/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200424.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, April 24, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 83

                            Headlines

3-D OIL FIELD SERVICES: Hembree Seeks OT Pay for Test Operators
ADESTO TECHNOLOGIES: Myers Sues Over Misleading Merger Agreement
ALDI INC: Buonocore Sues Over Misleading Vanilla Labeling
ALEXANDER'S STEAKHOUSE: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Buckley Says
AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Clark Product Liability Suit in California

ARMSTRONG FLOORING: Contreras Suit Removed to C.D. California
ART AND JAKES OF GEORGIA: Haggerty Seeks OT Pay for Dishwashers
BARNES & NOBLE: Monopolizes College Textbook Market, Kinskey Says
BILL PERRY: Ullom Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
BLINK HOLDINGS: Jampol Seeks Refund of Gym Fees Amid Closure

BRAND NEW ENERGY: Faces Milan Class Suit in C.D. California
BRISTOL BAY: Court Stays Abikar Suit Pending Jamil Resolution
BRYLER CORP: Underpays 7-Eleven Staff, Lorenzo Claims
CERNER CORP: Mishandled Employee Retirement Plan, Clark Says
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Class Cert. Denial in Scott Suit Affirmed

CLEARVIEW AI INC: Faces McPherson Suit Alleging Violation of BIPA
CLEVELAND-CLIFFS: Investors Balk at AK Steel Merger
CLOUDERA: Lead Plaintiff Naming Process in Securities Suit Reopened
CNX RESOURCES: Faces Henry Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CONNER LOGISTICS: March 13 Show Cause Order in Figueroa Discharged

COOK INC: Mills Suit Moved From E.D. Virginia to S.D. Indiana
CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Voigt Action Ongoing in Delaware Chancery
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Nevarez Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Circuit
CURALLUX LLC: Cooper Sues Over Misleading Hair Regrowth Ads
DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE: Providers Allege Unlawful Monopsony Power

DIGITAL CONCRETE: Compoli and Cardinal Sue Over Unlawful OT Pay
EGV COMPANIES: Faces Miller Suit Over Telemarketing Calls
ELEPHANT INSURANCE: Dismissal of Singleton Suit Affirmed
ENBRIDGE US INC: Kleckner Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS: Mediation Underway in Chipego Suit

FORD MOTOR: Orndorff Suit Moved from Pennsylvania to Illinois
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Mercadal Sues in Cal. Over Canon Data Breach
GREATBANC TRUST: Faces Smith Suit Alleging Violation of ERISA
GRUBHUB INC: Meal Delivery Price Unlawful, Davitashvili et al. Say
HAGYARD DAVIDSON: Swearingen Appeals Ruling to Kentucky App. Ct.

HAMMOND, IN: Ind. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in Chariton Suit
HAWAIIAN ISLES KONA COFFEE: Faces Chung Suit Over Deceptive Ads
HEALTH INSURANCE: Bid to Certify Class Action Opposed
ILLINOIS: Court Denies Bids for Sanctions in Wallace Prisoners Suit
ILLINOIS: Vulnerable Inmates File Release Petition Amid COVID-19

INDIANA: ICLU Sues Over Law Banning Solicitations
INT'L FLAVORS: Lead Plaintiff and Counsel Appointed in Jansen Suit
JACKSON NATIONAL: Class Certification in Cruson Suit Vacated
L.A. WIRELESS: Underpays Retail Sales Associates, Hall Claims
L.L.C. INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Dancers, Heath Claims

LIBERTY MUTUAL: Faces Torre Rossa Suit Over Breach of Contract
MAKER ECOSYSTEM: Johnson Says Cryptocurrency Platform Misleading
MBO PARTNERS: Patnode Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
MCDONALD'S CORP: Fairley and Reddick Sue Over Sexual Harassment
MDL 2492: Rothmund Suit v. NCAA Over Health Issues Consolidated

METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Court Dismisses DeCapua TCPA Suit
MID-CENTRAL EDUCATIONAL: Summary Judgment in Bear Suit Affirmed
MILLER VALENTINE PARTNERS: Clark Seeks OT Pay for Technicians
MOUNT IDA: First Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Squeri Suit
NAVISTAR INT'L: MaxxForce Advanced EGR Settlement Wins Final Okay

NAVISTAR INT'L: Still Defends MaxxForce Engine EGR Suits in Canada
NEON THERAPEUTICS: Marks Challenges Proposed Merger With BioNTech
NEUROLOGICAL SURGERY: Heitz Seeks OT Pay for Employees
PATTERSON COS: Hatchett Class Action Dismissed
PATTERSON COS: Plymouth Retirement System Suit Ongoing

PEPPERIDGE FARM: Boyd FCRA Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Jones Seeks OT Pay for Call Center Employees
PRIUS ENTERPRISE: Faces Ghazizadeh Class Suit in C.D. California
PROFESSIONAL BILLING: Bruce E. Katz Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
RANGERS ENTERPRISE: Bridges Seeks Proper OT Pay for Technicians

RELIANCE FIRST: Face Winters TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
ROBIN INDUSTRIES: Byerly Suit Settlement Gets Prelim Approval
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Faces Gwaltney Suit Over Trading System Glitch
ROOFLINE INC: Sifuentes Remanded to Sacramento County Super. Court
RUBICON TECHNICAL: Alaniz Seeks Overtime Pay for Engineers

SAMSARA NETWORKS: Faces Hanley Suit in California Superior Court
SPS TECHNOLOGIES: Cantu Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
STAGE STORES: Fails to Provide Wage Notices, Harris Claims
STERLING ENGINEERING: FLSA Class in Vargas Conditionally Certified
STUBHUB INC: McMillan Seeks Refund Under FanProtect Guarantee

SUPERSONIC OF FLORIDA: Ramirez Seeks Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
SUTTER VALLEY MEDICAL: Faces Tinnin Suit Over Unlawful Wage Pay
SUTTER VALLEY: Fails to Duly Pay Non-Exempt Workers, Tinnin Says
TANDEM DIABETES: Lacks Patient Data Security Measures, Lopez Says
TD AMERITRADE: Ervin Suit Removed to Western District of Missouri

TIVA HEALTHCARE: Verbal Sues in S.D. Florida Over Contract Issues
TOYOTA MOTOR: Manufactures Defective Fuel Pumps, Chalal Says
TRADEWEB MARKETS: Bid to Nix Treasuries Securities Suit Pending
TRON FOUNDATION: Clifford and Chase Sue Over TRX Tokens
TRUIST FINANCIAL: Bickerstaff Suit Against SunTrust Bank Ongoing

TUFIN SOFTWARE: Allen Sues Over 24% Drop in Share Price
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Caffey Suit Over Robocalls
UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH: Underpays Benefit Claims, Patients Claim
UNITED STATES: Faces Gabriela Immigration Suit in C.D. California
UPS SUPPLY: Aviles Suit Removed to Central District of California

URS MIDWEST: Clemons Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
US COATING SPECIALISTS: Devito Seeks Proper Overtime Pay
US XPRESS: Bid to Dismiss Tennessee Class Suit Pending
US XPRESS: Discovery Ongoing in California Wage & Hour Class Suit
US XPRESS: Independent Contractor Class Suit Stayed

VANESSA WOODARD: Coleman Suit Seeks Minimum Wages for Servers
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Graczyk Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
VOXELMAPS INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Luz Labor Suit Claims
WALLACE RUSH: Can't Compel Thomas' Appearance in La. for Deposition
WENCO INT'L MINING: Fails to Pay OT to Technicians, Donaldson Says

WEST VIRGINIA: Court Dismisses Burch Suit for Lack of Standing
WISCONSIN: Edwards et al. Allege Deprivation of Voting Rights
XP INC: Da Silva Marques Sues Over 25.5% Share Price Drop
XTO ENERGY: Hutchings Seeks Overtime Pay for Oilfield Personnel
ZYNGA INC: Faces Martinez Suit Over September 2019 Data Breach


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 6,102 Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Talks with Fireman's Fund Still Ongoing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Faces 114 Suits at Dec. 31


                            *********

3-D OIL FIELD SERVICES: Hembree Seeks OT Pay for Test Operators
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT HEMBREE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. 3-D OIL FIELD SERVICES & RENTAL, L.L.C., Case No.
2:20-cv-00343 (D.N.M., April 16, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendant for failure to pay Plaintiff, and other workers like
him, overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act (NMMWA).

Hembree worked for 3-D as a Test Operator from approximately August
2019 through April 2020.

3-D Oil Field Services & Rental, L.L.C. is an oilfield services
company doing business principally in Texas and New Mexico.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                      – and –

            Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
            JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
            11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
            Houston, TX 77005
            Telephone: (713) 352-1100
            Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
            Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                   adunlap@mybackwages.com

ADESTO TECHNOLOGIES: Myers Sues Over Misleading Merger Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN MYERS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. ADESTO TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, NARBEH
DERHACOBIAN, NELSON CHAN, HERVÉ FAGES, FRANCIS LEE, KEVIN
PALATNIK, SUSAN UTHAYAKUMAR, AZARA ACQUISITION CORP., and DIALOG
SEMICONDUCTOR PLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00459-UNA (D. Del.,
April 1, 2020) is a class action brought by the plaintiff on behalf
of the public stockholders of Adesto Technologies Corporation
against Adesto's Board of Directors for their violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of the Board's attempt
to sell the Company to Dialog Semiconductor PLC through its
wholly-owned subsidiary, Azara Acquisition Corp.

The Defendants have violated the Exchange Act by causing a
materially incomplete and misleading preliminary proxy statement to
be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
on March 16, 2020. The statement contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning the sales process, financial
projections prepared by Adesto management, and the financial
analyses conducted by Cowen and Company, LLC, Adesto's financial
advisor.

The misrepresentations and omissions in the statement are material
to Plaintiff and the Class, who will be deprived of their right to
cast an informed vote if such misrepresentations and omissions are
not corrected prior to the vote on the Proposed Transaction.

Adesto Technologies Corporation is global provider of advanced
semiconductors and embedded systems for Internet of Things.

Dialog Semiconductor PLC is a UK-based manufacturer of
semiconductor based system solutions

Azara Acquisition Corp. is a Delaware corporation and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Dialog Semiconductor PLC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                         – and –

            Shane T. Rowley
            Danielle Rowland Lindahl
            ROWLEY LAW PLLC
            50 Main Street, Suite 1000
            White Plains, NY 10606
            Telephone: (914) 400-1920
            Facsimile: (914) 301-3514

ALDI INC: Buonocore Sues Over Misleading Vanilla Labeling
---------------------------------------------------------
George Buonocore, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against- Aldi Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01699 (E.D.N.Y., April 5, 2020) contends that the
Defendant manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells
non-dairy coffee creamer made from almonds and purporting to be
flavored only with vanilla, under the Friendly Farms brand.

The Product is misleading because although labeled as "Vanilla," it
has less vanilla than the label represents and what consumers taste
as vanilla is actually non-vanilla flavors.

According to the complaint, the efforts at imitating vanilla offers
a lens to the types of food fraud regularly employed across the
spectrum of valuable commodities in today's interconnected world.
These efforts include (1) market disruption and manipulation and
(2) the development of alternatives to vanilla which completely or
partially replace vanilla.

Defendant's fraudulent intent to its consumers including the
Plaintiff is evinced by its failure to accurately identify the
Product on the front labels, when it knew its statements were
neither true nor accurate.

Aldi, Inc. owns and operates grocery stores. The Company offers
grocery, meat, fresh produce, wine and beer, beverages, and other
home products. ALDI serves customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                       – and –

            Michael R. Reese
            Reese LLP
            100 W 93rd St Fl 16
            New York, NY 10025-7524
            Telephone: (212) 643-0500
            Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
            Email: mreese@reesellp.com

ALEXANDER'S STEAKHOUSE: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Buckley Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT BUCKLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, vs. ALEXANDER'S STEAKHOUSE, INC., Defendant,
Case No. CGC-20-584112 (Calif. Super., San Francisco Cty., April
10, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant by Plaintiff and
similarly situated workers including servers, waitstaff, bartenders
and other non-managerial service employees who have been denied
payment for all hours worked, including gratuity payments.

This case implicates the longstanding policies and practices of
Defendant, which fail to properly compensate non-exempt employee
workers for gratuities paid to them as tip wages.

The Plaintiff was employed as a service worker by Defendant at
Alexander's Steakhouse in San Francisco, California from August
2010 to February 2019.

Alexander's Steakhouse, Inc. operates a chain of restaurants
throughout California, including Alexander's Steakhouse in San
Francisco.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq.  
            Ori Edelstein, Esq.
            Ryan M. Hecht, Esq.
            SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
            2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
            Emeryville, CA 94608
            Telephone: (415) 421-7100
            Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
            Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                   oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
                   rhecht@schneiderwallace.com

                         – and –

            William M. Hogg, Esq.
            CHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
            3700 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 960
            Houston, TX 77098
            Telephone: (713) 338-2560
            Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
            Email: whogge@schneiderwallace.com

AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Clark Product Liability Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Honda Motor
Co., Inc. The case is captioned as Winnie Clark, Bernis Starr,
Zehra Schneider Graham, Thomas DeForge, Joseph Maliniak, Barry
Nestle, Jennie Richardson and Leah E. Morse, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. American Honda
Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-03147-AB-MRW (C.D. Cal., April 3,
2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte, Jr. The suit
demands $5 million in damages.

The case relates to tort product liability matters.

American Honda develops and manufactures automobiles. The company
offers passenger cars, trucks, motorcycles, ATVs, generators,
marine engines, lawn and garden equipment, parts, and accessories.
American Honda Motor serves customers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


ARMSTRONG FLOORING: Contreras Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as AMADOR CONTRERAS, an
individual v. ARMSTRONG FLOORING, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV06871 (Filed Feb.
21, 2020), was removed from the California Superior Court, Los
Angeles County, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on April 2, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-03087 to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated California wage
and hour and related laws by failing to pay meal period premiums,
rest period premiums, overtime pay; to provide day of rest; and to
pay minimum wage.

Armstrong Flooring is a Pennsylvania corporation incorporated in
2016 producing wood flooring products.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jolee Land, Esq.
          Reed L. Russell, Esq.
          Raquel R. Jefferson, Esq.
          PHELPS DUNBAR, LLP
          100 Ashley Drive South, Suite 2000
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: 813-472-7550
          Facsimile: 813-472-7570
          E-mail: jolee.land@phelps.com
                  reed.russell@phelps.com
                  raquel.jefferson@phelps.com

               - and -

          Isten J. Nesbit, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 330-4500
          Facsimile: (213) 330-4501
          E-mail: knesbit@fisherphillips.com


ART AND JAKES OF GEORGIA: Haggerty Seeks OT Pay for Dishwashers
---------------------------------------------------------------
BEN HAGGERTY, and all those similarly situated who consent to
representation, Plaintiff v. ART AND JAKES OF GEORGIA, LLC d/b/a
ART AND JAKES SPORTS BAR, a Georgia Company and VICTOR TRPCEVSKI,
an individual, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00054-TCB (N.D. Ga.,
April 15, 2020) arises from Defendants' violations of the rights of
Plaintiff and all those similarly situated who consent to
representation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, to remedy
violations of the overtime provisions of the FLSA by Defendants
which has deprived Plaintiff and all those similarly situated of
their lawful overtime wages.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a dishwasher.

Art and Jakes of Gerogia, LLC d/b/a Art and Jakes Sports Bar is a
restaurant company based in Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Kimberly N. Martin, Esq.
            Thomas F. Martin, Esq.
            MARTIN & MARTIN, LLP
            Tucker, GA 30085
            Telephone: (404)313-5538   
            Email: kimberlymartinlaw@gmail.com
                   tfmartinlaw@msn.com

BARNES & NOBLE: Monopolizes College Textbook Market, Kinskey Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Kinskey and Grace Kinskey, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. BARNES & NOBLE COLLEGE
BOOKSELLERS, LLC; CENGAGE LEARNING, INC.; FOLLETT HIGHER EDUCATION
GROUP, INC.; MCGRAW-HILL LLC; MCGRAW-HILL GLOBAL EDUCATION
HOLDINGS, LLC; and PEARSON EDUCATION, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-02322
(N.D. Ill., April 15, 2020), accuses the Defendants of violating
the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act by conspiring to monopolize the
market for college textbooks.

Faced with intense competition, the dominant publishers of college
textbooks and dominant retail chains operating on-campus college
bookstores conspired to monopolize the market for college textbooks
and course materials by entering into agreements with universities
that restricted the course materials students could buy. Called
"Inclusive Access," the agreements require students to obtain their
course materials from their official on-campus bookstore only in an
online format and to which access is cut off at the end of the
semester. Because students are not permitted to buy these required
course materials from any other source, the Defendants foreclosed
competition from new print textbooks, used print textbooks, and
other online sources, and also from off-campus and online
bookstores and sellers.

The Defendants' monopolization of the market for college course
materials in Inclusive Access courses has allowed them to charge
higher prices for those course materials with no legitimate
justification, to the detriment of college and graduate students,
according to the complaint. Inclusive Access is actually an
exclusive agreement between the Publisher Defendants and Retailer
Defendants to protect their prices and profits from competition.
Instead of students being instructed to buy a specific textbook for
a class, from any source and in any format, students in an
Inclusive Access course are required to pay for electronic access
to the textbook, at the designated price, from their own official
on-campus bookstore.

Without Inclusive Access, many students would purchase a used
version of the textbook on the secondary market, and the Publisher
Defendants would not receive any money from those sales. There are
no pro-competitive justification for Inclusive Access, which always
works to the disadvantage of students, the Plaintiffs assert. The
Plaintiffs add that students pay higher prices, are forced to
purchase electronic materials even if they prefer print, and they
receive access to online materials with an expiration date as
opposed to being able to save course materials for future reference
or resell them at the end of the semester. As a result of those
actions, the Plaintiffs have been overcharged, and seek treble
damages and injunctive relief, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Elizabeth Kinskey attends Duquesne University in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff Grace Kinskey attends Marquette
University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Barnes & Noble College Booksellers, LLC, is a Delaware limited
liability company based in Basking Ridge, New Jersey, that operates
Barnes & Noble's campus bookstores on 773 campuses nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
          FEGAN SCOTT LLC
          150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 312.741.1019
          Fax: 312.264.0100
          Email: beth@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Lynn A. Ellenberger, Esq.
          FEGAN SCOTT LLC
          500 Grant St., Suite 2900
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: 412.346.4104
          Fax: 412.785.2400
          Email: lynn@feganscott.com

               - and -

          J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
          SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE P.C.
          5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
          West Des Moines, IA 50265
          Phone: (515) 223-4567
          Fax: (515) 223-8887
          Email: goplerud@sagwlaw.com


BILL PERRY: Ullom Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nathaniel Stephen Ullom, on behalf of himself and all those
similarly situated v. BILL PERRY & ASSOCIATES, INC., a Florida
Corporation; and WILLIAM PERRY, individually; Case No.
2:20-cv-00266 (M.D. Fla., April 15, 2020), alleges that pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Plaintiff is entitled to
unpaid wages from the Defendants for overtime work for which he did
not receive overtime premium pay.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours
within one or more workweeks. In one or more work weeks during
their employment, the Defendants failed to compensate the
Plaintiff, at rate of one and one-half times their regular rate for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single work week, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt,
hourly-paid employee.

BP&A was, and continues to be, engaged in business in Florida, with
a principal place of business in Lee County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Natalie Staroschak, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Phone: 954-807-7759
          Fax: 954-807-7781
          Email: nstaroschak@forthepeople.com


BLINK HOLDINGS: Jampol Seeks Refund of Gym Fees Amid Closure
------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON JAMPOL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BLINK HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant. Case No.
1:20-cv-02760 (S.D.N.Y., April 2, 2020) is an action brought by the
Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
against the Defendant for making unconscionable decision to charge
its members for the full month of March 2020, despite closing all
of its gyms in various states as the novel coronavirus, COVID-19,
rages throughout the world and the United States economy has gone
into a deep recession.

On March 16, 2020, Defendant announced that it was closing all of
its gyms in the following states until further notice: California,
Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia. Defendant promised that it would
be freezing members' monthly dues going forward. Nonetheless,
Defendant charged its members for the full month of March, despite
closing its gyms halfway through the month. Defendant thus deprived
its members of the full benefit of the bargain.

Defendant is able to unilaterally charge its millions of customers
monthly fees without their consent, as it is in possession of its
customers' debit and credit card information.

Blink Holdings, Inc. is one of the fastest growing companies in the
United States and is the operator of more than 100 gyms or health
clubs throughout the U.S., about half of which are located in New
York City. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq.
            BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
            888 Seventh Avenue, Third Floor
            New York, NY 10019
            Telephone: (646) 837-7150
            Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
            E-Mail: aobergfell@bursor.com

                      – and –

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

BRAND NEW ENERGY: Faces Milan Class Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brand New Energy LLC.
The case is captioned as Ralph Milan, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Brand New Energy LLC, doing
business as: Extreme Products Group, Case No. 8:20-cv-00644-JVS-KES
(C.D. Cal., April 2, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge James V. Selna.

The Defendant designs, develops, and delivers health products to
retailers nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          David J. McGlothlin, Esq.
          Nicholas Barthel, Esq.
          Yana A. Hart, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  david@kazlg.com
                  nicholas@kazlg.com
                  yana@kazlg.com


BRISTOL BAY: Court Stays Abikar Suit Pending Jamil Resolution
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Abucar Nunow ABIKAR, Barkadle Sheikh Muhamed AWMAGAN,
Arab Mursal DEH, Majuma MADENDE, Osman Musa MOHAMED, Osman Musa
MUGANGA, Rukia MUSA, and Fatuma SOMOW, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bristol Bay Native
Corporation; Glacier Technical Solutions, LLC; Workforce Resources,
LLC; and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-1700 JLS (AGS) (S.D.
Cal.), Judge Janis L. Sammartino of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California granted the Defendants' Motion to
Stay Proceedings.

The Plaintiffs filed a punitive class action complaint on July 25,
2018, asserting seven causes of action against the Defendants.  In
the Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege the Defendants intentionally
engaged in a policy and practice of failing to pay wages for all
hours worked and overtime hours worked, to provide accurate wage
statements, and to pay all wages due upon termination of
employment.

On Jan. 24, 2019, the Plaintiffs moved to consolidate this action
with a separate, earlier-filed action pending before the Court,
Jamil v. Workforce Resources, LLC, No. 18-CV-27 JLS (NLS) (S.D.
Cal. filed Jan. 4, 2018).  On Jan. 25, 2019, the Defendants moved
to dismiss or, alternatively, stay the action pending resolution of
the Jamil Action.  On March 4, 2019, Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel
granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to
dismiss, denied as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for consolidation,
and transferred the case to the Court under the first-to-file
rule.

The Defendants filed the instant Motion on April 23, 2019, renewing
their request for a stay of the action pending resolution of the
Jamil Action.  On Sept. 26, 2019, the Defendants in the Jamil
Action filed a Notice of Settlement and Joint Motion to Vacate
Pending Dates, requesting that the Court vacates the current
scheduling deadlines and set a deadline for preliminary approval of
the class action settlement.  The Court granted the Defendants'
request and vacated all pending dates in the Jamil Action.  On Feb.
14, 2020, the Defendants in the Jamil Action filed a Notice of
Proposed Settlement.

In CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, the Ninth Circuit has identified three
competing interests that warrant the closest examination in the
analysis: (1) the hardship or inequity upon the non-moving party
that would result from granting the stay, (2) the hardship or
inequity upon the moving party in being required to go forward
after denial of the stay, and (3) the orderly course of justice
measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues,
proof, and questions of law that could be expected to result from a
stay.

Judge Sammartino finds that each of the three CMAX factors weighs
in favor of granting a brief stay of the action pending resolution
of the Jamil Action.  Further, granting the requested stay would
best promote the interests of securing a just, speedy, and
inexpensive determination of the action.  

Accordingly, Judge Sammartino granted the Defendants' Motion and
stayed the action in its entirety pending the resolution of the
Jamil Action.  The Judge therefore vacated all pending deadlines in
the action pending resolution of the Jamil Action.  The Parties
will file a joint status report within the earlier of 14 days of
the resolution of the Jamil Action or six months of the electronic
docketing of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 18, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/nv63tI from Leagle.com.

Abucar Nunow Abikar, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Barkadle Sheikh Muhamed Awmagan, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Arab Mursal Deh, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Majuma
Madende, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated,
Osman Musa Mohamed, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Osman Musa Muganga, on behalf of themselves
and
all others similarly situated, Rukia Musa, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated & Fatuma Somow, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by David J. Duchrow -- djduchrow@yahoo.com -- Law
Offices of David J. Duchrow & Marilynn Mika Spencer --
mspencer@thespencerlawfirm.com -- The Spencer Law Firm.

Bristol Bay Native Corporation, Glacier Technical Solutions, LLC &
Workforce Resources, LLC, Defendants, represented by Amy Todd-Gher
-- atodd-gher@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C & Ruth Dapper
-- rdapper@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson.

BRYLER CORP: Underpays 7-Eleven Staff, Lorenzo Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
RAUL A. LORENZO and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
Sec. 216(b), Plaintiff(s), vs. BRYLER CORPORATION, a Florida Profit
Corporation, d/b/a 7-ELEVEN; MICHAEL L. WYLIE, individually; and
CHRISTINE P. WYLIE, individually, Defendants, Case No.
9:20-cv-80648-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 16, 2020) alleges that
Defendants failed to pay Named Plaintiff and those similarly
situated proper overtime compensation in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff began working for Defendants in 2015 and is currently
employed by Defendants.

Plaintiff performs primarily non-exempt work for Defendants
including handling the cash register, restocking shelves, unloading
delivery trucks, organizing the cooler, and performing other manual
labor at Defendants' 7-Eleven store in Boca Raton, Florida.

Bryler Corporation operates as a convenience store under the
franchise name 7-Eleven in Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Anisley Tarragona, Esq.
            Jason D. Berkowitz, Esq.
            BT LAW GROUP, PLLC
            3050 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 205
            Miami, FL 33137
            Telephone: (305) 507-8506
            Email: anisley@btattorneys.com
                   jason@btattorneys.com

CERNER CORP: Mishandled Employee Retirement Plan, Clark Says
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CERNER CORPORATION, COMPENSATION COMMITTEE
OF THE CERNER CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS, and CERNER
CORPORATION FOUNDATIONS RETIREMENT PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE AND
INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02194 (D. Kan.,
April 14, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff pursuant to
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA")
against the Cerner Plan's fiduciaries, including Cerner
Corporation, the Compensation Committee of the Cerner Corporation
Board of Directors, and the Cerner Corporation Foundations
Retirement Plan Administrative and Investment Committee for
breaches of their fiduciary duties.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties to the Cerner Plan in violation of ERISA, to the
detriment of the Cerner Plan and its participants and
beneficiaries. Plaintiff brings this action to remedy this unlawful
conduct, prevent further mismanagement of the Cerner Plan, and
obtain equitable and other relief as provided by ERISA.

All the Defendants were fiduciaries of the Cerner Plan during the
Class Period. Cerner, the Administrative Committee, and the
individual Administrative Committee members were responsible for
selecting, monitoring, and removing investment options made
available to the Cerner Plan participants, as well as controlling
and accounting for expenses of the Cerner Plan, and, upon
information and belief, the Compensation Committee appointed the
members of the Administrative Committee.

The Defendants failed to observe that, when selecting investment
options for an ERISA-governed plan, the plan's fiduciaries are
required to act for the exclusive benefit of the plan and its
participants and beneficiaries, perform with undivided loyalty, act
prudently, defray reasonable plan expenses, diversify investments
to minimize large losses unless clearly prudent not to do so, and
discharge their duties in accordance with the governing documents
and instruments so long as they are consistent with ERISA.

Cerner Corporation is an American supplier of health information
technology solutions, services, devices, and hardware based in with
its headquarters located in Kansas City, Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Scott C. Nehrbass, Esq.
            FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP
            32 Corporate Woods, Suite 600
            9225 Indian Creek Parkway
            Overland Park, KS  66210-2000
            Telephone: (913) 253-2144
            Facsimile: (866) 347-1472
            Email: snehrbass@foulston.com

                           – and –

            Boyd A. Byers, Esq.
            Alexandra N.C. Rose, Esq.
            FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP
            1551 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 100
            Wichita, KS 67206-4466
            Telephone: (316) 267-6371
            Facsimile: (316) 267-6345
            Email: bbyers@foulston.com
                   nrose@foulston.com

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Class Cert. Denial in Scott Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MAXCIMO SCOTT, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, JAY FRANCIS ENSOR, CHRISTINE JEWEL GATELEY,
KRYSTAL PARKER, STACY HIGGS, EUFEMIA JIMENEZ, MATHEW A. MEDINA,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., CHIPOTLE
SERVICES, LLC, Defendants-Appellees, Case Nos. 17-2208-cv,
18-359-cv (2d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit (i) affirmed the district court's order denying class
certification, (ii) vacated the district court's order decertifying
the collective action, and (iii) remanded for further proceedings.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are seven named Plaintiffs representing
six putative classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)
("Class Plaintiffs").  They also sue on behalf of themselves and
516 individuals who opted in to a conditionally certified
collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
("Collective Plaintiffs").

The Class Plaintiffs are current and former "Apprentices" of
Defendants-Appellees Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and Chipotle
Services, LLC who allege that Chipotle misclassified them as exempt
employees in violation of the labor laws in six states.  The
Collective Plaintiffs are current and former Chipotle Apprentices
who allege that Chipotle misclassified them as exempt employees in
violation of the FLSA.  As a result of Chipotle's purported
misclassification, the Plaintiffs-Appellants contend that they were
unlawfully denied overtime wages required under state and federal
law.

Plaintiff-Appellant Scott filed the initial complaint in the case
on Nov. 15, 2011.  Following a series of amendments to the
pleadings joining additional Plaintiffs and adding claims, on Feb.
10, 2015, the Plaintiffs-Appellants filed the operative third
amended complaint, which alleges that Chipotle misclassified its
Apprentice workers and denied them overtime pay in violation of the
FLSA as well as state laws in Colorado, Illinois, Missouri, New
York, North Carolina, and Washington.  The Class Plaintiffs purport
to represent six classes totaling approximately 1,600 Apprentices
who worked at Chipotle locations in the six states.  The Collective
Plaintiffs consist of the seven named Plaintiffs and 516 opt-in
Plaintiffs who affirmatively consented to joining the FLSA suit
after the district court conditionally certified the collective
action on June 30, 2013.

On March 29, 2017, the district court denied the Class Plaintiffs'
class certification motion on the grounds that they failed to meet
the predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3).  In
the same decision, the district court granted Chipotle's motion to
decertify the collective action on the grounds that the Collective
Plaintiffs failed to establish that the opt-in Plaintiffs were
"similarly situated" to the named Plaintiffs as required for
collective treatment under the FLSA.

