/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200504.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, May 4, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 89

                            Headlines

ADEPTUS HEALTH: May 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Ablesky Files FDCPA Suit in New York
ALMOST FAMILY: Kentucky Western District Dismisses Securities Suit
ASPEN AMERICAN: Faces Marler Suit Over Denied Insurance Coverage
AUTO FEVER: Faces Cherenfant Class Suit in Florida Circuit Court

BAIDU INC: Faces Ikeda Securities Suit Over Drop in Share Price
BANK OF AMERICA: Sept. 17 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
BARCLAYS CAPITAL: June 9 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
BBVA USA: Defrauds Small Business Owners, Zamora-Orduna Alleges
BETHPAGE FEDERAL: Faces Filipkowski Consumer Suit in E.D.N.Y.

BETHPAGE FEDERAL: Filipkowski Sues Over Overdraft Fees
BRAD RAFFENSPERGER: Voters Slam Paying Postage for Ballot Mailing
BROADCOM INC: Varjabedian Class Action Complaint Dismissed
CARNIVAL CORP: Passengers Seek Damages Over COVID-19 Outbreak
CAYUGA HOME: Denied Baez Overtime Pay, Wage Statements

CENTRAL PAYMENT: Court Certifies Class in Custom Hair Lawsuit
CHARTER OAK: Stan's Bar-B-Q Sues Over Denied Insurance Coverage
CHINA: Business Owners Cry Negligence re Virus Spread
CLUB DEMONSTRATION: Fails to Pay All Wages, Lapplander Suit Says
COMMUNITY HEALTH: June 19 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

DEUTSCHE BANK: June 11 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
DEVON ENERGY: Supplemental Class Certification Bid in Seeligson OKd
DHL EXPRESS: Faces Schulz Tort Suit in California Superior Court
EAST COAST RESTAURANT: Ely Seeks Minimum and OT Wages for Dancers
EASTSIDE BARKING: Sarmiento Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

EBSCO INDUSTRIES: Faces Fingerhut FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas
EQUIFAX INC: June 26 Fairness Hearing Set for $149MM Settlement
EVERQUOTE INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for June 11
FGL HOLDINGS: Sabatini Suit Balks at Proposed Sale to Fidelity
FIFTH THIRD: Christakis Hits Share Drop from Accounts Fiasco

FIVE POINT: Bayview Hunters Point Litigation Still Ongoing
FOCUS FORWARD: Katz Sues Over Unsolicited Faxed Ads
FRONTLINE ASSET: Biston Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York
FUNKO INC: Dachev Hits Share Drop from Unsold Inventory
GLOBAL K9: Hidalgo FLSA Suit Seeks Overtime Pay for Dog Handlers

GODADDY.COM LLC: Wyttmab Sues Over Automatic Charging of Fees
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Alnylam IPO-Related Suit Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Suit over Sea Ltd. IPO Still Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Status Bid Pending in Interest Rate Swap Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Reaches Initial Settlement in Snap Inc. Federal Suit

GOLDMAN SACHS: Securities Lending Antitrust Suit v GS&Co. Underway
GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Defends Indirect Forex Purchasers' Class Suit
GREAT WOLF RESORTS: Garcia Sues Over Withheld Tips, Missed Breaks
GROWING IN HEALTH: Tiefenthaler Sues in Mass. Over TCPA Violation
HARROW HEALTH: To Seek Dismissal of Amended Complaint

HOME BOUND: Perez Seeks Overtime Wages for Caregivers Under FLSA
HOME FRONT DFW: Thompson Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
HOT MIAMI STYLES: Faces Wohlstein TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Texts
INNOVATIVE HEALTH: Court Narrows Claims in Bhambhani Fraud Suit
KNOWLES ON SITE: Cummings FLSA Suit Removed to N.D. Florida

LADENBURG THALMANN: Dismissal of Plains All American Litig. Upheld
LIBERATOR MEDICAL: July 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
LLOYD'S LONDON: Refuses to Cover Income Losses, El Novillo Claims
LONG ISLAND UNIVERSITY: Irizarry Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees
LUCKIN COFFEE: Bergenholtz Sues Over Violation of Securities Act

MCGRAW HILL: Faces Uchenik Suit Over Violation of Antitrust Laws
MIDLAND CREDIT: Silberman Files Suit under FDCPA
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Johnson Sues Over Misclassification of UREs
MOUNT SINAI HEALTH: Gattoni Sues in New York Over ADA Violation
NATURE'S BOUNTY: Fails to Pay Straight and OT Wages, Godinez Says

NEW YORK: Bid for Writ of Habeas Corpus Filed in Suit v. MCC NY
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Kizelnik Files FDCPA Suit in New York
PERSONALIZATIONMALL.COM LLC: Barnes Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
PROVIDENCE PUMPING: Catlin Sues Over Denied Overtime Pay
PURPLE LAND: Prinkey Suit Transferred From W.D. Pa. to N.D. Texas

RHA HEALTH: Jones Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay for Caregivers
SCANA CORP: June 17 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
SHAW ACADEMY: Moreno Files TCPA Suit in New Hampshire
SHUTTERFLY INC: Allen Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Calif.
SIX FLAGS: McConnell Suit Challenges Unlawful Membership Fees

SPIRIT AIRLINES: Has Breached Contract of Carriage, Hill Alleges
SPRING FITNESS: Faces Elyamani TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Marketing
SWEGO JUNCTION: Hubert Seeks Minimum and OT Wages for Servers
TECH MAHINDRA: Williams Sues Over Bias Against Non-Indian Workers
TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS: Plumley Suit Balks at Sale to AcelRx

TILE SHOP: Wynnfield Suit Proceeds to Trial on Merits
TRANSUNION LLC: McIntyre Suit Transferred to Georgia
TRANSUNION RENTAL: Wright Suit Transferred to Georgia
TRAVEL TRANSPARENCY: Winters Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Calls
TRAVELERS CASUALTY: Nguyen Seeks Benefits From Insurance Policies

TROPHY NUT: Court Certifies FLSA Collective in Coleman Suit
TRULY NOLEN: Faces Chiramel Suit Over False Business Practices
UNILEVER US: Vizcarra Sues Over Marketing of Breyers Ice Cream
UNITED COLLECTION: Kizelnik Alleges Violation of FDCPA
VAIL RESORTS: Sued by Han Over Refusal to Give Epic Pass Refund

VALE SA: June 10 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
WALGREEN COMPANY: Ramirez Sues for Negligence Over Data Breach
WATERSTONE FINANCIAL: Liable for Damages, Arbitrator Says
WEST CLARA: Sued by Heidarpour Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
WESTCHESTER SURPLUS: K's Inc. Sues Over Denied Insurance Coverage

Z RESTAURANT: Shibetti Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
ZOOM VIDEO: Drieu Hits Share Drop Over App's Data Security Setback
ZOOM VIDEO: Hartmann Sues over Deceptive Encryption Claims

                            *********

ADEPTUS HEALTH: May 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP notified of the
settlement fairness hearing in the ADEPTUS HEALTH INC., et al.,
Litigation.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, on
February 20, 2020, issued a Summary Notice of (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS
ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING;
AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES in the
Adeptus Health case.

The Summary Notice is for All persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Adeptus Health Inc. ("Adeptus") Class A common stock
during the period from June 25, 2014 through March 1, 2017,
inclusive, and were damaged thereby ("Settlement Class"). Certain
persons and entities are excluded from the Settlement Class as set
forth in detail in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
dated November 26, 2019 ("Stipulation") and the Notice described
below.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY; YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

Interested parties are notified that pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ("Court"), that
the above-captioned action ("Action") has been provisionally
certified as a class action for the purposes of settlement only on
behalf of the Settlement Class. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the
parties to the Action have reached a proposed settlement for
$44,000,000 in cash ("Settlement") that, if approved, will resolve
all claims in the Action.

A hearing will be held on May 20, 2020 at 11:30 a.m., before the
Honorable Amos L. Mazzant, III at the Paul Brown United States
Courthouse, 101 East Pecan Street, Sherman, TX  75090, to
determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved
as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should
be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the releases
specified and described in the Stipulation (and in the Notice
described below) should be entered; (iii) whether the Settlement
Class should be certified for purposes of effectuating the
Settlement; (iv) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be
approved as fair and reasonable; and (v) whether Lead Counsel's
motion for attorneys' fees and litigation expenses should be
approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet
received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Adeptus Health
Securities Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173087,
Milwaukee WI 53217, 1-866-778-9468,
info@AdeptusHealthSecuritiesLitigation.com. Copies of the Notice
and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website for the
Settlement, www.AdeptusHealthSecuritiesLitigation.com, or from Lead
Counsel's websites, www.blbglaw.com and www.ktmc.com.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form postmarked (if mailed), or online, no
later than June 8, 2020, in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Claim Form. If you are a Settlement Class Member and
do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to
share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but
you will nevertheless be bound by any releases, judgments, or
orders entered by the Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than April 29, 2020, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any releases, judgments, or orders entered by the Court
in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the net
proceeds of the Settlement. Excluding yourself is the only option
that may allow you to be part of any other current or future
lawsuit against Defendants or any of the other released parties
concerning the claims being resolved by the Settlement. Please
note, however, if you decide to exclude yourself from the
Settlement Class, you may be time-barred from asserting certain
claims covered by the Action by a statute of repose.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
litigation expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to
Lead Counsel and designated Defendants' Counsel such that they are
received no later than April 29, 2020, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, ADEPTUS,
DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. All
questions about this notice, the Settlement, or your eligibility to
participate in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or
the Claims Administrator.

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to the Claims
Administrator:

The case is OKLAHOMA LAW ENFORCEMENT RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, vs.
ADEPTUS HEALTH INC., et al., Case No. 4:17-CV-0449-ALM
Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III (United States District Court Eastern
district of Texas Sherman Division)

          Adeptus Health Securities Litigation
          c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
          P.O. Box 173087
          Milwaukee, WI  53217
          1-866-778-9468
          info@AdeptusHealthSecuritiesLitigation.com
          www.AdeptusHealthSecuritiesLitigation.com

All other inquiries should be made to Lead Counsel:

          Jeremy P. Robinson, Esq.
          Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY  10020
          1-800-380-8496
          settlements@blbglaw.com

          Gregory M. Castaldo, Esq.
          Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA  19087
          1-610-667-7706
          info@ktmc.com


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Ablesky Files FDCPA Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alltran Financial,
LP. The case is styled as Chaya Abelsky, on behalf of herself and
all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Alltran
Financial, LP, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01943 (E.D.N.Y., April
28, 2020).

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

Alltran is a debt collection agency hired by different companies to
collect a debt from consumers. Alltran collects on unpaid credit
cards, personal, loans, student loans, and other debts. The
majority of the unpaid credit card bills Alltran collects are
charge off debts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
   Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
   735 Central Avenue
   Woodmere, NY 11598
   Tel: (516) 668-6945
   Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com



ALMOST FAMILY: Kentucky Western District Dismisses Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re ALMOST FAMILY INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil
Action No. 3:18-CV-00040-RGJ (W. D. Ky.), Judge Rebecca Grady
Jennings of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky, Louisville Division, (i) granted the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss; (ii) granted the Defendant' Motion to Strike the
Affidavit of Plaintiff's Purported Expert; and (iii) denied as moot
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Substitution of Party for Deceased
Defendant Steven B. Bing.

The Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") alleging
violations of Section 14(a), 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act,
and breach of fiduciary duties.  The Defendants now move to dismiss
the FAC.  

The matter stems from an agreement and plan of merger between
Almost Family and LHC Group, Inc.  The Merger Agreement proposed a
$2.4 billion merger, in which Almost Family shareholders would
receive 0.9150 shares of LHC stock for each existing share of
Almost Family stock.  The Plaintiffs allege that the merger
consideration was inadequate given Almost Family's performance and
prospects for further growth.  They allege that the Defendants'
proxy statement violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Act.  The
Plaintiffs assert that the financials in the Proxy were materially
misleading and the Proxy was otherwise misleading because it
omitted necessary financial information that would allow
shareholders to understand the financial figures and fairness
opinion provided with the Proxy.  They also allege control person
liability for the Individual Defendants.  Finally, the Plaintiffs
assert that the Individual Defendants breached their duties of
loyalty and good faith by allowing dissemination of the allegedly
misleading Proxy.

Before the closure of the merger, several Plaintiffs filed separate
actions alleging substantially the same claims as those in the FAC.
The Plaintiffs also filed for a preliminary injunction to stop the
merger based on substantially the same arguments as the FAC.  The
Court denied the motion for preliminary injunction because it found
that the Plaintiffs did not demonstrate a strong likelihood of
success on the merits.  The Court consolidated the several cases
into the instant class action and allowed the Plaintiffs to file an
amended complaint.

The matter is before the Court on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
and Motion to Strike, replies, and supplemental authority were
filed.

The Plaintiffs' primary allegation is that without the underlying
financial information, shareholders could not reconstruct the
values in Guggenheim's analysis.  Thus, shareholders could not
determine the "weight" to place on its conclusions.  Judge Jennings
finds that the Proxy need not disclose financial inputs sufficient
to allow shareholders to reconstruct the analysis.  Thus, the
Plaintiffs' omissions claim, based on the inability to reconstruct
Guggenheim's analysis is facially insufficient.  Thus, the omission
of the UFCF projections or the line items used to calculate them
from the summary of the opinion cannot constitute a material
omission.

Because the Plaintiffs failed to plead a material omission or
misleading statement actionable under Section 14(a), the Court need
not address whether their Section 14(a) claims should also be
dismissed for the failure to allege scienter or loss causation.

Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act extends liability to
every person who, directly or indirectly, controls any person
liable under any provision of the Exchange Act, jointly and
severally with the person controlled.  Because there is no
underlying violation of Section 14(a), the Plaintiffs' Section
20(a) claims must be dismissed along with the Section 14(a)
claims.

Finally, the Plaintiffs contend that the Individual Defendants
breached their duty of loyalty and duty of candor because they made
materially incomplete and misleading statements in the Proxy and
failed to correct them after notice.  Because the federal claims
should be dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the state law fiduciary duty claims.  Therefore,
the Plaintiffs' state law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

The Defendants seek to strike the Affidavit of M. Travis Keath,
CFA, CPA/ABV, Exhibit A to the Plaintiffs' FAC.  The Affidavit is
essentially an expert report opining on the materiality of the
omitted financial information that is the basis of the Plaintiffs'
14(a) omissions claim.  The Defendants argue that the Affidavit is
not a written instrument under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
10(c), and thus, it is improper to attach the Affidavit to the
Complaint.  The Court holds that because the Affidavit does not
fall within the definition of "written instrument" and is
essentially evidentiary material, it is improper to consider it on
a Motion to Dismiss and it is disregarded.

For the reasons stated, and being otherwise sufficiently advised,
Judge Jennings (i) granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, (ii)
granted the Defendants' Motion to Strike, and (iii) denied as moot
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Substitution of Party for Deceased
Defendant Steven B. Bing.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 11, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/kLJVLT from
Leagle.com.

Leonard Stein, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by James M. Wilson, Jr. --
jwilson@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, Jamie K. Neal --
jamie@burkeneal.com -- Burke Neal PLLC, Kevin C. Burke, Burke Neal
PLLC & Michael D. Van Gorder -- mvangorder@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi
& Faruqi, LLP.

Jordan Rosenblatt, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jamie K. Neal, Burke
Neal PLLC & Kevin C. Burke, Burke Neal PLLC.

Shiva Stein, Plaintiff, represented by Jamie K. Neal, Burke Neal
PLLC, Kevin C. Burke, Burke Neal PLLC & Michael D. Van Gorder,
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP.

Almost Family, Inc., William B. Yarmuth, Steven B. Bing, Donald G.
McClinton, Tyree G. Wilburn, Jonathan D. Goldberg, W. Earl Reed,
III, Henry M. Altman, Jr. & Clifford S. Holtz, Defendants,
represented by Blake Rohrbacher -- rohrbacher@rlf.com -- Richards,
Layton & Finger, PA, Cory J. Skolnick, Frost Brown Todd LLC, Kellie
R. Beckman, Frost Brown Todd LLC, Mitchell A. Karlan --
mkarlan@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Thomas C.
Gleason, Frost Brown Todd LLC & Timothy Sun -- tsun@gibsondunn.com
-- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

LHC Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Gingold Clark,
Alston & Bird LLP, Meredith J. Kingsley, Alston & Bird LLP & Robert
R. Long, IV, Alston & Bird LLP.


ASPEN AMERICAN: Faces Marler Suit Over Denied Insurance Coverage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wade K. Marler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ASPEN AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
2:20-cv-00616 (W.D. Wash., April 22, 2020), is brought against
Defendant to ensure that the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated
policyholders receive the insurance benefits to which they are
entitled and for which they paid.

Due to COVID-19 and a state-ordered mandated closure, the Plaintiff
says he cannot provide dentistry services. The Plaintiff intended
to rely on his business insurance to keep his business as a going
concern. The Defendant issued one or more insurance policies to the
Plaintiff, including Building, Blanket Dental Practice Personal
Property and Income Coverage Part and related endorsements,
insuring the Plaintiff's property and business practice and other
coverages, with effective dates of September 19, 2019, to September
19, 2020.

The Defendant's insurance policy issued to the Plaintiff promises
to pay him for "ALL RISK OF DIRECT PHYSICAL LOSS" to covered
property and includes coverage for risks of both "loss of or damage
to" covered property. The Plaintiff paid all premiums for the
coverage when due.

The Plaintiff's property sustained direct physical loss and/or
damages related to COVID19 and/or the proclamations and orders. The
Plaintiff contends that his property will continue to sustain
direct physical loss or damage covered by the Aspen policy or
policies, including business interruption, extra expense,
interruption by civil authority, and other expenses.

The Plaintiff's property cannot be used for its intended purposes,
says the complaint. As a result, the Plaintiff has experienced and
will experience loss covered by the Aspen policy or policies. The
Defendant denied coverage for other similarly situated
policyholders.

Plaintiff WADE K. MARLER, DDS, operates a family dentistry practice
located in Covington, Washington.

Aspen American Insurance Company is an insurance carrier
incorporated and domiciled in the State of Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ian S. Birk, Esq.
          Lynn L. Sarko, Esq.
          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Irene M. Hecht, Esq.
          Amy Williams Derry, Esq.
          Maureen Falecki, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 623-1900
          Fax: (206) 623-3384
          Email: ibirk@kellerrohrback.com
                 lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
                 gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
                 ihecht@kellerrohrback.com
                 awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com
                 mfalecki@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Alison Chase, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          801 Garden Street, Suite 301
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Phone: (805) 456-1496
          Fax: (805) 456-1497
          Email: achase@kellerrohrback.com


AUTO FEVER: Faces Cherenfant Class Suit in Florida Circuit Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Auto Fever Inc. The
case is captioned as Rolin Cherenfant, on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Auto Fever Inc., and Ahmed Abeulenen, Case No.
20-CA-003219 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., April 10, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Martha J. Cook.

The Defendants operate a car dealership business in Tampa,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roger Daniel Mason II Esq.
          ROGER D. MASON, II, P.A.
          4610 Central Ave., Ste. B
          St Petersburg, FL 33711-1008
          Telephone: 813-304-2131
          Facsimile: 727-289-6482
          E-mail: rmason@flautolawyer.com


BAIDU INC: Faces Ikeda Securities Suit Over Drop in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROGER A. IKEDA, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. BAIDU, INC., YANHONG LI, and CHENG-CHUN YU,
Case No. 3:20-cv-02768 (N.D. Cal., April 21, 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 in connection to the decline of the Company's share
price.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than the Defendants, who purchased
or otherwise acquired Baidu securities between March 16, 2019, and
April 7, 2020, both dates inclusive.

