississippi initiated similar actions against the
Company and certain subsidiaries alleging violations of various
state and federal consumer protection laws.

In addition to these matters, a number of lawsuits have been filed
by nongovernmental parties or, in the future, may be filed by
additional governmental or nongovernmental parties seeking damages
or other remedies related to similar issues raised by the CFPB and
the State Attorneys General.

As the Company has previously stated, we believe the suits
improperly seek to impose penalties on Navient based on new,
unannounced servicing standards applied retroactively only against
one servicer, and that the allegations are false.

Navient said, "We therefore have denied these allegations and
intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in each of
these cases."

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

Navient Corporation, incorporated on November 7, 2013, provides
asset management and business processing services to education,
healthcare and government clients at the federal, state and local
levels. The Company holds the portfolio of education loans insured
or federally guaranteed under the Federal Family Education Loan
Program (FFELP). The Company operates through four segments: FFELP
Loans, Private Education Loans, Business Services and Other. It
also holds the portfolio of Private Education Loans. The company is
based in Wilmington, Delaware.


NEW PRIME: Court Partly Grants Conditional Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ROCKY L. HAWORTH v. NEW
PRIME, INC., Case No. 6:19-03025-CV-RK (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Roseann A. Ketchmark entered an order:

   1. denying Prime's motion to stay; and

   2. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion
      for conditional certification.

The following class is conditionally certified: "all employees who
were B-seat drivers on or after October 2, 2015:"

The Plaintiff's request to approve the notice attached to his
motion is denied.

The parties were directed to meet and confer regarding the form of
a conditional certification notice and either submit a joint
proposed notice for the Court's approval or request a telephone
conference with the Court regarding any remaining disputes about
the form of the notice.

New Prime provides trucking transportation services.[CC]

NEW YORK & CO: Sanchez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as SUSIE SANCHEZ, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. New York & Company
Stores, Inc., a New York corporation; Lerner New York, Inc., a
Delaware corporation and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, Case No.
19-STCV-46369 (Filed Dec. 27, 2019), 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 March 12, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-02380 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an Assistant Manager
from August 2017 to September 2019. The Plaintiff asserts claims
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime; failure to
provide compliant rest periods and/or pay missed rest break
premiums; and failure to reimburse business expenses, in violation
of the California Labor Code.

New York & Company, Inc. is an omni-channel women's fashion
retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig J. Ackermann, Esq.
          ACKERMAN & TILAJEF, P.C.
          1180 S. Beverly Drive, Ste. 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Tel: 310-227-0614
          Fax: 310-277-0635
          E-Mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com

               and

          Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
          MELMED LAW GROUP P.C.
          1180 S. Beverly Drive, Ste. 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Tel: 310-824-3828
          Fax: 310-862-6851
          E-Mail: jm@melmedlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ronald J. Holland, Esq.
          Christopher A. Braham, Esq.
          MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
          415 Mission St., Suite 5600
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2533
          Telephone: +1 628 218 3800
          Facsimile: +1 628 877 0107
          E-mail: rjholland@mwe.com
                  cbraham@mwe.com


NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Briefing on Bid to Dismiss PERS Mississippi Done
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nielsen Holdings plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that briefing on the
company's motion to dismiss the class action suit headed by the
Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi has concluded.

In August 2018, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the Southern District of New York, naming as defendants
Nielsen, former Chief Executive Officer Dwight Mitchell Barns, and
former Chief Financial Officer Jamere Jackson. Another lawsuit,
which alleged similar facts but also named other Nielsen officers,
was filed in the Northern District of Illinois in September 2018
and transferred to the Southern District of New York in December
2018.

The actions were consolidated on April 22, 2019, and the Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi was appointed lead
plaintiff for the putative class. The operative complaint was filed
on September 27, 2019, and asserts violations of certain provisions
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on
allegedly false and materially misleading statements relating to
the outlook of Nielsen's Buy (now "Connect") segment, the Company's
preparedness for changes in global data privacy laws and
Nielsen’s reliance on third-party data.

The Company moved to dismiss the operative complaint on November
26, 2019. Briefing of the Company's motion is scheduled to conclude
on February 26, 2020.

In addition, in January 2019, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was
filed in New York Supreme Court against a number of Nielsen's
current and former officers and directors. The derivative lawsuit
alleges that the named officers and directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Nielsen in connection with factual assertions
substantially similar to those in the putative class action
complaints. The derivative lawsuit further alleges that certain
officers and directors engaged in trading Nielsen stock based on
material, nonpublic information.

By agreement dated June 26, 2019, the derivative lawsuit has been
stayed pending resolution of the Company's motion to dismiss the
aforementioned securities litigation. Nielsen intends to defend
these lawsuits vigorously. Based on currently available
information, Nielsen believes that the Company has meritorious
defenses to these actions and that their resolution is not likely
to have a material adverse effect on Nielsen’s business,
financial position, or results of operations.

Nielsen Holdings plc, together with its subsidiaries, operates as
an information and measurement company. It operates through Buy and
Watch segments. Nielsen Holdings plc was founded in 1923 and is
headquartered in Oxford, the United Kingdom.


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Baleja Bid for Class Certification Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as John Baleja v. Northrop
Grumman Space & Missions Systems Corp. Salaried Pension Plan, et
al., Case No. 5:17-cv-00235-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Jesus G. Bernal entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification of:

      "all persons, excluding Defendants, whose accrued pension
      benefits at any time from December 31, 1984 up to and
      including the date of class certification in this action,
      were reduced by Defendants due to the ESL Offset for both
      the Disclosure Claim and the Benefits Claim";

   2. directing Plaintiff's Counsel to show cause in writing why
      sanctions should not issue by April 3, 2020; and

   3. denying as moot Defendants' motion to exclude or limit
      consideration of expert testimony.

The Court said, "the Plaintiff has established the requirements of
both [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 23(a) and Rule 23(b), thus Plaintiff's motion
is granted."

Northrop Grumman operates as an integrator of defense and
intelligence-oriented systems.[CC]

OASIS PETROLEUM: Solomon Class Suit Against Subsidiary Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oasis Petroleum Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Oasis Petroleum
LLC, a company subsidiary, continues to defend a class action suit
entitled, Andrew Solomon, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated vs. Oasis Petroleum, LLC.

On or about August 28, 2019, Oasis Petroleum LLC, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company ("OP LLC"), was named as a defendant in
the lawsuit styled Andrew Solomon, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated vs. Oasis Petroleum, LLC, pending in the United
States District Court for the District of North Dakota. The lawsuit
alleged violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (the
"FLSA") and Title 29 of the North Dakota Century Code ("Title 29")
as the result of OP LLC’s alleged practice of paying the
plaintiff and similarly situated current and former employees
overtime at rates less than required by applicable law, or failing
to pay for certain overtime hours worked.

The lawsuit requested that: (i) its federal claims be advanced as a
collective action, with a class of all Operators, Technicians and
all other employees in substantially similar positions employed by
OP LLC who were paid hourly for at least one week during the three
year period prior to the commencement of the lawsuit, who worked 40
or more hours in at least one workweek and/or eight or more hours
on at least one workday; and (ii) its state claims be advanced as a
class action, with a class of all operators, technicians, and all
other employees in substantially similar positions employed by OP
LLC in North Dakota during the two year period prior to the
commencement of the lawsuit, who worked 40 or more hours in at
least one workweek and/or worked eight or more hours in a day on at
least one workday.