On appeal, the Class Plaintiffs principally argue that the district
court relied on erroneous law and clearly erroneous facts in
determining that common questions of law or fact did not
predominate.  They contend that the district court erred in
decertifying the collective action because it relied on an
erroneous view of the law -- namely, that the FLSA's "similarly
situated" inquiry "mirrors" the Rule 23 analysis in rough
proportion to the number Plaintiffs who have chosen to opt-in.

The Second Circuit begins with an overview of hybrid FLSA and state
overtime misclassification suits.  It then discusses the district
court's denial of class certification and decertification of the
FLSA collective action in turn.

The Second Circuit can discern no clearly erroneous facts relied
upon in the district court's analysis; it based its legal
conclusion on a fair interpretation of the facts after thoroughly
parsing the voluminous record in the case.  While reasonable minds
could disagree, on the record before the Court, the Second Circuit
cannot say that the district court's factual findings were clearly
erroneous or that its conclusion was outside the range of
permissible decisions.

The district court's conclusion fell within the range of
permissible decisions committed to its discretion.  Accordingly,
the Second Circuit affirms the district court's denial of the Class
Plaintiffs' motion to certify the proposed class actions.

Next, the Second Circuit holds that the requirements for certifying
a class under Rule 23 are unrelated to and more stringent than the
requirements for "similarly situated" employees to proceed in a
collective action under Section 216(b). Accordingly, it is error
for courts to equate the requirements of Section 216(b) with those
of Rule 23 in assessing whether the named Plaintiffs are "similarly
situated" to the opt-in Plaintiffs under the FLSA.

Finally, the Second Circuit holds that the "common question"
requirement of Rule 23(a) and the "similarly situated" requirement
of Section 216(b) serve comparable ends: to identify those shared
issues that will collectively advance the litigation of multiple
claims in a joint proceeding.  And as the district court correctly
noted, the differences in the actual job duties of Apprentices are
better suited to the predominance inquiry together with an analysis
of the Rule 23(b)(3) factors.  Thus, as the district court seems to
acknowledge, these differences will not prove fatal to the
"similarly situated" analysis in the same way they proved fatal to
the predominance inquiry in the case.  If the named Plaintiffs and
the opt-in Plaintiffs are similar in some respects material to the
disposition of their claims, collective treatment may be to that
extent appropriate, as it may to that extent facilitate the
collective litigation of the Collective Plaintiffs' claims.

Because the district court conflated the standards for maintaining
a collective action under Section 216(b) and a class action under
Rule 23, the Second Circuit vacates the decision of the district
court, and remands for further proceedings consistent with his
Opinion.

Accordingly, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's
denial of class certification as to the Class Plaintiffs' claims;
vacated the district court's decertification of the collective
action; and remanded for further proceedings consistent with his
Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 1, 2020 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/oi0zjT from Leagle.com.

RACHEL BIEN -- rmb@outtengolden.com -- (Justin M. Swartz --
jms@outtengolden.com -- Melissa L. Stewart --
mstewart@outtengolden.com -- on the brief), Outten & Golden LLP,
New York, New York; Paolo Chagas Meireles --
pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com -- Shavitz Law Group, P.A., Boca Raton,
Florida; Brian Scott Schaffer -- bschaffer@fslawfirm.com --
Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP, New York, New York, for
Plaintiffs-Appellants.

RICHARD J. SIMMONS -- rsimmons@sheppardmullin.com -- (Lisa M. Lewis
-- lmlewis@sheppardmullin.com -- Brian D. Murphy --
bmurphy@sheppardmullin.com -- on the brief), Sheppard, Mullin,
Richter & Hampton LLP, Los Angeles, California, New York, New York;
Bruce A. Montoya, John Karl Shunk -- jshunk@messner.com -- Kendra
N. Beckwith -- kbeckwith@messner.com -- Messner Reeves LLP, Denver,
Colorado, for Defendants-Appellees.

CLEARVIEW AI INC: Faces McPherson Suit Alleging Violation of BIPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John McPherson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CLEARVIEW AI, INC., a Delaware Corporation; HOAN
TON-THAT, an Individual; RICHARD SCHWARTZ, an Individual; and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 1:20-cv-03053-UA (S.D.N.Y., April
15, 2020), seeks redress from the harms suffered by the Plaintiff
as a result of the Defendants' violation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff also asserts claims for unjust enrichment (aka
"restitution" or "quasi-contract"), and seeks relief under the
Declaratory Judgment Act. The Plaintiff alleges that without notice
or consent, Clearview illicitly "scraped" hundreds, if not
thousands or more, websites, such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google,
for over three billion images of consumers' faces. Clearview's
automated scraping for images violated the policies of websites
like Facebook and Twitter, the latter of which specifically
prohibits scraping to build facial recognition databases.

According to the complaint, the Defendants unlawfully stored
billions of scraped images of faces in Clearview's database, used
its facial recognition software to generate biometric information
(aka a "Faceprint") to match the face to identifiable information,
and then sold access to the database to third-party entities and
agencies for commercial gain. In clear violation of multiple
privacy laws, Clearview sold for a profit access to billions of
consumers' Faceprints to law enforcement agencies and private
companies across the country, including in New York and Illinois.
Consumers did not receive notice of this violation of their privacy
rights, and they certainly have not consented to it--in writing or
otherwise.

The Plaintiff says he never consented, agreed, or gave
permission--written or otherwise--to Clearview to collect, capture,
purchase, receive through trade, obtain, sell, lease, trade,
disclose, redisclose, disseminate, or otherwise profit from or use
his photograph, likeness, and biometric information and
identifiers. The Defendants unlawfully collected, captured,
purchased, received through trade, obtained, sold, leased, traded,
disclosed, redisclosed, disseminated, and/or otherwise profited
from or used Plaintiff's and the Class's photographs and biometric
information and identifiers in violation of the BIPA, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff John McPherson is a natural person and is a resident and
citizen of Quincy, Illinois.

Clearview AI, Inc., is a private, for-profit Delaware corporation,
with its principal place of business located in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          Carey Alexander, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Phone: 212-223-6444
          Facsimile: 212-223-6334
          Email: jgugliemo@scott-scott.com
                 calexander@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Erin Green Comite
          Margaret B. Ferron, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          156 South Main Street
          P.O. Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Phone: 860-537-5537
          Facsimile: 860-537-4432
          Email: ecomite@scott-scott.com
                 mferron@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Amber L. Eck, Esq.
          Alreen Haeggquist, Esq.
          Aaron M. Olsen, Esq.
          Ian Pike, Esq.
          HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP
          225 Broadway, Suite 2050
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-342-8000
          Facsimile: 619-342-7878
          Email: ambere@haelaw.com
                 alreenh@haelaw.com
                 aarono@haelaw.com
                 ianp@haelaw.com


CLEVELAND-CLIFFS: Investors Balk at AK Steel Merger
---------------------------------------------------
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on March 2, 2020, that the
company has been named as a defendant in putative class action
suits related to its merger deal with AK Steel Holding
Corporation.

On January 8, 2020, Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. filed a registration
statement on Form S-4 (File No. 333-235855) (as amended, the "Form
S-4") with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the proposed acquisition of AK Steel Holding Corporation ("AK
Steel") by Cliffs pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger,
dated as of December 2, 2019 (as the same may be amended from time
to time, the "Merger Agreement"), by and among Cliffs, AK Steel and
Pepper Merger Sub Inc., a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Cliffs
("Merger Sub").

On February 4, 2020, Cliffs filed with the SEC its definitive joint
proxy statement/prospectus relating to the special meeting of
shareholders of Cliffs scheduled to be held on March 10, 2020 (the
"Definitive Proxy Statement") to, among other things, vote on a
proposal to approve the Merger Agreement and the transactions
contemplated thereby, including the issuance of Cliffs common
shares.

Since the initial filing of the Form S-4, one action, Nessim v.
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00850 (S.D.N.Y.,
filed January 31, 2020) (the "Nessim Action"), has been filed in
federal court in New York against Cliffs and its directors by a
purported shareholder of Cliffs.

In addition to the Nessim Action, seven actions (collectively, the
"AK Steel Federal Stockholder Actions" and together with the Nessim
Action, the "Federal Stockholder Actions"), including one putative
class action lawsuit, have been filed in federal courts in
Delaware, Michigan and New York by purported AK Steel stockholders
in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement: Stein v. AK Steel Holding Corp., et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-00054 (D. Del., filed January 14, 2020); Spuhler v. AK
Steel Holding Corp., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00444 (S.D.N.Y.,
filed January 16, 2020); Franchi v. AK Steel Holding Corp., et al.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00078 (D. Del., filed January 17, 2020) (the
"Franchi Action"); Raul v. AK Steel Holding Corp., et al., No.
1:20-cv-00611 (S.D.N.Y., filed January 23, 2020); Ruiz v. AK Steel
Holding Corp., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00620 (E.D.N.Y., filed
February 4, 2020); Rubin v. AK Steel Holding Corp., et al., Case
No. 2:20-cv-10379 (E.D. Mich., filed February 12, 2020); and
Cornish v. AK Steel Holding Corp., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-10457
(E.D. Mich., filed February 21, 2020).

A ninth action, Pate v. AK Steel Holding Corp., et al., Case No. CV
2020 01 0196 (Ohio Common Pleas, Butler County, filed January 28,
2020) (the "Pate Action" and together with the AK Steel Federal
Stockholder Actions, the "AK Steel Stockholder Actions") has been
filed by a purported AK Steel stockholder as a putative class
action in state court in Ohio.

Each of the AK Steel Stockholder Actions names AK Steel and its
directors as defendants, and the Franchi Action and Pate Action
name Cliffs and Merger Sub as additional defendants. Each of the
Federal Stockholder Actions alleges, among other things, that the
Form S-4 is false and misleading and/or omits material information
concerning the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement in
violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated under the
Exchange Act.

The Pate Action alleges breach of fiduciary duty claims against AK
Steel's directors and aiding and abetting claims against AK Steel,
Cliffs and Merger Sub in connection with the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement, including that the Form S-4
is false and misleading and/or omits material information
concerning the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement.

The plaintiffs in the Federal Stockholder Actions and the Pate
Action (collectively, the "Stockholder Actions"), among other
things, seek to enjoin the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. operates as an iron ore mining company in the
United States, Canada, and internationally. The company operates
four iron ore mines, including the Tilden mine in Michigan; and the
Northshore, United Taconite, and Hibbing mines in Minnesota. It
serves integrated steel companies and steel producers. The company
was formerly known as Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. and changed its
name to Cleveland Cliffs Inc. in August 2017. Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.
was founded in 1847 and is headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio.


CLOUDERA: Lead Plaintiff Naming Process in Securities Suit Reopened
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE CLOUDERA, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
19-CV-03221-LHK (N.D. Cal.), Judge Lucy H. Koh of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division,
(i) vacated the Court's order appointing the Lead Plaintiff and the
Lead Counsel; (ii) ordered Klin to publish notice of its amended
complaint in compliance with the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act ("PSLRA"); and (iii) denied as moot the Defendant's
administrative motion requesting modification of the briefing
schedule.

On June 7, 2019, Plaintiff Shanice Christie filed a securities
class action complaint against Defendant Cloudera; its former CEO,
Thomas J. Reilly; its CFO, Jim Frankola; and its former Chief
Strategy Officer, Michael A. Olson.  The Complaint asserted two
claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The Complaint
defined the class as all purchasers of Cloudera common stock
between April 28, 2017 and June 5, 2019, inclusive.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"),
Christie published notice of the action to potential Lead
Plaintiffs.  Subsequently, the Court received 10 separate motions
seeking appointment as Lead Plaintiff.  On Dec. 16, 2019, the Court
appointed Marius J. Klin and the Marius J. Klin MD PA 401K Profit
Sharing Plan as the Lead Plaintiffs pursuant to the PSLRA.

On Feb. 14, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint ("CAC").  The CAC added two named Plaintiffs and added as
Defendants a number of individuals and Intel Corp.  The CAC also
added new claims under the Securities Act of 1933.  Additionally,
the CAC expanded the class definition to include: all persons who
purchased and/or otherwise acquired Cloudera common stock: (i)
pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement filed in
connection with Cloudera's merger with Hortonworks, Inc. that
closed on Jan. 3, 2019 (Merger); and/or (ii) between April 28, 2017
and June 5, 2019, inclusive.

On Feb. 29, 2020, Defendants Cloudera, Reilly, Frankola, and Olson
("Moving Defendants") filed an administrative motion requesting
that the Court modify the parties' briefing schedule with respect
to the anticipated motion to dismiss.  Specifically, the Moving
Defendants requested additional time in which to respond to the CAC
so that the Court could consider whether the Lead Plaintiff
appointment process should be reopened due to the changes to the
CAC.  On Feb. 29, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an opposition.
Following the Court's order to file a reply, the Moving Defendants
filed a reply on March 6, 2020.

The Moving Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' additions in the
CAC warrant reopening the Lead Plaintiff process because they
"fundamentally altered" the nature of the case.  The Plaintiffs
argue that the CAC does not alter the class definition, and that
Christie's June 2019 publication was therefore sufficient.

Judge Koh agrees with the Moving Defendants.  She cannot agree with
the Plaintiffs that the amendments in the CAC are as insubstantial.
In addition to the amendments, the CAC substantially alters the
class definitions.  Specifically, the Complaint defined the class
as all purchasers of Cloudera common stock between April 28, 2017
and June 5, 2019, inclusive.  The CAC expanded the class definition
to include: all persons who purchased and/or otherwise acquired
Cloudera common stock: (i) pursuant or traceable to the
Registration Statement filed in connection with Cloudera's merger
with Hortonworks, Inc. that closed on Jan. 3, 2019 (Merger); and/or
(ii) between April 28, 2017 and June 5, 2019, inclusive.

The new class definition adds an entire group of putative class
members who did not purchase Cloudera common stock, but rather
acquired Cloudera stock in exchange for their Hortonworks stock
upon the merger of Cloudera and Hortonworks.  The Plaintiff
conclusorily asserts that the CAC does not change the pool of Lead
Plaintiff movants.  Contrary to the Plaintiffs' assertion, the CAC
inarguably expanded the class definition to include former
shareholders of Hortonworks who acquired and did not purchase their
Cloudera stock during the Class Period.

Given these changes, Judge Koh finds that the June 2019 publication
was insufficient because individuals who could now be considered
potential Lead Plaintiffs would have disregarded the earlier
notice.  Consistent with the former class definition in the
Complaint, the June 2019 publication announced that the case was
brought on behalf of all purchasers of Cloudera common stock during
the Class period.  He finds it likely that a former Hortonworks
shareholder, who never purchased any Cloudera stock but only
received Cloudera stock during the merger, would have disregarded
the notice.  

As the Defendants note, the appearance in the CAC of two new named
Plaintiffs, Cade Jones and Larry Lenick, bolsters the conclusion.
Both Jones and Lenick were former shareholders of Hortonworks who
acquired and did not purchase their Cloudera stock during the Class
Period.  Neither one responded to the June 2019 publication by
seeking to be appointed as lead plaintiff.  In these unique
circumstances, the Judge finds that the Court must reopen the Lead
Plaintiff process to ensure that the goals of the PSLRA are
effectuated.

Accordingly, Judge Koh vacated the Court's order appointing Klin as
the Lead Plaintiff and appointing Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as the Lead
Counsel.  She ordered the Plaintiffs to publish notice of the CAC
in compliance with the PSLRA by April 3, 2020.  Pursuant to 15
U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i), any member of the purported
classes seeking appointment as the Lead Plaintiff will have 60 days
thereafter to file a motion seeking appointment as the Lead
Plaintiff.

Because the Judge reopened the Lead Plaintiff appointment process,
she also vacated the briefing schedule for the Defendants'
anticipated motion to dismiss.  The Judge set a new schedule upon
appointment of the Lead Plaintiff and the Lead Counsel.  She thus
denied as moot the Moving Defendants' administrative motion to
alter the briefing schedule.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 18, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/zcRYp7 from Leagle.com.

Mariusz J. Klin & The Mariusz J. Klin MD PA 401K Profit Sharing
Plan, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam Marc Apton -- aapton@zlk.com
-- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP & Adam Christopher McCall --
amccall@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP.

Renato Zarantonello, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti --
jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, J. Alexander Hood, II --
ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Jeremy A.
Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac
vice.

Andrei Dvornic, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti,
Pomerantz LLP.

Larry Lenick & Cade Jones, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam Marc
Apton, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP.

Cloudera, Inc., Thomas J. Reilly, Jim Frankola & Michael A. Olson,
Defendants, represented by Alison Clare Jordan --
ajordan@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP, Dean S. Kristy --
dkristy@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP, Kevin Peter Muck --
kmuck@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP & Marie Caroline Bafus,
Fenwick and West LLP.

Priya Jain, Martin Cole, Kimberly Hammonds, Rosemary Schooler,
Steven Sordello, Michael A. Stankey, Robert Bearden, Paul Cormier,
Peter Fenton & Kevin Klausmeyer, Defendants, represented by Kevin
Peter Muck, Fenwick & West LLP.

Intel Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Y. Wu, Munger,
Tolles & Olson LLP & Lauren Claire Barnett, Munger, Tolles & Olson
LLP.

Vinay Gulati, Movant, represented by Robert S. Green, Green &
Noblin, P.C..

Ketan Doshi, Brian Alves-Scari, Andrew Chen & Jun Fu, Movants,
represented by Laurence Matthew Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com --
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A..

CNX RESOURCES: Faces Henry Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
LARRY HENRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. CNX RESOURCES CORP., Case No. 2:20-cv-00553-PLD (W.D.
Pa., April 15, 2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff to
recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act.

Henry worked for CNX as a Wellsite Supervisor from approximately
June 2018 to May 2019.

CNX Resources Corp. is a natural gas company based in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
            Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
            JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
            11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
            Houston, TX 77046
            Telephone: (713) 352-1100
            Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
            Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                   adunlap@mybackwages.com

                           – and –

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

                           – and –

            Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
            GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
            3634 California Ave.
            Pittsburgh, PA 15212
            Telephone: (412) 766-1455
            Facsimile: (412) 766-0300
            Email: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

CONNER LOGISTICS: March 13 Show Cause Order in Figueroa Discharged
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, UBALDO FIGUEROA, on behalf of himself and all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CONNER LOGISTICS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01004-NONE-BAM (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California discharged the Order to Show Cause
issued March 13, 2020.

On Oct. 23, 2019, the parties filed a notice of settlement of this
class action.  On Oct. 24, 2019, the Court ordered the parties to
file a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement no later
than Jan. 23, 2020.  On Jan. 23, 2020, the parties filed a
stipulation to extend the deadline for the motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement to Feb. 24, 2020.  The Court approved
the parties' stipulation on Jan. 24, 2020.

On March 3, 2020, after a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement had not been filed, the Court issued an order to Show
Cause why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to comply
with an order of the Court.  The parties were required to file
either a written response or the required motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement within 14 days of service of the Order
to Show Cause.

On March 13, 2020, Kyle Nordrehaug, the counsel for the Plaintiff,
filed a declaration in response to the Order to Show Cause.  Mr.
Nordrehaug's declaration explained that the associate monitoring
compliance with the deadline for the motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement went on maternity leave and the deadline
was deleted from Mr. Nordrehaug's calendar following a
"misunderstanding" of the Court's Order Unassigning District Judge.
Mr. Nordrehaug represented that Plaintiff's non-compliance with
the Court's order was inadvertent and apologized for the mistake.
Mr. Nordrehaug further explained that the motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement had been drafted and was currently being
reviewed by the counsel for the Defendant.  However, Mr. Nordrehaug
had a pre-planned vacation from March 13, 2020 through March 17,
2020 and was unsure if he would be able to file the motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement while on vacation but would
file the motion by no later than March 18, 2020.  On March 17,
2020, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Class Settlement.

Having considered Mr. Nordrehaug's response, and in light of the
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement filed on March
17, 2020, Magistrate Judge McAuliffe discharged the Order to Show
Cause issued March 13, 2020.  No sanctions will be imposed.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 18, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/ku6sOt from Leagle.com.

Ubaldo Figueroa, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on
behalf
of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by
Aparajit Bhowmik -- aj@bamlawlj.com -- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik, Kyle R. Nordrehaug -- kyle@bamlawca.com -- Blumenthal
Nordrehaug and Bhowmik, Norman Blumenthal -- NORM@BAMLAWCA.COM --
Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, LLP, Ruchira Piya Mukherjee --
piya@bamlawlj.com -- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik & Victoria
Bree Rivapalacio -- victoria@bamlawca.com -- Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug
& Bhowmik.

Conner Logistics, Inc., a California corporation, Defendant,
represented by Russell K. Ryan -- rkr@mmwlawfirm.com --
Motschiedler, Michaelides, Wishon, Brewer & Ryan, LLP.


COOK INC: Mills Suit Moved From E.D. Virginia to S.D. Indiana
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL MILLS v. COOK
INCORPORATED, And COOK MEDICAL LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00107 (Filed
Feb. 28, 2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana on April 2, 2020.

The Southern District of Indiana Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-06119-RLY-TAB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Richard L. Young.

The class action seeks damages against the Defendants for the
design, manufacture, sale, testing, marketing, labeling,
advertising, promotion and/or distribution of their unsafe medical
devices known as Cook Celect Vena Cava Filter.

The Filter is associated with, and cause, an increased risk for
serious injury and death as a result of adverse events including:
tilting, perforation, fracture, breakage and migration which causes
harm to the Plaintiff and others similarly situated.

Cook is a family-owned medical device company that works with
physicians to develop devices that are less invasive for
patients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff T. Seldomridge, Esq.
          THE MILLER FIRM, LLC
          108 Railroad Ave.
          Orange, VA 22960
          Telephone: 866-529-3323
          Facsimile: 540-672-3055
          E-mail: jseldomridge@millerfirmllc.com


CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Voigt Action Ongoing in Delaware Chancery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cornerstone Building Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Gary D.
Voigt.

On November 14, 2018, an individual stockholder, Gary D. Voigt,
filed a putative class action Complaint in the Delaware Court of
Chancery against Clayton Dubilier & Rice, LLC ("CD&R"), Clayton,
Dubilier & Rice Fund VIII, L.P. ("CD&R Fund VIII"), and certain
directors of the Company.

Voigt purports to assert claims on behalf of himself, on behalf of
a class of other similarly situated stockholders of the Company,
and derivatively on behalf of the Company, the nominal defendant.
An Amended Complaint was filed on April 11, 2019.

The Amended Complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty
and unjust enrichment against CD&R Fund VIII and CD&R, and for
breach of fiduciary duty against twelve director defendants in
connection with the Merger.

Voigt seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint and, on February
10, 2020, the court denied the motions except as to four of the
director defendants.

Defendants are due to answer on April 3, 2020.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the litigation.

Cornerstone Building Brands, Inc., formerly NCI Building Systems,
Inc., incorporated on December 23, 1991, is a manufacturer and
marketer of metal products in North America. The Company's
operating segments include Engineered building systems, Metal
components, Insulated Metal Panels and Metal coil coating. The
company is based in Cary, North Carolina.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Nevarez Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff-Appellee Silverio Nevarez filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Silverio Nevarez, et al. v. COSTCO, et
al., Case No. 2:19-cv-03454-SVW-SK, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that COSTCO failed to pay overtime, failed to provide
itemized statement to employee, failed to pay upon termination or
quitting employee, and failed to pay minimum wages under the
California Labor Code.

The case was removed from the Superior Court of California for the
County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on April 26, 2019. The removal was based on
the grounds that the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds
$5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs and that there is an
existing minimal diversity.

The appellate case is captioned as Silverio Nevarez, et al. v.
COSTCO, et al., Case No. 20-55368, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees SILVERIO NEVAREZ and EFREN CORREA,
individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Michael A. Gould, Esq.
          Aarin Zeif, Esq.
          GOULD & ASSOCIATES
          17822 East 17th Street
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Telephone: 714-669-2850

                   – and –

          Steven M. Tindall, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 1110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: 510-350-9700
          E-mail: smt@classlawgroup.com

Defendants-Appellants COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, and DOES, 1
through 25, are represented by:

          James M. Harris, Esq.
          David D. Kadue, Esq.
          Kiran A. Seldon, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: 310-201-1580
          E-mail: jmharris@seyfarth.com
                  dkadue@seyfarth.com
                  kseldon@seyfarth.com


CURALLUX LLC: Cooper Sues Over Misleading Hair Regrowth Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------
JANICE COOPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. CURALLUX, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-02455-JCS (N.D. Cal., April
10, 2020) alleges that Defendant misrepresents its Products as
being "clinically proven" to regrow hair, "physician recommended,"
and "without side effects" in order to gain an unfair advantage in
the hair regrowth industry.

The Defendant sells four similar laser cap products: the
CapillusUltra, CapillusPlus, Capillus X+, and CapillusPro. The only
differences between the Products are their relative strengths and
prices.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's claims are false,
misleading, and deceptive. The Products have not been adequately
tested or proven; the Products are not recommended by physicians
without a financial interest in the Products; and there are side
effects, including, but not limited to, temporary hair shedding,
scalp pruritus, and stimulation of existing cancer cells, which are
not disclosed to consumers including the Plaintiff.

Upon information and belief, during the course of its false,
misleading, and deceptive advertising campaign, Defendant has sold
thousands of units or more of the Products based upon Defendant's
false claims. Plaintiff and the Class have suffered injury in fact
and have lost money as a result of Defendant's false
representations.

Curallux, LLC is a Florida-based manufacturer of photobiomodulating
medical devices under the Capillus and Curavi brands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
            Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq.
            Matthew T. Theriault, Esq.
            Bahar Sodaify, Esq.
            CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
            9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 804
            Los Angeles, CA 90069
            Telephone: (213) 788-4050
            Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
            Email: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                   sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                   mtheriault@clarksonlawfirm.com
                   bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com

DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE: Providers Allege Unlawful Monopsony Power
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DEEP AND DAUGHTRY, PC., DR. LARRY DEEP, DMD, AND DR.
CHARLES DAUGHTRY, DMD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. Delta Dental Insurance Company;
DeltaCare USA; Delta USA Inc.; Delta Dental Plans Association;
Delta Dental Insurance Company Alabama; Delta Dental of Alaska;
Delta Dental of Arizona; Delta Dental of Arkansas; Delta Dental of
California; Delta Dental of Colorado; Delta Dental of Connecticut;
Delta Dental of Delaware; Delta Dental of the District of Columbia;
Delta Dental of Florida; Delta Dental Insurance Company–Georgia;
Hawaii Dental Service; Delta Dental of Idaho; Delta Dental of
Illinois; Delta Dental of Indiana; Delta Dental of Iowa; Delta
Dental of Kansas; Delta Dental of Kentucky; Delta Dental Insurance
Company–Louisiana; Delta Dental of Maryland; Delta Dental of
Massachusetts; Delta Dental of Michigan; Delta Dental of Minnesota;
Delta Dental Insurance Company– Mississippi; Delta Dental of
Missouri; Delta Dental Insurance Company–Montana; Delta Dental of
Nebraska; Delta Dental Insurance Company–Nevada; Delta Dental of
New Jersey; Delta Dental of New Mexico; Delta Dental of New York;
Delta Dental of North Carolina; Delta Dental of North Dakota;
Northeast Delta Dental (of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont); Delta
Dental of Ohio; Delta Dental of Oklahoma; Delta Dental of Oregon;
Delta Dental of Pennsylvania; Delta Dental of Puerto Rico; Delta
Dental of Rhode, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02124 (N.D. Ill.,
April 3, 2020) involves Delta Dental's aggregation of unlawful
monopsony power in the market for dental insurance across the
United States.

Delta Dental has secured this power through its artificial
territorial division of that market among the Delta Dental State
Insurers, and is abusing it to: (1) restrict competition between
the Delta Dental State Insurers when operating under the "Delta
Dental" brand; (2) reduce the amounts of reimbursement paid by the
Delta Dental State Insurers to the dentists and dental practices
who provide services to patients under Delta Dental insurance
plans, and (3) restrict competition between the Delta Dental State
Insurers when operating under non-"Delta Dental" brands.

According to the complaint, Defendants have built upon the
monopsony control achieved through the Market Allocation Conspiracy
to further unlawfully lessen competition in the market for dental
insurance through two further conspiracies: the Price Fixing
Conspiracy, and the Revenue Restriction Conspiracy. These two
conspiracies are buttressed by a third conspiracy: Defendants'
Revenue Restriction Conspiracy takes the form of Defendants
agreeing -- via the Delta Dental Plan Agreement -- that the Delta
Dental State Insurers will limit the amount of revenue they derive
from dental insurance sold other than under the "Delta Dental"
brand, or that they will derive from administering "Delta Dental"
plans.

The Plaintiffs and other Delta Dental Providers have used
interstate banking facilities and have purchased substantial
quantities of good and services across state lines for use in
providing dental services to Delta Dental insured consumers.

Plaintiffs and the Delta Dental Providers have received less
reimbursement for the goods and services they provided to the Delta
Dental insureds, and have been injured in their property and
business as a result, due to Defendants' implementation and
maintenance of the Market Allocation Conspiracy, Price Fixing
Conspiracy, and Revenue Restriction Conspiracy.

Delta Dental Plans Association is a network of companies that
provides dental coverage to 80 million people in the U.S.

Delta Dental Insurance Company is a provider of dental benefits
coverage. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

             Robert M. Foote, Esq.
             Kathleen C. Chavez, Esq.
             Elizabeth C. Chavez, Esq.
             FOOTE, MEILKE, CHAVEZ & O’NEIL, LLC
             10 West State Street Suite 200
             Geneva, IL 60134
             Telephone: (630) 232-7450
             Email: rmf@fmcolaw.com
                    kcc@fmcolaw.com
                    ecc@fmcolaw.com

                        – and –

             Dennis G. Pantazis, Esq.
             D.G. Pantazis, Jr., Esq.
             WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS, FISHER, & GOLDFARB, LLC
             The Kress Building 301 19th Street
             North Birmingham, AL 35203
             Telephone: 205-314-0557
             Email: dgpjr@wigginschilds.com
                    dgp@wigginschilds.com

DIGITAL CONCRETE: Compoli and Cardinal Sue Over Unlawful OT Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY COMPOLI and CORY CARDINAL, Individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DIGITAL CONCRETE IMAGING,
INC. and BRYAN W. BACHELLER, individually, Defendants, Case No.
8:20-cv-00844-VMC-TGW (M.D. Fla., April 13, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for willfully violating the Fair Labor
Standards Act after failing to pay Plaintiffs overtime at a rate
not less than one and a half times the regular rate of pay for work
performed in excess of 40 hours in a work week.

