---

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

              Wednesday, April 29, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 86

                            Headlines

ABM INDUSTRIES: Court Dismisses Amended Barrientos Suit
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Charman Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Texts
ALLEGIANT AIR: Herr Seeks Refund for Cancelled Flights
ALTA MESA: Securities Class Suit Underway in Texas
ALTRIA GROUP: Agrees Not to Compete with JUUL, Stiles Claims

AMERICAN CAMPUS: Fails to Refund Cost of Room & Board, Perna Says
ATLAS APEX: Rosado Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
BANK OF AMERICA: Misrepresents PPP Loan Services, Damast Claims
BARNES & NOBLE: Pica Alleges Price-Fixing of College Textbooks
BAYWALK TITLE: Improperly Charged Closing Services Fee, Kruk Says

BELL HOUSE LLC: Earl Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Hrs. Worked Over 40
BIBOX GROUP: Clifford et al. Sue Over Unregistered Digital Tokens
BLOCK.ONE: Sold Unregistered Securities to Investors, Williams Says
BRONX PAWNBROKER: Salas Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
CALL TOOLS INC: Daschbach Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Gonzales Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CIVIC TECHNOLOGIES: Sells Unregistered CVC Tokens, Zhang Claims
CLEAN HARBORS: McMurtry et al. Seek Prevailing Wages for Workers
CLEAR BLUE ENERGY: Faces Vargas Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Still Faces Class Suits over Dog Food Recall

CONAGRA BRANDS: Cohen Sues over Deceptive Chicken Product Ads
CONSUMER SUPPORT: Conner Seeks OT Pay for Team Leads & Supervisors
COREPOWER YOGA: Fails to Refund Studio Members, Weiler Claims
CREDIT ONE BANK NA: Anders Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: 9 Infineon Merger-Related Suits Dismissed

DAVITA INC: Plaintiffs in Derivative Suit Seek Class Certification
DIGITAL ROOM: Bank Debt Trades at 18% Discount
DINEX GROUP: Eliaas Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
DOLLARDAYS INT'L: Cechini Sues Over Violations of ERISA and COBRA
DROPBOX INC: 6 Putative Class Suits in California over IPO Underway

ENERGY TRANSFER: Named as Nominal Defendant in 2 Class Lawsuits
ERIE INSURANCE: Fails to Give Coverage to Lost Income, PGB Claims
EVERALBUM INC: Faces Sporleader Suit Alleging Violation of BIPA
EVERALBUM INC: Slowinski Sues in California Over BIPA Violation
FCA US: Gordon Sues Over Oil Consumption Defect in Jeep Engine

FLOWERS FOODS: Wilson Balks at Bait-and-Switch Business Model
FLOWERS FOODS: Wilson FLSA Suit Seeks Fines for Fraud, Lost Wages
FORCES OF NATURE: Slowinski Sues Over Products' Misleading Labels
FUNKO INC: Bid to Dismiss Wash. Securities Class Suit Underway
FUNKO INC: Continues to Defend Kanugonda Class Suit

GENERAL MOTORS: Barrington Sues Over Cracked Rims, Denied Warranty
GET TOGETHER: Cerar Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages
GM EQUITY: Dillard Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
GOOD CHEMISTRY: Abbink Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
GOOGLE LLC: Farwell et al. Sue Over Storage of Kids' Biometrics

GSX TECHEDU: Wu Sues in N.J. Over Violations of Securities Laws
HDR GLOBAL: Illegally Liquidated BitMEX Contracts, Messieh Claims
HP INC: Bid to Dismiss Forsyth Class Action Underway
IAS LOGISTICS: Mosley Seeks Overtime Pay and Meal Break for Staff
IQIYI INC: Faces Shiferaw Suit Over Violations of Securities Law

IQOR HOLDINGS: Simpson Sues Under FLSA Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
J&J ERECTORS: Martinez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
JPMORGAN CHASE: Misrepresents PPP Loan Deals, Cyber Defense Says
KREILKAMP TRUCKING: Bosley Seeks Unpaid Min. Wage, Damages
KUCOIN: Williams et al. Sue Over Unregistered Digital Tokens

LIFE ON AIR: Sweeney Sues Over Violation of Consumer Privacy Act
LLOYD'S LONDON: SA Palm Beach Sues for COVID-19 Coverage
LLOYD'S OF LONDON: Faces GIO Pizzeria Suit Over Denied Coverage
LOANME INC: Faces Mosher Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
LOWE'S HOME: Shortchanges Store Staff on Hours Paid, Says Suit

LUCAMA, NC: Uzzell et al. Sue Over Racial Discrimination
MAGELLAN HEALTH: Faces Dearing Suit in Arizona Over Data Breach
MERCURY INSURANCE: Abitbol Hits Automated Telemarketing Calls
MICHAEL CHEVROLET: Balladares Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
MYERS THE HOME BUYERS: Anderson Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts

NEXIUS SOLUTIONS: Webb Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
NHR HUMAN RESOURCES: Hernandez Seeks Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
NOCHES DE COLOMBIA: Balderas Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Minimum Wages
NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Atachbarian Hits Share Price Drop
NUTANIX INC: Awaits Court's Decision on Bid to Dismiss Cal. Suit

OREGON MUTUAL: Dakota Ventures Sues Over Breaches of Policies
OTA FRANCHISE: Online Trading Programs Fraudulent, Jine et al Say
PERVINE FOODS: Misrepresents Baked Bars, Ring Consumer Suit Says
PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Kendall Says
PLATINUM SECURITY: Simmons Sues Over Late Salary Payments

PROGENICS PHARMACEUTICALS: Goldstone Sues Over Lantheus Merger
REALTY ONE: Sends Spam to Market Services, Angell Claims
SOCIETY INSURANCE: Billy Goat Tavern Hits Denied Insurance Claims
SOCIETY INSURANCE: Fails to Cover Income Loss, Rising Dough Says
SOR TECHNOLOGY: DuBach Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts

SUBARU OF AMERICA: Gill Sues over Battery Defect
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Griffin et al. Sue Over Fuel Pump Defect
TAH PIZZA: Shortchanges Drivers' Vehicle Reimbursements, Doyle Says
TECH USA: Jones Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Fails to Give Refunds, Hansen Claims

TOOTSIE ROLL: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Gordon Suit, Fee Denial
TOPA INSURANCE: Sued by Caribe for Denying Income Losses Coverage
UNIVERSAL FIELD: Underpays Utility Inspectors, Brister Claims
UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT: Patel et al. Seek Tuition Fee Refund
US BANCORP: Misrepresents PPP Loan Services, Irina Sarkisyan Says

VIVID SEATS: Denies Refunds for Cancelled Events, Nellis Alleges
VOLVO GROUP: Cotton-Thomas Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
WESTERN UNION: 7th Cir. Dismisses Price's Appeal in Douglas Case
ZOOM VIDEO: Faces Henry Suit Over Lack of Adequate Data Privacy

                            *********

ABM INDUSTRIES: Court Dismisses Amended Barrientos Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, New York County issued a Decision and Order
granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned
FRANCISCO BARRIENTOS, STEPHEN SZPILA, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT SALMIRS,
LINDA CHAVEZ, J. PHILIP FERGUSON, ANTHONY FERNANDES, ART GARCIA,
THOMAS GARTLAND, SUDHAKER KESAVAN, LAURALEE MARTIN, FILIPPO
PASSERINI, WINIFRED WEBB, DIEGO SCAGLIONE, JAMES McCLURE, SCOTT
GIACCOBE, ABM INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED (NOMINAL DEFENDANT),
LEIGHANNE BAKER, DONALD COLLERAN, Defendant, Docket No.
654456/2018, Motion Seq. No. 002. (N.Y. Sup.).

Before the Court is Defendants' Motion Dismiss.  

ABM allegedly collects and stores highly sensitive private
information about its 140,000 employees, including: full names,
social security numbers, medical information, health insurance
information, biometric identifiers and information, addresses,
birth dates, driver's license numbers, and credit card information
(PI).  

ABM discovered that it had incurred a data breach. A phishing
attack was successfully executed, resulting in the theft of PI.
Plaintiffs allege that ABM did not send out mass notices to its
employees of the data breach until the week of March 5, 2018, more
than seven months later.

Plaintiffs allege that the Individual Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to ABM by, inter alia: (i) failing to implement
and enforce a system of effective internal controls and procedures
to protect employees' PI (ii) failing to exercise their oversight
duties by not monitoring ABM's compliance with internal procedures
and federal and state regulations.

Defendants now move to dismiss the amended verified complaint on
the ground that Plaintiffs lack standing because they have not made
the required demand on the Board and have failed sufficiently to
allege facts to show that demand was excused. Defendants also argue
that the amended verified complaint fails to state causes of action
for breach of fiduciary duty.

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that they have standing because
demand was excused, and that they have adequately pled their
claims.

The Court finds that in their amended verified complaint,
Plaintiffs fail to plead sufficient factual allegations creating a
reasonable doubt that the board of directors could have properly
exercised its independent and disinterested business judgment in
responding to a demand.

First, Plaintiffs have failed to plead facts showing a sustained or
systematic failure of the board to exercise oversight with the
requisite specificity. At most, they plead facts showing that the
Board did not act quickly enough to disclose the data breaches, did
not disclose enough about the data breaches, and did not do enough
to protect against past and future data breaches. These allegations
do not amount to the utter failure of the Board to respond to the
challenges of cybersecurity.  

Plaintiffs generically claim that the Board advanced their own
self-interest above that of the ABM shareholders because they paid
themselves lavishly. Plaintiffs however, have failed adequately to
state specific facts showing that the Board members' alleged lavish
compensation caused them to fail properly to oversee ABM's
cybersecurity, the Court opines.

Moreover, Plaintiffs do not allege that any of the Individual
Defendants personally profited from the Board's alleged failure to
oversee ABM's cybersecurity.

Plaintiffs have also failed to plead facts sufficient to show that
the Board Members acted with bad faith, adds the Court. The
allegations in the amended verified complaint concerning alleged
bad faith deal mostly with the Board's alleged failure adequately
and correctly to disclose the data breaches to the shareholders and
in public filings.  

At bottom, Plaintiffs lack standing to prosecute the amended
verified complaint because they have not made the requisite demand
on ABM's Board and have failed adequately to allege the futility of
demand on the Board. For this reason, the Court dismisses the
amended verified complaint, with prejudice.  

The motion of Defendants to dismiss the amended verified complaint
is granted.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's April 13, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ydgkotym from Leagle.com


ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Charman Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Texts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thane Charman, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC., Case No.
3:20-cv-00740-CAB-MDD (S.D. Cal., April 17, 2020), is brought for
damages and injunctive relief resulting from the illegal actions of
the Defendants in negligently contacting the Plaintiff on his
cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, thereby, invading his privacy.

The Plaintiff contends that he never provided "prior express
written consent" or any other form of consent to the Defendant or
any affiliated subsidiary or agent of the Defendants to transmit
SMS or MMS text messages by means of an "automatic telephone
dialing system." Through the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff
suffers an invasion of a legally protected interest in privacy,
which is specifically addressed and protected by the TCPA, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is an individual, who resided in San Diego,
California.

The Defendant is one of the largest drug and food supermarket
retailers in the united States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: 800.400.6808
          Facsimile: 800.520.5523
          Email: ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Alex S. Madar, Esq.
          MADAR LAW CORPORATION
          14410 Via Venezia #1404,
          San Diego, CA 92129-1666
          Phone: (858) 299-5879
          Fax: (619) 354-7281
          Email: alex@madarlaw.net


ALLEGIANT AIR: Herr Seeks Refund for Cancelled Flights
-------------------------------------------------------
DEANNA HERR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. ALLEGIANT AIR, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:20-cv-10938-RHC-MJH (E.D. Mich., April 15, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendant for breach of contract.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly-situated airline passengers who purchased tickets for
travel on an Allegiant Air flight scheduled to operate from March
1, 2020, alleges that the Defendant failed to refund her and all
other passengers for cancelled flights as a result of the COVID-19
pandemic, instead the Defendant automatically issued coupons or
vouchers in place of refunds, violating the terms and conditions of
its Contract of Carriage and a notice issued by the U.S. Department
of Transportation, which requires all carriers to refund passengers
when their scheduled flights are cancelled or significantly
delayed.

Allegiant Air, LLC is a low-cost airline company headquartered in
Nevada. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David R. Dubin, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
          LIDDLE & DUBIN PC
          975 E. Jefferson Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48207
          Telephone: (313) 392-0015
          Facsimile: (313) 392-0025
          E-mail: ddubin@ldclassaction.com
                  ncoulson@ldclassaction.com

ALTA MESA: Securities Class Suit Underway in Texas
--------------------------------------------------
Alta Mesa Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit Texas.

On January 30, 2019, the Company, James T. Hackett, its then
interim Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, certain
of its former and current directors, Thomas J. Walker, its former
Chief Financial Officer, and Riverstone Investment Group LLC were
named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The plaintiff, Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund,
alleges that the defendants disseminated a false and misleading
proxy statement in connection with the Business Combination and,
therefore, violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 14-9 promulgated thereunder.

In addition, the plaintiff alleges that Riverstone and the
individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The plaintiff is seeking compensatory and/or rescissory damages
against the defendants.

The District Court transferred this action to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas.

On March 14 and 19, 2019, two additional putative securities class
action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas against the same defendants named in the
SDNY Complaint, and Harlan H. Chappelle, the company's former
President and Chief Executive Officer, and Michael A. McCabe, the
company's former Chief Financial Officer.

These complaints include the same claims asserted in the initial
complaint, but also add claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against the company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors on behalf
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Silver Run or AMR securities between March 24, 2017, and February
25, 2019.

The new claims are based upon alleged misstatements contained in
the company's proxy statement and made after the Business
Combination.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory and/or rescissory damages against
the defendants.

On December 19, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas consolidated the three putative securities class
action lawsuits into a single action.

On January 16, 2020, the Court entered a stipulated order
appointing Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund and the
First New York Group (consisting of FNY Partners Fund LP, FNY
Managed Accounts LLC, and Paul J. Burbach) as co-lead plaintiffs
and appointing Camelot Event Driven Fund as an additional
consolidated class representative. The amended Consolidated
Putative Securities Class Action complaint is due March 16, 2020.

The commencement of the Chapter 11 proceedings automatically stayed
these actions against the Company.

Alta Mesa said, "The outcome of the above consolidated class
actions is uncertain, and while we believe that we have valid
defenses to the plaintiff’s claims and intend to defend the
lawsuits vigorously, no assurance can be given as to the outcome of
the lawsuits."

Alta Mesa Resources, Inc., together with its consolidated
subsidiaries, is an independent exploration and production company
focused on the acquisition, development, exploration and
exploitation of unconventional onshore oil and natural gas reserves
in the eastern portion of the Anadarko Basin in Oklahoma. The
company operatez in two reportable business segments - Upstream and
Midstream. The company is based in Houston, Texas.


ALTRIA GROUP: Agrees Not to Compete with JUUL, Stiles Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN F. STILES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA
ENTERPRISES LLC; and JUUL LABS, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-02779 (N.D. Cal., April 21, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of Section 1, 2, and 3 of the Sherman
Act and Section 7 of the Clayton Act.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated persons or entities in the United States and its
territories that purchased e-cigarettes directly from JUUL from
October 5, 2018 until the anticompetitive effects of Defendants'
unlawful conduct cease (Class Period), alleges that the Defendants'
relationship agreement, dated December 20, 2018; amended
relationship agreement, dated January 28, 2020; and a commitment
letter from Altria to JUUL, dated October 5, 2018, which aimed to
eliminate competition by the Altria Defendants in the market for
closed system electronic cigarettes in exchange for a partial
ownership interest in JUUL, violated the Sherman Act and
constituted an unlawful acquisition in violation of the Clayton
Act. The agreements also provide the basis for the claims that JUUL
monopolized the relevant market of closed system e-cigarettes sold
in the United States and its territories and that JUUL and Altria
conspired to monopolize that market.

The Plaintiff purchased JUUL's closed system e-cigarette products
directly from JUUL during the Class Period. Mr. Stiles was injured
in connection with his purchases during the Class Period as a
result of Defendants' anticompetitive and unlawful conduct.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer and marketer of tobacco,
cigarettes, and related products, headquartered at 6601 West Broad
Street, Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Enterprises LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of tobacco
company Altria Group located at 6601 West Broad Street, Richmond,
Virginia.

JUUL Labs, Inc. is a manufacturer of closed-system e-cigarettes
with its principal place of business located at 560 20th Street,
San Francisco, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
          Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
          Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
          Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
          E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeld.com
                  bsweeney@hausfeld.com
                  clebsock@hausfeld.com

               - and -
          
          Scott A. Martin, Esq.
          Irving Scher, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (646) 357-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 202-4322
          E-mail: smartin@hausfeld.com
                  ischer@hausfeld.com

               - and -
          
          Arthur Bailey, Esq.
          RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC
          1600 Liberty Building
          424 Main Street
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 664-2967
          Facsimile: (716) 664-2983
          E-mail: bailey@ruppbaase.com

AMERICAN CAMPUS: Fails to Refund Cost of Room & Board, Perna Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monique Perna, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AMERICAN CAMPUS COMMUNITIES, INC., Case No.
3:20-cv-00391 (M.D. Fla., April 17, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's illegal, unfair, or deceptive conduct in retaining the
costs of room, board, and fees paid by the Plaintiff and the other
Class members after they, or the students on behalf of whom the
Plaintiff and Class members paid these expenses, were made or
strongly encouraged to vacate their campus residence to complete
the semester.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant is attempting to use the
Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19") pandemic as a profiteering
vehicle to steal college funds from parents and their children
throughout Florida. The Defendant is the nation's largest
developer, owner and manager of student housing communities with
approximately 139,300 beds, and it made close to $100 million in
2019. However, the Plaintiff asserts, in response to parents' and
students' pleas to return their rent money, the Defendant refuses
because it has "real estate taxes" to pay, insisting that its dorms
remain open, notwithstanding that school campuses are closed and
students are told to return home.

Rather than issuing refunds to parents and children with no
questions asked, the Defendant emailed them to announce its flat
refusal, callously providing a link to apply for unemployment
benefits, says the complaint. In the face of a world-wide pandemic,
national emergency, stay-at-home orders, and "social distancing"
directives from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC), the Defendant has revealed that its profits are more
important than college students' safety.

Ms. Perna is a current guarantor and co-signer for her son's room
at Plaza on University for the Fall 2019-Spring 2020 academic
school year.

The Defendant is the manager of "campus living" apartment complexes
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William "Billy" Peerce Howard, Esq.
          Amanda J. Allen, Esq.
          Heather H. Jones, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM
          4030 Henderson Boulevard
          Tampa, FL 33629
          Phone: (813) 500-1500
          Facsimile: (813) 435-2369
          Email: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
                 Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
                 Heather@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com


ATLAS APEX: Rosado Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Abimael Rosado, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ATLAS APEX ROOFING, LLC. d/b/a ATLAS-APEX ROOFING, Case
No. 0:20-cv-60808-AHS (S.D. Fla., April 17, 2020), is brought to
recover unpaid overtime wages, an additional equal amount as
liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt,
hourly-paid employee, and worked at least 40 hours per week while
employed by the Defendant. The Plaintiff consistently worked over
40 hours per week while working for the Defendant.

The Defendant failed to compensate the Plaintiff at a rate of one
and one-half times the Plaintiff's regular rate for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek, says the
complaint.

The Defendant is a roofing company, which contracts with both
commercial and residential customers to repair and replace
roofs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John P. Salas, Esq.
          Michael G. Green II, Esq.
          SALAS LAW FIRM, P.A.
          8551 West Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 300
          Plantation, FL 33322
          Office: (954) 315-1155
          Fax: (954) 452 -3311
          Email: jp@jpsalaslaw.com
                 michael@jpsalaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Misrepresents PPP Loan Services, Damast Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Office of Sabrina Damast, Inc., Eye Land Optometry, BNG
Restaurant Group, Inc., and Umezu Enterprises, LLC, individually
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. BANK
OF AMERICA CORPORATION, BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; and DOES 1- 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-03591 (C.D. Cal., April 19, 2020),
alleges that the Defendants violated the California Unfair
Competition Law and the California False Advertising Law by making
false and misleading representations concerning the nature of the
services they would be providing as Paycheck Protection Program
loan administrators.

