---

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

              Tuesday, April 21, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 80

                            Headlines

90 CHURCH AVE: Gonzalez Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Spread-of-Hours
ADVANTAGE SALES: $1.2MM Foster Suit Settlement Initially Approved
AEGEAN MARINE: Service to Counsel Request in Securities Suit Denied
ALLEGHENY COUNTY: Disability Claims Dismissal in Donohue Upheld
AMAZON CORPORATE: Ousley Suit Seeks Continued Insurance Coverage

ANAPTYSBIO INC: Cops/Firemen Fund Hits Share Price Drop
ARKANSAS QUALITY THERAPY: Crain Seeks OT Pay for Care Aides
BERKMAN HENOCH: Bannister Files FDCPA Suit in New York
BINANCE: Faces Lee et al. Suit Over Sale of Unregistered Tokens
BLUEGRASS BIOEXTRACTS: Lovell Files RICO Suit in W.D. Kentucky

BSH HOME APPLIANCES: Microwave Catches Fire, Owners Claim
BUFFY INC: Nisbett Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
CAPSTONE RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay AMs OT Wages, Martinez Alleges
COREY BIGGS: Construction Workers Seek Unpaid Overtime Pay
CORT BUSINESS SERVICES: Nelson Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Paystubs

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Thomas Files Suit in California
CREDIT COLLECTION: Goertemiller Hits Illegal Collection Calls
CRICKET WIRELESS: Sales Reps Claim Overtime, Spread-of-Hours
DAIICHI SANKYO INC: Handley Suit Transferred to New Jersey
DELTA DENTAL: Faces Swiecinski Antitrust Suit in New Jersey

DO LAB INC: Nesis Files Suit in California
ECLIPSE RECREATIONAL: Ellington Files Suit in California
ELS EDUCATIONAL: Marn Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
EVENFLO COMPANY: Mahler Files Fraud Class Suit in Mass.
EXPRESS MESSENGER: Court Denies Bid for Relief in Ege Case

FEDEX GROUND: Cuadra Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
FLORIDA: Hamman Files ADA Class Suit
FORD MOTOR: Marino Liability Suit Moved From Mass. to Illinois
FRED'S BLUELIGHT: Chamberlain Seeks OT Pay for Strip Club Dancers
FREEDOM OILFIELD: Garza Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay

FRITO-LAY NORTH: Svensrud Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
FROST BANK: Faces Scherer Suit Alleging Violation of CARES Act
GOURMET GORILLA: Flowers Sues Over OT Pay and Wrongful Dismissal
GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Deluca Gets OK to File Complaint Under Seal
GREENWOOD GAMING: Dealers Seek Unpaid Overtime, Withheld Tips

HC2 HOLDINGS: Faces Tera Suit Over Solicitation to Remove Board
HOPE PLANTATION: Howes Files Suit Over Building Defects
HP INC: Falsely Advertises Color Printers, Rose Suit Alleges
IMAGE MAKERS.COM: Wohlstein Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
INDIANA: Harris Files Suit v. Prison Parole Board

INTELLECTUAL JEWELS: Barrett Suit Moved From Utah to N.D. Georgia
INTRADO LIFE: Jones FLSA Suit Removed to District of Colorado
J.M. SMUCKER: Gilleo Files Syrup Product Mislabeling Class Action
JONATHAN CLUB: Del Cid Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay, Paystubs
JP MORGAN: Muha Sues Over Collection Practices That Violate FCRA

KATIE J. KARZEN: Saremi Sues Over Illegally Faxed Ads
MAAC MACHINERY: Stecker Hits Biometrics Data Retention Policy
MAGIC MOUNTAIN: Faces Rezai-Hariri Suit Over Breach of Contract
MAYNE PHARMA: Breaches Duty to HedgePath Stockholders, Sears Says
METROPOLITAN TOWER: Pitt Sues Over Denied Benefits Under Policies

MGA HEALTHCARE: Ramirez Class Suit Seeks Damages
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Plan Members Suit Asserts Fund Mismanagement
NEW YORK: Detainees Request Early Release Amidst Epidemic
NONNI'S FOODS: Bardsley Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
NORTHSTAR EDUCATION: Snobs THE Program Duties, Oksenendler Claims

OPEN WORLD INC: Demtchouk Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
OUTBOUNDENGINE INC: Charman Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
PAFY INC: Faniel Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums
PERMIAN LODGING: Flores Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
PRIME NOW LLC: Nacarino Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California

REALPAGE INC: Martinez Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
REDFIN CORPORATION: Mahlberg Sues in Florida Over ADA Violation
RHINO RESOURCE: Fails to Properly Pay Miners, Warren Suit Alleges
SEPHORA USA INC: Couture Labor Suit Hits Misclassification
SERVICEMASTER GLOBAL: Faces Ruttenberg Securities Suit in N.Y.

SIMMONS BANK: Faces Wilkins Suit in Arkansas
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Employees' Fund Sues Over Share Price Drop
UPLAND APPAREL: Nisbett Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
US GOVERNMENT: Federal Workers Seek Hazard Pay Amidst Pandemic
VAIL CORPORATION: Faces Hunt Consumer Suit in N.D. California

WADE SHOWS: Keim Hits Confidential Info on Credit Card Receipt
WALT DISNEY PARKS: Pike Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
WEGMANS FOOD: Cohen Files Ice Cream Mislabeling Suit
XTO ENERGY INC: Kriley, et al. Sue Over Reduced Oil/Gas Royalties
YETI COOLERS: Peroutka Suit Moved from E.D.N.Y. to W.D. Texas


                            *********

90 CHURCH AVE: Gonzalez Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Spread-of-Hours
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. 90 Church Avenue Food Corp. and Mohammed
Khair And Mohammed Zaman, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01586 (E.D.
N.Y., March 27, 2020) seeks unpaid minimum wages and overtime wage
orders pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the
"spread-of-hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York
Commission of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.

Defendants own, operate or control a Bangladeshi/Indian/Chinese
Style restaurant at 90 Church Avenue, Brooklyn NY 11218 under the
name "Green House Party Hall" where Gonzalez performed various
kitchen and cleaning duties usually in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate compensation for the hours over 40 per week
that they worked. Defendants also failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of their hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff the
required "spread-of-hours" pay for any day in which he had to work
over 10 hours a day, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lina Stillman, Esq.
      STILLMAN LEGAL PC
      42 Broadway, 12th Floor
      New York, NU 10004
      Tel: (212) 203-2417
      Website: www.FightForUrRights.com


ADVANTAGE SALES: $1.2MM Foster Suit Settlement Initially Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division issued an Order granting
Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Proposed
Settlement in the case captioned WILMA FOSTER, Plaintiff v.
ADVANTAGE SALES & MARKETING, LLC, Defendant. Case No.
18-cv-07205-LB, (N.D. Cal.)

This is an overtime-pay case under federal and California law: a
nationwide collective action under the Federal Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and a California class action under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23. The plaintiffs claim that their employer, defendant
Advantage Sales and Marketing, LLC, d/b/a Advantage Solutions,
misclassified them as exempt under the FLSA and California law and
so failed to pay them requisite compensation.
   
Settlement Classes

There are 59 California class members and 261 Non-California opt-in
eligible plaintiffs. The proposed California Rule 23 class is as
follows:

Individuals employed by Advantage Sales & Marketing LLC d/b/a
Advantage Solutions as Customer Development Manager-Retail (CDMR)
in California during any work week between January 1, 2017 and
December 31, 2018 and who were classified as exempt.

The nationwide proposed FLSA collective is as follows:

Individuals employed by Advantage Sales & Marketing LLC d/b/a
Advantage Solutions as Customer Development Manager-Retail (CDMR)
outside of California during any work week between January 1, 2017
and December 31, 2018 and who were classified as exempt, excluding,
however, all California Class Members.

The settlement agreement specifies the following definitions for
the class:

The California Class and California Class Members means all
individuals who are identified by Defendant as having worked as
exempt Customer Development Managers-Retail (CDMR) for Defendant in
California during any workweek between January 1, 2017 and December
31, 2018.

Settlement Amount and Allocation

The total settlement amount is $1,200,000: (1) a Net Settlement
Amount of $734,000 ($362,000 to the California plaintiffs and
$372,000 to the non-California plaintiffs).

Preliminary Approval of Settlement

The approval of a class-action settlement has two stages: (1) the
preliminary approval, which authorizes notice to the class and (2)
a final fairness hearing, where the court determines whether the
parties should be allowed to settle the class action on the
agreed-upon terms.

The court has evaluated the proposed settlement agreement for
overall fairness under the Hanlon factors and concludes that
preliminary approval is appropriate.

First, the settlement appears fair. As the plaintiffs point out, it
provides good value when contrasted to the maximum damages,
including PAGA penalties and they collect cases in this district
where courts have approved settlements at comparable or lower rates
compared to the maximum recoverable at trial.

Second, a related point is that the value is significant given the
litigation risks and uncertainties. Class certification could
require individualized inquiries about the CDMR's duties and
whether they were exempt from federal and state overtime
requirements.35 There are uncertainties about the amounts of
overtime, and there is a relatively short liability period.36 A
settlement now also results in money paid now, while litigation and
arbitration result in delay and expense.

Third, a class action allows class members who otherwise would not
pursue their claims individually because costs would exceed
recoveries to obtain relief.

Finally, the settlement is the product of serious, non-collusive,
arm's-length negotiations and was reached after a settlement
conference with Judge Westmore.

The recoveries here are adequate to justify preliminary approval.
Given other comparable settlements and the litigation risks
identified above, the settlement amount at least preliminarily
appears fair.

For the same reasons, the court preliminarily approves the
settlement of the FLSA collective action.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 9, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/vsfvw85 from Leagle.com.

Wilma Foster, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew J. Horowitz -
Andrew.Horowitz@obermayer.com - Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell and
Hippel LLP, Bruce C. Fox - bruce.fox@obermayer.com - Obermayer
Rebmann Maxwell Hippel LLP, Byron R. Goldstein –
brgoldstein@gbdhlegal.com  - Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho,
Jeffrey B. Cadle - jeffrey.cadle@obermayer.com - Obermayer Rebmann
Maxwell and Hippel LLP & Laura L. Ho - lho@gbdhlegal.com -
Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho.

Advantage Sales & Marketing, LLC., Defendant, represented by Leslie
Lynn Abbott , Paul Hastings LLP, 515 South Flower Street 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071, Jennifer Lydia Helen Milazzo -
jennifermilazzo@paulhastings.com - Paul Hastings LLP & Paul William
Cane, Jr.   -paulcane@paulhastings.com - Paul Hastings LLP.


AEGEAN MARINE: Service to Counsel Request in Securities Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Order denying Lead Plaintiff's Motion to Serve
Defendant through Counsel in the case captioned In re: Aegean
Marine Petroleum Network Inc. Securities Litigation. Case No. 18
Civ. 4993 (NRB), (S.D.N.Y.).

This Order addresses the issues raised in the letters filed on
October 31 and November 5, 2019.

First, the Court denies Lead Plaintiff's request to serve defendant
Spyros Gianniotis through his attorney given the attorney's lack of
authority to accept service of process on Mr. Gianniotis' behalf.


Second, defendants who have been served by January 1, 2020 may move
to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint without the need
to file pre-motion letters or attend a pre-motion conference with
the Court. Those defendants' motions or responsive pleadings were
due on March 6, 2020.

Oppositions to any motions to dismiss are due on May 6, 2020. Any
replies in support of motions to dismiss are due on June 5, 2020.
The Court takes defendants at their word that they will coordinate
their motions, including through the submission of joint briefing
on common issues.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 18, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/smfvcmk  from Leagle.com

Utah Retirement Systems, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Aidan
Chowning Poppler  - cpoppler@bermantabacco.com - Berman Tabacco,
Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr. -jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com - Berman
Tabacco & Nicole Catherine Lavallee - nlavallee@bermanesq.com - One
California Street.

Nick Simco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Eduard Korsinsky - ek@zlk.com -
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP.

Andreas Litsas, Plaintiff, represented by Peretz Bronstein  -
peretz@bgandg.com - Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman.

Nova Scotia Health Employees' Pension Plan, Movant, represented by
Jeremy Alan Lieberman - jalieberman@pomlaw.com - Pomerantz LLP &
Matthew L. Tuccillo - mltuccillo@pomlaw.com - Pomerantz LLP.

Stephen R. Waite, Movant, represented by Kim Elaine Miller -
kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com - Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC.

Friedrich Koesters, Movant, represented by Daniel Sadeh , The Rosen
Law Firm, P.A., 333 South Grand Avenue, 25 th Floor Los Angeles, CA
90071

Nicholas Emmanuel, Movant, represented by Naumon A. Amjed -
namjed@ktmc.com - Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP.

Aegean Marine Petroleum Network Inc., Defendant, pro se.

E. Nikolas Tavlarios, Defendant, represented by Joshua Aaron
Goldberg , Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler LLP.

Aegean Marine Petroleum Network Inc., Defendant, pro se.

E. Nikolas Tavlarios, Defendant, represented by Joshua Aaron
Goldberg , Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler LLP.

Dimitris Melisanidis, Defendant, represented by Jonathan David
Schiller , Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Matthew Lane Schwartz ,
Boies Schiller Flexner LLP & Sara Klinger Winik , Boies Schiller
Flexner LLLP.

Peter C. Georgiopoulos, Defendant, represented by Amanda Ravich ,
Sher Tremonte LLP & Michael Tremonte , Sher Tremonte LLP.

John P. Tavlarios, Defendant, represented by Joanna Ka Wai Chan ,
Cohen & Gresser, LLP & Jonathan Sloan Abernethy , Cohen & Gresser,
LLP.