Plaintiffs began their employment with Defendants in April 2017 as
Utility Locators until their termination on April 3, 2020.

Digital Concrete Imaging, Inc. is a Florida-based company with
expertise in ground penetrating radar scanning services, utility
locating and x-ray services across the West Coast.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
            Christopher D. Gray, Esq.
            FLORIN GRAY BOUZAS OWENS, LLC
            16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
            Lutz, FL 33558
            Telephone (727) 254-5255
            Facsimile (727) 483-7942
            Email: wolfgang@fgbolaw.com
                   chris@fgbolaw.com

EGV COMPANIES: Faces Miller Suit Over Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
The case THOMAS MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EGV COMPANIES, INC., d/b/a OMEGA
AUTO CARE, a Delaware corporation, and JOHN DOE CORPORATION,
Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-00690 (N.D. Ohio, April 1, 2020)
alleges that the Defendant initiated prerecorded telemarketing
calls to the cellular telephone numbers of Plaintiff and the Class
to promote Omega in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

The Defendants fail to obtain any prior express written consent to
place prerecorded calls to consumers' cellular telephone numbers.
By doing such, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class
suffered actual harm and cognizable legal injury. This includes the
aggravation, nuisance, and invasions of privacy that result from
the sending and receipt of such prerecorded calls, a loss of value
realized for the monies consumers paid to their carriers for the
receipt of such prerecorded calls, and a loss of the use and
enjoyment of their phones, including wear and tear to the related
data, memory, software, hardware, and battery components, among
other harms.

EGV Companies, Inc., d/b/a Omega Auto Care, is a nationwide
provider of automotive extended protection plans to consumers.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Adam T. Savett, Esq.
            Savett Law Offices LLC
            2764 Carole Lane
            Allentown PA 18104
            Telephone: (610) 621-4550
            Facsimile: (610) 978-2970
            Email: adam@savettlaw.com

ELEPHANT INSURANCE: Dismissal of Singleton Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JESSICA SINGLETON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; TONY COOPER, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
ELEPHANT INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign insurance company,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 19-50470 (5th Cir.), the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's
dismissal of the complaint.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Singleton and Tony Cooper are Texas residents
who each owned a vehicle insured by Defendant-Appellee Elephant.
Their policies provided that, in the event of a total loss,
Elephant's liability would be limited to the actual cash value of
the stolen or damaged property at the time of the loss, reduced by
the applicable deductible and by its salvage value if the
policyholder or the owner retained the salvage.  The policies also
stated that the actual cash value is determined by the market
value, age and condition of the auto at the time the loss occurs.
The policies provided that any disputes would be governed by Texas
law.

Singleton and Cooper were involved in collisions and subsequently
filed insurance claims. Elephant determined that their vehicles
were total losses and compensated them in amounts corresponding to
the estimated "adjusted vehicle value" of their automobiles before
the accidents, minus the applicable deductibles.  Elephant did not
compensate them for the taxes and fees attendant to replacing their
vehicles in Texas.

Singleton and Cooper brought a putative class action against
Elephant to recover these taxes and fees.  They alleged that
Elephant was liable for breach of contract and for violating
provisions of the Texas Insurance Code that require prompt payment
of claims.

The district court dismissed the complaint on Elephant's motion.
It ruled that Singleton and Cooper were not entitled to recover
replacement costs, like taxes and fees, and that they therefore had
failed to state a claim for breach of contract.  And because they
had no contract claim, the district court further ruled that they
had failed to state a claim under the Texas Insurance Code.  The
appeal followed.

The policy provision at issue limits Elephant's liability for a
totaled car to the "actual cash value" of the car at the time of
the accident, minus the deductible.  The question in the case is
entirely about the term "actual cash value.

The Fifth Circuit explains that when an insured automobile is so
damaged that it would cost more to repair than to replace, it is
usually deemed a total loss.  The insurance company then reimburses
the policyholder for the value of the vehicle, with the expectation
that the policyholder will probably use the money to purchase a
replacement.  Of course, purchasing and registering the replacement
vehicle requires the payment of taxes and fees to the state.

In the case, two policyholders sued their insurance company,
claiming that it should pay for the taxes and fees associated with
replacing their totaled vehicles, thus making them whole.
Interpreting the relevant policy language under Texas law, the
Fifth Circuit concludes, first, that each of the policyholders was
entitled to the fair market value of his pre-loss vehicle and,
second, that fair market value does not include the taxes and fees
payable to purchase a replacement vehicle.  

It finds that (i) the Appellants rightly observe that negotiating
parties may consider the tax rate when agreeing on a price, but
that indicates only that taxes are a factor that influences market
value, not that taxes should be added to the price when calculating
market value; (ii) because the language of the insurance policy is
unambiguous, appellants' proposed extrinsic evidence is
inadmissible; and (iii) the Appellants' breach-of-contract claim
depends entirely on their position that Elephant owed them
compensation for mandatory taxes and fees; and they make no
allegation that the amounts that Elephant did pay were untimely.

For these reasons, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's
dismissal of the complaint.

A full-text copy of the Fifth Circuit's March 18, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/FB7pOD from Leagle.com.

Roger D. Higgins -- rhiggins@thompsoncoe.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Gino J. Rossini, for Defendant-Appellee.

Richard David Daly -- rdaly@dalyblack.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Elizabeth Lee Thompson, for Defendant-Appellee.

Christopher J. Lynch, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jacob Phillips, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Edmund A. Normand, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

ENBRIDGE US INC: Kleckner Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Kleckner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ENBRIDGE (U.S.), INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-01344 (S.D.
Tex., April 15, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages
and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff and the other workers like him regularly worked for
the Defendant in excess of 40 hours each week, says the complaint.
But these workers never received overtime for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of paying overtime
as required by the FLSA, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff a daily
rate with no overtime compensation.

Plaintiff Kleckner worked for Enbridge from 2013 until December
2019 as a Right of Way Agent.

Enbridge is an energy transportation company that employs
personnel, including Right of Way Agents or landmen, to carry out
its work.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS: Mediation Underway in Chipego Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Financial Institutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that mediation is
ongoing in the putative class action suit initiated by Matthew L.
Chipego, Charlene Mowry, Constance C. Churchill and Joseph W.
Ewing.

In February 2020, the company agreed to engage in mediation with
the plaintiffs in an action filed against the company on May 16,
2017 by Matthew L. Chipego, Charlene Mowry, Constance C. Churchill
and Joseph W. Ewing in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.  

Plaintiffs seek class certification to represent classes of
consumers in New York and Pennsylvania along with statutory
damages, interest and declaratory relief.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of consumers who
are alleged to have obtained direct or indirect financing from the
company for the purchase of vehicles that the company later
repossessed.

The plaintiffs specifically claim that the notices the Bank sent to
defaulting consumers after their vehicles were repossessed did not
comply with the relevant portions of the Uniform Commercial Code in
New York and Pennsylvania.

Financial Institutions said, "We dispute and believe we have
meritorious defenses against these claims and plan to vigorously
defend ourselves."

Financial Institutions, Inc. operates as a bank holding company for
several community banks based in western and central New York. The
Company, through subsidiaries, also provides brokerage services,
employee benefits, and compensation consulting services. The
company is based in Warsaw, New York.


FORD MOTOR: Orndorff Suit Moved from Pennsylvania to Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as VICTOR M. ORNDORFF, ON BEHALF
OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. Ford Motor Company,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00247 (Filed Jan. 14, 2020), was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
April 2, 2020.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-02095 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Matthew F. Kennelly.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Arthur M. Stock, Esq.
          Lisa A. White, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          E-mail: greg(@ereecolemanlaw.com
                  arthur@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Jobn R. Fabry, 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

               - 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: esidney.robert@bcoonlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Katherine A. Wang, Esq.
          CAMPBELL CAMPBELL EDWARDS & CONROY
          1205 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 330
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (610) 964-1900
          Telephone: (610) 964-1981
          E-mail: kwang@campbell-trial-lawyers.com


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Mercadal Sues in Cal. Over Canon Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOYCE MERCADAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY and CANON BUSINESS PROCESS
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00695-MCE-DB (E.D. Cal., April 2,
2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to secure and safeguard
the personal identifying information of the Plaintiff and hundreds
of thousands of other current and former GE employees, as well as
the GE employees' beneficiaries.

According to the complaint, Canon experienced a data breach in
which hackers accessed the accessed the Personal Information of
numerous current and former GE employees entitled to benefits,
including their beneficiaries. According to GE, hackers gained
access to, at minimum, the below categories of information.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' actions and omissions
violate well-established legal and statutory duties they owed to
her and Class Members. The Plaintiff seeks actual damages, as well
as punitive damages and equitable and injunctive relief to fully
redress the widespread harm the Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions have unleashed.

GE is a global high-tech industrial company primarily engaged in
energy, healthcare, and transportation. GE utilizes Canon Business
Process Services in connection with the administration of employee
benefits.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GREATBANC TRUST: Faces Smith Suit Alleging Violation of ERISA
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Smith, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the Triad Manufacturing, Inc. Employee
Stock Ownership Plan v. GreatBanc Trust Company; the Board of
Directors of Triad Manufacturing, Inc.; David Caito; Robert Hardie;
and Michael McCormick; Case No. 1:20-cv-02350 (N.D. Ill., April 15,
2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974.

The Triad ESOP is an ERISA protected retirement plan whereby the
individual retirement accounts of current and former employees are
invested entirely in the stock of Triad Manufacturing, Inc. There
is no recognized market for Triad stock; thus, the value of the
stock must be determined based on a private valuation of the
Company. The Plaintiff's claims stem from the creation of the Triad
ESOP in December 2015 and, shortly thereafter, the sale of 100% of
the Company's stock to the Triad ESOP at an inflated value (the
"2015 Transaction" or the "Transaction") by the Co-Presidents of
Triad, Defendants David Caito, Robert Hardie, and Michael
McCormick.

The Transaction occurred on December 17, 2015, when the Defendants
caused employees' retirement accounts in the ESOP to purchase 1.83
million shares of the Triad's voting common stock at $58.05 per
share ($106.2 million in the aggregate) from the sellers of the
stock, including Defendants Caito, Hardie and McCormick
(collectively the "Selling Shareholders"). The ESOP financed the
purchase of Triad shares by assuming a loan of $106.2 million,
which Triad itself guaranteed. Because Triad was required to make
contributions to the ESOP sufficient to pay all loan payments due,
Triad's future cash flows were reduced by the amount necessary to
service the ESOP's Transaction debt of $106.2 million.

The Plaintiff asserts that the employee-participants did not
negotiate the Transaction price of $58.05 per share or any of the
terms of the transaction. In fact, the employee-participants, who
purchased the Triad stock had no input on the terms negotiated and
agreed to by the ESOP Trustee, GreatBanc Trust Company, and the
Selling Shareholders. Nor did the employees consent to the terms of
the 2015 Transaction. As a result of the Defendants' actions, ESOP
participants suffered tens of millions of dollars in losses, and
their retirement accounts are worth far less than they would have
been had the Defendants not violated ERISA through their actions in
connection with the 2015 Transaction, the Plaintiff argues.

Under ERISA, each the Defendant is liable for any losses in
connection with the 2015 Transaction that violated ERISA's strict
fiduciary standards and prohibited transaction rules, the Plaintiff
contends. He avers that ERISA also provides that the Plaintiff and
the ESOP participants are entitled to equitable relief, including
disgorgement of any profits obtained by Defendants (including any
nonfiduciary Selling Shareholders) in the Transaction. ERISA
authorizes participants, such as the Plaintiff, to sue in a
representative capacity on behalf of a retirement plan, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff James Smith is a former employee of the Company and a
former participant in the ESOP.

GreatBanc is the Trustee of the Triad ESOP and holds, manages, and
controls the ESOP's assets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carol V. Gilden, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1705
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 357-0370
          Fax: (312) 357-0369
          Email: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com

               - and –

          Michelle C. Yau, Esq.
          Mary J. Bortscheller, Esq.
          Daniel R. Sutter, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W., 5th Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 408-4600
          Email: myau@cohenmilstein.com
                 mbortscheller@cohenmilstein.com
                 dsutter@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Kai H. Richter, Esq.
          Paul Lukas, Esq.
          Grace Chanin, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center, 80 S 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 256-3200
          Email: krichter@nka.com
                 lukas@nka.com
                 gchanin@nka.com


GRUBHUB INC: Meal Delivery Price Unlawful, Davitashvili et al. Say
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case MARIAM DAVITASHVILI, ADAM BENSIMON, and MIA SAPIENZA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. GRUBHUB INC. (a/d/b/a SEAMLESS), DOORDASH INC.,
POSTMATES INC., and UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., in its own right and
as parent of wholly owned subsidiary UBER EATS, Defendants, Case
No. 1:20-cv-03000 (S.D.N.Y., April 13, 2020) arises from the move
of the Defendants to use their market power to impose unlawful
price restraints in their merchant contracts, which have the design
and effect of restricting price competition from competitors in
order to maintain the Delivery Apps' market share.

In their form contracts with restaurants, Defendants include
clauses requiring uniform prices for restaurants' menu items
throughout all purchase platforms (the "No Price Competition
Clause" or "NPCC"). The NPCCs prevent restaurants from charging
different prices to meal delivery customers than they charge to
dine-in customers for the same menu items. The purpose and effect
of the No Price Competition Clause is to act as an unlawful price
restraint that prevents restaurants from gaining market share and
increased profitability per consumer by offering lower prices to
consumers. The NPCCs target and harm not only restaurants, but also
two distinct classes of consumers: (1) consumers who purchase
directly from restaurants in the Meal Delivery Market; and (2)
consumers who buy their meals in the separate and distinct
restaurant Dine-In Market. Both restaurants and consumers would
benefit absent Defendants' unlawful restraints.

Absent Defendants' unlawful restraints, restaurants could offer
consumers lower prices for direct sales, because direct consumers
are more profitable. This is particularly true of Dine-In
consumers, who purchase drinks and additional items, tip staff, and
generate good will. Restaurants cannot offer Plaintiffs and the
class this lower cost option, because the Delivery Apps' No Price
Competition Clauses prevent them from doing so.  

Unable to compete on the basis of price due to Defendants' unlawful
restraints, restaurants have seen their precious Dine-In market
cannibalized by Defendants' Delivery Apps. Plaintiffs bring this
claim for relief on behalf of all Americans who would still to
enjoy a nice dinner out with their family before Defendants make
that impossible.

Grubhub Inc. is a Chicago, Illinois-based online and mobile
food-ordering and delivery company.

DoorDash Inc. is a San Francisco, California-based on-demand
prepared food delivery service provider.

Postmates Inc. is an American company that offers local delivery of
restaurant-prepared meals and other goods.

Uber Eats is an American online food ordering and delivery platform
launched by Uber Technologies Inc. in 2014 and based in San
Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

            Gregory A. Frank, Esq.
            Marvin L. Frank, Esq.
            Asher Hawkins, Esq.
            FRANK LLP
            370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1706
            New York, NY 10017
            Telephone: (212) 682-1853
            Facsimile: (212) 682-1892
            Email: info@frankllp.com

HAGYARD DAVIDSON: Swearingen Appeals Ruling to Kentucky App. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Tom Swearingen filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
matter styled TOM SWEARINGEN (INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
SIMILARLY SITUATED) v. HAGYARD DAVIDSON MCGEE ASSOCIATES, PLLC,
Case No. 19-CI-00462, in the Kentucky Circuit Court, Fayette
County.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Tom
Swearingen, an owner/trainer, filed a class-action suit against
four veterinarians for modifying dates on sale horse radiographs
submitted to the Keeneland repository has opened the door for those
vets to file a counterclaim. The four vets named in the lawsuit
self-reported to the Kentucky Board of Veterinary Examiners that
they modified the dates on radiographs submitted to the Keeneland
repository.

The class-action suit alleges the practice of modifying dates went
back to 2006 and impacted thousands of buyers. It said Hagyard
submitted about 50% of the repository radiographs at the Keeneland
sales during this time and, of those, up to 10% had the date
"intentionally and fraudulently altered." The lawsuit contends the
veterinarians involved deleted or destroyed the original digital
radiograph files from the mobile radiograph machines.

The appellate case is captioned as TOM SWEARINGEN (INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED) v. HAGYARD DAVIDSON MCGEE
ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Case No. 2020-CA-000456, in the Kentucky Court of
Appeals.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant TOM SWEARINGEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED, is represented by:

           William C. Rambicure, Esq.
           Mason L. Miller, Esq.
           MILLER EDWARDS RAMBICURE, PLLC
           300 East Main Street, Suite 360
           Lexington, KY 40507-1464
           Telephone: (859) 281-0077
           Facsimile: (859) 957-1889
           Email: wrambicure@merlegal.com
                  Mmiller@merlegal.com

Defendants-Appellees HAGYARD DAVIDSON MCGEE ASSOCIATES, PLLC, et
al., are represented by:

           Keith Moorman, Esq.
           Nolan Miller Jackson, Esq.
           FROST BROWN TODD LLC
           250 West Main Street, Suite 2800
           Lexington, KY 40507-1749
           Telephone: (859) 231-0000
           Facsimile: (859) 231-0011
           Email: kmoorman@fbtlaw.com
                  njackson@fbtlaw.com

                     – and –

           William Craig Robertson III, Esq.
           WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS
           250 West Main Street, Ste. 1600
           Lexington, KY 40507-1746
           Telephone: (859) 233-2012
           Facsimile: (859) 259-0649
           Email: wrobertson@wyattfirm.com

                     - and –

           Michael P. Casey, Esq.
           CASEY, BAILEY & MAINES, PLLC
           3151 Beaumont Centre Circle, Suite 200
           Lexington, KY 40513
           Telephone: (859) 243-0228

                     – and –

           Thomas W. Miller, Esq.
           MILLER, GRIFFIN & MARKS, PSC
           600 Security Trust Building
           271 West Short Street
           Lexington, KY 40507-1292
           Telephone: (859) 255-6676
           Facsimile: (859) 259-1562
           Email: twm@kentuckylaw.com


HAMMOND, IN: Ind. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in Chariton Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Randy Chariton, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. City of Hammond,
Indiana; City of Hammond, Indiana Board of Public Works and Safety;
Ed Krusa, in his official capacity as Board President of the
Hammond, Indiana Board of Public Works and Safety; Stanley
Dostatni, in his official capacity as Board Vice President of the
Hammond, Indiana Board of Public Works and Safety; and Jeffrey
Smith, in his official capacity as Member of the Hammond, Indiana
Board of Public Works and Safety, Appellees-Defendants, Court of
Appeals Case No. 19A-CT-1266 (Ind. App.), Judge Terry A. Crone of
the Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed the trial court's order
granting the Appellees' summary judgment motion.

In March 2011, the City passed an ordinance, which requires any
person who owns real property in the City and leases that property
for housing to register that property with the City and pay an
annual fee of $80 for each rental unit by April 15 of each year.
Landlords who fail to register are subject to a late fee for each
unit not timely registered.  In addition, the Ordinance provides
that the failure to register constitutes a violation of the
Ordinance and authorizes the Hammond City Court to impose fines
upon a finding of such violation.

On Oct. 16, 2013, the City sent Chariton a "Notice of Municipal
Ordinance Violation" informing him that his properties were in
violation of the Ordinance because they had not been registered and
the annual fee had not been paid, that a $500 per unit late fee
"shall be" assessed, and that a violation of the Ordinance subjects
the owner to a fine not to exceed $2500 per unit.  Chariton filed a
"Late Rental Registration Appeal Hearing Request Form" with the
Board dated Oct. 25, 2013.  The Board held a meeting on Nov. 21,
2013, during which it held a hearing on Chariton's failure to
register rental units.  Chariton's attorney appeared on his behalf.
After hearing argument, the Board passed a motion to assess on
Chariton's rental properties a rental registration fee of $80 per
unit for 2012 and 2013 and one $500 late fee per unit.

On July 10, 2014, Chariton filed with the Lake Superior Court a
class action complaint on behalf of persons who have received
notices and/or been assessed fines or penalties by the City through
the Board] for alleged violations of the Ordinance against the
Appellees.  The complaint alleged that the Board had operated in a
quasi-judicial capacity by conducting "rental registration
hearings" and assessing fines and penalties against landlords and
that the procedure violated Indiana Code Section 33-35-2-3(1),
which grants city courts exclusive jurisdiction over all city
ordinance violations.  Chariton sought relief under two theories:
unjust enrichment and money had and received.  Chariton requested
an award of damages in the amount of fees collected by the City
through the allegedly unlawful enforcement of the Ordinance and an
order enjoining the City from enforcing the Ordinance by having the
Board conduct hearings in a quasi-judicial fashion.

In May 2017, the Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment
alleging, among other things, that Chariton's claims were barred
because his claims were tort claims subject to the ITCA's notice
requirements and that Chariton failed to provide notice.  In
support of the motion, Appellees designated as evidence the
affidavit of the administrative secretary of the City's law
department, in which she attested that the City never received an
ITCA notice from Chariton.  Chariton filed a response in opposition
to the Appellees' motion for summary judgment, in which he conceded
that he did not file a tort claim notice.  Chariton also filed a
motion to strike portions of the Appellees' summary judgment
filings, which the trial court granted.

On Sept. 21, 2017, the trial court held a hearing, at which the
parties presented argument.  At the conclusion of the hearing, the
trial court asked the parties to file proposed findings and
conclusions on two issues: the applicability of the ITCA and the
validity of the Ordinance.  In May 2019, the trial court issued its
order finding that Chariton was required to comply with the ITCA as
a prerequisite to bringing his action and that it was undisputed
that he failed to do so.  The trial court found that the failure to
file notice was dispositive and declined to rule on the merits of
the other summary judgment arguments made by the parties.
Accordingly, the trial court dismissed Chariton's claims with
prejudice.  The appeal ensued.

Chariton claims that the trial court erred in granting the
Appellees' summary judgment motion.  Chariton contends that summary
judgment is improper because the ITCA does not apply to his claims.
Chariton also concedes that he did not file the notice required by
the ITCA.  However, he argues that he has substantially complied
with the notice requirements, and therefore his claims should be
allowed to proceed.  The notice required under the ITCA must
describe in a short and plain statement the facts on which the
claim is based.

Judge Crone finds that Chariton attempts to distinguish Irwin
Mortg. Corp. and City of Indianapolis v. Cox by characterizing his
claims as "equitable claims" in a "proposed class action" involving
"a challenge to an ongoing mechanism and operation of the City of
Hammond ordinance at issue being contrary to state law."  However,
in essence, he seeks an award of damages in the amount of fees and
fines collected by the allegedly illegal enforcement of the
Ordinance.  Like Irwin and Cox, Chariton is claiming a loss of
property, and therefore his claims sound in tort.  The fact that it
is a proposed class action lawsuit is of no moment; Cox involved a
class action suit, but the court considered the underlying claim to
determine whether the ITCA applied.  Likewise, the fact that
Chariton is seeking an injunction to stop the allegedly illegal
enforcement of the Ordinance does not change the underlying nature
of his claims.  Therefore, the Judge concludes that Chariton's
claims are governed by the ITCA.

Moreover, Chariton was notified of past-due registration fees and
the imposition of late fines on Oct. 16, 2013.  Chariton learned
the facts that would allow the discovery of the cause of action on
Oct. 16, 2013, and therefore the ITCA time limitation began to run
from that date.  Accordingly, Chariton's claim is barred due to his
failure to file the ITCA notice within the statutory time period.
As such, the trial court properly granted the Appellees' summary
judgment motion and dismissed his complaint with prejudice.

For these reasons, Judge Crone affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 25, 2020 Memorandum Decision
Order is available at https://is.gd/7MEA0F from Leagle.com.

Scott A. Pyle, Rubino, Ruman, Crosmer & Polen Dyer, Indiana,
Attorney for Appellant.

Anthony W. Overholt -- aoverholt@fbtlaw.com -- Darren A. Craig --
dcraig@fbtlaw.com -- Stephanie V. McGowan -- smcgowan@fbtlaw.com --
Frost Brown Todd LLC, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for
Appellees.


HAWAIIAN ISLES KONA COFFEE: Faces Chung Suit Over Deceptive Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW CHUNG on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. HAWAIIAN ISLES KONA COFFEE COMPANY, LTD.
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00158-ACK-RT (D. Hawaii, April 14,
2020) alleges that the Defendant intentionally misled consumers
into believing that coffee products it sells bearing the word Kona
originated from the Kona District of the Big Island of Hawaii where
in reality, these coffee products are mostly or exclusively
comprised of commodity beans and/or beans from less-desirable
regions.

The Plaintiff and other consumers purchased the Kona Labeled Coffee
Products because they reasonably believed, based on Defendant's
packaging and advertising that all the coffee contained in the
Products were grown in the Kona District. Had Plaintiff and other
consumers known that the coffee used in Kona Labeled Coffee
Products was not all grown in the Kona District, they would not
have purchased the Products or would have paid significantly less
for them. As a result, Plaintiff and other consumers have been
deceived and have suffered economic injury.

Kona coffee, renowned for its distinctive flavor and aroma, is one
of the most famous and revered specialty coffees in the world.  But
only coffee grown on farms located within the Kona District of the
Big Island of Hawaii can be truthfully marketed, labeled, and sold
as Kona coffee. The volcanic soil, the elevation, and the humidity
of this region combine to give Kona coffee its distinctive
characteristics. The term "Kona" tells consumers its coffee comes
from this distinctive and desirable geographic region.

Hawaiian Isles Kona Coffee Company, Ltd. is a Hawaii-based coffee
manufacturer and distributor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Birney B. Bervar, Esq.
            BERVAR & JONES
            Alakea Corporate Tower
            1100 Alakea Street, 20th Floor
            Honolulu, HI 96813
            Telephone: (808) 550-4990
            Email: bbb@bervar-jones.com

                      – and –

            L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
            Blair E. Reed, Esq.
            BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
            1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
            Walnut Creek, CA 94596
            Telephone: (925) 300-4455
            Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
                   breed@bursor.com

                      – and –

            Marc G. Reich, Esq.
            Adam T. Hoover, Esq.
            REICH RADCLIFFE & HOOVER LLP
            4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 550
            Newport Beach, CA 92660
            Telephone: (949) 975-0512
            Email: mgr@reichradcliffe.com
                   adhoover@reichradcliffe.com

HEALTH INSURANCE: Bid to Certify Class Action Opposed
-----------------------------------------------------
Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
has opposed plaintiff's motion to certify the putative class
entitled, In re Health Insurance Innovations Securities Litigation,
Case No. 8:17-cv-02186-EAK-MAP (M.D. Fla.), and intends to
vigorously defend against the remaining claims.

In September 2017, three putative securities class action lawsuits
were filed against the Company and certain of its current and
former executive officers.

The cases were styled Cioe Investments Inc. v. Health Insurance
Innovations, Inc., Gavin Southwell, and Michael Hershberger, Case
No. 1:17-cv-05316-NG-ST, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on September 11, 2017; Michael
Vigorito v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., Gavin Southwell,
and Michael Hershberger, Case No. 1:17-cv-06962, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on September
13, 2017; and Shilpi Kavra v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc.,
Patrick McNamee, Gavin Southwell, and Michael Hershberger, Case No.
8:17-cv-02186-EAK-MAP, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida on September 21, 2017.

All three of the foregoing actions (the "Securities Actions") were
filed after a decline in the trading price of the Company's common
stock following the release of a report authored by a short-seller
of the Company's common stock raising questions about, among other
things, the Company's public disclosures relating to the Company's
regulatory examinations and regulatory compliance.

All three of the Securities Actions contained substantially similar
allegations to those raised in the short-seller report alleging
that the Company made materially false or misleading statements or
omissions relating to regulatory compliance matters, particularly
regarding the Company's application for a third-party administrator
license in the State of Florida, which was issued by the State on
February 14, 2018.

In November and December 2017, the Cioe Investments and Vigorito
cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, and on December 28, 2017, they were
consolidated with the Kavra matter under the case caption, In re
Health Insurance Innovations Securities Litigation, Case No.
8:17-cv-02186-EAK-MAP (M.D. Fla.).

On February 6, 2018, the court appointed Robert Rector as lead
plaintiff and appointed lead counsel, and lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated complaint on March 23, 2018.

The consolidated complaint, which dropped Patrick McNamee as a
defendant and added Michael Kosloske as a defendant, largely sets
forth the same factual allegations as the initially filed
Securities Actions filed in September 2017 and added allegations
relating to alleged materially false statements and omissions
relating to the regulatory proceeding previously initiated against
the Company by the Montana State Auditor, Commissioner of
Securities and Insurance (the "CSI") which proceeding was dismissed
on October 31, 2017.

The complaint also adds allegations regarding insider stock sales
by Messrs. Kosloske and Hershberger. The consolidated complaint
alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, SEC Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

According to the consolidated complaint, the lead plaintiff in the
action is seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of a putative class of
individuals and entities that acquired shares of the Company's
common stock during a period ending September 11, 2017.

On May 7, 2018, the Company and co-defendants filed a motion to
dismiss all claims.

On March 29, 2019, the court sua sponte ordered mandatory mediation
before United States Magistrate Judge Christopher Tuite, which did
not result in a settlement.

On June 28, 2019, the court granted in part, and denied in part,
the motion to dismiss, and dismissed all claims against Messrs.
Southwell and Kosloske. Discovery is ongoing. The Company has
opposed Plaintiff's motion to certify the putative class and
intends to vigorously defend against the remaining claims.

Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. operates as a cloud-based
technology platform and distributor of individual and family health
insurance plans, and supplemental products in the United States.
Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is based
in Tampa, Florida.


ILLINOIS: Court Denies Bids for Sanctions in Wallace Prisoners Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CORRIE WALLACE and RAFAEL E. SANTOS, Plaintiffs, v.
JOHN BALDWIN, et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-1513-NJR (S.D.
Ill.), Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois (i) denied the dueling requests
for sanctions, and (ii) granted the Plaintiffs leave to amend their
Second Amended Complaint.

On Feb. 19, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended
Complaint alleging unconstitutional conditions of confinement at
Menard Correctional Center due to its two-to-a-cell housing policy.
The Defendants take specific issue with Count IV which seeks
nominal and punitive damages for the unconstitutional conditions of
confinement.  

Specifically, the Plaintiff's class allegations define the class as
all inmates who were and are double-celled in prison cells in North
I and North II buildings at Menard from Aug. 17, 2013 until
present.  The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs base the
definition on a frivolous theory that Section 1983 claims are
governed by a five-year statute of limitations.