BofA has, once again, prioritized corporate greed at the expense of
its small business customers, according to the complaint. Rather
than processing Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP") applications on
a first-come, first-served basis as required by the rules governing
that program, BofA prioritized loan applications seeking higher
loan amounts because processing those applications first generated
larger loan origination fees for the banks. Making matters worse,
BofA concealed from the public that it was reshuffling the PPP
applications it received and prioritizing the applications that
would make the bank the most money. As a result, thousands of small
businesses--including the Plaintiffs--trusted that BofA would
process the applications on a first come, first served basis. Had
BofA been honest, small businesses could have (and would have)
submitted their PPP applications to other financial institutions
that were processing applications on a first-come, first-served
basis.

As a result of BofA's dishonest and deplorable behavior, however,
thousands of small businesses that were entitled to loans under the
PPP were left with nothing because BofA chose to maximize its loan
origination fees rather than comply with the rules of the program
and serve the needs of its small business customers, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs are small businesses with a principal place of
business in California.

BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION is a diversified financial services
company providing banking, insurance, investments, mortgage banking
and consumer finance to individuals, businesses and institutions in
all 50 states and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dylan Ruga, Esq.
          Ji-In Lee Houck, Esq.
          David M. Angeloff, Esq.
          STALWART LAW GROUP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, Suite 1840
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: (310) 954-2000
          Email: dylan@stalwartlaw.com
                 jiin@stalwartlaw.com
                 david@stalwartlaw.com


BARNES & NOBLE: Pica Alleges Price-Fixing of College Textbooks
--------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC PICA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. BARNES & NOBLE COLLEGE
BOOKSELLERS, LLC; BARNES & NOBLE EDUCATION, INC.; CENGAGE LEARNING,
INC.; FOLLETT HIGHER EDUCATION GROUP; MCGRAWHILL LLC; and PEARSON
EDUCATION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-04856 (D.N.J., April
22, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and Sections 4 and 16 of the
Clayton Act.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated students, alleges that the Defendants, the
dominant publishers of college textbooks and dominant retail chains
operating on-campus college bookstores, entered into the "Inclusive
Access" conspiracy in order to monopolize the market for sales of
course materials in any courses and on any colleges in which the
Inclusive Access policy applies. The Plaintiff claims that the
Defendants' practice of monopolizing the market for the sale of
course materials in Inclusive Access courses has allowed them to
charge higher prices for those course materials because students
effectively have no other choice than to purchase Inclusive Access
materials at the designated price from their official on-campus
bookstore.

Barnes & Noble Education, Inc. is a solutions provider for the
education industry based in Basking Ridge, New Jersey.

Barnes & Noble College Booksellers, LLC is a company based in
Basking Ridge, New Jersey that operates Barnes & Noble's campus
bookstores nationwide and that sells Inclusive Access materials
through those bookstores.

Follett Higher Education Group is a corporation based in
Westchester, Illinois that operates Follett's campus bookstores
nationwide and that sells Inclusive Access materials through those
bookstores.

Cengage Learning, Inc. is a publisher of college textbooks and
course materials, including through Inclusive Access, based in
Boston, Massachusetts.

McGraw Hill LLC is a publisher of college textbooks and course
materials, including through Inclusive Access, based in New York,
New York.

Pearson Education, Inc. is a publisher of college textbooks and
course materials, including through Inclusive Access, based in
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
          Lee Albert, Esq.
          Brian Murray, Esq.
          Brian D. Brooks, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Avenue, Suite 530
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com
                  lalbert@glancylaw.com
                  bbrooks@glancylaw.com

BAYWALK TITLE: Improperly Charged Closing Services Fee, Kruk Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONI KRUK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. BAYWALK TITLE, INC. d/b/a TITLE
INSURORS OF FLORIDA, Defendant, Case No. 20-001888-CI (Fla. 6th
Cir., April 15, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for
negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Defendant improperly charged the
Plaintiff a closing services fee in the amount of $250 in
connection to a real estate purchase and sale contract entered by
the Plaintiff on July 27, 2016 with a property owner in Pinellas,
Florida, wherein the Defendant was designated by the seller as the
closing agent for the procurement of title insurance and to perform
closing services. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated
the contract's provision since it was an all-cash transaction with
no lender, the Plaintiff was not responsible for any loan or title
agent closing fees, title policy premiums or lender endorsements.

Baywalk Title, Inc., d/b/a Title Insurors of Florida, is a licensed
title agency with principal place of business located at 150 2nd
Avenue, Suite 510, St. Petersburg, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
          EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
          425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 524-2820
          Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
          E-mail: seth@epllc.com

               - and -
          
          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
          EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI
          7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33328
          Telephone: (954) 889-3359
          Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
          E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com

               - and -
          
          Richard B. Feinberg, Esq.
          FLORIDA LEGACY LAW LLC
          600 Cleveland Street, Suite 3 13
          Clearwater, FL 33755
          Telephone: 727 23 1-6400
          E-mail: ricfeinberg@hotmail.com

BELL HOUSE LLC: Earl Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Hrs. Worked Over 40
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Earl, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Bell House LLC, Frank Bailey and Brenda
Bailey, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00129 (D. Neb., April 1, 2020),
seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a
result of non-payment of overtime premiums pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate a halfway house in Omaha, Nebraska where Earl
worked as a House Manager. He claims that he was denied overtime
premiums for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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



BIBOX GROUP: Clifford et al. Sue Over Unregistered Digital Tokens
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ALEXANDER CLIFFORD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly-situated v. BIBOX GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED; BIBOX
TECHNOLOGY LTD.; BIBOX TECHNOLOGY OU, WANLIN "ARIES" WANG; JI
"KEVIN" MA; and JEFFREY LEI, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02807
(S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2020), arises from the Defendants' violations
of the Securities and Exchange Act.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly-situated investors who purchased six digital tokens that
Bibox has sold through its online exchange or its initial coin
offering (ICO) since approximately October 2017, alleges that the
Defendants marketed Bibox digital tokens without filing
registration statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission and without registering Bibox as an exchange or broker
dealer. On September 30, 2019, SEC determined Bibox digital tokens
as unregistered securities, nearly six months after it released a
detailed framework to analyze digital assets wherein it clarified
that the tokens are investment contracts and therefore securities
under Section 2 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 3 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. As a result, the Plaintiff and
Class members who purchased the tokens suffered significant losses
and they seek to recover the consideration paid for the tokens with
interest thereon at the legal rate, or the equivalent in monetary
damages plus interest at the legal rate from the date of purchase.

Bibox Group Holdings Limited is a British Virgin Islands digital
asset exchange company with offices located at 1120 6th Avenue,
Suite 1507, New York, New York.

Bibox Technology Ltd. is a company incorporated in the Republic of
Estonia that contributes to the operation of the Bibox exchange.

Bibox Technology OU is a company incorporated in the Republic of
Estonia that contributes to the operation of the Bibox exchange.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -
          
          Philippe Z. Selendy, Esq.
          Jordan A. Goldstein, Esq.
          Spencer Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michelle Foxman, Esq.
          SELENDY & GAY PLLC
          1290 Sixth Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10104          
          E-mail: pselendy@selendygay.com
                  jgoldstein@selendygay.com
                  sgottlieb@selendygay.com
                  mfoxman@selendygay.com

BLOCK.ONE: Sold Unregistered Securities to Investors, Williams Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chase Williams and William Zhang, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BLOCK.ONE, Brendan Blumer
and Dan Larimer, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02809 (S.D. N.Y., April
3, 2020), bring federal and state securities claims, together with
interest thereon, as well as attorneys' fees and costs under
Section 2 of the Securities Act of 1933.

According to the complaint, the Defendants promoted, offered and
sold an unregistered security called "EOS" throughout the United
States, in violation of federal and state securities laws.
Block.One allegedly solicited and sold the EOS token through both
an "ICO" and through subsequent sales on cryptocurrency exchanges.
Both Williams and Zhang purchased EOS tokens and seek to recover
the consideration paid for the EOS tokens.

Brandon Blumer is the CEO of Block.one while Daniel Larimer its
Chief Technology Officer. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philippe Z. Selendy, Esq.
      Jordan A. Goldstein, Esq.
      Joshua S. Margolin, Esq.
      Oscar Shine, Esq.
      SELENDY & GAY, PLLC
      1290 Sixth Avenue, 17th Floor
      New York, NY 10104
      Email: pselendy@selendygay.com
             jgoldstein@selendygay.com
             jmargolin@selendygay.com
             oshine@selendygay.com

             - and -

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

BRONX PAWNBROKER: Salas Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Winners Salas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BRONX PAWNBROKER INC.; CONCOURSE PAWNBROKERS, INC.;
FLUSHING JEWELRY & PAWN LLC; CONCOURSE NY REALTY INC.; FANG HUNG
WU; MICHELLE WU; and AMY WU, Case No. 1:20-cv-03116 (S.D.N.Y.,
April 17, 2020), is brought against the Defendants pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages.

The Plaintiff also seeks to recover unpaid spread of hours premium;
statutory damages arising out of the Defendants failure to provide
required wage and hour law notices; liquidated damages and civil
penalties pursuant to NYLL and the New York State Wage Theft
Prevention Act; prejudgment interest; and attorneys' fees.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked in excess of forty
hours per week and the shift pay he received failed to compensate
him at a level at or above minimum wage for the first forty hours
worked plus time and one-half the minimum wage for all hours worked
over forty in a workweek. The Defendants had a policy of employing
individuals for more than forty hours per week and more than ten
hours on certain workdays, and paying those individuals a day-rate
that falls below what is due under the wage and hour laws.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work as a
non-exempt employee for their pawn shops.

Bronx Pawnbroker Inc. is a New York corporation that operates a
pawn shop located at Bronx, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
          675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (718) 669-0714
          Email:mgangat@gangatllc.com


CALL TOOLS INC: Daschbach Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Daschbach, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Call Tools, Inc. and Does 1
through 10, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00633 (C.D. Cal., April 1,
2020), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, treble damages
and all other relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Call Tools is a telecommunications and telemarketing company whom
Daschbach claims to have received auto-dialed telemarketing calls
from. Daschbach incurs a charge for incoming calls. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Gonzales Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL GONZALES, SERGIO ROCHA, NORBETO ALARCON, ALBERTO ARENA,
FELIPE BECERRA, CRAIG BOWLAN, RONALD FLORES, DENNIS HARMON, GERALD
LLORENCE, JULIO HERNANDEZ, MICHAEL RALSTON, RICARDO RAMOS, RAUL
ROMERO, CARLOS SERPAS, RAYMOND ULMER, and EVERARDO VILLA,
individually and on behalf of all aggrieved employees and all
others similarly situated v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, and
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-02689 (N.D. Cal.,
April 17, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid wages, unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, unlawfully withheld
wages, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and costs, and other
damages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Apart from non-payment of wages for on-call work, the Defendant's
requirements that Field Ops Techs: (1) perform "Circle of Safety"
inspections every time they drove the Bucket Trucks outside of
their regularly-scheduled shifts; and (2) perform daily maintenance
and safety inspections and cleaning of the Bucket Trucks outside of
their regularly-scheduled shifts, was work in excess of their
regular 40-hour workweek, the Plaintiffs contend.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay the
Plaintiffs and all other Field Ops Techs for this overtime work.
The Defendant encouraged, suffered and permitted the representative
the Plaintiffs and the collective class members to work more than
40 hours per week without the proper overtime compensation.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as non-exempt hourly Field
Operations Maintenance Technicians.

Charter is a provider of cable, internet, and telecommunications
products and services in the state of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Velthoen, Esq.
          Leslie A. McAdam, Esq.
          Max R. Engelhardt, Esq.
          FERGUSON CASE ORR PATERSON LLP
          1050 S. Kimball Road
          Ventura, CA 93004
          Phone: (805) 659-6800
          Facsimile: (805) 659-6818
          Email: mvelthoen@fcoplaw.com
                 lmcadam@fcoplaw.com
                 mengelhardt@fcoplaw.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Strauss, Esq.
          Aris E. Karakalos, Esq.
          STRAUSS & STRAUSS, APC
          121 N. Fir St., Suite F
          Ventura, CA 93001
          Phone: (805) 641.6600
          Facsimile: (805) 641.6607
          Email: mike@strausslawyers.com
                 aris@strausslawyers.com


CIVIC TECHNOLOGIES: Sells Unregistered CVC Tokens, Zhang Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM ZHANG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. CIVIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; VINNY
LINGHAM; and JONATHAN SMITH, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02811
(S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Securities and Exchange Act.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly-situated investors who purchased Civic's securities,
called CVC tokens, throughout the United States from June 20, 2017
through the present, alleges that the Defendants marketed the
digital tokens to the public through an initial coin offering
without filing registration statements with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission as required under federal and state laws. On
September 30, 2019, SEC determined CVC digital tokens as
unregistered securities, nearly six months after it released a
detailed framework to analyze digital assets wherein it clarified
that the tokens are investment contracts and therefore securities
under Section 2 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 3 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. As a result, the Plaintiff and
Class members who purchased the tokens suffered significant losses
and they seek to recover the consideration paid for the tokens with
interest thereon at the legal rate, or the equivalent in monetary
damages plus interest at the legal rate from the date of purchase.

Civic Technologies, Inc. is a blockchain-focused software
development company with offices in California and Cape Town, South
Africa. It develops and promotes the Civic blockchain protocol.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -
          
          Philippe Z. Selendy, Esq.
          Jordan A. Goldstein, Esq.
          Spencer Gottlieb, Esq.
          David Coon, Esq.
          SELENDY & GAY PLLC
          1290 Sixth Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10104          
          E-mail: pselendy@selendygay.com
                  jgoldstein@selendygay.com
                  sgottlieb@selendygay.com
                  dcoon@selendygay.com

CLEAN HARBORS: McMurtry et al. Seek Prevailing Wages for Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM T. MCMURTRY; JOHNNIE STANLEY; and AYIZAN DEREONCOURT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CLEAN HARBORS, INC.; CLEAN HARBORS ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, INC; CLEAN HARBORS ES INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC; CLEAN
HARBORS INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC.; ABC CORPORATIONS 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. MID-L-002435-20 (N.J. Super. Ct., April 21,
2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the New Jersey Prevailing Wage Act, the Prevailing Wage for
Construction Work on a Public Utility Act, and the Prevailing Wage
Requirement, Construction Undertaken with BPU Financial Assistance
Act.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent similarly-situated current and
former employees of the Clean Harbors Defendants who performed work
starting April 21, 2014.  The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants
failed and refused to pay the Plaintiffs and Class members
appropriate prevailing wage rates for their work at the facilities
of Public Service Electric and Gas under the Energy Strong
Program.

Plaintiffs McMurtry, Stanley, and Dereoncourt were employed by the
Defendants to work on construction projects for Public Service
Electric and Gas since 2007, since 2010, and between 2001 and late
2019, respectively.

Clean Harbors Inc. is a provider of environmental, energy and
industrial services with its principal place of business located at
42 Longwater Drive, Norwell, Massachusetts.

Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. is a subsidiary company
of Clean Harbors Inc., with its principal place of business located
at 42 Longwater Drive, Norwell, Massachusetts.

Clean Harbors ES Industrial Services, Inc. is a subsidiary company
of Clean Harbors Inc., with its principal place of business located
at 42 Longwater Drive, Norwell, Massachusetts.

Clean Harbors Industrial Services, Inc. is a subsidiary company of
Clean Harbors Inc., with its principal place of business located at
42 Longwater Drive, Norwell, Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         David Zatuchni, Esq.
         ZATUCHNI & ASSOCIATES LLC
         287 South Main Street (Route 29)
         Lambertville, NJ 08530
         Telephone: (609) 243-0300

               - and -
          
         Bruce W. Clark, Esq.
         Christopher J. Michie, Esq.
         CLARK MICHIE LLP
         220 Alexander Street
         Princeton, NJ 08540
         Telephone: (609) 423-2143

CLEAR BLUE ENERGY: Faces Vargas Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Vargas, Manuel Martinez Rodriguez, Jesus Martinez, Ruperto
Martinez, Eduardo Martinez, Bryan Hernandez, Isidro Carrillo, Jose
Everardo Llanos, Sein Ramirez, each as an Individual, and on behalf
of the general public for all those similarly situated v. CLEAR
BLUE ENERGY CORP., a California Corporation, DOES 1 through 200,
inclusive, Case No. 20STCV14849 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
April 17, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for failing to
pay the Plaintiffs their lawful wages, including overtime pay, and
prevailing wages on public works projects.

The Defendants, failed to pay the Plaintiffs the proper wage for
each hour worked on the public works projects related to electrical
projects, including Interior Lighting Replacement and Energy
Efficiency Design projects, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed on public works projects in
California.

CLEAR BLUE performed electrical work in counties throughout
California, including lighting fixture removal and
installation.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard E. Donahoo, Esq.
          Sarah L. Kokonas, Esq.
          Judith L. Camilleri, Esq.
          William E. Donahoo, Esq.
          DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES, PC
          440 W. First Street, Suite 101
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Phone (714) 953-1010
          Facsimile (714) 953-1777
          Email: rdonahoo@donahoo.com
                 skokonas@donahoo.com
                 icamilleri@donahoo.com
                 wdonahoo@donahoo.com


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Still Faces Class Suits over Dog Food Recall
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company continues to defend itself in class
action lawsuits in the U.S. and in Canada related to a March 2019
voluntary recall of select dog food products, 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.

During the quarter ended March 31, 2019, Hill's announced a
voluntary recall, which was subsequently expanded, of select canned
dog food products due to potentially elevated levels of Vitamin D
resulting from a supplier error.  In the United States, the
voluntary recall was conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.

Following the announcement of the voluntary recall, and as of
December 31, 2019, Hill's and/or the Company have been named as
defendants in 37 putative class action lawsuits, one putative class
action filed on behalf of a European Union class and one individual
action, all related to the voluntary recall and filed in various
jurisdictions in the United States.  In addition, two putative
class actions related to the voluntary recall have been filed in
Canada.

Eight of the putative class actions lawsuits in the United States
have been voluntarily dismissed.

The Company said, "Hill's is entitled to indemnification from the
supplier related to the voluntary recall.  Sales of products
voluntarily recalled represent less than 2% of Hill's annual Net
sales.  The sales loss and other costs associated with the
voluntary recall and subsequent expansion did not have a material
impact on the Company's Net sales or Operating profit for the year
ended December 31, 2019 and are not expected to have a material
impact in future periods."

Colgate-Palmolive Company, together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells consumer products worldwide. The company
operates through two segments, Oral, Personal and Home Care; and
Pet Nutrition. Colgate-Palmolive Company was founded in 1806 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


CONAGRA BRANDS: Cohen Sues over Deceptive Chicken Product Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT COHEN, a consumer, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONAGRA BRANDS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 8:20-cv-00637 (C.D. Cal., April 1,
2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its
alleged violations of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act
(CLRA), California Civil Code Sections 1750-1785, California's
Unfair Competition Law (UCL), California Business and Professional
Code Section 17200, and California's False Advertising Law (FAL).

Plaintiff is a senior citizen who purchased Defendant's products in
several grocery stores in California.

Plaintiff challenges Defendant's Chicken Products advertisement
sold under its Banquet trademark as "100% natural" and/or made with
"no preservatives", "no artificial colors", and "no artificial
flavors." However, the advertisement is false and misleading
because its products actually contain synthetic products, thereby
deceiving its customers.

Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief that Defendant's advertising
constitutes unfair and deceptive acts and practices under
California's CLRA, UCL, and FAL; and injunctive relief ordering
Defendant to stop its unlawful practices, engage in a corrective
ads, refund Plaintiff for each and every one of the Chicken
Products he purchased, and pay restitution to the proposed class.

Conagra Brands, Inc. produces and sells chicken and other food
products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Marc L. Godino, Esq.
          Danielle L. Manning, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Tel: (310)201-9150
          Fax: (310)201-9160
          Email: info@glancylaw.com

                - and –

          Alreen Haeggquist, Esq.
          Kathleen Herkenhoff, Esq.
          HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP
          225 Broadway, Suite 2050
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Tel: (619)342-8000
          Email: Kathleenh@haelaw.com

                - and –

          Gretchen Elsner, Esq.
          ELSNER LAW & POLICY, LLC
          314 South Guadalupe Street
          Santa Fe, NM 87501
          Tel: (505)303-0980
          Email: Gretchen@elsnerlaw.org


CONSUMER SUPPORT: Conner Seeks OT Pay for Team Leads & Supervisors
------------------------------------------------------------------
BESSIE CONNER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CONSUMER SUPPORT SERVICES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00701-PAB (N.D. Ohio, April 1, 2020) is a class
and collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its
alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act., the
Ohio Constitution Article II Section 34a, the Ohio overtime
compensation statute, and Ohio's Prompt Pay Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from roughly January 17, 2017
through March 5, 2020. She began her tenure as an HPC, transitioned
to team lead in mid-2017, and to site supervisor in November 2018.

According to the complaint, Defendant required its team leads and
site supervisors to respond to and address numerous urgent staffing
and resident care needs during "off-the-clock" hours. However, they
were not compensated for this working time, thereby depriving of
regular and overtime pay earned.

Consumer Support Services, Inc. provides housing and support
services to individuals with disabilities throughout Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq.
          2012 West 25th St., Suite 716
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Tel: 216-308-1522
          Email: scott@tittlelawfirm.com

                - and -          

          Joshua B. Fuchs, Esq.
          The FUCHS FIRM LLC
          3961 Silsby Road
          University Heights, OH 44113
          Tel: 216-505-7500
          Email: jfuchs@crklaw.com


COREPOWER YOGA: Fails to Refund Studio Members, Weiler Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ERIN WEILER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated v. COREPOWER YOGA LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-03496 (C.D. Cal., April 15, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and for breach
of express warranties, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unjust
enrichment, money had and received, conversion, and breach of
contract.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly-situated members of the Defendant's CorePower Yoga
Studios in California, alleges that the Defendant failed to refund
her for any part of her monthly fee from March 16 through March 21,
2020, where she no longer have access to the studio's services as
the Defendant closed its yoga studios following the COVID-19
pandemic. Moreover, the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant
continued to charge her credit card for membership fee from March
21 through April 21, 2020, despite the fact that Defendant's
studios remained closed.

CorePower Yoga, LLC is an operator of yoga studios headquartered in
Denver, Colorado. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -
          
          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER PA
          2665 S. Bayshore Dr., Suite 220
          Miami, FL 33133-5402
          Telephone: (305) 330-5512
          Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
          E-mail: scott@bursor.com

CREDIT ONE BANK NA: Anders Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Anders, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Credit One Bank, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00624 (D. Nev., March 31, 2020), seeks statutory and treble
damages, injunctive relief, compensation and attorney fees for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

As early as February 10, 2020, Anders began receiving pre-recorded
phone calls from Credit One Bank on his cellular telephone,
offering a new credit card. He claims to have been receiving such
call despite "opting out." [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Kind, Esq.
      KIND LAW
      8860 South Maryland Pkwy, Ste. 106
      Las Vegas, NV 89123
      Tel: (702) 337-2322
      Fax: (702) 329-5881
      Email: mk@kindlaw.com


CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: 9 Infineon Merger-Related Suits Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cypress Semiconductor Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 29, 2019, that each of the nine lawsuits,
including three purported class actions, filed against the Company
related to its merger with Infineon has now been dismissed.

Following the public announcement of the Agreement and Plan of
Merger dated June 3, 2019, by and among Infineon, its subsidiary
IFX Merger Sub, Inc., and the Company (the "Merger Agreement"),
purported stockholders of the Company filed nine lawsuits against
the Company and the members of the Company's Board of Directors.
Each of these suits has now been dismissed: Wang v. Cypress
Semiconductor Corp. et al., 19-cv-03855 (N.D. Cal., filed July 3,
2019; dismissed September 9, 2019); Wheby v. Cypress Semiconductor
Corp. et al., 19-cv-01267 (D. Del., filed July 8, 2019; dismissed
December 16, 2019); Baxter v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp. et al.,
19-cv-03944 (N.D. Cal., filed July 9, 2019; dismissed October 4,
2019); Salpeter-Levy v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp. et al.,
19-cv-06369 (S.D.N.Y., filed July 10, 2019; dismissed September 13,
2019); Jeweltex Mfg. Inc. Ret. Plan v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp.
et al., 19-cv-03978 (N.D. Cal., filed July 11, 2019; dismissed
October 8, 2019); Hatt v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp. et al.,
19-cv-15400 (D.N.J., filed July 15, 2019; dismissed October 16,
2019); Starosciak v. Cypress Semiconductor Corporation et al.,
19-cv-01315 (D. Del., filed on July 16, 2019, dismissed February 3,
2020); Fredericks v. Cypress Semiconductor Corporation et al.,
19-cv-04139 (N.D. Cal., filed on July 18, 2019; dismissed September
18, 2019); and Nozawa v. Cypress Semiconductor Corporation et al.,
19-cv-06821 (S.D.N.Y., filed on July 23, 2019; dismissed October 3,
2019).

Wheby, Nazawa, and Baxter were purported class actions.

Eight of the complaints contended, among other things, that the
Company's preliminary proxy statement on Schedule 14A, filed July
2, 2019, misstated or failed to disclose certain allegedly material
information in violation of federal securities laws (and one
complaint, Fredericks, alleged similar theories based on the
Company's definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A, filed July
16, 2019).

Each complaint sought equitable relief, including an injunction of
the Merger, among other remedies.

Six of the nine complaints were voluntarily dismissed by their
respective plaintiffs with prejudice (which means they cannot be
refiled), Hatt and Wheby were voluntarily dismissed by their
respective plaintiffs without prejudice, and Starosciak was
dismissed by order of the court.

Plaintiffs in the dismissed cases reserved the right to file
motions for "mootness fees."

Cypress Semiconductor Corporation, incorporated on September 26,
1986, manufactures embedded system solutions for automotive,
industrial, home automation and appliances, consumer electronics
and medical products. The Company's segments include
Microcontroller and Connectivity Division (MCD), and Memory
Products Division (MPD). Its programmable systems-on-chip,
general-purpose microcontrollers, analog integrated circuits (ICs),
wireless and Universal Serial Bus (USB)-C based connectivity
solutions and memories help engineers design differentiated
products. The company is based in San Jose California.


DAVITA INC: Plaintiffs in Derivative Suit Seek Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled, In re DaVita Inc. Stockholder Derivative
Litigation, the plaintiffs have filed a motion for class
certification, according to DaVita Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.  The Company stated that it intends to oppose.

On August 15, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware consolidated three previously disclosed shareholder
derivative lawsuits: the Blackburn Shareholder action filed on
February 10, 2017, the Gabilondo Shareholder action filed on May
30, 2017, and the City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System
Shareholder action filed on June 9, 2017.

The complaint covers the time period from 2015 to present and
alleges, generally, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment,
abuse of control, gross mismanagement, corporate waste, and
misrepresentations and/or failures to disclose certain information
in violation of the federal securities laws in connection with an
alleged practice to direct patients with government-subsidized
health insurance into private health insurance plans to maximize
the Company's profits.

An amended complaint was filed in September 2017, and on December
18, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to
stay proceedings in the alternative.

On April 25, 2019, the court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss.  The Company answered the complaint on May 28, 2019.

On January 31, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification that the Company intends to oppose.

DaVita Inc. said, "The Company disputes these allegations and
intends to defend this action accordingly."

DaVita Inc. provides kidney dialysis services for patients
suffering from chronic kidney failure or end stage renal disease
(ESRD). The company operates kidney dialysis centers and provides
related lab services in outpatient dialysis centers. The company
was formerly known as DaVita HealthCare Partners Inc. and changed
its name to DaVita Inc. in September 2016. DaVita Inc. was founded
in 1994 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.


DIGITAL ROOM: Bank Debt Trades at 18% Discount
----------------------------------------------
Participations in a syndicated loan under which Digital Room
Holdings Inc is a borrower were trading in the secondary market
around 82 cents-on-the-dollar during the week ended Fri., April 24,
2020, according to Bloomberg's Evaluated Pricing service data.

The USD85 million term loan is scheduled to mature on May 21, 2027.
As of April 24, 2020, the full amount has been drawn and is
outstanding.

The Company's country of domicile is U.S.

DINEX GROUP: Eliaas Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA ELIAAS, SHAHAB CHOWDHURY, MANG WING WONG, JORGE VELASQUEZ,
SULTAN AHMED, KAITY CHAN-ROMAN, PRIMITIVO FLORES, CARLOS SOTO,
DAVID RIVAS, EDGAR MONTES, EFREN PEREZ, GABRIEL PUCHA, GIOVANNI
LUJAN, HECTOR SIGUENCIA, JULIO RODRIGUEZ, LUIS PANURA, NICHOLAS
GRINGAS, PORFIRIO SUAREZ, ZAKIR HOSSAIN, CARLOS CRUZ, ERIK MEDINA,
FABIO LOZANO, JHONNY NAVARRA, JOSE PERALTA, JULIO PINA, and RAFAEL
ESTRELLA, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
individuals v. THE DINEX GROUP, LLC, 44TH STREET RESTAURANT, LLC,
d/b/a DB BISTRO MODERNE BOWERY RESTAURANT, LLC, d/b/a DBGB KITCHEN
AND BAR 58TH STREET CAFE, LLC, d/b/a EPICERIE BOULUD 64 WEST
RESTAURANT, LLC, d/b/a BAR BOULUD 65TH STREET RESTAURANT, LLC,
d/b/a DANIEL d/b/a THE BAR AT DANIEL 76TH STREET RESTAURANT, LLC,
d/b/a CAFE BOULUD d/b/a BAR PLEIADES GREENWICH STREET CAFE, LLC
d/b/a EPICERIE BOULUD and DANIEL BOULUD, Case No. 1:20-cv-03117
(S.D.N.Y., April 17, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid wages due to
invalid tip credit, unpaid wages due to time-shaving, unpaid spread
of hours premiums, tips unlawfully retained by the Defendants,
damages from improperly deducted meal credits liquidated damages,
statutory penalties and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants unlawfully retained the
Plaintiffs gratuities by subjecting the Plaintiffs to a tip pooling
scheme where non-tipped and managerial employees participated and
took a percentage of the pooled tips. The Defendants unlawfully
failed to pay the Plaintiffs for all hours worked each workweek,
due to a policy of time-shaving, resulting in unpaid wages and
unpaid overtime premiums for hours worked over 40. The Defendants
also improperly deducted a meal credit from the Plaintiffs' pay.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as non-exempt
employees.

The Defendants operate 10 restaurants and bars in New York State as
a single integrated enterprise.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Phone: 212-465-1188
          Fax: 212-465-1181


DOLLARDAYS INT'L: Cechini Sues Over Violations of ERISA and COBRA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Cechini, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DOLLARDAYS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-00749-DLR (D. Ariz., April 17, 2020), alleges that the
Defendant violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, as amended by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1985, by failing to provide her with a COBRA notice that
complies with the law.

According to the complaint, despite having access to the Department
of Labor's Model COBRA form, DollarDays chose not to use the model
form--presumably to save DollarDays money because COBRA coverage is
inherently expensive for employers. The failure to provide a timely
COBRA notice misled the Plaintiff and caused the Plaintiff economic
injuries in the form of lost health insurance and unpaid medical
bills, as well as informational injuries.

DollarDays, the plan sponsor and plan administrator of the
DollarDays Plan, has repeatedly violated ERISA by failing to
provide participants and beneficiaries in the Plan with adequate
notice, as prescribed by COBRA, of their right to continue their
health coverage upon the occurrence of a "qualifying event" as
defined by the statute, the Plaintiff contends. Simply put, the
Defendant failure to provide a timely COBRA notice violates the
law, she argues. Rather than including all information required by
law in a single notice "written in a manner calculated to be
understood by the average plan participant," the Defendant failed
to provide any COBRA notification to allow the Plaintiff to make an
informed decision about her healthcare options for her and her
family, she adds.

As a result of these violations, which threaten Class Members'
ability to maintain their health coverage, the Plaintiff seeks
statutory penalties, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses, and other appropriate relief as set forth herein and
provided by law.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendant and was covered
based on her health plan through the Defendant.

The Defendant is a corporation with its headquarters in Delaware
but is registered to do business in the State of Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER, LLP
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 283-3814
          Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com

               - and -

          Rachel Edelsberg, Esq.
          DAPEER LAW, P.A.
          3331 Sunset Avenue
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Phone: 305-610-5223
          Email: rachel@dapeer.com

               - and -

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


DROPBOX INC: 6 Putative Class Suits in California over IPO Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dropbox, Inc. continues to defend itself against six putative class
action lawsuits related to its initial public offering (IPO),
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.

Four putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of the
federal securities laws were filed on August 30, 2019, September 5,
2019, September 13, 2019, and October 3, 2019, in the Superior
Court of the State of California, San Mateo County, against the
Company, certain of its officers and directors, underwriters of its
IPO, and Sequoia Capital XII, L.P. and certain of its affiliated
entities (collectively, the "Dropbox Defendants").  Those lawsuits
have now been consolidated into a single action, which is pending
before Judge Fineman of the Superior Court of the State of
California, San Mateo County.

On October 4, 2019, two putative class action lawsuits alleging
violations of the federal securities laws were filed against the
Dropbox Defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  Those lawsuits have been consolidated into
a single action, which is pending before Judge Freeman of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, and a lead
plaintiff has been appointed.

The state and federal lawsuits each make the same or similar
allegations of violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, for allegedly making materially false and misleading
statements in, or omitting material information from, the Company's
IPO registration statement.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

The Company said, "We do not currently believe that this matter is
likely to have a material adverse impact on our consolidated
results of operations, cash flows, or our financial position.
However, any litigation is inherently uncertain, and any judgment
or injunctive relief entered against us or any adverse settlement
could materially and adversely impact our business, results of
operations, financial condition, and prospects."

Dropbox, Inc. designs and develops document management software.
The Company offers a platform that enables users to store and share
files, photos, videos, songs, and spreadsheets. Dropbox serves
customers worldwide. The company is based in San Francisco,
California.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Named as Nominal Defendant in 2 Class Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer LP (ET) has been named as a nominal defendant in
two securities class actions, 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.

Two purported unitholders of ET filed securities class actions
against ET’s Board of Directors and ET as a nominal defendant:
Bettiol v. LP GP, Case No. 3:19-cv-02890-X, and Donel Davidson v.
Kelcy L. Warren, Cause No. DC-20-02322.

The complaints assert claims for breach of fiduciary duties, unjust
enrichment, waste of corporate assets, abuse of control, and gross
mismanagement and seek damages on behalf of ET related to an
alleged decline in ET’s unit value and also seek changes to
ET’s corporate governance structure, attorney’s fees, and
litigation costs.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, the existence of
wrongdoing by ET during permitting and construction of its Mariner
East pipeline project, including that ET made materially false and
misleading statements regarding its business, operations, and
compliance policies related to the project.

Energy Transfer LP provides energy-related services in the United
States and China. The company owns and operates approximately 9,400
miles of natural gas transportation pipelines and three natural gas
storage facilities in Texas; and approximately 12,200 miles of
interstate natural gas pipelines. The company is based in Dallas,
Texas.


ERIE INSURANCE: Fails to Give Coverage to Lost Income, PGB Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PGB Restaurant Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-02403 (N.D.
Ill., April 19, 2020), arises out of the Defendant's failure to
provide insurance coverage for the business income the Plaintiff
lost because of the ongoing Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

In 2019, Erie sold the Plaintiff an insurance policy (Erie Policy
Number Q97 1258707) that included coverages for the "Income
Protection" and "Extra Expense Coverage" (the "Policy"). Pursuant
to the Policy, Erie agreed to pay for the loss of income sustained
by the Plaintiff "due to partial or total interruption of business
resulting directly from loss or damage to property." Section XI of
the Policy defines "Loss" to include "direct and accidental loss of
or damage to covered property."

The Policy defined "interruption of business" to mean the "period
of time that your business is partially or totally suspended at it:
(1) Begins with the date of direct "loss" to covered property
caused by a peril insured against; and (2) Ends of the date when
the covered property should be repaired, rebuilt, or replaced with
reasonable speed and similar quality." Although most standard
business income insurance (also known as business interruption
insurance) policies include the Virus Exclusion, Erie Insurance
policies--including the Policy at issue here--do not contain the
Virus Exclusion or similar exclusion for virus or bacteria, the
Plaintiff says.

On March 16, 2020, and in compliance with Executive Orders 2020-07
and 2020-10, the Plaintiff suspended all dine-in operations at
their restaurants and began suffering an ongoing loss of business
income. On April 14, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a claim with Erie
related to their lost business income.

On April 16, 2020, Erie denied coverage for the lost income the
Plaintiff has suffered because of COVID-19 and Executive Orders
2020-07 and 2020-10, says the complaint.

PGB Restaurant, Inc., is an Illinois corporation.

Erie Insurance, is a publicly held insurance corporation organized
under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James H. Podolny, Esq.
          DUNCAN LAW GROUP, LLC
          161 North Clark Street, Suite 2550
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 202-3283
          Fax: (312) 202-3284
          Email: rrd@duncanlawgroup.com
                 jp@duncanlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Esbrook, Esq.
          Michael Kozlowski, Esq.
          ESBROOK LAW, LLC
          77 W. Wacker Dr., Suite 4500
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 319-7680
          Email: christopher.esbrook@ebsrooklaw.com
                 michael.kozlowski@esbrooklaw.com


EVERALBUM INC: Faces Sporleader Suit Alleging Violation of BIPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Sporleader, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. EVERALBUM, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-02388
(N.D. Cal., April 17, 2020), is brought for damages, injunctive
relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, for
violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The Defendant was engaged in the manufacturing, programming,
marketing, and sale of a computer and mobile phone application
known as Ever or Everalbum.

The action results from the illegal actions of the Defendant, in
negligently, intentionally, and/or recklessly collecting, storing,
and using the Plaintiff's biometric identifiers and biometric
information without developing a public policy establishing a
retention schedule, establishing guidelines for destroying
biometric identifiers, and biometric information, informing the
Plaintiff of the specific purpose and length of term for which the
information was being stored, or receiving a written release
executed by the Plaintiff, in violation of the BIPA.

By concealing information required to be publicly disclosed by the
BIPA, the Defendant impaired the Plaintiff's ability to use that
information for the substantive purpose of monitoring, controlling,
and protecting her biometrics as envisioned by the BIPA, says the
complaint. Therefore, the Plaintiff has been deprived of her
legally protected interest to obtain information that is required
to be publicly disclosed by Illinois law. As a result, the
Plaintiff has been deterred from partaking in biometric
identifier-facilitated transactions because she lacks sufficient
information, knowledge, and serenity to which she is entitled under
Illinois law.

The Plaintiff began using the App to store photographs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          David B. Levin, Esq.
          Steven G. Perry, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          333 Skokie Blvd., Suite 103
          Northbrook, IL 60062
          Phone: (224) 218-0875
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          Email: dlevin@toddflaw.com
                 steven.perry@toddflaw.com


EVERALBUM INC: Slowinski Sues in California Over BIPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Slowinski, individually, and on behalf of other members
of the general public similarly situated v. EVERALBUM, INC., Case
No. 3:20-cv-02678 (N.D. Cal., April 17, 2020), is brought for
damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies for violations of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

The action arises from the illegal actions of the Defendant in
negligently, intentionally, and/or recklessly collecting, storing,
and using the Plaintiff's biometric identifiers and biometric
information without developing a public policy establishing a
retention schedule, establishing guidelines for destroying
biometric identifiers, and biometric information, informing the
Plaintiff of the specific purpose and length of term for which the
information was being stored, or receiving a written release
executed by the Plaintiff, in violation of the BIPA.