No motion has been filed for class certification, and the Company
cannot predict whether such a motion will be filed or a class
certified.

The Company believes that Mr. Solomon's claims are without merit
and that OP LLC has complied with its obligations under the FLSA
and Title 29. OP LLC has filed an answer denying all of Mr.
Solomon's claims and intends to vigorously defend against the
claims. The Company cannot predict or guarantee the ultimate
outcome or resolutions of such matter.

Oasis Petroleum said, "If such matter were to be determined
adversely to the Company's interests, or if the Company were forced
to settle such matter for a significant amount, such resolution or
settlement could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows."

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

Oasis Petroleum Inc. is an independent exploration and production
(E&P) company focused on the acquisition and development of
onshore, unconventional crude oil and natural gas resources in the
United States. Oasis Petroleum North America LLC (OPNA) and Oasis
Petroleum Permian LLC (OP Permian) conduct the company's
exploration and production activities and own its crude oil and
natural gas properties located in the North Dakota and Montana
regions of the Williston Basin and the Texas region of the Delaware
Basin, respectively. The company is based in Houston, Texas.


OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit in California.


On February 14 and 22, 2018, plaintiff stockholders filed class
action lawsuits against the company and certain of its executive
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California (Hustig v. Obalon Therapeutics, Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00352-AJB-WVG, and Cook v. Obalon
Therapeutics, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00407-CAB-RBB).

On July 24, 2018, the court consolidated the lawsuits and appointed
Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT as lead plaintiff. On October 5,
2018, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint
alleges that the company and certain of its executive officers made
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the company's business, operations, and
prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The amended complaint also alleges violations of Section 11 of the
Exchange Act arising out of the Company's initial public offering.


The plaintiffs seek damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and
other unspecified equitable relief.

The underwriters from the company's  initial public offering have
also been named as defendants in this case and the company had
certain obligations under the underwriting agreement to indemnify
them for their costs and expenses incurred in connection with this
litigation.

On September 25, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the Section
11 claims entirely, without leave to amend, and accordingly
dismissed the underwriters and certain directors from the case. The
Court also dismissed certain statements from the Section 10 claims.


Obalon said, "We believe the remaining claims in the complaint are
without merit and intend to defend vigorously against them."

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

Obalon Therapeutics, Inc., a vertically integrated medical device
company, focuses on developing and commercializing medical devices
to treat people who are obese and overweight. The company offers
the Obalon balloon system designed to provide weight loss in obese
patients. Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is
headquartered in Carlsbad, California.


OC FLASH DANCERS: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Parrish Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Quintavia Parrish, aka Juicy, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. OC FLASH DANCERS LLC; WILLIAM SIERER
AND JOHN DOE individuals, Case No. 6:20-cv-00567-CEM-GJK (M.D.
Fla., April 1, 2020), accuses the Defendants of evading the
mandatory minimum wage and overtime pay provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and illegally absconding with the Plaintiff's
tips.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was denied minimum wage
payments and denied overtime as part of the Defendants' scheme to
classify her and other dancers/entertainers as "independent
contractors." The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff minimum
wages and overtime wages for all hours worked in violation of the
FLSA.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' conduct violates the
FLSA, which requires non-exempt employees to be compensated for
their overtime work at a rate of one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay. The Plaintiff adds that the Defendants'
practice of failing to pay tipped employees, violates the FLSA's
minimum wage provision.

The Plaintiff began working as a dancer for the Defendants in 2016
through January 2020.

The Defendants own and operate a strip club named FLASH
DANCERS.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raymond R. Dieppa, Esq.
          FLORIDA LEGAL, LLC
          14 Northeast 1st Avenue, Suite 1001
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 722-6977
          Fax: (786) 870-4030
          Email: ray.dieppa@floridalegal.law

               - and -

          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
          Leigh Montgomery, Esq.
          HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
          1105 Milford Street
          Houston, TX 77066
          Phone: (713) 554-2377
          Fax: (888) 995-3335
          Email: jarrett@hughesellzey.com
                 craft@hughesellzey.com
                 leigh@hughesellzey.com

               - and -

          Jacob J. Ventura, Esq.
          KRISTENSEN, LLP
          12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
          Los Angeles, CA 90066
          Phone: (310) 507-7924
          Fax: (310) 507-7906
          Email: jacob@kristensenlaw.com


PERRIGO CO: Overarching Conspiracy-Related Suits Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a number of class action suit related to overarching
conspiracy allegations.  

The company has been named as a co-defendant with certain other
generic pharmaceutical manufacturers in a number of class actions
alleging single-product conspiracies to fix or raise the prices of
certain drugs and/or allocate customers starting, in some
instances, as early as June 2013.

The class actions were filed on behalf of putative classes of (a)
direct purchasers, (b) end payors, and (c) indirect resellers.

The products in question are Clobetasol gel, Desonide, and
Econazole. Pursuant to the court's schedule staging various cases
in phases, the company moved to dismiss the complaints relating to
Clobetasol and Econazole.

The court issued a decision denying the motions in part in October
2018 and issued a second decision in February 2019 dismissing
various state law claims, but allowing other state law claims to
proceed. The company filed answers to the Clobetasol gel complaints
on December 31, 2018. The company filed answers to the Desonide and
Econazole complaints on March 15, 2019. The cases are proceeding in
document discovery.

The same three putative classes have each filed complaints naming
the company as a co-defendant, along with 27 other manufacturers,
alleging an overarching conspiracy to fix or raise the prices of 15
generic prescription pharmaceutical products starting in 2011.
Perrigo manufactures only two of the products at issue, Nystatin
cream and Nystatin ointment.

Motions to dismiss certain single-product and overarching
complaints listed above were filed on February 21, 2019.
Plaintiffs' oppositions were due on May 2, 2019 and defendants'
replies were filed on June 13, 2019. On August 15, 2019, the Court
denied the Defendants' joint motions to dismiss certain overarching
conspiracy allegations. The cases are proceeding in document
discovery.

In December 2019, both the end payor and indirect reseller class
plaintiffs filed new overarching complaints against the company,
dozens of other manufacturers of generic prescription
pharmaceuticals, and certain individuals.

The complaints also allege conspiracies relating to the sale of
various new products, the majority of which Perrigo neither makes
nor sells. The indirect reseller complaint alleges that Perrigo
conspired in connection with its sales of Immiquimod cream,
Desonide cream and ointment, and Hydrocortisone Valerate cream. The
end payor complaint alleges that Perrigo conspired in connection
with its sale of the following drugs: Betamethasone Dipropionate,
Bromocriptine Mesylate, Clindamycin Phosphate, Fenofibrate,
Halobetasol Proprionate, Hydrocortisone Valerate, Permethrin, and
Triamcinolone Acetonide.

The company has also been named a co-defendant along with 35 other
manufacturers in a complaint filed by three supermarket chains
alleging that defendants conspired to fix prices of 31 generic
prescription pharmaceutical products starting in 2013. The only
allegations specific to the company relates to Clobetasol,
Desonide, Econazole, Nystatin cream, and Nystatin ointment. Perrigo
moved to dismiss this complaint on February 21, 2019. The motion
was denied on August 15, 2019. The case is proceeding in document
discovery.

Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


POPULUS GROUP: Taylor Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY TAYLOR, on behalf of
himself and other similarly-situated employees v. POPULUS GROUP,
LLC, a Michigan Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 37-2019-00067818-CU-OE-CTL (Filed Dec. 20,
2019), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California on March 12, 2020.