The Defendants point to two other filings where the Plaintiffs
continued to stand by this statute of limitations argument.  In
response to the Defendants' request to stay discovery, in which
they argued in part that discovery needed to be stayed until there
was a determination as to whether some of the Plaintiffs' claims
were barred by the two year statute of limitations, the Plaintiffs
contended that their constitutional claims fall under the catch-all
5 year limitations period in 735 ILCS 5/13-205.

The Plaintiffs argued that the Defendants were "incorrect" in
asserting that claims under Section 1983 are governed by a two-year
statute of limitations.  They subsequently filed a motion to compel
discovery seeking responses to written discovery.  In that motion,
the Plaintiffs addressed their five-year statute of limitations
period argument.

Merits discovery was ultimately stayed by the Court, and the
Plaintiffs' motion to compel denied.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants
Godinez, Harrington, and Taylor, which are based on allegations
which occurred between 2011 and 2015, are frivolous because they
are based on the frivolous notion that Section 1983 claims are
subject to a five-year statute of limitations.  They point out that
the statute of limitations in Section 1983 cases is not unsettled
law and is clearly governed by a two-year statute of limitations.
Ashafa v. City of Chicago, 146 F.3d 459, 462 (7th Cir. 1998).

In response to the Defendants' motion, the Plaintiffs not only ask
that the Court deny the motion but argue that defense counsel
should be sanctioned for filing the motion.  The Plaintiffs argue
that they make a reasonable argument for changing the law as to the
statute of limitations the Seventh Circuit applies to claims
brought under Section 1983.  They point out that Count IV seeks
nominal and punitive damages under the Eighth Amendment and because
they are not seeking personal injury damages, that the five-year
statute of limitations applies.  The Plaintiffs also argue that the
sanctions motion is untimely because it was filed ten months after
the filing of the Second Amended Complaint.

In support of their motion to sanction defense counsel, the
Plaintiffs argue that the counsel failed to adequately research the
statute of limitations claim and misrepresented the complexity of
the issue to the Court.  They note that the counsel pointed to only
one string citation and that the law on Section 1983 statute of
limitations is not "settled."

Judge Rosenstengel finds that neither party is entitled to
sanctions because both sides shared in harassing tactics which
caused unnecessary delay and costs for both sides.  Both sides have
had an equal hand in contributing to a breakdown in cordial
relations, and the Court does not take kindly to having to expend
resources deciding this petty squabble.  Perhaps all this could
have been avoided had the defense counsel simply filed a
dispositive motion on the statute of limitations issue rather than
pursue the issue in a request for sanctions.

That being said, Judge Rosenstengel is still left with the statute
of limitations issue.  Although the Plaintiffs present a novel
theory to justify a longer statute of limitations, she finds that
it borders on the frivolous.  The Plaintiffs fail to cite to any
recent case law to support their argument that the Supreme Court's
holding in Wilson v. Garcia, that the statute of limitations for
Section 1983 claims is the state period for personal injury torts,
has been misconstrued by subsequent courts or overruled by
Congress.  Further, in Kalimara v. Illinois Dep't of Corr., the
Seventh Circuit noted that the Supreme Court upheld the decision in
Wilson in Owens v. Okure, and stressed that all Section 1983
actions are to governed by a single statute of limitations relating
to personal injury in general.

Further, the Seventh Circuit has already addressed the Plaintiffs'
argument that the five-year residuary statute applied to Section
1983, and flatly rejected that argument.   The Seventh Circuit has
consistently held that Section 1983 is governed by a two-year
statute of limitations.  The Plaintiffs would have the Court
overrule decades of precedent from the Seventh Circuit, but the
Court is bound by that precedent, which is clear on the issue.
Because Section 1983 is subject to a two-year statute of
limitations, the Judge dismissed those portions of Count 4 which
are based on a five-year statute of limitations.  The Plaintiffs
will be allowed to amend their Second Amended Complaint to bring it
into conformance with the proper statute of limitations, rules the
Court.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Rosenstengel denied the dueling
requests for sanctions.  She finds that because the statute of
limitations in Section 1983 cases is limited to two years, the
Plaintiffs' Count 4 is overly broad and partially barred by the
statute of limitations.  Count 4 is, accordingly, dismissed without
prejudice.  She granted the Plaintiffs leave to amend their Second
Amended Complaint in order to comply with the proper statute of
limitations and have until April 8, 2020, to file a Third Amended
Complaint.  Finally, the Court strongly encourages counsel for both
sides to work cooperatively in the future to address their
differences.

Finally, Judge Rosenstengel finds the pending motion for summary
judgment on the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies to
be moot in light of the expected Third Amended Complaint, and
deneid it without prejudice to refiling in response to the Third
Amended Complaint.  A hearing will be set, if necessary, on the
motion when it is filed.  The hearing set for March 25, 2020, was
canceled.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 18, 2020 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://is.gd/yuLZUd from Leagle.com.

Corrie Wallace & Rafael E. Santos, Jr., Plaintiffs, represented by
Christian G. Montroy -- cmontroy@montroylaw.com -- Montroy Law
Offices, LLC.

John Baldwin, Kimberly Butler, Jacqueline Lashbrook, Salvador
Godinez, Alex Jones, Jeffery Hutchinson, Richard Harrington,
Gladyse Taylor, Frank Lawrence, added per Order at Doc. 110 & Rob
Jeffreys, added per Order at Doc. 110, Defendants, represented by
Xinyi Wei, Illinois Attorney General's Office, Clayton J. Ankney,
Illinois Attorney General's Office & Jeremy C. Tyrrell, Illinois
Attorney General's Office.

ILLINOIS: Vulnerable Inmates File Release Petition Amid COVID-19
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MONEY, WILLIAM RICHARD, GERALD REED, AMBER WATTERS, TEWKUNZI
GREEN, DANNY LABOSETTE, CARL REED, CARL "TAY TAY" TATE, PATRICE
DANIELS, and ANTHONY RODESKY, on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated individuals, Petitioners, v. ROB JEFFREYS, in
his official capacities as DIRECTOR OF THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, Respondent, Case No. 1:20-cv-02094 (N.D. Ill., April
2, 2020) is an action brought by Petitioners for relief from
custody, citing the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution.

On March 25, 2020, the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC)
announced the first confirmed case of COVID-19 at Stateville
Correctional Center. Just five days later, Dr. Ngozi Ezike
announced that twelve prisoners had been hospitalized with
confirmed cases of COVID-19, while another 77 prisoners
demonstrated symptoms but had not yet been confirmed. That same
day, St. Joseph Hospital, where Stateville prisoners had been
hospitalized, announced it was "overwhelmed" by inmates suffering
from the effects of coronavirus and staff already were "maxed out."
The hospital's medical director characterized the situation as "a
disaster." The following day, Governor Pritzker confirmed at least
one prisoner had died from the virus, while the number of confirmed
cases among staff and prisoners continues to grow.

To effectively prevent the continued spread of the COVID-19
infection in prison communities, the state must take urgent steps
to release, furlough, or transfer to home detention all that
qualify under the law, and particularly those who are elderly and
medically vulnerable including the Petitioners.

According to the action, Petitioners and similarly situated
medically vulnerable individuals and those with pathways to release
must be released now to protect the individuals who live and work
in the prisons as well as the broader community from the serious
risk of harm to their health and safety. The State is not acting
with sufficient urgency, and without intervention from this Court,
people are going to die unnecessarily.

A representative action is the only practicable means by which the
individual named Petitioners and the class members can challenge
the Respondent's unconstitutional actions. Many members of the
class are without the means to retain an attorney to represent them
in a habeas petition.  

Habeas corpus is the appropriate instrument to obtain release when
the core grievance is that the petitioner is being unlawfully
subjected to physical restraint, according to the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

            Sheila A. Bedi, Esq.
            Luke Fernbach, Esq.
            Emily M. Grant, Esq.
            Terah Tollner, Esq.
            Community Justice Civil Rights Clinic
            Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
            375 East Chicago Avenue
            Chicago, IL 60611
            Telephone: (312) 503-2492
            Email: sheila.bedi@law.northwestern.edu
                   LukeFernbach2021@nlaw.northwestern.edu
                   EmilyGrant2021@nlaw.northwestern.edu
                   ttollner@nlaw.northwestern.edu

                             – and –

            Vanessa del Valle, Esq.
            Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center
            Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
            375 East Chicago Avenue
            Chicago, IL 60611
            Telephone: (312) 503-5932
            Email: vanessa.delvalle@law.northwestern.edu

                             – and –

            Alan Mills, Esq.
            Elizabeth Mazur, Esq.
            Uptown People's Law Center
            4413 N. Sheridan
            Chicago, IL 60640
            Telephone: (773) 769-1411
            Email: alan@uplcchicago.org
                   liz@uplcchicago.org

                             – and –

            Jennifer Soble, Esq.
            Illinois Prison Project
            53 W. Jackson, Suite 1056
            Chicago, IL 60616
            Telephone: (312) 324-4465
            Email: jennifer@illinoisprisonproject.org

                             – and –

             Amanda Antholt, Esq.
             Samantha Reed, Esq.
             Equip for Equality
             20 N. Michigan Ave, Suite 300
             Chicago, IL 60602
             Telephone: (312) 341-0022
             Email: amanda@equipforequality.org
                    samantha@equipforequality.org

                             – and –

             Sarah C. Grady, Esq.
             Loevy & Loevy
             311 North Aberdeen St., 3rd Fl.
             Chicago, IL 60607
             Telephone: (312) 243-5900
             Email: sarah@loevy.com

INDIANA: ICLU Sues Over Law Banning Solicitations
-------------------------------------------------
The case, INDIANA CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, INC., and the
INDIANA CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, INC., d/b/a the American Civil
Liberties Union of Indiana; JANE HENEGAR, KATHRYN BLAIR, NEIL
HUDELSON, on their own behalf and on behalf of a class and subclass
of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SUPERINTENDENT, INDIANA
STATE POLICE, in his official capacity; MAYOR OF INDIANAPOLIS, in
his official capacity; MARION COUNTY PROSECUTOR, in his individual
capacity, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01094-JMS-TAB (S.D. Ind.,
April 9, 2020) arises after staff and volunteers during the
Constitution Day observances at Monument Circle engaged in behavior
that Indiana law defines as "panhandling" as they have requested an
immediate donation of money or something of value, membership in
the ACLU of Indiana, through oral requests.

The House Enrolled Act No. 1022, effective July 1, 2020, expands
upon an existing statutory prohibition criminalizing "panhandling"
and targets particular First Amendment expression in a flagrantly
broad, vague, and unconstitutional manner and has the effect of
prohibiting most forms of financial solicitation by individuals and
groups on the sidewalks in the downtown areas of Indiana's cities.
According to the complaint, the Executive Director, Director of
Advocacy and Public Policy, and Director of Philanthropy of the
American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana will now, ironically, be
banned from soliciting contributions and organization memberships
from persons during the celebration of Constitution Day.  The
statutory prohibition, both currently and effective July 1, 2020,
violates the First Amendment. It is also unconstitutionally vague
in violation of due process.

The law enforcement agency primarily responsible for enforcing this
Indiana law in these Indiana-owned areas is the Indiana State
Capitol Police, a branch of the Indiana State Police. In addition
to being brought against the Superintendent of the Indiana State
Police, the subclass brings its claims against the Mayor of
Indianapolis and the Marion County Prosecutor.

Plaintiffs are aware that during past Constitution Day observances
at Monument Circle two or more persons from the ACLU of Indiana
have stood together while one of them spoke to a member of the
public while soliciting donations or membership from the person.
Plaintiffs would like the ability to do this in the future. But
these joint conversations appear to be prohibited by the
proscription against "panhandling with at least one other
individual" contained in the current panhandling statute and the
statute that will be effective on July 1, 2020.

When plaintiffs have solicited contributions and ACLU of Indiana
memberships in the past during Constitution Day observances, they
have done so both inside Monument Circle and on the sidewalk
outside of Monument Circle. That is, they have engaged in this
behavior both on City property and State property.

They wish to engage in the identical behavior in the identical
locations during the next Constitution Day, September 17, 2020, and
on Constitution Days in future years. Although the definition is
not clear, the plaintiffs assume that the Soldiers and Sailors
Monument could be deemed to be a "public monument" as defined by
the Enrolled Act.

The Enrolled Act therefore absolutely prohibits plaintiffs from
engaging in solicitation of donations and membership during
Constitution Day in the locations that they have done so in the
past and wish to continue to do so in the future.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana is the popular name
of two Indianapolis-based non-profit corporations: the Indiana
Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Inc. and the Indiana Civil
Liberties Union, Inc. The ACLU of Indiana is the Indiana affiliate
of the national civil rights organization, the American Civil
Liberties Union, and it is one of the preeminent civil rights
organization in the State of Indiana. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

           Kenneth J. Falk, Esq.
           Gavin M. Rose, Esq.
           Stevie J. Pactor, Esq.
           ACLU of Indiana
           1031 E. Washington St.
           Indianapolis, IN 46202
           Telephone: (317) 635-4059
           Facsimile: (317) 635-4105
           Email: kfalk@aclu-in.org
                  grose@aclu-in.org
                  spactor@aclu-in.org

INT'L FLAVORS: Lead Plaintiff and Counsel Appointed in Jansen Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 3, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that
the trial court overseeing the class action suit initiated by Marc
Jansen has appointed a group of six investment funds as lead
plaintiff and Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel.

On August 12, 2019, Marc Jansen filed a putative securities class
action against IFF, its Chairman and CEO, and its CFO, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.


The lawsuit, which was filed after IFF disclosed that preliminary
results of investigations indicated that Frutarom businesses
operating principally in Russia and Ukraine had made improper
payments to representatives of customers, alleges that defendants
made materially false and misleading statements or omissions
concerning IFF's acquisition of Frutarom, the integration of the
two companies, and IFF's financial reporting and results.

The lawsuit brings claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, and
under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against
the individual defendants, and was filed on behalf of a putative
class of persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
IFF securities between May 7, 2018 and August 5, 2019.

The complaint seeks an award of unspecified compensatory damages,
costs, and expenses.

On December 26, 2019, the Court appointed a group of six investment
funds as lead plaintiff and Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel.

New York-based International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., together
with its subsidiaries, engages in the creation and manufacture of
flavor and fragrance products in the United States and
internationally.

JACKSON NATIONAL: Class Certification in Cruson Suit Vacated
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the class
certification order in the case, DAVID CRUSON; JOHN DENMAN,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. JACKSON NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 18-40605 (5th Cir.).

Cruson and other Texas residents brought a putative class action
lawsuit against Jackson, a life insurance company that sells
annuities, claiming Jackson overcharged them by miscalculating
early-withdrawal fees in breach of the annuities contracts.
Jackson, a Michigan corporation, sells variable annuities to
customers nationwide through a network of brokers and other
intermediaries.  Because the annuities are structured as long-term
investments, a customer who withdraws money early incurs charges
meant to compensate Jackson for up-front costs, such as commissions
paid to brokers and enhancements added to the annuities.  Different
charges, collectively called "surrender charges," are calculated
according to a schedule of percentages that decrease with the
annuity's age.1 In other words, the longer a customer has held an
annuity, the lower the surrender charge.

In November 2016, 14 Texas residents sued Jackson in federal
district court for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty,
and negligent misrepresentation.  The Plaintiffs -- who had all
bought Jackson annuities through a Texas broker, Tim Hightower --
alleged Jackson had miscalculated their surrender charges in
violation of the annuity contracts, resulting in lost income for
them and a windfall for Jackson.  The Plaintiffs also alleged their
living and death benefits under the annuities had been improperly
reduced due to the inflated surrender charges.  They sought
compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief.
They also sought to bring claims on behalf of a nationwide class,
consisting of all Jackson customers who had incurred surrender
charges.

A complex procedural history followed. Jackson moved to dismiss the
complaint under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for lack of standing
and failure to state a claim.  The Plaintiffs then filed an amended
complaint, and Jackson again moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1)
and 12(b)(6).  The district court denied Jackson's motion in large
part but did dismiss the claims of three Plaintiffs on standing
grounds because they had admittedly never incurred surrender
charges.

The Plaintiffs then moved to certify a nationwide class under Rule
23(b)(3), alleging Jackson's inflated surrender charges had harmed
roughly 150,000 people.  Jackson opposed class certification,
arguing inter alia that contract formation issues, affirmative
defenses, and damages calculations would require individual
determinations that would predominate over common issues.
Moreover, Jackson again raised lack of personal jurisdiction,
arguing that specific jurisdiction over Jackson as to claims by
non-Texas residents was foreclosed by the Supreme Court's recent
decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of
California.  On the same day that Jackson filed its response
opposing class certification, Jackson also moved for summary
judgment.  The district court subsequently held a class
certification hearing in March 2018.

After the hearing, but before any certification ruling, all but one
of the original Plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismiss their
claims, stating they would seek relief in state court.  While that
motion was pending, the Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint
to add an additional Plaintiff, John Denman, as a potential class
representative, to join David Cruson (the one original Plaintiff
not moving to dismiss his claims).  While all the initial
Plaintiffs had been clients of Tim Hightower, Denman had bought
annuities through a different broker.  Jackson opposed the
addition, claiming it was too late to add a named party and that
doing so would prejudice Jackson.

On May 9, 2018, the district court issued an order addressing three
issues.  First, it granted the Plaintiffs' motion to add Denman.
Second, the court held that Jackson had waived any personal
jurisdiction defense by failing to raise it in its Rule 12 motions
and, alternatively, by litigating on the merits of plaintiffs'
claims.  Third, the district court certified a nationwide class
composed of all persons who, within the applicable statute of
limitations, purchased various variable annuity products from
Jackson or its affiliates, and incurred a Surrender Charge during
their ownership of such product.

The court found that determining the correct calculation of
surrender charges under Jackson's contracts, an issue common to all
plaintiffs, would "predominate over any questions affecting only
individual members."  It further held that predominance was not
defeated by issues pertaining to affirmative defenses or damages
calculations.

The court granted Jackson permission to appeal the district court's
class certification order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(f).  On appeal, Jackson challenges the certification order on
three fronts.  First, Jackson reasserts its claim that the district
court lacks personal jurisdiction over it with respect to the
claims of potential class members outside Texas, and argues that
the court erred in holding that Jackson waived its personal
jurisdiction defense.  Second, Jackson contends that the district
court erred in concluding that issues common to the class
predominated over individualized issues.  Finally, Jackson argues
that the district court erred in certifying a class when plaintiffs
failed to provide a damages model.

The Fifth Circuit concludes that the district court's order is
flawed in the following respects.  First, the Fifth Circuit
concludes that Jackson did not waive its personal jurisdiction
defense as to non-Texas class members.  Second, the district court
erred in its predominance analysis—specifically, by failing to
assess how state-law variations may impact adjudication of the
breach question and also by failing to consider the individualized
evidence relevant to Jackson's affirmative defenses of waiver and
ratification.  Third, the Plaintiffs failed to offer a damages
model adequate to support class treatment, an issue they virtually
conceded at oral argument.  The Fifth Circuit, therefore, vacated
the class certification order and remanded for further
proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Fifth Circuit's March 25, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/0hPph8 from Leagle.com.

L.A. WIRELESS: Underpays Retail Sales Associates, Hall Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE HALL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. L.A. WIRELESS LLC and ADHAM AWADALLA,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00605 (E.D. Wis., April 14, 2020) is a
collective and class action complaint brought against Defendants
for their alleged unlawful compensation system in violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and
Collection Laws.

Plaintiff was hired by Defendants as a Retail Sales Associate
employee on or about March 20, 2020 and her employment ended on or
about April 11, 2020.

The complaint claims that Plaintiff and other similarly situated
current and former Retail Sales Associate were deprived by
Defendants of their wages earned for all compensable work performed
each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour
worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek.

Allegedly, because all forms of non-discretionary compensation,
such as monetary bonuses, commissions, incentives, awards, and/or
other rewards and payments were excluded in Defendants'
compensation system, Defendant's deliberately failed to compensate
it's hourly-paid, non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff, for
hours worked at the proper and legal rates.

Plaintiff and the Wisconsin Class seek liquidated damages in the
amount of their respective unpaid compensation, injunctive relief
requiring Defendants to cease and desist from its violations of the
Wisconsin laws, and other legal and equitable relief.

Adham Awadalla owned, operated, and managed L.A. Wireless LLC.

L.A. Wireless LLC is a "Boost Mobile" cell phone retailer. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          David M. Potteiger, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          15850 W. Bluemond Road, Suite 304
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Tel: (262)780-1953
          Fax: (262)565-6469
          Emails: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                  dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com


L.L.C. INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Dancers, Heath Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
NATALIE HEATH, aka HAZEL/PEPPER, an individual, Plaintiff, vs.
L.L.C., INC. d/b/a PERFECT 10 MEN’S CLUB, GLENN WILLIAMS, WILLIAM
COX and TERESA THOMPSON, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00391 (W.D.
Tex., April 14, 2020) alleges that Defendants evaded the mandatory
minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, and illegally absconded with Plaintiff's tips.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff has been denied minimum wage
payments and denied overtime as part of Defendants scheme to
classify Plaintiff and other dancers/entertainers as "independent
contractors."

L.L.C., Inc. d/b/a Perfect 10 Men's Club operates an adult-oriented
entertainment facility in Austin, 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 77066
            Telephone: (713) 554-2377
            Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
            Email: jarrett@hughesellzey.com

                        – and -   

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

LIBERTY MUTUAL: Faces Torre Rossa Suit Over Breach of Contract
--------------------------------------------------------------
Torre Rossa LLC, On behalf of itself and all those similarly
situated businesses and entities v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE, Case
No. CV 20 931885 (Ohio Com. Pleas, Cuyahoga Cty., April 15, 2020),
is brought against the Defendant for declaratory judgment, breach
of contract, and breach of covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.

Liberty insured Rossa under a commercial business owner policy,
bearing policy, number BKS58600565 ("Policy"). The certified Policy
is in the possession of Liberty, and while not attached hereto
because it is voluminous. Under the Policy, the Plaintiff agreed to
make premium payments to Liberty in exchange for Liberty's promise
to indemnify the Plaintiff for losses including, but not limited
to, business income loss at its commercial property location. The
Policy is currently in full effect, providing property, business
personal property, business income and extra expense, and
additional coverages for the effective period, which includes
January 1, 2020, to the present.

The Plaintiff says it faithfully paid policy premiums to Liberty,
specifically to provide additional coverage for "Business Income
and Extra Expense Coverage" in the event of business closures by
order of Civil Authority. Under the Policy, insurance is extended
to apply to the actual loss of business income sustained and the
actual, necessary and reasonable extra expenses incurred when
access to the Property is specifically prohibited by order of Civil
Authority as the direct result of a covered loss to property in the
immediate area of the Plaintiff's Property. The covered physical
loss includes loss of use.

The Plaintiff avers that COVID-19's actual or suspected physical
presence at or in the vicinity of its Property prevents it from
making full use of the Property, especially in cases where the
business must close in part or in full. The Plaintiff contends that
under the terms and condition of the Policy, this kind of loss
constitutes a physical loss to the Property in that there has been
a loss of use of the Property.

After Rossa ceased operations and shut its business by order of the
State of Ohio and Cuyahoga County, it made a claim with Liberty
under the Policy's commercial/business income coverage. Liberty
acknowledged the claim, assigned it claim number 23793029, and
subsequently denied the Claim by letter dated April 2, 2020. In
this case, Liberty based its denial on exclusions that are not
applicable to a pandemic.

Had Liberty intended to exclude claims for the COVID-19 pandemic
made under the subject Policy(s), it would have, and could have,
included the express exclusionary language it has utilized in the
past to deny claims, which specifically included the term
"pandemic" and "SARS," but Liberty failed to do so related to the
Plaintiff and Class Members, says the complaint. Liberty knowingly,
purposely and intentionally used inapplicable exclusions to deny
claims for Business Interruption, Extra Expense and Civil Authority
claims related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Plaintiff Rossa operates a restaurant in Beachwood in Cuyahoga
County, Ohio.

Liberty is the fifth largest global property and casualty insurer,
with its principal place of business in Boston, Massachusetts and
sells insurance in Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas J. Connick, Esq.
          CONNICK LAW, LLC
          25550 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 101
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Phone: 216-364-0512
          Facsimile: 216-609-3446
          Email: tconnick@connicklawllc.com


MAKER ECOSYSTEM: Johnson Says Cryptocurrency Platform Misleading
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PETER JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MAKER ECOSYSTEM GROWTH HOLDINGS, INC., a
foreign corporation; MAKER ECOSYSTEM GROWTH FOUNDATION, a foreign
corporation; and DAI FOUNDATION, a foreign corporation; Defendants,
Case No. 3:20-cv-02569-LB (N.D. Cal., April 14, 2020) is a class
action to recover damages and to obtain other relief that the Lead
Plaintiff and others similarly situated have sustained due to
Defendant's misrepresentations and negligent maintenance of its
Maker Ecosystem, a cryptocurrency platform.

Despite representing that it manages a decentralized, open, digital
currency platform that boasts overcollateralized currency and has
certain measures in place to prevent significant investor loss, The
Maker Foundation in fact has promoted a system that it maintains
primary control and ownership over while actively misrepresenting
to investors in its platform (or collateralized debt position
holders, CDP Holders) the risks associated with it. The Defendant
has developed and now actively promotes the use of its digital
currency, DAI, which it claims is more secure and stable than
others because DAI are "over"-collateralized by other digital
currency. Should the value of that collateral drop, The Maker
Foundation assures its investors, then that triggers a liquidation
event wherein the investor's collateral is auctioned off to pay off
the outstanding DAI plus a modest, 13% liquidation penalty.

The Defendant neglected its responsibilities to its investors by
either fostering or, at the very least, allowing the conditions
that led to Black Thursday, all after actively soliciting millions
of dollars of investment into its ecosystem, while misrepresenting
to CDP Holders the actual risks they faced.

The Lead Plaintiff files this complaint in order to compensate
victims of The Maker Foundation's neglect and malfeasance that
directly created the conditions leading to the $0 bid vulnerability
that took place on Black Thursday.

Maker Ecosystem Growth Holdings, Inc. is a foreign company with its
primary place of business in California.

Maker Ecosystem Growth Foundation is a foreign company with its
primary place of business in California, an affiliate of The Maker
Foundation and overlaps in the management, operation, and
development of the Maker Protocol and its related ecosystem.

DAI Foundation is an affiliate of The Maker Foundation and overlaps
in the management, operation, and development of the Maker Protocol
and its related ecosystem.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Adam S. Heder, Esq.
            Harris Berne Christensen LLP
            15350 SW Sequoia Parkway
            Portland, OR 97224
            Telephone: (503) 968-1475
            Facsimile: (503) 968-2003
            Email: adamh@hbclawyers.com

MBO PARTNERS: Patnode Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Patnode, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MBO PARTNERS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00411 (E.D. Va.,
April 15, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and
other damages owed by the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff and the other workers like him regularly worked for
the Defendant in excess of 40 hours each week; but these workers
never received overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
single workweek, says the complaint. Instead of paying overtime as
required by the FLSA, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the same
hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40
hours in a single workweek. The Defendant never paid the Plaintiff,
or the other workers like him, a salary.

Plaintiff Patnode worked for the Defendant as a Construction
Manager.

MBO bills itself as the "preferred talent provider to the federal
government and more than 30 Fortune 100 companies."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harris D. Butler, Esq.
          Zev H. Antell, Esq.
          Paul M. Falabella, Esq.
          BUTLER ROYALS PLC
          140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Phone: 804-648-4848
          Facsimile: 804-237-0413
          Email: harris.butler@butlerroyals.com
                 zev.antell@butlerroyals.com
                 paul.falabella@butlerroyals.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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


MCDONALD'S CORP: Fairley and Reddick Sue Over Sexual Harassment
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMELIA FAIRLEY and ASHLEY REDDICK, on behalf of themselves and all
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. McDONALD'S CORPORATION,
McDONALD'S USA, LLC, and McDONALD'S RESTAURANTS OF FLORIDA, INC.
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02273 (N.D. Ill., April 10, 2020) is a
civil rights and employment discrimination class action brought by
Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and similarly-situated female
employees of restaurants owned and operated in Florida by the
Chicago-based McDonald's corporation, for sexual harassment and
retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and the Florida Civil Rights Act ("FCRA").

The experiences of the Plaintiffs, who worked for McDonald's at a
corporate owned and operated Florida McOpCo restaurant, are
emblematic of McDonald's systemic sexual harassment problem: As
Plaintiffs recount, they and many of their fellow female co-workers
were subjected to severe or pervasive sexual harassment and a
hostile work environment, including groping, physical assaults, and
sexually-charged verbal comments. Rather than protect workers,
McDonald's restaurant-level managers, as well as regional
supervisors and human resources professionals with authority over
broad swaths of McDonald's corporate owned and operated Florida
McOpCo restaurants, knowingly stood by and allowed the harassment
to continue unabated, while ultimately retaliating against the
women who complained. McDonald's strategy in Florida appears to be:
deny, ignore, and punish anyone who complains too loudly, and at
times, move harassers from one restaurant to another restaurant,
where they have access to and can further harass more women.

To remedy these systemic problems and civil rights violations by
McDonald's, Plaintiffs ask the Court to (a) certify a class of
female employees at McDonald's corporate owned and operated
"McOpCo" restaurants in the State of Florida; (b) enter an order
declaring that McDonald's violates the civil rights of Plaintiffs
and class members under Title VII and FCRA by subjecting them to a
hostile work environment; (c) award damages to compensate
Plaintiffs and class members for their emotional distress and other
injuries; (d) enter an order requiring that McDonald's take
adequate steps to stop and prevent sexual harassment by
implementing effective worker-centered anti-harassment policies and
procedures; worker-led mandatory training; a safe and effective
system of reporting (including above the restaurant level);
adequate training of in-restaurant and upper level management,
particularly with respect to investigation of sexual harassment
complaints and discipline therefore; policies and procedures
mandating adequate investigation into, and discipline for, sexual
harassment; and protections against retaliation, as required to
avoid continued violations of Title VII and FCRA; and (e) award
punitive damages sufficient to deter McDonald's from its continuing
egregious violation of civil rights.

Fairley currently works at the corporate owned and operated McOpCo
McDonald's restaurant in Sanford, Florida, as a crew member while
Reddick was employed as a crew member and crew trainer by the
Defendant at the South French Avenue restaurant.

McDonald's Corp. is an American fast food company headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois and operates restaurants in all 50 states.   

McDonald's USA is a wholly-owned subsidiary of McDonald's
Corporation.