By concealing information required to be publicly disclosed by the
BIPA, the Defendant impaired the Plaintiff's ability to use that
information for the substantive purpose of monitoring, controlling,
and protecting her biometrics as envisioned by the BIPA, the
Plaintiff asserts. Therefore, the Plaintiff argues that she has
been deprived of her legally protected interest to obtain
information that is required to be publicly disclosed by Illinois
law. As a result, the Plaintiff has been deterred from partaking in
biometric identifier-facilitated transactions because she lacks
sufficient information, knowledge, and serenity to which she is
entitled under Illinois law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff began using the Defendant's App to store photographs
on February of 2020.

The Defendant was engaged in the manufacturing, programming,
marketing, and sale of a computer and mobile phone application
known as Ever or Everalbum.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FCA US: Gordon Sues Over Oil Consumption Defect in Jeep Engine
--------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE AND LORA GORDON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. FCA US LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:20-cv-00876 (C.D. Cal., April 23, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of California's Consumers Legal
Remedies Act and the Unfair Competition Law, breach of implied
warranty pursuant to Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and
pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent similarly-situated persons in the
United States who purchased or leased any Jeep vehicles equipped
with a 2.4L Tigershark Inline 4-Cylinder engine, which is designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold, warranted and/or
serviced by the Defendant.  The Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendant failed to disclose a uniform and widespread defect in the
engine of any Jeep vehicles causing excessive engine oil
consumption at a rate that cannot be reasonably anticipated or
predicted. The Plaintiffs claim that the oil consumption defect can
cause the engine and/or its related components to fail, to enter
into a limp mode, or to stall at any time and under any driving
conditions or speeds, thereby exposing vehicle drivers and
passengers to serious risk of collision and injuries. Moreover,
despite notice of the defect from various internal sources, the
Defendant has not recalled the Class vehicles to repair the defect,
has not offered all of its customers a suitable repair or
replacement free of charge, and has not offered to reimburse all
Class vehicles owners and leaseholders who incurred costs relating
to the defect, including costs related to inspections/diagnosis,
repairs, and unreasonably frequent additions of oil between
scheduled oil changes.

FCA US LLC is a designer, manufacturer, marketer, and seller of
motor vehicles, parts, and other products for sale in California
and the United States, with principal place of business located at
1000 Chrysler Drive, Auburn Hills, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
          
          Steven R. Weinmann, Esq.
          Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
          Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
          Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 450
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Steven.Weinmann@capstonelawyers.com
                  Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
                  Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
                  Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com

FLOWERS FOODS: Wilson Balks at Bait-and-Switch Business Model
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harold Wilson, an individual, and Harold K. Wilson III, Inc., a
California Corporation, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly-situated v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC., a Georgia corporation;
FLOWERS BAKERIES, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company, FLOWERS
FINANCE, LLC, a limited liability company, Case No. 2:20-at-00386
(E.D. Cal. April 17, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act to seek recovery for fraud, lost wages, including
overtime pay, unfair competition, as well as an injunction putting
an end to Flowers' bait-and-switch "independent distributor"
business model.

The Plaintiffs also seeks reimbursement for business expenses and
illegal deductions.

According to the complaint, the Defendants themselves and through
their affiliates, deploys an elaborate fraud to cheat its
employees, its competition, and the state and federal governments,
the Defendants does so, primarily, by willfully and systematically
misclassifying its hundreds of delivery drivers as "Independent
Contractors" (sometimes referred to as "Delivery Employees"). In
doing so, The Defendants denies these Delivery Employees, including
the Plaintiff, access to critical benefits and protections they are
entitled to by law, such as minimum wage, overtime compensation,
indemnification for business expenses, family and medical leave,
unemployment insurance, and safe workplaces.

Through their willful misclassification, the Defendants also rob
the federal and state governments of tax revenues and generate
losses to state unemployment insurance and workers' compensation
funds and get an undue advantage over its law-abiding competition,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by and works for the Defendants, and
each of them, as a distributor in the State of California.
Co-Plaintiff Harold K. Wilson III, Inc. is a California Corporation
with an address in Stockton, California.

Flowers is a national packaged bakery foods company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FLOWERS FOODS: Wilson FLSA Suit Seeks Fines for Fraud, Lost Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Harold Wilson, an individual, and Harold K. Wilson III, Inc., a
California Corporation, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly-situated v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC., a Georgia corporation;
FLOWERS BAKERIES, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company, FLOWERS
FINANCE, LLC, a limited liability company, Case No.
2:20-cv-00804-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal., April 17, 2020), is brought under
the Federal Labor Standards Act to recover damages for fraud, lost
wages, including overtime pay, and unfair competition.

The Plaintiffs also seek an injunction putting an end to Flowers'
bait-and-switch "independent distributor" business model, and
reimbursement for business expenses and illegal deductions.

According to the complaint, the Defendants themselves and through
their affiliates, deploy an elaborate fraud to cheat their
employees, competition, and the state and federal governments. The
Defendants does so, primarily, by willfully and systematically
misclassifying their hundreds of delivery drivers as "Independent
Contractors" (sometimes referred to as "Delivery Employees").

In doing so, the Plaintiffs contend, te Defendants deny these
Delivery Employees, including the Plaintiffs, access to critical
benefits and protections they are entitled to by law, such as
minimum wage, overtime compensation, indemnification for business
expenses, family and medical leave, unemployment insurance, and
safe workplaces. Through their willful misclassification, the
Defendants also rob the federal and state governments of tax
revenues and generate losses to state unemployment insurance and
workers' compensation funds and gets an undue advantage over their
law-abiding competition, says the complaint.

Harold Wilson was employed by and works for the Defendants, and
each of them, as a distributor in the State of California.
Co-Plaintiff Harold K. Wilson III, Inc. is a California Corporation
with an address in Stockton, California.

Flowers sells billions of dollars of baked goods to retailers
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FORCES OF NATURE: Slowinski Sues Over Products' Misleading Labels
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christie Slowinski, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FORCES OF NATURE, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-02381 (N.D. Ill., April 17, 2020), is brought for damages,
injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies, for violations of Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Businesses Practices Act, common law fraud, unjust enrichment, and
breach of warranty.

The action results from the alleged illegal actions of Defendant,
in intentionally labeling its medicinal products with false and
misleading claims that they contain various active ingredients,
when the Defendant's products do not contain those ingredients.

The following list of Defendant's products were advertised as
containing the listed active ingredients, when those products did
not contain the ingredients listed: a) Allergy Maximum Strength;
ingredients: Althaea Officinalis, Inula Helenium, Angelica
Archangelica, Pinus Sylvestrus, Natrum Muriaticum, and Sillica; b)
Athlete's Foot Control; ingredients: Hydocotyle Assiatica and Thuja
Occidentalis; c) Back Pain Management; Ingredients: Arnica Montana,
Hypericum Perforatum, Ruta Graveolens, and Natrum Muiaticum; d)
Cold & Flu Maximum Strength; ingredients: Sambuscus Nigra, Berberis
vulgaris, Solidago, Ocimum, Allium Stativum, Zingiber Officinale,
and Trigonella Foenum-Gracum; e) Gout Pain Management; ingredients:
Arnica Montana and Urica Urens; f) Headache Pain Management;
ingredients: IrisVersicolor and Silcea; g) Joint Pain Management;
ingredients: Aesculus Hippocastanum and Ruta Graveolens; h)
Migraine Pain Management; ingredients: Iris Versicolor and Natrum
Muriaticum; i) Muscle Pain Relief; ingredients: Arnica Montana and
Ruta Grveolens; j) Nerve Pain Relief; ingredients: Coffea Cruda,
Hypericum Perforratum, and Sillicia; k) Maximum Strength Sinus;
ingredients: Occimum, Berberis Vulgaris, Allium Sativum, Thuja
Occidentalis, Echinacea Angustifoolia, Silica, and Trigonella
Foenum-Graecum; l) Sleep Well Control; ingredients: Coffea Cruda
and Piper Methysticum; and m) Varicose Vein Control; ingredients:
Aesculus Hippocastanum and Hamamelis Virginiana.

The Plaintiff asserts that persons like her have an interest in
purchasing products that do not contain false and misleading claims
with regards to the inclusion of active ingredients in those
products. By making false and misleading claims about the
ingredients contained in their products, the Defendant impaired her
ability to choose the type and quality of products she chose to
buy, she contends.

Therefore, the Plaintiff says, she has been deprived of her legally
protected interest to obtain true and accurate information about
her consumer products as required by Illinois and Federal law. As a
result, the Plaintiff has been misled into purchasing products she
would not have otherwise purchased, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff's most recent purchase of the Products was on
February 10, 2020.

The Defendant manufactures, advertises, markets, sells, and
distributes medicinal products throughout Illinois and the United
States under the brand name "Forces of Nature."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          David B. Levin, Esq.
          Steven G. Perry, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          333 Skokie Blvd., Suite 103
          Northbrook, IL 60062
          Phone: (224) 218-0875
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          Email: dlevin@toddflaw.com
                 steven.perry@toddflaw.com


FUNKO INC: Bid to Dismiss Wash. Securities Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Funko, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss in the
class action suit entitled, In re Funko, Inc. Securities Litigation
in the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County, is
still pending.

On November 16, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed
a putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of Washington
in and for King County against the company, certain of its officers
and directors, and the underwriters of its Initial Public Offering
(IPO), entitled Robert Lowinger v. Funko, Inc. et. al.

In January and March 2018, five additional putative class action
lawsuits were filed in Washington state court, four in the Superior
Court of Washington in and for King County and one in the Superior
Court of Washington in and for Snohomish County.

Two of the King County lawsuits, Surratt v. Funko, Inc. et. al.
(filed on January 16, 2018) and Baskin v. Funko, Inc. et. al.
(filed on January 30, 2018), were filed against the company and
certain of its officers and directors.

The other two King County lawsuits, The Ronald and Maxine Linde
Foundation v. Funko, Inc. et. al. (filed on January 18, 2018) and
Lovewell v. Funko, Inc. et al (filed on March 27, 2018), were filed
against the company, certain of its officers and directors, ACON,
Fundamental and certain other defendants.

The Snohomish County lawsuit, Berkelhammer v. Funko, Inc. et. al.
(filed on March 13, 2018), was filed against the company, certain
of its officers and directors, and ACON.

On May 8, 2015, the Berkelhammer action was voluntarily dismissed,
and on May 15, 2018 a substantially similar action was filed by the
same plaintiff in the Superior Court of Washington in and for King
County.  

On April 2, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Jacobs
v. Funko, Inc. et. al was filed in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington against the company, certain
of its officers and directors, and certain other defendants.

On May 21, 2018, the Jacobs action was voluntarily dismissed, and
on June 12, 2018, a substantially similar action was filed by the
same plaintiff in the Superior Court of Washington in and for King
County.

On July 2, 2018, all of the above-referenced suits were ordered
consolidated for all purposes into one action under the title In re
Funko, Inc. Securities Litigation in the Superior Court of
Washington in and for King County.

On August 1, 2018, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
against the company, certain of its officers and directors, ACON,
Fundamental, and certain other defendants.

On October 1, 2018, the company moved to dismiss that action.
Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the company's motion to
dismiss on October 31, 2018, and the company filed its reply to
plaintiffs' opposition on November 30, 2018. Oral argument on the
motion to dismiss was held on May 3, 2019. On August 2, 2019, the
Court granted the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated
state litigation, allowing plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint.


The Court found, inter alia, that "Funko's statements regarding its
financial disclosures were not materially false or misleading" and
that "plaintiffs have not shown that Funko's 'opinion statements'
were false or that such statements were not simply corporate
optimism or puffery."

On October 3, 2019, plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated
complaint.

The company moved to dismiss that complaint on December 5, 2019.

Funko said, "We anticipate that the motion will be fully briefed by
March 11, 2020, and that oral argument on the motion will take
place March 27, 2020.

Funko, Inc., a pop culture consumer products company, designs,
sources, and distributes licensed pop culture products in the
United States, China, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom. Funko, Inc.
was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Everett, Washington.


FUNKO INC: Continues to Defend Kanugonda Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Funko, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend
a class action suit entitled, Kanugonda v. Funko, Inc. et al.

On June 4, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Kanugonda
v. Funko Inc. et al. was filed in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington against the company, certain
of its officers and directors, and certain other defendants.

On January 4, 2019, a lead plaintiff was appointed in that case.

On April 30, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
against the previously named defendants.

The parties to the federal action, now captioned Berkelhammer v.
Funko, Inc. et al. have agreed to a stay of that action pending
developments in the state case.

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

Funko, Inc., a pop culture consumer products company, designs,
sources, and distributes licensed pop culture products in the
United States, China, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom. Funko, Inc.
was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Everett, Washington.


GENERAL MOTORS: Barrington Sues Over Cracked Rims, Denied Warranty
------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Barrington, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. General Motors LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-02194, (N.D. Cal., March 31, 2020), seeks damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and such other and further relief
resulting from breach of contract, negligence, deceit by
concealment and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

Barrington purchased a new 2018 Chevrolet Corvette Grand Sport in
March 29, 2018. He claims that the stock rims cracked and that
General Motors refused to cover the necessary rim replacement under
warranty. Barrington had to eventually replace six cracked rims on
his vehicle. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Steven R. Weinmann, Esq.
     Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
     Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
     Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
     CAPSTONE LAW APC
     1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Telephone: (310) 556-4811
     Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
     Email: Steven.Weinmann@capstonelawyers.com
            Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
            Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
            Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com


GET TOGETHER: Cerar Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
BELLE CERAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GET TOGETHER INC., Defendant, Case No.
6:20-cv-00535-MC (D. Ore., April 1, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Defendant transmitted multiple text
messages to Plaintiff's 9246 number and at least one text message
to each members of Putative class in an attempt to promote
Defendant's products and services and without the requisite prior
"express written consent" of Plaintiff or any member of the Class.
Allegedly, Defendant utilized an "automatic telephone dialing
system" because all text messages sent from a dedicated telephone
number used for the purpose of transmitting text messages to
consumers.

The complaint asserts that each Defendant's unsolicited text
messages sent to Plaintiff have invaded Plaintiff's privacy and
intruded upon Plaintiff's seclusion upon receipt because
Plaintiff's cellular phone alerts her whenever she receives a text
message.

Get Together Inc. is the owner and operator of "IRL", which stands
for "in real life", a mobile application which facilitates
in-person interactions among consumers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stanton R. Gallegos, Esq.
          MARKOWITZ HERBOLD PC
          1455 SW Broadway, Suite 1900
          Portland, OR 97201
          Tel: (503)295-3085
          Fax: (503)323-9105
          Email: StantonGallegos@MarkowitzHerbold.com

                - and –

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 1140
          Miami, FL 33131
          Tel: (305)357-2107
          Fax: (305)200-8801
          Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com

                - and –

          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Tel: (646)837-7142
          Fax: (212)989-9163
          Email: pfraietta@bursor.com


GM EQUITY: Dillard Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aletha Dillard, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. GM EQUITY DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Michigan Limited
Liability Company, and GREEN W. MOSS, jointly and severally, Case
No. 5:20-cv-10951-JEL-MJH (E.D. Mich., April 17, 2020), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid minimum wage
compensation, liquidated damages, declaratory relief and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants violated the FLSA by knowingly suffering or
permitting the Plaintiff to work in excess of 40 hours during
workweeks throughout the relevant time period without receiving
overtime compensation at a rate of one-and-one-half times their
regular-rate of pay, and full minimum wages for all hours worked in
workweeks, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a commercial cleaner
from February 2018 to April 2019.

GM Equity was be a Michigan limited liability management services
company with its principal place of business located in
Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael N. Hanna, Esq.
          Haba K. Yono, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          2000 Town Center, Suite 1900
          Southfield, MI 48075
          Phone: (313) 251-1399
          Email: mhanna@forthepeople.com
                 hyono@forthepeople.com


GOOD CHEMISTRY: Abbink Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
------------------------------------------------------
Bryce Abbink, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Good Chemistry I, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00871 (D. Colo., March 31, 2020), seeks statutory and treble
damages, injunctive relief, compensation and attorney fees under
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

Good Chemistry operates marijuana dispensaries in Colorado,
Massachusetts and Nevada. In an effort to effectuate their
business, they utilize telemarketing to reach consumers, often
without the recipients' consent. Abbink "Opted out" of receiving
such messages but still received them. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
      Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
      Taylor T. Smith, Esq.
      Stephen A. Klein, Esq.
      WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
      3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
      Denver, CO 80210
      Telephone: (720) 213-0675
      Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
      Email: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
             ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
             tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com
             sklein@woodrowpeluso.com


GOOGLE LLC: Farwell et al. Sue Over Storage of Kids' Biometrics
---------------------------------------------------------------
H.K. and J.C., through their father and legal guardian CLINTON
FARWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. GOOGLE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:20-cv-02257 (N.D. Cal., April 2, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the Illinois' Biometric Information
Privacy Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and the federal
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant collects, stores, and
uses the personally identifying biometric data of the Plaintiffs
and all others similarly-situated school children throughout the
U.S. through its G Suite for Education platform which is
pre-installed on the company's ChromeBook laptops, without seeking,
much less obtaining the requisite informed written consent from any
of their parents or other legal guardians.

Google, LLC is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products, with its
headquarters at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, 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

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

               - and -
          
          David W. Hall, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94111          
          Telephone: (415) 766-3534
          Facsimile: (415) 402-0058
          E-mail: dhall@hedinhall.com

GSX TECHEDU: Wu Sues in N.J. Over Violations of Securities Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zeqiu Wu, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. GSX TECHEDU INC., LARRY XIANGDONG CHEN, and NAN SHEN,
Case No. 1:20-cv-04457 (D.N.J., April 17, 2020), seeks to recover
damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons other than Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired
GSX securities between June 6, 2019, and April 13, 2020, both dates
inclusive.

GSX was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Beijing, the
People's Republic of China ("PRC" or "China"). The Company was
formerly known as BaiJiaHuLian Group Holdings Limited and changed
its name to GSX Techedu Inc. in January 2019. GSX conducted its
initial public offering on June 6, 2019, after which its American
Depositary Shares began publicly trading on the New York Stock
Exchange under the ticker symbol "GSX."

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
GSX overstated its profitability, revenue, student enrollment
figures, teacher qualifications, and teacher selection process;
(ii) once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material
negative impact on the Company's financial results; and (iii) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On February 25, 2020, Grizzly Research LLC published a report
highlighting multiple alleged issues with GSX's business and
financial operations. Specifically, the Grizzly Report alleged,
among other issues, that the Company "has been drastically
overstating its profitability in its US public filings, especially
for 2018"; Grizzly "found multiple strong indications of past and
current order 'brushing,'" which are "essentially fake student
enrollments to boost student count"; "many of GSX's reported
students do not actually exist"; and "[w]hile [GSX] touts its
high-quality teacher recruitment mechanism, [Grizzly] found a
sign-up website that was not functional, multiple allegations of
GSX hiring teachers right out of college with no prior experience,
and fabricated teachers profiles." Following publication of the
Grizzly Report, GSX's ADS price fell $1.33 per share, or 2.93%, to
close at $44.09 per share on February 25, 2020.

Then, on April 14, 2020, Citron Research published a report
highlighting additional alleged issues with GSX's business and
financial operations, including, among other issues, that the
Company's "2019 revenue was overstated by 70%," that "sales
revenues are largely exaggerated," and that the Company's "filings
are riddled with suspicious transactions."