George Konomos, Defendant, represented by Eric Samuel Olney ,
Shapiro Arato Bach LLP & Jonathan Bach , Shapiro Arato Bach LLP.

ALLEGHENY COUNTY: Disability Claims Dismissal in Donohue Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit issued an Opinion
affirming the District Court's judgment granting Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss in the case captioned JOSEPH DONOHUE, Executor of the
Estate of SUSAN DONOHUE, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated; DEBORAH KINEST, individually and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated, Appellants v. THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM
OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY; RETIREMENT BOARD OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, Case No.
19-1163.

Joseph Donohue and Deborah Kinest appeal the dismissal of their
complaint, which alleged procedural and substantive due process
claims against Allegheny County's disability benefit approval
process.

Susan Donohue, an employee of Allegheny County, developed health
problems and applied for disability benefits from the Retirement
System of Allegheny County and the Retirement Board of Allegheny
County Board. Donohue filed several applications for disability
benefits and seven Board-selected physicians examined her. Each
physician found that she was not totally and permanently disabled
physically.

The Board therefore denied Donohue's applications for benefits.
Donohue requested and received two appeal hearings. Donohue had the
right to subpoena and to cross-examine the Board-selected
physicians at the hearings but declined to do so. The Board
affirmed the denial of benefits.

The Appellate Court reviews the District Court's decision to grant
a motion to dismiss de novo. To survive a motion to dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.

On appeal, Appellants first argue that the District Court
improperly dismissed their claims that the Board violated Donohue
and Kinest's procedural due process rights.

Generally, to state a claim alleging a procedural due process
violation, a plaintiff must allege that (1) he was deprived of an
individual interest that is encompassed within the Fourteenth
Amendment's protection of life, liberty, or property and (2) the
procedures available to him did not provide due process of law.

The District Court found that Appellants possessed a property right
in their claim for disability benefits. But the District Court
ultimately concluded that Appellants' procedural due process claim
was barred because neither Donohue nor Kinest pursued available
procedures to challenge the Board's denial of benefits.  

Appellants do not dispute that Donohue and Kinest failed to pursue
these procedures after their denials from the Board. But Appellants
argue these failures should be excused because the procedures are
inadequate for two reasons. First, they contend that the Board is
not authorized by law to do anything meaningful at a hearing. And
second, they assert that cross-examining the physicians would have
been futile.

Because there is a process on the books that appears to provide due
process, Appellants cannot skip that process and use the federal
courts as a means to get back what they want. So the Appellate
Court will affirm the District Court's dismissal of Appellants'
procedural due process claim.

Next, Appellants argue that the District Court erred when it
dismissed Appellants' substantive due process claim.

Before the District Court, and now on appeal, Appellants argued
that section 4711(a) fails rational basis review because the
three-physician approval requirement renders the physicians'
discretion unreviewable. As a result, Appellants argue, the statute
permits the arbitrary denial of benefits to eligible applicants.

The District Court rejected this argument.

It found that the statute's three-physician approval requirement
rationally relates to the legitimate interests of limiting the
Board's discretion, preventing waste, and preserving the financial
condition of the pension fund by leaving the benefits eligibility
determination to medical professionals. We agree with the District
Court's analysis.

The Third Circuit finds that the District Court properly dismissed
Appellants' procedural and substantive due process challenges, so
the Appellate Court will affirm.

A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's November 18, 2019 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/rdnlj78 from Leagle.com.


AMAZON CORPORATE: Ousley Suit Seeks Continued Insurance Coverage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jaymes Ousley, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Amazon Corporate, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00701, (M.D. Fla., March 25, 2020), seeks
statutory penalties, injunctive relief and payment of attorneys'
fees and expenses pursuant to the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1985 for Amazon's failure to provide adequate
notice of Ousley's right to continued health care coverage.

Ousley was employed by Amazon for some 4 years and was covered for
medical insurance for himself and his 2 year-old son through
Amazon's group health plan. On December 1, 2019 his employment was
terminated due to absences he incurred while involved in a custody
battle for his son. He claims not to receive a notice from Amazon
with regards to his continued medical insurance coverage.

Amazon Corporate is the plan sponsor and plan administrator of the
Amazon Group Health & Welfare Plan. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Luis Cabassa, Esq.
      Brandon Hill, Esq.
      WENZEL, FENTON AND CABASSA PA
      1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 224-0431
      Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
      Email: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
             bhill@wfclaw.com


ANAPTYSBIO INC: Cops/Firemen Fund Hits Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------
City of Hallandale Beach Police Officers’ and Firefighters'
Personnel Retirement Trust, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Anaptysbio, Inc., Hamza
Suria, Marco Londei and Dominic G. Piscitelli, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-00565 (S.D. Cal., March 25, 2020) seeks compensatory damages
including interest thereon, reasonable costs and expenses incurred
in this action, including attorneys' fees and expert fees and such
equitable/injunctive or other further relief under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

AnaptysBio is a clinical stage biotechnology company focused on the
discovery and development of drugs for the treatment of
inflammation and immuno-oncology conditions with unmet medical
needs. Its lead asset was etokimab, a drug intended for the
treatment of various inflammatory diseases.

On November 8, 2019, a multi-dose study which evaluated the
efficacy of etokimab in approximately 300 patients with
moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis revealed that each of the
etokimab dosing arms failed to demonstrate statistically greater
improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index relative to
placebo. It eventually postponed the initiation of the etokimab
clinical trial in asthma.

On this news, the price of AnaptysBio common stock declined nearly
72%, from a closing price of $36.16 per share on November 7, 2019,
to a closing price of $10.18 on November 8, 2019.

City of Hallandale Beach Police Officers' and Firefighters'
Personnel Retirement Trust is a stockholder of Anaptysbio. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
      2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Tel: (310) 819-3470
      Email: jonathanu@blbglaw.com

             - and -

      Hannah Ross, Esq.
      Avi Josefson, Esq.
      Michael D. Blatchley, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
      1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
      New York, NY 10020
      Tel: (212) 554-1400
      Fax: (212) 554-1444
      Email: avi@blbglaw.com
             mikeb@blbglaw.com
             hannah@blbglaw.com

             - and -

      Robert D. Klausner, Esq.
      Stuart A. Kaufman, Esq.
      KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN & LEVINSON
      7080 Northwest 4th Street
      Plantation, FL 33317
      Telephone: (954) 916-1202
      Facsimile: (954) 916-1232
      Email: bob@robertdklausner.com
             stu@robertdklausner.com


ARKANSAS QUALITY THERAPY: Crain Seeks OT Pay for Care Aides
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case DANIELLE CRAIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, PLAINTIFF, vs. ARKANSAS QUALITY THERAPY CO.,
COREY KIMBROUGH and TROOPER TOLBERT, DEFENDANTS, Case No.
4:20-cv-00245-DPM (E.D. Ark., March 6, 2020) alleges the failure of
the Defendants to pay Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
an overtime premium as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Care Aide from August 2019
through December 2019.

Arkansas Quality Therapy Co. provides an array of services for
individuals with disabilities to promote independence in Little
Rock, Arkansas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Josh Sanford, Esq.
            Sean Short, Esq.
            SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
            One Financial Center
            650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
            Little Rock, AR 72211
            Telephone: (501) 221-0088
            Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
            Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
                   sean@sanfordlawfirm.com


BERKMAN HENOCH: Bannister Files FDCPA Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Berkman Henoch
Peterson Peddy & Fenchel, PC. The case is styled as Latasha
Bannister, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Berkman Henoch Peterson Peddy & Fenchel, PC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01810-MKB-AKT (E.D.N.Y., April 15,
2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Berkman, Henoch, Peterson, Peddy & Fenchel, P.C. is a firm serving
Garden City, NY in Banking Law, Real Estate Development and Finance
cases.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com

     - and -

   David M. Barshay, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 706-5055
   Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com


BINANCE: Faces Lee et al. Suit Over Sale of Unregistered Tokens
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC LEE and CHASE WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BINANCE; CHANGPENG ZHAO;
YI HE; and ROGER WANG, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02803
(S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly-situated investors who purchased 12 digital tokens that
Binance has sold through its online exchange since July 1, 2017,
allege that the Defendants marketed the digital tokens to the
public through an initial coin offering without registering as an
exchange or brokerdealer and without filing registration statements
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as required under
federal and state laws.

On April 3, 2019, the SEC released a detailed framework to analyze
digital assets where it clarified that the tokens are investment
contracts and therefore securities under Section 2 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 3 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.  The SEC determined Binance's digital tokens as
unregistered securities on September 30, 2019, along with other
digital tokens sold by other cryptocurrency exchange platforms. As
a result, the Plaintiffs and Class members who purchased the tokens
suffered significant losses and they seek to recover the
consideration paid for the tokens with interest thereon at the
legal rate, or the equivalent in monetary damages plus interest at
the legal rate from the date of purchase.

Binance is a cryptocurrency exchange platform company headquartered
in Japan. It reached a market capitalization of $1.3 billion by
July 2018. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kyle W. Roche, Esq.
          Edward Normand, Esq.
          Velvel (Devin) Freedman, Esq.
          Alex T. Potter, Esq.
          Richard Cipolla, Esq.
          ROCHE CYRULNIK FREEDMAN LLP
          99 Park Avenue, 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10016          
          Telephone: (713) 554-2377
          Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
          E-mail: kyle@rcfllp.com
                  tnormand@rcfllp.com
                  vel@rcfllp.com
                  apotter@rcfllp.com
                  rcipolla@rcfllp.com

               - and -
          
          Philippe Z. Selendy, Esq.
          Jordan A. Goldstein, Esq.
          Oscar Shine, Esq.
          Mitchell Nobel, Esq.
          SELENDY & GAY PLLC
          1290 Sixth Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10104          
          E-mail: pselendy@selendygay.com
                  jgoldstein@selendygay.com
                  oshine@selendygay.com
                  mnobel@selendygay.com

BLUEGRASS BIOEXTRACTS: Lovell Files RICO Suit in W.D. Kentucky
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bluegrass
Bioextracts, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Michael Lovell,
Robert Huff, Harold Murphy, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Bluegrass Bioextracts, LLC, DTEC Ventures,
LLC, Omny Management, LLC, Dr. Gerald G. Edds, Bruce Peters, Case
No. 4:20-cv-00059-JHM (W.D. Ky., April 10, 2020).

The Plaintiffs filed the case under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

Bluegrass BioExtracts is an industrial hemp processing facility
located in Owensboro, Kentucky.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ronald E. Johnson, Jr., Esq.
          Sarah N. Emery, Esq.
          HENDY JOHNSON VAUGHN EMERY, PSC
          101 N. Seventh Street, Suite 210
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Phone: (859) 578-4444
          Fax: (859) 578-4440
          Email: rjohnson@justicestartshere.com
                 semery@justicestartshere.com


BSH HOME APPLIANCES: Microwave Catches Fire, Owners Claim
---------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Edin and Carolyn Giandonato, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated and aggrieved, Plaintiff, v. BSH Home
Appliances Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00576 (C.D. Cal.,
March 23, 2020), seeks damages and equitable relief resulting from
breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, unjust enrichment and for violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Minnesota Unlawful Trade Practices Act,
Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Minnesota Consumer
Fraud Act and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

BSH operates under the brand "Bosch." They produce kitchen
appliances that includes microwave drawers. Edin and Giandonato
purchased the Bosch HMD8451UC microwave oven drawers. Both claim
that said microwave is susceptible to catching fire, and unsuitable
for their intended use. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
      Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
      Lisa A. White, Esq.
      Rachel Soffin, Esq.
      GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
      800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
      Knoxville, TN 37929
      Telephone: (865) 247-0080
      Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
      Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
             adam@gregcolemanlaw.com
             lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com
             rachel@gregcolemanlaw.co

             - and -

      Harper T. Segui, Esq.
      Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
      WHITFIELD BRYSON, LLP
      900 W. Morgan Street
      Raleigh, NC 27603
      Tel: (919) 600-5000
      Email: dan@whitfieldbryson.com
             harper@whitfieldbryson.com

             - and -

      Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
      Andrea Gold, Esq.
      TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
      1828 L St. NW, Suite 1000
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 973-0900
      Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
      Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
             agold@tzlegal.com

             - and -

      Alex Straus, Esq.
      GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
      16748 McCormick Street
      Los Angeles, CA 91436
      Telephone: (917) 471-1894
      Facsimile: (310) 496-3176
      Email: alex@gregcolemanlaw.com

BUFFY INC: Nisbett Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Buffy Inc. The case
is styled as Kareem Nisbett, Individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Buffy Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-02981 (S.D.N.Y., April 12, 2020).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Buffy is a new natural home goods company rooted in sustainability
and wellness.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 392-4772
          Fax: (212) 444-1030
          Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


CAPSTONE RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay AMs OT Wages, Martinez Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magali Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CAPSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC; and SUMMIT RESTAURANT
HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01017 (D. Colo., April 10, 2020),
seeks relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of all
current and former "Assistant Managers," however variously titled
and employed by the Defendants.

The Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay AMs overtime
compensation for the hours they worked over 40 in one or more
workweeks because the Defendants classify them as exempt from
overtime, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Martinez was employed by the Defendants as an AM at a
"Hardee's" restaurant located in Calhoun, Georgia.