The Plaintiff contends 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 Baidu's feed services were not in compliance with applicable
Chinese regulatory standards, and the foregoing noncompliance
subjected the Company to a heightened risk of regulatory
enforcement, including the removal or suspension of certain of
Baidu's services and products.

On April 7, 2020, post-market, China's internet regulator, the
Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC), ordered Baidu to clean up
improper information and halt the spread of "low-brow content."
Specifically, the CAC stated that search engine Baidu's content
review on some of its news feed channels is not "strict," "exerted
bad influence to the society," and violated relevant Chinese laws
and regulations.

On this news, Baidu's share price fell $4.46 per share, or 4.38%,
to close at $97.33 per share on April 8, 2020, damaging investors.
On April 9, 2020, Baidu issued a statement entitled "Baidu Takes
Measures to Comply with Government Directives," confirming that it
had "suspended updating its content on certain newsfeeds channels
within Baidu App and conduct maintenance, beginning from April 8
2020" and stating that it "expects that the suspension may have
impact on the marketing services revenue related to the suspended
channels."

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

The Plaintiff acquired Baidu securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation
of the alleged corrective disclosures.

Baidu is a technology company specializing in Internet-related
services and products and artificial intelligence. The Baidu search
engine is the second largest search engine in the world and the
most widely used search engine in the People's Republic of China,
with a market share of more than 70%. The Company also provides a
portfolio of apps that provide mobile device access to the
Company's search and feed services, along with social media
services and both user generated and professionally produced media
content. The Defendants Li and Yu possessed the power and authority
to control the contents of Baidu's SEC filings, press releases, and
other market communications.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 405-7190
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Sept. 17 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney LLP and Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP
announced aggregate settlement funds totaling $187,000,000 if one
transacted in Eurodollar Futures Contract and/or Options on
Eurodollar Futures on Exchanges, such as the Chicago Mercantile
Exchange, between January 1, 2003 and May 31, 2011.  

The Law Firms released a notice to inform creditors of a partial
settlement of a class action lawsuit pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The lawsuit
involves the alleged manipulation of U.S. Dollar LIBOR ("LIBOR")
and its impact on Eurodollar futures contracts and/or options on
Eurodollar futures ("Eurodollar Futures") that are linked to LIBOR.
The lawsuit against the Non-Settling Defendants remains ongoing.
This lawsuit (referred to as the "Exchange-Based Plaintiffs'
Action") has been consolidated within In re LIBOR-Based Financial
Instruments Antitrust Litigation, 11
MDL No. 2262 (S.D.N.Y.)

There are proposed Settlements reached separately with Bank of
America Corporation and Bank of America, N.A. (collectively "BOA"),
Barclays Bank plc ("Barclays"), Citigroup Inc., Citibank, N.A., and
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (collectively, "Citi"), Deutsche Bank
AG, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., and DB Group Services (UK)
Limited (collectively, "Deutsche Bank"), HSBC Bank plc ("HSBC"),
JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (collectively
"JPMorgan"), and Societe Generale ("SG") (BOA, Barclays, Citi,
Deutsche Bank, HSBC, JPMorgan, and SG are referred to collectively
herein as the "Settling Defendants").  These Settlements impact
persons, corporations and other legal entities that transacted in
Eurodollar futures contracts and/or options on Eurodollar futures
on exchanges, including without limitation, the Chicago Mercantile
Exchange (the "CME"), between January 1, 2003 and May 31, 2011 (the
"Settlement Class Period").

The lawsuit asserts that the Defendant banks (listed on the
settlement website, www.USDLiborEurodollarSettlements.com)
artificially manipulated U.S. Dollar LIBOR and Eurodollar Futures
during the Settlement Class Period by misreporting their borrowing
costs to the organization that calculated LIBOR.  The alleged
manipulation of the U.S. Dollar LIBOR rate allegedly caused
Eurodollar Futures prices to be suppressed and/or inflated to
artificial levels, thereby causing Settlement Class Members to pay
artificial prices for Eurodollar Futures during the Settlement
Class Period. Plaintiffs have asserted claims under the Commodity
Exchange Act and Sherman Antitrust Act and for unjust enrichment.
The Court has issued at least eight published opinions addressing
various legal matters raised by the parties in this action.  The
Settling Defendants have entered into these proposed Settlements to
resolve the claims asserted against them. The Settling Defendants
deny all claims of wrongdoing.

Claims against Non-Settling Defendants have been limited by the
Court's prior rulings. The Court previously dismissed claims
against certain defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction and
other claims as against SG on statute of limitations grounds. The
Court also denied Plaintiffs' class certification motion.
Plaintiffs petitioned the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
for interlocutory review of the Court's denial of class
certification.  The Court of Appeals denied that petition.  As a
result, your participation in these Settlements may offer the best,
and perhaps only, chance for you to receive any monetary recovery
from this lawsuit.

Am I included?

The Settlement Classes are defined in the Full Notice and the
Settlement Agreements, which are available for review on the
settlement website.  In general, you are a Settlement Class Member
if you transacted in Eurodollar futures contracts and/or options on
Eurodollar futures on exchanges, including without limitation, the
CME, between January 1, 2003 and May 31, 2011.  Excluded from the
Settlement Class are: (i) Defendants, their employees, affiliates,
parents, subsidiaries, and alleged co-conspirators; (ii) the
Releasees (as defined in the Settlement Agreements described
below); and (iii) any Settlement Class Member who files a timely
and valid request for exclusion. Notwithstanding these exclusions,
and solely for the purposes of the Settlements and the Settlement
Class, Investment Vehicles shall not be excluded from the
Settlement Class solely on the basis of being deemed to be
Defendants or affiliates or subsidiaries of Defendants. However, to
the extent that any Defendant or any entity that might be deemed to
be an affiliate or subsidiary thereof (i) managed or advised, and
(ii) directly or indirectly held a beneficial interest in, said
Investment Vehicle during the Class Period, that beneficial
interest in the Investment Vehicle is excluded from the Settlement
Class.

What do the Settlements provide?

In order to resolve the claims against them, the Settling
Defendants have separately agreed to individual settlement amounts
totaling $187,000,000 in the aggregate for the benefit of the
Settlement Class in exchange for releases of the claims against
them, as fully detailed in the Settlement Agreements.
Specifically, BOA has agreed to pay $15 million; Barclays has
agreed to pay $19.975 million; Citi has agreed to pay $33.4
million; Deutsche Bank has agreed to pay $80 million; HSBC has
agreed to pay $18.5 million; JPMorgan has agreed to pay $15
million; and SG has agreed to pay $5,125,000.  The Settlement
Agreements are available for review on the settlement website
referenced below.  The Settling Defendants have also agreed to
provide certain specified cooperation to the Plaintiffs that can be
used in the prosecution of claims against the Non-Settling
Defendants.

How can I get a payment?

If you transacted in U.S. Dollar LIBOR-based Eurodollar futures
contracts and/or options on Eurodollar futures on exchanges such as
the CME between January 1, 2003 and May 31, 2011 and do not exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must file a timely and
valid Proof of Claim Form to be potentially eligible for any
payment. You may obtain a Proof of Claim Form on the settlement
website referenced below and submit it online or by mail. The
amount of any payment under the Settlements will be determined by a
Plan of Distribution approved by the Court.  A copy of the proposed
Plan of Distribution is available for review on the settlement
website at www.USDLiborEurodollarSettlements.com.

The proposed Plan provides for distribution of 75% of the Net
Settlement Fund on the basis of pro rata "Recognized Net Loss" and
25% on the basis of pro rata "Recognized Volume," subject to a
guaranteed minimum payment of $20.  Only Eligible Claimants may
participate in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.  An
Eligible Claimant is a Settlement Class Member whose proof of claim
is found to be timely, adequately supported, properly verified and
otherwise valid pursuant to the Plan of Distribution all as
determined by the Settlement Administrator. At this time, it is
unknown how much, if anything, each Eligible Claimant may receive.

To be timely, all Proof of Claim Forms must be postmarked by mail
or submitted electronically by December 1, 2020.

What are my rights?

You have the right to remain a member of the Settlement Class or to
exclude yourself from the Settlement Class. If you remain a member
of the Settlement Class, and if the Settlements are approved, you
may be eligible to share pro rata in the Net Settlement Fund by
timely submitting a valid Proof of Claim Form.  If you participate
in the Settlements, you will, however, lose your right to
individually sue any of the Settling Defendants or their affiliated
persons and entities for the alleged conduct at issue in the
lawsuit, and will be bound by the Court's orders concerning the
Settlements. If you stay in the Settlement Class, you may object to
one or more of the proposed Settlements, the proposed Plan of
Distribution, the requested attorneys' fees, expense reimbursement,
and service awards mentioned below by August 27, 2020. Any
objections must be filed with the Court and delivered to the
designated representative for Settlement Class Counsel and counsel
for the Settling Defendants in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Full Notice. The Settlements will not release your
claims against any Non-Settling Defendants, and the lawsuit
continues against them.

If you want to keep your right to individually sue the Settling
Defendants or their affiliated persons and entities, you must
exclude yourself from the Settlement Class for that Settling
Defendant(s) by August 27, 2020, in the manner and form explained
in the detailed Full Notice. All Settlement Class Members who have
not timely and validly requested exclusion from the Settlement
Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the lawsuit pursuant
to the Settlement Agreements. If you properly and timely exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any
judgments or orders entered by the Court pursuant to the Settlement
Agreements and you will not be eligible to receive any payments
from the Net Settlement Fund if the Settlements are approved by the
Court.

A fairness hearing will be held on September 17, 2020 at 11:00 a.m.
before the Honorable Naomi Reice Buchwald, United States District
Court Judge, in Courtroom 21A, at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York,
New York 10007, for the purpose of determining, among other things,
whether to approve the proposed Settlements, the proposed Plan of
Distribution, Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees of up to
one-third of the Settlement Fund, plus reimbursement of litigation
expenses, and payment of service awards to the Settlement Class
representatives of no more than $25,000 each. You or your own
lawyer may appear and speak at the hearing at your own expense.

THIS IS ONLY A SUMMARY OF THE FULL NOTICE AND SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENTS, WHICH CONTAIN MORE DETAILED INFORMATION THAT YOU SHOULD
READ. THE FULL NOTICE AND THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS ARE AVAILABLE
AT www.USDLiborEurodollarSettlements.com.

Settlement Class Members should continue to review the settlement
website for important updates about the Settlements and the
litigation.  You may also contact the Settlement Administrator
below (A.B. Data, Ltd.) to obtain additional information.

          USD LIBOR EURODOLLAR FUTURES SETTLEMENT
          c/o A.B. DATA, LTD.
          P.O. BOX 170990
          MILWAUKEE, WI  53217
          www.USDLiborEurodollarSettlements.com
          info@USDLiborEurodollarSettlements.com
          1-800-918-8964

(1) The aggregate Settlements, if all receive Final Approval from
the Court, will create a $187,000,000 Settlement Fund.  Settling
Defendants have separately agreed to settlements as follows:  BOA
has agreed to pay $15 million; Barclays has agreed to pay $19.975
million; Citi has agreed to pay $33.4 million; Deutsche Bank has
agreed to pay $80 million; HSBC has agreed to pay $18.5 million;
JPMorgan has agreed to pay $15 million; and Societe Generale has
agreed to pay $5,125,000.


BARCLAYS CAPITAL: June 9 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
The Claims Administrator retained by and under the supervision of
Co-Lead Counsel in In re GSE Bonds Antitrust Litigation notified of
a settlement fairness hearing in the case.

The Summary Notice provides that:

If you entered into a GSE Bond Transaction with one or more
Defendants from January 1, 2009 through and including January 1,
2019 ("Settlement Class Period"), you may be affected by new and
additional pending class action settlements.

This Summary Notice is to alert you to new and additional proposed
settlements reached with Barclays Capital Inc. ("Barclays"); BNP
Paribas Securities Corp. ("BNP Paribas"); Cantor Fitzgerald & Co.
("Cantor Fitzgerald"); Citigroup Global Markets Inc. ("CGMI");
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC ("Credit Suisse"); HSBC
Securities (USA) Inc. ("HSBC"); J. P. Morgan Securities LLC ("J. P.
Morgan"); Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. ("Merrill
Lynch"); Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC ("Morgan Stanley"); Nomura
Securities International, Inc. ("Nomura"); SG Americas Securities
LLC ("SG Americas"); TD Securities (USA) LLC ("TD Securities"); and
UBS Securities LLC ("UBS") (together "Newly-Settling Defendants").
NewlySettling Defendants deny any liability, fault, or wrongdoing
of any kind in connection with the allegations in the Action.
Newly-Settling Defendants have agreed to pay a total of $337
million into a settlement fund. This is separate from the earlier
settlements reached with Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. ("Deutsche
Bank"), First Tennessee Bank, N.A. and FTN Financial Securities
Corp. (together, "FTN"), and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("Goldman
Sachs"). Newly-Settling Defendants together with Deutsche Bank,
FTN, and Goldman Sachs are referred to as "Defendants." Defendants
deny all allegations of wrongdoing.

The Court has appointed the lawyers to represent the Settlement
Class in the Action:

          Christopher M. Burke
          Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
          600 West Broadway, Suite 3300
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-798-5316
          cburke@scott-scott.com

          Vincent Briganti
          Lowey Dannenberg, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: 914 733-7221
          vbriganti@lowey.com

Who Is a Member of the Settlement Class?

Subject to certain exceptions, the proposed Settlement Class
consists of all persons and entities who or which entered into a
GSE Bond Transaction with one or more Defendants or a direct or
indirect parent, subsidiary, affiliate, or division of a Defendant
during the Settlement Class Period. "GSE Bond Transaction" means
any purchase, sale, or other transaction in the secondary market
with respect to any GSE Bond. "GSE Bond" means any and each
unsecured bond or debt instrument (i.e., senior debt, subordinated
debt, and junior subordinated debt) regardless of currency or
credit quality, issued by Federal National Mortgage Association,
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Federal Farm Credit Banks,
and Federal Home Loan Banks.

The other capitalized terms used in this Summary Notice are defined
in the detailed Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Hearing on
Additional Proposed Settlements and Attorneys' Fees
Petition, and Right to Share in Net Settlement Fund ("Notice"), the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with Barclays and the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with BNP Paribas, Cantor
Fitzgerald, CGMI, Credit Suisse, HSBC, J. P. Morgan, Merrill Lynch,
Morgan Stanley, Nomura, SG Americas, TD Securities, and UBS
(together, the "Stipulations"), which are available at
www.GSEBondAntitrustSettlement.com.

If you are not sure if you are included in the Settlement Class,
you can get more information, including the detailed Notice, at
www.GSEBondAntitrustSettlement.com or by calling toll-free
1-877-317-7944 (if calling from outside the United States or
Canada, call 1-414-961-6546).

Will I Get a Payment?

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not opt out, you
will be eligible for a payment under the Settlements if you file a
proof of claim form ("Claim Form"). The Settlement and Plan of
Distribution have been preliminarily but not finally approved by
the Court. You also may obtain more information at
www.GSEBondAntitrustSettlement.com or by calling toll-free
1-877-317-7944 (if calling from outside the United States or
Canada, call 1-414-961-6546).

Claim Forms must be submitted online at
www.GSEBondAntitrustSettlement.com on or before 11:59 p.m. Eastern
time on May 12, 2020.

You do not need to do anything if you submitted a timely and valid
claim form in connection with the Deutsche Bank, FTN, and Goldman
Sachs settlements. Any such submission will be
treated as a valid and timely Claim Form with respect to these
Settlements.

What Are My Rights?

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not opt out, you
will release certain legal rights against Newly-Settling Defendants
and the other Released Parties, as explained in the detailed Notice
and Stipulations, which are available at
www.GSEBondAntitrustSettlement.com. If you do not want to take part
in these Settlements, you must opt out by April 22, 2020. You may
object to these Settlements, Plan of Distribution, and/or
application for an award of attorneys' fees, Litigation Expenses,
and any service awards for Plaintiffs. If you want to object, you
must do so by April 22, 2020. Information on how to opt out or
object is contained in the detailed Notice, which is available at
www.GSEBondAntitrustSettlement.com

When Is the Settlement Hearing?

The Court will hold a hearing at the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., Courtroom 14B, New York,
NY 10007, on June 9, 2020 at 3:30 p.m. to consider whether to
approve these Settlements, Plan of Distribution, and application
for an award of attorneys' fees, Litigation Expenses, and any
service awards for Plaintiffs. You or your lawyer may ask to appear
and speak at the hearing at your own expense, but you do not have
to.

For more information, call toll-free 1-877-317-7944 (if calling
from outside the United States or Canada, call 1-414-961-6546) or
visit www.GSEBondAntitrustSettlement.com.

**** Please do not call the Court or the Clerk of the Court for
information about the Settlements. ****

The case is In Re GSE Bonds Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
1:19-cv-01704 (JSR) (United States District Court Southern District
of New York).


BBVA USA: Defrauds Small Business Owners, Zamora-Orduna Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zamora-Orduna Realty Group, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. BBVA USA, Case No. 2020CI07450 (Tex. Dist.,
Bexar Cty., April 21, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
deceiving and defrauding small business owners in connection with
the Paycheck Protection Program administered by the Small Business
Administration.

The Defendants made misrepresentations to many small business
owners that they would assist them with their PPP loan applications
and submit them for approval, according to the complaint.
Unbeknownst to the Plaintiff, the Defendant chose to prioritize
select customers and "bigger business" for approval to the
detriment of the Plaintiff. The Defendant knowingly and negligently
chose to accept federal money to process PPP loans while knowing it
would not do so or did not have sufficient infrastructure in place
to handle the applications submitted, to the detriment of the
Plaintiff and Class Members.

The Plaintiff assert cause of action for fraud, fraud in the
inducement, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract,
negligence, ad violations of the Deceptive Trade Practice Act, and
seek to recover actual a consequential damages of no less than
$10,000,000, exemplary damages, treble damages, attorneys' fees and
costs.

The Plaintiff is a small business incorporated as a limited
liability company Corporation in the State of Texas.

BBVA is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of
Alabama and conducts business in San Antonio, Bexar County,
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alfonso Kennard, Jr., Esq.
          Kevin T. Kennedy, Esq.
          KENNARD LAW P.C.
          2603 Augusta Drive, Suite 1450
          Houston, TX 77057
          Phone: 713/742.0900
          Facsimile: 713/742.0951
          Email: Alfonso.Kennard@KennardLaw.com
                 Kevin.Kennedy@KennardLaw.com


BETHPAGE FEDERAL: Faces Filipkowski Consumer Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bethpage Federal
Credit Union. The case is captioned as Jo-Anne Filipkowski
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Bethpage Federal Credit Union and Does 1 through 100, Case No.
2:20-cv-01754-JS-AKT (E.D.N.Y., April 9, 2020)

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Joanna Seybert.

The lawsuit asserts claims for breach of contract alleging
violation of consumer credit laws.

BFCU offers a full range of banking products, including checking,
savings, credit cards, mortgages and loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin P. Roddy, Esq.
          WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, P.A.
          90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900
          Woodbridge, NJ 07095
          Telephone: (732) 636-8000
          Facsimile: (732) 726-6686
          E-mail: kroddy@wilentz.com


BETHPAGE FEDERAL: Filipkowski Sues Over Overdraft Fees
------------------------------------------------------
Jo-Anne Filipkowski, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bethpage Federal Credit Union and
Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01754 (E.D. N.Y., April 9,
2020), seeks compensatory damages, recovery on all monies
wrongfully obtained from overdraft fees, enjoinment, pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest as well as attorneys' fees resulting
from breach of contract, unjust enrichment and negligence under the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act.

Filipkowski claims that Bethpage assessed an overdraft fee or
Insufficient Funds Fees on transactions when there was enough money
in the checking account to cover the transactions presented for
payment.