Following publication of the Citron Report, GSX's ADS price fell
$0.20 per share, or 0.64%, to close at $31.20 per share on April
14, 2020--a total decline of 31.31% since the truth concerning
GSX's alleged fraud began to emerge.

As a result of the 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, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff acquired GSX securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.

GSX is a technology-driven education company that provides online
K-12 after-school tutoring services in China.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          Email: gfbruckner@pomlaw.com
                 jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                 ahood@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


HDR GLOBAL: Illegally Liquidated BitMEX Contracts, Messieh Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRETT MESSIEH and DREW LEE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HDR GLOBAL TRADING
LIMITED, ABS GLOBAL TRADING LIMITED, ARTHUR HAYES, BEN DELO, and
SAMUEL REED, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03232 (S.D.N.Y., April
23, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of the Commodity Exchange Act.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly-situated investors who purchased securities and
commodities futures that BitMEX sold in domestic U.S. transactions
through its exchange since March 10, 2017, allege that BitMEX
maintained a policy where it would automatically liquidate
contracts that were out of the money, generally at a profit to
itself and put the profits in its so-called Insurance Fund. BitMEX
has increased the profitability of the Insurance Fund by routinely
freezing its servers, which BitMEX blames on technical glitches and
limitations even though its competitors do not experience similar
freezes and these freezes cannot be justified by trading
volume—to profit during moments of high volatility. During these
freezes, customers are locked out of their accounts and unable to
change their positions, but the market continues to operate and
BitMEX continues to liquidate positions based on the moving market.
BitMEX would thus prevent its customers from escaping positions
until they fell to a level at which BitMEX could liquidate those
positions at a further profit to itself. The Plaintiffs claim that
BitMEX and the Defendants who have controlled its operations have
thus manipulated and exploited their liquidation and trading
systems, harming Plaintiffs and Class members who had their
positions liquidated or who were disadvantaged through trades
orchestrated by BitMEX's secret proprietary trading desk, in
violation of the Commodity Exchange Act.

HDR Global Trading Limited is a crypto-asset derivatives exchange
operator, with its principal office located at Global Gateway 8,
Rue de la Perle, Providence Mahe, Seychelles. It is the owner of
the trading platform called BitMEX.

ABS Global Trading Limited is a company entirely owned by HDR
Global Trading Limited. It is registered to do business in New York
and headquartered at 31 Conduit Road, Flat 17B, The Morgan, Hong
Kong. It is responsible for technical aspects of the BitMEX
platform, including security services and implementing the user
interface traders use to buy and sell products. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -
          
          Kyle W. Roche, Esq.
          Edward Normand, Esq.
          Velvel (Devin) Freedman, Esq.
          Joseph M. Delich, Esq.
          Richard R. Cipolla, Esq.
          ROCHE CYRULNIK FREEDMAN LLP
          99 Park Avenue, 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          E-mail: kyle@rcfllp.com
                  tnormand@rcfllp.com
                  vel@rcfllp.com
                  jdelich@rcfllp.com
                  rcipolla@rcfllp.com

HP INC: Bid to Dismiss Forsyth Class Action Underway
----------------------------------------------------
HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 5, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended January 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss filed in the
class action suit entitled, Forsyth, et al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett
Packard Enterprise, remains pending.

This is a purported class and collective action filed on August 18,
2016 in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California, against HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise alleging the
defendants violated the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment
Act ("ADEA"), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act,
California public policy and the California Business and
Professions Code by terminating older workers and replacing them
with younger workers.

In their initial complaint, Plaintiffs sought to certify a
nationwide collective class action under the ADEA comprised of all
U.S. residents employed by defendants who had their employment
terminated pursuant to a workforce reduction ("WFR") plan on or
after May 23, 2012 and who were 40 years of age or older.

Plaintiffs also sought to represent a Rule 23 class under
California law comprised of all persons 40 years or older employed
by defendants in the state of California and terminated pursuant to
a WFR plan on or after May 23, 2012.  

In November 2016, the plaintiffs amended their complaint, adding
new plaintiffs and narrowing the class period for the nationwide
collective action to a period that started on December 9, 2014.  

On September 20, 2017, the Court granted defendants' motions to
compel arbitration as to the party plaintiffs who signed WFR
release agreements, and also stayed the entire case until the
arbitrations were completed.  

In October 2018, the claims of all 16 arbitration claimants were
resolved.  Between November 2018 and April 2019, an additional 154
individuals filed consents to opt‐in to the action as
party‐plaintiffs, which brought the total number of named and
opt-in plaintiffs to 193.  

Of the new opt-ins, 145 signed separation agreements that included
class waivers and mandatory arbitration provisions.  

The parties have resolved the claims of 142 of those 145 opt-ins,
and the remaining three opt-ins who signed separation agreements
dismissed their claims without prejudice.  

In February 2020, the claims of thirteen additional party
plaintiffs were dismissed voluntarily without prejudice, leaving
the total number of named and opt-in plaintiffs at 35.  

On January 7, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint
that seeks to represent (1) a putative nationwide ADEA collective
comprised of all individuals 40 years of age and older who had
their employment terminated pursuant to a WFR plan on or after
December 9, 2014 and did not sign a Waiver and General Release
Agreement in connection with their selection for WFR; and (2) a
putative Rule 23 class under California law comprised of all
individuals 40 years of age and older who had their employment
terminated pursuant to a WFR plan on or after August 18, 2012 and
did not sign a Waiver and General Release Agreement in connection
with their selection for WFR.  

On February 6, 2020, Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in
its entirety. The stay of the litigation otherwise remains in
place.

HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices,
imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions,
and services in the United States and internationally. The company
operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and
Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as
Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October
2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo
Alto, California.


IAS LOGISTICS: Mosley Seeks Overtime Pay and Meal Break for Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TARYN MOSLEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. IAS LOGISTICS DFW, LLC d/b/a
PINNACLE LOGISTICS, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-01984-JLS (E.D.
Pa., April 21, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for
failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others
similarly-situated hourly-paid employees overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek and for deducting 30
minutes of pay for meal break per work shift irrespective of
whether Plaintiff and the Class members received bona fide meal
breaks in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment
and Collection Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant at its Allentown,
Pennsylvania service locations as an hourly-paid administration
agent from approximately April 2018 to April 2019 and as an
hourly-paid administration supervisor from approximately May 2019
to December 2019.

IAS Logistics DFW, LLC, d/b/a Pinnacle Logistics, is a provider of
trucking and aviation services across the U.S. and provides a range
of logistic and ground support equipment leasing services including
local delivery, warehouse management, loading and unloading cargo
aircraft, with principal place of business located at 111 W 4th
Street, Suite 301, Fort Worth, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          BROWN LLC
          111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Telephone: (877) 561-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com

IQIYI INC: Faces Shiferaw Suit Over Violations of Securities Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sintayehu Shiferaw, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. iQIYI, Inc., YU GONG, and XIAODONG WANG, Case
No. 1:20-cv-03115 (S.D.N.Y., April 17, 2020), is brought against
iQIYI and certain of its officers and directors for violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all persons or entities, who
purchased or otherwise acquired iQIYI securities between March 29,
2018, through April 7, 2020, both dates inclusive.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and omissions. Specifically, the
Defendants overstated iQIYI's 2019 revenue by 27%-44% and the
Company's user numbers by 42%-60%. The Company also inflated its
expenses to conceal these misstatements from investors. This fraud
was revealed on April 7, 2020. During regular market hours on that
date, Wolfpack Research published a 37-page report detailing the
Defendants' scheme to defraud investors. Among other things, this
report explained how iQIYI had materially overstated its revenue
and subscriber numbers.

On this news, iQIYI's American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") fell
$1.01 per share, or 5.8 percent, over the remainder of the day and
the next full trading day to close at $16.51 per share April 8,
2020. As a result of the Defendants false and/or misleading
statements and/or omissions, the Plaintiff and the Class have
suffered harm under the federal securities laws, says the
complaint.

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

iQIYI operates a Chinese video online streaming platform, which is
currently one of the largest video-based websites in the world,
with on-demand video content, including television shows and
movies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


IQOR HOLDINGS: Simpson Sues Under FLSA Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Simpson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. IQOR HOLDINGS US LLC F/K/A IQOR HOLDINGS US INC., Case
No. 2:20-cv-01985-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, April 17, 2020), is brought
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, and to remedy violations of the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was not paid overtime compensation for all of the
hours they worked over 40 each workweek, says the complaint. The
Plaintiff says the Defendant knowingly and willfully engaged in the
violations of the FLSA and OMFWSA.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant between January 2019
and November 2019 as a customer services collections agent.

The Defendant provides third party collection services, accounts
receivable management, product support services and data solutions
to its customers from call centers in North America, Europe, and
Asia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          920 Rockefeller Building
          614 W. Superior Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Phone: 216-696-5000
          Facsimile: 216-696-7005
          Email: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
                 anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
                 chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com


J&J ERECTORS: Martinez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Martinez, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated v. DAISY YOSELINE VASQUEZ and JIMY ALEXANDER GARCIA-OCHOA,
Individually and d/b/a J&J ERECTORS, TOTAL MBC, and TOTAL MBE, Case
No. 4:20-cv-01388 (S.D. Tex., April 17, 2020), is brought against
the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The
Defendants paid the Plaintiff on an hourly basis. The Defendants
did not pay the Plaintiff an overtime premium for any of the hours
he worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the complaint.
Instead, the Plaintiff was paid the same hourly rate for all the
hours he worked.

Plaintiff Martinez worked for the Defendants as a construction
worker erecting metal buildings at various times between March 2017
and April 2019.

The Defendants are "employers" as defined by the FLSA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          Vijay Pattisapu, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
          Houston, TX 77018
          Phone: 713-868-3388
          Facsimile: 713-683-9940
          Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
                 vijay@buenkerlaw.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Misrepresents PPP Loan Deals, Cyber Defense Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cyber Defense Group, LLC, a California limited liability company,
and In the Mix Promotions, Inc., a California corporation,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
businesses and individuals v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JPMORGAN CHASE
BANK, N.A.; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-03589 (C.D.
Cal., April 19, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the
California Unfair Competition Law and the California False
Advertising Law by making false and misleading representations
concerning the nature of the services they would be providing as
Paycheck Protection Program loan administrators.

The Plaintiff contends that Chase has, once again, prioritized
corporate greed at the expense of its small business customers.
Rather than processing Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP")
applications on a first-come, first-served basis as required by the
rules governing that program, Chase prioritized loan applications
seeking higher loan amounts because processing those applications
first generated larger loan origination fees for the banks.

Making matters worse, Chase concealed from the public that it was
reshuffling the PPP applications it received and prioritizing the
applications that would make the bank the most money, according to
the complaint. As a result, thousands of small
businesses--including the plaintiffs--trusted that Chase would
process the applications on a first come, first served basis. Had
Chase been honest, small businesses could have (and would have)
submitted their PPP applications to other financial institutions
that were processing applications on a first-come, first-served
basis.

As a result of Chase's dishonest and deplorable behavior, however,
thousands of small businesses that were entitled to loans under the
PPP were left with nothing because Chase chose to maximize its loan
origination fees rather than comply with the rules of the program
and serve the needs of its small business customers, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Cyber Defense Group, LLC is a small business that
provides cyber defense services in the local community. Plaintiff
In the Mix Promotions, Inc. is a small business that provides
marketing services to the local community.

JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. is a diversified financial services company
providing banking, insurance, investments, mortgage banking and
consumer finance to individuals, businesses and institutions in all
50 states and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dylan Ruga, Esq.
          Ji-In Lee Houck, Esq.
          David M. Angeloff, Esq.
          STALWART LAW GROUP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, Suite 1840
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: (310) 954-2000
          Email: dylan@stalwartlaw.com
                 jiin@stalwartlaw.com
                 david@stalwartlaw.com


KREILKAMP TRUCKING: Bosley Seeks Unpaid Min. Wage, Damages
----------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Bosley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Kreilkamp Trucking, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 20-cv-00549, (S.D. Ohio, March 31, 2020), seeks unpaid minimum
wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Kreilkamp Trucking, Inc. is a motor carrier in the business of
providing long-haul trucking services where Bosley worked as a
truck driver. He claims to be compensated on a per-mile basis and
not compensated for his work that he rendered while still on the
road but under company time. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher J. Lalak, Esq.
      Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
      NILGES DRAHER LLC
      614 W. Superior Ave., Suite 1148
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 230-2955
      Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
      Email: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com
             clalak@ohlaborlaw.com


KUCOIN: Williams et al. Sue Over Unregistered Digital Tokens
------------------------------------------------------------
CHASE WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. KUCOIN; MICHAEL GAN; JOHNNY LYU;
and ERIC DON, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02806 (S.D.N.Y., April
3, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly-situated investors who purchased 10 digital tokens that
KuCoin has sold through its online exchange since September 15,
2017, alleges that the Defendants marketed the digital tokens to
the public through an initial coin offering without registering as
an exchange or broker dealer and without filing registration
statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as
required under federal and state laws. On September 30, 2019, SEC
determined KuCoin's digital tokens as unregistered securities,
nearly six months after it released a detailed framework to analyze
digital assets wherein it clarified that the tokens are investment
contracts and therefore securities under Section 2 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 3 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. As a result, the Plaintiff and Class members who purchased
the tokens suffered significant losses and they seek to recover the
consideration paid for the tokens with interest thereon at the
legal rate, or the equivalent in monetary damages plus interest at
the legal rate from the date of purchase.

KuCoin is a cryptocurrency exchange platform company headquartered
in Singapore. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
   
          Kyle W. Roche, Esq.
          Edward Normand, Esq.
          Velvel (Devin) Freedman, Esq.
          Jordana Haviv, Esq.
          ROCHE CYRULNIK FREEDMAN LLP
          99 Park Avenue, 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10016          
          Telephone: (713) 554-2377
          Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
          E-mail: kyle@rcfllp.com
                  tnormand@rcfllp.com
                  vel@rcfllp.com
                  jhaviv@rcfllp.com

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

LIFE ON AIR: Sweeney Sues Over Violation of Consumer Privacy Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Sweeney, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LIFE ON AIR, INC. & EPIC GAMES INC., Case No.
3:20-cv-00742-BAS-BLM (S.D. Cal., April 17, 2020), is brought
against the Defendants for negligence, violation of the California
Unfair Compensation Law, Breach of Implied Contract, unjust
Enrichment, invasion of privacy, public disclosure of private
facts, violation of the California's Consumer Privacy Act, and
violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

According to the complaint, Life On Air, Inc. & Epic Games Inc.
("Houseparty") promised customer that its application allows them
to "connect with anyone you want" and promise that "Houseparty is
secure" and further promised that there has been "no data breaches
and no exposure of customer data or third-party accounts." Although
Houseparty praises themselves o tis application aiding in social
distancing amid the coronavirus global pandemic and keeping
customer data secure, Houseparty failed to disclose to customer
that it routine discloses their personally identifiable information
("PII") to unauthorized third parties, including social media
network Facebook, Inc., without customer consent.

The Defendant's conduct invaded the reasonable expectations of its
customers and took advantage of customers with predatory business
practices, says the complaint. The Plaintiff downloaded and
accessed the Houseparty application, The Plaintiff was harmed when
the Defendants disclosed the Plaintiff's PII to third parties
without consent.

The Plaintiff has downloaded, installed and accessed the iOS
version of the Houseparty application.

Houseparty is a social networking app that allows multiple people
to video chat at one in a virtual room.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LLOYD'S LONDON: SA Palm Beach Sues for COVID-19 Coverage
--------------------------------------------------------
The case, SA PALM BEACH LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly-situated v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S
LONDON, and UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON KNOWN AS SYNDICATES CNP
4444, AFB 2623, AFB 623, BRT 2987, BRT 2988, NEO 2468, SAM 727,
AXS1686, XIS H4202, QBE 1886, DUW 1729, WBC 5886, CHN 2015, HDU
382, MSP 318, AGR 3268, APL 1969, ACS 1856, AMA 1200, TAL 1183 and
PPP 9981, Defendants, Case No. 9:20-cv-80677-WPD (S.D. Fla., April
22, 2020), arises from the Defendants' refusal to provide coverage
for business interruption related to COVID-19 pandemic.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly-situated entities who have entered into standard all-risk
commercial property insurance policies with Lloyd's with business
interruption coverage, alleges that Lloyd's is obligated to pay the
Plaintiff and other Class members for the full amount of the
business income losses incurred and to be incurred in connection
with the government's closure order during the period of
restoration and the necessary interruption of their businesses
stemming from executive orders intended to mitigate the COVID-19
pandemic because these are insured losses under their policies. The
Plaintiff claims that Lloyd's denial of coverage of the incurred
business income losses breached its coverage obligations under the
policies.

SA Palm Beach LLC is an owner of a restaurant operating under the
name Sant Ambroeus Palm Beach at 340 Royal Poinciana Way, Suite
304, Palm Beach, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Paul J. Geller, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750-3000
          E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                  pgeller@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -
          
          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                  ltaylor@carellabyrne.com

               - and -
          
          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS
          55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
          Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
          Telephone: (973) 639-9100
          E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
                  sweiss@seegerweiss.com

               - and -
          
          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -
          
          Michael J. Sacks, Esq.
          THE SACKS FIRM
          7210 Wisteria Avenue
          Parkland, FL 33076
          Telephone: (954) 445-2527
          E-mail: msacks@bellsouth.net

LLOYD'S OF LONDON: Faces GIO Pizzeria Suit Over Denied Coverage
---------------------------------------------------------------
GIO Pizzeria & Bar Hospitality, LLC and GIO Pizzeria Boca, LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY
NUMBERS ARP-74910-20 and ARP-75209-20, Case No. 1:20-cv-03107
(S.D.N.Y., April 17, 2020), is brought against the Defendant to
seek damages as a result of the Underwriters' breaches of the
policies by denying coverage for any business income losses
incurred by the Plaintiffs in connection with the COVID-19
pandemic.

The Plaintiffs own and operate Nick's New Haven Style Pizzeria &
Bar, a full-service bar and restaurant specializing in coal-fired
pizza with locations in Coral Springs and Boca Raton, Florida.

According to the complaint, Nick's Pizzerias' futures are now
threatened by COVID-19 (a.k.a. the "coronavirus" or "SARS-CoV-2").
To protect its businesses in the event that it suddenly had to
suspend operations for reasons outside of its control, or if it had
to act in order to prevent further property damage, the Plaintiffs
purchased insurance coverage from the Underwriters, including
special property coverage, as set forth in the Underwriters'
Business Income (and Extra Expense) Coverage Form ("Special
Property Coverage Form").

The Underwriters' Special Property Coverage Form provides "Business
Income" coverage, which promises to pay for loss due to the
necessary suspension of operations following physical loss or
damage to property. Underwriters' Special Property Coverage Form
also provides "Civil Authority" coverage, which promises to pay for
loss caused by the action of a civil authority that prohibits
access to the insured premises. Underwriters' Special Property
Coverage Form also provides "Extra Expense" coverage, which
promises to pay the expense incurred to minimize the suspension of
business and to continue operations.

Unlike many policies that provide Business Income (also referred to
as "business interruption") coverage, the Underwriters' Special
Property Coverage Form does not include, and is not subject to, any
exclusion for losses caused by viruses or communicable diseases.
The Plaintiffs aver that they were forced to suspend or reduce
business at their Nick's Pizzerias due to COVID-19 and the
resultant orders issued by civil authorities in Florida mandating
the suspension of business for on-site services, as well as in
order to take necessary steps to prevent further damage and
minimize the suspension of business and continue operations.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Underwriters have, on a widescale
and uniform basis, refused to pay its insureds under its Business
Income, Civil Authority, Extra Expense, and Sue and Labor coverages
for losses suffered due to COVID-19, any executive orders by civil
authorities that have required the necessary suspension of
business, and any efforts to prevent further property damage or to
minimize the suspension of business and continue operations.
Indeed, Underwriters have denied claims submitted by the Plaintiffs
under their policies, says the complaint.