Capstone owns and operates approximately 300 franchised "Hardee's"
and "Carl's Jr" branded restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Conway, Esq.
          CONWAY LEGAL, LLC
          1700 Market Street, Suite 1005
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 278-4782
          Facsimile: (215) 278-4807
          Email: jconway@conwaylegalpa.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
          LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
          510 Walnut Street, Ste. 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Phone: (215) 592-1000
          Fax: (215) 592-4663
          Email: dlevin@lfsblaw.com


COREY BIGGS: Construction Workers Seek Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Seth Bogart, Jonathan Esquivel and Braeden Rofkahr, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Corey Biggs,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-02033 (W.D. Ark., March 16, 2020), seeks
to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a
result of illegally withholding tips in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

Corey Biggs operates a construction and remodeling business under
the name "Blueprint Construction" where Seth Bogart, Jonathan
Esquivel and Braeden Rofkahr were employed as an hourly-paid
construction workers. They claim that they were denied overtime
premiums for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      Blake Hoyt, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM
      Post Office Box 39
      Russellville, AR 72811
      Tel: (479) 880-0088
      Fax: (888) 787-2040
      Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
             blake@sanfordlawfirm.com


CORT BUSINESS SERVICES: Nelson Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Paystubs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Nelson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Cort Business Services Corporation and Does
1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV12143 (Cal.
Super., March 26, 2020), seeks unpaid wages and interest thereon
for failure to pay for all hours worked and minimum wage rate,
failure to authorize or permit required meal periods, failure to
authorize or permit required rest periods, statutory penalties for
failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties
in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay
employees all wages due upon separation of employment, unfair
competition, injunctive relief and other equitable relief,
reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest pursuant to
California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Orders. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jessica L Campbell, Esq.
      Kashif Haque, Esq.
      Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
      AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
      9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
      Irvine, CA 2618
      Telephone: (949) 379-6250
      Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
      Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com
             swong@aegislawfirm.com
             khaque@aegislawfirm.com


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Thomas Files Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Costco Wholesale
Corporation. The case is styled as Jason Thomas, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Costco
Wholesale Corporation and Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 3:20-cv-00718-LAB-BLM (S.D. Cal., April 15, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other
filed pursuant to the Diversity Action.

Costco Wholesale Corporation operates wholesale membership
warehouses in multiple countries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Ramin Rezaie Hariri, Esq.
   Hariri Law Group
   402 West Broadway
   Floor 22
   San Diego, CA 92101
   Tel: (619) 363-2889
   Fax: (619) 810-0791
   Email: ramin@haririlaw.com



CREDIT COLLECTION: Goertemiller Hits Illegal Collection Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Goertemiller, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Credit Collection Services, Inc.,
CCS Commercial, LLC, Customer Contact Solutions, LLC, ClaimAssist,
LLC, First USA Financial, LLC. and Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
and each of them, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02819 (C.D. Cal.,
March 26, 2020), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, treble
damages and all other relief for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Defendants are debt collectors. Goertemiller claims to have
received auto-dialed calls from them. His cellular telephone
service charges for incoming calls. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Phone: (323) 306-4234
      Fax: (866) 633-0228
      Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
             abacon@toddflaw.com


CRICKET WIRELESS: Sales Reps Claim Overtime, Spread-of-Hours
------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Rodriguez and Simon Khoshabow, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cricket Wireless LLC,
Wireless BBS, Inc., Cellpro Inc., Mayer Vaknin and Kimberly Velez,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01596 (E.D. N.Y., March 29, 2020) seeks
unpaid minimum wages and overtime wage orders pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the "spread-of-hours" and overtime
wage orders of the New York Labor Law as amended by the Wage Theft
Prevention Act, including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, and costs.

Defendants operate as "Cricket Wireless," where Rodriguez and
Khoshabow were formerly employed as Sales and Customer Service
Representatives at their retail locations in New York. They usually
render in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
compensation for the hours over 40 per week that they worked.
Defendants also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of their
hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff the required
"spread-of-hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10
hours a day. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lina Stillman, Esq.
      STILLMAN LEGAL PC
      42 Broadway, 12th Floor
      New York, New York 10004
      Tel: (212) 203-2417
      Website: www.FightForUrRights.com


DAIICHI SANKYO INC: Handley Suit Transferred to New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Tracy Handley, Shelly Phillips, Margaret
Adebayo, Janice Atwell, Ernest Hopkins, Darnell Newton, Brett Rich
and Sandee Salmon, on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Daiichi Sankyo Inc., Daiichi Sankyo Co., Daiichi
Sankyo U.S. Holdings, Inc., LTD, Forest Laboratories, LLC, Forest
Laboratories Inc, Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Forest Research
Institute, Inc., Defendants, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Oklahoma with the assigned Case
No. 5:20-cv-00067 to the U.S. District Court District for the
District of New Jersey on April 15, 2020, and assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-04326.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Personal
Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product
Liability.

Daiichi Sankyo is a global pharmaceutical company with its
corporate origin in Japan.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Matthew J. Sill, Esq.
   1101 N. Broadway Avenue, Suite 102
   Oklahoma City, OK 73103
   Tel: (405) 509-6300
   Email: matt@sill-law.com


DELTA DENTAL: Faces Swiecinski Antitrust Suit in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
David J. Swiecinski, DDS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Delta Dental Insurance Company, et al., Case
No. 1:20-cv-03913 (D.N.J., April 10, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants are involved in a contract, combination, or conspiracy
among the Defendants and their co-conspirators to allocate
territories of operation within the United States and its
territories, in violation of the Sherman Act and the New Jersey
Antitrust Statute, in order to suppress compensation paid by the
Defendants to the Plaintiff at rates that are below levels that
would prevail in a competitive marketplace to dentists, who are
members of the Delta Dental provider network.

Horizontal agreements among competitors to divide markets and fix
prices, such as the agreement alleged in the lawsuit, are per se
illegal under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the Plaintiff contends.
The Defendants' conduct has suppressed competition, fixed, raised,
and stabilized reimbursement rates paid by Defendants to Delta
Dental Providers, reduced consumer choice and consumer welfare, and
caused the Plaintiff and members of the proposed Classes antitrust
injury in the form of receiving lower reimbursement rates than
those that would have prevailed in a market undistorted by the
Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a New Jersey dentist that has accepted Delta
Dental insurance plans and provided services to patients insured by
Delta Dental in return for reimbursements from Delta Dental.

Delta Dental Plans Association is a national association of 39
independent Delta Dental companies.

The Defendants are Delta Dental Insurance Company; DeltaUSA; Delta
Dental Plans Association; Arizona Dental Insurance Service, Inc.,
d/b/a Delta Dental of Arizona; Delta Dental Plan of Arkansas, Inc.;
Delta Dental of California; Colorado Dental Service Inc. d/b/a
Delta Dental of Colorado; Delta Dental of Connecticut; Delta Dental
of Delaware, Inc.; Delta Dental of the District of Columbia; Hawaii
Dental Service; Delta Dental of Idaho, Inc. d/b/a Delta Dental of
Idaho; Delta Dental of Illinois; Delta Dental of Indiana, Inc.;
Delta Dental of Iowa; Delta Dental of Kansas, Inc.; Delta Dental of
Kentucky, Inc.; Maine Dental Service Corporation, d/b/a Delta
Dental Plan of Maine; Dental Service of Massachusetts Inc. d/b/a
Delta Dental of Massachusetts; Delta Dental Plan of Michigan, Inc.;
Delta Dental of Minnesota; Delta Dental of Missouri; Delta Dental
of Nebraska; Delta Dental Plan of New Hampshire, Inc., Delta Dental
of New Jersey, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of New Mexico, Inc.; Delta
Dental of New York Inc.; Delta Dental of North Carolina; Delta
Dental Plan of Ohio, Inc.; Delta Dental Plan of Oklahoma; Oregon
Dental Service d/b/a Delta Dental of Oregon; Delta Dental of
Pennsylvania; Delta Dental of Puerto Rico, Inc.; Delta Dental of
Rhode Island; Delta Dental of South Dakota; Delta Dental of
Tennessee; Delta Dental Plan of Vermont, Inc., Delta Dental of
Virginia; Delta Dental of Washington; Delta Dental Plan of West
Virginia, Inc.; Delta Dental of Wisconsin, Inc.; and Delta Dental
Plan of Wyoming d/b/a Delta Dental of Wyoming.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Simon B. Paris, Esq.
          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
          SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.
          1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 496-8282
          Fax: (215) 496-0999
          Email: sparis@smbb.com
                 phoward@smbb.com
                 ckocher@smbb.com


DO LAB INC: Nesis Files Suit in California
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Do Lab, Inc. The case
is styled as Tessa Nesis, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, and the General Public and Acting in the Public
Interest, Plaintiff v. Do Lab, Inc., Jason Flemming also known as:
DeDe Flemming, Jesse Flemming, Josh Flemming and Does 1-10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03452-DSF-PVC (C.D. Cal.,
April 14, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract:
Other.

Do LaB is an events business and leader in American festival
culture based out of Los Angeles, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Matthew J Geragos, Esq.
   Geragos Law Group
   888 West Sixth Street Suite 1100
   Los Angeles, CA 90017
   Tel: (213) 232-1363
   Fax: (888) 800-2949
   Email: matthew@geragoslaw.com

     - and -

   Reza Sina, Esq.
   Sina Law Group
   3727 West Magnolia Boulevard No 277
   Burbank, CA 91505
   Tel: (310) 957-2057
   Fax: (425) 409-0763
   Email: reza@sinalawgroup.com


ECLIPSE RECREATIONAL: Ellington Files Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eclipse Recreational
Vehicles, Inc. The case is styled as Ty Ellington, on behalf of
himself and a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Eclipse Recreational Vehicles, Inc., a California corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-00800 (C.D. Cal., April 15, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other
filed for Diversity-Other Contract.

Eclipse Recreational Vehicles, Inc. is an RV dealer sa Riverside,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Gayle M Blatt, Esq.
   Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt and Penfield LLP
   110 Laurel Street
   San Diego, CA 92101
   Tel: (619) 238-1811
   Fax: (619) 544-9232
   Email: gmb@cglaw.com

ELS EDUCATIONAL: Marn Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Marn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ELS EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-03912
(D.N.J., April 10, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and nationwide class action claim for breach of contract and
unjust enrichment under New Jersey common law over unpaid overtime
pay .

The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and others overtime in
the rate of one and one-half of their respective hourly rates for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek as required under
the FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an Instructor.

ELS provides educational services to customers throughout this
District and nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barry M. Bordetsky, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES BARRY M. BORDETSKY
          22 N. Park Place, 2nd Floor
          Morristown, NJ 07960
          Phone: (973) 998-6596
          Facsimile: (973) 937-7850
          Email: barry@bordetskylaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Moreland, Esq.
          Charles D. Moore, Esq.
          HALUNEN LAW
          1650 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 605-4098
          Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
          Email: moreland@halunenlaw.com
                 moore@halunenlaw.com

               - and -

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


EVENFLO COMPANY: Mahler Files Fraud Class Suit in Mass.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Evenflo Company, Inc.
The case is styled as Lauren Mahler, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Evenflo Company, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-10735 (D. Mass., April 14, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Fraud
filed pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Evenflo Company, Inc. manufactures and markets infant and juvenile
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Amy Williams-Derry, Esq.
   Keller Rohrback LLP
   1201 Third Ave, Suite 3200
   Seattle, WA 98101
   Tel: (206) 623-1900
   Email: awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com



EXPRESS MESSENGER: Court Denies Bid for Relief in Ege Case
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle issued an Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for
Relief in the case captioned ABDIRIZAQ EGE, ABDIRAHIM FARAH, and
ABDULKADIR HASSAN, and on behalf of other members of the general
public similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EXPRESS MESSENGER
SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation doing business as ONTRAC; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:16-CV-1167-RSL (W.D. Wash.).

The Plaintiffs' motion for relief was filed under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure (Rule) 60(b).  

Plaintiffs were commercial truck drivers for OnTrac, which operates
a regional package delivery service. They brought various wage
claims under Washington law. Each named plaintiff had entered into
an Owner/Operator Agreement (Agreement) with Subcontracting
Concepts CT LLC (SCI), a transportation logistics company.

The Law of the Case Doctrine

The law of the case doctrine requires courts to follow a decision
of an appellate court on a legal issue in all later proceedings in
the same case.  

There is an exception to the law of the case doctrine where
intervening controlling authority makes reconsideration
appropriate. The Ninth Circuit did not expressly consider the
merits of the Section 1 exemption issue in its decision, though
OnTrac argues it decided by necessary implication that the outcome
of New Prime would not impact plaintiffs' appeal when it summarily
denied plaintiffs' motion to stay.
  
Entitlement to Relief under Rule 60(b)

Rule 60(b) provides, On motion and just terms, the court may
relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment,
order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect (2) newly discovered
evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been
discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b) (3)
fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party (4) the
judgment is void (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or
discharged, it is based on an earlier judgment that has been
reversed or vacated  or applying it prospectively is no longer
equitable or(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

A Rule 60(b)(6) motion may be predicated on an intervening change
in the law. Phelps v. Alameida, 569 F.3d 1120, 1132 (9th Cir.
2009). "The primary inquiry on any motion under Rule 60(b)(6) is
whether there are 'extraordinary circumstances' that warrant
vacating the judgment."

Change in the Law

The first Phelps factor considers the nature of the intervening
change in law. Plaintiffs argue that the law was not settled on
whether the Court or an arbitrator should decide the applicability
of a Section 1 exemption or whether independent contractors fall
under the Section 1 exemption of the FAA.  

Given the competing considerations described above, the Court finds
the change in law factor neutral. While a favorable change to
unsettled law may generally weigh in favor of granting plaintiffs'
requested relief, the circumstances surrounding the change in law
here were not particularly extraordinary. Considering these
circumstances, plaintiffs were not blindsided and should have
raised the Section 1 exemption before the Court in the first
instance.

Plaintiffs' Diligence in Pursuing Relief

The second Phelps factor is the plaintiffs' exercise of diligence
in pursuing their claim for relief.