Bethpage Federal Credit Union is a state chartered credit union
with its headquarters located in Bethpage, New York. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin P. Roddy, Esq.
      WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, P.A.
      90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900
      Woodbridge, NJ 07095
      Telephone: (732) 636-8000
      Facsimile: (732) 726-6686
      E-mail: kroddy@wilentz.com

              - and -

      Taras Kick, Esq.
      THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
      815 Moraga Drive
      Los Angeles, CA 90049
      Telephone: (310) 395-2988
      Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
      Email: Taras@Kicklawfirm.com

             - and -

      Richard D. McCune, Esq.
      MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
      3281 E. Guasti Road, Suite 100
      Ontario, CA 91761
      Telephone: (909) 557-1250
      Facsimile: (909) 557 1275
      Email: Rdm@mccunewright.com


BRAD RAFFENSPERGER: Voters Slam Paying Postage for Ballot Mailing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Black Voters Matter Fund and Megan Gordon, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Brad Raffensperger,
in his official capacity as Secretary of State of Georgia, DeKalb
County Board of Registration & Elections and all others similarly
situated, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01489 (N.D. Ga., April 8,
2020), seeks a preliminary injunction that would protect voters
from paying poll taxes in the coming November general election
under the Twenty-Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution.

Black Voters Matter Fund is a non-partisan civic organization whose
goal is to increase power in communities of color. Megan Gordon is
a registered voter of DeKalb County. Plaintiffs are against voting
in-person because of the COVID pandemic. Gordon does not want to
use her own postage stamps to mail in absentee ballots or
applications because she believes that no one should have to pay
money to exercise their right to vote. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sean Young, Esq.
      AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF GEORGIA, INC.
      P.O. Box 77208
      Atlanta, GA 30357
      Telephone: (678) 981-5295
      Email: syoung@acluga.org


BROADCOM INC: Varjabedian Class Action Complaint Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Broadcom Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended February 2, 2020, that the U.S.  District
Court for the Central District of California has  dismissed
Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice in the class action suit
initiated by  Gary Varjabedian.

On April 8, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. Central District Court, entitled Gary Varjabedian, et al.
v. Emulex Corporation, et al., No. 8:15-cv-554-CJC-JCG. The
complaint names as defendants Emulex Corporation ("Emulex"), its
directors, AT Wireless and Emerald Merger Sub, and purported to
assert claims under Sections 14(d), 14(e) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the board of
directors of Emulex failed to provide material information and/or
omitted material information from the Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement on Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC on April 7, 2015 by
Emulex, together with the exhibits and annexes thereto.

The complaint sought to enjoin the tender offer to purchase all of
the outstanding shares of Emulex common stock, as well as certain
other equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 28, 2015, the U.S. Central District Court issued an order
appointing the lead plaintiff and approving lead counsel for the
putative class.

On September 9, 2015, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
seeking rescission of the merger, unspecified money damages, other
equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs. On October 13,
2015, defendants moved to dismiss the first amended complaint,
which the U.S. Central District Court granted with prejudice on
January 13, 2016.

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the "Ninth Circuit Court") on
January 15, 2016. The appeal is captioned Gary Varjabedian, et al.
v. Emulex Corporation, et al., No. 16-55088.

On June 27, 2016, the Plaintiff-Appellant filed his opening brief,
on August 17 and August 22, 2016, the Defendants-Appellees filed
their answering briefs, and on October 5, 2016 Plaintiff-Appellant
filed his reply brief.

The Ninth Circuit Court heard oral arguments on October 5, 2017. On
April 20, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court issued an opinion affirming
in part and reversing in part the decision of the U.S. Central
District Court and remanding Plaintiff-Appellant's claims under
Sections 14(e) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act to the U.S. Central
District Court for reconsideration.

On May 4, 2018, the Defendants-Appellees filed a Petition for
Rehearing En Banc with the Ninth Circuit Court. On July 13, 2018,
Plaintiff-Appellant filed an Opposition to the Petition for
Rehearing En Banc. On September 6, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court
issued an order denying the Petition for Rehearing En Banc.

On October 11, 2018, Defendants-Appellees filed a Petition for a
Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, which was
granted on January 4, 2019. On April 23, 2019, the U.S. Supreme
Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as having been improvidently
granted. On May 28, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court remanded the case
back to the U.S. Central District Court.

On October 6, 2019, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed AT Wireless
from this action and the remaining defendants, Emulex and its
directors, filed motions to dismiss the complaint on October 7,
2019.

On February 26, 2020, the U.S. Central District Court dismissed
Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice.

Broadcom Inc. designs, develops, and supplies a range of
semiconductor devices with a focus on complex digital and mixed
signal complementary metal oxide semiconductor based devices and
analog III-V based products worldwide. The company operates through
four segments: Wired Infrastructure, Wireless Communications,
Enterprise Storage, and Industrial & Other.  Broadcom Inc. is based
in San Jose, California.


CARNIVAL CORP: Passengers Seek Damages Over COVID-19 Outbreak
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Archer, Marlene Archer, Jacqueline Graham, Robert Graham,
Pamela Guisti, Michael Guisti, Valerie Pasquini Willsea, Michael R.
Neky and Gina M. Pallota on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Carnival Corporation & PLC,
Princess Cruise Lines Ltd. and Fairline Shipping International
Corporation, Ltd., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02381 (N.D. Cal.,
April 8, 2020), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, treble
damages and all other relief resulting from negligence and gross
negligence.

Plaintiffs were passengers onboard the Grand Princess cruise from
February 21 to March 10, 2020. The Diamond Princess is jointly
operated by Carnival and Princess and owned by Fairline. An
outbreak of COVID-19 aboard the cruise ship originated while docked
in Yokohama, Japan. Seven hundred cases were reported or over
one-fifth of the passengers onboard resulting in seven deaths.
Plaintiffs were confined at Travis Air Force Base for two weeks
after disembarkation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
      Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
      Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
      275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
      Tel: (415) 956-1000
      Fax: (415) 956-1008
      Email: ecabraser@Ichb.com

             - and -

      Mary E. Alexander, Esq.
      Brendan D.S. Way, Esq.
      MARY ALEXANDER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1303
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 433-4440
      Facsimile: (415) 433-5440


CAYUGA HOME: Denied Baez Overtime Pay, Wage Statements
------------------------------------------------------
Rosanna Baez and Elsie Santana, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. Cayuga Home for Children,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-02912, (S.D. N.Y., April 8, 2020), seeks
unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and any other statutory
penalties as recoverable, compensatory damages sustained as a
result of Defendants' retaliation, including back pay, front pay,
punitive damages, redress for failure to provide wage statements,
costs and disbursements incurred in connection with this action,
including reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws.

Cayuga Home is a non-profit corporation operating in Manhattan that
places foster children into foster homes where Baez and Santana
currently work as home finders. They regularly work more than forty
hours in a workweek, but were not paid the statutorily-required
overtime rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay
for any hours that they worked each week in excess of forty and
were denied accurate wage statements on each payday, says the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
      Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
      Jeffrey R. McGuire, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
      1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Tel. (516) 248-5550
      Fax. (516) 248-6027
      Email: atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
             mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com


CENTRAL PAYMENT: Court Certifies Class in Custom Hair Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CUSTOM HAIR DESIGNS BY SANDY, LLC, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; and SKIP'S PRECISION
WELDING, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated; Plaintiffs, v. CENTRAL PAYMENT CO., LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 8:17CV310 (D. Neb.), Judge Joseph F. Bataillon of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska (i) granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification., (ii) denied the
Defendant's motion to file a sur-reply brief and/or strike
evidence; (iii) denied the Defendant's motion to strike the
testimony of Karl J. Borden; and (iv) denied the Defendant's motion
for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs are merchants that processed credit and debit
transactions through Defendant Central Payment Co., LLC ("CPAY").
CPAY processes over 65,000 businesses and over $10 billion in
credit sales annually.  The Plaintiffs contracted with CPAY from
November 2015 through February 2017 for payment processing
services.

The Plaintiffs allege that CPAY charged fees for its payment
processing services that do not coincide with the terms of their
merchant agreements and Terms and Conditions.  They plead the case
as a putative nationwide class action and argue that CPAY is a
multi-year, interstate, multi-million-dollar scheme to defraud
unsophisticated merchants.

The Defendants argue that it is a simple breach of contract case.
CPAY allegedly altered the credit card discount rates which changed
the individual accounts by a few dollars a month, but on a national
level, such scheme applied to over 200,000 national accounts.
Although CPAY did not incur these fees in its role with merchants,
it allegedly increased the fees, which were not authorized under
contract, forcing the Plaintiffs to pay more.

Those affected by the alleged scheme include:

  Bank: During the class period, it was First National Bank of
  Omaha ("FNBO");

  Major credit card company: Visa, Mastercard, etc.;

  Credit card processing company: During the class period, it was
  TSYS;

  Merchant acquirer: CPAY; and, Merchants: CPAY's customers.

TSYS has owned CPAY since April 2018. CPAY used "independent
contractors" who get commission for each signed customer.  The
"independent contractors" also receive training information.

The matter is before the Court on multiple motions: the request for
class certification filed by the Plaintiffs; the motion to strike
testimony of Karl J. Borden filed by the Defendant; the motion for
summary judgment filed by the Defendant; and the motion to strike
evidence filed by the Defendant.

The Plaintiffs move to certify a class of merchants who suffered
financial losses due to the alleged scheme by CPAY from Jan. 1,
2010 to the present.  The class, contends the Plaintiffs, have
suffered damages in excess of $100 million, although each
individual's damages do not justify separate actions.  The
Plaintiffs contend that there are four practices that apply to the
named Plaintiffs and to the potential class Plaintiffs.  They
include: TSSNF Fee; PCI Non-compliance Fee; raising discount rates;
and Tier shifting. Plaintiffs contend all of these practices have
common evidence.

Judge Bataillon finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the Rule
23(a) requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and
adequacy of representation.  They have also satisfied the Rule
23(b)(3) requirements of predominance and superiority.

The Defendant argues that Thomas Payne, owner of Plaintiff Skip
Merchant, has changed his testimony regarding the PCI
Non-Compliance Fee.  The declaration, argues the Defendant,
conflicts with prior sworn testimony, first arguing that Payne
challenged the fee and later saying he sued because it is pure
profit for CPAY.  Similar changes have been disregarded under the
sham affidavit rule.

The Court does not believe the Plaintiffs' changed their theories
of the case.  Likewise, the Court does not believe that the
testimony by Mr. Payne constituted a "sham affidavit" as it does
not, for purposes of this motion, essentially change the theory of
the case.  The Court finds the motion is not supported by the
claims and will deny the same.

The Defendant moves to strike the report and testimony of Karl J.
Borden pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 702.  It contends that Mr. Borden
fails to qualify as a proper expert under Rule 702.  It argues that
Borden, who is not an attorney, intends to give a legal opinion
regarding class certification.

The Court denies the motion to strike this evidence at this point
in the case.  First, the Court points out that it need not rely on
Dr. Borden's opinions to support the decision regarding class
certification.  Further, the Court agrees that there is no need for
a Daubert motion at this juncture in the litigation.  The Court is
able to review the evidence and rule without that testimony.  With
that said, the Court will not consider any opinions regarding
Bordon's purported legal conclusions in reviewing his testimony.

The Defendant asks the Court to grant summary judgment on all
counts of the First Amended Class Action complaint pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56.  CPAY argues that all of its merchant agreements are
individualized.

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have made a prima facie
evidentiary showing of breach of contract.  They have also shown
that the contract may be unconscionable, due to the alleged fraud
and misrepresentations.  The Plaintiffs have in fact offered
argument and evidence of deception.  These are fact issues.  For
these reasons, the Court denies the motion for summary judgment as
it relates to the breach of contract claim.

The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs that a  violation of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing and a breach of contract
claim are both separate causes of action.  The Plaintiffs have
clearly articulated its alleged dishonest billing actions.  The
Plaintiff has every right to plead and prove alternative theories
of recovery.

For purposes of the motion for summary judgment, the Court agrees
that the Plaintiff has sufficiently plead and offered evidence of
each of the required elements.  The conduct is clearly outlined in
this Memorandum and Order.  The allegations include mail and wire
fraud violations and evidence of the same.  The alleged scheme was
massive, covering numerous entities throughout the United States.
Deception and fraud are involved.  These factual questions will be
decided at trial.

Finally, the Court agrees that there is a genuine issues of
material fact for trial regarding fraudulent concealment.  The
Plaintiffs had every right to justifiably rely on the billings, not
knowing there was a scheme to defraud or concealment of certain
facts and fees. That is, if a defendant's partial or ambiguous
representation is materially misleading, then the defendant has a
duty to disclose known facts that are necessary to prevent the
representation from being misleading.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Bataillon granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  The Judge certified the following
class: All of CPAY's customers that, from Jan. 1, 2010, to the
present (a) were assessed the TSSNF Fee (a/k/a TSYS Network Fee);
(b) were assessed the PCI Noncompliance Fee; (c) had their
contractual credit card discount rates increased above their
contractual rate by CPAY; and/or (d) had credit card transactions
shifted by CPAY from lower-cost rate tiers to higher-cost rate
tiers.  

Tyler W. Hudson of Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP at 4740 Grand Avenue,
Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 is also appointed as lead counsel
for the proposed class.  

The Court denied the Defendant's motions (i) to file a sur-reply
brief and/or strike evidence; (ii) to strike the testimony of Karl
J. Borden, and (iii) for summary judgment.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 11, 2020 Memorandum &
Order is available at https://is.gd/XDfMz6 from Leagle.com.

Custom Hair Designs by Sandy, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated & Skip's Precision Welding, LLC, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Eric D. Barton -- ebarton@wcllp.com --
WAGSTAFF, CARTMELL LAW FIRM, Melody R. Dickson --
mdickson@wcllp.com -- WAGSTAFF, CARTMELL LAW FIRM & Tyler W. Hudson
-- thudson@wcllp.com -- WAGSTAFF, CARTMELL LAW FIRM.

Central Payment Co., LLC, Defendant, represented by Allison H.
White -- awhite@kslaw.com -- KING, SPALDING LAW FIRM, pro hac vice,
Brandon R. Keel -- bkeel@kslaw.com -- KING, SPALDING LAW
FIRM, pro hac vice, David L. Balser -- dbalser@kslaw.com -- KING,
SPALDING LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Jonathan R. Chally --
jchally@kslaw.com -- KING, SPALDING LAW FIRM, pro hac vice,
Kenneth W. Hartman -- khartman@bairdholm.com -- BAIRD, HOLM LAW
FIRM & Krista M. Eckhoff -- keckhoff@bairdholm.com -- BAIRD, HOLM
LAW FIRM.


CHARTER OAK: Stan's Bar-B-Q Sues Over Denied Insurance Coverage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stan's Bar-B-Q LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. THE CHARTER OAK FIRE INSURANCE CO., Case No.
2:20-cv-00613 (W.D. Wash., April 22, 2020), is brought against
Defendant to ensure that the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated
policyholders receive the insurance benefits to which they are
entitled and for which they paid.

Due to COVID-19 and a state-ordered mandated closure, the Plaintiff
says it cannot fully operate its restaurant and catering business.
The Plaintiff intended to rely on its business insurance to keep
its business as a going concern. The Defendant issued one or more
insurance policies to the Plaintiff, including Businessowners
Property Coverage and related endorsements, insuring the
Plaintiff's property and restaurant business and other coverages,
with effective dates of August 29, 2019, to August 29, 2020. The
Plaintiff's business property includes property leased by the
Plaintiff and used for general restaurant and related business
purposes.

Charter Oak's Businessowners Property Coverage provides the
Plaintiff with Business Income Coverage, Extra Expense Coverage,
Extended Business Income Coverage, and Civil Authority Coverage.
The Plaintiff paid all premiums for the coverage when due.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's property sustained
direct physical loss and/or damages related to COVID19 and/or the
proclamations and orders. The Plaintiff's property will continue to
sustain direct physical loss or damage covered by the Charter Oak
policy or policies, including but not limited to business
interruption, extra expense, interruption by civil authority, and
other expenses. The Plaintiff's property cannot be used for its
intended purposes. As a result, the Plaintiff has experienced and
will experience loss covered by the Aspen policy or policies.

The Plaintiff has initiated its submission of a claim for loss with
Charter Oak. Although the Plaintiff has not completed the
submission of its claim as of the date of this filing, the
Plaintiff was informed orally on March 18, 2020, and again on April
20, 2020, by its insurance broker, on behalf of Charter Oak, that
its claim for coverage will be denied by Charter Oak.

Stan's Bar-B-Q LLC owns and operates a small barbecue restaurant
and catering business located at 58 Front Street North, in
Issaquah, Washington.

The Charter Oak Fire Insurance Co. is an insurance carrier
incorporated and domiciled in the State of Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amy Williams-Derry, Esq.
          Ian S. Birk, Esq.
          Lynn L. Sarko, Esq.
          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Irene M. Hecht, Esq.
          Amy Williams Derry, Esq.
          Maureen Falecki, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 623-1900
          Fax: (206) 623-3384
          Email: awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com
                 ibirk@kellerrohrback.com
                 lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
                 gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
                 ihecht@kellerrohrback.com
                 awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com
                 mfalecki@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Alison Chase, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          801 Garden Street, Suite 301
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Phone: (805) 456-1496
          Fax: (805) 456-1497
          Email: achase@kellerrohrback.com


CHINA: Business Owners Cry Negligence re Virus Spread
-----------------------------------------------------
Cardiff Prestige Property, Incorporated, First Premier X, LLC,
Little Saigon Chamber of Commerce, LLC, Vietnamese American Culture
and Education Foundation, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. People's Republic of China,
National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China;
Ministry of Emergency Management of the People's Republic of China,
Ministry of Civil Affairs of the People's Republic of China, The
People's Government of Hubei Province and the People's Government
of the City of Wuhan, China, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00683,
(C.D. Cal., April 8, 2020), seeks exemplary or punitive damages
relating to fraudulent, extreme, outrageous, malicious, oppressive
conduct that was performed in conscious disregard of the health and
safety of American citizens and California residents; statutory
prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded;
costs and expenses in this litigation, including, but not limited
to, expert fees, filing fees and reasonable attorneys' fees and
such other relief resulting from negligence, liability for
conducting ultra-hazardous activity and public nuisance.

Plaintiffs are business owners who were affected by the lockdown
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. They accuse the Chinese Government
for failing to instigate measures to prevent the corona virus from
spreading outside China. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Huy Tu, Esq.
      THE TU FIRM, APLC
      10810 Warner Avenue, Ste. 12
      Fountain Valley, CA 92708
      Tel: (714) 636-6030
      Fax: (714) 636-6048
      Email: ttflawyers@gmail.com


CLUB DEMONSTRATION: Fails to Pay All Wages, Lapplander Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHEBELLA LAPPLANDER v. CLUB DEMONSTRATION SERVICES, INC.; and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV15261 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., April 21, 2020), is brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and other similarly-aggrieved employees seeking civil
penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act, California
Labor Code.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant failed to pay all wages,
including minimum wages and overtime wages, and failed to provide
rest periods and meal periods.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from 2003 through
February 27, 2019, in a non-exempt hourly position, and was
entitled to compensation for all hours worked, including overtime
compensation, as well as penalties from Defendant, says the
complaint.

CDS is a California corporation, which provides marketing services
to Costco Wholesale Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Joshua D. Klein, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590-5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
          E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.netp
                  jklein@mahoney-law.net


COMMUNITY HEALTH: June 19 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. notified of the settlement fairness hearing
in the COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., et al. Litigation.

The U.S. District Court of the Middle District of Tennessee on
March 13, 2020 issued a Summary Notice for ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES
THAT PURCHASED THE PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON STOCK OF COMMUNITY HEALTH
SYSTEMS, INC. ("CHSI" OR "THE COMPANY") FROM JULY 27, 2006 THROUGH
APRIL 8, 2011, INCLUSIVE ("CLASS MEMBERS"). CLASS MEMBERS MAY ALSO
FILE CLAIMS FOR PURCHASES OF CHSI COMMON STOCK FROM APRIL 11, 2011
THROUGH OCTOBER 26, 2011.