The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-00473-BAS-BLM to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff seeks recovery for allegedly unpaid minimum, regular
and overtime wages for a period of four years. The Plaintiff
alleges that he and the putative class worked were subject to a
time-rounding policy that was not neutral and that if they clocked
in 10-15 minutes before a scheduled start time, they were not paid
for that time.

Populus was founded in 2008. The Company's line of business
includes providing architectural services.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael S. Kun, Esq.
          Kevin D. Sullivan, Esq.
          EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C.
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-8861
          Facsimile: (310)-553-2165
          E-mail: mkun@ebglaw.com
                  ksullivan@ebglaw.com


PROMETHEUS GLOBAL: Suris Sues Over Deaf-Inaccessible Web Site
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yaroslav Suris, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. PROMETHEUS GLOBAL MEDIA, LLC d/b/a THE HOLLYWOOD
REPORTER, Case No. 1:20-cv-01652 (E.D.N.Y., April 1, 2020), is
brought against the Defendant for failing to own and operate a Web
site that is fully accessible to and usable by deaf and
hard-of-hearing people without the help of others, in violation of
the American Disabilities Act, the New York Human Rights Law, the
New York State Civil Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights
Law.

The Defendant has denied the Plaintiff, who is deaf and deaf and
hard-of-hearing individuals' access to goods and services provided
to non-disabled individuals through its Web site,
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/,and in conjunction with its
physical location of offices, video studios, blog studios, magazine
and Internet publishing offices, advertising offices and hosting
locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the ADA,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff lives in Kings County, New York, and is a deaf
individual.

The Defendant provides goods and services to the public through its
Web site.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell Segal, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL S. SEGAL P.C.
          1010 Northern Blvd., Ste. 208
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 415-0100
          Fax: (516) 706-6631


RA PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend UCB Merger-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
RA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend litigation relating to the Company's merger
deal with UCB S.A.

On October 9, 2019, the company entered into the Merger Agreement
with UCB S.A. (UCB) and Franq Merger Sub, Inc., an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of UCB, or Merger Sub, pursuant to which Merger
Sub will be merged with and into the Company, with the Company
surviving the proposed acquisition as an indirect wholly owned
subsidiary of UCB. The proposed acquisition was approved by our
stockholders on December 17, 2019.

On November 1, 2019, a lawsuit entitled Elaine Wang v. Ra
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware against the Company and
the members of the Company's board of directors.

On November 5, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Earl
M. Wheby, Jr. v. Ra Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware against
the Company and the members of the Company's board of directors.

On November 21, 2019 and November 22, 2019, respectively, lawsuits
entitled Allen Papouban v. Ra Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., and
Philip Naluai v. Ra Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., were filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company and members of the board of directors of
the Company.

On December 20, 2019, Plaintiff Philip Naluai filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal. On February 21, 2020, Plaintiff Allen Papouban
filed a notice of voluntary dismissal.

In addition, on December 2, 2019, a lawsuit entitled Daniel Delifus
v. Ra Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the
Company and members of the board of directors of the Company. On
February 24, 2020, Plaintiff Daniel Delifus filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal.

The remaining lawsuits allege that the preliminary proxy statement
filed by the Company on November 1, 2019 with the SEC omits
material information with respect to the transactions contemplated
by the Merger Agreement, rendering it false and misleading in
violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, injunctive relief,
rescission, declaratory relief and unspecified monetary damages.

The Company believes these lawsuits are wholly without merit, and
intends to vigorously defend against the claims. The Company does
not have contingency reserves established for any litigation
liabilities.

RA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company
using its proprietary peptide chemistry platform to develop novel
therapeutics for the treatment of serious diseases that are caused
by excessive or uncontrolled activation of the complement system, a
critical component of the immune system.


REALPAGE INC: McIntyre Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled PATRICIA MCINTYRE, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. REALPAGE, INC., d/b/a
On-Site, Case No. 2:18-cv-03934-CFK (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff moves
the Court for an order certifying the case as a class action.

RealPage is an American multinational corporation that provides
property management software for the multifamily, commercial,
single-family and vacation rental housing industries.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
          Jordan M. Sartell, Esq.
          F RANCIS M AILMAN S OUMILAS , P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 215-735-8600
          Facsimile: 215-940-8000
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
                  lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsartell@consumerlawfirm.coms

RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Securities Suits Consolidated in Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------------
Resideo Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota consolidated pending securities
lawsuits against the Company into a single proceeding styled In re
Resideo Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, 19-cv-02889.

Between November 8, 2019 and January 7, 2020, four separate
purported class action complaints alleging violations of the
federal securities laws were filed against the Company, the
Company's CEO Michael Nefkens, and the Company's former CFO Joseph
Ragan, in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota.

On November 8, 2019, the St. Clair County Employees' Retirement
System filed a purported class action complaint in the Minnesota
Court styled St. Clair County Employees' Retirement System v.
Resideo Technologies, et. al, 19-cv-02863 (D. Minn Nov. 8, 2020)
(the "St. Clair Action").  

The St. Clair Action purports to assert claims on behalf of a class
of persons who purchased the Company's stock between October 29,
2018 and October 22, 2019. It claims that the Company, Mr. Nefkens,
and Mr. Ragan made false and misleading statements regarding, among
other things, the Company's performance, the efficiency of its
supply chain, and that it was ahead of schedule in resolving
operational and administrative issues resulting from the Spin-Off.


It alleges that the Company's financial guidance lacked a
reasonable basis and the Company was not on track to make its 2019
earnings guidance.  The St. Clair Action asserts claims under
section 10b-5 and section 20 of the Exchange Act.

On November 12, 2019, the Hollywood Firefighters' Pension Fund
filed a purported class action complaint in the Minnesota Court
styled Hollywood Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Resideo
Technologies, et. al, 19-cv-2889 (D. Minn Nov. 12, 2019) (the
"Hollywood Action").  

The Hollywood Action contains similar allegations and claims to
those set forth in the St. Clair Action and purports to be asserted
on behalf of a plaintiff class that purchased Company stock between
October 10, 2018 and October 22, 2019.

On December 20, 2019, the Frampton Living Trust filed a purported
class action complaint in the Minnesota Court styled Frampton
Living Trust v. Resideo Technologies, et. al, 19-cv-3133 (D. Minn
Dec. 20, 2019) (the "Frampton Action").  

The Frampton Action contains similar allegations and claims to
those set forth in the previous complaints and purports to be
asserted on behalf of a plaintiff class that purchased Company
stock between October 10, 2018 and October 22, 2019.

On January 7, 2020, a group of institutional investors, including
the Gabelli Asset Fund, filed a purported class action complaint in
the Minnesota Court styled The Gabelli Asset Fund, et. al v.
Resideo Technologies, et. al, 20-cv-00094 (D. Minn Jan. 7, 2020)
(the "Gabelli Action").  

The Gabelli Action contains similar allegations and claims to those
set forth in the previous complaints and purports to be asserted on
behalf of a plaintiff class that purchased Company stock between
October 15, 2018 and October 22, 2019.  

The Gabelli Action also asserts purported claims based on
Honeywell’s pre-spin conduct and statements and names Honeywell
as a defendant.

On January 27, 2020, the Minnesota Court granted an order on a
stipulation addressing the various motions for consolidation and
appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the pending
actions.  