Plaintiffs point out that they filed their motion about a month
after the Supreme Court decided New Prime. But, as described above,
they failed to raise the Section 1 exemption issue before this
Court in opposing OnTrac's motion to dismiss, despite the existing
split of authority on the issue. And plaintiffs did not cite New
Prime in their Opening Brief before the Ninth Circuit, filed more
than a month after the First Circuit's decision in New Prime. Yet
in their Reply Brief filed before the Ninth Circuit a month later,
plaintiffs still did not mention New Prime.

Plaintiffs did not file their motion to stay the appeal pending the
Supreme Court's decision in New Prime until almost eight months
later,

Plaintiffs were not diligent. Here, plaintiffs' lack of diligence
weighs against granting their requested relief under Rule 60(b).  

Reliance Interest in Finality of the Case

The third factor considered in Phelps is whether granting the Rule
60(b) motion for relief from judgment would upset the parties
reliance in the finality of the case.

Here, the Court's dismissal has not caused one or more of the
parties to change its legal position in reliance on that judgment.
There is no indication that any past effects of the judgment would
be disturbed if the case were reopened for consideration on the
merits.

This weighs in favor of granting plaintiffs' requested relief.  

Delay Between the Judgment and the Rule 60(b) Motion

The fourth Phelps factor examines the delay between the finality of
the judgment and the motion for Rule 60(b)(6) relief. Plaintiffs
filed this motion approximately two months after the Ninth
Circuit's memorandum affirming this Court's dismissal. In this
case, the delay factor weighs in favor of granting plaintiffs'
relief.  

Relationship Between the Original Judgment and the Change in the
Law

The fifth Phelps factor looks to the closeness of the relationship
between the decision resulting in the original judgment and the
subsequent decision that represents a change in the law.

Here, the connection between New Prime and plaintiffs' action is
not as straightforward as the cases in Phelps and Henson.   

Plaintiffs argued that OnTrac intentionally misclassified them as
independent contractors instead of employees to avoid complying
with various statutory provisions. They did not argue that they
were entitled to the exemption under Section 1 even though they
were independent contractors. The Court therefore found that the
Agreements were contracts evidencing a transaction involving
commerce and were subject to the FAA.  

This factor weighs against granting plaintiffs' requested relief.

Comity

The Phelps comity factor is inapplicable here and thus does not
inform the Court's analysis.  

For these reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion for Relief Under Rule 60(b)is
DENIED.

A full-text copy of the District Court's December 9, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/vrpn7fm from Leagle.com.

Abdirizaq Ege, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew
J. Sokolowski - andrew@sokolawfirm.com - CAPSTONE LAW APC, pro hac
vice, Arnab Banerjee - Arnab.Banerjee@Capstonelawyers.com -
CAPSTONE LAW APC, pro hac vice, Bassil A. Hamideh -
bhamideh@hamidehfirm.com - THE HAMIDEH FIRM, P.C., pro hac vice,
Daniela Saspe - Saspe@lls.edu - CAPSTONE LAW APC, pro hac vice,
Douglas Lee Burdette , BURKETT & BURDETTE, 249 Main Ave. S., Ste
107 #333, North Bend, WA, 98045, Jennifer Bagosy -
jennifer.bagosy@dominguezfirm.com - CAPSTONE LAW APC, pro hac vice,
Kelly Danielle Burdette , BURKETT & BURDETTE, 249 Main Avenue
South, Suite 107 #333, North Bend, WA, 98045, Liana Carter
-Liana.Carter@capstonelawyers.com - CAPSTONE LAW APC, pro hac vice,
Ryan Wu -Ryan.Wu@capstonelawyers.com - CAPSTONE LAW APC, pro hac
vice & Suzy Lee  - slee@fisherphillips.com - CAPSTONE LAW APC, pro
hac vice.

Abdirahim Farah, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated & Abdulkadir Hassan,
individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew J. Sokolowski
, CAPSTONE LAW APC, pro hac vice, Arnab Banerjee , CAPSTONE LAW
APC, pro hac vice, Bassil A. Hamideh , THE HAMIDEH FIRM, P.C., pro
hac vice, Daniela Saspe , CAPSTONE LAW APC, pro hac vice, Douglas
Lee Burdette , BURKETT & BURDETTE, Jennifer Bagosy , CAPSTONE LAW
APC, pro hac vice, Kelly Danielle Burdette , BURKETT & BURDETTE,
Liana Carter , CAPSTONE LAW APC, pro hac vice & Ryan Wu , CAPSTONE
LAW APC, pro hac vice.

Express Messenger Systems Inc, a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Kellie Anne Tabor - ktabor@littler.com - LITTLER
MENDELSON & Ryan Paul Hammond - rhammond@littler.com - LITTLER
MENDELSON.

FEDEX GROUND: Cuadra Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ERNEST CUADRA, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE
SYSTEM, INC., a Delaware corporation; FEDEX, a business entity
unknown; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. RG19045340 (Filed
Dec. 3, 2019), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Alameda to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on March 25, 2020.

The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-02089 to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts claims for the Defendants' failure to pay
minimum wage or overtime wages, in violation of the California
Labor Code.

Fedex provides package delivery services.[BN]

Fedex is represented by:

          Evan R. Moses, Esq.
          Alexander M. Chemers, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213-239-9800
          Facsimile: 213-239-9045
          E-mail: evan.moses@ogletree.com
                  alexander.chemers@ogletree.com


FLORIDA: Hamman Files ADA Class Suit
------------------------------------
The Board of Governors is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Alfred Risien Hamman, on behalf of W.H.H. and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Board of Governors, The Board
of Education and Ron Desantis in his individual and official
capacity, Defendants, Case No. 6:20-cv-00649-CEM-LRH (M.D. Fla.,
April 14, 2020).

The Board of Governors sets reserve requirements and regulates the
asset holdings of banks.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.



FORD MOTOR: Marino Liability Suit Moved From Mass. to Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT MARINO, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Case No. 1:20-cv-10048 (Filed Jan. 10, 2020), was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago)
on March 26, 2020.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-01981 to the proceeding.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas M. Durkin. The suit
demands $75,000 in damages.

The Plaintiff brings this case individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons, who purchased or leased Model Year
2017-2020 Ford F-150 vehicles that were designed, manufactured,
distributed, marketed, sold or leased by the Defendant or its
parent, subsidiary or affiliates.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant knew or should have known
that the Vehicles contain one or more design and/or manufacturing
defects, including defects contained in the Vehicles' 10R80, a
ten-speed automatic transmission that can shift harshly and
erratically, causing the vehicle to jerk, lunge, and hesitate
between gears.

Ford Motor Company, commonly known as Ford, is an American
multinational automaker that has its main headquarters in Dearborn,
Michigan, a suburb of Detroit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex R. Straus, Esq.
          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Lisa A. White, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          Los Angeles, CA 91436
          Telephone: (310) 450-9689
          Facsimile: (310) 496-3176
          E-mail: alex@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          John R. Fabry, Esq.
          Luis Munoz, Esq.
          THE CARLSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          1717 N. Interstate Highway 35, Suite 305
          Round Rock, TX 78664
          Telephone: (512) 671-7277
          Facsimile: (512) 238-0275
          E-mail: jfabry@carlsonattorneys.com
                  lmunoz@carlsonattorneys.com

               - and -

          Sidney F. Robert, Esq.
          BRENT COON AND ASSOCIATES
          300 Fannin, Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 225-1682
          Facsimile: (713) 225-1785
          E-mail: sidney.robert@bcoonlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jacob J. Lantry, Esq.
          CAMPBELL CONROY & O'NEIL P.C.
          One Constitution Wharf, Suite 310
          Boston, MA 02129
          Telephone: (617) 241-3086
          jlantry@campbell-trial-lawyers.com


FRED'S BLUELIGHT: Chamberlain Seeks OT Pay for Strip Club Dancers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, AMBER CHAMBERLAIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly-situated v. FRED'S BLUELIGHT INVESTMENTS INC.,
D/B/A CORSETS CABARET; 8128 CAMP BOWIE LLC; TX TRIPLE LLC; CURTIS
WISE; LARRY WRANGLER; JAMES VICK; BROOKE DOE; JENNIFER DOE; and
JADE DOE, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00776-N (N.D. Tex., April 2,
2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and all other similarly-situated strip club dancers and
entertainers appropriate minimum wages and overtime pay as mandated
by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an exotic dancer at
the Corsets Cabaret located at 8128 Camp Bowie W. Blvd., Fort
Worth, Texas from approximately 2012 through September, 2019.

Fred's Bluelight Investments Inc. is an owner and operator of a
strip club named Corsets Cabaret, with its principal place of
business at 2032 Reserve Court in Flower Mound, Texas.

8128 CAMP BOWIE LLC is a Texas limited liability company with its
principal place of business at 11327 Reeder Road, Dallas, Texas.

TX Triple LLC is a Texas limited liability company with its
principal place of business at 2032 Reserve Court, Flower Mound,
Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
          Leigh Montgomery, Esq.
          HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
          1105 Milford Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554-2377
          Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
          E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com
                  craft@hughesellzey.com
                  leigh@hughesellzey.com

FREEDOM OILFIELD: Garza Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Justin Garza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Freedom Oilfield Services, LLC, Robert E.
Mosley, Jr., Matthew M. Evans, James D. Barron, Samuel Hester, and
Donald Lee Glover, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00361 (W.D. Tex.,
March 23, 2020), seeks unpaid compensation, unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs of court under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Garza worked for Freedom Oilfield Services as a pressure control
operator from 2016 until February of 2020. He claims that he worked
more than 40 hours per week without overtime, rigging down
equipment at oil and gas wells, working on equipment at well sites,
and maintaining and pressure washing equipment. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas H. Padgett, Jr., Esq.
      Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
      THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
      2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
      Houston, TX 77018
      Tel: (713) 868-3388
      Fax: (713) 683-9940
      Email: tpadgettlaw@gmail.com
             vijay@buenkerlaw.com


FRITO-LAY NORTH: Svensrud Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Tami Svensrud, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc., a
Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
30-2020-01136526-CU-NP-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of Orange, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on April 10, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:20-cv-00714 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as other fraud.

Frito-Lay, Inc., is an American subsidiary of PepsiCo that
manufactures, markets, and sells corn chips, potato chips, and
other snack foods.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew S Tulumello, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          1050 Connecticut Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: (202) 955-8500
          Fax: (202) 467-0539
          Email: atulumello@gibsondunn.com


FROST BANK: Faces Scherer Suit Alleging Violation of CARES Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edward L. Scherer, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Frost Bank, Case No. 4:20-cv-01297 (S.D.
Tex., April 12, 2020), is brought on behalf of himself and his
small business against the Defendant for its alleged brazen
violations of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
Act and the Small Business Administration's loan program.

At an unprecedented time of severe national need, Frost Bank
chooses privileged discriminatory policies driven by corporate
greed over the recognized and urgent needs of America's small
businesses, the Plaintiff avers. Authorized by Congress and the
President of the United States under the CARES Act and its loan
programs to administer billions of dollars in federal funding to
small businesses in a fair, equitable and uniform manner, the
Defendant implemented a loan process that unlawfully prioritized
its existing business clients at the expense of not only its own
clients without business checking accounts, but also other small
businesses from applying for funds from the governmental loan
program, the Plaintiff alleges.

The Plaintiff contends that nothing in the CARES Act authorizes or
permits the Defendant to pick and choose who would gain access to,
or benefit from, the federally backed lending program. And, the
priority of access to these limited funds is material--the demand
is overwhelming as America responds to the economic tsunami of
COVID-19 upon small businesses. There is no justification for
requiring small businesses, who did not have a Frost Bank business
checking account as of April 1, 2020, to go to the end of the line
and suffer the inevitable consequence of the
first-come-first-served system that has been implemented under the
CARES Act, the Plaintiff asserts.

The Plaintiff, a sole proprietor owning a small business, asserts
that it is no secret that the overwhelming and immediate demand for
assistance under the CARES Act will cause the allocated $349
billion to quickly run out. Worse yet, Frost Bank's decision
unjustly benefitted its business clientele at the expense of the
Plaintiff and members of the Class, barring them from receiving the
much-needed forgivable loan funds that Congress and the President
made available to them, says the complaint.

Frost Bank is a national bank organized under the laws of
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq.
          ALI S. AHMED, P.C.
          430 W. Bell Street
          Houston, TX 77019
          Phone: (713) 898-0982
          Email: aahmedlaw@gmail.com


GOURMET GORILLA: Flowers Sues Over OT Pay and Wrongful Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHAMIRE FLOWERS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. DANIELLE HRZIC; GOURMET GORILLA,
INC.; AND ZACHARY WALTERS, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02109 (N.D.
Ill., April 2, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
its failure to comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated workers overtime
premium for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek,
required them to work off-the-clock hours, and terminated her after
she reported a workplace injury claim.

Ms. Flowers was employed by Defendants from July 19, 2019 through
December 3, 2019 to work in various capacities including preparing,
serving and cleaning up after meals at a school.