The Notice provides that:

Interested parties are notified that pursuant to an Order of the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee,
that a hearing will be held on June 19, 2020, at 8:30 a.m., before
the Honorable Eli Richardson at the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee, Estes Kefauver Federal
Building & Courthouse, Courtroom 874, 801 Broadway, Nashville, TN
37203, for the purpose of determining whether: (1) the proposed
settlement against CHSI and certain of its current and former
senior executives, (collectively, the "Defendants") in the above
referenced litigation (the "Litigation") for $53,000,000.00 in
cash, plus accrued interest, should be approved by the Court as
fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether a Final Judgment and
Order of Dismissal with Prejudice should be entered by the Court
dismissing the claims against the Defendants in the Litigation; (3)
whether the Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate
and therefore should be approved; and (4) whether the application
of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses and the Lead Plaintiff's reasonable fees
and expenses incurred in connection with this Litigation out of the
Net Settlement Fund should be approved by the Court.

If you are a Class Member as described above, your rights may be
affected by the settlement of this Litigation.  If you have not
received a detailed Notice of Class Action Certification and
Proposed Settlement and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release,
you should obtain copies by writing to Community Health Systems,
Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd, P.O. Box 173093,
Milwaukee, WI 53217, 866-217-4457, or on the internet at
www.CHSSecuritiesSettlement.com.  The Notice contains details about
this Litigation and settlement, including what you must do to
exclude yourself from the settlement, object to the terms of the
settlement, or file a Proof of Claim.  If you are a Class Member,
in order to share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you
must submit a Proof of Claim and Release postmarked (if submitted
by mail) or received (if submitted online) no later than June 27,
2020, establishing that you are entitled to recovery.

If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a
Request for Exclusion postmarked no later than May 18, 2020, in the
manner and form explained in the detailed Notice referred to above.
All Members of the Class who have not timely and validly requested
exclusion from the Class will be bound by any Judgment entered in
the Actions pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement.

Any objection to the settlement must be submitted to the parties
listed below postmarked no later than May 18, 2020:

The case is NORFOLK COUNTY RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COMMUNITY HEALTH
SYSTEMS, INC., WAYNE T. SMITH and W. LARRY CASH, Consolidated Civil
Action No.: 11-cv-0433, Judge Eli Richardson Magistrate Judge Joe
B. Brown (United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee Nashville Division)

Court:

          Clerk of the Court
          United States District Court
          Middle District of Tennessee
          Estes Kefauver Federal Building & Courthouse
          801 Broadway
          Nashville, TN 37203

Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff and the Class:

          Barbara J. Hart
          Lowey Dannenberg, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601

Counsel for Defendants:

          Gary A. Orseck
          Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner
          & Sauber LLP
          2000 K Street NW, 4th Floor
          Washington, DC 20006

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  If you have questions about the settlement, you may
contact the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff
and the Class at the address listed.


DEUTSCHE BANK: June 11 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP notified of the settlement
fairness hearing in the Deutsche Bank Securities Litigation.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
February 27, 2020, issued a Summary Notice for ALL PERSONS OR
ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE 7.35%
NONCUMULATIVE TRUST PREFERRED SECURITIES OF DEUTSCHE BANK CAPITAL
FUNDING TRUST X, AND/OR THE 7.60% TRUST PREFERRED SECURITIES OF
DEUTSCHE BANK CONTINGENT CAPITAL TRUST III, PURSUANT OR TRACEABLE
TO THE PUBLIC OFFERINGS THAT COMMENCED ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER 6, 2007
AND FEBRUARY 14, 2008 (THE "CLASS OFFERINGS").

Interested parties are notified that pursuant to an Order of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
a hearing will be held on June 11, 2020, at 4:30 p.m. ET, before
the Honorable Deborah A. Batts at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, for
the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of
the Litigation for the sum of $18,500,000 in cash should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2)
whether, thereafter, this Litigation should be dismissed with
prejudice against Deutsche Bank AG, the DB Defendants1 and the
Underwriter Defendants2 (together, the "Defendants") as set forth
in the Stipulation of Settlement dated November 11, 2019; (3)
whether the Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable and adequate and
therefore should be approved; and (4) the reasonableness of the
application of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and
expenses incurred in connection with this Litigation, together with
interest thereon (which request may include an amount for Class
Plaintiffs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 77z-1(a)(4) in connection
with their representation of the Class). The Court may adjourn or
continue the Settlement Hearing without further notice to the
Class.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED SECURITIES IN THE CLASS
OFFERINGS, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THIS LITIGATION AND THE
SETTLEMENT THEREOF. If you have not received a detailed Notice of
Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a
copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies
by writing to Deutsche Bank Securities Settlement, Claims
Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 43320, Providence,
RI 02940-3320, or by downloading this information at
www.DeutscheBankSecuritiesSettlement.com. If you are a Class
Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release online at
www.DeutscheBankSecuritiesSettlement.com by June 10, 2020, or by
mail postmarked no later than June 10, 2020, establishing that you
are entitled to a recovery. You will be bound by any judgment
rendered in the Litigation unless you request to be excluded, in
writing, postmarked by May 21, 2020.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired securities in the Class
Offerings and you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must
submit a request for exclusion such that it is postmarked no later
than May 21, 2020, in the manner and form explained in the detailed
Notice referred to above. All Members of the Class who do not
validly request exclusion from the Class will be bound by any
judgment entered in the Litigation pursuant to the Stipulation of
Settlement.

Any objection to any aspect of the Settlement must be filed with
the Clerk of the Court and also delivered by hand or first-class
mail to each of the following addresses such that it is received no
later than May 21, 2020:

Court:

          CLERK OF THE COURT
          United States District Court
          Southern District of New York
          Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States
          Courthouse
          500 Pearl Street
          New York, NY 10007

Lead Counsel:

          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          THEODORE J. PINTAR
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101

Deutsche Bank's counsel:

          CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP
          DAVID G. JANUSZEWSKI
          80 Pine Street
          New York, NY 10005

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

The case In re DEUTSCHE BANK AG SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File
No. 1:09-cv-01714-DAB-RWL (United States District Court Southern
District of New York).

1 "DB Defendants" means Deutsche Bank Contingent Capital LLC II,
Deutsche Bank Contingent Capital Trust II, Deutsche Bank Capital
Funding Trust IX, Deutsche Bank Capital Funding LLC IX, Deutsche
Bank Capital Funding LLC X, Deutsche Bank Capital Funding Trust X,
Deutsche Bank Contingent Capital LLC III, Deutsche Bank Contingent
Capital Trust III, Deutsche Bank Contingent Capital LLC V, Deutsche
Bank Contingent Capital Trust V, Deutsche Bank Capital Funding LLC
VIII, Deutsche Bank Capital Funding Trust VIII, Josef Ackermann,
Jonathan Blake, Hugo Banziger, Anthony Di Iorio, Martin Edelmann,
Hermann-Josef Lamberti, Rainer Rauleder, Peter Sturzinger, and
Marco Zimmermann.

2 "Underwriter Defendants" means UBS Securities LLC, Citigroup
Global Markets Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated, individually and as successor by merger to defendant
Banc of America Securities LLC, Wachovia Capital Markets, LLC
(n/k/a Wells Fargo Securities, LLC), Morgan Stanley & Co., and
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.


DEVON ENERGY: Supplemental Class Certification Bid in Seeligson OKd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HENRY SEELIGSON, JOHN M. SEELIGSON, SUZANNE SEELIGSON
NASH, and SHERRI PILCHER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DEVON ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY,
L.P., Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-00082-K (N.D. Tex.),
Judge Ed Kinkeade of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division, granted the Supplemental Motion
for Class Certification.

The Plaintiffs brought the action on behalf of similarly situated
royalty owners alleging that Defendant Devon Energy Production
Company, L.P. ("DEPCO") improperly and intentionally underpaid
royalties owed to the Plaintiffs and the class members for gas that
was processed through the Bridgeport Gas Processing Plant.

The Plaintiffs and the proposed class members own or owned royalty
interests in wells that produce gas that was processed through the
Bridgeport Plant of DEPCO.  DEPCO serves as either the lessee,
operator, or the entity required to remit revenue to royalty owners
for the Class Wells.  In some instances, DEPCO assumes all three of
these roles. DEPCO sold residue gas and natural gas liquids
("NGLs") from the Class Wells at or near the wellhead to Devon Gas
Services, LP ("DGS").  The relevant leases provide that on gas sold
at the wellhead, the royalty will be one-eighth of the net proceeds
received from such sale, whereas for gas sold or used off the
premises, the royalty will be the market value at the well of
one-eighth of the gas so sold or used.  These sales are governed by
one common contract -- the Gas Purchasing and Processing Agreement
("GPPA").  Under the GPPA, DGS purportedly paid DEPCO prices equal
to 82.5% of the value of the residue gas and NGLs and deducted
17.5% as a processing fee.

The Plaintiffs claim that DEPCO improperly passed the 17.5% fee on
to them and all the class members by reducing their royalty
payments by 17.5%.  They allege that this processing fee was
artificially inflated and that it resulted in a price or value that
was substantially lower than any price or value a prudent or
diligent operator would have obtained under the same or similar
facts or circumstances.  The Plaintiffs further contend that DEPCO
could have reasonably obtained a higher price or value through a
lower processing fee from DGS but failed to do so in order to
secretly create a lucrative profit center for DEPCO, DGS, and their
parent company, Devon Energy Corp., at the expense of the
Plaintiffs and the Class.  The Plaintiffs point to the contracts
between DGS and other producers such as Enervest and Cross-Tex,
which processed gas at roughly one-third the cost charged to DEPCO.
They argue that the notably lower processing fees are evidence
that DGS did not act as a reasonably prudent operator in procuring
the 17.5% rate.

The Plaintiffs filed the case in the Eastern District of Texas, a
district in which some of their wells are located.  On Oct. 22,
2015, DEPCO filed an Emergency Motion to Stay the proceedings in
the Eastern District pending resolution of Defendant's Motion to
Transfer Venue.  Ultimately, the case was transferred to the
Northern District of Texas on Jan. 12, 2016.

On Feb. 11, 2016, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification, Appointment of Class Representatives and Appointment
of Class Counsel.  On Feb. 25, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a motion
asking the Court to reconsider its order denying class
certification and for leave to file a second class certification
motion.  The Court held a hearing on these Motions on May 4, 2016
where the counsel for all parties presented argument and evidence
on the Plaintiffs' Motions.

Following the hearing, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Reconsider Order Denying Class Certification and certified the
following class:  All person or entities who, between Jan. 1, 2008
and Feb. 28, 2014, (i) are or were royalty owners in Texas wells
producing natural gas that was processed through the Bridgeport Gas
Processing Plant by Devon Gas Services, LP (DGS); (ii) received
royalties from Devon Production Company, L.P. (DEPCO) on such gas;
and (iii) had oil and gas leases that were on one of the following
forms: Producers 88-198(R) Texas Paid-Up (2/93); MEC 198 (Rev.
5/77); Producers 88 (Rev 10-70 PAS) 310; Producers 88 Revised
1-53—(With Pooling Provision); Producers 88 (2-53) With 640 Acres
Pooling Provision; Producers 88 (3-54) With 640 Acres Pooling
Provision; Producers 88 (4-76) Revised Paid Up with 640 Acres
Pooling Provision; Producers 88 (7-69) With 640 Acres Pooling
Provision; and Producers 88 (Rev. 3-42) With 40 Acres Pooling
Provision (The Class Lease Forms).

The Defendant requested and was granted an interlocutory appeal
under Rule 23(f).  On appeal, a unanimous panel of the Fifth
Circuit issued an unpublished opinion on Oct. 16, 2018, affirming
much of the Court's holding, but remanding on one predominance
issue.  The Defendant petitioned for a Panel Rehearing and
Rehearing En Banc.

The issues before the Court include: (1) Whether specific evidence
supports the proposition that breach and damages can be established
on a classwide basis and (2) Whether statute of limitations and
discovery rule inquiries predominate common questions.  Critical to
the Court's analysis of breach and damages is a finding that the
proposed alternative rate can be found on a classwide basis.  

Because the alternative rate can be shown classwide, and the
Defendant applied the same pricing mechanism to every member
without regard to individual well characteristics, Judge Kinkeade
finds that breach is a common question capable of classwide
resolution.  Because the Plaintiffs have identified a formula that
would adequately measure the alleged breach, the Judge finds that
damages are similarly susceptible to classwide resolution.  Because
Texas employs a "categorical" approach to the discovery rule,
asking whether the 17.5% rate was discoverable as an objective
matter, the individual issues of tolling will not predominate over
the common question of breach.  Because the Plaintiffs have
satisfied the elements necessary for class certification under Rule
23, the Court granted the Supplemental Motion for Class
Certification.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 11, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/NZVVLk from
Leagle.com.

Henry Seeligson, John M Seeligson, Suzanne Seeligson Nash & Sherri
Pilcher, Plaintiffs, represented by George Louis McWilliams, Law
Office of George L McWilliams PC, Brad E. Seidel, Brian L. Cramer
-- brian@mroklaw.com -- CRAMER PLLC, David J. Drez, III --
david.drez@wickphillips.com -- Wick Phillips Gould & Martin LLP,
Donald Mattson Keil -- mkeil@kglawfirm.com -- Keil & Goodson PA,
pro hac vice, Jack Mattingly, Jr., Mattingly & Roselius PLLC, John
Clinton Goodson, Keil & Goodson PA, pro hac vice, Joshua L.
Hedrick, Hedrick Kring PLLC, Matthew Tyler Shoop, Law Office of
Matthew T Shoop, Melissa L. Troutner, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check
LLP, pro hac vice, Naumon A. Amjed, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check
LLP, pro hac vice & Tyler S. Graden, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check
LLP.

Texas Oil & Gas Association*, Appellant, represented by Richard B.
Phillips, Jr., Thompson & Knight.

Devon Energy Production Company LP, Defendant, represented by Craig
A. Haynes -- Craig.Haynes@tklaw.com -- Thompson & Knight LLP, Julie
Christine Abernethy -- Julie.Abernethy@tklaw.com -- Thompson &
Knight LLP, Pervis Jefferson Ballew, Jr. -- Jeff.Ballew@tklaw.com
-- Thompson & Knight & Rachelle H. Glazer, Thompson & Knight LLP.

Devon Energy Production Company LP, Counter Claimant, represented
by Craig A. Haynes, Thompson & Knight LLP, Julie Christine
Abernethy, Thompson & Knight LLP, Pervis Jefferson Ballew, Jr.,
Thompson & Knight & Rachelle H. Glazer, Thompson & Knight LLP.

Sherri Pilcher, Henry Seeligson, John M Seeligson & Suzanne
Seeligson Nash, Counter Defendants, represented by George Louis
McWilliams, Law Office of George L McWilliams PC, Brad E. Seidel,
Brian L. Cramer, CRAMER PLLC, David J. Drez, III, Wick Phillips
Gould & Martin LLP, Donald Mattson Keil, Keil & Goodson PA, pro hac
vice, Jack Mattingly, Jr., Mattingly & Roselius PLLC, John Clinton
Goodson, Keil & Goodson PA, pro hac vice, Joshua L. Hedrick,
Hedrick Kring PLLC, Matthew Tyler Shoop, Law Office of Matthew T
Shoop, Melissa L. Troutner, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro
hac vice, Naumon A. Amjed, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro
hac vice & Tyler S. Graden, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP.


DHL EXPRESS: Faces Schulz Tort Suit in California Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DHL Express (USA),
Inc. The case is captioned as FREDERICK SCHULZ, ON BEHALF OF
HIMSELF AND ALL THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED v. DHL EXPRESS (USA), INC.
and DOES 1-100, Case No. CGC20584120 (Cal. Super., San Francisco
Cty., April 10, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Garrett L. Wong.

The lawsuit alleges violation of business tort-related laws. A case
management conference will be held on Sept. 9, 2020.

DHL offers shipping, tracking and courier delivery services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Andrew Quadra, Esq.
          QUADRA & COLL, LLP
          649 Mission St., Fl. 5
          San Francisco, CA 94105-4128
          Telephone: (415) 426-3502
          Facsimile: (415) 795-4530
          E-mail: jquadra@quadracoll.com


EAST COAST RESTAURANT: Ely Seeks Minimum and OT Wages for Dancers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE ELY, an individual v. EAST COAST RESTAURANT & NIGHTCLUBS,
LLC dba MILLENNIUM CABARET OF BEDFORD/GOLD CLUB, a New Hampshire
Limited Liability Corporation; MATTHEW ROSE, an individual; ROSE
ENTERPRISES, LLC, a South Carolina; and Limited Liability
Corporation; STEPHANIE ROSE CUDNEY, an individual; MICHAEL L. ROSE,
an individual; and DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:20-cv-00442 (D.N.H., April
9, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and minimum
wage owed to the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated current
and former employees of the Defendants.

The case arises from the Defendants' willful actions while the
Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from 2015 to beginning of
2018. Throughout her employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiff
has been denied minimum wage payments and denied overtime as part
of the Defendants' scheme to classify the Plaintiff and other
dancers/entertainers as "independent contractors," says the
complaint.

The Defendants own and operate a strip club now named Millennium
Cabaret. In 2017, it re-branded, and was previously known as Gold
Club.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Howard Roever, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF HOWARD ROEVER, P.C.
          83 Clinton Street
          Concord, NH 03301
          Telephone: (603) 224-5700
          E-mail: howardr@roever-law.com

               - and -

          John P. Kristensen, Esq.
          KRISTENSEN LLP
          12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
          Los Angeles, CA 90066
          Telephone: (310) 507-7924
          E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com

               - and -

          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
          1105 Milford Street
          Houston, TX 77066
          Telephone: (713) 554-2377
          E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com


EASTSIDE BARKING: Sarmiento Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jose Luis Moranchal Sarmiento, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. EASTSIDE BARKING DOG INC. (D/B/A BARKING
DOG), ERGYS JANKU, BUJAR QEMAL KACI, SOKOL KASIM, and EMIN ALLIU,
Case No. 1:20-cv-03190 (S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2020), is brought
against the Defendants for unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The lawsuit is also brought for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law,
and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York
Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff allege that he worked for the Defendants in excess of
40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and
spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather,
the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the
hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any
hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay
the Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in
which he had to work over 10 hours a day, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as a cook at the Defendants'
restaurant.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a restaurant, located in
New York, under the name "Barking Dog."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EBSCO INDUSTRIES: Faces Fingerhut FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EBSCO Industries,
Inc. The case is captioned as William Fingerhut, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. EBSCO Industries,
Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-02062-PKH (W.D. Ark., April 21, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge P. K. Holmes III.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

EBSCO provides research databases, e-journals, magazine
subscriptions, ebooks and discovery service for academic libraries,
and public libraries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EQUIFAX INC: June 26 Fairness Hearing Set for $149MM Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
JND Legal Administration notified of the settlement fairness
hearing in In Re Equifax Inc. Securities litigation.

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR
AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES

The notice is for all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly‑traded Equifax Inc. ("Equifax")
common stock during the period from February 25, 2016 through
September 15, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and who were
damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class").  Certain persons and
entities are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition, as
set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and
Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III)
Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses (the
"Notice"), available at www.EquifaxSecuritiesLitigation.com.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.  Your rights will be affected by
a class action lawsuit pending in this court.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the
"Court"), that the above-captioned securities class action (the
"Action") is pending in the Court.

Interested parties are notified that Lead Plaintiff in the Action,
Union Asset Management Holding AG, on behalf of itself and the
Settlement Class, has reached a proposed settlement of the Action
for $149,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement").  If approved, the
Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action.