By this ruling, the court consolidated the pending actions into a
single proceeding styled In re Resideo Technologies, Inc.
Securities Litigation, 19-cv-02889. The court also appointed
co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead plaintiffs counsel.  

The lead plaintiffs' deadline to file an amended, consolidated
complaint is March 27, 2020.

Resideo Technologies, Inc. is a leading global provider of critical
comfort, residential thermal solutions and security solutions
primarily in residential environments. The Company was incorporated
in Delaware on April 24, 2018, but was separated from Honeywell
International Inc. on October 29, 2018, becoming an independent
publicly traded company as a result of a pro rata distribution of
the company's common stock to shareholders of Honeywell. The
company is based in Austin, Texas.


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Certification of Class & Subclasses Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CANDIDO ZAYAS, RUBEN SOTO,
ALFREDO RUIZ, JOSE POOT, MILTON LECLAIRE, NIGEL HENRY, RALPH
DOMINGUEZ, MATTHEW BRUGMAN, MICHAEL BROWN, KISHAWN NORBERT, MARK
EDWARD HILL, and JAMES CLARK on behalf of themselves individually
and others similarly situated, as a class and Subclass, v. SAN
FRANCISCO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF VICKI HENNESSEY; UNDER SHERIFF
MATHEW FREEAN; CHIEF DEPUTY SHERIFF PAUL MIYAMOTO; CAPTAIN JASON
JACKSON, SARGEANT DOLLY and John & Jane DOEs, Nos. 1-50, Case No.
3:18-cv-06155-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court
on May 1, 2020, for entry of an Order:

   1. certifying that this action is maintainable as a class
      action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and
      23(b)(2) as to each of Plaintiffs' causes of action;

   2. certifying an Inmate Class of:

      "all inmates who were housed in San Francisco County Jail
      4, located at 850 Bryant Street, in a cell in Housing
      Blocks A or B or C, that was impacted by the sewage
      overflows which took place between January 3, 2017 and
      September 15, 2018";

   3. certifying three sub-classes as follows:

      a. The First Sub-Class: Direct Sewage Impact and Filed
         Grievances.

         These are the inmates who were housed in a cell in
         Housing Block A or B or C in which sewage intruded into
         the cell which they were housed in, and had also filed
         a grievance about this situation.

      b. The Second Sub-Class: Direct Sewage Impact and Did Not
         File Grievances.

         These are those inmates who were housed in a cell in
         Housing Block A, B or C in which sewage intruded into
         the cell which they were housed in, and had not filed a
         grievance.

      c. The Third Sub-Class: Indirect Sewage Impact.

         These are inmates who were housed in housing block A, B
         or C when a neighboring cell had a sewage overflow, the
         sewage did not intrude into their respective cell, but
         they suffered a water off and the indirect consequences
         of the sewage overflows;

   4. appointing named Plaintiffs as representatives of the
      Inmate Class and appointing Plaintiffs Candido Zayas,
      Ruben Soto, Alfredo Ruiz, Jose Poot, Milton Leclaire,
      Nigel Henry, Ralph Dominguez, Matthew Brugman , Michael
      Brown, and Kishawn Norbert, as representatives of the
      Inmate Class and of the three Sub-Classes; and

   5. appointing their counsel of record as class counsel for
      the Inmate Class and Three Subclasses.

The San Francisco Sheriff's Office, officially the City and County
of San Francisco Sheriff's Office, is the sheriff's office for the
City and County of San Francisco. The department has 850 deputized
personnel, and support staff.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Yolanda Huang, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF YOLANDA HUANG
          528 Grand Avenue
          Oakland, CA 94610
          Telephone: (510) 329-2140
          Facsimile: (510) 580-9410
          E-mail: yhuang.law@gmail.com

SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Bankruptcy Plan Discharges Company of Any Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the claims against
the company in the class action suit entitled, In re SandRidge
Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:12-cv-01341-LRW,
USDC, Western District of Oklahoma, have been discharged.

On May 16, 2016, the Debtors of the company filed voluntary
petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States
Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court. The Bankruptcy Court
confirmed the Plan on September 9, 2016, and the Debtors
subsequently emerged from bankruptcy on October 4, 2016.

Pursuant to the Plan, claims against the Company were discharged
without recovery in each of the following consolidated cases (the
"Cases"):

     * In re SandRidge Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
5:12-cv-01341-LRW, USDC, Western District of Oklahoma; and

     * Ivan Nibur, Lawrence Ross, Jase Luna, Matthew Willenbucher,
and the Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust v. SandRidge Mississippian
Trust I, et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-00634-SLP, USDC, Western District
of Oklahoma

The lead plaintiffs in both In re SandRidge Energy, Inc. Securities
Litigation and Lanier Trust assert claims on behalf of themselves
and (i) in In re SandRidge Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation, a
class of all purchasers of SandRidge common stock from February 24,
2011 and November 8, 2012 under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and (ii) in Lanier Trust, a putative class of
purchasers of SandRidge Mississippian Trust I and SandRidge
Mississippian Trust II common units between April 7, 2011 and
November 8, 2012 under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, both based on allegations that defendants, which
include certain former officers of the Company and the SandRidge
Mississippian Trust I, made misrepresentations or omissions
concerning various topics including the performance of wells
operated by the Company in the Mississippian region.

Discovery in each of the Cases closed on June 19, 2019. Following a
hearing on class certification in each of the Cases on September 6,
2019, the court granted class certification in In re SandRidge
Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation on September 30, 2019. The
motion for class certification in Lanier Trust remains pending.

In each of the Cases, lead plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified
damages, interest, costs and expenses incurred in the litigation on
behalf of themselves and class members. Although the claims against
the Company in each Case have been discharged pursuant to the Plan,
the Company remains a nominal defendant in each of the Cases to the
extent necessary to allow recovery from applicable insurance
policies or proceeds.

In addition, the Company owes indemnity obligations and/or the
obligation to advance legal fees, to certain former officers who
remain as defendants in each action.

The Company may also be contractually obligated to indemnify the
SandRidge Mississippian Trust I against losses, claims, damages,
liabilities and expenses, including reasonable costs of
investigation and attorney's fees and expenses, arising out of the
Cases, and such indemnification is not covered by insurance.

In light of the status of the Cases, and the facts, circumstances
and legal theories relating thereto, the Company is not able to
determine the likelihood of an outcome in either case or provide an
estimate of any reasonably possible loss or range of possible loss
related thereto. However, considering the erosion of insurance
coverage available to the Company, such losses, if incurred, could
be material.

The Company has not established any liabilities relating to the
Cases and believes that the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit.


The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against the
Cases in its capacity as a nominal defendant.

SandRidge Energy, Inc. engages in the exploration, development, and
production of oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids primarily
in the Mid-Continent and North Park Basin of the United States. The
company is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

SANTANDER CONSUMER: Deka Class Action Still Stayed
--------------------------------------------------
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
27, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the
securities class action suit entitled, Deka Investment GmbH et al.
v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., remains stayed.

The Company is a defendant in a purported securities class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court, Northern District of
Texas, captioned Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer
USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K.

The Deka Lawsuit, which was filed in August 26, 2014, was brought
against the Company, certain of its current and former directors
and executive officers and certain institutions that served as
underwriters in the Company's initial public offering (IPO) on
behalf of a class consisting of those who purchased or otherwise
acquired our securities between January 23, 2014 and June 12, 2014.