Gorilla Gourmet, Inc. is a provider of meals to early childhood and
K-12 schools throughout Northern Illinois and Wisconsin. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jorge Sanchez, Esq.
          LOPEZ & SANCHEZ LLP
          77 W. Washington St., Suite 1313
          Chicago, IL 60602          
          Telephone: (312) 420-6784

GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Deluca Gets OK to File Complaint Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted Plaintiffs' motion to Renew and Make Permanent an
Order in the case captioned BARBARA DELUCA and DREW R. NAYLOR, on
behalf of themselves and other similarly situated limited partners,
Plaintiffs, v. GPB AUTOMOTIVE PORTFOLIO, LP, GPB HOLDINGS II, LP,
GPB CAPITAL HOLDINGS, LLC, ASCENDANCY ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES, LLC,
ASCENDANT CAPITAL, LLC, AXIOM CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC., DAVID
GENTILE, MARK MARTINO, JEFFREY LASH, and JEFFREY SCHNEIDER,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 19-cv-10498.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d), Plaintiffs
Barbara DeLuca and Drew R. Naylor moved the Court for entry of an
order renewing and making permanent the Court's November 8, 2019
order temporarily granting Plaintiffs leave to (1) file under seal
the unredacted version of Plaintiffs' Complaint and Exhibit A to
the Glauber Declaration  and (2) publicly file the redacted version
of the Complaint.

The Motion is granted to the extent hereafter set forth and
otherwise denied, ruled Judge LEWIS A. KAPLAN.

This purported class action is brought by limited partners of GPB
Automotive Portfolio, LP, and GPB Holdings II, LP, and as well as
others. The crux of the claim appears to be that class members were
fraudulently induced to invest more than $1.27 billion.

Prior to the commencement of this action, plaintiffs sought access
to books and records of Automotive and Holdings II under Delaware
law and the partnership agreements. As a condition of granting
access, the Partnerships insisted that plaintiffs execute
confidentiality agreements.

The Partnerships thereupon designated all documents to which they
gave plaintiffs access as Confidential.

In these circumstances, plaintiffs, upon filing this action, sought
an order providing for the filing of the complaint and certain
other materials, which apparently are based to some degree upon
documents that the Partnerships designated as Confidential, under
seal and the public filing of a redacted version.

"In my absence, the Part I judge (Furman, J) granted the requested
order on a temporary basis. He required that plaintiffs file the
unredacted copies publicly on November 15, 2019 unless they renewed
their motion to seal before me before then," Judge Kaplan opined.

Plaintiffs now have renewed their motion. The renewed motion makes
abundantly clear that they have made this motion to comply with
their contractual obligation quoted above. They "do not concede
that the materials upon which the Complaint relies constitute
'confidential' information under law, reserve[] their rights to
challenge such wholesale designations, and plan to do so at the
appropriate juncture," rules the Court.

"I put to one side, for the moment, the questions whether the
Partnerships' wholesale designation of everything to which they
granted plaintiffs access was appropriate and, if not, whether
their action in doing so should have consequences quite
inconsistent with what they sought to achieve," Judge Kaplan wrote
in his order dated  
November 18, 2019, a full-text copy of which is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ungzc6d from Leagle.com.

Barbara Deluca, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
limited partners & Drew R. Naylor, on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated limited partners, Plaintiffs, represented by Ira
N. Glauber- rbowe@dilworthlaw.com - Dilworth Paxson LLP.

GREENWOOD GAMING: Dealers Seek Unpaid Overtime, Withheld Tips
-------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel M. Einhorn and Marc A. Schwartz, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Greenwood Gaming
and Entertainment, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01601 (E.D.
Pa., March 24, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime
wages under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, Pennsylvania's Wage
Payment and Collection Law and the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Greenwood Gaming And Entertainment, Inc. operates as Parx Casino
located at 2999 Street Road, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 where
Plaintiffs worked as a Table Games Dealers. Greenwood allegedly
failed to compensate their employees properly for overtime hours.
In addition, they failed to properly inform their tipped employees
of the required tip credit provisions prior to paying a sub-minimum
direct cash wage, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Derrek W. Cummings, Esq.
      Larry A. Weisberg, Esq.
      WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C.
      2704 Commerce Dr., Suite B
      Harrisburg, PA 17110-9380
      Telephone: (717) 238-5707
      Facsimile: (717) 233-8133
      Email: dcummings@weisbergcummings.com
             lweisberg@weisbergcummings.com

             - and -

      George A. Hanson, Esq.
      Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
      STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
      460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
      Kansas City, MO 64112
      Tel: (816) 714-7100
      Fax: (816) 714-7101
      E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
              ricke@stuevesiegel.com

             - and -

      Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
      Michael J. Rahmberg, Esq.
      McCLELLAND LAW FIRM
      The Flagship Building
      200 Westwoods Drive
      Liberty, MO 64068-1170
      Telephone: (816) 781-0002
      Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
      Email: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com
             mrahmberg@mcclellandlawfirm.com


HC2 HOLDINGS: Faces Tera Suit Over Solicitation to Remove Board
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Tera, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
v. HC2 HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, PHILIP A. FALCONE,
WARREN H. GFELLER, ROBERT V. LEFFLER, JR., LEE S. HILLMAN, and
JULIE TOTMAN SPRINGER, Case No. 2020-0275 (Del. Ch., April 10,
2020), arises from an ongoing solicitation of written consents to
remove and replace the entire Board of Directors of the Company.

Simultaneously, the Plaintiff alleges, the Company is seeking
revocations of written consents through an affirmatively misleading
revocation statement. Through that consent revocation statement,
the Board is actively misusing the proxy put provisions in the
Company's preferred stock instruments to coerce stockholders into
refusing to give a written consent or revoking consents already
given. Immediate relief from the Court is the only thing that will
allow a fair and informed exercise of the stockholder franchise,
the Plaintiff asserts.

According to the complaint, HC2 has performed miserably since
Defendant Falcone, a former hedge fund manager, who was barred from
the securities industry for five years as a result of a settlement
of securities fraud charges levied against him, made a large
investment in the Company and became its Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer. Not surprisingly, other stockholders have become
frustrated with the Company's performance, with two separate
investors--Percy Rockdale LLC and MG Capital Management
Ltd.--deciding to nominate a director slate to replace the
incumbent members of the Board.

On March 13, 2020, Percy Rockdale and MG Capital filed a
preliminary consent solicitation seeking to solicit sufficient
written consents to replace the incumbent directors. In response,
the Plaintiff says, the HC2 Board is both misleading the electorate
about the nature of the Company's proxy put obligations, and acting
in bad faith by refusing to permit a free and fair election.
Specifically, in their Consent Revocation Statement urging HC2
stockholders to refuse to grant consents and to revoke any consents
already provided, the Board conceals its own power unilaterally to
eliminate the risk of a default event requiring the repayment of
the preferred shares.

The Plaintiff contends that this disclosure is misleading. Under
the terms of the Proxy Put, the Board plainly has the ability to
approve the nomination of the competing directors for purpose of
defusing the threat of a redemption event, even as the Board can
continue to oppose their actual election by stockholders, says the
complaint.

Through this Action, the Plaintiff seeks to immediately cure the
Board's false disclosures and enjoin the Board from soliciting
unless and until they approve the nominations of the competing
director slate. Only then can stockholders properly exercise their
fundamental right to vote based on the merits of the competing
director slates.

The Plaintiff is a stockholder of HC2 and has owned HC2 common
stock.

HC2 is a diversified holding company with an array of operating
subsidiaries across eight reportable segments, including
construction, marine services, energy, telecommunications, life
sciences, broadcasting and insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          500 Delaware Avenue
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 364-3601

               - and -

          Mark Lebovitch Esq.
          Jacqueline Y. Ma, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Phone: (212) 554-1400

               - and -

          Jeremy S. Friedman, Esq.
          David F.E. Tejtel, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
          493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D
          Bedford Hills, NY 10507
          Phone: (888) 529-1108


HOPE PLANTATION: Howes Files Suit Over Building Defects
-------------------------------------------------------
John N. Howe and Linda L. Howe, derivatively, on behalf of
themselves and Indigo Hall at Hope Plantation Horizontal Property
Regime, and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. Hope
Plantation Condominiums, LLC, Edward Scott, individually, Links
Construction, LLC, Hope Plantation Villas, LLC and Jane and John
Does 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 2020CP1001591 (S.C. Comm. Pleas,
March 25, 2020), seeks actual, consequential and punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and all other relief resulting from
negligence, breach of contract, breach of implied and express
warranty.

Indigo Hall at Hope Plantation is a residential condominium
community of individual units located on Johns Island, South
Carolina where the Howes own residences. Links Construction
constructed Indigo Hall while Hope Plantation Villas is its
developer.

The Howes claim that Hope Plantation failed to properly construct
and maintain the condition of the buildings, resulting in water
intrusion, construction defects and other damages. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      John C. Hayes, IV, Esq.
      Nina E. Meola, Esq.
      HAYES LAW FIRM, LLC
      180 Meeting Street, Suite 330
      Charleston, SC 29401
      Tel: (843) 805-7003
      Email: Jhayes@hayeslaw.org
             Nmeola@hayeslaw.org


HP INC: Falsely Advertises Color Printers, Rose Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Rose, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HP INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-02450-NC (N.D. Cal., April
10, 2020), is brought as a consumer protection and false
advertising class action lawsuit against HP based on its misleading
and unfair business practices with respect to the marketing and
sale of certain HP color printers.

HP fails to disclose that the Printers use substantial amounts of
color ink when printing images and text in black and white (a
process known as "underprinting"), according to the complaint. HP
also fails to disclose to consumers that the Printers are designed
to cease printing if the Product's color ink is depleted, even if
the consumer wants to print in black and white using only black
toner or ink.

Consumers purchase the Printers reasonably believing that the
Printers would not use color ink when printing purely black and
white text or images. Consumers further reasonably believe that the
Printers will be able to print images or text in black and white
regardless of whether color ink is available. Consumers do not
know, and have no reason to know, that the Printers were
purposefully designed to use color ink even when printing images or
text that are purely black and white. Consumers are similarly
unaware that the Printers will not be able to print at all if the
Printers' color ink has depleted.

The Plaintiff contends that consumers are unaware of these material
facts not only because the Defendant fails to disclose them at the
point of sale, but they defy common sense. Consumers expect a
printer to be able to print images and text in black and white when
the printer still has sufficient black ink, regardless of the color
ink level. As a result of this underprinting process, the Plaintiff
insists, consumers expend more on ink than they reasonably expected
to, and are forced to buy color ink in order to continue printing,
whether they choose to print in color or black and white.
Consumers' injuries are only exacerbated due to the relatively more
expensive price of color ink compared to black ink.

Had the Plaintiff and other consumers known that the Defendant
designed its Printers to prematurely stop printing when the color
ink has been depleted, or that the Printers would consume color ink
even when printing images or text in black and white, they would
not have purchased the Printers or would have paid significantly
less for them, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Ms. Rose purchased an HP OfficeJet Pro 8630 printer from
a Costco in Richmond, California.

HP, one of America's manufacturers and distributors of printers,
offers consumers printers capable of printing in both black and
color ink.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: (424) 256-2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
          Email: bheikali@faruqilaw.com

               - and –

          Bonner C. Walsh, Esq.
          WALSH PLLC
          1561 Long Haul Road
          Grangeville, ID 83530
          Phone: (541) 359-2827
          Facsimile: (866) 503-8206
          Email: bonner@walshpllc.com


IMAGE MAKERS.COM: Wohlstein Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wohlstein, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Image Makers.com, Corp.,
Defendant, Case No. 105485433 (Fla. Cir., March 26, 2020), seeks
statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorney fees for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Image Makers.com operates a medical facility that specializes in
cosmetic and aesthetic products and treatments. To promote its
services, it engages in unsolicited SMS ads sent en masse via an
auto dialer. Wohlstein did not give express consent to receive such
texts, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
      EDELSBERG LAW, PA
      20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 975-3320
      Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com

             - and -

      Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
      Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
      SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
      14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
      Miami, FL 33132
      Telephone: 305-479-2299
      Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
             gberg@shamisgentile.com


INDIANA: Harris Files Suit v. Prison Parole Board
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Indiana Parole Board.
The case is styled as Bardley J. Harris, individually, on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Indiana Parole Board
and Contractors of the Indiana Parole Board, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-01165-JMS-TAB (S.D. Ind., April 15, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Prisoner
Petitions - Prison Condition filed pursuant to the Prisoner Civil
Rights.

The Indiana Parole Board is available to assist victims who have
safety concerns regarding an offender's parole release.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.



INTELLECTUAL JEWELS: Barrett Suit Moved From Utah to N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as Joseph Barrett, Craig Cunningham, Andrew
Perrong, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v.
Intellectual Jewels of Tera Communications, LLC, Case No.
2:19cv00568-CW-CMR, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for District of Utah to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia on April 10, 2020.

The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-01529-SDG-JSA to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as other statutory actions.

Intellectual Jewels of Tera Communication LLC is a DIRECTV (DTV)
and AT&T Uverse National authorized retail provider for both
residential and commercial accounts.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Phone: (615) 485-0018
          Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com

               - and -

          Steven Howard Koval, Esq.
          THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC
          Building 15, Suite 120
          3575 Piedmont Rd.
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Phone: (404) 513-6651
          Fax: (404) 549-4654
          Email: shkoval@aol.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Chandler Thompson, Esq.
          AKERMAN LLP
          170 South Main Street, Suite 725
          Salt Lake City, UT 84101
          Phone: (801) 907-6900
          Fax: (801) 355-0294
          Email: chandler.thompson@akerman.com


INTRADO LIFE: Jones FLSA Suit Removed to District of Colorado
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as DENNIS JONES and JAMES WELCH,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
INTRADO LIFE & SAFETY, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
20CV30376 (Filed Feb. 14, 2020), was removed from the Colorado
District Court for Arapahoe County to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado on March 26, 2020.

The District of Colorado Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-00834 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant violated the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendant failed to pay them and other current and former employees
of the Defendant the correct amount of overtime compensation as
mandated by the FLSA.