A hearing will be held on June 26, 2020 at 9:30 a.m., before the
Honorable Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. at the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, Courtroom
2108 of the Richard B. Russell Federal Building and United States
Courthouse, 75 Ted Turner Drive, SW, Atlanta, GA 30303, to
determine:  (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved
as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether, for purposes of
the proposed Settlement only, the Action should be certified as a
class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, Lead Plaintiff
should be certified as Class Representative for the Settlement
Class, and Lead Counsel should be appointed as Class Counsel for
the Settlement Class; (iii) whether the Action should be dismissed
with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and
described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated
February 12, 2020 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iv)
whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair
and reasonable; and (v) whether Lead Counsel's application for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund.  If you have not yet
received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at:  Equifax
Securities Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box
91319, Seattle, WA 98111, 1-844-975-1781,
info@EquifaxSecuritiesLitigation.com.  Copies of the Notice and
Claim Form can also be downloaded from the Settlement website,
www.EquifaxSecuritiesLitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit
a Claim Form postmarked no later than July 22, 2020.  If you are a
Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you
will not be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, but
you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered
by the Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than June 5, 2020, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the
Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel
and Equifax's Counsel such that they are received no later than
June 5, 2020, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Office of the Clerk of the
Court, Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice.  All
questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your
eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to
the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel.

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

          Equifax Securities Litigation
          c/o JND Legal Administration
          P.O. Box 91319
          Seattle, WA 98111
          1-844-975-1781
          info@EquifaxSecuritiesLitigation.com
          www.EquifaxSecuritiesLitigation.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:

          James A. Harrod, Esq.
          Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
          New York, NY 10020
          1-800-380-8496
          settlements@blbglaw.com

The case is in re Equifax Inc. Securities Litigation, Consolidated
Case No. 1:17-cv-03463-TWT (United States District Court Northern
District of Georgia Atlanta Division).


EVERQUOTE INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for June 11
----------------------------------------------------------------
EverQuote, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a New York trial court
overseeing the class action suit entitled, In re EverQuote
Securities Litigation, Index No. 651177-2019, has scheduled a final
approval hearing for the pastor's settlement for June 11, 2020.

On February 15, 2019, Sean F. Townsend, a purported holder of the
company's common stock, filed a civil action in the Supreme Court
for the State of New York against the company, its chief executive
officer, its chief financial officer, its general counsel, its
directors, and the underwriters for the company's Initial Public
Offering (IPO), captioned Townsend v. EverQuote, Inc. et al., Index
No. 650997-2019.

On February 26, 2019, Mark Townsend, a second purported holder of
the company's common stock, filed an identical civil action in the
Supreme Court for the State of New York against the same
defendants, captioned Townsend v. EverQuote, Inc. et al., Index No.
651177-2019.

The plaintiffs alleged claims for violations of Sections 11, 12(a),
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, on behalf of a purported
class of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the
Registration Statement issued for its IPO.

Those claims generally challenged as false or misleading certain of
the company's disclosures about its quote request volume. The
plaintiffs sought, on behalf of themselves and the purported class,
damages, costs and expenses of litigation, and rescission,
disgorgement, or other equitable relief.

The cases were both later assigned to the Commercial Division, and
the court consolidated them on May 23, 2019 in a case captioned In
re EverQuote Securities Litigation, Index No. 651177-2019.

On June 24, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint (the "amended complaint"). The amended complaint again
asserts claims for violations of Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, on behalf of a purported class of all those
who purchased the company's common stock pursuant and/or traceable
to the Registration Statement for its IPO.

Those claims generally challenge as false or misleading certain of
the company's disclosures about its quote request volume and the
relationship between quote requests and payments from insurance
providers; plaintiffs also claim that its disclosures omitted
material information relating to these same topics.

The plaintiffs seek, on behalf of themselves and the purported
class, damages, costs and expenses of litigation, rescission, and
other equitable relief.

On August 5, 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to
the company's motion to dismiss on September 23, 2019 and the
company filed a reply memorandum on October 23, 2019.

After filing the motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' consolidated
amended complaint, the company participated in a mediation and
agreed to pay $4,750,000 in settlement of all of plaintiffs'
purported class claims.

The parties thereafter on February 6, 2020 filed a Stipulation of
Settlement settling the litigation in principle, subject to final
approval of the Court.

The Court has scheduled a final approval hearing for the settlement
on June 11, 2020.

EverQuote, Inc. operates a leading online marketplace for insurance
shopping, connecting consumers with insurance providers. The
company's goal is to reshape insurance shopping for consumers and
improve the way insurance providers, which the company views as
including both carriers and agents, attract and connect with
customers shopping for insurance. The company is based in
Cambridge, Massachusetts.


FGL HOLDINGS: Sabatini Suit Balks at Proposed Sale to Fidelity
--------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC SABATINI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. FGL HOLDINGS, CHINH E. CHU, WILLIAM P. FOLEY, II,
CHRISTOPHER O. BLUNT, KEITH W. ABELL, PATRICK S. BAIRD, MENES O.
CHEE, RICHARD N. MASSEY, JAMES A. QUELLA, TIMOTHY M. WALSH,
FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL, INC., F I CORP., and F II CORP., Case
No. 1:20-cv-00495-UNA (D. Del., April 9, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act stemming from a
proposed transaction pursuant to which FGL will be acquired by
Fidelity National Financial, Inc.

On February 7, 2020, FGL's Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Fidelity National.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, FGL's stockholders
will receive either $12.50 in cash or 0.2558 shares of Parent
common stock for each share of FGL common stock they own.

On April 1, 2020, the Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
in connection with the Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Registration Statement omits
material financial information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Registration Statement false and
misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with the Registration Statement.

The Plaintiff contends that the disclosure of projected financial
information is material because it provides stockholders with a
basis to project the future financial performance of a company, and
allows stockholders to better understand the financial analyses
performed by the Company's financial advisor in support of its
fairness opinion.

The Plaintiff is and has been continuously the owner of FGL common
stock.

FGL provides annuity and life insurance products. The Individual
Defendants are directors of the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


FIFTH THIRD: Christakis Hits Share Drop from Accounts Fiasco
------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Christakis, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Fifth Third Bancorp, Greg D. Carmichael and
Tayfun Tuzun, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02176, (N.D. Ill., April
7, 2020), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations
of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Fifth Third operates as a diversified financial services company
with 1,207 full-service banking centers and 2,551 ATMs in Ohio,
Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Florida, Tennessee, West
Virginia, Georgia and North Carolina.

Fifth Third Bank allegedly failed to disclose that, in order to
promote its cross-sell strategy, it engaged in unauthorized conduct
with customer accounts, including alleged unauthorized account
openings, violating relevant regulations and laws aimed at
protecting its consumers thus opening it to regulatory scrutiny or
investigation.

On this news, Fifth Third's stock price fell $0.64 per share, or
approximately 3.5%, to close at $17.66 per share on March 11, 2020
and fell an additional $1.76 per share the following trading day to
close at $15.90 per share on March 12, 2020, a total decline of
13.11%. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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

             - and -

      Brian Schall, Esq.
      THE SCHALL LAW FIRM
      1880 Century Park East, Suite 404
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (424) 303-1964
      Email: brian@schallfirm.com


FIVE POINT: Bayview Hunters Point Litigation Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Five Point Holdings, LLC said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend itself against a putative class action suit initiated by
the residents of the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood.

In May 2018, residents of the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood in
San Francisco filed a putative class action in San Francisco
Superior Court naming Tetra Tech, Inc. and Tetra Tech EC, Inc., an
independent contractor hired by the U.S. Navy to conduct testing
and remediation of toxic radiological waste at The San Francisco
Shipyard ("Tetra Tech"), Lennar and the company as defendants.

The plaintiffs allege that, among other things, Tetra Tech
fraudulently misrepresented its test results and remediation
efforts.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages against Tetra Tech and have
requested an injunction to prevent us and Lennar from undertaking
any development activities at The San Francisco Shipyard.

Since July 2018, a number of lawsuits have been filed in San
Francisco Superior Court on behalf of homeowners in The San
Francisco Shipyard, which name Tetra Tech, Lennar, the company and
its CEO, among others, as defendants.

The plaintiffs allege that environmental contamination issues at
The San Francisco Shipyard were not properly disclosed to them
before they purchased their homes. They also allege that Tetra Tech
and other defendants (not including the company) have created a
nuisance at The San Francisco Shipyard under California law. They
seek damages as well as certain declaratory relief.

All of these cases have been removed to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.

Five Point said, "We believe that we have meritorious defenses to
the allegations in all of these cases and may have insurance and
indemnification rights against third parties, including related
parties, with respect to these claims. Given the preliminary nature
of these claims, we cannot predict the outcome of these matters."

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

Five Point Holdings, LLC, through its subsidiary, Five Point
Operating Company, LP, plans, develops, and owns mixed-use
communities in California, the United States. The company operates
through four segments: Newhall, San Francisco, Great Park, and
Commercial. The company was formerly known as Newhall Holding
Company, LLC and changed its name to Five Point Holdings, LLC in
May 2016. Five Point Holdings, LLC was founded in 2009 and is
headquartered in Irvine, California.


FOCUS FORWARD: Katz Sues Over Unsolicited Faxed Ads
---------------------------------------------------
Bruce E. Katz, M.D., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Focus Forward, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-02897 (S.D. N.Y., April 8, 2020), seeks actual monetary loss
or the sum of five hundred dollars for each violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk
Fax Prevention Act of 2005; treble damages; pre-judgment interest;
costs and such further relief.

Bruce E. Katz, M.D., P.C. operates as "Juva Skin and Laser Center."
Focus Forward, as part of its market research and services,
conducts surveys on behalf of its clients to gather data for their
clients' marketing and sales needs.

Katz claims that his office fax machine received an unsolicited
advertisement seeking participants for research studies regarding
the prescription of topical products and their experience treating
patients with Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
      ANDERSON + WANCA
      3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847) 368-1500
      Fax: (847) 368-1501
      Email: rkelly@andersonwanca.com

             - and -

      Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
      BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
      85 Miles Avenue
      White Plains, NY 10606
      Tel: (914) 358-5345
      Fax: (212) 571-0284
      Email: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com


FRONTLINE ASSET: Biston Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frontline Asset
Strategies, LLC. The case is styled as Zalman Biston, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-03317
(S.D.N.Y., April 28, 2020).

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

FrontLine Asset Strategies LLC or FAS is a debt collection
agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

     - and -

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com



FUNKO INC: Dachev Hits Share Drop from Unsold Inventory
-------------------------------------------------------
Blagovest Y. Dachev, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Funko, Inc., Brian Mariotti,
Russell Nickel and Jennifer Fall Jung, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-02353 (W.D. Wash., April 9, 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.

Funko is a pop culture consumer products company that creates
figures, plush, accessories, apparel, and homewares regarding
movies, TV shows, videogames, musicians and sports teams.

The complaint alleges that Funko failed to disclose to investors
that it was experiencing lower than expected sales and was
reasonably likely to incur a write-down for slower moving
inventory. On February 5, 2020, after the market closed, Funko
announced a decrease in sales of 8% compared to $233 million in the
fourth quarter of 2018. On this news, Funko's share price closed at
$6.92 on March 6, 2020 from $9.29 per share on February 6, 2020.

Dachev purchased Funko securities.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      260 Franklin St., Suite 1860
      Boston, MA 02110
      Tel.: (617) 389-5600
      Fax: (617) 507-6020
      Email: jason@blockesq.com

GLOBAL K9: Hidalgo FLSA Suit Seeks Overtime Pay for Dog Handlers
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN HIDALGO, COURTNEY BENTLEY, and GAVIN BOOMER v. GLOBAL K9
PROTECTION GROUP, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-02780 (N.D. Cal., April 21,
2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all other current
and former employees of Global K9 in the United States, seeking to
recover lost wages, reimbursement of expenses, and other relief
resulting from the Defendant's failure to pay its dog handlers for
all hours worked, including overtime hours.

The Plaintiffs were employees of the Defendant, who worked as dog
handlers for dogs they had trained as explosives-detection canines.
The Plaintiffs seeks damages under the California Labor Code and
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

GK9PG is a technology company delivering engineered solutions for
the air cargo and commercial industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Monique Olivier, Esq.
          Katharine Chao, Esq.
          Christian Schreiber, Esq.
          OLIVIER SCHREIBER & CHAO LLP
          201 Filbert Street, Suite 201
          San Francisco, CA 94133
          Telephone: (415) 484-0980
          Facsimile: (415) 658-7758
          E-mail: monique@osclegal.com
                  kathy@osclegal.com
                  christian@osclegal.com

               - and -

          Rory Quintana, Esq.
          Ramsey Hanafi, Esq.
          QUINTANA HANAFI, LLP
          870 Market Street, Suite 1115
          Telephone: (415) 504-3121
          Facsimile: (415) 233-8770
          E-mail: info@qhplaw.com


GODADDY.COM LLC: Wyttmab Sues Over Automatic Charging of Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wyttmab, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GODADDY.COM LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00615 (W.D. Wash.,
April 22, 2020), arises from the Defendant's regular practice of
automatically charging potential customers for website and web
building services they never agreed to purchase.

The case concerns potential customers, who previously purchased
GoDaddy products or services and had previously provided GoDaddy
with a working payment card or account number. The Plaintiff
alleges that GoDaddy automatically enrolls those customers into an
annual plan for website-building services at a pricing tier of
GoDaddy's choosing. This enrollment occurs even when the user does
not input payment information because GoDaddy electronically
retains payment information for individuals that purchased a good
or service from the company in the past. Enrollment also occurs
even if the customer never clicks the "Complete Purchase" button.
Indeed, enrollment occurs even if the customer never reviews,
selects, or adds a plan to the "cart." GoDaddy charges the customer
using the payment information the company retained in its records.

According to the complaint, GoDaddy charged the Plaintiff for an
annual Website Builder subscription, at a "Premium" tier, that the
Plaintiff never agreed to purchase. The Plaintiff brings this
action on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated who
GoDaddy charged for a product or service even though they did not
click a "Complete Purchase" button to signify their agreement to be
charged for that product or service.

Wyttmab is a venture studio that develops and launches startup
companies.

GoDaddy.com LLC is an internet domain registrar and web hosting
company that is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its
corporate headquarters in Scottsdale, Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
          Ari Y. Brown, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103-8869
          Phone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
          Email: tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com
                 abrown@terrellmarshall.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Alnylam IPO-Related Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in a
putative securities class action in New York relating to Alnylam
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s US$805 million November 2017 public
offering of common stock is pending, according to The Goldman Sachs
Group, Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") is among the underwriters named
as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on
September 12, 2019 in New York Supreme Court, County of New York,
relating to Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s (Alnylam) US$805
million November 2017 public offering of common stock.  In addition
to the underwriters, the defendants include Alnylam and certain of
its officers and directors.

GS&Co. underwrote 2,576,000 shares of common stock representing an
aggregate offering price of approximately US$322 million.

On December 20, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint filed on November 7, 2019.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Suit over Sea Ltd. IPO Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the defendants' motion to
dismiss the class action suit related to Sea Limited's US$989
million October 2017 initial public offering, remains pending.

Goldman Sachs Asia (GS Asia) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in a putative securities class action filed on November
1, 2018 in New York Supreme Court, County of New York, relating to
Sea Limited's US$989 million October 2017 initial public offering
of American depositary shares.  In addition to the underwriters,
the defendants include Sea Limited and certain of its officers and
directors.  GS Asia underwrote 28,026,721 American depositary
shares representing an aggregate offering price of approximately
US$420 million.

On January 25, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

Defendants moved to dismiss on March 26, 2019.

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

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Status Bid Pending in Interest Rate Swap Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class plaintiff's March 2019 motion for class certification in
the Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Litigation is still pending,
according to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2019.

The Company ("Group Inc."), Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co."),
Goldman Sachs Bank USA ("GS Bank USA") and Goldman Sachs Financial
Markets, L.P. ("GSFM") are among the defendants named in a putative
antitrust class action relating to the trading of interest rate
swaps, filed in November 2015 and consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  The same Goldman
Sachs entities also are among the defendants named in two antitrust
actions relating to the trading of interest rate swaps, commenced
in April 2016 and June 2018, respectively, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York by three operators of
swap execution facilities and certain of their affiliates.  These
actions have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings.

The complaints generally assert claims under federal antitrust law
and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among
the defendants to preclude exchange trading of interest rate swaps.
The complaints in the individual actions also assert claims under
state antitrust law.  The complaints seek declaratory and
injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified
amount.

Defendants moved to dismiss the class and the first individual
action and the district court dismissed the state common law claims
asserted by the plaintiffs in the first individual action and
otherwise limited the state common law claim in the putative class
action and the antitrust claims in both actions to the period from
2013 to 2016.

On November 20, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss the second individual action,
dismissing the state common law claims for unjust enrichment and
tortious interference, but denying dismissal of the federal and
state antitrust claims.

On March 13, 2019, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion in the
putative class action to amend their complaint to add allegations
related to 2008-2012 conduct, but granted the motion to add limited
allegations from 2013-2016, which the plaintiffs added in a fourth
consolidated amended complaint filed on March 22, 2019.  The
plaintiffs in the putative class action moved for class
certification on March 7, 2019.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Reaches Initial Settlement in Snap Inc. Federal Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019, that the parties to the federal action related
to Snap Inc. securities has reached a settlement in principle,
subject to documentation and court approval.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") is among the underwriters named
as defendants in putative securities class actions pending in
California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles and the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California beginning in
May 2017, relating to Snap Inc.'s US$3.91 billion March 2017
initial public offering.  In addition to the underwriters, the
defendants include Snap Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors.

GS&Co. underwrote 57,040,000 shares of common stock representing an
aggregate offering price of approximately US$970 million.

The underwriter defendants, including GS&Co., were voluntarily
dismissed from the district court action on September 18, 2018.  In
the district court action, defendants moved for summary judgment on
December 19, 2019, following the court's November 20, 2019 order
approving plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The state
court actions have been stayed.

On January 17, 2020, the parties to the federal action reached a
settlement in principle, subject to documentation and court
approval.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Securities Lending Antitrust Suit v GS&Co. Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s principal U.S. broker-dealer,
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co."), continues to defend itself
against a putative antitrust class action regarding alleged
antitrust law breaches over securities lending transactions,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2019.

The Company ("Group Inc.") and GS&Co. are among the defendants
named in a putative antitrust class action and three individual
actions relating to securities lending practices filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York beginning in
August 2017.  The complaints generally assert claims under federal
and state antitrust law and state common law in connection with an
alleged conspiracy among the defendants to preclude the development
of electronic platforms for securities lending transactions.

The individual complaints also assert claims for tortious
interference with business relations and under state trade
practices law and, in the second and third individual actions,
unjust enrichment under state common law.

The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
unspecified amounts of compensatory, treble, punitive and other
damages.

Group Inc. was voluntarily dismissed from the putative class action
on January 26, 2018.

Defendants' motion to dismiss the class action complaint was denied
on September 27, 2018.

Defendants moved to dismiss the second individual action on
December 21, 2018.  Defendants' motion to dismiss the first
individual action was granted on August 7, 2019.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Defends Indirect Forex Purchasers' Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. continues to face a consolidated
class suit filed by putative indirect purchasers of foreign
exchange instruments, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019.

The Company ("Group Inc.") and its principal U.S. broker-dealer,
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") are among the defendants named
in putative class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York beginning in September 2016 on behalf
of putative indirect purchasers of foreign exchange instruments.