The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company's IPO
registration statement and prospectus and certain subsequent public
disclosures violated federal securities laws by containing
misleading statements concerning the Company's ability to pay
dividends and the adequacy of the Company's compliance systems and
oversight.

In December 2015, the Company and the individual defendants moved
to dismiss the lawsuit, which was denied. In December 2016, the
plaintiffs moved to certify the proposed classes. In July 2017, the
court entered an order staying the Deka Lawsuit pending the
resolution of the appeal of a class certification order in In re
Cobalt Int'l Energy, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. H-14-3428, 2017 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 91938 (S.D. Tex. June 15, 2017).

In October 2018, the court vacated the order staying the Deka
Lawsuit and ordered that merits discovery in the Deka Lawsuit be
stayed until the court ruled on the issue of class certification.

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

Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., a specialized consumer
finance company, provides vehicle finance and third-party servicing
in the United States. Its products and services include retail
installment contracts and vehicle leases, as well as dealer loans
for inventory, construction, real estate, working capital, and
revolving lines of credit. The company was founded in 1995 and is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Santander Consumer USA Holdings
Inc. is a subsidiary of Santander Holdings USA, Inc.


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: April 27 Trial on Merits in Anderson Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the trial
on the merits in the class action suit entitled, Marc Anderson, et.
al., v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc. Civil Case No.
15-cv-02172-JSW, is currently scheduled for April 27, 2020.

On April 13, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County
of San Francisco against SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc.,
captioned Marc Anderson, et. al., v. SeaWorld Parks &
Entertainment, Inc. Civil Case No. 15-cv-02172-JSW.  

The putative class consisted of all consumers within California
who, within the past four years, purchased tickets to SeaWorld San
Diego.  

The complaint (as amended) alleges causes of action under the
California False Advertising Law, California Unfair Competition Law
and California Consumer Remedies Act (California CLRA).
Plaintiffs' claims are based on their allegations that the Company
misrepresented the physical living conditions and care and
treatment of its killer whales, resulting in confusion or
misunderstanding among ticket and orca plush purchasers with intent
to deceive and mislead the plaintiffs and purported class members.


The complaint seeks restitution, equitable relief, attorneys' fees
and costs.  

Based on plaintiffs' definition of the class, the amount in
controversy could have exceeded $5.0 million assuming the class
became certified.  The liability exposure is speculative though.
On May 14, 2015, the Company removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on October 30, 2017
which the Court granted in part and denied in part. On May 23,
2018, the plaintiffs represented to the Court that they will not
file a motion for class certification. The case is no longer a
class action.  

All three named plaintiffs continue to have claims for individual
restitution in a nominal amount and injunctive relief. The Court
bifurcated the trial of the case into two phases:  the plaintiffs'
standing to sue and the merits of their claims.  

The standing trial is scheduled for March 9, 2020, after which the
Court will determine if there needs to be a trial on the merits
which currently is scheduled for April 27, 2020.

Pre-trial motions and mediation proceedings are continuing.  The
Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and intends to
defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there can be no assurance
regarding the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit.

SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a theme park and entertainment company in the United
States. The company operates SeaWorld theme parks in Orlando,
Florida; San Antonio, Texas; and San Diego, California, as well as
Busch Gardens theme parks in Tampa, Florida, and Williamsburg,
Virginia. The company was formerly known as SW Holdco, Inc. and
changed its name to SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. in December 2012.
SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. was founded in 1959 and is
headquartered in Orlando, Florida.


SISU ENERGY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage Under FLSA, Saunders Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Saunders, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SISU ENERGY, LLC AND JIM GRUNDY, individually, Case No.
3:20-cv-00769-C (N.D. Tex., April 1, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act over unpaid overtime
wages.

According to the complaint, throughout her employment with the
Defendants, the Plaintiff consistently worked more than forty hours
per week. Indeed, the Plaintiff worked an average of 60 hours per
week. The Plaintiff was not paid any additional compensation for
hours worked in excess of forty in a week.

The Defendants failed and refused to compensate the Plaintiff and
Class Members at a rate that is not less than time and-one-half
their regular rates of pay for the hours they worked in excess of
40 in a workweek, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was a dispatcher from November 2019 through March
2020.

The Defendants are a bulk commodity carrier.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
          MORELAND VERRETT, PC
          2901 Bee Cave Rd., Box L
          Austin, TX 78746
          Phone: (512) 782-0567
          Fax: (512) 782-0605
          Email: doug@morelandlaw.com


SOUTHEAST RESTAURANT: Class Conditionally Certified in Holt Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled MORGAN HOLT AND MORGAN WARD, On
Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. SOUTHEAST
RESTAURANT GROUP-MAIN, LLC and SOUTHEAST RESTAURANT GROUP-TM, LLC,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00147 (D. Tenn.), the Court entered an order
conditionally certifying a class of individuals and authorizing the
mailing of notice to be sent to individuals in accordance with
Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

SRG is a franchisee of TGI Fridays and operates 9 restaurants in
Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and Tennessee.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          Philips Plaza
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
                  jfrank@barrettjohnston.com

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Fred J. Bissinger, Esq.
          Jerome D. Pinn, Esq.
          WIMBERLY LAWSON WRIGHT DAVES & JONES
          214 Second Avenue North, Suite 3
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 727-1000
          E-mail: fbissinger@wimberlylawson.com
                  jpinn@wimberlylawson.coms



SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Loses Appeal from Dismissal Order
------------------------------------------------------
Southwestern Energy Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a court of
appeals in the class action suit initiated by the St. Lucie County
Fire District Firefighters' Pension Trust, declined to exercise
discretion to reverse the trial court's decision.

On October 17, 2016, the St. Lucie County Fire District
Firefighters' Pension Trust filed a putative class action in the
61st District Court in Harris County, Texas, against the Company,
certain of its former officers and current and former directors and
the underwriters on behalf of itself and others that purchased
certain depositary shares from the Company's January 2015 equity
offering, alleging material misstatements and omissions in the
registration statement for that offering.

The Company removed the case to federal court, but after a decision
by the United States Supreme Court in an unrelated case that these
types of cases are not subject to removal, the federal court
remanded the case to the Texas state court.

The Texas trial court denied the Company's motion to dismiss, and
in February 2020, the court of appeals declined to exercise
discretion to reverse the trial court's decision.

The Company carries insurance for the claims asserted against it
and the officer and director defendants, and the carrier has
accepted coverage. The Company denies all allegations and intend to
continue to defend this case vigorously.

Southwestern Energy said, "The Company does not expect this case to
have a material adverse effect on the results of operations,
financial position or cash flows of the Company. Additionally, it
is not possible at this time to estimate the amount of any
additional loss, or range of loss, that is reasonably possible."

Southwestern Energy Company, an independent energy company, engages
in the exploration, development, and production of natural gas and
oil in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Exploration and Production, and Midstream. Southwestern Energy
Company was founded in 1929 and is headquartered in Spring, Texas.


SUNRUN INC: Continues to Defend Loftus Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Sunrun Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Loftus et al. v. Sunrun Inc.


On April 8, 2019, a putative class action captioned Loftus et al.
v. Sunrun Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-01608, was filed in the United
States District Court, Northern District of California.  

The complaint generally alleged violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") on behalf of an individual and
putative classes of persons alleged to be similarly situated.

Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on June 26, 2019, adding
defendant MediaMix 365, LLC, also asserting individual and putative
class claims under the TCPA, along with claims under the California
Invasion of Privacy Act.

In the amended version of their Complaint, plaintiffs seek
statutory damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and attorneys'
fees and costs on behalf of themselves and the absent purported
classes.

On January 23, 2020, the Court held a status conference and set
discovery deadlines.

Sunrun said, "Most, if not all, of the claims asserted in the
lawsuit relate to activities allegedly engaged in by third-party
vendors, for which the Company denies any responsibility. The
vendors are contractually obligated to indemnify the Company for
losses related to the conduct alleged. The Company believes that
the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself
vigorously."

Sunrun Inc. engages in the design, development, installation, sale,
ownership, and maintenance of residential solar energy systems in
the United States. It also sells solar energy systems and products,
such as panels and racking, as well as solar leads generated to
customers. The company markets and sells its products through
direct-to-consumer approach across online, retail, mass media,
digital media, canvassing, field marketing, and referral channels,
as well as its partner network. Sunrun Inc. was founded in 2007 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


TANDEM DIABETES: CH Sues Over Leak of Confidential Patient Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
C.H., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. TANDEM DIABETES CARE, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00634-JM-LL (S.D.
Cal., April 1, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its
violations of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act
relating to the unauthorized disclosure of confidential patient
data to third parties.

According to the complaint, the Defendant discovered on January 17,
2020, that certain confidential patient data was disseminated to
unauthorized and undisclosed third parties. The Plaintiff was a
patient, receiving or received medical care from the Defendant. The
Plaintiff and other patients relied on the Defendant not only to
aid them in procuring life-saving treatments, but to keep their
personal medical information, including their identities, medical
record numbers, parent and guardians' names, and descriptions of
the imaging study, and the names of the referring physician
strictly confidential as required by the CMIA and other applicable
laws.

The Defendant negligently created, maintained, preserved, and
stored the Plaintiff and the Class members' confidential medical
information without the Plaintiff's and the Class members' prior
written authorization, which constitutes an unauthorized release of
their confidential medical information in violation of the CMIA,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff C.H. is a resident and citizen and resident of the State
of California, and is a person receiving and/or received medical
care by the Defendant.

Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., is a provider of health care services,
including products surrounding the treatment of diabetes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: 866-219-3343
          Fax: 866-219-8344
          Email: josh@swigartlawgroup.com


TARGET ENTERPRISE: Carlson Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Gabrielle Carlson, Individually and on Behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TARGET ENTERPRISE, INC., Case No.
4:18-cv-40139-TSH (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Timothy S. Hillman
entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class
      action settlement;

   2. certifying the settlement class;

   3. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion
      for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and an Incentive Award to
      the Named Plaintiff;

   4. awarding Plaintiff's counsel 23% of the total value of the
      settlement fund, $523,250.00.

   5. granting the request for an incentive award to Plaintiff
      Carlson in the amount of $7,500.00; and

   6. granting the request for expenses in the amount of
      $6,935.96.

On June 25, 2018, Gabrielle Carlson filed a putative class action
complaint against Target in Worcester Superior Court. Carlson
alleged violations of Mass. Gen. Laws (unfair and deceptive
business practices). The Plaintiff claimed that Target placed more
than two calls in a seven-day period to her and to a class of
similarly situated Massachusetts residents.

Target manufactures rubber and plastic products.[CC]

TENNCARE: Certification of Class & Subclass Sought in A.M.C.
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled A.M.C., by her next friend,
C.D.C.,et al., v. STEPHEN SMITH, in his official capacity as Deputy
Commissioner of Finance and Administration and Director of the
Division of TennCare, Case No. 3:20-cv-00240 (M.D. Tenn.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying a Plaintiff Class
and Disability Subclass:

The Plaintiff Class consists of:

   "all individuals who meet the eligibility criteria for
   TennCare coverage and who, since March 19, 2019, have been or
   will be disenrolled from TennCare. The class excludes
   individuals, and the parents and legal guardians of
   individuals, whose termination is due to a requested
   withdrawal from the TennCare program.

The Disability Subclass consists of:

   "Plaintiff Class members who are “qualified individuals with
   a disability” as defined in 42 U.S.C. section 12131(2)".

TennCare is the state Medicaid program in the U.S. state of
Tennessee. TennCare was established in 1994 under a federal waiver
that authorized deviations from the standard Medicaid rules.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michele Johnson, Esq.
          Gordon Bonnyman, Jr., Esq
          Catherine Millas Kaiman, Esq
          Vanessa ZapataKaiman, Esq
          Laura Revolinski, Esq
          TENNESSEE JUSTICE CENTER
          211 7th Avenue North, Suite 100
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 255-0331
          Facsimile: (615) 255-0354
          E-mail: gbonnyman@tnjustice.org
                  ckaiman@tnjustice.org
                  lrevolinski@tnjustice.org
                  vzapata@tnjustice.org

               - and -

          Jane Perkins, Esq.
          Elizabeth Edwards, Esq.
          Sarah Grusin, Esq.
          NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM
          200 N. Greensboro St., Ste. D-13
          Carrboro, NC 27510
          Telephone: (919) 968-6308
          E-mail: perkins@healthlaw.org
                  edwards@healthlaw.org
                  grusin@healthlaw.org

TIVITY HEALTH: Faces Strougo Class Suit in Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------
Tivity Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company faces a
class action suit initiated by Robert Strougo.

On February 19, 2020, the Company issued a press release announcing
its financial results for the fourth quarter and year ended
December 31, 2019, which disclosed, among other things, that the
Company incurred a non-cash impairment charge of $377.1 million.
The market price of the Company's shares of common stock dropped on
the following day.

On February 25, 2020, Robert Strougo, claiming to be a stockholder
of the Company, filed a complaint on behalf of stockholders who
purchased the Company's common stock between March 8, 2019 and
February 19, 2020 (the "Strougo Lawsuit").  

The Strougo Lawsuit was filed as a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, naming the
Company, the Company's chief financial officer and former chief
executive officer as defendants.  The complaint alleges that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act in making false
and misleading statements and omissions related to the acquisition
of Nutrisystem.  The complaint seeks monetary damages on behalf of
the purported class.  

Tivity said, "Given the uncertainty of litigation and the
preliminary stage of the case, we are currently not able to predict
the probable outcome of the matter or to reasonably estimate a
range of potential loss, if any.  We intend to vigorously defend
ourselves against this complaint."

Tivity Health, Inc. provides fitness and health improvement
programs in the United States. The company was formerly known as
Healthways, Inc. and changed its name to Tivity Health, Inc. in
January 2017. Tivity Health, Inc. was founded in 1981 and is
headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.


TIVITY HEALTH: May 2021 Trial Set in Oklahoma Firefighters Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tivity Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the class action suit
initiated by Eric Weiner and with lead plaintiff Oklahoma
Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, is currently set for
trial on May 18, 2021.

On November 20, 2017, Eric Weiner, claiming to be a stockholder of
the Company, filed a complaint on behalf of stockholders who
purchased the Company's common stock between February 24, 2017 and
November 3, 2017 ("Weiner Lawsuit").  

The Weiner Lawsuit was filed as a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, naming as defendants
the Company, the Company's chief executive officer, chief financial
officer and a former executive who served as both chief accounting
officer and interim chief financial officer.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the
Exchange Act in making false and misleading statements and
omissions related to the United Press Release.  