Intrado is a global provider of communication and network
infrastructure services.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joshua B. Kirkpatrick, Esq.
          Lauren E. Meyerholz, Esq.
          Matt C. Freemann, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          1900 Sixteenth Street, Suite 800
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 629-6200
          Facsimile: (303) 629-0200
          E-mail: jkirkpatrick@littler.com
                  lmeyerholz@littler.com
                  mfreemann@littler.com


J.M. SMUCKER: Gilleo Files Syrup Product Mislabeling Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kansas Gilleo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. The J.M. Smucker Company, Defendant, Case
No. 20-cv-02519 (S.D. N.Y., March 24, 2020), seeks injunctive
relief resulting from negligence, unjust enrichment and breach of
contract and breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of
merchantability and for violation of the New York General Business
Law and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act.

J. M. Smucker Company manufactures, distributes, markets, labels
and sells caramel flavored syrup, under the "Smucker's" brand.
Plaintiffs dispute Smucker's claim that their syrup is flavored
only with vanilla and that they contain non-vanilla flavors which
imitate and extend vanilla but are not derived from the vanilla
bean. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
      SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      505 Northern Blvd., Ste. 311
      Great Neck NY 11021-5101
      Tel: (516) 303-0552
      Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
      Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com

             - and -

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


JONATHAN CLUB: Del Cid Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay, Paystubs
----------------------------------------------------------
Joaquin Del Cid Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Jonathan Club and Does 1 through
20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV12113 (Cal. Super., March
26, 2020), seeks unpaid wages and interest thereon for failure to
pay for all hours worked and minimum wage rate, failure to
authorize or permit required meal periods, failure to authorize or
permit required rest periods, statutory penalties for failure to
provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the
form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all
wages due upon separation of employment, unfair competition,
injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's
fees, costs and interest pursuant to California Labor Code and
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

Jonathan Club employed Del Cid as a security guard at its Los
Angeles location. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin P. Smith, Esq.
      DEFIANCE LAW, PLLC
      7512 Bridgeport Way West, Ste. A
      Lakewood, WA 98499
      Phone: (253) 244-7327
      Fax: (253)275-0208
      Email: k.smith@defiance.law


JP MORGAN: Muha Sues Over Collection Practices That Violate FCRA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte Muha, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NA and TRANS UNION LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-00591-NJ (E.D. Wis., April 10, 2020), seeks redress for the
Defendants' collection practices that violate the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Wisconsin
Consumer Act.

On May 1, 2019, Chase Bank mailed the Plaintiff a letter. The
Letter states that Chase Bank did not approve the Plaintiff's
credit application for a CHASE FREEDOM Visa Platinum account. The
Letter states that Chase Bank denied the Plaintiff's application
because the Plaintiff's "credit report reflects a bankruptcy." The
Letter states that Chase Bank's decision was based "in whole or in
part on information obtained in a report from" TransUnion.

According to the complaint, the reason that Chase Bank gave for
denying the Plaintiff's credit application--that the Plaintiff's
TransUnion "credit report reflects a bankruptcy" was a sham. On May
7, 2019, TransUnion provided the Plaintiff with a copy of her
TransUnion credit report. The credit report does not reflect any
bankruptcy. In fact, the Plaintiff filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy in
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on
November 5, 2004, and received a discharge on February 8, 2005.

The Plaintiff incurred harm as a result of the Letter, including
time and expense attendant to obtaining a credit freeze from
TransUnion and obtaining her TransUnion credit report, as well as
anxiety, apprehension, and other emotional distress relating to
learning that a bankruptcy she filed fifteen years ago may still be
appearing on her credit report and impacting her ability to obtain
credit, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an individual, who resides in the Eastern District
of Wisconsin.

Chase Bank USA, N.A., is a multinational investment bank and
financial services company headquartered in the United States, and
one of the largest banks in the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          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
          Phone: (414) 482-8000
          Fax: (414) 482-8001
          Email: sademi@ademilaw.com
                 jblythin@ademilaw.com
                 meldridge@ademilaw.com
                 jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                 bslatky@ademilaw.com


KATIE J. KARZEN: Saremi Sues Over Illegally Faxed Ads
-----------------------------------------------------
Eddie Saremi, D.M.D., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Katie J. Karzen, Defendant, Case
No. 20-cv-02721, (C.D. Cal., February 4, 2020), seeks injunctive
relief, statutory and treble damages for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Katie J. Karzen operates as "The Valley School for Dental
Assisting/Valley Dental," offering vocational training programs. It
sent unsolicited fax advertisements to Saremi, a dental
practitioner, without his consent, says the complaint.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
      KAUFMAN P.A.
      400 NW 26th Street
      Miami, FL 33127
      Tel: (305) 469-5881
      Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
             rachel@kaufmanpa.com


MAAC MACHINERY: Stecker Hits Biometrics Data Retention Policy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Stecker, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MAAC Machinery Co., Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2020L000321 (Ill. Cir., March 16, 2020), seeks
an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful activity
related to the capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics,
statutory damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys'
fees in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act.

MAAC Machinery operates a facility located at 590 Tower Boulevard,
Carol Stream, Illinois. Stecker was required to "clock-in" and
"clock-out" using a timeclock that scanned fingerprints. He claims
that he was never provided a retention schedule and/or guideline
for permanently destroying his biometric identifiers and biometric
information. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
      KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD.
      227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Phone: (312) 283-3814
      Fax: (773) 496-8617
      Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com

             - and -

      Peter S. Lubin, Esq.
      Patrick D. Austermuehle, Esq.
      LUBIN AUSTERMUEHLE, P.C.
      360 West Butterfield Road, Suite 325
      Elmhurst, IL 60126
      Tel: (630) 333-0333
      Email: peter@l-a.law
             patrick@l-a.law


MAGIC MOUNTAIN: Faces Rezai-Hariri Suit Over Breach of Contract
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shahriyar Rezai-Hariri, on behalf of himself and a class of all
others similarly situated v. MAGIC MOUNTAIN LLC; PARK MANAGEMENT
CORP. dba SIX FLAGS DISCOVERY KINGDOM; SIX FLAGS THEME PARKS INC.;
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 8:20-cv-00716 (C.D. Cal., April 10,
2020), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair
Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, for Breach of
Express Warranty, Negligent Misrepresentation, Unjust Enrichment,
Conversion, and Breach of Contract.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have made the baffling
decision to keep charging all of its customers monthly membership
fees while prohibiting access to Six Flags Magic Mountain as the
novel coronavirus, COVID-19, rages throughout the world and the
United States economy has gone into a deep recession. To sign up
for the Defendants' Memberships, customers provide the Defendants
with their credit card or debit card information. The Defendants,
then, automatically charges their customers' credit or debit cards
as payments are due on a monthly basis.

On March 13, 2020, the Defendants announced that they were closing
Six Flags Magic Mountain and Six Flags Discovery Kingdom. However,
unlike its competitors in the industry, the Defendants continued
charging its thousands of customers monthly fees--at full price,
the Plaintiff says. The Defendants are able to unilaterally charge
its customers monthly fees without their consent, as it is in
possession of its customers' debit and credit card information.
Thus, the Plaintiff contends, the Defendants have made the
deliberate decision to bilk its customers out of untold sums per
months while its customers do not have access to Defendants'
parks.

The sole reason the Defendants' customers pay monthly membership
fees is to have access to parks like Six Flags Magic Mountain,
which is advertised to be available seven days a week. Now, the
Defendants are charging its customers full price while denying its
customers all access to all of the Defendants' parks, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is an individual residing in the State of California
and is currently subscribed to the Defendant's "Season Pass"
program at a rate of $6.95 per month.

Magic Mountain is the owner, operator, or lessor of Six Flags Magic
Mountain, an amusement park located in Valencia, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daryoosh Khashayar, Esq.
          Taylor Marks, Esq.
          KHASHAYAR LAW GROUP
          12636 High Bluff Dr., Suite 400
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Phone: (858) 509-1550
          Fax: (858) 509-1551
          Email: daryoosh@mysdlawyers.com


MAYNE PHARMA: Breaches Duty to HedgePath Stockholders, Sears Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL SEARS, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated v. BRENDAN MAGRAB, STEFAN J. CROSS, DR. R. DANA ONO,
ROBERT D. MARTIN, W. MARK WATSON, NICHOLAS J. VIRCA, and MAYNE
PHARMA VENTURES PTY LTD, Case No. 2020-0215-JTL (Del. Ch., March
26, 2020), accuses the Defendants of breaching their fiduciary duty
arising from Mayne Pharma's abuse of its status as HedgePath
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s controlling stockholder.

The Plaintiff filed the complaint on behalf of the stockholders of
HedgePath ("Company") alleging that the Defendants have taken
actions and caused HedgePath to effectuate a sale of the Company
just prior to U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of the
Company's New Drug Application, such that Mayne Pharma could obtain
a unique benefit to the detriment of the minority stockholders and
the Company.

The Plaintiff contends that the terms of sale are unconscionable.
In a two-part financing transaction that, in part, promised a $5
million injection by Mayne Pharma staggered over two years, the
Director Defendants traded the rights to a potential future income
stream for the Company. He adds that the Director Defendants
unfairly accepted Mayne Pharma's $5 million payment in return for
virtually all assets of the Company and a mere 9% royalty, carrying
a present value of just over $30 million.

Samuel P. Sears is a resident of Massachusetts and record holder of
HedgePath Pharmaceuticals, Inc. stock he received in his role as a
former director of HedgePath.

HedgePath, now known as Inhibitor Therapeutics Inc., is a clinical
stage biopharmaceutical company that is seeking to discover,
develop, and commercialize innovative therapeutics for patients
with certain cancers.

The Defendant and controlling stockholder Mayne Pharma is an
Australian specialty pharmaceutical company that develops and
manufactures branded and generic products, which it distributes
directly or through distribution partners and provides contract
development and manufacturing services. Mayne Pharma has been the
controller of HedgePath at all times relevant to this complaint,
and has admitted such control in numerous public filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission. The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of HedgePath.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
          Jessica Zeldin, Esq.
          Craig J. Springer, Esq.
          David Sborz, Esq.
          ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
          3801 Kennett Pike, Building C, Suite 305
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 504-4957


METROPOLITAN TOWER: Pitt Sues Over Denied Benefits Under Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Susan A. Pitt, Individually, as Successor-In-Interest to MICHAEL A.
PITT, Decedent, on Behalf of the Estate of MICHAEL A. PITT, and on
Behalf of the Class v. METROPOLITAN TOWER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a
Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-00694-BAS-JLB (S.D. Cal.
April 10, 2020), is brought against the Defendant to recover for
the injuries and damages on behalf of numerous California
policyholders and beneficiaries, who have been denied and continued
to be denied the benefits of life insurance policies under
California law.

According to the complaint, Tower refuses to comply with mandatory
provisions of the California Insurance Code, as well as California
common law regulating the lapse and termination of life insurance
policies. Since January 1, 2013, Tower has systematically and
purposely failed to provide certain classes of policy owners proper
notices of pending lapse or termination. Tower has refused to
provide required grace periods. Tower has also failed to notify
thousands of policy owners of their right to designate someone to
receive critical notices and information regarding life insurance,
despite being required to do so on an annual basis.

As a result, the Plaintiff contends, Tower has failed to properly
evaluate and pay claims to beneficiaries for policies improperly
lapsed or terminated and also failed to properly continue coverage.
Indeed, thousands of policy owners have lost, and continue to lose,
the benefit, value and security of their life insurance; have been,
and continue to be, forced into unnecessary reinstatements; and in
many instances have lost all reasonable access to any insurance at
all. Ultimately, the Defendant has robbed thousands of their
beneficiaries of policy benefits. Moreover, since January 1, 2013,
Tower has become aware of their failures and has failed to take
corrective action. The Plaintiff and her late husband are victims
of Tower's failures, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Susan A. Pitt is an individual and widow of the insured:
Michael A. Pitt.

TOWER is a Delaware Corporation, engaged in business involving the
sale and administration of life insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq.
          Georg M. Capielo, Esq.
          Sarah Ball, Esq.
          WINTERS & ASSOCIATES
          8489 La Mesa Boulevard
          La Mesa, CA 91942
          Phone: (619) 234-9000
          Fax: (619) 750-0413
          Email: jackbwinters@earthlink.net
                 gcapielo@einsurelaw.com
                 sball@einsurelaw.com


MGA HEALTHCARE: Ramirez Class Suit Seeks Damages
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MGA Healthcare, Inc.
The case is styled as Ana Ramirez, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MGA Healthcare, Inc., a
California Corporation, Zoe Holding Company, Inc., an Arizona
Corporation and Does 1 Through 50 inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
CGC20584146 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 14, 2020).

The docket of the case states the case type as other non-exempt
complaints (class action complaint for damages).