McDonald's Restaurants of Florida, Inc. is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of McDonald's USA.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

            Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
            Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
            Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
            WERMAN SALAS P.C.
            77 W. Washington St., Ste 1402
            Chicago, IL 60602
            Telephone: (312) 419-1008
            Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                   msalas@flsalaw.com
                   sarendt@flsalaw.com

                          – and –

            Eve H. Cervantez, Esq.
            Danielle Leonard, Esq.
            Elizabeth Vissers, Esq.
            ALTSHULER BERZON, LLP
            177 Post Street, Suite 300
            San Francisco, CA 94108
            Telephone: (415) 421-7151
            Email: ecervantez@altber.com
                   dleonard@altber.com
                   evissers@altber.com

MDL 2492: Rothmund Suit v. NCAA Over Health Issues Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JEFF ROTHMUND, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-00430 (Filed Feb. 6, 2020), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (Chicago) on Apr 2, 2020.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-02083 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against the
Defendant to obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of
their reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations
of student-athletes.

The Rothmund case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, In Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools, who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation, the Panel said.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes, who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. The Plaintiffs in all
actions seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

NCAA is a non-profit organization, which regulates athletes of
1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554-9099
          E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Court Dismisses DeCapua TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID DeCAPUA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, C.A. No. 18-590 WES (D.
R.I.), Judge William E. Smith of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Rhode Island granted the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss.

The case turns on an antiquated statute that has remained unchanged
while technology has evolved.  The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself
and a putative class, filed a Class Action Complaint, alleging the
Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").
He alleges the Defendant's use of an "automatic telephone dialing
system" to send text messages in a marketing campaign violated the
TCPA.  U.S. Magistrate Judge Lincoln D. Almond recommended granting
the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action
Complaint.

The Defendant points to two bases on which the Court could conclude
that EZ Texting is not an auto-dialer.  First, as pleaded, EZ
Texting requires too much human intervention to qualify as an
auto-dialer.  Second, as pleaded, EZ Texting does not have the
capacity to generate random or sequential phone numbers.

Magistrate Judge Almond addressed the Plaintiff's first legal
failure in fine detail, concluding that EZ Texting requires too
much human intervention to qualify as an auto-dialer.  That
intervention includes uploading and storing a list of numbers from
outside the system; selecting recipients from "groups" of stored
numbers; drafting a message and selecting its delivery time; and
reviewing and sending the message.

Judge Smith accepts the R&R's reasoning.  While it alone warrants
dismissal, Judge Smith also analyzes whether the Plaintiff failed
to plead that EZ Texting has the capacity to generate random or
sequential numbers.  The circuits are split on whether the TCPA
requires this, with most determining that an auto-dialer must have
the present capacity to do so.

Judge Smith agrees with the majority of courts that have considered
the question, a conclusion that ends the Plaintiff's case.  These
decisions hold that, to qualify as an auto-dialer, the system must
be able to randomly or sequentially generate numbers. The Plaintiff
effectively concedes that EZ Texting cannot do this, but claims
that because a list of phone numbers can be uploaded to and stored
on the EZ Texting System from a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, EZ
Texting is capable of using Microsoft Excel's function as a
sequential number generator.

Seeking to avoid dismissal, the Plaintiff submits that various
pieces of equipment may be combined to form what amounts to an
auto-dialer.  But he does not plead that Microsoft Excel is an
integral and necessary part of EZ Texting, as he now suggests.
Rather, he alleges only that EZ Texting can use Microsoft Excel (as
one of two options) as a sequential number generator, and that the
Defendant's employees regularly do use it in that manner.  But a
system must have the present capacity to function as an auto-dialer
and, as pleaded, EZ Texting does not.

True, the case is before the Court on a motion to dismiss and the
Court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts alleged in the
complaint and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in the
pleader's favor.  Focusing on the non-speculative, non-conclusory
facts and reasonable inferences implied by those facts, Judge Smith
must ask whether it is plausible, as opposed to merely possible,
that the Plaintiff's complaint narrates a claim for relief.  For
the reasons he discussed, Judge Smith concludes that EZ Texting, as
pleaded, is outside the TCPA's purview.

Judge Smith, therefore, accepted the Report and Recommendation,
rejected the Plaintiff's objection, and granted the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 18, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/mg65mN from Leagle.com.

David DeCapua, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Peter N. Wasylyk --
pnwlaw@aol.com -- Law Offices of Peter N. Wasylyk, Daniel M.
Hutchinson -- dhutchinson@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein LLP, pro hac vice, Evan J. Ballan, Lieff Cabraser Heimann
& Bernstein LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew R. Wilson --
mwilson@meyerwilson.com -- Meyer Wilson Co., LPA, pro hac vice &
Michael J. Boyle, Jr. -- mwilson@meyerwilson.com -- Meyer Wilson
Co., LPA, pro hac vice.

Metropolitan Property And Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant,
represented by Archis A. Parasharami -- aparasharami@mayerbrown.com
-- Mayer Brown LLP, pro hac vice, Dana M. Horton -- dhorton@rc.com
-- Robinson & Cole LLP & Debra Bogo-Ernst -- dernst@mayerbrown.com
-- Mayer Brown LLP, pro hac vice.

MID-CENTRAL EDUCATIONAL: Summary Judgment in Bear Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, ALYSSA BLACK BEAR and KELSEY WALKING EAGLE-ESPINOSA,
Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MID-CENTRAL EDUCATIONAL COOPERATIVE,
A Cooperative Educational Service Unit; AMERICAN INDIAN INSTITUTE
FOR INNOVATION; a Non-Profit Corporation, JOANNE FARKE; BRANDON
YORK; PAMELA HAUKAAS; NICOLE BAMBERG; TIM NEUGEBAUER; DAVID
SCHOEMAKER; TODD REINISH; BILL MATHIS; DAVE MERRILL; TESS STARR;
LLOYD PERSSON; CARMEN WEBER; JAMES MUNSEN; RICHARD PETERSON; CHRIS
VANDER WERFF; TAMMY OLSON; TONYA VANEYE; SHIRLEY PEDERSON; RYAN
YOUNGSTROM; TANYA ALDRICH; CHRIS EYRE; STACY PHELPS; DANIEL
GUERICKE, THE ESTATE OF SCOTT WESTERHUIS, by and through its
Personal Representative, FIRST DAKOTA NATIONAL BANK; and THE ESTATE
OF NICOLE WESTERHUIS, by and through its Personal Representatives
GEORGE FISH and KAREN FISH, Defendants and Appellees. MID-CENTRAL
EDUCATIONAL COOPERATIVE, A Cooperative Education Service Unit,
Third-Party Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SCHOENFISH & CO., INC.,
Third-Party Defendant, Case Nos. 28740, 28741, 28745, 28746, 28747,
28748, 28753-a-DG (S.D.), Judge David Gilbertson of the Supreme
Court of South Dakota affirmed the circuit court's grant of summary
judgment.

The Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate
Programs ("GEAR UP") grant is designed to help underprivileged
students throughout the country graduate from high school, enter,
and succeed in post-secondary education.  The U.S. Department of
Education, particularly the Secretary of Education, supervises the
program and oversees disbursement of GEAR UP grants.

The South Dakota Department of Education ("SDDOE") received the
grant in 2011 to provide services to low-income Native American
students in South Dakota.  SDDOE contracted with Mid-Central
Educational Cooperative (MCEC) to administer the GEAR UP program in
South Dakota.  MCEC then entered into a service agreement with the
American Indian Institute for Innovation ("AIII") for assistance
implementing parts of the program.

In September 2015, it was revealed that Scott Westerhuis, MCEC's
business manager and AIII's registered agent and CFO, and his wife
Nicole had been mismanaging and embezzling funds from MCEC.  At
that point, Dr. Melody Schopp, Secretary of SDDOE, told Daniel
Guericke, the executive director of MCEC, that the agreement
between SDDOE and MCEC may be terminated.  The next day, Scott
Westerhuis took the lives of himself, his wife, and their four
children.  A few days later, Schopp sent MCEC a letter verifying
termination of the agreement, explaining that MCEC had failed to
successfully implement GEAR UP, listing the areas where MCEC's
administration was deficient, and requesting that MCEC and its
contractors retain all documents and information regarding the
program.

Alyssa Black Bear and Kelsey Walking Eagle-Espinosa attended
schools that GEAR UP was meant to serve: Todd County High School
and St. Francis Indian School, respectively.  They claim to have
been denied GEAR UP benefits in those schools due to the
embezzlement from MCEC.  Both students now attend college.  In
April 2016, the students' counsel sent a letter to MCEC notifying
them about a potential class action against MCEC, and demanding $2
million plus attorney fees and expenses to settle the claims.  The
action commenced in May 2016.

In January 2017, the students filed an amended complaint against
MCEC, AIII, MCEC's Directors, AIII's Directors, Daniel Guericke,
Stacy Phelps (MCEC's director of the GEAR UP program and AIII's
CEO), the Estate of Scott Westerhuis, and the Estate of Nicole
Westerhuis.  The complaint brought claims of civil theft against
both Westerhuis Estates; breach of contract against MCEC and AIII;
negligent supervision against the MCEC Directors, the AIII
Directors, Phelps, and Guericke; respondeat superior against MCEC
and AIII; and duty to control against the MCEC Directors and AIII
Directors.  The students moved to have the case certified as a
class action on behalf of similarly situated students GEAR UP was
meant to serve.  The students later voluntarily dismissed the
claims against the AIII Directors.

The Defendants resisted the students' request for class action
certification and moved for summary judgment on multiple theories:
(1) the students are not intended third-party beneficiaries of the
SDDOE-MCEC or the MCEC-AIII agreements and cannot enforce them; (2)
the students did not comply with applicable notice requirements;
(3) neither MCEC nor AIII can be held vicariously liable for the
Westerhuis' torts; and (4) the students do not have standing. A
hearing was held in June 2017.  The circuit court found for the
students on each issue, certified the class, and denied each motion
for summary judgment.

The Defendants moved for summary judgment again, this time on three
bases: (1) there is no evidence that any GEAR UP funds were among
the funds misappropriated; (2) the students' claims are preempted
by federal law; and (3) the students do not have standing.  A
hearing was held in March 2018 on the new motions.  The circuit
court denied the motion on the status of the GEAR UP funds, finding
there were genuine issues of material fact.  It granted the motion
for summary judgment based on preemption, finding no private remedy
available to litigants under GEAR UP.  All claims were dismissed
based on the preemption finding.

Black Bear and Walking Eagle-Espinosa appeal, raising one issue:
Whether the circuit court erred in ruling that their claims are
preempted by federal law.

By notice of review, the various Defendants raise six issues:

     (1) Whether the circuit court erred in concluding that the
Appellants effectively complied with notice requirements.

     (2) Whether the circuit court erred in ruling that the
Appellants have standing to bring their claims.

     (3) Whether the circuit court erred in finding that the
Appellants were intended third-party beneficiaries of the
SDDOE-MCEC and MCEC-AIII agreements.

     (4) Whether the circuit court erred in finding a genuine issue
of material fact regarding whether MCEC or its executive director
can be held vicariously liable for the torts of Scott and Nicole
Westerhuis.

     (5) Whether the circuit court erred in finding a genuine issue
of material fact regarding whether GEAR UP funds were missing or
misappropriated.

     (6) Whether the circuit court erred in certifying the lawsuit
as a class action.

Judge Golbertson finds that (i) the facts are insufficient to show
that the students are aggrieved parties who suffered an invasion of
a legally-protected interest, as all of their claims are premised
on their ability to enforce the contracts as third-party
beneficiaries; (ii) the students have failed to point to any
language in the SDDOE agreement with MCEC, or in MCEC's agreement
with AIII, showing an intention to allow the public, or the
students (individually or as a class), to enforce the contracts or
sue for damages resulting from nonperformance; (iii) the students'
tort claims for theft or conversion of the GEAR UP funds likewise
fail because the students have made no showing that they had any
legal right or property interest in any of the GEAR UP funds
purported to have been misused or converted; (iv) the students have
also failed to show a causal connection between the alleged
wrongdoing (mismanagement, theft, or conversion of GEAR UP funds)
and their alleged injury (loss of educational services); and (v)
the students have failed to show that a favorable decision by the
Court will redress their claims for loss of past educational
services.

Judge Golbertson concludes that the circuit court incorrectly held
that the students had standing to bring their claims.  However,
because the students have failed to show standing, the claims were
properly dismissed on summary judgment.  Because the students do
not have standing, there is no need to address the parties'
remaining claims.  The circuit court's grant of summary judgment is
affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 18, 2020 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/1nXJcc from Leagle.com.

JOHN R. HINRICHS -- john@hpslawfirm.com -- SCOTT N. HEIDEPRIEM,
MATTHEW TYSDAL of Heidepriem, Purtell, & Siegel, LLP, Sioux Falls,
South Dakota, and STEVEN C. EMERY, Rapid City, South Dakota,
Attorneys for plaintiffs and appellants Alyssa Black Bear, and
Kelsey Walking Eagle-Espinosa.

RYLAND L. DEINERT -- deinert@klasslaw.com -- RENE CHARLES LAPIERRE
of Klass Law Firm, LLP, Sioux City, Iowa, and SCOTT SWIER of Swier
Law Firm, LLC, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Attorneys for defendant
and appellee Mid-Central Educational Cooperative.

SAMUEL D. KERR of Lynn, Jackson, Shultz, & Lebrun, P.C., Rapid
City, South Dakota, and MICHAEL L. LUCE of Lynn, Jackson, Shultz, &
Lebrun, P.C., Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Attorneys for Joanne
Farke; Brandon York; Pamela, Haukaas; Nicole Bamberg; Tim,
Neugebauer; David, Schoemaker; Todd Reinish; Bill, Mathis; Dave
Merrill; Tess, Starr; Lloyd Persson; Carmen, Weber, James Munsen;
Richard, Peterson; Chris Vander Werff;, Tammy Olson; Tonya Vaneye;
Shirley Pederson; Ryan, Youngstrom; and Tanya, Aldrich.

QUENTIN L. RIGGINS, KATELYN L. COOK of Gunderson, Palmer, Nelson, &
Ashmore, LLP, Rapid City, South Dakota, Attorneys for defendants
and appellees American Indian, Institute for Innovation and Chris
Eyre.

TERRY PECHOTA of Pechota Law Office, Rapid City, South Dakota,
Attorneys for defendant and appellee Stacy Phelps.

ERIC J. STEINHOFF -- eric.steinhoff@lindjensen.com -- of Lind,
Jensen, Sullivan, & Peterson, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota,
Attorneys for defendant and appellee Daniel Guericke.

TRUDY A. MORGAN -- info@morgantheeler.com -- RICHARD J. RYLANCE, II
of Morgan Theeler, LLP, Mitchell, South Dakota, Attorneys for
defendant and appellee The Estate of Scott, Westerhuis, by and
through its Personal Representative, First, Dakota National Bank.

REBECCA L. WILSON of Myers Billion, LLP, Sioux Falls, South Dakota,
Attorneys for defendant and appellee The Estate of Nicole,
Westerhuis, by and through its Personal Representatives, George
Fish and Karen Fish.

MILLER VALENTINE PARTNERS: Clark Seeks OT Pay for Technicians
-------------------------------------------------------------
Billie Clark, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Miller Valentine Partners Ltd II 9349 Waterstone
Blvd., Suite 200 Cincinnati, Ohio 45249, & MVAH Partners, LLC, 9349
Waterstone Blvd., Suite 200 Cincinnati, Ohio 45249, & MVAH
Management, LLC, 9349 Waterstone Blvd., Suite 200 Cincinnati, Ohio
45249, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-295 (S.D. Ohio, April 13, 2020)
alleges that the Defendants failed to pay employees overtime wages.
Plaintiff seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act,
and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff was not fully and properly
paid in accordance with the minimum requirements of the FLSA for
all of his compensable hours worked because Defendants did not
properly calculate overtime based on his regular rate of pay, as
defined by the FLSA, but instead calculated overtime based on his
hourly rate of pay, resulting in unpaid overtime wages.

Mr. Clark was employed by the Defendants as maintenance technician
beginning in or around August 2018 until his termination on or
about October 17, 2019.

Miller Valentine Partners Ltd. II is an Ohio-based real estate
services provider.

MVAH Partners, LLC is an Ohio-based company that began developing
affordable housing in 1193.

MVAH Management, LLC a foreign, for-profit limited liability
company believed to be the management company owned and operated by
MVG for purposes of processing payroll for all of MVAH Partners'
hourly, non-exempt employees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                        – and –

            Matthew B. Bryant, Esq.
            BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
            3450 W Central Ave., Suite 370
            Toledo, OH 43606
            Telephone: (419) 824-4439
            Facsimile: (419) 932-6719
            Email: Mbryant@bryantlegalllc.com

                        – and –

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

MOUNT IDA: First Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Squeri Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TRISTAN SQUERI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; MADELINE MCCLAIN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated; GEORGE O'DEA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
Appellants, v. MOUNT IDA COLLEGE; THE MOUNT IDA COLLEGE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES; CARMIN C. REISS, individually and as a representative of
Mount Ida College Board of Trustees; BARRY BROWN, individually and
as a representative of Mount Ida College; JEFF CUTTING,
individually and as a representative of Mount Ida College; RON
AKIE, individually and as a representative of Mount Ida College;
JASON POTTS, individually and as a representative of Mount Ida
College, Defendants, Appellees, Case No. 19-1624 (1st Cir.), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district
court's order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
complaint.

In May 2018, Mount Ida College, a higher education institution with
its principal place of business in Foxborough, Massachusetts, and
its campus in Newton, Massachusetts, permanently closed after six
weeks' notice to its students that it was closing.  Mount Ida
students in good academic standing were offered admission to UMass
Dartmouth to continue their studies.  Some students faced obstacles
transferring their credits, finding comparable degree programs,
completing their degrees on time, and receiving adequate
scholarships and financial aid.  By the time of the notice of
closing, the transfer deadlines for many other institutions were
imminent or had already passed.

Students Squeri and O'Dea, and expected student McClain, brought a
putative class action under Massachusetts law against Mount Ida,
its Board of Trustees, and five Mount Ida administrators: President
Barry Brown; Chairwoman of the Board of Trustees Carmin Reiss; Vice
President, CFO, and Treasurer Jason Potts; Dean of Admissions and
Vice President of Enrollment Management Jeff Cutting; and Chief
Academic Officer and Provost Ron Akie.

Underlying all the claims were allegations that the Defendants knew
that Mount Ida was on the brink of insolvency but concealed the
information, instead assuring current and prospective students that
Mount Ida was financially stable.  The suit brought seven
Massachusetts state law claims: breach of fiduciary duty, violation
of privacy, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, fraud in the
inducement, breach of contract, and violation of Massachusetts
General Laws ch. 93A.  They amended their complaint on Jan. 5,
2019, to assert the seven theories.  

After briefing and oral argument, on May 24, 2019, the district
court in a 16-page written opinion, granted the Defendants' motion
to dismiss the complaint and dismissed the complaint.

The First Circuit disposes of the preliminary issues first, before
turning to the merits of the state law claims.  It finds that the
district court did not err in referring to public records or
documents referenced in the complaint, including the Massachusetts
AGO May 15, 2018, letter, Mount Ida's financial statements, and
other NEASC reports.  The district court correctly applied Iqbal's
plausibility standard and took the facts as pleaded by the
Plaintiffs and found no claims were stated as a matter of law.  The
First Circuit adds that it sees no disputes as to any material
facts.

The Phe plaintiffs' primary argument on appeal is that both the
individual Defendants and Mount Ida itself owed current and
prospective Mount Ida students a fiduciary duty.  The First Circuit
holds that Massachusetts courts have repeatedly stated that the
relationship between an institution of higher education and its
students is generally not a fiduciary one.  Also, whether viewed
under the rubric of standing or some related doctrine,
Massachusetts law restricts to the AGO the ability to pursue claims
of mismanagement of charitable organizations.  Further, there is no
plausible argument that the claims advanced in the case fall within
any special standing exception articulated by the Massachusetts
Appeals Court in Harvard Climate Justice Coalition v. President and
Fellows of Harvard College.

Next, the Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in
dismissing their violation of privacy claim under ch. 214, Section
1B.  The First Circuit finds that Massachusetts regulations require
a closing institution to safeguard the needs of students by
organizing educational transfer opportunities, and ensuring the
preservation of student records.  That purpose did not depend on
there being a final closing plan in place.  The transfer's purpose
was to enable Mount Ida students to continue their educations at
UMass and to preserve their student records.  The First Circuit
also rejects the Plaintiffs' argument that only UMass Amherst, not
UMass Dartmouth, could receive their records.  The University of
Massachusetts is a state system with five campuses, and not a set
of independent colleges.

The Plaintiffs challenge the dismissal of their fraud and
misrepresentation claims, arguing that the Defendants made "false
and misleading statements" and committed fraud by omission by
failing to disclose Mount Ida's financial distress.  The First
Circuit holds that the Plaintiffs have failed to plead any false
statement made by any of the Defendants.  Their argument that their
negligent misrepresentation claim does not fail lacks merit.
Negligent misrepresentation still requires a false statement by the
Defendants.  Finally, the tessence of the transaction with the
students was that the students would receive a semester of
education in exchange for a semester of tuition.  Mount Ida's
financial distress did not impact the transaction, as the students
did receive a semester of education before the school closed.

The Plaintiffs assert that the district court erred because they
plausibly pled a breach of either the implied or express
contractual agreements between the students and the college.  The
First Circuit agrees that there was insufficient specificity.  And
there is no dispute that Mount Ida delivered a semester of
education before it closed, if those were the terms of any
contract.  These allegations do not plausibly allege a breach of
implied contract, let alone an express contract, that the college
contracted to give earlier notice than it did or that there was a
contract for four years of education in exchange for only one
semester of tuition.

Finally, the Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in
concluding that the allegedly deceptive actions the Defendants took
were in service of Mount Ida's core educational mission and so were
not in "trade or commerce," as required by ch. 93A, Section 2(a).
There is even stronger reason to conclude that Massachusetts has
not authorized a private right of action under ch. 93A for these
types of actions by a nonprofit school.  Regulation of
not-for-profit colleges as to such matters as timing of notice of
closing has been assigned to the Massachusetts BHE.  

Since the First Circuit's decision disposes of the claims against
all of the Defendants, including the individual Defendants and the
Board of Trustees, the First Circuit does not reach the other
defenses that they have raised.  

The First Circuit also rejects the Plaintiffs' request for leave to
amend.  The Plaintiffs were put on notice of the deficiencies in
the complaint by the motion to dismiss.  If they had something
relevant to add, they should have moved to add it then.  They
failed to do so.  Instead, they stated only that they requested
leave to amend if the Court found their complaint lacking.  It was
insufficient.

For the foregoing reasons, the First Circuit affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 25, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/5ZodVp from Leagle.com.

Joshua N. Garick -- Joshua@GarickLaw.com -- with whom Law Offices
of Joshua N. Garick, P.C., Andra Hutchins, and Kerstein, Coren &
Lichtenstein LLP were on brief, for Tristan Squeri, Madeline
McClain, and George O'Dea.

Alice W. Yao and Daniel A. Zibel on brief for the National Student
Legal Defense Network, amicus curiae.

Katherine D. Shea -- kshea@pylerome.com -- and Pyle Rome Ehrenberg
PC, on brief for SEIU Local 509 and SEIU Local 888, amici curiae.

Thomas R. Murphy -- TRMurphy@trmlaw.net  -- and Law Offices of
Thomas R. Murphy, LLC, on brief for the Hildreth Institute, amicus
curiae.

Jeremy Sternberg -- Jeremy.Sternberg@hklaw.com -- with whom Paul G.
Lannon, Jr., John Monaghan, Christopher M. Iaquinto, and Holland &
Knight LLP were on brief, for Mount Ida College, the Mount Ida
College Board of Trustees, Carmin C. Reiss, Jeff Cutting, and Ron
Akie.

Elizabeth E. Olien, with whom Howard M. Cooper, and Todd & Weld
LLP, were on brief, for Barry Brown.

Tamsin R. Kaplan -- tkaplan@davismalm.com -- with whom Emily P.
Crowley and Davis, Malm & D'Agostine, P.C., were on brief, for
Jason Potts.

Ben Robbins -- benrobbins@dwt.com -- and Martin J. Newhouse on
brief for the New England Legal Foundation, amicus curiae.

NAVISTAR INT'L: MaxxForce Advanced EGR Settlement Wins Final Okay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2020, that the court
handling the consolidated class action suit related to MaxxForce
Advanced EGR defective engines has granted final approval of the
parties' settlement.

On July 7, 2014, Par 4 Transport, LLC filed a putative class action
lawsuit against Navistar, Inc. (NI) in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Par 4 Action").

Subsequently, seventeen additional putative class action lawsuits
were filed in various United States district courts, including the
Northern District of Illinois, the Eastern District of Wisconsin,
the Southern District of Florida, the Middle District of
Pennsylvania, the Southern District of Texas, the Western District
of Kentucky, the District of Minnesota, the Northern District of
Alabama, and the District of New Jersey (together with the Par 4
Action, the "U.S. Actions").

Some of the U.S. Actions named both avistar International
Corporation (NIC) and NI, and alleged matters substantially similar
to the Canadian Actions.

More specifically, one or more of the Canadian Actions and the U.S.
Actions (collectively, the "EGR Class Actions") seek to certify a
class of persons or entities in Canada or the United States who
purchased and/or leased a ProStar or other Navistar vehicle
equipped with a model year 2008-2013 MaxxForce Advanced EGR
engine.

In substance, the EGR Class Actions allege that the MaxxForce
Advanced EGR engines are defective and that the Company and NI
failed to disclose and correct the alleged defect.

The EGR Class Actions assert claims based on theories of contract,
breach of warranty, consumer fraud, unfair competition,
misrepresentation and negligence. The EGR Class Actions seek relief
in the form of monetary damages, punitive damages, declaratory
relief, interest, fees, and costs.

In December 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (the "MDL Panel") issued an order consolidating before
Judge Joan B. Gottschall of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois all of the U.S. Actions, as well
as certain non-class action MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine lawsuits
that were pending on October 3, 2014 (the "MDL Action").

Non-class federal lawsuits presenting pre-trial issues similar to
the MDL Action continue to be transferred to the MDL Action.

On May 11, 2015, lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the MDL Action
filed a consolidated complaint, which was subsequently amended
multiple times.

In May 2019, the parties completed negotiation of a settlement
agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") to resolve the U.S. Actions.


The plaintiffs submitted the Settlement Agreement to the court for
preliminary approval on May 28, 2019. The Settlement Agreement
class consists of entities and natural persons who owned or leased
a 2011-2014 model year vehicle equipped with a MaxxForce 11 or 13
liter engine certified to meet EPA 2010 emissions standards without
selective catalytic reduction technology, provided that vehicle was
purchased or leased in the U.S.

Among other things, the Settlement Agreement requires that (1) the
parties establish a non-reversionary common fund consisting of cash
(the "Cash Fund") and rebates (the "Rebate Fund") with a total
value of $135 million (the “Settlement Fund”); (2) NIC and NI
contribute $85 million to the Cash Fund, which will be used to pay
all settlement fees and expenses, service awards, attorneys' fees
and costs, and cash payments to members of the settlement class;
(3) NI commit to make available rebates with a face value in the
aggregate of $50 million to the Rebate Fund; and (4) the settlement
class release NIC and NI and their affiliates from all claims and
potential claims arising from or related to the allegations in the
U. S. Actions, except for claims for personal injury or damage to
third-party property.

The Settlement Agreement further provides that dollars or value
remaining in either the Cash Fund or the Rebate Fund after claims
are processed will be used to pay approved claims from the other
fund if the other fund is oversubscribed (the "Waterfall"). Any
Waterfall from the Rebate Fund to the Cash Fund is capped at $35
million. Finally, the Settlement Agreement states that NIC and NI
deny all claims in the U.S. Actions, deny wrongdoing, liability or
damage of any kind, and deny that NIC and NI acted improperly or
wrongfully in any way.

On February 3, 2020, NIC and NI funded $85 million to the Cash
Fund.

On June 12, 2019, the court preliminarily approved the settlement.


Members of the class were provided notice of the Settlement
Agreement and an opportunity to object or opt out. Any members of
the class who opted out will not receive any benefit from the
Settlement Agreement or be bound by it.

Four class members filed a consolidated objection to the Settlement
Agreement on October 10, 2019. On January 3, 2020, the court
entered an order rejecting the objection and finding the settlement
to be "fair, reasonable, and adequate." The court also granted the
motion of lead counsel for the class plaintiffs for approval of an
award of attorneys' fees and costs. On January 21, 2020, the court
entered an Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement, Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Final Order and
Judgment.

Navistar International Corporation, through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells commercial and military trucks, diesel
engines, school and commercial buses, and service parts for trucks
and diesel engines worldwide.  Navistar International Corporation
was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in Lisle, Illinois.


NAVISTAR INT'L: Still Defends MaxxForce Engine EGR Suits in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2020, that the company,
together with Navistar, Inc. (NI), Navistar Canada Inc., and
Harbour International Trucks, continues to defend class action
suits related to MaxxForce Engine EGR Warranty.

On June 24, 2014, N&C Transportation Ltd. ("N&C") filed a putative
class action lawsuit against Navistar International Corporation
(NIC), Navistar, Inc. (NI), Navistar Canada Inc., and Harbour
International Trucks in Canada in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia (the "N&C Action").

Subsequently, seven additional, similar putative class action
lawsuits have been filed in various courts in Canada, including
Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec (together with the N&C
Action, the "Canadian Actions").

On November 16, 2016, the Supreme Court of British Columbia
certified a Canada-wide class comprised of persons who purchased
heavy-duty trucks equipped with Advanced EGR MaxxForce 11,
MaxxForce 13, and MaxxForce 15 engines designed to meet 2010
Environmental Protection Energy (EPA) regulations.

On August 1, 2018, the appellate court affirmed the November 2016
decision and certified three additional narrow issues on whether
misrepresentations were made in Navistar's advertising materials.

The next step will be an attendance before the case management
judge regarding the details of the notice of certification to be
given to the class.

No date for this attendance has been set.

Navistar International Corporation, through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells commercial and military trucks, diesel
engines, school and commercial buses, and service parts for trucks
and diesel engines worldwide.  Navistar International Corporation
was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in Lisle, Illinois.


NEON THERAPEUTICS: Marks Challenges Proposed Merger With BioNTech
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Marks, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. NEON THERAPEUTICS, INC., CARY PFEFFER, ROBERT BAZEMORE,
ROBERT KAMEN, ERIC LANDER, HUGH O'DOWD, STEPHEN SHERWIN, ROBERT
TEPPER and MERYL ZAUSNER, Case No. 1:20-cv-03033 (S.D.N.Y., April
15, 2020), is brought on behalf of the public holders of the common
stock of Neon against it and the members of its board of directors
for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the proposed merger between Neon and BioNTech SE.