The Underwriters are composed of separate syndicates, in turn
comprised of entities known as "Names," which underwrite insurance
in a market known as Lloyd's of London.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Greg G. Gutzler, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          444 Madison Avenue, Fourth Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 646-933-1000
          Email: ggutzler@cowperlaw.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
          Mark Hamill, Esq.
          Laura E. Reasons, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: 312-214-7900
          Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
                 akeller@dicellolevitt.com
                 dferri@dicellolevitt.com
                 mhamill@dicellolevitt.com
                 lreasons@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Mark A. DiCello, Esq.
          Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq.
          Mark Abramowitz, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          7556 Mentor Avenue
          Mentor, OH 44060
          Phone: 440-953-8888
          Email: madicello@dicellolevitt.com
                 kabbarno@dicellolevitt.com
                 mabramowitz@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Mark Lanier, Esq.
          Alex Brown, Esq.
          Skip McBride, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM
          10940 W. Sam Houston Pkwy. North, Suite 100
          Houston, TX 77064
          Phone: (713) 659-5200
          Email: WML@lanierlawfirm.com
                 alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com
                 skip.mcbride@lanierlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Evan Janush, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM
          126 East 56th Street, Sixth Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-421-2800
          Email: WML@lanierlawfirm.com
                 alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Timothy W. Burns, Esq.
          Jeff J. Bowen, Esq.
          Jesse J. Bair, Esq.
          Freya K. Bowen, Esq.
          BURNS BOWEN BAIR LLP
          One South Pinckney Street, Suite 930
          Madison, WI 53703
          Phone: 608-286-2302
          Email: tburns@bbblawllp.com
                 jbowen@bbblawllp.com
                 jbair@bbblawllp.com
                 fbowen@bbblawllp.com

               - and -

          Douglas Daniels, Esq.
          DANIELS & TREDENNICK
          6363 Woodway, Suite 700
          Houston, TX 77057
          Phone: 713-917-0024
          Email: douglas.daniels@dtlawyers.com


LOANME INC: Faces Mosher Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hilary Mosher, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated v. LOANME, INC., a corporation, Case No. 8:20-cv-00757
(C.D. Cal., April 17, 2020), arises from the Defendant's illegal
actions in negligently contacting the Plaintiff's cellular
telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
thereby, invading her privacy.

According to the complaint, the Defendant promotes its loans
through harassing, spam text messages to individuals who did not
consent to be contacted. The Defendant routinely sends text
messages to wireless telephones with automatic telephone dialing
equipment without the wireless user's prior express consent, in
violation of the TCPA. The Defendant's violations caused the
Plaintiff actual harm, including aggravation, nuisance, and
invasion of privacy that necessarily accompanies the receipt of
unsolicited text messages, as well as the violation of their
statutory rights.

Plaintiff Hilary Mosher is a resident of the State of California,
Humboldt County.

LoanMe offers consumers loans and small business loans.[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
          Phone: (619) 696-9006
          Fax: (619) 564-6665
          Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                 alexis@consumersadvocates.com
                 kas@consumersadvocates.com


LOWE'S HOME: Shortchanges Store Staff on Hours Paid, Says Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mandy Boyce and Thomas Fyfe, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lowe's Companies, Inc. and
Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00228, (S.D.
W.V., April 2, 2020), seeks an award of unpaid wages and liquidated
damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, attendant penalties and
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act, West
Virginia Minimum Wage and Maximum Hours Law and the West Virginia
Wage Payment and Collection Act.

Lowe's is a retail company specializing in home improvement with a
chain of retail stores in the United States and Canada. Boyce
worked from October 2017 until July 2019 occupying the position of
Department Manager at E. Charleston Lowe's as her last known post.
Fyfe worked from September 2016 until March 2018 as Assistant Store
Manager at E. Charleston Lowe's as his last known post. They claim
that Lowe's failed to cover all their hours worked due to their
time-keeping system.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
      Elaina S. Bailey, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, 17th Floor
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Phone: (248) 355-0300
      Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com
             ebailey@sommerspc.com

             - and -

      Kristina Thomas Whiteaker, Esq.
      THE GRUBB LAW GROUP, PLLC
      1114 Kanawha Boulevard, East
      Charleston, WV 25301
      Tel: (304) 345-3356
      Fax: (304) 345-3355
      Email: kwhiteaker@grubblawgroup.com


LUCAMA, NC: Uzzell et al. Sue Over Racial Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA UZZELL, TERESA WHITEHEAD, GENE TAYLOR, and MELISSA HAYMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. MAYOR JEFF JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER JUDY MASON,
COMMISSIONER PEGGY LAMM, COMMISSIONER DAVID JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER
MICHAEL BEST, the TOWN OF LUCAMA, and the CROSSROADS VOLUNTEER FIRE
DEPARTMENT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-167 (E.D.N.C., April
21, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for denial of
due process and the Equal Protection of Law and Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended by the Civil Rights Act of
1991, 42 U.S.C.A.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly-situated, allege that Defendants are engaged in a
practice of treating African American employees and citizens
differently from non-African American citizens and employees.
Defendant Johnson and others acting at his behest have
intentionally, knowingly, and wrongfully used their respective
positions and influence within the Defendant Town to deprive
non-White citizens and potential employees from working for the
Town and/or being promoted and/or receiving salary increase and/or
receiving the full benefits of Town employment and citizenship and
to deprive the citizens of the Town of Lucama the full benefits of
the town services to which they are entitled as tax-paying citizens
and as citizens entitled to the contractual services provided by
the Town for a fee. Plaintiffs and others similarly-situated who
have opposed the Defendants' wrongful actions have also been
deprived of contractual property interests by the Defendants.

Plaintiffs have suffered emotional and physical distress due to the
degradation they have been subjected to by not only the use of
racial epithets by Defendant Johnson but also by the lack of
condemnation by the other Defendants and the public and repeated
failure to take any action whatsoever to address the Plaintiffs'
situation and the prevailing hostile and fearful atmosphere created
by the racially charged remarks and their tolerance by Town
officials.

The Town of Lucama is chartered and incorporated under the laws of
North Carolina.

The Crossroads Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. is a non-profit
corporation, incorporated in 1980, providing emergency services to
the Town of Lucama. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Valerie Bateman, Esq.
          FORREST FIRM PC
          406 Blackwell St., Suite 420
          Durham, NC 27701
          E-mail: valerie.bateman@forrestfirm.com

MAGELLAN HEALTH: Faces Dearing Suit in Arizona Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Dearing, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. MAGELLAN HEALTH INC. AND MAGELLAN RX MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00747-SPL (D. Ariz., April 17, 2020), is brought
against the Defendants to recover economic loss and other actual
harm due to a 2019 data breach.

As part of its contractual relationship with TennCare and several
other providers, Magellan administers the pharmaceutical benefits
under the state-sponsored Medicaid plan throughout the applicable
state. As a result of the Plaintiff's participation in TennCare,
Magellan received fees from TennCare and/or the state of Tennessee
to administer those benefits and to provide services related to
those benefits to Plaintiff and other TennCare beneficiaries, which
included storing the personal data of Plaintiff and others on their
computers and computer systems.

On November 8, 2019, Magellan notified affected patients that an
employee, who manages member data for various health plans, fell
for a phishing scheme that compromised his/her email and resulted
in exposure of the personally identifiable information and
protected health information (collectively, "PII") of tens of
thousands of individuals, including Plaintiff and 44,000 other
TennCare participants. The exposed PHI and PII included names,
Social Security Numbers, member IDs, health plans, provider names,
and the names of the drugs that members have been prescribed.

Despite having known about the Data Breach since early July,
Magellan inexplicably delayed more than four months before it
alerted the affected patients that their PII had been unlawfully
exposed, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff insists that the
Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendants' failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and
protocols necessary to protect patient PII.

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

Plaintiff Carol Dearing is a TennCare participant and obtained her
prescriptions through Magellan Rx.

Magellan is a large healthcare service provider.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          Carrie A. Laliberte, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          2325 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Phone: (602) 274-1100
          Email: eryan@bffb.com
                 claliberte@bffb.com

               - and -

          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (602) 274-1100
          Email: psyverson@bffb.com

               - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Patrick A. Barthle, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 223-5505
          Fax: (813) 223-5402
          Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                 pbarthle@forthepeople.com


MERCURY INSURANCE: Abitbol Hits Automated Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Abitbol, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Mercury Insurance Company, Auto Insurance
Specialists, LLC, and Quotelab, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-03109, (C.D. Cal., April 2, 2020), seeks injunctive relief,
statutory and treble damages for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Mercury is an insurance company that owns Auto Insurance
Specialists, an auto insurance agency that sells primarily Mercury
auto insurance policies. They engaged QuoteLab, operating as Media
Alpha, to telemarket on their behalf to consumers, engaging in
automated telemarketing calls, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MICHAEL CHEVROLET: Balladares Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
LUZ BALLADARES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. MICHAEL CADILLAC, INC. D/B/A
MICHAEL CHEVROLET, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00563-DAD-JDP (E.D.
Cal., April 17, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated consumers, alleges that the Defendant engages in
unlawful telemarketing practice by transmitting prerecorded
telephone calls to his cellular telephone and others to promote its
services and goods using an automatic telephone dialing system
without obtaining prior written express consent. Defendant's
prerecorded calls caused Plaintiff actual harm, including invasion
of his privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion,
trespass, and conversion.

Michael Cadillac, Inc. is an automotive dealership that sells
vehicles for individuals and businesses, with principal place of
business located at 50 W Bullard, Fresno, California. It is also
doing business as Michael Chevrolet. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
          William Litvak, Esq.
          DAPEER ROSENBLIT LITVAK LLP
          11500 W. Olympic Blvd. Suite 550
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 477-5575
          E-mail: wlitvak@drllaw.com

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

               - and -
          
          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE PA
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

MYERS THE HOME BUYERS: Anderson Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Anderson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Myers the Home Buyers of Tampa,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00783 (M.D. Fla., April 2, 2020),
seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, treble damages and all
other relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Myers provides realty services to investors seeking to buy
investment properties. It sends solicitation text messages en masse
to consumers encouraging the purchase of event tickets using an
auto-dialer. Anderson claims to have received such texts. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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


NEXIUS SOLUTIONS: Webb Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Webb, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. NEXIUS SOLUTIONS, INC. and VELEX, INC., Case No.
4:20-cv-00330 (E.D. Tex., April 17, 2020), is brought to recover
overtime compensation, minimum wages and other wages, liquidated
damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, costs of court,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and injunctive relief under
the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, says the
complaint. The Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay their
employees, including the Plaintiff, time and one-half for each hour
worked in excess of 40 per work week. Accordingly, the Plaintiff
brings this collective action to recover unpaid overtime
compensation.

Plaintiff Matthew Webb is a non-exempt employee who worked as a
construction supervisor for the Defendants.

The Defendants provide network services and implementation to
customers throughout the United States and Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph L. Lanza, Esq.
          THE VETHAN LAW FIRM, PC
          11459 Huebner, Suite 101
          San Antonio, TX 78230
          Phone: (210) 824-2220
          Facsimile: (713) 526-2230
          Email: jlanza@vethanlaw.com

               - and -

          Charles M.R. Vethan, Esq.
          THE VETHAN LAW FIRM, PC
          Two Memorial City Plaza
          820 Gessner, Suite 1510
          Houston, TX 77024
          Phone: (713) 526-2222
          Facsimile: (713) 526-2230
          Email: cvethan@vethanlaw.com


NHR HUMAN RESOURCES: Hernandez Seeks Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Ortega Hernandez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. NHR HUMAN RESOURCES, LLC, NEW HOLLAND RESIDENCES, LLC,
SUGAR HILL CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC, MARGARET GROSSMAN, and JEREMY
SALZBERG, Case No. 1:20-cv-03109 (S.D.N.Y., April 17, 2020), is
brought against the Defendants to recover unpaid minimum wages,
unpaid overtime wages, unreimbursed costs and maintenance for
"tools of the trade," unpaid spread of hours premium, statutory
penalties, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked 58 hours
a week. The Plaintiff would attempt to fill out timesheets
indicating these extra hours worked, but was informed that he could
not put those extra hours on time sheets as the Defendants did not
pay overtime. The Defendants also frequently paid less than minimum
wage to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a
superintendent for a number of the Defendants' buildings and
apartments.

The Defendants own and operate numerous residential and commercial
buildings and apartments around the city.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Phone: 212-465-1188
          Fax: 212-465-1181


NOCHES DE COLOMBIA: Balderas Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Miguel Balderas, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Noches De Colombia Hackensack
LLC, Sebastian Colorado, Jorge Tello, and Jessica Ceballos,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-03536 (N.Y. Sup., April 2, 2020), seeks
to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and redress for
Defendant's failure to provide itemized wage statements pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law,
including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a Colombian restaurant, located
at 382 Main Street, Hackensack, New Jersey under the name "Noches
de Colombia" where Balderas was employed as a porter. He regularly
worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum
wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that
he worked, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Atachbarian Hits Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------
Abraham Atachbarian, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings
Ltd., Frank J. Del Rio and Mark A. Kempa, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-21386, (S.D. Fla., March 31, 2020), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Norwegian is a global cruise company which operates the Norwegian
Cruise Line, Oceania Cruise Line, Oceania Cruises and Regent Seven
Seas Cruises brands. Its stock is traded on the New York Stock
Exchange under the ticker symbol "NCLH."

Douglas claims that Norwegian's financial results for the quarter
and full year ended December 31, 2019 discussed positive outlooks
for the company in spite of the COVID-19 outbreak. In December of
2019, the spread of COVID-19 has had a significant impact on the
cruise industry, with reports of canceled trips and half-empty
ships.

On this news, the Norwegian's shares fell $5.47 per share or
approximately 26.7% to close at $15.03 per share on March 11, 2020.
Douglas owns Norwegian stock. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
      EGGNATZ PASCUCCI, P.A.
      7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
      Davie, FL 33314
      Phone: (954) 889-3359
      Fax: (954) 889-5913
      Email: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com

             - and -

      Lynda J. Grant, Esq.
      THE GRANT LAW FIRM
      521 5th Ave., 17th Floor
      New York, NY
      Tel: (212) 292-4441
      Fax: (212) 292-4442
      Email: lgrant@grantfirm.com

             - and -

      Howard T. Longman, Esq.
      STULL, STULL & BRODY
      6 East 45th Street
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 687-7230
      Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
      Email: hlongman@ssbny.com

NUTANIX INC: Awaits Court's Decision on Bid to Dismiss Cal. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nutanix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2020, that the company is
awaiting a trial court's decision on its motion to dismiss the
class action pending before the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

Beginning on March 29, 2019, several purported securities class
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the company and two of its
officers.

The initial complaints generally alleged that the defendants made
false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. In July 2019, the
court consolidated the actions into a single action, and appointed
a lead plaintiff who, per the court-approved schedule, filed a
consolidated amended complaint on September 9, 2019.

The action is brought on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise
acquired the company's stock between November 30, 2017 and May 30,
2019, inclusive. The consolidated amended complaint seeks monetary
damages in an unspecified amount.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and
the court held a hearing on the motion on February 12, 2020.

Nutanix said, "We are awaiting a decision from the court regarding
the motion. This case is in the very early stages and we are not
able to determine what, if any, liabilities will attach to these
complaints."

Nutanix, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops and
provides an enterprise cloud platform in North America, Europe, the
Asia Pacific, the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa. The
company was founded in 2009 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California.


OREGON MUTUAL: Dakota Ventures Sues Over Breaches of Policies
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dakota Ventures, LLC d/b/a Kokopelli Grill and Coyote BBQ Pub,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
OREGON MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Case No. 3:20-cv-00630-HZ (D. Ore.,
April 17, 2020), seeks damages as a result of the Defendant's
breaches of policies by denying coverage for any business income
losses incurred by the Plaintiff in connection with the COVID-19
pandemic.

To protect its business in the event that it suddenly had to
suspend operations for reasons outside of its control, or in order
to prevent further property damage, the Plaintiff purchased
insurance coverage from Oregon Mutual, including Specialty Property
Coverage through a Businessowner's Protector Policy, as set forth
in Oregon Mutual's Businessowner's Coverage Form (Form BP 00030302)
("Businessowner's Coverage Form").

Oregon Mutual's Businessowner's Coverage Form provides "Business
Income" coverage, which promises to pay for loss due to the
necessary suspension of operations following damage to property.
Oregon Mutual's Businessowner's Coverage Form also provides "Civil
Authority" coverage, which promises to pay for actual loss of
Business Income and necessary Extra Expense caused by the action of
a civil authority that prohibits access to the described premises.

Oregon Mutual's Businessowner's Coverage Form also provides
"Ingress and Egress" coverage for loss of Business Income sustained
and necessary Extra Expense caused when ingress or egress to the
described premises is physically prevented due to direct loss or
damage to property, other than at the described premises, caused by
or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss. Oregon Mutual's
Businessowner's Coverage Form also provides "Extra Expense"
coverage, which promises to pay the expense incurred to minimize
the suspension of business and to continue operations. Unlike many
policies that provide Business Income (also referred to as
"business interruption") coverage, Oregon Mutual's Businessowner's
Coverage Form does not include, and is not subject to, any
exclusion for losses caused by viruses or communicable diseases.

The Plaintiff says Kokopelli Grill was forced to suspend or reduce
business at its restaurant and lounge due to COVID-19 (a.k.a. the
"coronavirus" or "SARS-CoV-2") and the resultant Executive Orders
issued by the Governor of Washington mandating the closure of
businesses like Kokopelli Grill for on-site services, as well as in
order to take necessary steps to prevent further damage and
minimize the suspension of business and continue operations. Coyote
BBQ Pub was forced to suspend or reduce business for the same
reasons, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff operates Kokopelli Grill, a waterfront restaurant and
lounge on Puget Sound in Port Angeles, Washington. The Plaintiff
also operates Coyote BBQ Pub, adjacent to Kokopelli Grill, which
opened in October 2015.

Oregon Mutual Insurance Co. is a mutual insurance company organized
under the laws of the State of Oregon.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve D. Larson, Esq.
          Jennifer S. Wagner, Esq.
          STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.
          209 S.W. Oak Street, Suite 500
          Portland, OR 97204
          Phone: (503) 227-1600
          Email: slarson@stollberne.com
                 jwagner@stollberne.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
          Mark Hamill, Esq.
          Laura E. Reasons, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: 312-214-7900
          Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
                 akeller@dicellolevitt.com
                 dferri@dicellolevitt.com
                 mhamill@dicellolevitt.com
                 lreasons@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Mark A. DiCello, Esq.
          Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq.
          Mark Abramowitz, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          7556 Mentor Avenue
          Mentor, OH 44060
          Phone: 440-953-8888
          Email: madicello@dicellolevitt.com
                 kabbarno@dicellolevitt.com
                 mabramowitz@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          W. Mark Lanier, Esq.
          Alex Brown, Esq.
          Ralph (Skip) McBride, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM
          10940 W. Sam Houston Pkwy North, Suite 100
          Houston, TX 77064
          Phone: (713) 659-5200
          Email: WML@lanierlawfirm.com
                 alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com
                 skip.mcbride@lanierlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Timothy W. Burns, Esq.
          Jeff J. Bowen, Esq.
          Jesse J. Bair, Esq.
          Freya K. Bowen, Esq.
          BURNS BOWEN BAIR LLP
          One South Pinckney Street, Suite 930
          Madison, WI 53703
          Phone: 608-286-2302
          Email: tburns@bbblawllp.com
                 jbowen@bbblawllp.com
                 jbair@bbblawllp.com
                 fbowen@bbblawllp.com

               - and -

          Douglas Daniels, Esq.
          DANIELS & TREDENNICK
          6363 Woodway, Suite 700
          Houston, TX 77057
          Phone: 713-917-0024
          Email: douglas.daniels@dtlawyers.com


OTA FRANCHISE: Online Trading Programs Fraudulent, Jine et al Say
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMY JINE and ANA BIOCINI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OTA FRANCHISE CORPORATION;
NEWPORT EXCHANGE HOLDINGS, INC.; NEH SERVICES, INC.; EYAL SHAHAR;
and SAMUEL R. SEIDEN, Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-00769 (C.D.
Cal., April 20, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and California
Business and Professions Code, fraud, intentional
misrepresentation, concealment, breach of express warranty, and
unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly-situated individuals who purchased OTA's investment
education programs such as Market Timing Orientation, allege that
the Defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme by claiming to offer
consumers a low-investment, high-profit, online trading strategy.
The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants do not track the trading
performance of their students and most students who receive OTA
training do not make the substantial income as advertised by the
Defendants. OTA's fraudulent representations and omissions caused
financial losses to the Plaintiffs and Class members, including
elderly individuals.