MGA is an established force in both the Non-Healthcare and
Healthcare staffing industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jake D Finkel, Esq.
   Law Offices of Jake D Finkel, APC
   3470 Wilshire Blvd #830
   Los Angeles, CA 90010



NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Plan Members Suit Asserts Fund Mismanagement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Edwards, Inger Bautista, and Robert Burcina, as
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on
behalf of the Nationwide Savings Plan, Plaintiff, v. Nationwide
Mutual Insurance Company, the Benefits Investment Committee of the
Nationwide Savings Plan and John Does 1-20,, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-01525 (S.D. Ohio, March 24, 2020), seeks to recover losses
caused by fiduciary breaches; disgorgement of profits earned as a
result of these breaches; and equitable and other relief as
provided by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Plaintiffs are current participants in the 401(k) Plan managed by
the Benefits Investment Committee of the Nationwide Savings Plan.
They claim that Nationwide Mutual failed to negotiate contractual
terms for the 401(k) Plan's Guaranteed Investment Fund comparable
to the terms they negotiated on behalf of the Nationwide Retirement
Plan resulting in a much lower interest rate than was paid by the
otherwise-identical investment held within the Pension Plan
resulting in loss of over $142 million in benefits. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

       Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
       Sanford A. Meizlish, Esq.
       BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE WENTZ MCINERNEY PEIFER, LLP
       250 E. Broad Street, 10 Floor
       Columbus, OH 43215
       Telephone: (614) 221-4221
       Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
       Email: bderose@barkanmeislish.com
              smeizlish@barkanmeizlish.com

              - and -

       Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
       Kai H. Richter, Esq.
       Brock J. Specht, Esq.
       Christopher Theophillus Smith, Esq.
       NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
       4600 IDS Center 80 S 8th Street
       Minneapolis, MN 55402
       Telephone: (612) 256-3200
       Fax: (612) 338-4878
       Email: lukas@nka.com
              krichter@nka.com
              bspecht@nka.com
              tsmith@nka.com


NEW YORK: Detainees Request Early Release Amidst Epidemic
---------------------------------------------------------
Hassan Chunn, Nehemiah McBride, Ayman Rabadi and Justin Rodriguez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Warden Derek Edge, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01590
(E.D. N.Y., March 27, 2020), seek their immediate release with
appropriate precautionary public health measures pursuant to their
Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights and seek relief under the Writ of
Habeas Corpus.

Chunn, McBride, Raybadi and Rodriguez are four of the 537
individuals confined at the Metropolitan Detention Center where at
least four staff members have tested positive for COVID-19. They
suffer various conditions such as chronic heart disease, asthma,
high blood pressure and respiratory problems and are at risk of
contracting COVID-19 if they remain confined there.

Derek Edge is the Warden at the Metropolitan Detention Center.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Katherine R. Rosenfeld, Esq.
      O. Andrew F. Wilson, Esq.
      Samuel Shapiro, Esq.
      Scout Katovich, Esq.
      EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY LLP
      600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor
      New York, NY 10020
      Tel: (212) 763-5000
      Email: krosenfeld@ecbalaw.com
             awilson@ecbalaw.com
             Skatovich@ecbalaw.com

             - and -

      Betsy Ginsberg, Esq.
      Alexander A. Reinert, Esq.
      CARDOZO CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC
      BENJAMIN N. CARDOZO SCHOOL OF LAW
      55 Fifth Avenue, 11th Floor
      New York, NY 1003
      Tel: (212) 790-0871, 790-0403
      Email: betsy.ginsberg@yu.edu
             areinert@yu.edu


NONNI'S FOODS: Bardsley Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nonni's Foods LLC.
The case is styled as Lisa Bardsley, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Nonni's Foods LLC, Case No.
7:20-cv-02979 (S.D.N.Y., April 11, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as other fraud.

Nonni's Foods LLC is a domestic baker and marketer of artisan baked
snacks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NORTHSTAR EDUCATION: Snobs THE Program Duties, Oksenendler Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEMIAN OKSENENDLER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NORTHSTAR EDUCATION FINANCE, INC. d/b/a TOTAL
HIGHER EDUCATION, Case No. 0:20-cv-00805-PJS-ECW (D. Minn., March
26, 2020), seeks compensatory and consequential damages, statutory
relief, and to require Northstar to specifically perform its
contractual obligations under the terms of T.H.E. Repayment Bonus
program, as it promised and represented.

Beginning in 2001, Northstar began uniformly offering, as part of
its loan arrangements, a credit to its borrowers--including
Plaintiff and the other Class members--effectively lowering the
interest rate for borrowers, who were no more than 59 days late in
making loan repayments. Northstar referred to this credit as the
"T.H.E. Repayment Bonus." The Plaintiff and the other Class members
accepted as part of their loan agreements with Northstar, the
T.H.E. Program as a material and binding term of their student
loans with Northstar.

The Plaintiff was a Northstar borrower at the time of Northstar's
latest suspension announcement and was damaged as a result of
Northstar's conduct.

Northstar is a provider of student loans.

On February 18, 2008, Northstar committed its first unilateral
breach of its loan agreements with its borrowers by suspending the
T.H.E. Program.

In February or March 2020, Northstar again unilaterally suspended
the T.H.E. Program, this time citing "changes in economic
conditions." The Plaintiff contends that Northstar's renewed
suspension of the T.H.E. Program is a breach of both its loan
contracts and its settlement agreement with the Plaintiff and the
other Class members, as well as an unfair and/or deceptive trade
practice.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 South Washington Avenue, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: 612-339-6900
          E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          John E. Tangren, Esq.
          Adam M. Prom, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312-214-7900
          E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
                  jtangren@dicellolevitt.com
                  Jennie Lee Anderson

               - and -

          ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP
          115 Montgomery Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415-986-1400
          E-mail: jennie@andrusanderson.com


OPEN WORLD INC: Demtchouk Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
---------------------------------------------------------
Bela Demtchouk, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Open World, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00767 (D. Minn., March 24, 2020), seeks injunctive relief,
statutory damages, treble damages and all other relief for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Open World produces events across the U.S. It sends solicitation
text messages en masse to consumers encouraging the purchase of
event tickets using an auto-dialer. Demtchouk claims to have
received such texts. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan D. Peterson, Esq.
      PETERSON LEGAL, PLLC
      5201 Eden Avenue, Suite 300
      Edina, MN 55436
      Phone: (612) 367-6568
      Fax: (612) 295-0415
      Email: ryan@peterson.legal

             - and -

      Stefan Coleman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
      201 s. Biscayne Blvd., 28th floor
      Miami, FL 33131
      Tel: (877) 333-9427
      Fax: (888) 498-8946
      Email: law@stefancoleman.com

             - and -

      Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
      KAUFMAN P.A.
      400 NW 26th Street
      Miami, FL 33127
      Tel: (305) 469-5881
      Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com


OUTBOUNDENGINE INC: Charman Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thane Charman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Outboundengine, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00490 (S.D. Cal., March 16, 2020), seeks injunctive relief,
statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies resulting from violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Outboundengine is a marketing platform assisting small business
owners in generating referrals and repeat business, soliciting
individuals and small business owners as customers for its
advertising, marketing and lead generation services. It attempted
to contact Charman on his cellular telephone in an attempt to
solicit its services. He did not give his express consent to be
contact in this manner. [BN]

American Directions is represented by:

      Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      Email: nicholas@kazlg.com

             - and -

      Yana A. Hart, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      Email: yana@kazlg.com


PAFY INC: Faniel Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums
----------------------------------------------------------
Lydia M. Faniel, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. PAFY, Inc. and Sharon Gauthier,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00387 (D. Conn. March 23, 2020), seeks
to recover business-related expenses unlawfully deducted from wages
and to collect all applicable statutory penalties for violations of
the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act.

PAFY hired Plaintiff to work as a Home Health Aide from August of
2018 to February 7, 2020. She claims she was paid a flat daily rate
for her work but was not paid overtime premiums. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
      HAYBER MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC
      750 Main Street, Suite 904
      Hartford, CT 06103
      Tel: (860) 522-8888
      Fax: (860) 218-9555
      Email: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com

             - and -

      Nitor V. Egbarin, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF NITOR V. EGBARIN, LLC
      100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor
      Hartford, CT 06103-3007
      Tel: (860) 249-7180
      Fax: (860) 408-1471
      Email: NEgbarin@aol.com


PERMIAN LODGING: Flores Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Flores, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Permian Lodging, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00346
(W.D. Tex., March 23, 2020), seeks to recover monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of non-payment of overtime
premiums pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Permian Lodging operates hotels throughout Texas and New Mexico
where Flores was employed as a maintenance worker from July 2019
until February 2020. He claims that she was denied overtime
premiums for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM
      One Financial Center
      650 S. Shackleford Suite 411
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Tel: (479) 880-0088
      Fax: (888) 787-2040
      Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


PRIME NOW LLC: Nacarino Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ELENA NACARINO, on behalf of
herself and all other aggrieved employees v. PRIME NOW, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company; AMAZON.COM INC., a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
CGC-20-582407 (Filed Jan. 23, 2020), was removed from the
California Superior Court in and for the County of San Francisco to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
March 26, 2020.

The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-02099 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff seeks Private Attorney General Act penalties for the
Defendants' failure to pay minimum, regular, and overtime wages,
and failure to provide meal and rest periods.

Prime Now offers a grocery shopping app. Amazon.com is an American
multinational technology company based in Seattle, Washington.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Heather L. Richardson, Esq.
          Katherine V.A. Smith, Esq.
          Lily Bu, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: 213 229 7000
          Facsimile: 213 229 7520
          E-mail: hrichardson@gibsondunn.com
                  ksmith@gibsondunn.com
                  lbu@gibsondunn.com


REALPAGE INC: Martinez Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
RealPage, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Pedro
Martinez, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. RealPage, Inc. doing
business as: clickpay.com, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01808 (E.D.
N.Y., April 15, 2020).

RealPage is a leading global provider of software and data
analytics to the real estate industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


REDFIN CORPORATION: Mahlberg Sues in Florida Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against REDFIN CORPORATION.
The case is styled as Raymond T. Mahlberg, Individually and on
behalf of all other Persons Similarly Situated v. REDFIN
CORPORATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-21540-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 10,
2020).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Redfin is a real estate brokerage.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Acacia Regina Silva Barros, Esq.
          STEVE POLATNICK LAW OFFICES
          10691 Kendall Drive, Suite 101
          Miami, FL 33176
          Phone: (305) 595-0424
          Fax: (305) 595-0438
          Email: acaciabarros@hotmail.com


RHINO RESOURCE: Fails to Properly Pay Miners, Warren Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trevar Warren, on Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly-Situated v. RHINO RESOURCE PARTNERS, LP and PENNYRILE
ENERGY LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-00058-JHM-HBB (W.D. Ky., April 10,
2020), alleges that the Defendants systematically failed to comply
with the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and under the
Kentucky Wages and Hours Act by requiring the Plaintiff and other
miners to report to work prior to the scheduled beginning of their
shift, but not paying workers until the scheduled beginning of the
shift.

These illegal practices by the Defendants were systematically
applied by the Defendants to workers, in violation of the FLSA and
Kentucky law, including the KWHA. The Defendants should pay the
wages illegally withheld from their employees, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Hopkins County, Kentucky, and an
employee of the Defendants.

Rhino Resource Partners, L.P., is a for-profit limited partnership
organized under the laws of the state of Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark N. Foster, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC
          P.O. Box 869
          Madisonville, KY 42431
          Phone: (270) 213-1303
          Email: Mfoster@MarkNFoster.com

               - and -

          John R. Kleinschmidt, III, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JOHN R. KLEINSCHMIDT III, PLLC
          P.O. Box 1746
          Lexington, KY 40588
          Phone: (859) 866-3097
          Email: john@employmentlawky.com


SEPHORA USA INC: Couture Labor Suit Hits Misclassification
----------------------------------------------------------
Katharine Couture, an individual, on her own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Sephora USA, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02106, (N.D. Cal., March 26, 2020),
seeks redress for meal and rest break violations, failure to
provide proper wage statements under the California Labor Code and
failure to pay overtime compensation under Welfare Commission
Orders and Labor Code.

Couture is employed by Sephora at its Hollywood and Highland
locations. She claims to be misclassified as a non-exempt employee
and worked through her meal breaks. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
      Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
      Lirit A. King, Esq.
      BRADLEY GROMBACHER, LLP
      2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
      Westlake Village, CA 91361
      Telephone: (805)212-5124
      Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
      E-Mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
              kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
              lking@bradleygrombacher.com


SERVICEMASTER GLOBAL: Faces Ruttenberg Securities Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Ruttenberg, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. SERVICEMASTER GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC., NIKHIL
M. VARTY, and ANTHONY D. DILUCENTE, Case No. 1:20-cv-02976
(S.D.N.Y., April 10, 2020), is brought against ServiceMaster and
certain of its officers and directors for alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all persons or entities, who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of
ServiceMaster between February 26, 2019, and November 4, 2019, both
dates inclusive.

Due to the importance of Terminix segment to ServiceMaster's
financial results, ServiceMaster previously underwent a turnover of
key management following slowing growth in the Terminix segment in
2017. During the Class Period, Defendants Varty and DiLucente
repeatedly assured the market that ServiceMaster was successfully
executing upon the Company's transformation plan for the Terminix
segment. In addition, Defendants Varty and DiLucente stated that
Terminix would reach a positive "inflection point" and was
"definitely the driver" for positive trends expected in the second
half of 2019.

Unbeknownst to investors, however, over the past several years the
Terminix segment had experienced an adverse trend of costly termite
litigation, primarily related to Formosan activity in Mobile,
Alabama, the Plaintiff alleges. This negative trend, which would
ultimately impact ServiceMaster's current and future financial
results, was known to the Defendants throughout the Class Period,
as by their own later admission they had been taking mitigating
measures since early 2018, the Plaintiff says.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and omissions. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose the following adverse facts
pertaining to the Company's business, operations, and financial
condition, which were known to or recklessly disregarded by
Defendants: (a) ServiceMaster had failed to properly inspect and
treat for Formosan activity; (b) as a result thereof, the Company
was and continued to experience a material adverse trend of costly
litigation from injured customers which was not disclosed to
investors; (c) in an unsuccessful attempt to mitigate this trend,
Defendants had been taking remedial measures since at least 2018,
including drastically raising prices for termite treatments in
Mobile, Alabama to deter contract renewals; and (d) as a result,
ServiceMaster's financial results were reasonably likely to be
impacted, and would continue to impact the Company into 2020.