On January 15, 2020, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the Company's
shareholders stand to receive 0.063 American Depositary Shares
("ADR") of BioNTech for each share of Neon stock they own (the
"Merger Consideration"). Upon completion of the merger, Neon
shareholders will own approximately 0.85% and BioNTech shareholders
will own approximately 99.15% of the combined company.

On April 1, 2020, in order to convince Neon shareholders to vote in
favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the filing
of a materially incomplete and misleading Form F-4 Registration
Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation
of the Exchange Act, the Plaintiff says.

The Board has scheduled a special meeting of the Company's
shareholders on May 4, 2020, to vote on the Proposed Transaction.
While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the
Company's shareholders in the F-4, the Defendants have failed to
disclose certain material information that is necessary for
shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed
Transaction, thereby, violating SEC rules and regulations and
rendering certain statements in the F-4 materially incomplete and
misleading, the Plaintiff contends. In particular, the F-4 contains
materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i)
the financial projections for the Company that were prepared by the
Company and relied on by Defendants in recommending that Neon
shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction; and (ii)
the summary of certain valuation analyses conducted by Neon's
financial advisor, Duff & Phelps, LLC in support of its opinion
that the Merger Consideration is fair to shareholders, on which the
Board relied.

The Plaintiff asserts that it is imperative that the material
information that has been omitted from the F-4 is disclosed prior
to the forthcoming vote to allow the Company's shareholders to make
an informed decision regarding the Proposed Transaction. The
Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendants from holding the
shareholder vote on the Proposed Transaction and taking any steps
to consummate the Proposed Transaction unless, and until, the
material information discussed below is disclosed to Neon
shareholders sufficiently in advance of the vote on the Proposed
Transaction or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is
consummated, to recover damages resulting from Defendants'
violations of the Exchange Act.

The Plaintiff is a holder of Neon common stock.

Neon is a clinical-stage immune-oncology company and a leader in
the field of neoantigen-target therapies, dedicated to transforming
the treatment of cancer by directing the immune system towards
neoantigens.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-983-9330
          Facsimile: 212-983-9331
          Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                 jwilson@faruqilaw.com


NEUROLOGICAL SURGERY: Heitz Seeks OT Pay for Employees
------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH HEITZ, Plaintiff v. F. GARY GIESKE, M.D., P.A. d/b/a
NEUROLOGICAL SURGERY ASSOCIATES, Defendant, Case No.
0:20-cv-60762-AHS (S.D. Fla., April 14, 2020) is a collective
action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was hired by Defendant as an "Office Manager" on
approximately September 23, 2013 until March 23, 2020.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff performed non-exempt duties
as an employee for the Defendant in Broward County at all times
during her employment. Plaintiff routinely worked between 45 to 50
hours per work week, but was never paid at one and one half times
her normal hourly rate of pay for all weeks that she worked in
excess of 40 hours in a single work week.

Plaintiff seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, and the costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.

F. Gary Gieske, M.D., P.A. d/b/a Neurological Surgery Associates
owns and/or operates a full-service neurological center that treats
patients from all over the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Dennis Card, Jr., Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
          721 US Highway 1, Suite 201
          North Palm Beach, FL 33408
          Tel: (561) 822-3446
          Fax: (305) 574-0132
          Email: dennis@cloorg.com


PATTERSON COS: Hatchett Class Action Dismissed
----------------------------------------------
Patterson Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended January 25, 2020, that a trial court has
granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the class action suit
initiated by R. Lawrence Hatchett, M.D..

On January 29, 2019, a purported class action complaint was filed
by R. Lawrence Hatchett, M.D. against Patterson Companies, Inc.,
Henry Schein, Inc., Benco Dental Supply Company, and unnamed
co-conspirators in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.

The complaint alleges that members of the proposed class suffered
antitrust injury due to an unlawful boycott, price-fixing or
otherwise anticompetitive conspiracy among Schein, Benco and
Patterson.

The complaint alleges that the alleged conspiracy overcharged
Illinois dental practices, orthodontic practices and dental
laboratories on their purchase of dental supplies, which in turn
passed on some or all of such overcharges to members of the class.
Subject to certain exclusions, the complaint defines the class as
all persons residing in Illinois purchasing and/or reimbursing for
dental care provided by independent Illinois dental practices
purchasing dental supplies from the defendants, or purchasing from
buying groups purchasing these supplies from the defendants, on or
after January 29, 2015.

The complaint alleges violations of the Illinois Antitrust Act, 740
Ill. Comp. Stat. Sections 10/3(2), 10/7(2), and seeks a permanent
injunction, actual damages to be determined at trial, trebled,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment
interest.

On February 13, 2020, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss for lack of standing and dismissed the action with
prejudice.

Patterson Companies, Inc. distributes and sells dental and animal
health products in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Canada. It operates through Dental and Animal Health segments. The
company was formerly known as Patterson Dental Company and changed
its name to Patterson Companies, Inc. in June 2004. Patterson
Companies, Inc. was founded in 1877 and is headquartered in St.
Paul, Minnesota.


PATTERSON COS: Plymouth Retirement System Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Patterson Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended January 25, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit captioned as Plymouth County
Retirement System v. Patterson Companies, Inc., Scott P. Anderson
and Ann B. Gugino, Case No. 0:18-CV-00871 MJD/SER.

On March 28, 2018, Plymouth County Retirement System filed a
federal securities class action complaint against Patterson
Companies, Inc. and its former CEO Scott P. Anderson and former CFO
Ann B. Gugino in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota in a case captioned Plymouth County Retirement System v.
Patterson Companies, Inc., Scott P. Anderson and Ann B. Gugino,
Case No. 0:18-CV-00871 MJD/SER.

On November 9, 2018, the complaint was amended to add former CEO
James W. Wiltz and former CFO R. Stephen Armstrong as individual
defendants. Under the amended complaint, on behalf of all persons
or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Patterson's common
stock between June 26, 2013 and February 28, 2018, Plymouth alleges
that Patterson violated federal securities laws by failing to
disclose that Patterson's revenue and earnings were "artificially
inflated by Defendants' illicit, anti-competitive scheme with its
purported competitors, Benco and Schein, to prevent the formation
of buying groups that would allow its customers who were
office-based practitioners to take advantage of pricing
arrangements identical or comparable to those enjoyed by
large-group customers."

In its class action complaint, Plymouth asserts one count against
Patterson for violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and a second,
related count against the individual defendants for violating
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Plymouth seeks compensatory damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest and reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' witness fees
and costs.

On August 30, 2018, Gwinnett County Public Employees Retirement
System and Plymouth County Retirement System, Pembroke Pines
Pension Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers, Central Laborers
Pension Fund were appointed lead plaintiffs.

On January 18, 2019, Patterson and the individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

On July 25, 2019, the U.S Magistrate Judge issued a report and
recommendation that the motion to dismiss be granted in part and
denied in part. The report and recommendation, among other things,
recommends the dismissal of all claims against individuals
defendants Ann B. Gugino, R. Stephen Armstrong and James W. Wiltz.


On September 10, 2019, the District Court adopted the Magistrate
Judge's report and recommendation.

Patterson said, "While the outcome of litigation is inherently
uncertain, we believe that the class action complaint is without
merit, and we are vigorously defending ourselves in this
litigation. We do not anticipate that this matter will have a
material adverse effect on our financial statements. Patterson has
also received, and responded to, requests under Minnesota Business
Corporation Act Section 302A.461 to inspect corporate books and
records relating to the issues raised in the securities class
action and the antitrust matters."

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

Patterson Companies, Inc. distributes and sells dental and animal
health products in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Canada. It operates through Dental and Animal Health segments. The
company was formerly known as Patterson Dental Company and changed
its name to Patterson Companies, Inc. in June 2004. Patterson
Companies, Inc. was founded in 1877 and is headquartered in St.
Paul, Minnesota.


PEPPERIDGE FARM: Boyd FCRA Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Dominique D. Boyd, on behalf
of Himself and on behalf of all others similarly v. Pepperidge Farm
Incorporated and Task Management Staffing Inc., Case No.
2020CA000692000000, was removed from the Florida Circuit Court, In
and for Polk County, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida (Tampa) on April 2, 2020.

The Middle District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case
No.8:20-cv-00780-MSS-JSS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Mary S. Scriven.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Pepperidge is an American commercial bakery founded in 1937 by
Margaret Rudkin, who named the brand after her family's property in
Fairfield, Connecticut, which in turn was named for the pepperidge
tree, Nyssa sylvatica.

Task Management is an employment recruitment agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
          1110 N Florida Ave., Ste. 300
          Tampa, FL 33602-3343
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com

               - and -

          Chad Justice, Esq.
          JUSTICE FOR JUSTICE LLC
          1205 N Franklin Street, Suite 326
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 566-0550
          Facsimile: (813) 566-0770
          E-mail: chad@getjusticeforjustice.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brittany Borck, Esq.
          Benjamin Joseph Biard, Esq.
          WINGET, SPADAFORA & SCHWARTZBERG, LLP
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 600
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 830-0600
          E-mail: borck.b@wssllp.com
                  biard.b@wssllp.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Jones Seeks OT Pay for Call Center Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANNY LYNN JONES, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES,
L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01083-STA-jay (W.D. Tenn.,
April 15, 2020) is an action by Plaintiff individually and on
behalf of all current and former hourly call-center employees who
worked for the Defendant at any time from April 15, 2017 through
the final disposition of this matter, to recover compensation,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant's illegal company-wide policy has caused Plaintiff
and the Putative Class Members to have hours worked that were not
compensated and further created a miscalculation of their regular
rate(s) of pay for purposes of calculating their overtime
compensation each workweek, the complaint says.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, L.L.C. is a debt collection company
and operates several call centers throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq.
            YEZBAK LAW OFFICES
            2002 Richard Jones Rd., Suite B-200
            Nashville, TN 37215
            Telephone: (615) 742-5900
            Facsimile: (615) 742-5958
            Email: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com

                       – and -  

            Clif Alexander, Esq.
            Austin Anderson, Esq.
            ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
            819 N. Upper Broadway
            Corpus Christi, TX 78401
            Telephone: (361) 452-1279
            Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
            Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
                   austin@a2xlaw.com

PRIUS ENTERPRISE: Faces Ghazizadeh Class Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prius Enterprise,
Inc. The case is captioned as Mohsen Ghazizadeh, Individually and
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Prius Enterprise,
Inc. doing business as: Simply Potent, Case No.
8:20-cv-00640-DOC-JDE (C.D. Cal., April 2, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John D. Early.

Prius Enterprise is a privately held company in Sugar Land,
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          David J. McGlothlin, Esq.
          Nicholas Barthel, Esq.
          Yana A. Hart, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  david@kazlg.com
                  nicholas@kazlg.com
                  yana@kazlg.com


PROFESSIONAL BILLING: Bruce E. Katz Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRUCE E. KATZ, M.D., P.C., D/B/A JUVA SKIN AND LASER CENTER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. PROFESSIONAL BILLING COLLECTIONS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-03043 (S.D.N.Y., April 15, 2020) is a class action
complaint against the Defendant brought by the Plaintiff to stop
Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited fax advertisements and
to obtain redress for all persons injured by their conduct.

According to the complaint, Defendant has sent facsimile
transmissions of unsolicited advertisements to Plaintiff and the
Class in violation of the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005.

The faxes sent by Defendant advertised Defendant's products and
services, were commercial in nature, and are advertisements under
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

Plaintiff and the other class members never gave prior express
consent to receive the faxes.

Professional Billing Collections, LLC is a medical billing company
based in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Jeffrey S. Arons, Esq.
            ARONS & ARONS, LLC
            76 South Orange Ave., Suite 100
            South Orange, NJ 07079
            Telephone: (973) 762-0795
            Facsimile: (973) 762-0279
            Email: ja@aronslaw.net

                    – and -   

            Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
            WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
            3900 E Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
            Denver, CO 80210
            Telephone: (720) 213-0675
            Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
            Email: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com

RANGERS ENTERPRISE: Bridges Seeks Proper OT Pay for Technicians
---------------------------------------------------------------
CALVIN BRIDGES, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. RANGERS ENTERPRISE SATELLITE, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 3:20-cv-00108-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss., April 3, 2020) alleges that
the Defendant fails to pay overtime compensation under the the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant utilizes workers such as Plaintiff and the Collective
of similarly situated individuals as "technicians" to perform
installation, repair and construction, regarding satellite dish
equipment and classifies these workers as independent contractors.


Rangers Enterprise pays these technicians a "piece rate" or by the
job. The Plaintiff's and the Collective's wages were based on the
job performed, not the amount of hours worked, regardless of
whether Plaintiff or any Collective member worked more or less than
40 hours in a workweek.

Rangers Enterprise Satellite, LLC provides satellite installation
and repair services to satellite providers in Mississippi and other
states in the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Christopher W. Espy, Esq.
            Espy Law, PLLC
            P.O. Box 13722
            Jackson, MS 39236
            Telephone: (601) 812-5300
            Email: Chris.espy@espylawpllc.com

RELIANCE FIRST: Face Winters TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Winters, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Reliance First Capital, LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-00740-DJH (D. Ariz., April 15, 2020), arises from the
illegal actions of the Defendant in negligently contacting the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant used an "automatic
telephone dialing system" to place its call to the Plaintiff
seeking to solicit its services. The Defendant did not possess the
Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an
automatic telephone dialing system on his cellular telephone.
Further, the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number has been on the
National Do-Not-Call Registry since at 30 days prior to receiving
such calls. The Defendant continued to call the Plaintiff in an
attempt to solicit its services and in violation of the National
Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA.

The Plaintiff is a natural person residing in Mesa, Arizona.

The Defendant is a mortgage banker.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. McGlothlin, Esq.
          Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste. 460
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Phone: 800-400-6808
          Fax: 800-520-5523
          Email: david@kazlg.com
                 ryan@kazlg.com


ROBIN INDUSTRIES: Byerly Suit Settlement Gets Prelim Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SARAH BYERLY, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ROBIN INDUSTRIES, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-CV-1004 (N.D. Ohio), Judge Sara Lioi of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted
the Parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of FLSA Settlement and
Preliminary Approval of Rule 23 Class Action Settlement.

On May 3, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the Action, alleging that the
Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the
Ohio overtime statute by failing to pay the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees all of their overtime pay.  The
Parties have exchanged and analyzed initial factual disclosures and
timekeeping and payroll records, and the Class Counsel engaged an
expert to review the voluminous timekeeping and pay records and
formulate a damages model, which Class Counsel shared with Defense
Counsel.  The document exchange enabled the Parties to understand
and assess the detail and substance of their respective claims and
defenses.

The Parties engaged in mediation on Jan. 29, 2020 with
well-respected mediator Michael Ungar, at which the Parties reached
an agreement to settle the Action.  The Settlement Agreement
resolves the individual and collective claims of the Class
Representative and Class Members made pursuant to the FLSA, and
provides classwide relief and distribution of funds pursuant to
Rule 23.  The Settlement Agreement is subject to approval by the
Court pursuant to the FLSA and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e).

Having reviewed the Settlement Agreement, as well as the Motion for
Approval, the Declaration of Hans A. Nilges appended thereto, and
the pleadings and papers on file in the Action, and for good cause
established therein, Judge Lioi entered the Preliminary Order
granting final approval of the FLSA Settlement and preliminary
approval of the Rule 23 Class Action Settlement, and approving
notice to the Class Members.

The Settlement Agreement is finally approved as to the FLSA Class
Members' claims as provided in the Settlement Agreement and
preliminarily approved as to the Rule 23 Class Members' claims as
provided in the Settlement Agreement, for notice purposes.

Judge Lioi provisionally certified the Class pursuant to Rule 23(a)
and (b)(3) as follows: All former and current non-exempt employees
employed by Defendant Robin Industries, Inc. that worked at one of
the Defendant's Ohio facilities who worked 40 or more hours in one
or more workweeks during the period of time from May 3, 2016 to
Jan. 29, 2020.

Judge Lioi approved Sarah Byerly as the Class Representative, and
appointed as the class counsel, Hans A. Nilges, Jeffrey J. Moyle,
and Shannon M. Draher of Nilges Draher LLC.  

She provisionally approved (i) the Service Award for Sarah Byerly
in recognition of her services in the Action; (ii) the payment of
attorneys' fees and expenses to the Class Counsel as provided in
the Settlement Agreement.

The Judge also approved the proposed Class Action Settlement Notice
as to substance, form, and manner of distribution, and ordered that
it be distributed to the Class Members in the manner described in
the Settlement Agreement.

She directed that the Class Members be given notice of the pendency
of the Action, the proposed settlement, and the date of a hearing
at which final approval of the proposed settlement may be
considered.

The Fairness Hearing will be held on July 9, 2020 at 9:00 a.m.  The
Class Members requesting exclusion from the Class Action Settlement
and/or objecting to the Class Action Settlement must timely request
exclusion and/or file objections in the time and the manner set
forth in the Class Action Settlement Notice.  Specifically, the
Class Members must take such steps by not later than 45 days after
the initial mailing of the Class Action Settlement Notice.

Prior to the Fairness Hearing, the Class Counsel will file with the
Court a Declaration verifying that the Class Action Settlement
Notice was distributed to the Class Members in the form and manner
approved.  The Parties will file papers in support of Final
Approval of the Settlement Agreement no later than 10 days prior to
the Fairness Hearing.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 18, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Iuz87j from Leagle.com.

Sarah Byerly, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Hans A. Nilges -- hans@ohlaborlaw.com --
Nilges Draher, Robi J. Baishnab , Nilges Draher, Shannon M. Draher
-- sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com -- Nilges Draher & Jeffrey J. Moyle --
jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com -- Nilges Draher.

Robin Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Arthur M. Kaufman
-- ak@kdglegal.com -- Kaufman, Drozdowski & Grendell, James M.
Drozdowski -- jimd@kdglegal.com -- Kaufman, Drozdowski & Grendell &
Nancy A. Oliver -- spo@kdglegal.com -- Kaufman, Drozdowski &
Grendell.

ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Faces Gwaltney Suit Over Trading System Glitch
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH GWALTNEY, individually and as representatives on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. ROBINHOOD
MARKETS, INC., ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC, and ROBINHOOD SECURITIES,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-02665 (N.D. Cal., April 16, 2020)
recounts that Defendants' service completely failed for nearly the
entire trading day on March 2, several hours on the morning of
March 3, and approximately an hour on March 9, preventing clients,
including Plaintiff from being able to buy or sell securities in
their accounts.

According to the complaint, Defendants' email system also failed,
so its clients, rightfully upset and concerned about their
accounts, could not get through to the company to get any
information, apart from what Robinhood shared on its Twitter
accounts and server status page.

The failures are evidence that Robinhood's system was not properly
designed to handle peak market activity, when needed most, but was
focused more on making money for the company than providing service
or protection to its clients.

Robinhood Markets, Inc. operates as a financial services holding
company based in California. Robinhood Markets controls wholly
owned subsidiary companies that transact business in the securities
industry.

Robinhood Financial LLC operates as a brokerage firm regulated by
FINRA and the SEC and registered to do business in all 50 U.S.
states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands.

Robinhood Securities LLC operates as a brokerage firm regulated by
FINRA and the SEC and registered to do business in all 50 U.S.
states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq.
            ANDRUS ANDERSON, LLP
            155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900
            San Francisco, CA 94104
            Telephone: (415) 986-1400
            Facsimile: (415) 986-1474
            Email: jennie@andrusanderson.com

                         – and -  

            W. Daniel Miles, III, Esq.
            James Eubank, Esq.
            Leslie L. Pescia, Esq.
            BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN  PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
            218 Commerce Street
            Montgomery, AL 36104
            Telephone: (800) 898-2034
            Facsimile: (334) 965-7555
            Email: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com
                   james.eubank@beasleyallen.com
                   leslie.pescia@beasleyallen.com

ROOFLINE INC: Sifuentes Remanded to Sacramento County Super. Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GARY SIFUENTES, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ROOFLINE, INC. d.b.a. ROOFLINE
SUPPLY & DELIVERY, an Oregon corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00052 WBS KJN (E.D. Cal.),
Judge William B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand,
and remanded the case to the Superior Court of the State of
California, in and for the County of Sacramento.

Plaintiff Sifuentes filed the class action against Roofline in
Sacramento County Superior Court alleging various violations of the
California Labor Code.  The Defendant employed the Plaintiff as a
non-exempt driver/mover in Sacramento for over 10 years.  The
Plaintiff brings the action on behalf of current and former
non-exempt California-based employees from Nov. 27, 2015 to the
date of final judgment.

Plaintiff alleges seven causes of action in connection with his
complaint: (1) failure to pay overtime wages; (2) failure to
provide meal periods; (3) failure to provide rest periods; (4)
failure to provide wages due at separation of employment; (5)
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (6) failure
to reimburse necessary business expenses; and (7) violation of
California's Business & Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.

The Defendant removed the action to the Court pursuant to the Class
Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") on Jan. 6, 2020.

Before the court now is the Plaintiff's motion to remand for
failure to meet the required amount in controversy.  Because of the
current situation with regard to the Coronavirus and the Court's
General Orders relating thereto, the Court decides the motion
without oral argument.

The complaint does not allege a specific amount of damages.
Instead, it merely states that the amount in controversy for the
plaintiff and the class members "in aggregate, is less than $5
million."  Where, as in the case, the plaintiff "affirmatively
states that the amount in controversy does not exceed $5 million,"
a removing defendant has the burden to put forward evidence showing
that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million and to persuade
the court that the estimate of damages in controversy is a
reasonable one.  It includes affidavits, declarations, or other
summary-judgment-type evidence relevant to the amount in
controversy at the time of removal.

Judge Shubb finds that while the Ninth Circuit has allowed
defendants to rely on maximum assumptions in limited instances, the
Defendants lack the level of specificity required to do so.  In
LaCross v. Knight Transportation, Inc., the Ninth Circuit found
that the defendant's use of the maximum assumption was reasonable
after the defendant included all fuel costs during the class period
in its calculation of the amount in controversy.  But in the case,
to arrive at the amount in controversy, the Defendant relies on
calculations based on averages rather than concrete costs.  While
the Defendant need not provide evidence proving the assumptions
correct, the assumed rate of violations must have some reasonable
ground underlying them.  These maximum assumptions fall short of
the Ninth Circuit's guidance for reasonability.  Accordingly, the
Defendant has failed to produce appropriate evidence to support its
amount in controversy calculation, and it cannot avail itself of
the Court's jurisdiction.

For these reasons, Judge Shubb granted the Plaintiff's motion to
remand.  The action is remanded to the Superior Court of the State
of California, in and for the County of Sacramento.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 18, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/jnmJpG from Leagle.com.

Gary Sifuentes, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua S. Falakassa --
josh@falakassalaw.com -- Falakassa Law, PC & Mehrdad Bokhour --
mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com -- Bokhour Law Group, P.C.

Roofline, Inc., an Oregon Corporation, Doing business as Roofline
Supply & Delivery, Defendant, represented by Aaron H. Cole --
aaron.cole@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Smoak & Stewart P.C..

RUBICON TECHNICAL: Alaniz Seeks Overtime Pay for Engineers
----------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE ALANIZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RUBICON TECHNICAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 5:20-cv-00403 (W.D. Tex., March 31, 2020) is a collective
action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as salaried engineer since
April 2019.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other salaried engineers
were classified as exempt employees and regularly worked in excess
of 40 hours per week. However, Defendant has a commonly applied
policy to not pay salaried engineers, including Plaintiff, overtime
for the hours worked over 40 in a given week. Allegedly, Defendant
failed to include all forms of compensation, such as
nondiscretionary bonuses, when calculating their employees overtime
pay.

Rubicon Technical Services, LLC provides services such as ensuring
the integrity of critical infrastructure installation, including
commissioning, electrical testing services, controls system
optimization, root cause analysis and risk analysis. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SAMSARA NETWORKS: Faces Hanley Suit in California Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SAMSARA NETWORKS
INC., et al. The case is captioned as GUY BLAZ HANLEY, AS AN
INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v.
SAMSARA NETWORKS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION and DOES 1 THROUGH
50, INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC20584034 (Cal. Super., San Francisco
Cty., April 3, 2020).

A case management conference will be held on Sept. 2, 2020.

Samsara Networks was founded in 2015. The Company's line of
business includes the operation of nonclassifiable
establishments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Leee, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
          515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com


SPS TECHNOLOGIES: Cantu Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ERGIO CANTU, an individual on
behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated
v. SPS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, a Limited Liability Company dba CHERRY
AEROSPACE; and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No.
30-2020-01135004-CU-DE-CXC (Filed Feb. 28, 2020), was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on April 3, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:20-cv-00653 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants violated the California
Private Attorneys General Act California Labor Code by failing to
the pay regular wages and overtime wages and to provide rest
periods.

SPS Technologies develops, manufactures, and supplies aerospace
nuts, bolts, and associated products with major product lines.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Allison C. Eckstrom, Esq.
          Christopher J. Archibald, Esq.
          Sharlene P. Meno, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
          3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1500
          Irvine, CA 92612-4414
          Telephone: (949) 223-7000
          Facsimile: (949) 223-7100
          E-mail: allison.eckstrom@bclplaw.com
                  christopher.archibald@bclplaw.com
                  sharlene.meno@bclplaw.com


STAGE STORES: Fails to Provide Wage Notices, Harris Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
IESIAH HARRIS on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. STAGE STORES, INC., SPECIALTY RETAILERS,
INC., PEEBLES, and GORDMANS, Defendants, Case No. 6:20-cv-06205
(W.D.N.Y., April 2, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff
which seeks statutory penalties for herself and each Hourly Worker
of $50 per person for each workday that Defendants failed to
provide them with wage notices pursuant to New York Labor Law.

The Defendants employ Hourly Workers, such as Plaintiff, to assist
in the operation of their stores by: tending to customers, staffing
fitting rooms, using the cash register to assist customers with
making purchases, cleaning the store, organizing the displays, and
unloading stock.

Stage Stores, Inc. is a Texas-based department store company
specializing in retailing off-price brand name apparel,
accessories, cosmetics, footwear, and housewares throughout the
United States.

Specialty Retailers, Inc. specializes in the retail sale of family
apparel and a subsidiary of Stage Stores, Inc.

Peebles is a store chain owned and operated by Stage Stores, Inc.
and Specialty Retailers, Inc.

Gordmans is a store chain owned and operated by Stage Stores, Inc.
and Specialty Retailers, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Molly A. Brooks, Esq.
            OUTTEN AND GOLDEN LLP
            685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
            New York, NY 10017
            Telephone: (212) 245-1000
            Facsimile: (646) 509-2060

                      – and –

            Laura Iris Mattes, Esq.
            Molly J. Frandsen, Esq.
            One California St, 12th Floor
            San Francisco, CA 94111
            Telephone: (415) 638-8800
            Facsimile: (415) 638-8810

                      – and –

             Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq.
             YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC
             2002 Richard Jones Rd. Suit B-200
             Nashville, TN 37215
             Telephone: (615) 250-2000

STERLING ENGINEERING: FLSA Class in Vargas Conditionally Certified
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CORINA VARGAS, on behalf of herself, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. STERLING
ENGINEERING, INC. d/b/a STERLING STAFFING, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 18-cv-5940 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, granted the Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") claim as a
collective action and authorization to facilitate notice pursuant
to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

Vargas, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, filed this suit against Defendant Sterling for violating
the FLSA and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Sterling is a staffing agency headquartered in Westchester,
Illinois.  It specializes in placing candidates who have technical
or engineering backgrounds with companies in a variety of
industries, including pharmaceuticals, energy, automation,
transportation, electronics, and information technology.  Sterling
employs about thirty recruiters, who have one of five titles:
Junior Recruiter, Senior Recruiter, Technical Recruiter, Recruiting
Coordinator, Researcher/Sourcing Recruiter, and Team Lead
Recruiter.  The recruiters are either assigned to a team focusing
on a particular industry or on one of two general teams, the
"house" team and the "commercial" team.  Recruiters within the
house and commercial team may handle staffing in any of the
specialized teams.

Plaintiff Vargas worked as a Technical Recruiter at Sterling's
Westchester office from October 2017 until Jan. 19, 2018.  She was
paid an annual salary plus commission and quarterly bonus.  Her
position was classified as exempt from overtime compensation.

Sterling's VP, Greg Stimutis, testified about the similarities of
all recruiters.  Recruiters are responsible for finding potential
candidates to fill contract, contract-to-hire, and direct hire
positions for Sterling clients.  They all work in open-space
cubicles and go through the same training program.  They all report
to and are supervised by a business unit manager.  All recruiters
must additionally abide by a uniform set of Sterling policies,
including the Sterling Employee Handbook.  With the exception of
one Junior Recruiter, Sterling classifies all full-time recruiters
as exempt from overtime compensation.  They all have the same
compensation plan, which includes a salary plus bonuses or
commissions.  In addition to the Junior Recruiter classified as an
hourly, non-exempt employee, that classification has previously
applied to recruiting interns and part-time recruiters.

The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following collective class: All
persons who worked for Sterling as Recruiters, or other
similarly-titled positions during the applicable statute of
limitations period, and who were classified as exempt and were not
paid overtime compensation for time worked in excess of 40 hours in
given workweeks.

Judge Coleman holds that at this stage, the Plaintiff has made the
minimal showing necessary for conditional certification and notice
to the potential class members.  Contrary to Defendant's argument,
there is sufficient evidence in the record to meet a "modest
showing" that the potential class members are similarly situated.
The Defendant does not oppose the form or substance of the
Plaintiff's proposed notice, so it is approved.  It also does not
dispute the scope of the proposed collective class and the Judge
deems it appropriate.  The Defendant is free to move the Court for
decertification after the opt-in discovery process is complete.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Coleman granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for conditional certification as a collective action and
authorized the Plaintiff to facilitate notice.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 18, 2020 Mmeorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/9Pjm8x from Leagle.com.

Corina Vargas, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan F.
Stephan, Stephan, Zouras, LLP, Catherine T. Mitchell, Stephan
Zouras, LLP & James B. Zouras, Stephan Zouras, LLP.

Sterling Engineering, Inc., doing business as Sterling Staffing,
Inc., Defendant, represented by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. --
gmaatman@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Jennifer Ann Riley --
jriley@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Alex W. Karasik --
akarasik@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw Llp.