On August 5, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a third consolidated
amended complaint generally alleging a conspiracy to manipulate the
foreign currency exchange markets, asserting claims under various
state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws and seeking
treble damages in an unspecified amount.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GREAT WOLF RESORTS: Garcia Sues Over Withheld Tips, Missed Breaks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Great Wolf Resorts Holdings, Inc.,
Centerbridge Partners, L.P. and Blackstone Group, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-00695 (C.D. Cal., April 9, 2020), seeks redress for
failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to provide
itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse for necessary
business expenditures, interest thereon at the statutory rate,
reimbursement of business-related expenses, actual damages, all
wages due terminated employees, costs of suit, prejudgment interest
and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, California labor laws and applicable Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders.

Great Wolf Resorts Holdings own a chain of indoor water parks and
resorts throughout the United States and California that operate
under the Great Wolf Lodge brand where Garcia is employed as a food
and beverage service worker at their water park in Garden Grove,
California from February 2018 to the present. Garcia claims to be
denied payment for all hours worked, including gratuity payments
and overtime, denied meal and rest periods. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     David C. Leimbach, Esq.
     Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
     William M. Hogg, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
     2000 Powell Street, Ste. 1400
     Emeryville, CA 94608
     Tel: (415) 421-7100, (713) 338-2560
     Fax: (415) 421-7105
     Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
            dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com
            whogg@schneiderwallace.com


GROWING IN HEALTH: Tiefenthaler Sues in Mass. Over TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hans Tiefenthaler, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. GROWING IN HEALTH, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-10770 (D.
Mass., April 21, 2020), arises from the Defendant's campaign to
market its services through the use of automated telemarketing
calls, in plain violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

The Defendant sent multiple calls to residential telephone numbers
that are registered on the National Do Not Call List, which is a
separate and additional violation of the TCPA, says the complaint.
The recipients of the Defendant's illegal calls, which include the
Plaintiff and the proposed classes, are entitled to damages under
the TCPA.

Plaintiff Hans Tiefenthaler is an individual citizen of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Growing in Health, LLC, is a domestic limited liability company
with a principal place of business of New Bedford,
Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Phone: (508) 221-1510
          Facsimile: (508) 318-8100
          Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com


HARROW HEALTH: To Seek Dismissal of Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------
Oracle Corporation  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended February 29, 2020, that the company plans to
file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint filed in the
putative class action suit pending before the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

On August 10, 2018, a putative class action, brought by an alleged
stockholder of Oracle, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the company, its Chief
Technology Officer, its then‑two Chief Executive Officers, two
other Oracle executives, and one former Oracle executive.

Mr. Hurd, one of the company's Chief Executive Officers, passed
away on October 18, 2019. On March 8, 2019, plaintiff filed an
amended complaint. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants made or
are responsible for false and misleading statements regarding
Oracle's cloud business.

Plaintiff further alleges that the former Oracle executive engaged
in insider trading.

Plaintiff seeks a ruling that this case may proceed as a class
action, and seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and
unspecified declaratory/injunctive relief.

On April 19, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's amended
complaint.

On December 17, 2019, the court granted this motion, giving
plaintiffs an opportunity to file an amended complaint, which
plaintiff filed on February 17, 2020.  

Defendants plan to file a motion to dismiss, which is scheduled for
hearing on September 24, 2020.  

Oracle said, "We believe that we have meritorious defenses against
this action, and we will continue to vigorously defend it."

Oracle Corporation develops, manufactures, markets, sells, hosts,
and supports application, platform, and infrastructure solutions
for information technology (IT) environments worldwide. The company
provides services in three layers of the cloud: Software as a
Service, Platform as a Service, and Infrastructure as a Service.
The company was founded in 1977 and is headquartered in Redwood
City, California.


HOME BOUND: Perez Seeks Overtime Wages for Caregivers Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
BESSIE Y. PEREZ v. HOME BOUND CARE, INC., and KELLON L. JONES, Case
No. 1:20-cv-21668-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 21, 2020), is brought on
behalf of the Plaintiff and all other current and former similarly
situated employees seeking to recover from the Defendants half-time
overtime compensation under the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff asserts that she and all other current and former
employees worked in excess of 40 hours during one or more weeks on
or after April 2017, without being properly compensated.

The Plaintiff was assigned to work as a caregiver of an elderly,
Alzheimer's patient, residing at an Assisted Living Facility.

The Defendant is a home health care agency that provides home
healthcare services to the elderly and infirm. This home health
care agency performed third party services at private homes, and
residential care facilities "primarily engaged in the care of the
sick, the aged, or the mentally ill."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


HOME FRONT DFW: Thompson Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Seth Thompson, On Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated,
v. HOME FRONT DFW, LLC; M633ML, LLC; and MICHAEL HAYWORTH,
Individually, Case No. 3:20-cv-00982-S (N.D. Tex., April 22, 2020),
is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and related damages
from the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants violated and continue to violate the FLSA by failing
to pay their Field Craftsmen, whom they misclassified as
independent contractors, overtime for each hour those individuals
worked in excess of 40 hours per work week, says the complaint.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and other Field
Craftsmen brings this collective action to recover unpaid overtime
compensation under the FLSA.

Plaintiff Thompson began working for the Defendants in June 2016 in
the position of Senior Project Leader, which is a type of Field
Craftsman.

Home Front is a Texas limited liability company with an office in
Fort Worth, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daryl J. Sinkule, Esq.
          KILGORE & KILGORE PLLC
          Kilgore Law Center
          3019 Carlisle Street
          Dallas, TX 75204-1194
          Phone: (214) 969-9099
          Facsimile: (214) 379-0843
          Email: djs@kilgorelaw.com


HOT MIAMI STYLES: Faces Wohlstein TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Texts
---------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL WOHLSTEIN individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HOT MIAMI STYLES INC., Case No. CACE-20-006237 (Fla.
Cir., Broward Cty., April 9, 2020), alleges that the Defendant
promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending
unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant caused thousands of
unsolicited text messages to be sent to his cellular telephone and
to that of Class Members, causing them injuries, including invasion
of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion,
trespass, and conversion.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's
illegal conduct. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on
behalf of himself and Class Members, any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendant.

The Defendant operates an online clothing store.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33 132
          Telephone: 305 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                  gberg@shamisgentile.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


INNOVATIVE HEALTH: Court Narrows Claims in Bhambhani Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RITU BHAMBHANI, M.D., Plaintiff, v. INNOVATIVE HEALTH
SOLUTIONS, INC., et al. Defendants, Civ. Action No. RDB-19-0355 (D.
Md.), Judge Richard D. Bennett of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland granted in part and denied in part Defendant
Innovative Health Solutions, Inc. ("IHS")'s Motion to Dismiss.

Plaintiff Dr. Ritu Bhambhani, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, commenced the putative class action lawsuit
against Defendants IHS, Innovative Healthcare Solutions, LLC
("IHCS"), and Acclivity Medical, LLC, alleging fraudulent
misrepresentation (Count I); intentional misrepresentation by
concealment or nondisclosure (Count II); negligent
misrepresentation (Count III); negligence (Count IV); civil
conspiracy (Count V); and a request for a declaratory judgment
under 28 U.S.C. Section 2201(a) (Count VI).

IHS is an Indiana-based corporation engaged in the distribution of
medical devices in Maryland and throughout the continental United
States.  Since 2014, IHS has developed, marketed, and distributed
the Neuro-Stim System, an acupuncture device designed to alleviate
pain through field stimulation of the peripheral and cranial
nerves. As alleged by the Plaintiff, IHS sold the Neuro-Stim
through a series of "exclusive-rights" agreements with various
"Sales Agents" -- including IHCS and Acclivity.  Together, IHS and
its Sales Agents conducted an extensive advertising campaign,
promoting the Neuro-Stim in various online and printed media, in
trade shows, and in presentations to physicians.

Lead Plaintiff Dr. Bhambhani is a board-certified doctor based in
Abingdon, Maryland.  She is a certified anesthesiologist and the
managing member of both Complete Care of Maryland, her private
practice, and Box Hill Surgery Center, LLC, an ambulatory surgery
center.  On Aug. 17, 2015, Robert A. Smith, the Vice President of
Sales and Marketing for IHCS, sent Dr. Bhambhani an email claiming
his company had "exclusive rights" to the Neuro-Stim.  Smith
described the device as a marketfirst, FDA-approved "nerve
stimulator," and claimed that "extraordinary reimbursement" was
available for the treatment.  He encouraged Dr. Bhambhani to
participate in IHCS' Full-Service Program, a payment pipeline that
included support for billing and collections and a ninety-day
return policy.  Included in this email was an educational video
marked "the property of Innovative Health Solutions," and an IHCS
Physician PowerPoint Slideshow.  The Slideshow depicted the
Neuro-Stim as FDA-approved for chronic and acute pain -- and
further claimed that the Neuro-Stim is fully reimbursable by health
insurers, worker's compensation, and personal injury insurance.

Between September 2015 and June 2016, Dr. Bhambhani purchased 420
Neuro-Stim devices through Acclivity for a total of $264,000.
Issues began to emerge in August 2016, when Notivas -- Dr.
Bhambhani's Medicare Administrative Contractor -- released an
opinion identifying Neuro-Stim as an acupuncture device and
declaring that it would not be covered by Medicare.  On Oct. 8,
2016, Novitas initiated audits of Dr. Bhambhani's practices based
on her attempts to obtain reimbursements for the device.  As
alleged by Dr. Bhambhani, she responded to these developments by
attempting to return her remaining supply directly to IHS.  In an
e-mail on Sept. 1, 2016, Brian Carrico rejected her return
attempts, asserting that IHS has not and does not get involved in
billing and coding in any way," and recommending assorted
alternatives.  Subsequently, Medicare filed over $1 million in
refund demands against Dr. Bhambhani's practices for prior
reimbursements.  She has appealed to the Office of Administrative
Law.

Representing a class of similarly situated healthcare providers,
Dr. Bhambhani asserts that the Defendants knew or should have known
that the Neuro-Stim could not be reimbursed with the code sequence
they provided.  Before marketing the Neuro-Stim, IHS was the
FDAregistered primary distributor of the "P-STIM," an
electro-acupuncture device produced by Austrian company Biegler
GmbH and marketed throughout the United States.  The P-STIM,
substantially equivalent in design to the Neuro-Stim, was deemed
ineligible for Medicare reimbursement in 2011.  Based on the
substantial similarities in these devices, Dr. Bhambhani asserts
that IHS knew or should have known that the Neuro-Stim would be
ineligible for reimbursement under the same codes.

On Feb. 6, 2019, Dr. Bhambhani filed suit against Defendants IHS,
IHCS, and Acclivity.  On May 15, 2019, Defendant IHS moved to
dismiss the First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim
against it.  IHS challenges the sufficiency of each count in
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and insists that any fraudulent
conduct may be attributed solely to IHCS and Acclivity.

Judge Bennett granted in part and denied in part Defendant IHS'
Motion to Dismiss.  Specifically, Counts III, IV, and VI are
dismissed with prejudice as to all the Defendants. C ounts I, II,
and V remain pending.

Among other things, Judge Bennett finds that as Dr. Bhambhani has
pled agency, IHS may be vicariously liable for the
misrepresentations of its co-Defendants.  In this light, the First
Amended Complaint is replete with actionable allegations of
falsity.  Dr. Bhambhani argues that IHCS and Acclivity advertised
the Neuro-Stim as eligible for reimbursement despite their
knowledge to the contrary.  In its initial email to Dr. Bhambhani,
IHCS emphasized the "extraordinary reimbursement" available for
Neuro-Stim therapy.  It was reinforced by the contents of the
Slideshow, the IHS videos, and the subsequent communications
between the parties.  These communications were enumerated in the
First Amended Complaint with particularity.  Accordingly, IHS'
Motion to Dismiss is denied as to Count I.

Dr. Bhambhani alleges several partial or fragmentary statements of
fact that support imposition of a duty to disclose and attendant
liability for misrepresentation by nondisclosure.  She asserts that
the Defendants advertised the Neuro-Stim as eligible for Medicare
reimbursement despite knowledge to the contrary -- an "active
misstatement of fact."  She further insists they described the
device as FDA-approved without disclosing the limited scope of that
approval -- a "partial and fragmentary" disclosure.  Accepted as
true, these allegations support Dr. Bhambhani's claim that IHS had
a duty to disclose the limited utility and eligibility of the
Neuro-Stim. Viewed alongside the allegations of fraudulent intent,
reliance, and damages described above, they state a claim for
intentional misrepresentation by concealment.  Accordingly, IHS's
Motion to Dismiss is denied as to Count II.

Finally, Dr. Bhambhani has alleged that she suffered damages and
the counts of fraudulent and intentional misrepresentation fulfill
the requirement of an unlawful or tortious act.  At this stage, Dr.
Bhambhani is not expected to come to court with a private agreement
in hand -- the same communications, consultations, and cooperation
that provide factual grounding for an agency relationship are
enough to suggest a confederation by agreement or understanding.
Accordingly, IHS's Motion to Dismiss is denied as to Count V, the
Court rules.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 11, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/bFADvb from Leagle.com.

Ritu Bhambhani, M.D., on behalf of herself and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by John William
Leardi, Buttaci Leardi and Werner LLC, pro hac vice, John J.
Zefutie, Jr., Culhane Meadows PLLC, pro hac vice, Nicole Patricia
Allocca, Buttaci Leardi and Werner LLC, pro hac vice, Ugo Colella,
Culhane Meadows PLLC & Elizabeth Anne Rice -- earice@buttacilaw.com
-- Buttaci Leardi & Werner LLC.

Innovative Health Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joel
I. Sher, Shapiro Sher Guinot & Sandler, Paul Mark Sandler, Shapiro
Sher Guinot and Sandler, Eric R. Harlan -- erh@shapirosher.com --
Shapiro Sher Guinot and Sandler & Jeffrey Teeters --
jrteeters@woodlamping.com -- Wood and Lamping, pro hac vice.


KNOWLES ON SITE: Cummings FLSA Suit Removed to N.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as LEE CUMMINGS, AN INDIVIDUAL,
ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. KNOWLES ON
SITE REPAIR, INC., KENNETH KNOWLES, AND HALLIE KNOWLES (Filed March
24, 2020), was removed from the Florida Circuit Court in and for
Escambia County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Florida on April 21, 2020.

The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-05412-MCR-MJF to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant unlawfully failed to pay
Plaintiff and the putative class members overtime pay, in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Knowles On Site Repair, Inc., is a 24/7 family-owned and operated
business. The Company is a truck and trailer repair
specialists.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jermiah J. Talbott, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JEREMIAH J. TALBOTT, P.A.
          900 East Moreno Street
          Pensacola, FL 32503
          Telephone: (850) 437-9600
          Facsimile: (850) 437-0906
          E-mail: civilfiling@talbottlawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael B. Kelly, Esq.
          Randall G. Rogers, Esq.
          890 South Palafox Street, Ste. 200
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 483-5900
          Facsimile: (850) 438-6969
          E-mail: michael.kelly@csklegal.com
                  randall.rogers@csklegal.com
                  susan.boles@csklegal.com


LADENBURG THALMANN: Dismissal of Plains All American Litig. Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 13, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has affirmed the
dismissal of the second amended complaint in the class action suit
involving the sale of Plains All American Pipeline, L.P.
securities.

In January 2016, an amended complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. and related entities as well as
their officers and directors.

The amended complaint added Ladenburg and other underwriters of
securities offerings in 2013 and 2014 that in the aggregate raised
approximately $2,900,000 as defendants to the purported class
action.

Ladenburg was one of the underwriters of the October 2013 initial
public offering.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the offering
materials were misleading based on representations concerning the
maintenance and integrity of the issuer's pipelines, and that the
underwriters are liable for violations of federal securities laws.


In April 2018, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss
the second amended complaint with prejudice and entered final
judgment for the defendants.

In July 209 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
affirmed the dismissal of the second amended complaint.

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

Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. operates as a
diversified financial services company in the United States.
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. was founded in 1876 and
is headquartered in Miami, Florida.


LIBERATOR MEDICAL: July 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP notified of the settlement
fairness hearing in the Liberator/JMP Litigation.

The Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County, Nevada, issued
a summary notice on March 9, 2020 for  ALL HOLDERS OF LIBERATOR
MEDICAL HOLDINGS, INC. ("LMH") COMMON STOCK WHO RECEIVED
CONSIDERATION FOR THEIR SHARES IN THE ACQUISITION OF LMH BY C.R.
BARD, INC. ("BARD") FOR THE PRICE OF $3.35 PER SHARE, WHICH CLOSED
ON JANUARY 21, 2016 (THE "ACQUISITION")

Interested parties are notified that pursuant to an Order of the
Eighth Judicial District Court for the State of Nevada, Clark
County, that a hearing will be held on July 13, 2020, at 9:00 a.m.,
before the Honorable Elizabeth Gonzalez of the Eighth Judicial
District Court of Clark County, Nevada, 200 Lewis Avenue, Las
Vegas, Nevada, Courtroom 3E, for the purpose of determining: (1)
whether the proposed Settlement for $3,000,000 should be approved
by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether an
Order and Final Judgment should be entered by the Court; (3)
whether the Plan of Allocation for the Net Settlement Fund is fair,
reasonable, and adequate and should be approved; and (4) whether
the application of Class Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees
and expenses should be approved.  This Settlement Amount exists in
addition to the $4,750,000 settlement amount involved in the
related Libratore Settlement, resulting in a total proposed
recovery for the Class of $7,750,000.

IF YOU HELD LMH COMMON STOCK AND RECEIVED CONSIDERATION IN THE
ACQUISITION FOR THE PRICE OF $3.35 PER SHARE, WHICH CLOSED ON
JANUARY 21, 2016, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT,
INCLUDING THE RELEASE AND EXTINGUISHMENT OF CLAIMS YOU MAY POSSESS
RELATING TO YOUR OWNERSHIP OF LMH COMMON STOCK.  If you have not
received a detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action
("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form, you
may obtain copies by writing to Liberator/JMP Settlement, Claims
Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 404130, Louisville,
KY 40233-4130, or on the Internet at www.LiberatorSettlement.com.
If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of
the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release by mail (postmarked no later than July 28, 2020), or online
at www.LiberatorSettlement.com (no later than July 28, 2020),
establishing that you are entitled to recovery.  If you have
previously submitted a valid Proof of Claim in connection with the
related Libratore Settlement, you do not need to submit another
Proof of Claim for this Settlement. Please contact the Claims
Administrator if you have any questions concerning whether you have
previously submitted a valid Proof of Claim.

All Members of the Class who did not timely and validly request
exclusion from the Class will be bound by any judgment entered
pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement.

Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or
Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and expenses, must be
received by each of the following recipients no later than June 22,
2020.

The case is DAN SCHMIDT, on Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated vs. LIBERATOR MEDICAL HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,
Master File No. A-15-728234-B, Dept No. XI, (Eighth Judicial
District Court for the State of Nevada in and for the County of
Clark).

Clerk of the Court:

          DEPARTMENT XI
          EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
          CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
          200 Lewis Avenue
          Las Vegas, NV 89155

Class Counsel:

          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          David Knotts
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101

Counsel for JMP:

          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
          Steven Guggenheim
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact Class Counsel at the address listed.


LLOYD'S LONDON: Refuses to Cover Income Losses, El Novillo Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EL NOVILLO RESTAURANT d/b/a DJJ RESTAURANT CORP. and EL NOVILLO
RESTAURANT d/b/a TRIAD RESTAURANT CORP., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT
LLOYD'S LONDON, and UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON KNOWN AS
SYNDICATE XLC 2003, AFB 2623, AFB 263, BRT 2987, BRT2988, WRB 1967,
and MSP 318, Case No. 1:20-cv-21525-UU (S.D. Fla., April 9, 2020),
asserts claims against the Underwriter Defendants for denying their
obligation to pay for business income losses and other covered
expenses incurred by policyholders for the physical loss and damage
to the insured property from measures put in place by civil
authorities to stop the spread of COVID-19 among the population.