The complaint seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported
class.  

On April 3, 2018, the Court entered an order appointing the
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System as lead
plaintiff, designated counsel for the lead plaintiff, and
established certain deadlines for the case.  

On June 4, 2018, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.   

The Court denied the Company's Motion to Dismiss on March 18, 2019
and the Company's Motion to Reconsider on May 22, 2019. On January
29, 2020, the Court granted lead plaintiff's motion to certify the
class. The case is currently set for trial on May 18, 2021.

Tivity Health, Inc. provides fitness and health improvement
programs in the United States. The company was formerly known as
Healthways, Inc. and changed its name to Tivity Health, Inc. in
January 2017. Tivity Health, Inc. was founded in 1981 and is
headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.


TWENTY-ONE-EIGHTY-FIVE: Arndt Seeks to Certify Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled KELLY ARNDT and SHIRLEY SILKISS,
individually and o/b/o all others similarly situated v.
TWENTY-ONE-EIGHTY-FIVE, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability
company, and STATE FARM BANK, F.S.B., a federal savings bank, Case
No. 0:19-cv-62902-CMA (S.D. Fla.), Mr. Kelly Arndt moves for
certification of this lawsuit as a class action pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3).

State Farm is a full-service bank.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Robert W. Murphy, Esq.
          ROBERT W. MURPHY, ESQ.
          1212 S.E. 2nd Avenue
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 763-8660
          Facsimile: (954) 763-8607

               - and -

          Cary L. Flitter, Esq.
          Jody T. Lopez-Jacobs, Esq.
          FLITTER MILZ, P.C.
          450 N Narberth Ave, Suite 101
          Narberth, PA 19072
          Telephone: (610) 510-7310
          Facsimile: (610) 667-0552

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Marcy Levin Aldrich, Esq.
          E. Ginnette Childs, Esq.
          Sara A. Brubaker, Esq.
          AKERMAN LLP
          Three Brickell City Centre
          98 Southeast Seventh Street
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 374-5600
          Facsimile: (305) 374-5095
          E-mail: marcy.aldrich@akerman.com
                  ginny.childs@akerman.com
                  sara.brubaker@akerman.com

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Verhines Suit in California Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Uber Technologies,
Inc. The case is captioned as SPENCER VERHINES, ON BEHALF OF
HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., Case No. CGC20583684 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., March
12, 2020).

A case management conference will be held on Aug. 12, 2020.

Uber Technologies, Inc., commonly known as Uber, is an American
multinational ride-hailing company offering services that include
peer-to-peer ridesharing, ride service hailing, food delivery, and
a micromobility system with electric bikes and scooters.[BN]


UNITED CAR SALES: Davidson Seeks to Enforce Provisions of MLA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Davidson, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UNITED CAR SALES COMPANY, LLC D/B/A UNITED AUTO CREDIT
CORPORATION, Case No. 8:20-cv-00636 (C.D. Cal., April 1, 2020),
seeks to enforce the Military Lending Act, enacted to protect
members of the United States Military from an epidemic of predatory
lending that would endanger the Nation's military readiness and
impact service member retention.

In October of 2018, the Plaintiff obtained financing from United
that qualified for MLA protections under a standard form Retail
Installment Contract. United's standard form Installment Contract
with Plaintiff fails to comply with the MLA because it requires
Plaintiff to submit to arbitration, waive certain damages, does not
provide accurate MLA cost of credit financing disclosures, and
misstates the Military Annual Percentage Rate, as well as the
interest rate, each of which are violations of the MLA, the
Plaintiff asserts.

United's unlawful and deceptive conduct uses a uniform process on
all of the loans it provides throughout the United States, says the
complaint. Because it employs a standard form Installment Contract
as part of its unlawful MLA scheme and uses uniform and standard
mathematics in determining the Military Annual Percentage Rate on
the contracts, this case is well suited for class action treatment
for violations of the MLA, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff was on active duty status with the United States
Army, working as an Aviation Operations Supervisor.

United Auto Credit Corporation is a sub-prime lending corporation
who, among other things, finances loans for automotive dealers
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Bradley K. King, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: (310) 474-9111
          Email: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                 bking@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

          Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
          Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
          Matthew T. Peterson, Esq.
          VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
          P.O. Box 1870
          Lady Lake, FL 32158
          Phone: (352) 753-8600
          Facsimile: (352) 504-3301
          Email: jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com
                 bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com
                 mpeterseon@varnellandwarwick.com


UPMC: Doe Suit Over Electronic Health Records Removed to W.D. Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE I and JANE DOE II,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.  UPMC,
a Pennsylvania Nonprofit, Non-Stock Corporation, Case No.
GD-20-001277 (Filed Jan. 24, 2020), was removed from the
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County to the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania on March 13, 2020.

The Western District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-00359-MJH to the proceeding.

The case seeks to undermine UPMC's substantial efforts to fulfill
longstanding federal policy to expand the use of electronic health
records (EHR) and bring the U.S. health infrastructure into the
21st century. The Plaintiffs challenge common methods by which both
the federal government and private healthcare providers seek to
increase patient engagement with EHR. In UPMC's case, that
engagement occurs largely through the online patient portal at
MyUPMC.UPMC.com. MyUPMC allows patients and their proxies to access
health records remotely and to communicate with their physicians in
a secure digital environment.

UPMC is a health care provider and insurer.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jay Barnes, Esq.
          SIMMONS HANLY CONROY
          One Court Street
          Alton, IL 62002
          Telephone: 618.259.2222
          E-mail: jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com

               - and -

          Amy Gunn, Esq.
          Elizabeth Lenivy, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM , P.C.
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: 314 241 2929
          E-mail: agunn@simonlawpc.com
                  elenivy@smonlawpc.com

               - and -

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          Nathan Zipperian, Esq.
          Michael Ols, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
          806 Philadelphia, PA
          Telephone: 610 891 9980
          Facsimile: 866 300 7397
          E-mail: jshaw@sfmslaw.com
                  nzipperian@sfmslaw.com
                  mols@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Mitchell Breit, Esq.
          An Truong, Esq.
          SIMMONS HANLY CONROY
          112 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016-7416
          Telephone: 212 784 6400
          Facsimile: 212 213 5949
          E-mail: mbreit@simmonsfirm.com
                  atruong@simmonsfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Leon F. DeJulius, Jr., Esq.
          Rebekah B. Kcehowski, Esq.
          Anderson T. Bailey, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          500 Grant St., Suite 4500
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 391-3939
          Facsimile: (412) 394-7959
          E-mail: lfdejulius@jonesday.com
                  rbkcehowski@jonesday.com
                  atbailey@jonesday.com


UTAH DOC: Court Certifies Class of Inmates with Hep C
------------------------------------------------------
RONALD MAY, TOBY GARCIA, TODD MULDER, and CURTIS ELLIS,
individuals, v. UTAH DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; MIKE HADDON, in his
official capacity as UDOC Interim Executive Director; TONY
WASHINGTON, in his individual and official capacity as UDOC
Clinical Services Director; and DOES 1-10, Case No.
2:18-cv-00854-RJS-CMR (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Shelby
entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

The Court said, "the Plaintiffs shall submit no later than 21 days
from [date of the order] a proposed notice plan. Entry of this
Order lifts the stay on proceedings related to Plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary injunction. The Defendants accordingly have 21 days
to respond to Plaintiffs' Preliminary Injunction Motion."