STUBHUB INC: McMillan Seeks Refund Under FanProtect Guarantee
-------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW MCMILLAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. STUBHUB, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and LAST MINUTE
TRANSACTIONS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
3:20-cv-00319-jdp (W.D. Wis., April 2, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' action of depriving the Plaintiff a cash refund as the
benefit of their longstanding "FanProtect" guarantee.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants sought to retroactively
discontinue the essential function of FanProtect in response to
apparent liabilities it would incur stemming from the COVID-19
pandemic.

Until March 25, 2020, the FanProtect guarantee promised that if a
StubHub user purchased tickets to any event through Stubhub, and
the event was cancelled, the user would receive a full, money-back
refund for their purchase, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff brings this class action against Defendants for
breach of contract; conversion; negligent misrepresentation;
violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act; violations
of the unlawful prong California's Unfair Competition; violations
of the unfair prong of the UCL; and Violations of California's
False Advertising Law.

Stubhub, Inc., operates as an entertainment ticket agency. Last
Minute is in the Sports business. Last Minute is a party to
StubHub's contractual agreement with its users.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
          Steven D. Liddle, Esq.
          LIDDLE & DUBIN, P.C.
          975 E. Jefferson Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48207
          Telephone: 313 392-0015
          Facsimile: 313 392-0025
          E-mail: sliddle@ldclassaction.com
                  ncoulson@ldclassaction.com


SUPERSONIC OF FLORIDA: Ramirez Seeks Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Ramirez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Supersonic of Florida, Inc., a for profit Florida
corporation; Juan C. Gonzalez, individually, and; Nidia Hernandez,
individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-21592-DPG (S.D. Fla., April 15,
2020), is brought to recover money damages for unpaid minimum and
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was required to be
finally and unconditionally paid a minimum hourly wage for every
hour worked during the applicable, established pay period. Further,
they were entitled to timely receive such compensation on the
established regular pay date. In addition, the Plaintiff routinely
worked many overtime hours but his overtime hours were routinely
and systematically not paid at all, or not paid at the applicable
premium rate.

Plaintiff Alexander Ramirez worked as a local delivery driver for
the Defendant.

Supersonic of Florida, Inc., is a cargo delivery company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony F. Sanchez, Esq.
          ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A.
          6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101
          Miami, FL 33143
          Phone: 305-665-9211
          Fax: 305-328-4842
          Email: afs@laborlawfla.com


SUTTER VALLEY MEDICAL: Faces Tinnin Suit Over Unlawful Wage Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTEENA TINNIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. SUTTER VALLEY MEDICAL FOUNDATION. And DOES
1 through 20, inclusive Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00482-NONE-EPG
(E.D. Cal., April 2, 2020) arises from the systemic failure by
Defendants to pay California non-exempt employees, including
Plaintiff, in conformance with Federal and California law.

The core violations Plaintiff alleges against the Defendants are:
(1) violation of the FLSA for failure to pay all overtime wages;
(2) failure to pay minimum wages; (3) failure to pay overtime wages
in conformance with California law; (4) knowing and intentional
failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions;
(5) failure to provide meal periods or pay additional wages in lieu
thereof; (6) failure to pay all wages owed upon termination or
resignation; (7) violation of Unfair Competition law and (8)
enforcement of the California labor code Private Attorney General
Act.

Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a medical assistant
through approximately July 2019.

Sutter Valley Medical Foundation is a California-based healthcare
services provider. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
            Hector R. Martinez, Esq.
            Juan Gamboa, Esq.
            MALLISON & MARTINEZ
            1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
            Oakland, CA 94612-3547
            Telephone: (510) 832-9999
            Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
            Email: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com
                   HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com
                   JGamboa@TheMMLawFirm.com

SUTTER VALLEY: Fails to Duly Pay Non-Exempt Workers, Tinnin Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTEENA TINNIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SUTTER VALLEY MEDICAL FOUNDATION and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, Case No. 1:20-cv-00482-NONE-EPG (E.D. Cal., April 2,
2020), arises from the Defendants' alleged systemic failure to pay
California non-exempt employees, including the Plaintiff, in
conformance with federal and California law.

The core violations the Plaintiff alleges against the Defendants
are violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and California Labor
Code Private Attorney General Act for failure to pay all overtime
wages and minimum wages.

Sutter provides healthcare services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
          Hector R. Martinez, Esq.
          Juan Gamboa, Esq.
          MALLISON & MARTINEZ
          1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
          Oakland, CA 94612-3547
          Telephone: (510) 832-9999
          Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
          E-mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com
                  HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com
                  JGamboa@TheMMLawFirm.com


TANDEM DIABETES: Lacks Patient Data Security Measures, Lopez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TANDEM DIABETES CARE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:20-cv-00723-GPC-BGS (S.D. Cal., April 16, 2020) arises after
Defendant learned it was experiencing a data breach on January 17,
2020, resulting in the exposure and exfiltration of sensitive
personal and medical information of 140,781 patients, including the
Plaintiff.

The Affected Patients' data exposed by Defendant and exfiltrated in
the Data Breach included the types of information that federal and
state law requires companies to take security measures to protect:
names, contact information, Social Security numbers, information
related to the use of Defendant's products or services, and
clinical data regarding diabetes therapy.

The Defendant failed to take security precautions necessary to
protect Affected Patients' data even though Defendant was storing
sensitive Personal and Medical Information that it knew was
valuable to criminals, and vulnerable to exfiltration. Because
Defendant failed to take necessary security precautions, Affected
Patients' Personal and Medical Information was accessed and
exfiltrated.

Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. is an American medical device company
that designs, develops and commercializes products for people with
diabetes who use insulin headquartered in San Diego,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Tina Wolfson, Esq.
            Bradley K. King, Esq.
            AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
            10728 Lindbrook Drive
            Los Angeles, CA 90024
            Telephone: (310) 474-9111
            Facsimile: (310) 474-8585

                    – and –
      
            Cornelius P. Dukelow, Esq.
            ABINGTON COLE + ELLERY
            320 South Boston Avenue, Suite 1130
            Tulsa, OK 74103
            Telephone & Facsimile: (918) 588-3400
            Email: cdukelow@abingtonlaw.com

TD AMERITRADE: Ervin Suit Removed to Western District of Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Patrick Ervin, on behalf of
himself and other members of the putative class v. TD Ameritrade,
Inc., TD Ameritrade Clearing, Inc., and TD Ameritrade Holdings
Corp., Case No. 2016-CV06369 (Filed Feb. 19, 2020), was removed
from the Missouri Circuit Court for Jackson County to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri on April 4,
2020.

The Western District of Missouri Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-00266-FJG to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff seeks damages due to differences in tax treatment
from class members' receipt of "substitute payments," leading to
loss of up to 17% of the income on their investments. Additionally,
the Plaintiff alleges that TD Ameritrade failed to pay the
"gross-up" payment which consists of the difference between the
capital gains tax rate and the income tax rate: almost 27%.

TD Ameritrade is a broker that offers an electronic trading
platform for the trade of financial assets including common stocks,
preferred stocks, futures contracts, exchange-traded funds,
options, cryptocurrency, mutual funds, and fixed income
investments.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jason M. Hans, Esq.
          GERMAN MAY PC
          1201 Walnut Street, 20th Floor
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 460-3307
          Facsimile: (816) 471-2221
          E-mail: jasonh@germanmay.com

               - and -

          Stephen G. Topetzes, Esq.
          Theodore L. Kornobis, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          1601 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 778-9000
          Facsimile: (202) 778-9100
          E-mail: stephen.topetzes@klgates.com
                  ted.kornobis@klgates.com


TIVA HEALTHCARE: Verbal Sues in S.D. Florida Over Contract Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tiva Healthcare,
Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Kelly Dawn Verbal,
individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated
v. Tiva Healthcare, Inc., a Florida Corporation; Envision Physician
Services, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and Sheridan
Healthcare, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
0:20-cv-60695-RKA (S.D. Fla., April 3, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Roy K. Altman.

The lawsuit arises from contract-related disputes/issues.

Tiva provides healthcare recruitment services. Envision is a
multispecialty provider group and healthcare management team.
Sheridan operates as a physician practice management company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          Angeli Murthy, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Avenue, #1600
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 418-2069
          E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
                  amurthy@forthepeople.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Manufactures Defective Fuel Pumps, Chalal Says
------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER CHALAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, TOYOTA MOTOR
NORTH AMERICA, INC., TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, USA, INC., and TOYOTA
MOTOR ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 2:20-cv-01867-CDJ (E.D. Pa., April 10, 2020) is a civil
class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of consumers who
purchased Toyota and Lexus vehicles equipped with certain defective
low-pressure fuel pumps.

The Defendant has long known of the Fuel Pump Defect in the Class
Vehicles, despite marketing Class Vehicles as safe and dependable.
Toyota admitted in the Defect Information Report accompanying the
Recall Report that it received thousands of warranty requests
related to the Fuel Pump Defect in Class Vehicles.

According to the complaint, the Fuel Pump Defect creates a
dangerous condition that gives rise to a clear, substantial, and
unreasonable danger of death or personal injury to Plaintiff and
others on the road.

The Plaintiff leased her Class Vehicle with the Fuel Pump Defect as
part of a transaction in which Toyota did not disclose material
facts related to the automobile's essential purpose -- safe
transportation.  The Plaintiff did not receive the benefit of her
bargain. She leased a vehicle that is of a lesser standard, grade,
and quality than represented, and she did not receive a vehicle
that met ordinary and reasonable consumer expectations regarding
safe and reliable.

Toyota Motor Corporation is a Japanese multinational automotive
manufacturer headquartered in Toyota, Aichi, Japan.

Toyota Motor North America, Inc. is a holding company of sales,
manufacturing, engineering, and research and development
subsidiaries of TMC located in the United States.

Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. is the United States sales and
marketing division for TMC, which oversees sales and other
operations across the United States.

Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. is
responsible for Toyota's engineering design and development, R&D
and manufacturing activities in the U.S., Mexico and Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            John A. Macoretta, Esq.
            Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
            Diana J. Zinser, Esq.
            SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
            2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
            Philadelphia, PA 19103
            Telephone: (215) 496-0300
            Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
            Email: jmacoretta@srkattorneys.com
                   jspector@srkattorneys.com
                   dzinser@srkattorneys.com

                        – and –

            Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
            Kimberly A. Justice, Esq.
            FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN, LLC
            923 Fayette Street
            Conshohocken, PA 19428
            Telephone: (610) 234-6487
            Facsimile: (224) 632-4521
            Email: jjagher@fklmlaw.com
                   kjustice@fklmlaw.com

                        – and –

            Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
            Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq.
            FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN, LLC
            2201 Waukegan Road, #130
            Bannockburn, IL 60015
            Telephone: (224) 632-4500
            Facsimile: (224) 632-4521
            Email: dmillen@fklmlaw.com
                   mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com

TRADEWEB MARKETS: Bid to Nix Treasuries Securities Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tradeweb Markets Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motions to dismiss
the class action suit entitled,  In re Treasuries Securities
Auction Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:15-md-2673, is still pending.

In December 2015, more than 40 substantially similar putative class
action complaints filed by individual investors, pension funds,
retirement funds, insurance companies, municipalities, hedge funds
and banks were consolidated in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York under the caption In re
Treasuries Securities Auction Antitrust Litigation, No.
1:15-md-2673 (S.D.N.Y.) (PGG).

In November 2017, the plaintiffs in these consolidated actions
filed a consolidated amended complaint in which they allege (a) an
"Auction Conspiracy" among primary dealers of United States
Treasury securities in auctions for Treasury securities and in the
"when-issued" and secondary markets for such securities and other
derivative financial products; and (b) a "Boycott Conspiracy" among
certain primary dealers and Tradeweb Markets LLC, Tradeweb IDB
Markets, Inc. and Dealerweb Inc. (collectively, the "Tradeweb
Parties").

The plaintiffs purport to represent two putative classes: an
"Auction Class" consisting of all persons who purchased Treasuries
in an auction, transacted in Treasuries with a dealer defendant or
through an exchange from January 1, 2007 through June 8, 2015, and
a "Boycott Class" consisting of all persons who transacted in
Treasury securities in the secondary market with a dealer defendant
from November 15, 2013 to the present.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the Tradeweb
Parties participated in the alleged "Boycott Conspiracy" through
which certain primary dealers are alleged to have boycotted trading
platforms permitting "all-to-all" trading of Treasury securities.

The complaint asserts claims against the Tradeweb Parties under
Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and for unjust enrichment
under state law and seeks to permanently enjoin the Tradeweb
Parties and the dealer defendants from maintaining the alleged
"Boycott Conspiracy" and an award of treble damages, costs and
expenses.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss in February 2018, including a
separate motion to dismiss filed by the Tradeweb Parties. The
motions to dismiss are pending.

Tradeweb Markets said, "We believe that we have meritorious
defenses to the claims set forth in the complaint and intend to
continue to vigorously defend our position."

Tradeweb Markets Inc. is a leader in building and operating
electronic marketplaces for our global network of clients across
the financial ecosystem. The company's network is comprised of
clients across the institutional, wholesale and retail client
sectors, including many of the largest global asset managers, hedge
funds, insurance companies, central banks, banks and dealers,
proprietary trading firms and retail brokerage and financial
advisory firms, as well as regional dealers. The company is based
in New York, New York.


TRON FOUNDATION: Clifford and Chase Sue Over TRX Tokens
-------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER CLIFFORD and CHASE WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated,   Plaintiffs, v. TRON FOUNDATION,
JUSTIN SUN, and ZHIQIANG (LUCIEN) CHEN, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-02804 (S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2020) is an action brought by the
Plaintiffs to recover the consideration paid for the TRX tokens as
promoted, offered, and sold by the Defendants as TRON's securities,
in violation of the Securities Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants fail to file
registration statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) for their "security tokens" to be properly
classified as securities under federal and state law.

TRON then sold the TRX tokens to investors through an "initial coin
offering" (ICO). TRON kept 35% of the TRX tokens for itself and
solicited online exchanges of digital assets to list TRX tokens on
their platforms and encourage purchases by a wide universe of
investors. Although TRX was a security, TRON did not register it as
a security with the SEC and did not qualify for an exemption from
registration requirements.

At the time of the TRX ICO, TRON took advantage of the market's
lack of understanding and awareness concerning how cryptocurrencies
worked. In the face of promises that TRX would be "similar to
Bitcoin," and "better than" Ethereum, and considering the new
technology at issue and TRON's other statements, many investors
including the Plaintiffs were understandably unaware that TRX
tokens had fundamentally different features than other
cryptocurrencies, which the SEC has determined are not securities.

TRON Foundation is a blockchain-focused software development
Company formed under the laws of Singapore with offices in
California, Singapore, and Beijing, China. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

            Philippe Z. Selendy, Esq.
            Jordan A. Goldstein, Esq.
            Michelle Foxman, Esq.
            Mitchell Nobel, Esq.
            SELENDY & GAY, PLLC
            1290 Sixth Avenue, 17th Floor
            New York, NY 10104
            Email: pselendy@selendygay.com
                   jgoldstein@selendygay.com
                   mfoxman@selendygay.com
                   mnobel@selendygay.com

                          – and –

            Kyle W. Roche, Esq.
            Edward Normand, Esq.
            Velvel (Devin) Freedman, Esq.
            Jordana L. Haviv, Esq.
            ROCHE CYRULNIK FREEDMAN LLP
            99 Park Avenue, 19th Floor
            New York, NY 10016
            Email: kyle@rcfllp.com
                   tnormand@rcfllp.com
                   vel@rcfllp.com
                   jhaviv@rcfllp.com

TRUIST FINANCIAL: Bickerstaff Suit Against SunTrust Bank Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Truist Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that SunTrust Bank
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Bickerstaff v.
SunTrust Bank.

During November 2019, SunTrust Bank entered into a consent order
with the FRB, relating to certain identified legacy compliance
issues and validation of certain prior remediation actions of
SunTrust regarding such identified issues. Truist has committed to
cause Truist Bank, as successor to SunTrust Bank, to comply with
the obligations in the order.

This class action case was filed in the Fulton County State Court
on July 12, 2010, and an amended complaint was filed on August 9,
2010. Plaintiff asserts that all overdraft fees charged to his
account which related to debit card and ATM transactions are
actually interest charges and therefore subject to the usury laws
of Georgia. Plaintiff has brought claims for violations of civil
and criminal usury laws, conversion, and money had and received.

On October 6, 2017, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for
class certification and defined the class as "Every Georgia citizen
who had or has one or more accounts with SunTrust Bank and who,
from July 12, 2006, to October 6, 2017 (i) had at least one
overdraft of $500.00 or less resulting from an ATM or debit card
transaction (the "Transaction"); (ii) paid any Overdraft Fees as a
result of the Transaction; and (iii) did not receive a refund of
those Fees."

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and is
preparing for discovery to begin in the case.

Truist Financial Corporation is a banking organization
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Truist conducts its
business operations primarily through its bank subsidiary, Truist
Bank, and other nonbank subsidiaries.


TUFIN SOFTWARE: Allen Sues Over 24% Drop in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM J. ALLEN, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TUFIN SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,
REUVEN KITOV, JACK WAKILEH, REUVEN HARRISON, OHAD FINKELSTEIN,
EDOUARD CUKIERMAN, YAIR SHAMIR, RONNI ZEHAVI, YUVAL SHACHAR, J.P.
MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., JEFFERIES LLC,
OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC., ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO. INCORPORATED, PIPER
JAFFRAY & CO., STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED, WILLIAM
BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C., and D.A. DAVIDSON & CO., Defendants, Case
No. 2:20-cv-03188 (C.D. Cal., April 6, 2020) is a securities class
action on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
Tufin's securities pursuant and/or traceable to the registration
statement and related prospectus issued in connection with Tufin's
April 2019 initial public offering, seeking to recover compensable
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Act of
1933.

On March 6, 2019, Tufin filed a registration statement on Form F-1
with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which, after amendments,
was declared effective on April 10, 2019.

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, the Offering Documents
reported revenues from the Americas of $48.27 million, comprising
56.8% of Tufin's total revenues, compared to $35.02 million, or
54.3% of total revenues, for December 31, 2017, showing superior
revenue generation from the Americas relative to other geographic
segments, and also substantial growth in that geographic segment.
The Offering Documents also contained merely generic, boilerplate
representations regarding seasonality in Tufin's sales.

According to the complaint, the statements were materially false
and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to
disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's
business, operational and financial results, which were known to
Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Tufin's customer relationships and growth
metrics were overstated, particularly with respect to North
America; (2) Tufin's business was deteriorating, primarily in North
America; (3) as a result, Tufin's representations regarding its
sustainable financial prospects were overly optimistic; and (4) as
a result, the Offering Documents were materially false and/or
misleading and failed to state information required to be stated
therein.

On January 9, 2020, less than a year after the IPO, Tufin announced
preliminary unaudited revenue and non-GAAP operating loss estimates
for its fourth fiscal quarter of 2019. Tufin announced that it
expected to report total revenue in the range of $29.5 million to
$30.1 million, compared to its previous guidance of total revenue
in the range of $34.0 million to $38.0 million, and that Tufin now
anticipated non-GAAP operating loss in the range of $1.1 million to
$2.6 million, compared to the Company's previous guidance of
non-GAAP operating profit in the range of $0.0 million to $3.0
million. According to Defendant Kitov, the primary reason for the
revenue shortfall was the inability to close a number of
transactions, primarily in North America, that they anticipated
would close but did not close by the end of the quarter.

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

Tufin Software Technologies develops, markets, and sells
software-based solutions primarily in the United States, Europe,
and Asia. It offers SecureTrack, SecureChange, and SecureApp
products that enable enterprises to visualize, define, and enforce
their security policy across heterogeneous networks, on premise and
in the cloud. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Caffey Suit Over Robocalls
---------------------------------------------------
The case, VICTORIA CAFFEY, on behalf of herself, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. dba UBER
EATS, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-02453 (N.D. Cal., April 10, 2020)
seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant
Uber Technologies, Inc. in negligently, and/or willfully contacting
Plaintiff through robocalls on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby
invading Plaintiff's privacy.

According to the complaint, the constant and continuing,
unsolicited robocalls via automatic telephone dialing system
pertain to an Uber Eats account which does not belong to Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff has never used an Uber vehicle or the Uber Eats
service and is also not a restaurant owner and does not have an
Uber Eats account.

Plaintiff has contacted her phone carrier to assist in stopping the
harassing phone calls as she is a senior and must have her phone on
her in case of an emergency.  However, Plaintiff's phone carrier
has advised that her only option is to change her number.

Plaintiff has never provided Defendant with her phone number or
consented to phone calls from Defendant on her mobile telephone.

Uber Technologies, Inc., dba Uber Eats, is an American
multinational ride-hailing company offering services that include
peer-to-peer ridesharing, ride service hailing, food delivery, and
a micromobility system with electric bikes and scooters.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
            Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
            Kas L. Gallucci, Esq.
            LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
            651 Arroyo Drive
            San Diego, CA 92103
            Telephone: (619) 696-9006
            Facsimile: (619) 564-6665

UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH: Underpays Benefit Claims, Patients Claim
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, LD, DB, BW, RH, and CJ on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. UNITED BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH, a California Corporation, and VIANT, INC., a Nevada
corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-02254 (N.D. Cal., April 2, 2020) is
an action brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all
those similarly situated behavioral health patients whose claims
for benefits have been systematically underpaid by the Defendants
and who owe money or have paid out-of-pocket all or a portion of
the difference between what their insurance should have covered and
what it actually paid.

The Plaintiffs sought treatment for behavioral health disorders,
including for mental health and substance use disorders, from
licensed, accredited, treatment providers. Plaintiffs were all
members of active health insurance policies offering out of network
benefits that United either sold and underwrote or administered on
behalf of employers. United charges higher premiums for these plans
that give members the freedom to choose their own healthcare
providers outside of United's "network." For each of the
Plaintiffs, United broke this promise, punishing them for seeing
out-of-network providers and saddling their insureds with enormous
balance bills all while reaping large profits from these supposedly
premier, gold-plated insurance plans.

United and Viant colluded to illegally withhold and systematically
underpay out-of-network benefits. They accomplished this by using a
dishonest and self-serving reimbursement scheme. Specifically,
United, without any Plaintiffs' knowledge or authority, contracted
with Viant to "negotiate" the amounts that United would ultimately
pay for Plaintiffs' out-of-network claims. United contracted with
Viant to create an illegal enterprise to underpay out-of-network
benefits, shield United from the providers and insureds they
cheated, and create impenetrable administrative barriers to
circumvent rights protected by federal laws.

United Behavioral Health is a California-based health insurance
provider.

Viant Inc. is an American advertising technology company. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

            Matthew M. Lavin, Esq.
            Wendy A. Mitchell, Esq.
            NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, PLLC
            5757 W. Century Boulevard, Suite 680
            Los Angeles, CA 90045
            Telephone: (212) 397-1000
            Facsimile: (646) 843-7603

UNITED STATES: Faces Gabriela Immigration Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States
Department of Homeland Security, et al. The case is captioned as
Yoselin Gabriela, Reina Moran, Francisca Gonzalez Cuatro, and
Miguel Angel Orellana, Individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals v. United States Department of Homeland
Security; Chad F. Wolf, Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Matthew T. Albence, Deputy Director and Senior
Official Performing the Duties of the Director, U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement; David A Marin, Director of the Los Angeles
Field Office, Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement; Thomas P. Giles, Deputy Field Office of
Detention and Removal Operations for District 23; James Janecka,
Warden, Adelanto Detention Center ICE Processing Center; and Does
1-5, Case No. 5:20-cv-00696-TJH-JDE (C.D. Cal., April 4, 2020)

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr.

The lawsuit relates to alien detainee matters.

The United States Department of Homeland Security is a cabinet
department of the U.S. federal government with responsibilities in
public security, roughly comparable to the interior or home
ministries of other countries.[BN]

The Petitioners are represented by:

          Kit Wai Cheung, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROSANA WAI CHEUNG
          617 South Olive Street, Suite 710
          Los Angeles, CA
          Telephone: (213) 891-1314
          Facsimile: (213) 891-1318
          E-mail: rosanacheung@lawyer.com

               - and -

          Larry R. Glazer, Esq.
          Nicolette Glazer, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LARRY R. GLAZER
          1875 Century Park East, No. 700
          Century City, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 407-5353
          Facsimile: (310) 388-3833
          E-mail: larry@glazerandglazer.com
                  nicolette@glazerandglazer.com

The Respondents are represented by:

          ASSISTANT 2241-194 US ATTORNEY SA-CV
          AUSA-OFFICE OF US ATTORNEY
          CRIMINAL DIVISION-US COURTHOUSE
          411 West Fourth Street, Suite 8000
          Santa Ana, CA 92701-4599
          Telephone: (714) 338-3500
          E-mail: USACAC.Habeas@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          OIL-DCS TRIAL ATTORNEY
          OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION
          PO Box 868 Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 353-8806
          E-mail: oil-dcs.cacd@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Courtney Elizabeth Moran, Esq.
          Katelyn Masetta-Alvarez, Esq.
          US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          PO Box 868 Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 514-4587
          Facsimile: (202) 305-7000
          E-mail: courtney.e.moran@usdoj.gov
                  katelyn.masetta.alvarez@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Joanne I. Osinoff, Esq.
          AUSA-OFFICE OF US ATTORNEY
          300 North Los Angeles Street Suite 7516
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: (213) 894-6880
          Facsimile: (213) 894-7819
          E-mail: USACAC.Civil@usdoj.gov


UPS SUPPLY: Aviles Suit Removed to Central District of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIAN AVILES, an individual,
on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. UPS SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS, INC., a Corporation; and
Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No. RIC2000727 (Filed Feb. 18,
2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Riverside to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on April 2, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:20-cv-00669 to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the California
Labor Code by failing to pay overtime compensation and minimum
wages, and to provide required meal periods and rest periods. The
Plaintiff contends that he has been employed by the Defendants in
California as a non-exempt employee.

UPS Supply provides supply chain services. The Company offers
transportation, freight, logistics, distribution, consulting, and
customs brokerage services. UPS also offers consulting services for
the automotive, industrial manufacturing, and healthcare industries
worldwide.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Elizabeth A. Brown, Esq.
          Jennifer Svanfeldt, Esq.
          Carlos I. Martinez-Garcia, Esq.
          GBG LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 3330
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 358-2810
          Facsimile: (213) 995-6382
          E-mail: lisabrown@gbgllp.com
                  jensvanfeldt@gbgllp.com
                  carlosmartinez@gbgllp.com


URS MIDWEST: Clemons Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ANDRE CLEMONS, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. URS MIDWEST, INC.,
UNITED ROAD SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case
No. RG20054053 (Filed Feb. 11, 2020), 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
April 3, 2020.

The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-02274 to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts claims against Defendants for failure to
reimburse business expenses; failure to pay minimum wages; failure
to provide off-duty meal periods; and failure to authorize and
permit rest periods in violation of the California Labor Code.

URS was founded in 1998. The Company's line of business includes
the arranging of transportation of freight and cargo. United Road
provides vehicle transportation logistics solutions.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher C. McNatt, Jr., Esq.
          Adam C. Smedstad, Esq.
          Alaina C. Hawley, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT HANSON & FEARY, LLP
          2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 795-4700
          Facsimile: (626) 795-4790
          E-mail: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com
                  asmedstad@scopelitis.com
                  ahawley@scopelitis.com


US COATING SPECIALISTS: Devito Seeks Proper Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW DEVITO, and PRECISE ROOF COATING, LLC., Plaintiffs, vs. US
COATING SPECIALISTS, LLC and JEFFREY MILLER, and ANTHONY FLETT,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-14112-RLR (S.D. Fla., April 13, 2020)
alleges that the Defendants fail to pay Plaintiff at the statutory
rate of time and one half for those hours that he worked in excess
of 40 hours provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a construction
worker. He was a non-exempt employee as defined by the FLSA, and
therefore should have been compensated at the statutory rate of
time and one-half for all hours worked in excess of the maximum
hours allowed by the FLSA.

US Coating Specialists, LLC is a commercial roofing company that
offers SPF & Silicone Roof Replacement, Roof Repair & Maintenance
throughout Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Stuart M. Address, Esq.
            Law Offices of Stuart M. Address, P.A.
            611 S.W. Federal Highway, Suite A
            Stuart, FL 34994
            Telephone: (772) 781-8003
            Facsimile: (772) 781-8005
            Email: stuart@stuartaddresslaw.com

US XPRESS: Bid to Dismiss Tennessee Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the descendants'
motion to dismiss the amended federal complaint pending before the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee remains
pending.

Between November 2018 and April 2019, eight substantially similar
putative securities class action complaints were filed against the
company and certain other defendants: five in the Circuit Court of
Hamilton County, Tennessee ("Tennessee State Court Cases"), two in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
("Federal Court Cases"), and one in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York ("New York State Court Case").

Two of the Tennessee State Court Cases and one of the Federal Court
Cases have been voluntarily dismissed. All of these matters are in
preliminary stages of litigation, and discovery has not yet begun.


U.S. Xpress said, "We are currently not able to predict the
probable outcome or to reasonably estimate a range of potential
losses, if any."

On November 21, 2018, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee against the
company, five of its officers or directors, and the seven
underwriters who participated in our June 2018 initial public
offering ("IPO"), alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.

The class action lawsuit is based on allegations that the Company
made false and/or misleading statements in the registration
statement and prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the IPO. The lawsuit is purportedly
brought on behalf of a putative class of all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's Class A common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO, and seeks, among other
things, compensatory damages, costs and expenses (including
attorneys' fees) on behalf of the putative class.

On January 23, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County,
Tennessee, by a different plaintiff alleging claims under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same defendants as in
the action commenced on November 21, 2018. On March 7, 2019, this
case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.

On January 30, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County,
Tennessee, by a different plaintiff alleging claims under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same defendants as in
the action commenced on November 21, 2018, and also alleging a
claim under Section 12 of the Securities Act.

On February 5, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County,
Tennessee, by a different plaintiff alleging claims under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same defendants as in
the action commenced on November 21, 2018, and also alleging a
claim under Section 12 of the Securities Act.

On February 6, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County,
Tennessee, by different plaintiffs alleging claims under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same defendants as in
the action commenced on November 21, 2018. On March 19, 2019, this
case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.

On March 8, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee by a different plaintiff alleging claims
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same
defendants as in the action commenced on November 21, 2018. On May
9, 2019, this case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.

On March 14, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York, by a different plaintiff alleging claims under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same
defendants as in the action commenced on November 21, 2018. The
parties have stipulated to extend the time for defendants to
respond to the complaint in this matter pending resolution of the
motions to dismiss filed (or to be filed) in the remaining of the
Tennessee State Court Cases and the Federal Court Cases.