The action seeks a declaratory judgment that affirms that the
COVID-19 pandemic and the corresponding response by civil
authorities to stop the spread of the outbreak triggers coverage,
has caused physical property loss and damage to the insured
property, provides coverage for future civil authority orders that
result in future suspensions or curtailments of business
operations, and finds that the Underwriter Defendants are liable
for the losses suffered by policyholders.

The Plaintiffs own, operate, manage and control the restaurant El
Novillo.

The Defendants are insurance companies, who have issued all-risk
commercial property insurance policies with business interruption
coverage.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Harley S. Tropin, Esq.
          Benjamin Widlanski, Esq.
          Gail A. McQuilkin, Esq.
          Javier A. Lopez, Esq.
          Robert Neary, Esq.
          KOZYAK TROPIN &
          THROCKMORTON LLP
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 372-1800
          Facsimile: (305) 372-3508
          E-mail: hst@kttlaw.com
                  bwidlanski@kttlaw.com
                  gam@kttlaw.comt
                  jal@kttlaw.com
                  rn@kttlaw.com


LONG ISLAND UNIVERSITY: Irizarry Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLAS IRIZARRY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. LONG ISLAND UNIVERSITY, Case No. 7:20-cv-03160
(S.D.N.Y., April 21, 2020), arises from the Defendant's refusal to
refund tuition and fees paid for the Spring 2020 academic
semester.

The case is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all people, who
paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 academic semester at LIU,
and who, because of the Defendant's response to the COVID-19
pandemic, lost the benefit of the education for which they paid,
and/or the services for which their fees were paid, without having
their tuition and fees refunded to them.

On March 11, 2020, LIU, through a letter from its President,
Kimberly Cline, announced that because of the global COVID-19
pandemic, all in-person classes at all LIU campuses would be
suspended effective March 16, 2020. The announcement informed
students that all classes would instead be held remotely through
online formats and all in-person classes would be suspended through
March 27, 2020. On March 22, 2020, LIU announced that online
instruction would continue through at least the end of the Spring
Semester 2020. All on-campus student sponsored events and
activities at all LIU campuses were also canceled.

As a result of the closure of the Defendant's facilities, the
Defendant has not delivered the educational services, facilities,
access and/or opportunities that Mr. Irizarry and the putative
class contracted and paid for, according to the complaint. The
online learning options being offered to LIU students are subpar in
practically every aspect, including the lack of facilities,
materials, and access to faculty. Students have been deprived of
the opportunity for collaborative learning and in-person dialogue,
feedback, and critique. The remote learning options are in no way
the equivalent of the in-person education that the Plaintiff and
the putative class members contracted and paid for.

The Plaintiff contends that he and the putative class are entitled
to a refund of tuition and fees for in-person educational services,
facilities, access and/or opportunities that the Defendant has not
provided. He avers that even if the Defendant claims it did not
have a choice in canceling in-person classes, it nevertheless has
improperly retained funds for services it is not providing.

The Plaintiff seeks the Defendant's disgorgement of the pro-rated
portion of tuition and fees, proportionate to the amount of time
that remained in the Spring Semester 2020 when classes moved online
and campus services ceased being provided.

LIU is a private university, with an enrollment of over 16,000
students. The University offers 43 degree options for undergraduate
students, as well as more than 43 graduate and certificate
programs. LIU operates two main campuses, LIU Post in Brookville,
New York, and LIU Brooklyn in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com
                  swestcot@bursor.com


LUCKIN COFFEE: Bergenholtz Sues Over Violation of Securities Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bergenholtz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LUCKIN COFFEE INC.; JENNY ZHIYA QIAN; REINOUT
HENDRIK SCHAKEL; CHARLES ZHENGYAO LU; JIAN LIU; JINYI GUO; HUI LI;
ERHAI LIU; SEAN SHAO; THOMAS MEIER; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA)
LLC; MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC; CHINA INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL
CORPORATION HONG KONG SECURITIES LIMITED; HAITONG INTERNATIONAL
SECURITIES COMPANY LIMITED; KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS INC.; NEEDHAM &
COMPANY, LLC; Case No. CV 20 932052 (Ohio Com. Pleas, Cuyahoga
Cty., April 22, 2020), asserts strict liability claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 against Luckin, certain of the Company's
officers and directors, and the underwriters of the Company's
offerings.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Luckin
American Depositary Shares ("ADS") pursuant to or traceable to the
registration statements and prospectuses issued in connection with:
(1) the Company's initial public offering on May 17, 2019 (the
"IPO"); and (2) a secondary offering effective on January 10, 2020
(the "SPO").

On April 22, 2019, Luckin filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission a registration statement on Form F-1 for the IPO, which
was declared effective on May 16, 2019. On May 17, 2019, the
Company filed a prospectus for the IPO on Form 424B4, which
incorporated and formed part of the IPO Registration Statement. By
means of the IPO Registration Statement, Luckin issued
approximately 33 million ADSs at $17.00 per ADS. The IPO generated
gross proceeds of $561 million.

On January 7, 2020, Luckin filed with the SEC a registration
statement on Form F-1 for the SPO, which was declared effective on
January 9, 2020. On January 10, 2020, the Company filed a
prospectus for the SPO on Form 424B4, which incorporated and formed
part of the SPO Registration Statement. By means of the IPO
Registration Statement, Luckin issued approximately 9 million ADSs
at $42.00 per ADS. The SPO generated gross proceeds of $385
million.

According to the complaint, the IPO Registration Statement and SPO
Registration Statement were negligently prepared and, as a result,
contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted facts
necessary to make the statements not misleading. Nor were they
prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing
their preparation. Specifically, the Registration Statements failed
to disclose, inter alia, that, as Luckin would later admit: (1) the
Company's financial results were artificially inflated due to
fabricated transactions by members of Luckin's senior management,
including its Chief Operating Officer Jian Liu, and other employees
such that revenues 2019 had been inflated by as much as $310
million; and (2) the Company's internal controls over financial
reporting were so ineffective that they would fail to prevent
Luckin's financial results from being artificially inflated by
fabricated transactions.

On January 31, 2020, financial analyst Muddy Waters Research posted
to its Twitter account an anonymous 89-page report it had received
that alleged that Luckin had fabricated certain financial results
and performance metrics beginning in the third quarter of 2019. The
publication of the Muddy Waters Report caused Luckin's ADSs to
decline significantly. On the day that the Report was published,
Luckin's ADSs fell $3.91 per ADS--or 10.74%--to close at $32.49 per
ADS.

Then, on April 2, 2020, Luckin shocked the market with the
announcement that an internal investigation by a Special Committee
of the Board had revealed that "beginning in the second quarter of
2019"--which includes the period prior to the IPO--"Mr. Jian Liu,
the chief operating officer and a director of the Company, and
several employees reporting to him, had engaged in certain
misconduct, including fabricating certain transactions." This news
caused the price of Luckin's ADSs to plummet $19.80--more than
75%--to close at $6.40 per ADS on April 2, 2020.

The Plaintiff purchased Luckin ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to
the IPO Registration Statement and Prospectus and the SPO
Registration Statement and Prospectus.

Lucki engages in the retail sale of freshly brewed drinks and
pre-made food and beverage items principally in China.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Justin M. Alaburda, Esq.
          Victoria L. Ferrise, Esq.
          Justin M. Lovdahl, Esq.
          BRENNAN, MANNA & DIAMOND, LLC
          200 Public Square, Suite 3270
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Phone: (330) 253-5060
          Facsimile: (330) 253-9160
          Email: jmalaburda@bmdllc .com
                 vlferrise@bmdllc.com
                 jmlovdahl@bmdllc.com

               - and -

          Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
          Barbara Podell, Esq.
          Andrew Abramowitz, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE P.C.
          43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
          Minneapolis, MN 55414
          Phone: (612) 594-5933
          Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
          Email: mdellangelo@bm.net
                 bpodell@bm.net
                 aabramowitz@bm.net


MCGRAW HILL: Faces Uchenik Suit Over Violation of Antitrust Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandra Uchenik, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MCGRAW HILL, LLC (f/k/a MCGRAW- HILL GLOBAL
EDUCATION HOLDINGS, LLC); PEARSON EDUCATION, INC.; CENGAGE
LEARNING, INC.; and EDUCATIONAL PUBLISHERS ENFORCEMENT GROUP, Case
No. 1:20-cv-03162 (S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2020), is brought under the
Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act seeking to
obtain injunctive relief and to recover costs of suit for the
injuries sustained by the Plaintiff.

Facing declining profits for higher education textbooks and other
course materials, the Defendants conspired to, and did in fact,
restrain trade in that market through agreements among themselves
and a variety of "Inclusive Access" agreements with institutions of
higher education, according to the complaint. These agreements
effectively required the Plaintiff to purchase, each semester or
other time limited period, new, digital copies of assigned Course
Materials from the Publisher Defendants or their co-conspirators
(or both).

The Publisher Defendants were joined in the conspiracy by the
operators of certain official (i.e., institutionally-licensed)
on-campus bookstores, including Barnes & Noble College Booksellers,
LLC and Follett Higher Education Group, Inc. (collectively,
"Retailer Co-Conspirators"), where the Plaintiff  could also
purchase Course Materials for classes using Inclusive Access. The
Defendants' unlawful conspiracy injured the Plaintiff by
foreclosing competition and by raising the costs for Course
Materials, without providing any legitimate pro-competitive benefit
or justification.

The market for Course Materials is lucrative. It is estimated that
the average student spends $1,000 or more per year on Course
Materials, representing nearly $3 billion in annual spending for
students awarded federal financial aid. And the cost of Course
Materials keeps rising--at a rate of three times the cost of
inflation. The success of Defendants' scheme relied on the
Inclusive Access agreements themselves, which incentivized
institutions to enforce a de facto requirement that the Plaintiff
purchase "access codes" for Course Material only from the Publisher
Defendants and/or the Retailer Co-Conspirators, through a
proprietary platform.

According to the complaint, the conspiracy alleged not only harmed
the Plaintiff and Class Members by charging them supracompetitive
prices for Course Materials, but also negatively impacted the value
of the education they were receiving. Thus, actions by the
Defendants and their co-conspirators to unlawfully restrain trade
and charge supracompetitive prices for Course Materials in
Inclusive Access courses violate federal antitrust laws.

Ms. Uchenik is a student, who enrolled in courses using Inclusive
Access.

The Defendants publish and sell Course Materials through Inclusive
Access.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
          Gregory K. Arenson, Esq.
          Matthew P. McCahill, Esq.
          Aaron L. Schwartz, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          850 Third Ave., 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 687-1980
          Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
          Email: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
                 garenson@kaplanfox.com
                 mmccahill@kaplanfox.com
                 aschwartz@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Joshua H. Grabar, Esq.
          GRABAR LAW OFFICE
          1735 Market Street, Suite 3750
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 267-507-6085
          Email: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com

               - and -

          Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
          EDELSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
          Newtown, PA 18940
          Phone: (215) 867-2399
          Email: medelson@edelsonlaw.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Silberman Files Suit under FDCPA
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Hershel Silberman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-00793-BEN-RBB (S.D. Cal., April 28, 2020).

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

Midland Credit Management (MCM) is a company that helps consumers
resolve past-due financial obligations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com



MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Johnson Sues Over Misclassification of UREs
--------------------------------------------------------------
BROOKLYN JOHNSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. MOLINA HEALTHCARE OF NEW MEXICO, INC., Case
No. 1:20-cv-00365 (D.N.M., April 21, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's misclassification of its utilization review employees
resulting in failure to pay all earned overtime pay for time they
worked in excess of 40 hours in individual work weeks, in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage
Act.

The Plaintiff contends that the Utilization Review Work performed
by herself and other Utilization Review Employees was non-exempt
work.

The Defendant administers government sponsored health plans for
Medicaid, Medicare and other government funded programs. In
providing healthcare coverage to members, the Defendant review
requests for services and makes coverage determinations based on
medical necessity. The Defendant employed the Plaintiff and other
non-management employees whose primary job was to perform
utilization reviews.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack L. Siegel, Esq.
          SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
          4925 Greenville, Suite 600
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 790-4454

               - and -

          TRAVIS M. HEDGPETH, Esq.
          THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC
          3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (281) 572-0727
          Facsimile: (281) 572-0728
          E-mail: travis@hedgpethlaw.com


MOUNT SINAI HEALTH: Gattoni Sues in New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mount Sinai Health
System, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Deborah Ann Gattoni,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Mount Sinai Health System, Inc.; Mount Sinai Beth Israel Medical
Center, also known as: Beth Israel Medical Center; and  Beth Israel
Medical Center, Case No. 1:20-cv-02947-MKV (S.D.N.Y., April 9,
2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990.

The Mount Sinai Health System is a hospital network in New York
City. Mount Sinai was formed in September 2013 by merging the
operations of Continuum Health Partners and the Mount Sinai Medical
Center.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert J. Cristiano, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY S. LISABETH
          54 Willis Avenue
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 877-1233
          Facsimile: (516) 877-0235
          E-mail: rcristiano@lisabethlawfirm.com


NATURE'S BOUNTY: Fails to Pay Straight and OT Wages, Godinez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FERNANDO GODINEZ, an individual, on behalf of herself and all other
aggrieved employees v. THE NATURE'S BOUNTY CO.; NATURAL PRODUCTS
GROUP, LLC; LEVLAD INTERMEDIATE HOLDCO, INC.; ARBONNE
INTERNATIONAL, LLC; LEVLAD, LLC; ARBONNE INSTITUTE OF RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT, LLC; ARBONNE INTERNATIONAL DISTRIBUTION, INC.; JAIME
PEREZ, an individual, Case No. 20CHCV00263 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., April 21, 2020), alleges that the Defendants failed
to pay the Plaintiff straight and overtime compensation and failed
to provide meal periods and rest breaks in violation of the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff is employed by the Defendant from March 13, 2017, to
April 16, 2019.

Nature's Bounty Co., formerly known as NBTY, is an American
manufacturer, of vitamins and nutritional supplements which are
distributed under many third party brands in the United States and
internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
          Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
          Kevin P. Crough, Esq.
          HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
          801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: 1-818-696-2306
          Facsimile: 1-818-696-2307


NEW YORK: Bid for Writ of Habeas Corpus Filed in Suit v. MCC NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus has been filed in the class
action lawsuit styled as Cesar Fernandez-Rodriguez, Rober
Galvez-Chimbo, Sharon Hatcher, Jonathan Medina and James Woodson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Petitioners v. Marti Licon-Vitale, in her official capacity as
Warden of the Metropolitan Correctional Center, Respondent, Case
No. 1:20-cv-03315 (S.D.N.Y., April 28, 2020).

Marti Licon-Vitale is in her official capacity as Warden of the
Metropolitan Correctional Center.[BN]

The Petitioners are represented by:

   Arlo Devlin-Brown, Esq.
   Covington & Burling LLP
   620 8th Avenue, 41st Floor
   New York, NY 10018
   Tel: (212) 841-1046
   Fax: (646) 441-9046
   Email: adevlin-brown@cov.com


NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Kizelnik Files FDCPA Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northstar Location
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Meyer Kizelnik, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Northstar Location Services, LLC. and John Does 1-25, Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01953 (E.D.N.Y., April 28, 2020).

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

Northstar Location Services, LLC, doing business as The Northstar
Companies, provides receivables debt collection services. The
Company offers first and third party debt collections, customer
care programs, and location services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
   Stein Saks PLLC
   285 Passaic st
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (347) 668-9326
   Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com




PERSONALIZATIONMALL.COM LLC: Barnes Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as DERRICK BARNES, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v.
PERSONALIZATIONMALL.COM, LLC, Case No. 2020-CH-02695 (Filed March
4, 2020), was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
April 20, 2020.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-02232 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that PMall violated the Illinois Biometric
Privacy Act by failing to inform him in writing that his biometric
information or data was being collected and failing to inform him
of the extent of the purposes for which it collected his sensitive
biometric data or to whom the data was disclosed, if at all.

Pmall retails gift products. The Company offers cards, gifts and
novelty merchandise, souvenirs, greeting cards, holiday
decorations, and art goods, as well as home decor, stationery,
toys, games, bed, bath, and drinkware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lorrie T. Peeters, Esq.
          Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
          Katherine E. Stryker, Esq.
          CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD.
          224 N. Michigan Ave., Ste. 300
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: 312 763 6880
          E-mail: lpeeters@caffarelli.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Justin O. Kay, Esq.
          Christina R. Chapin, Esq.
          FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          191 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3700
          Chicago, IL 60606-1698
          Telephone: (312) 569-1000
          Facsimile: (312) 569-3000
          E-mail: justin.kay@faegredrinker.com
                  christina.chapin@faegredrinker.com


PROVIDENCE PUMPING: Catlin Sues Over Denied Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Ty Catlin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Providence Pumping Services, LLC, Scott
Richardson and Jacob Goodnight, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00089,
(W.D. Tex., April 7, 2020), seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, attorney's fees and costs of suit and such other relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Pumping Services is an oilfield services company where Catlin
worked as a pumper from approximately February 2019 to February
2020. Catlin claims to regularly work in excess of forty hours per
week without overtime. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Melissa Moore, Esq.
      Curt Hesse, Esq.
      MOORE & ASSOCIATES
      Lyric Center
      440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 222-6775
      Facsimile: (713) 222-6739


PURPLE LAND: Prinkey Suit Transferred From W.D. Pa. to N.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as HEATHER PRINKEY, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PURPLE LAND
MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00081 (Filed Jan. 17, 2020), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas (Fort Worth) on April 21, 2020.

The Northern District of Texas Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-00361-P to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Mark Pittman.

The lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages under the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the Ohio
Prompt Pay Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Fair
Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff contends that she and the other
workers like her regularly worked for Purple Land in excess of 40
hours each week. But they never received overtime for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek, she adds.

Purple Land is a full-service land management firm that handles
title and leasing, due diligence and opinion certification to
right-of-way acquisition, surveying and surface operations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RHA HEALTH: Jones Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay for Caregivers
--------------------------------------------------------------
MAHOGANY JONES, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons v. RHA HEALTH SERVICES GA, LLC, RHA HEALTH
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01567-AT (April 10, 2020), seeks
to recover unpaid under Fair Labor Standards Act overtime
compensation and other damages owed to the Plaintiff and other
hourly-paid, non-exempt direct support professionals, caregivers,
and direct care professionals.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants violated the FLSA by
failing to pay the Plaintiff and those similarly situated for all
hours worked over 40 per week within weekly pay periods at one and
one-half their regular hourly rate of pay, as required by the
FLSA.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in a direct support
job as an hourly-paid, non-exempt Direct Support
Professional/Caregiver in Woodstock, Georgia.

The Defendants provide services for people with intellectual
development disabilities, physical disabilities, and behavioral
health or substance abuse needs. They operate treatment facilities
in the states of Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee and
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin M. Scott, Esq.
          SCOTT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C.
          246 Sycamore Street
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: 678 780 4880
          Facsimile: 478 575 2590
          E-mail: jscott@scottemploymentlaw.com

               - and -

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com
                  nbishop@jsyc.com


SCANA CORP: June 17 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP notified of the
settlement fairness hearing in the re SCANA Corporation Securities
Litigation.

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR
AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES

The Summary Notice is for All persons and entities who or which
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded SCANA Corporation
("SCANA") common stock during the period from October 27, 2015
through December 20, 2017, inclusive, and were damaged thereby (the
"Settlement Class")1:

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

Interested parties are notified that pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States
District Court for the District of South Carolina (Columbia
Division) (the "Court"), that the above-captioned securities class
action (the "Action") is pending in the Court.

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs in the Action, on behalf
of themselves and the Settlement Class, have reached a proposed
settlement of the Action for $192,500,000, with $160,000,000 paid
in cash and $32,500,000 being paid in cash or shares of
freely-tradable Dominion Energy, Inc. ("Dominion Energy") common
stock (the "Settlement") at the option of SCANA.2  If approved, the
Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action.