On October 22, 2019, before the markets opened, ServiceMaster
announced disappointing preliminary financial results for the third
quarter 2019, having missed revenue and earnings estimates.
Additionally, ServiceMaster reported net income of $25 million
versus $71 million during the third quarter of the prior year. The
Company also gave downward adjusted EBITDA guidance of $415 to $425
million, down from $435 to $445 million. Finally, the Company
announced the sudden departure of Matthew J. Stevenson in his role
as President of Terminix Residential, effective October 31, 2019.
On this news the price of ServiceMaster common stock fell $11.44 or
20 percent, closing at $44.70 on October 22, 2019, down from its
$56.14 closing price on October 21, 2019.

On November 5, 2019, before the start of trading, ServiceMaster
released its third quarter 2019 financial results. In this press
release discussing the "challenging quarter," the Company revealed
that it had been impacted by certain "legacy risks," including
"termite damage claims." On this news, the price of ServiceMaster
common stock fell $1.42, or 3.5 percent to close at $39.15 on
November 5, 2019. As the market continued to digest the
disappointing news, ServiceMaster shares continued to decline by
$3.41, or 9 percent, closing at $35.74 on November 6, 2019. All
told, following the November 5, 2019 disclosure, ServiceMaster
stock suffered a total decline of $4.83 from the November 4, 2019
closing price.

As a result of Defendants false and/or misleading statements and/or
omissions, the Plaintiff and the Class have suffered harm under the
federal securities laws, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the common stock of ServiceMaster during
the Class Period.

ServiceMaster is a provider of essential services to residential
and commercial customers in the termite, pest control, cleaning and
restoration markets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
          Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
          Francis P. McConville, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          Email: ckeller@labaton.com
                 ebelfi@labaton.com
                 fmcconville@labaton.com


SIMMONS BANK: Faces Wilkins Suit in Arkansas
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Simmons Bank. The
case is styled as Shunda Wilkins, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Simmons Bank, Defendant,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00116-BSM (E.D. Ark., April 14, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract:
Other.

Simmons Bank is a bank with operations in Arkansas, Colorado,
Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   E. Adam Webb, Esq.
   Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC
   1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480
   Atlanta, GA 30339
   Tel: (770) 444-0773
   Email: adam@webbllc.com

     - and -

   Francis J. Casey Flynn, Esq.
   Consumer Protection Legal LLC
   422 South Curson Avenue
   Los Angeles, CA 90036
   Tel: (314) 662-2836
   Email: casey@consumerprotectionlegal.com

     - and -

   J. Gerard Stranch , IV, Esq.
   Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings PLLC
   223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
   Nashville, TN 37204
   Tel: (615) 254-8801
   Email: gerards@bsjfirm.com

     - and -

   Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
   Kaliel PLLC
   1875 Connecticut Avenue NW
   10th Floor
   Washington, DC 20009
   Tel: (202) 350-4783
   Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com

     - and -

   Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
   Cohen & Malad, LLP
   One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
   Indianapolis, IN 46204
   Tel: (317) 636-6481
   Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com

     - and -

   Martin F. Schubert, Esq.
   Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings PLLC
   223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
   Nashville, TN 37204
   Tel: (615) 254-8801

     - and -

   Tiffany Marko Yiatras, Esq.
   Consumer Protection Legal LLC
   422 South Curson Avenue
   Los Angeles, CA 90036
   Tel: (314) 725-7700
   Fax: (314) 721-0905
   Email: tiffany@consumerprotectionlegal.com

     - and -

   William F. Burns, Esq.
   Watson Burns, PLLC
   253 Adams Avenue
   Memphis, TN 38103
   Tel: (901) 529-7996
   Fax: (901) 529-7998
   Email: bburns@watsonburns.com


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Employees' Fund Sues Over Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------------
Employees' Retirement System of the City of Providence,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Spirit Aerosystems Holdings, Inc., Thomas C. Gentile
III, Jose Garcia and John Gilson, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00117,
(N.D. Okla., March 24, 2020), seeks to recover compensable damages
caused by violations of federal securities laws.

Spirit is an independent non-Original Equipment Manufacturer,
commercial aerostructure designer and manufacturer. The Boeing
Company is its largest and most important customer, accounting for
approximately 80 percent of its revenues in 2018 and 2019.

After the tragic crash of a 737 MAX plane in March 2019, all 737
MAX airliners were grounded globally thus threatening Spirit's
financial stability causing a negative impact on its future
financial results.

Spirit stock declined $6.19 per share, or 10 percent on February
28, 2020, closing at a price of $52.84 per share from a high of
$75.78 on December 18, 2019. Employees' Retirement System purchased
Spirit common stock. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      William B. Federman, Esq.
      FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
      10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
      Oklahoma City, OK 73120
      Telephone: (405) 235-1560
      Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
      Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com

             - and -

      Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
      Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
      Francis P. McConville, Esq.
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 907-0700
      Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
      Email: ckeller@labaton.com
             ebelfi@labaton.com
             fmcconville@labaton.com


UPLAND APPAREL: Nisbett Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Upland Apparel, Inc.
The case is styled as Kareem Nisbett, Individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Upland Apparel, Inc. doing
business as: Katama Swim, Case No. 1:20-cv-02948 (S.D.N.Y., April
10, 2020).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Katama Swim offers designer swimwear and resort wear for discerning
men.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170
          Phone: (212) 764-7171
          Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


US GOVERNMENT: Federal Workers Seek Hazard Pay Amidst Pandemic
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Braswell, Jerrod Carrier, George Guice, Jason Phillips, and
Aubrey Melder, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. the United
States of America, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-02382 (S.D. N.Y.,
March 18, 2020), seek declaratory judgment, damages and other
relief, pursuant to the provisions of the Government Organization
and Employees' rate determinations, wage schedules and night
differentials statutes.

Plaintiffs are federal employees working amidst the COVID 19
pandemic. They claim that they were not paid the hazardous duty pay
differentials due to the nature of their work. Braswell is
currently employed as a General Schedule Consumer Safety Inspector
within the Food Safety and Inspection Service; Carrier, Guice and
Melder worked as Maintenance Worker Foreman, Wage Grade Food
Service Foreman and Senior Officer Specialist at the Bureau of
Prisons of the U.S. Department of Justice in Oakdale, Louisiana,
while Phillips is a General Schedule Diagnostic Radiology
Technologist with the Portland Veterans Affairs Healthcare System
of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs in Portland, Oregon.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Heidi R. Burakiewicz, Esq.
      Robert DePriest, Esq.
      Michael Robinson, Esq.
      Alexander F. Booker, Esq.
      KALIJARVI, CHUZI, NEWMAN & FITCH, P.C.
      818 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 1000
      Washington, DC 20006
      Tel: (202) 331-9260
      Fax: (877) 219-7127
      Email: hburakiewicz@kcnlaw.com
             rdepreist@kcnlaw.com
             mrobinson@kcnlaw.com
             abooker@kcnlaw.com

             - and -

      Judith Galat, Esq.
      Assistant General Counsel
      AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
      80 F Street, N.W.
      Washington, DC 20001
      Tel: (202) 639-6424
      Fax: (202) 639-6441
      Email: galatj@afge.org


VAIL CORPORATION: Faces Hunt Consumer Suit in N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Hunt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE VAIL CORPORATION d/b/a VAIL RESORTS MANAGEMENT
COMPANY, Case No. 4:20-cv-02463-LB (N.D. Cal., April 10, 2020), is
brought for the Defendant's violations of the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law,
and for breach of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation,
fraud, unjust enrichment, money had and received, conversion and
breach of contract.

Defendant Vail Resorts Management has made the unconscionable
decision to retain its millions of customers passholder fees while
closing 100% of its mountain resorts as the novel coronavirus,
COVID-19, rages throughout the world and the United States economy
has gone into a deep recession, the Plaintiff alleges.

On March 25, 2020, the Defendant announced that it was closing all
of its mountain resorts indefinitely. Subsequently, the Defendant
announced that its "North American resorts and retail stores will
remain closed for the 2019-20 winter ski season." The Defendant has
not refunded any consumers for their lost mountain resort access.
Rather, for annual pass-holders, the Defendant has simply deferred
all auto-renewal charges and spring deadlines (for those people
that did not pre-pay for the entire season). Further, for Epic Day
Pass customers, the Defendant has explicitly stated that, despite
the Defendant's closures, the passes are "non-refundable and
non-transferable to another season."

Accordingly, customers who did not have a chance to use all of
their purchased passes under the Epic Day Pass program get zero
consideration or compensation for their inability to use those
unused, purchased days, even if they wanted to, the Plaintiff
contends. As a result, the Defendant has unjustly enriched itself
by retaining passholder fees of hundreds of thousands of
consumers--while denying passholders all access to all of the
Defendant's mountain resorts, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Hunt purchased an annual Tahoe Local season pass for
$499, which promised mountain access from October 2019 to June
2020, so long as there was snow.

The Defendant is the operator of more than 34 North American ski
resorts throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq.
          Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Phone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          Email: ykrivoshey@bursor.com
                 bscott@bursor.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          2665 S. Bayshore Dr., Ste. 220
          Miami, FL 33133-5402
          Phone: (305) 330-5512
          Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
          Email: scott@bursor.com


WADE SHOWS: Keim Hits Confidential Info on Credit Card Receipt
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Keim, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. South Florida Fair and Palm Beach County Expositions,
Inc. and Wade Shows of Florida, Inc., as successor by merger to
Wade Shows Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-80506, (S.D.
Fla., March 25, 2020), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages,
attorneys' fees, costs together with other relief for violation of
the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act amendment to the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

South Florida Fair and Palm Beach County Expositions, Inc. and Wade
Shows of Florida operates Wade Shows.

On January 28, 2020, Keim purchased a ticket at the Fair located in
West Palm Beach, Florida, for which he incurred a charge and paid
for using his personal debit card and was subsequently provided an
electronically printed receipt which revealed the expiration date
of his credit card and his full name, thus exposing him to identity
theft. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott D. Owens, Esq.
      SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
      3800 S. Ocean Dr., Ste. 235
      Hollywood, FL 33019
      Tel: (954) 589-0588
      Fax: (954) 337-0666
      Email: scott@scottdowens.com


WALT DISNEY PARKS: Pike Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Pike, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC., d/b/a
Victoria & Albert's, Case No. 6:20-cv-00622 (M.D. Fla., April 10,
2020), is brought for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, declaratory relief and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay the Plaintiff and
other similarly-situated Cooks/Chef Assistants proper time and one
half for all of their hours worked over 40 each week, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was an hourly paid cook, who performed food
preparation and cooking duties for the Defendant.

The Defendant is in the business of operating, among other
businesses, a restaurant in Orlando, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Phone: (407) 420-1414
          Fax: (407) 245-3383
          Email: kimd@forthepeople.com


WEGMANS FOOD: Cohen Files Ice Cream Mislabeling Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Melissa Cohen, Nicole Ebanks, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Wegmans Food Markets,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01409 (E.D. N.Y., March 16, 2020),
seeks injunctive relief resulting from negligence, unjust
enrichment and breach of contract and for violation of the Consumer
Protection from Deceptive acts of New York business laws.

Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets,
labels and sells ice cream under the "Wegmans brand." Plaintiffs
disputes Wegman's claim that their ice cream is flavored only with
vanilla and that they contain non-vanilla flavors which imitate and
extend vanilla but are not derived from the vanilla bean. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
      SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      505 Northern Blvd., Ste. 311
      Great Neck NY 11021-5101
      Tel: (516) 303-0552
      Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
      Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com


XTO ENERGY INC: Kriley, et al. Sue Over Reduced Oil/Gas Royalties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Kriley and Tina Kriley, Thomas A. Michel and Carol L.
Michel, Geraldine C. Wiefling and Charles E. Waddingham II and
Carol G. Waddingham, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. XTO Energy Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00416 (W.D. Pa., March 25, 2020), seeks
compensatory losses and damages allowed by law, including
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and costs and expenses of
litigation and such other further relief resulting from breach of
contract.

XTO Energy produces gas and its constituents in Western
Pennsylvania under various standard form oil and gas leases.
Plaintiffs own oil and gas interests on their properties. XTO
allegedly breached the oil and gas leases by artificially reducing
the royalties it paid and failed to pay royalties due on production
that occurred during a number of months in 2019. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David A. Borkovic, Esq.
      Jones, Gregg, Creehan & Gerace LLP
      411 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1200
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Tel: (412) 261-6400
      Email: dab@jgcg.com


YETI COOLERS: Peroutka Suit Moved from E.D.N.Y. to W.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as LANCE PEROUTKA, NIKKI PRIBOW
and OTIS FUNG, individually on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Yeti Coolers, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-06827-AMD
(Filed Nov. 30, 2018), was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas (Austin) on March 26, 2020.

The Western District of Texas Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-00326-RP to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Robert Pitman.

The lawsuit seeks to remedy the deceptive and misleading business
practices of Yeti with respect to the marketing and sales of the
Yeti Rambler Colster product throughout the States of Wisconsin and
New York, and throughout the United States.

Yeti is an Austin, Texas-based manufacturer of outdoor lifestyle
products such as ice chests, vacuum-insulated stainless-steel
drinkware, soft coolers, and related accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Miota, Esq.
          MIOTA LAW LLC
          1400 E. Olive Street
          Milwaukee, WI 53211-1828
          Telephone: 414 973 9305
          Facsimile: 414 386 4675
          E-mail: jmiota@miotalaw.com

               - and -

          Michael C. Lueder, Esq.
          HANSEN REYNOLDS LLC
          301 N Broadway, Suite 400
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: 414 455 7676
          Facsimile: 414.273.8476
          E-mail: mlueder@hansenreynolds.com



                            *********

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 ***