OTA Franchise Corporation, doing business as OTA, is a Nevada
corporation with its principal place of business at 17780 Fitch
Avenue, Irvine, California. It advertises markets, distributes, and
sells training programs and related goods and services to consumers
throughout the U.S.

Newport Exchange Holdings, Inc., also doing business as OTA, is a
California corporation with its principal place of business at
17780 Fitch Avenue, Irvine, California. It operates the OTA Center
in Irvine, California.

NEH Services, Inc., also doing business as OTA, is a California
corporation with its principal place of business at 17780 Fitch
Avenue, Irvine, California. It is created to funds loans made by
OTA franchisees to consumers seeking to purchase OTA training.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
          Elizabeth T. Castillo, Esq.
          Adam J. Zapala, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY LLP
          840 Malcolm Road
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
          E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
                  ecastillo@cpmlegal.com
                  azapala@cpmlegal.com

               - and -
          
          Kelly W. Weil, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
          2716 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 3088
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (310) 392-2008
          Facsimile: (310) 392-0111
          E-mail: kweil@cpmlegal.com

PERVINE FOODS: Misrepresents Baked Bars, Ring Consumer Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Ring, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Pervine Foods, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01852-RJD-SMG
(E.D.N.Y., April 19, 2020), seeks damages under consumer protection
laws from the Defendant's misleading representations on their
cookies and cream whey protein baked bars under Robert Irvine's Fit
Crunch brand.

The relevant representations include "Robert Irvine's Fit Crunch,"
"30g Protein," "6g Sugar," "Gluten Free" "Powered by FORTIFX,"
"Cookies and Cream," "Evaporated cane juice," according to the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration, "suggests that the ingredients are
made from or contain fruit or vegetable "juice". However,
"evaporated cane juice" has little in common with the types of
juices that Americans consume because it is another name for the
ingredient commonly known as "sugar." The FDA concluded that where
an ingredient is described as "evaporated cane juice," consumers
can be, and are misled because "cane juice" refers to a sweetener.

According to the complaint, by declaring "sugar" by a term, which
fails to truthfully and non-deceptively describe the source,
function and qualities of the ingredient, reasonable consumers are
deceived into purchasing a product with added sugar as its second
most predominant ingredient. Given that the Product is marketed
towards consumers looking to stay fit and healthy, consumers will
expect that "evaporated cane juice" bears a relationship to an
actual fruit or vegetable source they are familiar with. This
results in the impression that the Product is a better nutritional
choice than other comparable products which truthfully and
non-deceptively identify "sugar" on their ingredient lists.

The Product's deceptive labeling is especially egregious because
the Defendant sells products intended to appeal to health-minded
consumers, the Plaintiff alleges. The Plaintiff asserts that the
misleading ingredient name has a material bearing on price and
consumer acceptance of the Product because consumers pay more for
products with the positive qualities associated with actual juice,
including naturally occurring vitamins and minerals.

Had the Plaintiff and class members known the truth, they would not
have bought the Product or would have paid less for it, says the
complaint. As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the
Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than
$3.09 per bar of .88g (3.10 oz), excluding tax, compared to other
similar products represented in a non-misleading way.

The Plaintiff purchased the Products for personal consumption
within this district.

Pervine Foods, LLC, manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and
sells cookies and cream whey protein baked bars, under Robert
Irvine's Fit Crunch brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Kendall Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
KARL KENDALL, SUZANNE RAINEY, and VINCENZO PERNICE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT, LLC; BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT, LLC; THE BENEFITS
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE; and JOHN DOES 1-30, Defendants, Case No.
5:20-cv-00157-D (E.D. Cal., April 15, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly-situated participants of the Pharmaceutical Product
Development, LLC Retirement Savings Plan, allege that the
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Plan, to the
Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan during the
putative Class period starting April 15, 2014 by failing to
objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio
with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in
terms of cost; and maintaining certain funds in the Plan despite
the availability of identical or similar investment options with
lower costs and/or better performance histories. The Defendants'
mismanagement of the Plan caused significant damages and losses to
the Plaintiffs and all participants of the Plan.

Pharmaceutical Product Development, LLC is a global contract
research organization providing comprehensive, integrated drug
development, laboratory and lifecycle management services. It is
the sponsor of the Pharmaceutical Product Development, LLC
Retirement Savings Plan, with principal place of business located
at 929 North Front Street, Wilmington, North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Szymankiewicz, Esq.
          MATHESON & ASSOCIATES PLLC
          127 West Hargett Street, Suite 100
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Telephone: (919) 335-5291
          Facsimile: (919) 516-0686

               - and -
          
          Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER PC
          2933 North Front Street
          Harrisburg, PA 17110
          Telephone: (717) 233-4101
          Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
          E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com

               - and -
          
          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER PC
          312 Old Lancaster Road
          Merion Station, PA 19066
          Telephone: (610) 890-0200
          Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
          E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com

PLATINUM SECURITY: Simmons Sues Over Late Salary Payments
---------------------------------------------------------
Ayanna Simmons, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Platinum Security, Inc. and Does 1-50,
Defendants, Case No. 20STCV13020 (Cal. Super., April 2, 2020),
seeks to recover damages for Platinum's failure to pay Simmons her
wages on a bi-weekly basis and her wages owed at her time of
separation from employment in violation of the California Labor
Code.

Platinum provides private security services across California where
Simmons worked as a security guard assigned to the California
Department of Motor Vehicles headquarters in Sacramento from
September 2019 until her termination in January 2020. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua S. Falakassa, Esq.
      FALAKASSA LAW, P.C.
      1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Tel: (818) 456-6168
      Fax: (888) 505-0868
      Email: josh@falakassalaw.com


PROGENICS PHARMACEUTICALS: Goldstone Sues Over Lantheus Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE GOLDSTONE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. PROGENICS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
ANN MacDOUGALL; DAVID W. MIMS; GERARD BER; BRADLEY L. CAMPBELL;
ERIC J. ENDE; KAREN JEAN FERRANTE; HEINZ MAUSLI; LANTHEUS HOLDINGS,
INC.; and PLATO MERGER SUB, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-02750 (S.D.N.Y., April 2, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting,
and violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly-situated public stockholders of Progenics
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., alleges that the company breached fiduciary
duties after it entered into a merger agreement to become an
indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Lantheus Holdings, Inc. Under
the terms of the merger agreement, Progenics shareholders will
receive 0.31 shares of Lantheus common stock for each of their
shares, regardless of Lantheus' stock price at the close of the
transaction, which put shareholders in the precarious position of
not knowing whether the consideration payable to them will decline
further.

Moreover, the Plaintiff claims that the Defendants filed a
materially deficient Proxy Statement on March 19, 2020 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission in an effort to solicit
stockholders to vote their Progenics shares in favor of the
proposed transaction.

Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a New York-based oncology
company that develops, manufactures, and commercializes
pharmaceutical products and other technologies for cancer
patients.

Lantheus Holdings, Inc. is a North Billerica, Massachusetts-based
company that develops, manufactures, and commercializes diagnostic
medical imaging agents and products for the diagnosis and treatment
of cardiovascular and other diseases.

Plato Merger Sub, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary company of
pharmaceutical firm Lantheus Holdings, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
   
          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH LLC
          240 Mineola Boulevard, First Floor
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 741-4977
          Facsimile: (516) 741-0626
          E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com

REALTY ONE: Sends Spam to Market Services, Angell Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
SLOANE ANGELL, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REALTY ONE GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No.
8:20-cv-00652 (C.D. Cal., April 3, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated consumers, alleges that he received a text message on
October 6, 2019 from one of the Defendant's agents, which he
believed was sent using an automatic telephone dialing system, in
an attempt to market and promote the Defendant's real estate
services without his prior consent. The Plaintiff claims that the
Defendant's unsolicited telemarketing strategy harmed him in the
form of annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of privacy, and disturbed
the use and enjoyment of his cell phone.

Realty One Group, Inc. is a real estate brokerage headquartered at
23811 Aliso Creek Rd., Suite 181, Laguna Niguel, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127          
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rachel@kaufmanpa.com

SOCIETY INSURANCE: Billy Goat Tavern Hits Denied Insurance Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Billy Goat Tavern I, Inc., Billy Goat Midwest, LLC, Billy Goat
North II, Inc., Billy Goat VI, Inc., Billy Goat Inn, Inc., Billy
Goat Tavern West, LLC and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Society Insurance, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-02068
(N.D. Ill., March 31, 2020), seeks redress for breach of contract
and declaratory relief for failure to provide insurance coverage
for the business income Plaintiffs lost because of the ongoing
Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

Defendants operate as "Billy Goat Tavern" with eight restaurants
within the State of Illinois. On March 20, 2020, Illinois Governor
Pritzker issued an executive order directing Illinois residents to
stay in their homes except when performing "essential" activities,
prohibiting gatherings of 10 or more people and requiring
"non-essential" businesses to cease operations. Billy Goat Tavern
has made claims under their property and casualty insurance
policies for the business income they lost as a result of COVID-19
and the resulting Executive Orders.

Billy Goat Tavern has an "all-risk" insurance policy with Society
Insurance with an effective date of coverage of August 26, 2019.

Society Insurance, is a mutual insurance company organized under
the laws of the State of Wisconsin [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert R. Duncan, Esq.
      James H. Podolny, Esq.
      DUNCAN LAW GROUP, LLC
      161 North Clark Street, Suite 2550
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Phone: (312) 202-3283
      Fax: (312) 202-3284
      Email: rrd@duncanlawgroup.com
             jp@duncanlawgroup.com


SOCIETY INSURANCE: Fails to Cover Income Loss, Rising Dough Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rising Dough, Inc. (d/b/a Madison Sourdough) ("Madison Sourdough")
and Willy McCoys of Albertville LLC, Willy McCoys of Andover LLC,
Willy McCoys of Chaska LLC, Willy McCoys of Shakopee LLC (d/b/a
McCoys Copper Pint), and Whiskey Jacks of Ramsey, LLC (d/b/a Willy
McCoys Ramsey) (collectively "Willy McCoys"), individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. SOCIETY INSURANCE, Case
No. 2:20-cv-00623-WED (E.D. Wis., April 17, 2020), is brought
against the Defendant to seek damages as a result of its breaches
of policies by denying coverage for any business income losses
incurred by the Plaintiffs in connection with the COVID-19
pandemic.

To protect their businesses in the event that they suddenly had to
suspend operations for reasons outside of their control, or in
order to prevent further property damage, the Plaintiffs purchased
insurance coverage from Society Insurance, including special
property coverage, as set forth in Society Insurance's
Businessowner's Special Property Coverage Form (Form TBP2 05-15)
("Special Property Coverage Form"). Society Insurance's Special
Property Coverage Form provides "Business Income" coverage, which
promises to pay for loss due to the necessary suspension of
operations following damage to property. Society Insurance's
Special Property Coverage Form also provides "Civil Authority"
coverage, which promises to pay for loss caused by the action of a
civil authority that prohibits access to the insured premises.

Society Insurance's Special Property Coverage Form provides
additional "Contamination" coverage that pays for the actual loss
of business income and extra expense caused by "'Contamination'
that results in an action by a public health or other governmental
authority that prohibits access to the described premises or
production of your product." Society Insurance's Special Property
Coverage Form also provides "Extra Expense" coverage, which
promises to pay the expense incurred to minimize the suspension of
business and to continue operations.

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs Willy McCoys were forced to
suspend or reduce business at their Willy McCoys taverns due to
COVID-19 (a.k.a. the "coronavirus" or "SARS-CoV-2") and the
resultant Executive Orders issued by the Governor of Minnesota
mandating the closure of businesses like Willy McCoys taverns for
on-site services, as well as in order to take necessary steps to
prevent further damage and minimize the suspension of business and
continue operations. Plaintiff Madison Sourdough was, likewise,
forced to suspend or reduce business due to COVID-19 and the
resultant Executive Orders by the Governor of Wisconsin requiring
the closure of businesses like Madison Sourdough, as well as in
order to take necessary steps to prevent further damage and
minimize the suspension of business and continue operations.

The Plaintiffs contend that Society Insurance has, on a widescale
and uniform basis, refused to pay its insureds under its Business
Income, Civil Authority, Contamination, Extra Expense, and Sue and
Labor coverages for losses suffered due to COVID-19, any executive
orders by civil authorities that have required the necessary
suspension of business, and any efforts to prevent further property
damage or to minimize the suspension of business and continue
operations. Indeed, Society Insurance has denied Plaintiffs Willy
McCoys' claims under its Society Insurance policy.

Plaintiff Madison Sourdough operates a mill, bakery, cafe and
patisserie in Madison, Wisconsin.

Society Insurance is a business insurance carrier headquartered in
Fond du Lac, Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy W. Burns, Esq.
          Jeff J. Bowen, Esq.
          Jesse J. Bair, Esq.
          Freya K. Bowen, Esq.
          BURNS BOWEN BAIR LLP
          One South Pinckney Street, Suite 930
          Madison, WI 53703
          Phone: 608-286-2302
          Email: tburns@bbblawllp.com
                 jbowen@bbblawllp.com
                 jbair@bbblawllp.com
                 fbowen@bbblawllp.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
          Mark Hamill, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: 312-214-7900
          Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
                 dferri@dicellolevitt.com
                 mhamill@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Mark A. DiCello, Esq.
          Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq.
          Mark Abramowitz, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          7556 Mentor Avenue
          Mentor, OH 44060
          Phone: 440-953-8888
          Email: madicello@dicellolevitt.com
                 kabbarno@dicellolevitt.com
                 mabramowitz@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Mark Lanier, Esq.
          Alex Brown, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM
          10940 W. Sam Houston Pkwy North, Suite 100
          Houston, TX 77064
          Phone: (713) 659-5200
          Email: WML@lanierlawfirm.com
                 alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Bryan L. Bleichner Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Bores Esq.
          Christopher P. Renz Esq.
          Gary K. Luloff, Esq.
          CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 339-7300
          Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
                 jbores@chestnutcambronne.com
                 crenz@chestnutcambronne.com
                 gluloff@chestnutcambronne.com

               - and -

          Douglas Daniels, Esq.
          DANIELS & TREDENNICK
          6363 Woodway, Suite 700
          Houston, TX 77057
          Phone: 713-917-0024
          Email: douglas.daniels@dtlawyers.com


SOR TECHNOLOGY: DuBach Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
------------------------------------------------------
Kelley DuBach, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. SOR Technology, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00636, (S.D. Cal., April 1, 2020), seeks injunctive relief,
statutory damages, treble damages and all other relief for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

SOR Technology is an online wholesale travel provider. SOR
Technology allegedly sent text messages advertising its services en
masse to subscribers, including that of DuBach's, without obtaining
their prior express written consent to receive such texts. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Jaclyn M. Reinhart, Esq.
      James C. Shah, Esq.
      SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      1230 Columbia Street, Suite 1140
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 235-2416
      Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
      Email: jshah@sfmslaw.com
             jreinhart@sfmslaw.com

             - and -

      David T. Butsch, Esq.
      Christopher E. Roberts, Esq.
      BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES, LLC
      231 S. Bemiston, Suite 260
      Clayton, MO 63105
      Telephone: (314) 863-5700
      Facsimile: (314) 863-5711
      Email: dbutsch@butschroberts.com
             croberts@butschroberts.com


SUBARU OF AMERICA: Gill Sues over Battery Defect
------------------------------------------------
The case, WALTER GILL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC. and SUBARU
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04973-JHR-JS (D.N.J.,
April 23, 2020), arises from the Defendants' violations of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, breach of express warranty, breach of
the implied warranty of merchantability, breach of the duty of good
faith and fair dealing, breach of written warranty under the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly-situated past and present owners and lessees of 2015-2019
model year Subaru Outback, Forester, WRX, Legacy, and Ascent
vehicles, alleges that the Defendant failed to disclose the battery
defect associated to the Class vehicles despite numerous complaints
of vehicle owners and/or lessees. The Plaintiff encountered several
battery failures since he purchased a 2017 Subaru Outback in late
January 2017. Every time the vehicle's battery failed, he was
forced to jump-start the battery in order to restore functionality.
The Plaintiff claims that had Subaru disclosed the defect before he
purchased the vehicle, he would not have purchased it or would have
paid significantly less for it, given the presence of the defect.

Subaru of America, Inc. is the wholly-owned subsidiary of Subaru
Corporation with principal place of business located at One Subaru
Drive, Camden, New Jersey. It distributes, markets, sells, and
services Subaru vehicles in the United States.

Subaru Corporation is an automobile designer and manufacturer with
principal place of business located at Ebisu Subaru Building,
1-20-8, Ebisu, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
          Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
          E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com

SUBARU OF AMERICA: Griffin et al. Sue Over Fuel Pump Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------
KATHERINE GRIFFIN, JANET OAKLEY, and ADAM WHITLEY, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. SUBARU OF
AMERICA, INC.; SUBARU CORPORATION; DENSO CORPORATION; and DENSO
INTERNATIONAL AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00563-ACA
(N.D. Ala., April 23, 2020) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of Alabama's Deceptive Trade Practices
Act and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, strict product liability,
breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, negligent recall/undertaking, fraudulent omission,
and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated owners and lessees of 2013-2019 Subaru
manufactured vehicles equipped with Denso made low-pressure fuel
pumps with a part number prefix 42022, allege that the Defendants
failed to disclose and timely notify the Plaintiffs and all others
similarly-situated Class members, whose vehicles were not included
on a safety vehicle recall report submitted by Subaru on April 16,
2020, about the vehicles' fuel pump defect, exposing them to the
risk of grave physical harm or even death. Moreover, the Plaintiffs
claim that Subaru has not recommended or advised consumers to stop
driving the Class vehicles until the defect can be repaired or
replaced. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, the Plaintiffs and other Class members have been
damaged.

Subaru of America, Inc. is the wholly-owned subsidiary of Subaru
Corporation with principal place of business located at One Subaru
Drive, Camden, New Jersey. It distributes, markets, sells, and
services Subaru vehicles in the United States, including Alabama.

Subaru Corporation is an automobile designer and manufacturer with
principal place of business located at Ebisu Subaru Building,
1-20-8, Ebisu, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo.

Denso Corporation is a designer, engineer, and tester of automobile
fuel pumps with principal place of business located at 1-1,
Showa-cho, Karlya, Alchi 448-9661, Japan.

Denso International America, Inc. is Denso Corporation's North
American parent company with principal place of business at 2477
Denso Drive Southfield, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
          
          W. Daniel Miles, III, Esq.
          Demet Basar, Esq.
          H. Clay Barnett, II, Esq.
          J. Mitch Williams, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES PC
          272 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          E-mail: Dee.Miles@Beasleyallen.com
                  Demet.Basar@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Mitch.williams@Beasleyallen.com

TAH PIZZA: Shortchanges Drivers' Vehicle Reimbursements, Doyle Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Doyle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Be Hurd, Inc., TAH Pizza, Inc. and Timothy
Hurd, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00138 (E.D. Tenn., April 1, 2020),
seeks to recover damages for violation of wage and hour provisions
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores in
Tennessee and Virginia. Doyle employed delivery drivers who drive
their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to its
customers. Doyle claims that the vehicle reimbursement rates are
not commensurate with his actual expenses thus rendering his net
pay below the mandated minimum wages rates. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jay Forester, Esq.
      FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
      400 N. St Paul Street Suite 700
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Tel: (214) 210-2100
      Email: jay@foresterhaynie.com


TECH USA: Jones Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Calvin Jones, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. TECH USA, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00987-CCB
(D. Md., April 17, 2020), seeks to recover all unpaid overtime
wages and other damages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime at the rate of
time and one half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked
over 40 in a workweek, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a field technician from
January 2017 to January 2019.