On April 2, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, by a different plaintiff alleging claims
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the company
and the same five of its officers and directors as in the action
commenced on November 21, 2018. Unlike the previously filed
complaints, this complaint did not name as defendants any of the
seven underwriters who participated in our IPO; however, an amended
complaint was filed on October 8, 2019 ("Amended Federal
Complaint") which added all underwriters who participated in the
IPO as defendants.

The three remaining Tennessee State Court Cases have been
consolidated, and discovery is currently stayed pending a decision
on a motion to dismiss filed by the Company and the other
defendants. On July 18, 2019, the court presiding over the
remaining of the Federal Court Cases issued an order appointing
lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Pursuant to a stipulation entered
in that matter, the appointed lead plaintiff filed the Amended
Federal Complaint on October 8, 2019.

The Amended Federal Complaint is made on behalf of a putative class
that consists of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Class A common stock of USX between June 14, 2018 and November
1, 2018 and who were allegedly damaged thereby.

In addition, the Amended Federal Complaint alleges additional
violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, against the Company, its Chief Executive Office and
its Chief Financial Officer.

On December 23, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Federal Complaint in its entirety for failure to allege
facts sufficient to state a claim under either the Securities Act
or the Exchange Act.

The complaints in all the actions listed above allege that the
Company made false and/or misleading statements in the registration
statement and prospectus filed with the SEC in connection with the
IPO, and that, as a result of such alleged statements, the
plaintiffs and the members of the putative classes suffered
damages.

The Amended Federal Complaint additionally alleges that the
Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial
Officer made false and/or misleading statements and/or material
omissions in press releases, earnings calls, investor conferences,
television interviews, and filings made with the SEC subsequent to
the IPO.

U.S. Xpress said, "We believe the allegations made in the
complaints are without merit and intend to defend ourselves
vigorously in these matters."

U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. operates as an asset-based truckload
carrier providing services primarily in the United States. It
operates in two segments, Truckload and Brokerage. The company was
founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Chattanooga, Tennessee.


US XPRESS: Discovery Ongoing in California Wage & Hour Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the California
Wage and Hour Class Action, is currently in discovery, and a jury
trial is set to begin on September 1, 2020.

On December 23, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company and its subsidiary U.S. Xpress, Inc. in the Superior Court
of California, County of San Bernardino.

The case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California. The putative class includes current and
former truck drivers employed by the company who worked or work in
California after the completion of their training while residing in
California since December 23, 2011 to present.

The case alleges that class members were not paid for off-the-clock
work, were not provided duty free meal or break times, and were not
paid premium pay in their absence, were not paid minimum wage for
all hours worked, were not provided accurate and complete time and
pay records and were not paid all accrued wages at the end of their
employment, all in violation of California law.

The class seeks a judgment for compensatory damages and penalties,
injunctive relief, attorney fees and costs and pre- and
post-judgment interest.

On May 2, 2019, the court dismissed on grounds of preemption the
claims alleging failure to provide duty free meal and rest breaks
or to pay premium pay for failure to provide such breaks under
California law.

The parties have also filed cross-motions for summary judgment on
the remaining claims, and the Company has filed a motion to
decertify the class.

The parties are completing supplemental briefing on those motions,
and the court has scheduled oral argument on the motions.

The matter is currently in discovery, and a jury trial has set to
begin on September 1, 2020.

U.S. Xpress said, "We are currently not able to predict the
probable outcome or to reasonably estimate a range of potential
losses, if any. We intend to vigorously defend the merits of these
claims."

U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. operates as an asset-based truckload
carrier providing services primarily in the United States. It
operates in two segments, Truckload and Brokerage. The company was
founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Chattanooga, Tennessee.


US XPRESS: Independent Contractor Class Suit Stayed
---------------------------------------------------
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a trial court has
stayed the Independent Contractor Class Suit in Tennessee.

On March 26, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
against the company and its subsidiaries U.S. Xpress, Inc. and U.S.
Xpress Leasing, Inc.

The putative class includes all individuals who performed work for
U.S. Xpress, Inc. or U.S. Xpress Leasing, Inc. as lease drivers
from March 26, 2016 to present. The complaint alleges that
independent contractors are improperly designated as such and
should be designated as employees and thus subject to the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The complaint further alleges that U.S. Xpress, Inc.'s pay
practices with regard to the putative class members violated the
minimum wage provisions of the FLSA for the period from March 26,
2016 to present.

The complaint further alleges that we violated the requirements of
the Truth in Leasing Act with regard to the independent contractor
agreements and lease purchase agreements the company entered into
with the putative class members. The complaint further alleges that
the company failed to comply with the terms of the independent
contractor agreements and lease purchase agreements entered into
with the putative class members, that the company violated the
provisions of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act in advertising,
describing and marketing the lease purchase program to the putative
class members, and that the company was unjustly enriched as a
result of the foregoing allegations.

The defendants filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration on October 18,
2019.

On January 17, 2020, the court granted defendants' motion, in part,
compelling arbitration on all of plaintiff’s claims and denying
plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a collective
action.

The court further stayed the matter pending arbitration, rather
than dismissing it entirely.

U.S. Xpress said, "There has been no discovery in this matter, and
we are currently not able to predict the probable outcome or to
reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any. We believe
the allegations made in the complaint are without merit and intend
to defend ourselves vigorously against the complaints relating to
such actions."

U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. operates as an asset-based truckload
carrier providing services primarily in the United States. It
operates in two segments, Truckload and Brokerage. The company was
founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Chattanooga, Tennessee.


VANESSA WOODARD: Coleman Suit Seeks Minimum Wages for Servers
-------------------------------------------------------------
JULIANNA BARNES and ALEXANDRA COLEMAN, Each Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. VANESSA WOODARD, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00230-ECM-SRW (M.D. Ala., April 2, 2020), seeks damages
as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiffs and
other servers minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Ms. Barnes was employed as a server from December 2019 to March
2020. Ms. Coleman was employed as a server from December 2017 to
September of 2019. The Plaintiffs and other servers worked as
hourly, non-exempt employees at the Defendant's restaurant.

The Defendant owns and operates a restaurant called The Barrel
Room.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jon Goldfarb, Esq.
          WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB, LLC
          301 19TH STREET NORTH
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 314-0188
          Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
          E-mail: jcg@wiqginschilds.com

               - and -

          Courtney Lowery, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Dacsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: courtnevsanfordlawfirm.com
                  losh@sanfordlawfirm.com


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Graczyk Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as RODNEY GRACZYK, DON DAVIS and
JERRY RIDDLE, for themselves and all others similarly situated v.
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and PS SPLICING, LLC, Case No.
1:18-cv-06465 (Filed July 18, 2018), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia on April 2, 2020.

The District of Columbia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-00889 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Amy Berman Jackson.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants, acting in a joint
venture or as joint employers, violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938, the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act and the
District of Columbia Wage Payment and Collection Act, by
misclassifying replacement wireline workers as independent
contractors and failing to pay them required overtime wages.

Verizon is an American multinational telecommunications
conglomerate and a corporate component of the Dow Jones Industrial
Average. PS Splicing is a telecommunications company based in
Oxford, North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
          Andrew C. White, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298-3281
          E-mail: jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com
                  awhite@fbfglaw.com

               - and -

          David J. Cohen, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Andrew Ficzko, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          604 Spruce Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: 215-873-4836
          Facsimile: 312-233-1560


VOXELMAPS INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Luz Labor Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HOLLY LA LUZ, an individual and on behalf of all others sumilarly
situated v. VOXELMAPS, INC., TECH MAHINDRA (AMERICAS), INC., a New
Jersey corporation; PETER ATALLA, an individual; and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., April 2,
2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the California Labor
Code by failing to pay overtime wages and to provide meal and rest
periods.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in the San Francisco
County Bay Area from April 8, 2019, to mid-June 2019 as a data and
image collector.

VoxelMaps is a navigation and mapping company. Tech Mahindra
provides information technology services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick R. Kitchin, Esq.
          KITCHIN LEGAL, APC
          Sutter Street, Suite 316
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 677-9058
          E-mail: prk@kitchinlegal.com


WALLACE RUSH: Can't Compel Thomas' Appearance in La. for Deposition
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DE'MARCUS THOMAS, v. WALLACE, RUSH, SCHMIDT, INC,
Civil Action No. 16-572-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La.), Magistrate Judge
Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana denied the Defendants' Motion to Compel
Appearance of Plaintiff for Deposition in Louisiana.

Thomas initially brought te lawsuit as a class action under Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and as a collective action
under the Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  The district judge
dismissed the Plaintiff's class action and collective action
claims, leaving only individual claims under the FLSA, the
Louisiana Wage Payment Act, and the Louisiana Civil Code.

On Nov. 26, 2019, the parties agreed that the Plaintiff's
deposition would take place after the close of discovery on Nov.
29, 2019.  The parties did not, however, agree upon a specific date
for the deposition, the location of the deposition, or whether the
deposition would be taken by remote means.  After the close of
discovery, counsel for the parties exchanged several emails
regarding the location of the deposition, the manner of the
deposition, and potential cost allocation.  The Defendants would
not agree to a deposition by telephone and offered to pay
two-thirds of the Plaintiff's airfare to travel to Louisiana for
his deposition.

Following these email exchanges, the Defendants filed the instant
motion, which seeks an order compelling the Plaintiff to travel to
Louisiana for his deposition.  The Defendants argue that the
Plaintiff must make himself available for a deposition in Louisiana
because he brought the lawsuit in the State.  The Plaintiff argues
that he would face financial hardship unless the Defendants paid
for his entire travel costs to Louisiana.

Having considered the record, Judge Bourgeois need not decide
whether the Plaintiff's specific economic situation alone
constitutes extreme hardship that merits a telephonic deposition.
He set an in-person settlement conference on March 31, 2020, and
was prepared to order the Plaintiff's deposition to take place
while he was in Louisiana for the settlement conference.  The
settlement conference has since been cancelled in light of the
current COVID-19 virus (coronavirus) outbreak in Louisiana.  After
the Governor of the State of Louisiana declared a State of
Emergency and the President of the United States declared a
National Emergency, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Louisiana began operating under "pandemic related curtailed
operations."  In addition, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention has recommended mitigation strategies including social
distancing and limited travel.

Given the Plaintiff's economic situation and the coronavirus
outbreak, Judge Bourgeois finds extreme hardship with respect to
travel for the Plaintiff's deposition.  Conducting the Plaintiff's
deposition by telephone or videoconference is appropriate under
these circumstances, rules the Court.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Bourgeois denied the Defendants'
Motion to Compel Appearance of Plaintiff for Deposition in
Louisiana.  The parties will bear their own costs.  The Plaintiff's
deposition must take place within 14 days of the date of the Order
by telephone or videoconference, or as otherwise agreed upon by the
parties.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 18, 2020 Order is available
at https://is.gd/6v2Pjq from Leagle.com.

De'Marcus Thomas, individually and on behalf of all simiarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Galen M. Hair --
hair@vhclaw.com -- Scott, Vicknair, Hair & Checki, LLC,
Christopher
A. Meeks -- chrism@ssv-law.com -- Christopher Meeks, David Paul
Vicknair -- david@ssv-law.com -- Scott, Vicknair, Hair & Checki,
LLC & Deandra Nicole De Napoli, Scott, Vicknair, Hair & Checki,
LLC.

Wallace, Rush, Schmidt, Inc., other WRS, Defendant, represented by
Joelle Flannigan Evans -- joelle@semmlaw.com -- Schonekas, Evans,
McGoey & McEachin, LLC, Andrea V. Timpa -- andrea@semmlaw.com --
Schonekas, Evans, McGoey & McEachin, LLC, Jesse L. Wimberly, III,
Wimberly Law Firm, Patrick S. McGoey -- patrick@semmlaw.com --
Schonekas, Evans, McGoey & McEachin, LLC & Phillip K. Wallace --
Pkwallace@aol -- Phillip K. Wallace, PLC.

D&A Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Servpro of Fort Collins,
Defendant, represented by Thomas J. McGoey, II --
tjmcgoey@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis N.O. & A'Dair Ragan Flynt --
aflynt@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis.

WENCO INT'L MINING: Fails to Pay OT to Technicians, Donaldson Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JACK DONALDSON, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v.
WENCO INTERNATIONAL MINING SYSTEMS, LTD, Case No. 1:20-cv-00358
(W.D. Tex., April 3, 2020) alleges the failure of the Defendant to
pay Plaintiffs and others similarly situated overtime as required
by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California law.

Donaldson is employed by the Defendant as a technician from
approximately April 2014 until the present.

Wenco International Mining Systems is a company that develops and
operates technology to assist mining companies. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
            Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
            Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
            JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
            11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
            Houston, TX 77046
            Telephone: 713-352-1100
            Facsimile: 713-352-3300
            Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                   adunlap@mybackwages.com
                   rschreiber@mybackwages.com

                           – and -  

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

WEST VIRGINIA: Court Dismisses Burch Suit for Lack of Standing
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DENNIS BURCH, Plaintiff, v. BENITA MURPHY, et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-03311 (S.D. W.Va.), Judge
Thomas E. Johnston of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, Charleston Division, dismissed the
Plaintiff's Complaint for lack of standing.

On June 16, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the action, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Section 1983, challenging the constitutionality of West
Virginia's parole review statute as applied retroactively to
inmates serving life with mercy sentences for crimes committed
prior to the statute's amendment on July 10, 1997.  Before the
amendment, the statute required the West Virginia Board of Parole
to at least once a year reconsider and review the case of every
prisoner so eligible.  The section was amended in 1997 to provide
that the Board may reconsider and review parole eligibility within
three years following the denial of parole of a person serving a
life sentence with the possibility of parole.  The amendment
affected the "setoff" date for those serving life with mercy
sentences, which the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
("WVSCA") has described as meaning the time until the next parole
review is given by a parole board when it denies parole to a
prisoner.  Despite the section's re-codification and subsequent
amendment, the pertinent language concerning the current three-year
setoff has not changed.

Because the challenged statute is applied to all prisoners serving
life with mercy sentences, the Plaintiff seeks to pursue his claim
on behalf of all West Virginia state prisoners similarly situated,
namely those who are serving life with mercy sentences for crimes
committed prior to the statute's July 10, 1997, amendment.  He
alleges that the retroactive application of the statute as to him
and the proposed class violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10 because the safeguards
mandated by Carper have never been met by the Board.  

As his requested relief, the Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the
retroactive application of the three-year setoff provision to the
class of life with mercy inmates, who committed their crimes before
July 10, 1997, violates the federal Ex Post Facto Clause.  He
further seeks an injunction requiring the Board to hold annual
parole hearings for such inmates.

Magistrate Judge Tinsley concluded that the Plaintiff has not shown
that the amended West Virginia statute will have the effect of
prolonging his punishment either on the face of the statute or as
applied to his specific circumstances, and, thus, the Plaintiff has
failed to state a plausible violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause
in Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution.
Further, the Magistrate Judge found that the Plaintiff has not
demonstrated that this matter is appropriate for class
certification under Rule 23.  Accordingly, the PF&R recommends that
the Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
Complaint or, in the alternative, grants the Defendants' motion to
strike class action allegations and proceed with only the
Plaintiff's individual claim.  The Plaintiff timely filed
objections.

The Plaintiff raises two objections to the second PF&R, arguing
that the Magistrate Court erred in finding that (1) the Complaint
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and (2)
the matter is inappropriate for class certification.  However, the
Court notes that the Plaintiff has been released on parole, which
calls into question the Court's subject matter jurisdiction.

Judge Johnston holds that the Plaintiff lacks an injury in fact,
let alone one that is "fairly traceable" to W. Va. Code Section
62-12-13(e).  While the Plaintiff was sentenced to life with mercy,
he has subsequently been released on parole after serving 23 years
in prison.  Thus, the Plaintiff cannot demonstrate an impending
injury, such that the amended West Virginia parole review statute
will create a significant risk of prolonging his punishment.
Further, past exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a
present case or controversy regarding injunctive relief if
unaccompanied by any continuing, present adverse effects.

Additionally, the possibility that another occasion might arise
when the Plaintiff is again arrested, charged, and sentenced to
life with mercy for violation of a criminal law and subjected to
the same parole statute is merely speculation and conjecture and
cannot support standing for declaratory or injunctive relief.
Consequently, even though the Plaintiff initially had standing to
file the suit, it is apparent that he no longer has standing to
pursue this claim.

Ordinarily, the Court would direct the Plaintiff to show cause why
the case should not be dismissed for lack of standing.  However,
Judge Johnston finds that such a process is needlessly belabored
here given that the Plaintiff's lack of standing is clear.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed for lack of
standing.

For the reasons, Judge Johnston dismissed the Plaintiff's Complaint
for lack of standing, overruled as moot the Plaintiff's objections,
declined to adopt the PF&R as moot, denied as moot the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss, and denied as moot the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification.  He directed the Clerk to remove the case from
the Docket, and to send a copy of the Order to the counsel of
record and any unrepresented party.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 18, 2020 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/dwYDSD from Leagle.com.

Dennis Burch, The Class of Similarly Situated Persons, Being Those
State of West Virginia Prisoners Serving a Sentence of Life with
the Possibility of Parole for a Crime Committed Before July 10,
1997, Plaintiff, pro se.

Benita Murphy, Chairperson, West Virginia Parole Board, Michael
Trupo, Carole B. Greene & Peggy Pope, Members, West Virginia Parole
Board, All in Their Official Capacities, Defendants, represented by
Keith D. Fisher, OFFICE OF THE WEST VIRGINIA ATTORNEY GENERAL.

WISCONSIN: Edwards et al. Allege Deprivation of Voting Rights
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHRYSTAL EDWARDS, TERRON EDWARDS, JOHN JACOBSON, CATHERINE COOPER,
KILEIGH HANNAH, KRISTOPHER ROWE, KATIE ROWE, CHARLES DENNERT, JEAN
ACKERMAN, WILLIAM LASKE, JAN GRAVELINE, TODD GRAVELINE, ANGELA
WEST, DOUGLAS WEST, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. ROBIN VOS, in his official capacity as Speaker of the Wisconsin
State Assembly; SCOTT FITZGERALD, in his official capacity as
Majority Leader of the Wisconsin State Senate; STATE OF WISCONSIN;
WISCONSIN STATE ASSEMBLY; WISCONSIN STATE SENATE; WISCONSIN
ELECTIONS COMMISSION; MARGE BOSTELMANN, JULIE M. GLANCEY, ANN S.
JACOBS, DEAN KNUDSON, ROBERT F. SPINDELL, JR., and MARK L. THOMSEN,
in their official capacities as members of the Wisconsin Elections
Commission, and MEAGAN WOLFE, in her official capacity as the
Administrator of the Wisconsin Elections Commission, Defendants,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00340-wmc (W.D. Wis., April 13, 2020) is an action
by Plaintiffs seeking relief for alleged violations of their right
to vote, protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
and by their Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the
laws; their rights under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act; and in
accordance with the voting provisions of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA).

Each of the representative Plaintiffs tells a story about how the
Legislative Defendants' insistence on conducting the Spring
Election during the COVID-19 pandemic left them disenfranchised and
unable to exercise their fundamental right to vote without
impairment of that choice. This lawsuit demonstrates that there is
no compelling justification, let alone rational basis, for the
Wisconsin Legislature to have refused to take action in
rescheduling the election despite full knowledge of the inherent
risks to the electorate of proceeding.

"Plaintiffs' right to vote was not merely impaired or burdened. It
was utterly destroyed," the lawsuit claims.

According to the complaint, Defendants' discriminatory conduct
toward the ADA Class has caused and continues to cause the
Plaintiffs to not be able to vote in the Spring Election. Such
harms were so egregious in the State that they entitle Plaintiffs
to injunctive relief allowing them to vote and for their votes to
be counted in the Spring Election and future elections.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

            Joseph S. Goode, Esq.
            Mark M. Leitner, Esq.
            John J. Laffey, Esq.
            Sarah E. Thomas, Pagels, Esq.
            Jessica L. Farley, Esq.
            LAFFEY, LEITNER & GOODE LLC
            325 E. Chicago Street Suite 200
            Milwaukee, WI  53202
            Telephone: (414) 312-7003
            Facsimile: (414) 755-7089
            Email: jgoode@llgmke.com
                   mleitner@llgmke.com
                   jlaffey@llgmke.com
                   stpagels@llgmke.com
                   jfarley@llgmke.com

                       – and –

            Jay A. Urban, Esq.
            URBAN & TAYLOR, S.C.
            Urban Taylor Law Building
            4701 N. Port Washington Road
            Milwaukee, WI 53212
            Telephone: (414) 906-1700
            Facsimile: (414) 704-7207
            Email: jurban@wisconsinjury.com

                       – and –

            Stacie H. Rosenzweig, Esq.
            HALLING & CAYO, S.C.
            320 East Buffalo Street Suite 700
            Milwaukee, WI 53202
            Telephone: (414) 238-0197
            Facsimile: (414) 271-3841
            Email: shr@hallingcayo.com

                       – and –

            Rebecca L. Salawdeh, Esq.
            SALAWDEH LAW OFFICE, LLC
            7119 W. North Avenue
            Wauwatosa, WI 53213
            Telephone: (414) 455-0117
            Facsimile: (414) 918-4517
            Email: rebecca@salawdehlaw.com

XP INC: Da Silva Marques Sues Over 25.5% Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------
EDERSON DA SILVIA MARQUES, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. XP INC., GUILHERME DIAS FERNANDES
BENCHIMOL, BRUNO CONSTANTINO ALEXANDRE DOS SANTOS, BERNARDO AMARAL
BOTELHO, CARLOS ALBERTO FERREIRA FILHO, GABRIEL KLAS DA ROCHA LEAL,
FABRICIO CUNHA DE ALMEIDA, GUILHERME SANT'ANNA MONTEIRO DA SILVA,
JULIO CAPUA RAMOS DA SILVA, MARTIN EMILIANO ESCOBARI LIFCHITZ,
GERALDO JOSE CARBONE, FRANCISCO EDUARDO DE ALMEIDA PINTO, MARIA
HELENA DOS SANTOS FERNANDES DE SANTANA and JARED WILSON,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01824 (E.D.N.Y., April 16, 2020) is a
securities class action on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired XP securities pursuant and/or traceable to the
registration statement and related prospectus issued in connection
with XP's December 2019 initial public offering compensable damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

In December 2019, Defendants held the IPO, offering approximately
83 million Class A common shares to the investing public at $27.00
per share, which forms part of the Registration Statement.

The Registration Statement was negligently prepared and, as a
result, contained untrue statements of material facts or omitted to
state other facts necessary to make the statements made not
misleading, and was not prepared in accordance with the rules and
regulations governing its preparation.

On March 6, 2020, The Winkler Group released a report detailing,
among other things, how XP had misled investors and failed to
disclose pertinent information generally and in its Registration
Statement, including: (i) undisclosed related party transactions;
(ii) R$100 million in system failure expenses; (iii) great
uncertainty with regards to its Independent Financial Agents; (iv)
the full circumstances regarding its firing and replacing its
accounting firm KPMG for PwC; and (v) other undisclosed material
weaknesses.

On this news, XP shares plummeted $9.12 per share over the rest of
the trading day and the next full trading day, or 25.5%, to close
at $26.64 per share on March 9, 2020, damaging investors.

Since the IPO, and as a result of the disclosure of material
adverse facts omitted from XP's Registration Statement, XP's stock
price has significantly fallen below its IPO price, damaging
Plaintiff and Class members.

XP Inc. is a technology-driven financial services platform and a
provider of low-fee financial products and services in Brazil.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
            Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
            POMERANTZ LLP
            600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
            New York, NY 10016
            Telephone: (212) 661-1100
            Email: ahood@pomlaw.com
                   jalieberman@pomlaw.com

                       – and –

            Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
            POMERANTZ LLP
            10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
            Chicago, IL 60603
            Telephone: (312) 377-1181
            Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
            Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

                       – and –

            Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
            BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
            60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
            New York, NY 10165
            Telephone: (212) 697-6484
            Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
            Email: peretz@bgandg.com

XTO ENERGY: Hutchings Seeks Overtime Pay for Oilfield Personnel
---------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN HUTCHINGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. XTO ENERGY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
7:20-cv-00094 (W.D. Tex., April 15, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Hutchings was employed by the Defendant as an oilfield worker.

XTO Energy Inc. is an oil and natural gas producer in the United
States with expertise in developing tight gas, shale gas and
unconventional oil resources. XTO or its affiliates operate in all
major U.S. unconventional producing regions and Western
Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
            Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
            JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
            11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
            Houston, TX 77046
            Telephone: (713) 352-1100
            Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
            Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                   adunlap@mybackwages.com

                          – and –

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

ZYNGA INC: Faces Martinez Suit Over September 2019 Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Martinez IV and Daniel Petro, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ZYNGA INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-02612
(N.D. Cal., April 15, 2020), is brought on behalf of all persons
residing in the United States whose personally-identifying
information was compromised in a data breach in September 2019.

Zynga promises that it has in place "reasonable and appropriate
security measures to help protect the security of your information
both online and offline and to ensure that your data is treated
securely," the Plaintiffs note. In fact, hundreds of millions of
people, including the Plaintiffs, trusted and believed Zynga's
promise to protect their personally-identifying information,
including name, email address, Zynga ID and password, Facebook ID
and password and, in some instances, financial information given to
Zynga for purchases for games and other in-game items
(collectively, "PII").

In September 2019, Zynga's customer data base was breached by a
serial hacker, who had previously stolen and sold PII on the dark
web. By current estimates, over 170 million Zynga accounts were
accessed. Although Zynga had notice of the breach and identified
which of its customer accounts were accessed, Zynga never directly
notified those customers. The Plaintiffs argue that since the Zynga
Data Breach, Zynga's customers have been exposed to credit and
identity theft, "credit stuffing," phishing scams, and any other
fraudulent conduct that a criminal mind can concoct.

The Plaintiffs say they have and will incur costs to mitigate the
risk for the data breach, such as paying for credit monitoring
services, and will have to spend countless hours monitoring their
credit reports and credit card statements. Regardless of whether
they have yet to incur out-of-pocket losses, the Plaintiffs and all
Zynga customers whose PII was stolen remain subject to a pervasive,
substantial, and imminent risk of identity theft and fraud now and
for years to come, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs' PII were stolen in the Zynga Data Breach.

Zynga Inc. proclaims it is "a leading developer of the world's most
popular social games that are played by millions of people around
the world each day."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq.
          ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP
          155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: (415) 986-1400
          Facsimile: (415) 986-1474
          Email: jennie@andrusanderson.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
          FEGAN SCOTT LLC
          150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 312.741.1019
          Fax: 312.264.0100
          Email: beth@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Lynn A. Ellenberger, Esq.
          FEGAN SCOTT LLC
          500 Grant St., Suite 2900
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: 412.346.4104
          Fax: 412.785.2400
          Email: lynn@feganscott.com

               - and -

          J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
          SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE P.C.
          5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
          West Des Moines, IA 50265
          Phone: (515) 223-4567
          Fax: (515) 223-8887
          Email: goplerud@sagwlaw.com


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 6,102 Claims at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation has 6,102 asbestos-related claims
pending at December 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.

The Company states, "Claims have been asserted alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos-containing components historically
used in some products manufactured by predecessors of Air & Liquid
(the "Asbestos Liability").  Air & Liquid, and in some cases the
Corporation, are defendants (among a number of defendants, often in
excess of 50) in cases filed in various state and federal courts.

"Included as "open claims" are approximately 749 and 668 claims in
2019 and 2018, respectively, classified in various jurisdictions as
"inactive" or transferred to a state or federal judicial panel on
multi-district litigation, commonly referred to as the MDL.

"A substantial majority of the settlement and defense costs was
reported and paid by insurers.  Because claims are often filed and
can be settled or dismissed in large groups, the amount and timing
of settlements, as well as the number of open claims, can fluctuate
significantly from period to period."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Talks with Fireman's Fund Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC, is still in discussions with Fireman's Fund
regarding insurance coverage on the asbestos lawsuits that the
Company still faces, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019.

The Company states, "On February 12, 2014, counsel for Fireman's
Fund, the carrier that has been paying defense costs and
settlements for the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases, stated that it
would no longer advance fund settlements or judgments in the
Kaanapali Land asbestos cases due to the pendency of the D/C and
Oahu Sugar bankruptcies.

"In its communications with Kaanapali Land, Fireman's fund
expressed its view that the automatic stay in effect in the D/C
bankruptcy case bars Fireman's Fund from making any payments to
resolve the Kaanapali Land asbestos claims because D/C Distribution
is also alleging a right to coverage under those policies for
asbestos claims against it.  However, in the interim, Fireman's
Fund advised that it presently intends to continue to pay defense
costs for those cases, subject to whatever reservations of rights
may be in effect and subject further to the policy terms.

"Fireman's Fund has also indicated that to the extent that
Kaanapali Land cooperates with Fireman's Fund in addressing
settlement of the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases through
coordination with its adjusters, it is Fireman's Fund's present
intention to reimburse any such payments by Kaanapali Land,
subject, among other things, to the terms of any lift-stay order,
the limits and other terms and conditions of the policies, and
prior approval of the settlements.

"Kaanapali Land continues to pursue discussions with Fireman's Fund
in an attempt to resolve the issues, however, Kaanapali Land is
unable to determine what portion, if any, of settlements or
judgments in the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases will be covered by
insurance."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Faces 114 Suits at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc. remains a co-defendant in approximately
114 cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 215
plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.

The Company states, "These asbestos cases generally relate to
production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege
various theories of liability, including negligence, gross
negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some
cases, punitive damages.

"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants.  In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages
sought.  To the extent that any specific amount of damages is
sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants.

"There are three asbestos cases, involving 19 plaintiffs, that
plead specified damages against named defendants.  In each of the
three cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive
damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of
action.  In two cases, the plaintiff has alleged three counts at
US$3 million compensatory and punitive damages each; one count at
US$3 million compensatory and US$1 million punitive damages; one
count at US$1 million.  In the third case, the plaintiff has
alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of
US$20.0 million, for three separate causes of action, and US$5.0
million compensatory damages for the fifth cause of action.

"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-containing
product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries.  We intend
to vigorously defend these asbestos cases and believe we will
continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases.
However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation.  Despite this
uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period could be adversely affected by
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management
believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
liquidity or results of operations.  Among the factors management
considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical
success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the
bases mentioned; (b) many cases have been improperly filed against
one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs have been
unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our products
or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to
demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable injury or
compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they have
incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos; and
(e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants and,
in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to individual
defendants.  Additionally, we do not believe that the amounts
claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful indicators of
our potential exposure because the amounts claimed typically bear
no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury, if any.

"Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to date
and, based upon available information, our management does not
expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or
financial position."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/hZ1D9l



                            *********

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 ***