This suit concerns prisoners' rights. The Plaintiffs Ronald May,
Toby Garcia, Todd Mulder, and Curtis Ellis -- all incarcerated by
the Utah Department of Corrections (UDOC) -- suffer from Hepatitis
C. They argue UDOC's policy of restricting vital, potentially
life-saving Hep C drug treatments to only the most sick inmates
violates state and federal law, including their constitutional
rights.

The Utah Department of Corrections is a government agency dedicated
to the management and supervision of convicted felons in the U.S.
state of Utah.[CC]

VERIZON AMERICAS: Parks FCRA Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Timothy Parks, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Verizon
Americas Holdings, Inc., doing business as: Verizon America, Inc.,
Case No. 20-CA-1183, was removed from the Florida Circuit Court,
Hillsborough County, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida (Tampa) on March 12, 2020.

The Middle District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:20-cv-00586-CEH-AEP to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Verizon operates as a telecommunication company. The Company offers
wireless network, telephonic, text messaging, roaming, and internet
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 N Florida Ave., Ste. 300
          Tampa, FL 33602-3343
          Telephone: (813) 579-2483
          E-mail: aheystek@wfclaw.com
                  bhill@wfclaw.com

               - and -

          Chad Andrew Justice, Esq.
          JUSTICE FOR JUSTICE LLC
          1205 N Franklin Street, Suite 326
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 566-0550
          Facsimile: (813) 566-0770
          E-mail: chad@getjusticeforjustice.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John Drury, Esq.
          Pamela Q. Devata, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP
          233 S Wacker Dr., Ste. 8000
          Chicago, IL 60606-6448
          Telephone: (312) 460-5000
          Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
          E-mail: jdrury@seyfarth.com
                  pdevata@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Joleen N. East, Esq.
          Suzanne A. Singer, Esq.
          RUMBERGER, KIRK & CALDWELL, PA
          100 N Tampa St., Ste. 2000
          PO Box 3390
          Tampa, FL 33601-3390
          Telephone: (813) 223-4253
          Facsimile: (813) 221-4752
          E-mail: jeast@rumberger.com
                  ssinger@rumberger.com


VIVINT INC: Dorn Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as TIFFANY DORN, DANIEL SULLEN,
and JOSHUA RENFROE, as individuals and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. VIVINT, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-00258-MHT-JTA
(M.D. Ala.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      Injunctive Class:

      "all persons in the United States for whom a Vivint
      account was created without that person’s authorization,
      and Vivint has not yet attempted to collect debt on one or
      more of those accounts"; and

      Damages Class:

      "all persons in the United States for whom a Vivint
      account was created without that person’s authorization,
      and Vivint has attempted to collect debt on one or more of
      those accounts"; and

   2. appointing Plaintiffs' Counsel as class counsel.

Vivint is an American private smart home services provider  in the
United States and Canada.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jon Mann, Esq.
          Jonathan S. Mann, Esq.
          Austin Whitten, Esq.
          Michael C. Bradley, Esq.
          PITTMAN, DUTTON & HELLUMS, P.C.
          2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 322-8880
          Facsimile: (205) 328-2711
          E-mail: jonm@pittmandutton.com
                  austinw@pittmandutton.com
                  mikeb@pittmandutton.com

WALGREEN PHARMACY: Le Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Pharmacists
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled Marcie Le and Karen Dao,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Walgreen Co., an Illinois corporation; Walgreen Pharmacy Services
Midwest, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company; and Walgreens
Boots Alliance, a Delaware corporation, Case No.
8:18-cv-01548-DOC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the
Court on April 13, 2020, for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons who are and/or were employed as non-exempt
      pharmacists by Walgreens in any Walgreens' California
      retail store or express pharmacy between July 27, 2014 and
      the date of trial";

   2. appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel LCHB and K&S as Class
      Counsel.

The Plaintiffs bring class claims for Defendants' failure to
provide rest periods, or premium pay in lieu thereof; and failure
to provide complete and accurate wage statements under California
Labor Code.

Walgreens is an American company that operates as the
second-largest pharmacy store chain in the United States behind CVS
Health.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel Hutchinson, Esq.
          Lin Y. Chan, Esq.
          Facundo Bouzat, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: 415-956-1000
          Facsimile: 415-956-1008
          E-mail: dhutchinson@lchb.com
                  lchan@lchb.com
                  fbouzat@lchb.com

               - and -

          Julian Burns King, Esq.
          Elliot J. Siegel, Esq.
          KING & SIEGEL LLP
          724 S. Spring Street, Suite 201
          Los Angeles, CA 90014
          Telephone: (213) 419-5101
          Facsimile: (213) 465-4803
          E-mail: julian@kingsiegel.com
                  elliot@kingsiegel.com

WONOLO: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Umeh Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OSITA UMEH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. WONOLO, BLUEPRINT STUDIOS, and DOES 1 through 59, inclusive,
Case No. CGC-20-583688 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., March 12,
2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the California Labor
Code by failing to pay minimum and overtime wages and to provide
meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants willfully misclassified
their staff as independent contractors, a decision which resulted
in the denial of overtime compensation, minimum wage compensation,
split shift premiums, and meal and rest period premiums.

The Plaintiff is a staff for the Defendants and began working for
Defendant Wonolo in March 2018 and Blueprint in September 2019.
Wonolo and Blueprint are joint employers of the Plaintiff. The
Plaintiff and the class worked for the Defendants as non-management
event staff in the State of California.

Wonolo is in staffing business. Blueprint is event services
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan J. Schwartz, Esq.
          Ryan T. Chin, Esq.
          BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW
          180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1380
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 444-9300
          Facsimile: (510) 444-9301
          E-mail: bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com
                  rchin@bryanschwartzlaw.com


YOUDERIAN LLC: Court Granted Final Approval of Settlement in Thomas
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as BRITTON THOMAS, on behalf of
himself and those similarly situated v. JOHN A. YOUDERIAN, JR.,
LLC; JOHN A. YOUDERIAN, JR., and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Case No
2:16-cv-01408-MAH (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Michael A. Hammer
entered an order:

   1. granting final approval of the proposed settlement and
      directing the Parties to consummate the settlement
      according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement;

   2. directing the Defendants to fund the bank account to be
      established by the Settlement Administrator in the amount
      of $2,384 within 14 days from the date the Order;

   3. directing the Settlement Administrator within 21 days of
      the date of the Order, to mail each Settlement Class
      Member their check according to the formula and process
      set forth in the Settlement Agreement;

   4. allocating funds from uncashed checks to be paid as a cy
      pres award to Northeast New Jersey Legal Services, Inc.;

   5. directing the Defendants to pay $3,500.00 to Plaintiff
      Britton Thomas in the manner set in the Settlement
      Agreement within seven days of the date of the Order;

   6. directing the Defendants to pay Class Counsel's fees and
      costs in an amount of $59,976.00, which payment includes
      costs and expenses (excluding the expenses of the
      Settlement Administrator), time already spent and time to
      be spent attending hearings, and the monitoring of the
      settlement; and

   7. dismissing with prejudice action against the Defendants,
      but the Court shall retain exclusive and continuing
      jurisdiction over the action and all parties to interpret
      and enforce the terms, conditions and obligations of this
      Settlement Agreement.

Youderian LLC is a firm serving Hockessin, Delaware in general
practice, commercial law and corporate law cases.[CC]



                            *********

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 ***