The Defendant is a staffing company that places workers with its
client companies in the information technology and
telecommunications industries across the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          Email: Dfoty@hftrialfirm.com

               - and -

          Kelly E. Cook, Esq.
          WYLY & COOK
          4101 Washington Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Houston, TX 77007
          Phone: (713) 236-8330
          Fax: (713) 863-8502
          Email: kcook@wylycooklaw.com


TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Fails to Give Refunds, Hansen Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Hansen, as an individual, on behalf of himself, the general
public and those similarly situated v. TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT,
INC. and LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT CO., Case No. 3:20-cv-02685
(N.D. Cal., April 17, 2020), is brought against the Defendants to
seek redress for their deceptive practices relating to their sale
of live events tickets and refusal to provide refunds for live
events that have been rescheduled or postponed.

Prior to the coronavirus outbreak and at the time that the
Plaintiff and Class Members purchased event tickets from
Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., a division of Live Nation
Entertainment Co., Ticketmaster assured customers that Ticketmaster
would refund ticket purchase prices "if your event is postponed,
rescheduled or canceled."

After the coronavirus outbreak forced the cancelation or
postponement of most large events and public gatherings,
Ticketmaster retroactively revised its policies applicable to the
prior ticket sales to allow for refunds only for canceled events,
not postponed or rescheduled ones, including when postponed events
are "indefinitely" postponed. Yet, Live Nation's president recently
predicted that live events will not occur again until fall 2021 at
the earliest. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have
quietly sought to force their buyers to endure the financial losses
that the Defendants would suffer in the entirely foreseeable
scenario that world occurrences would cause the simultaneous
cancellation of numerous public events.

The Plaintiff seeks an order against the Defendants awarding
damages, injunctive relief and restitution and requiring the
Defendants to, among other things: (1) reverse the unlawful changes
they have sought to make to their refund policy as it relates to
tickets purchased prior to March 30, 2020; (2) prohibit the
Defendants from refusing to offer refunds to any Class member who
purchased a ticket to an event that has been postponed or
rescheduled; and (3) pay damages and restitution to the Plaintiff
and Class members.

The Plaintiff is an individual and a resident San Francisco,
California.

Ticketmaster is an online seller of event tickets. Live Nation is
the nation's largest concert promoter and Ticketmaster processes
sales to Live Nation events.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Gutride, Esq.
          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Marie A. McCrary, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 789-6390
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6469


TOOTSIE ROLL: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Gordon Suit, Fee Denial
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned KETRINA GORDON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOOTSIE ROLL
INDUSTRIES, INC.; DOES, 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants-Appellees, No. 18-56315 (9th Cir.), the United States
Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit issued a Memorandum affirming the
District Court's Order denying Gordon's motion for fees, dismissing
the case, and awarding costs to Tootsie Roll.

This is a putative class action challenging the amount of empty
space, or slack fill, in certain Junior Mints and Sugar Babies
candy boxes manufactured by defendant Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc.
After Tootsie Roll made changes to the boxes during the litigation,
plaintiff Ketrina Gordon (Gordon) withdrew her motion for class
certification, declared her case moot, and sought attorneys' fees,
maintaining that her lawsuit was a catalyst for Tootsie Roll's
changes. The district court denied Gordon's motion for fees,
dismissed the case, and awarded costs to Tootsie Roll.  

Plaintiff appealed.

Gordon moved for attorneys' fees principally under California Code
of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5, which allows fees to a
successful party in any action which has resulted in the
enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest.

While Tootsie Roll did make changes to the product labeling, Gordon
throughout this case expressly disclaimed that product labeling
would address her concerns. In pre-litigation correspondence,
Gordon stated that net weight and servings disclosures are simply
irrelevant to the issue here, which is the presence of
non-functional slack-fill and nothing else.

In her original complaint, Gordon alleged that the majority of
consumers don't even bother to look at any label information. When
Tootsie Roll moved to dismiss the complaint and cited the
disclosures on its products, Gordon deemed the disclosures a red
herring.

In another submission, Gordon maintained that information provided
on the front and back labels of the Products does not enable
consumers to form any meaningful understanding about how to gauge
the quantity of contents contained therein relative to the size of
the box itself.

Gordon made other similar statements at other points during the
litigation. The district court thus did not abuse its discretion in
denying catalyst fees when Gordon repeatedly rejected product
labeling as a solution to the alleged problem.

Gordon takes issue with the district court's dismissal of the case
for lack of prosecution, which occurred after neither party
attended a pretrial conference that the district court erroneously
held even though it previously had been rescheduled.

But on appeal, Gordon argues for a remand solely to allow the
district court to award her attorneys' fees and costs. Because the
Appellate Court concludes that the district court did not err in
denying fees to Gordon and there is otherwise nothing left to be
litigated, there is no reason to remand this case, rules the Ninth
Circuit.

Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit AFFIRMED the District Court's
ruling.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's April 13, 2020 Memorandum
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybye7e3b from Leagle.com

TOPA INSURANCE: Sued by Caribe for Denying Income Losses Coverage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Caribe Restaurant & Nightclub, Inc., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. TOPA INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
2:20-cv-03570 (C.D. Cal., April 17, 2020), seeks damages as a
result of Topa's breaches of policies by denying coverage for any
business income losses incurred by the Plaintiff in connection with
the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Plaintiff owns and operates La Luz Ultralounge, a restaurant
and nightclub, located in Bonita, California.

According to the complaint, La Luz has served the San Diego
community since 2004. Its existence, however, is now threatened by
COVID-19 (a.k.a. the "coronavirus" or "SARS-CoV-2"). To protect its
businesses in the event that it suddenly had to suspend operations
for reasons outside of its control, or if it had to act in order to
prevent further property damage, the Plaintiff purchased insurance
coverage from Topa, including special property coverage, as set
forth in Topa's Businessowner's Business Income (and Extra Expense)
Coverage Form (Form CP 00 30 10 02) ("Special Property Coverage
Form").

Topa's Special Property Coverage Form provides "Business Income"
coverage, which promises to pay for loss due to the necessary
suspension of operations following loss to property, the Plaintiff
says. Topa's Special Property Coverage Form also provides "Civil
Authority" coverage, which promises to pay for loss caused by the
action of a civil authority that prohibits access to the insured
premises. Topa's Special Property Coverage Form also provides
"Extra Expense" coverage, which promises to pay the expense
incurred to minimize the suspension of business and to continue
operations. Unlike many policies that provide Business Income
coverage (also referred to as "business interruption" coverage),
Topa's Special Property Coverage Form does not include, and is not
subject to, any exclusion for losses caused by the spread of
viruses or communicable diseases.

The Plaintiff asserts that it was forced to suspend or reduce
business at La Luz due to COVID-19 and the resultant closure orders
issued by civil authorities in California. The Plaintiff contends
that Topa has, on a widescale and uniform basis, refused to pay its
insureds under its Business Income, Civil Authority, Extra Expense,
and Sue and Labor coverages for losses suffered due to COVID-19,
any orders by civil authorities that have required the necessary
suspension of business, and any efforts to prevent further property
damage or to minimize the suspension of business and continue
operations. Indeed, Topa has denied the Plaintiff's claim under its
Topa policy, says the complaint.

Topa is an insurance company, authorized to write, sell, and issue
insurance policies providing property and business income coverage
in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Moze Cowper, Esq.
          Noel E. Garcia, Esq.
          COWPER LAW PC
          10880 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1840
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: 877-529-3707
          Email: mcowper@cowperlaw.com
                 ngarcia@cowperlaw.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
          Mark Hamill, Esq.
          Laura E. Reasons, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: 312-214-7900
          Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
                 akeller@dicellolevitt.com
                 dferri@dicellolevitt.com
                 mhamill@dicellolevitt.com
                 lreasons@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Mark A. DiCello, Esq.
          Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq.
          Mark Abramowitz, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          7556 Mentor Avenue
          Mentor, OH 44060
          Phone: 440-953-8888
          Email: madicello@dicellolevitt.com
                 kabbarno@dicellolevitt.com
                 mabramowitz@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Mark Lanier, Esq.
          Alex Brown, Esq.
          Skip McBride, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM
          10940 W. Sam Houston Pkwy. North, Suite 100
          Houston, TX 77064
          Phone: (713) 659-5200
          Email: WML@lanierlawfirm.com
                 alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com
                 skip.mcbride@lanierlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Timothy W. Burns, Esq.
          Jeff J. Bowen, Esq.
          Jesse J. Bair, Esq.
          Freya K. Bowen, Esq.
          BURNS BOWEN BAIR LLP
          One South Pinckney Street, Suite 930
          Madison, WI 53703
          Phone: 608-286-2302
          Email: tburns@bbblawllp.com
                 jbowen@bbblawllp.com
                 jbair@bbblawllp.com
                 fbowen@bbblawllp.com

               - and -

          Douglas Daniels, Esq.
          DANIELS & TREDENNICK
          6363 Woodway, Suite 700
          Houston, TX 77057
          Phone: 713-917-0024
          Email: douglas.daniels@dtlawyers.com


UNIVERSAL FIELD: Underpays Utility Inspectors, Brister Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW BRISTER, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL FIELD SERVICES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 4:20-cv-00141-CVE-FHM (N.D. Okla., April 2, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendant for failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and all others similarly-situated utility inspectors
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a utility inspector
from approximately September 2018 until December 2018.

Universal Field Services, Inc. is an Oklahoma-based company that
provides right of way acquisition services for government,
pipeline, electric transmission, airport, transit, turnpike, and
other infrastructure projects. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

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

UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT: Patel et al. Seek Tuition Fee Refund
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, NILAY KAMAL PATEL and RACHEL A. GLADSTONE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. UNIVERSITY OF
VERMONT AND STATE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-00061-jmc (D. Vt., April 21, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's breach of contracts and unjust enrichment with the
Plaintiffs, other members of the tuition class, other members of
the on-campus housing class, and other members of the meal and fee
classes.

The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated students who paid either or any combination of
the cost of tuition on-campus housing, meals, and/or fees for
university's semester in spring of 2020, allege that the Defendant
refused to refund partial tuition, pro-rated on-campus housing
costs, pro-rated meal costs, and other fees after they were denied
services from the university due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a
result of this refusal, the Plaintiffs and similarly-situated
students lost the benefits of in-person instruction housing, meals,
and student activities for which they had already paid for an
entire semester.

University of Vermont and State Agricultural College (UVM) is an
institution for providing public higher education and is a
non-profit corporation located in Burlington, Vermont. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
          
          Ariane Ice, Esq.
          ICE LEGAL PA
          20 Portsmouth Ave. Suite l, No. 225
          Stratham, NH 03885
          Telephone: (603) 242-1503
          E-mail: tom.ice@icelegal.com
                  ariane.ice@icelegal.com
                  service@icelegal.com

US BANCORP: Misrepresents PPP Loan Services, Irina Sarkisyan Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Office of Irina Sarkisyan and Simovich & Sons, Inc.
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
businesses and individuals v. U.S. BANCORP, U.S. BANK, N.A.; and
DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-03590 (C.D. Cal., April 19,
2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the California Unfair
Competition Law and the California False Advertising Law by making
false and misleading representations concerning the nature of the
services they would be providing as Paycheck Protection Program
loan administrators.

According to the complaint, U.S. Bank has, once again, prioritized
corporate greed at the expense of its small business customers.
Rather than processing Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP")
applications on a first-come, first-served basis as required by the
rules governing that program, U.S. Bank prioritized loan
applications seeking higher loan amounts because processing those
applications first generated larger loan origination fees for the
banks.

Making matters worse, U.S. Bank concealed from the public that it
was reshuffling the PPP applications it received and prioritizing
the applications that would make the bank the most money. As a
result, thousands of small businesses--including the
Plaintiffs--trusted that U.S. Bank would process the applications
on a first come, first served basis. Had U.S. Bank been honest,
small businesses could have (and would have) submitted their PPP
applications to other financial institutions that were processing
applications on a first-come, first-served basis.

As a result of U.S. Bank's dishonest and deplorable behavior,
however, thousands of small businesses that were entitled to loans
under the PPP were left with nothing because U.S. Bank chose to
maximize its loan origination fees rather than comply with the
rules of the program and serve the needs of its small business
customers, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Law Office of Irina Sarkisyan is a law firm with its
principal place of business in Los Angeles County. Plaintiff
Simovich & Sons, Inc. is a construction company with its principal
place of business in Torrance, California.

US BANCORP is the parent of all U.S. Bank entities. US BANCORP is a
diversified financial services company providing banking,
insurance, investments, mortgage banking and consumer finance to
individuals, businesses and institutions in all 50 states and
internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dylan Ruga, Esq.
          Ji-In Lee Houck, Esq.
          David M. Angeloff, Esq.
          STALWART LAW GROUP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, Suite 1840
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: (310) 954-2000
          Email: dylan@stalwartlaw.com
                 jiin@stalwartlaw.com
                 david@stalwartlaw.com


VIVID SEATS: Denies Refunds for Cancelled Events, Nellis Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY NELLIS, JANEL DRANES, and LUCY SOUSA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VIVID SEATS
LTD. and VIVID SEATS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02486 (N.D.
Ill., April 23, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
breach of contract, breach of implied contract, violations of the
Illinois Ticket Sale and Resale Act, violations of state consumer
protection statutes, conversion, unjust enrichment, negligent
misrepresentation, and breach of express warranty.

The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated consumers, allege that the Defendant denied the
Plaintiffs and Class members of its 100% Buyer Guarantee, which
promised consumers a full, money-back refund for any tickets
purchased that were cancelled. The Plaintiffs claim that following
the COVID-19 pandemic, the Defendants have unilaterally and
unconscionably changed their longstanding policy, including for
customers who purchased tickets while Vivid Seats actively promoted
and promised their 100% Buyers Guarantee, to avoid financial losses
and potential future losses as a result of the pandemic at the
expense of its customers.

Vivid Seats Ltd. is a secondary ticket marketplace, with its
principal place of business located in Chicago, Illinois.

Vivid Seats LLC is a subsidiary of Vivid Seats Ltd., with its
principal place of business located in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

VOLVO GROUP: Cotton-Thomas Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Loretha Cotton-Thomas, individually and on behalf of herself and
other similarly situated employees v. VOLVO GROUP NORTH AMERICA,
LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00113-GHD-RP (N.D. Miss., April 17, 2020), is
brought against the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act to
seek damages for unpaid overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff was not compensated by the Defendant at the
applicable FLSA overtime compensation rates of pay for such
automatically "edited-out/deducted" unpaid 30 minute meal periods
within weekly pay periods during which times they were not fully
relieved of their job duties and/or, performed work, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Cotton-Thomas was employed as a non-exempt hourly paid
coordinator at the Defendant's Central Distribution Center.

The Defendant owns and operates distribution centers in the United
States that provide parts distribution support for Defendant's Mack
and Volvo truck brands, as well as Volvo Construction Equipment and
Volvo Penta.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George B. Ready, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE B. READY
          175 East Commerce St.
          P.O. Box 127
          Hernando, MS 38632
          Phone: 662-429-7088
          Email: gbready@georgegreadyatty.com


WESTERN UNION: 7th Cir. Dismisses Price's Appeal in Douglas Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit issued an
Opinion dismissing the Appellant Bethany Price's appeal in the case
captioned JASON DOUGLAS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE WESTERN UNION
COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, v. BETHANY C. PRICE,
Objector-Appellant, No. 19-1868 (7th Cir.).

The class complaint alleged that Western Union violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1934 by sending unsolicited
text messages.
  
A year into the suit, the parties agreed to settle for $8.5
million.  

After the class representative moved for final approval of the
settlement, the judge held a fairness hearing. Bethany Price
participated despite the ongoing dispute over her status as a class
member.  

With minor changes to the class definition, the judge certified the
class, ruled that Price was not a member, approved the settlement,
and reduced class counsel's fees. Price moved for reconsideration,
asking the court to find that she was a member of the Class as
originally defined and to redefine the class to include all
customers who received text messages, even with consent.

The judge denied the motion. Price appeals to the District Court's
denial of her motion for attorney's fees.

Price did not appeal her exclusion from the class and did not seek
to intervene. Instead, she sought attorney's fees and an incentive
award.
   
The motion was denied because Price had cited no authority for the
highly questionable proposition that a non-class member can recover
fees and an incentive award under Rule 23.

On appeal, Price does not challenge the finding that she was not a
class member. Instead, she contends that as a nonparty she may
nonetheless seek fees and an award if she benefited the class.

But her argument ignores a threshold question: whether a nonparty
to proceedings in the district court has standing to appeal a
decision that the nonparty does not like, the Seventh Circuit
opines.

According to the  Seventh Circuit, the Supreme Court has held that
only parties to a lawsuit, or those that properly become parties,
may appeal an adverse judgment. A nonparty who is dissatisfied with
a ruling in the district court must seek to intervene for purposes
of appeal and a denial of a request to intervene is itself
appealable.  

Price did not appeal the ruling that she was not a class member,
and after the court ruled that she was a nonparty, she did not ask
to intervene for purposes of appealing any unwelcome rulings.
Accordingly, she lacks standing, rules the Seventh Circuit.

Price insists that the Seventh Circuit must have appellate
jurisdiction because her appeal is taken from an order denying
[her] motion for attorney's fees, making her an aggrieved party.
But by acquiescing to the ruling that she was not a class member,
she had no standing after that decision and could not be aggrieved
by any of the later rulings. If Price thought she had a legal
interest, she should have appealed the decision that she was not a
class member or sought to intervene to become a party. She did
neither, held the Seventh Circuit.

Accordingly, her appeal is DISMISSED.

A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's April 13, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yder2bm4 from Leagle.com

ZOOM VIDEO: Faces Henry Suit Over Lack of Adequate Data Privacy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lishomwa Henry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-02691-SVK (N.D. Cal., April 17,
2020), arises from the Defendant's lack of adequate data privacy
and security protections, and disclosures to its users as part of
providing its videoconferencing software.

The Defendant has shared the Plaintiff's and Class members' data
with the widely popular social network, Facebook, without adequate
disclosure, and has failed to protect its users' data from theft by
neglecting to adhere to standard data privacy protocols and
requirements, according to the complaint.

As a provider of videoconferencing software, the Defendant has
greatly benefitted from the recent pandemic that has forced many
Americans to work from home. Zoom stated that daily meeting
participants increased from 10 million to 200 million between
December 2019 and March 2020. While people utilize Zoom's software
on their phones, laptops or desktop computers, Zoom has been
putting the data of millions of people at risk with poor data
security protections, the Plaintiff alleges.

Zoom has also published misleading marketing claims and privacy
policies, while secretly taking advantage of users by sharing their
personal data with third parties and putting their information at
risk, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person and citizen of the State of New
York and a resident of Queens County.

Zoom has provided its video communication platform for companies
and individuals in the United States and many other countries
throughout the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
          Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq.
          Noah M. Schubert, Esq.
          Kathryn Y. McCauley, Esq.
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 788-4220
          Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
          Email: rschubert@sjk.law
                 wjonckheer@sjk.law
                 nschubert@sjk.law
                 kmccualey@sjk.law

               - and -

          Christian Levis, Esq.
          Kenry Kusjanovic, Esq.
          Amanda Fiorilla, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Phone: (914) 997-0500
          Fax: (914) 997-0035
          Email: clevis@lowey.com
                 hkusjanovic@lowey.com
                 afiorilla@lowey.com



                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***