A hearing will be held on June 17, 2020 at 2:00 p.m., before the
Honorable Margaret B. Seymour at the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, Courtroom 6 of the Matthew J.
Perry, Jr. Courthouse, 901 Richland Street, Columbia, SC 29201, to
determine:  (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved
as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether, for purposes of
the proposed Settlement only, the Action should be certified as a
class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, Lead Plaintiffs
should be certified as Class Representatives for the Settlement
Class, and Lead Counsel should be appointed as Class Counsel for
the Settlement Class; (iii) whether the Action should be dismissed
with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and
described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated
December 20, 2019 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iv)
whether the terms and conditions of the issuance of the Settlement
Shares pursuant to an exemption from registration requirements
under Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act are fair to all
persons and entities to whom the shares will be issued; (v) whether
the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and
reasonable; and (vi) whether Lead Counsel's application for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund.  If you have not yet
received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at:  SCANA
Securities Litigation, c/o Epiq, P.O. Box 4850, Portland, OR
97208-4850, 1-833-947-1420, info@SCANASecuritiesLitigation.com.
Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the
Settlement website, www.SCANASecuritiesLitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted electronically no
later than July 25, 2020.  If you are a Settlement Class Member and
do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to
receive a payment from the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be
bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than May 27, 2020, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the
Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel
and designated representative counsel for Defendants such that they
are received no later than May 27, 2020, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Office of the Clerk of the
Court, Defendants, Dominion Energy, or their counsel regarding this
notice.  All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement,
or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be
directed to the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel.

The case is In re SCANA Corporation Securities Litigation, Civil
Action No. 3:17-CV-2616-MBS (United States District Court District
of South Carolina (Columbia Division))

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

          SCANA Securities Litigation
          c/o Epiq
          P.O. Box 4850
          Portland, OR 97208-4850
          1-833-947-1420
          info@SCANASecuritiesLitigation.com
          www.SCANASecuritiesLitigation.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:

          John C. Browne, Esq.
          Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
          New York, NY 10020
          1-800-380-8496
          settlements@blbglaw.com

          James W. Johnson, Esq.
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          1-888-219-6877
          settlementquestions@labaton.com


SHAW ACADEMY: Moreno Files TCPA Suit in New Hampshire
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shaw Academy, LLC.
The case is styled as Christian Moreno, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Shaw Academy, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00500 (D. N.H., April 28, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Fraud
filed pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Shaw Academy provides online video classes with in-depth &
practical skills. .[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Michael Sacht, Esq.
   Hackett Feinberg PC
   155 Federal St, Ste 9th Flr
   Boston, MA 02110
   Tel: (617) 422-0200
   Email: cms@bostonbusinesslaw.com


SHUTTERFLY INC: Allen Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWNA ALLEN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SHUTTERFLY, INC.,
LIFETOUCH, INC., LIFETOUCH NATIONAL SCHOOL STUDIOS, INC., AND DOES
1-10, inclusive, Case No. 20CV363509 (Filed Feb. 14, 2020), was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Santa Clara to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on April 10, 2020.

The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:20-cv-02448-BLF to the proceeding.

The complaint challenges the "Family Approval" program for student
portraits. Under the program, schools distribute to parents their
children's portraits and provide them the opportunity for review
before deciding whether to purchase them.

The Plaintiff asserts that the "Family Approval" program materials
"do not disclose that California law prohibits the distribution of
unordered merchandise and/or that these portraits and/or products
are unconditional gifts that do not require payment or return." The
Plaintiff further alleges that the "Family Approval" program
materials misrepresent that "parents and guardians are legally
obligated to purchase the portraits and/or products or return
them."

Shutterfly is an American photography, photography products, and
image sharing company, headquartered in Redwood City, California.
Lifetouch is an American-based photography company headquartered in
Eden Prairie, Minnesota.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew L. Chang, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          One Montgomery, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415 544 1900
          Facsimile: 415 391 0281
          E-mail: achang@shb.com


SIX FLAGS: McConnell Suit Challenges Unlawful Membership Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sophia McConnell, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public v. SIX FLAGS ENTERTAINMENT
CORPORATION and MAGIC MOUNTAIN LLC., Case No. 2:20-cv-03665 (C.D.
Cal., April 21, 2020), is brought under the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising
Law to challenge the Defendants' practice of charging members
monthly membership fees for access to theme parks and waterparks
that are closed.

Customers, who purchase Monthly Memberships receive unlimited
visits to Six Flags branded amusement parks and water parks, and
Hurricane Harbor waterparks throughout California and the United
States. Members are charged monthly membership fees for Seasons
Passes and Monthly Memberships Customers sign up for Memberships
with a credit card, debit card, or Paypal account, which the
Defendants automatically charge every month.

On March 13, 2020, the Defendants announced that all Six Flags
theme parks and Hurricane Harbor waterparks would be closed through
March 2020 due to public health concerns in the wake of the
coronavirus pandemic. On March 30, 2020, the Defendants extended
the closure of all Six Flags theme parks and Hurricane Harbor
waterparks through mid-May 2020 due to public health concerns in
the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.

The Defendants continued charging Monthly Membership and Season
Pass holders monthly membership fees, even though members were and
are unable to access any of the Six Flags theme parks or Hurricane
Harbor waterparks, says the complaint. The Plaintiff brings further
causes of action for breach of express and implied warranties,
negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, conversion, and
breach of contract.

Plaintiff Sophia McConnell purchased a Monthly Membership during
the Class Period.

The Defendants own and operate Six Flags branded amusement parks
and waterparks, and Hurricane Harbor waterparks located in
California and throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
          Lilach Halperin, 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
                 mike@consumersadvocates.com
                 lilach@consumersadvocates.com


SPIRIT AIRLINES: Has Breached Contract of Carriage, Hill Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON HILL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SPIRIT AIRLINES INC., Case No. 0:20-cv-60746-AHS (S.D.
Fla., April 10, 2020), alleges that the Defendant violated its
Contract of Carriage by failing to provide refunds.

The Plaintiff alleges that due to the Defendant's cancellation of
their flights, he and all putative class members cannot use their
airline tickets through no fault of their own and they are not
getting the benefit of their bargain with the Defendant.

According to the complaint, despite canceling a significant portion
of its flights, Spirit is only crediting passengers for their
canceled flights and requiring passengers to wait on hold for
potentially hours in an attempt to obtain a refund, despite
Spirit's obligation to refund fares for canceled flights. However,
Spirit's Contract of Carriage mandates refunds, not credits in this
situation. As numerous customers complained about this practice by
Spirit and other airlines, the DOT issued an Enforcement Notice
Regarding Refunds by Carriers Given the Unprecedented Impact of the
COVID-19 Public Health Emergency on Air Travel. The DOT Notice
provides that the airlines must refund tickets if they cancel
flights due to the novel coronavirus.

Spirit is the seventh-largest air carrier in the United States,
providing passenger air travel services within the United States
and to select destinations outside the United States in the
Caribbean and Latin America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
          Joshua R. Levine, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
          E-mail: streisfeld@kolawyers.com
                  ostrow@kolawyers.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 788-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 788-8104


SPRING FITNESS: Faces Elyamani TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Marketing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Elyamani, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SPRING FITNESS I, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability
Company, Case No. 4:20-cv-01433 (S.D. Tex., April 22, 2020), is
brought against the Defendant to secure redress for violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

To promote its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process, says the
complaint. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive
relief to halt the Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted
in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption
of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also
seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the
class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies.

The Plaintiff is a natural person, who was a resident of Brazos
County, Texas.

The Defendant is a fitness gym.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Angelica M. Gentile, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone (305) 479-2299
          Email: agentile@shamisgentile.com


SWEGO JUNCTION: Hubert Seeks Minimum and OT Wages for Servers
-------------------------------------------------------------
NATALIA HUBERT, AUBREON HUBERT, ERIN BILLINGTON, and TIFFANY TAPIA,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. OSWEGO
JUNCTION ENTERPRISES LLC d/b/a PROHIBITION JUNCTION SPORTS BAR &
GRILL, TILLMAN LIGGINS, and KEVIN FIALKO, Case No. 1:20-cv-02450
(N.D. Ill., April 21, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages for servers as a result of the Defendants' illegal
payroll practices under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants engage in a scheme in
which they pay their servers anywhere from $0 to $25 per day in
cash, regardless of how many hours they work. They also do not pay
servers overtime premium for hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a bar and restaurant called
Prohibition Junction Sports Bar & Grill located in Oswego,
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher J. Wilmes, Esq.
          Kate E. Schwartz, Esq.
          HUGHES, SOCOL, PIERS, RESNICK & DYM, LTD.
          70 West Madison Street, Suite 4000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312-580-0100


TECH MAHINDRA: Williams Sues Over Bias Against Non-Indian Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Williams, individually and in his representative capacity v.
TECH MAHINDRA (AMERICAS), Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04684 (D.N.J.,
April 21, 2020), is brought to seek declaratory, injunctive, and
other equitable relief, compensatory and punitive damages,
including pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, and
costs to redress TMA's pervasive pattern or practice of
discrimination.

TMA employs approximately 5,100 employees in the United States.
While roughly 1-2% of the United States population, and roughly 12%
of the relevant labor market is South Asian and Indian,
approximately 90% (or more) of TMA's United States-based workforce
is South Asian and Indian.

The Plaintiff alleges that this grossly disproportionate workforce
is the result of TMA's intentional pattern or practice of
employment discrimination against individuals, who are not South
Asian, including discrimination in hiring, staffing, promotion, and
termination decisions. Tech Mahindra's employment practices violate
the Civil Rights Act of 1866, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Lee Williams was born in the United States, and is of
Caucasian Race and American national origin.

TMA provides IT outsourcing and consulting services to clients
within the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Rudnick, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN RUDNICK, LLC.
          788 Shrewsbury Avenue
          Tinton Falls, NJ 07724
          Phone: (732) 842-2070
          Facsimile: (732) 879-0213
          Email: jonr@jonrudlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel Kotchen, Esq.
          KOTCHEN & LOW LLP
          1745 Kalorama Road NW, Suite 101
          Washington, DC 20009
          Phone: (202) 471-1995
          Fax: (202) 280-1128
          Email: dkotchen@kotchen.com


TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS: Plumley Suit Balks at Sale to AcelRx
----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK PLUMLEY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., L. PATRICK GAGE,
LARRY EDWARDS, GAREN BOHLIN, STEVEN BOYD, JEFFREY A. CHODAKEWITZ,
JOHN G. FREUND, GERRI HENWOOD, GUY MACDONALD, KEITH MAHER, NANCY J.
WYSENSKI, ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and CONSOLIDATION MERGER
SUB, INC., Case No. (D. Del., April 9, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the proposed transaction pursuant to which
Tetraphase will be acquired by AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

On March 15, 2020, Tetraphase's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with AcelRx.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Tetraphase's
stockholders will receive 0.6303 shares of Parent common stock and
one contingent right value for each share of Tetraphase common
stock they own.

On April 6, 2020, the Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff contends
that the Registration Statement omits material financial
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders
the Registration Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the
Registration Statement.

The Plaintiff contends that the disclosure of projected financial
information is material because it provides stockholders with a
basis to project the future financial performance of a company, and
allows stockholders to better understand the financial analyses
performed by the company's financial advisor in support of its
fairness opinion.

The Plaintiff is and has been continuously the owner of Tetraphase
common stock.

Tetraphase is a biopharmaceutical company that uses its proprietary
chemistry technology to create novel tetracyclines for serious and
life-threatening conditions, including infections caused by many of
the multidrug-resistant bacteria highlighted as urgent public
health threats by the World Health Organization and the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. The Individual Defendants are
directors of the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


TILE SHOP: Wynnfield Suit Proceeds to Trial on Merits
-----------------------------------------------------
Tile Shop Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company has
determined to forego the preliminary injunction hearing and proceed
directly to a full trial on the merits in the class action suit
initiated by Wynnefield Capital, Inc.

On November 5, 2019, a class action and derivative lawsuit was
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the
Company and its directors by a plaintiff's law firm with K-Bar
Holdings LLC listed as plaintiff.

The complaint was filed again by the same law firm on November 7,
2019 with Wynnefield Capital, Inc. as the plaintiff.

The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with
the Company's decision to delist from Nasdaq and deregister its
common stock under the Exchange Act and directors' purchases of
common stock.

The complaint includes derivative claims and seeks injunctive
relief to prevent the Company from deregistering its common stock,
injunctive relief to prevent additional stock purchases, and
unspecified damages.

A hearing was scheduled for February 21, 2020 for the court to
consider whether a preliminary injunction should be issued to
continue the temporary restraining order ("TRO") that was entered
by the court on November 8, 2019.

The TRO prohibits the Company from filing a Form 15 to complete the
proposed deregistration and additional stock purchases by
directors.

The Company has determined to forego the preliminary injunction
hearing and proceed directly to a full trial on the merits, which
was scheduled for April 13-14, 2020.

The Company plans to continue to contest the litigation
vigorously.

The Tile Shop Holdings, Inc. operates as a specialty retailer of
manufactured and natural stone tiles, setting and maintenance
materials, and related accessories in the United States. The
company is based in Plymouth, Minnesota.


TRANSUNION LLC: McIntyre Suit Transferred to Georgia
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Patricia McIntyre, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Transunion L.L.C.,
Transunion Resident Screening Solutions, Inc. and TransUnion Rental
Screening Solutions, Inc., Defendants, was transferred from the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania with the assigned Case No.
2:18-cv-03865 to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia (Atlanta) on April 28, 2020, and assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-01811-JPB.

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

TransUnion LLC/TransUnion Financing Corp is set up as a dual
issuer. The Company was formed in order to issue notes to finance
future working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions, and
other general business purposes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
   Berger & Montague, P.C. -MN
   43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
   Minneapolis, MN 55414
   Tel: (612) 594-5999
   Fax: (612) 584-4470
   Email: emdrake@bm.net

     - and -

   John Soumilas, Esq.
   Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C.
   1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
   Philadelphia, PA 19103
   Tel: (215) 735-8600
   Fax: (215) 940-8000
   Email: jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com

     - and -

   James A. Francis, Esq.
   Francis & Mailman, P.C.
   1600 Market St., Suite 2510
   Philadelphia, PA 19103
   Tel: (215) 735-8600
   Fax: (215) 940-8000
   Email: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com

     - and -

   Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
   Francis & Mailman, P.C.
   1600 Market St., Suite 2510
   Philadelphia, PA 19103
   Tel: (215) 735-8600
   Email: lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com

     - and -

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

The Defendants are represented by:

   Albert E. Hartmann, Esq.
   Reed Smith LLP
   10 S. Wacker Dr., 40th Floor
   Chicago, IL 60606
   Tel: (312) 207-2821
   Fax: (312) 207-6400
   Email: ahartmann@reedsmith.com

     - and -

   Michael O'Neil, Esq.
   Reed Smith LLP -IL
   10 South Wacker Drive
   40th Floor
   Chicago, IL 60606
   Tel: (312) 207-1000
   Email: michael.oneil@reedsmith.com



TRANSUNION RENTAL: Wright Suit Transferred to Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Chris Robinson and Jonathan Wright, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions, Inc., Defendant, was
transferred from the District of California Central with the
assigned Case No. 1:20-md-02933-JPB to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) on April 28, 2020, and
assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-01833-JPB.

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

TransUnion is an American consumer credit reporting agency.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Casey S. Nash, Esq.
   Consumer Litigation Associates, P.C.-VA
   1800 Diagonal Road,  Suite 600
   Alexandria, VA 22314
   Tel: (703) 273-7770
   Email: casey@clalegal.com

     - and -

   E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
   Berger & Montague, P.C. -MN
   43 SE Main Street,  Suite 505
   Minneapolis, MN 55414
   Tel: (612) 594-5999
   Fax: (612) 584-4470
   Email: emdrake@bm.net

     - and -

   James A. Francis, Esq.
   Francis & Mailman, P.C.
   1600 Market St.,  Suite 2510
   Philadelphia, PA 19103
   Tel: (215) 735-8600
   Fax: (215) 940-8000
   Email: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com

     - and -

   Joseph C. Hashmall, Esq.
   Berger & Montague, P.C. -MN
   43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
   Minneapolis, MN 55414
   Tel: (612) 594-5999
   Fax: (612) 584-4470
   Email: jhashmall@bm.net

     - and -

   Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
   Francis & Mailman, P.C.
   1600 Market St., Suite 2510
   Philadelphia, PA 19103
   Tel: (215) 735-8600
   Emaail: lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

   Albert E. Hartmann, Esq.
   Reed Smith LLP
   10 S. Wacker Dr., 40th Floor
   Chicago, IL 60606
   Tel: (312) 207-2821
   Fax: (312) 207-6400
   Email: ahartmann@reedsmith.com

     - and -

   Raymond Yoon Ho Kim, Esq.
   Reed Smith LLP
   355 South Grand Avenue Suite 2900
   Los Angeles, CA 90071
   Tel: (213) 457-8000
   Fax: (213) 457-8080


TRAVEL TRANSPARENCY: Winters Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Winters, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Travel Transparency Of Arizona, LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-00777-DJH (D. Ariz., April 21, 2020), arises from the
illegal actions of the Defendant in negligently the Plaintiff's
cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions,
thereby, invading the Plaintiff's privacy.

According to the complaint, the Defendant used an "automatic
telephone dialing system" to place its call to the Plaintiff
seeking to solicit its services. The Defendant did not possess the
Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an
automatic telephone dialing system on his cellular telephone.
Further, the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number has been on the
National Do-Not-Call Registry on or about October 5, 2018. The
Defendant continued to call the Plaintiff in an attempt to solicit
its services and in violation of the National Do-Not-Call
provisions of the TCPA.

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

The Defendant is a traveling agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRAVELERS CASUALTY: Nguyen Seeks Benefits From Insurance Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER B. NGUYEN v. TRAVELERS CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF
AMERICA, Case No. 2:20-cv-00597-RSM (W.D. Wash., April 21, 2020),
is brought by the Plaintiff to ensure that she and other
similarly-situated policyholders receive the insurance benefits to
which they are entitled and for which they paid.

The Defendant issued one or more insurance policies to the
Plaintiff, including Businessowners Property Coverage and
related endorsements, insuring the Plaintiff's property and
business practice and other coverages, with effective dates of
November 1, 2019, to November 1, 2020. The Plaintiff's business
property includes property owned and leased by the Plaintiff and
used for general business purposes for the specific purpose of
dentistry and other business activities.

Due to COVID-19 and a state-ordered mandated closure, the Plaintiff
cannot provide dentistry services. The Plaintiff intended to rely
on her business insurance to keep her business alive, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff contends that Travelers promises to pay her for risks
of "Direct Physical Loss" to covered property and includes coverage
for risks of both "loss of or damage to" covered property. She adds
that she contacted Travelers about her losses but was verbally told
by telephone that her losses would not be covered under her
Travelers Businessowners' Policy.

Jennifer B. Nguyen, DDS, PLLC, DBA Seattle Smiles Dental, owns and
operates a dentistry practice located at 1325 4th Avenue, Suites
1230 and 1202, in Seattle, Washington.

The Defendant is an insurance carrier with its principal place of
business in Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alison Chase, Esq.
          Ian S. Birk, Esq.
          Lynn L. Sarko, Esq.
          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Irene M. Hecht, Esq.
          Amy Williams Derry, Esq.
          Maureen Falecki, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: achase@kellerrohrback.com
                  ibirk@kellerrohrback.com
                  lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
                  gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
                  ihecht@kellerrohrback.com
                  awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com
                  mfalecki@kellerrohrback.com


TROPHY NUT: Court Certifies FLSA Collective in Coleman Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Todd Coleman, et al. v.
Trophy Nut Company, Case No. 3:19-cv-00374-TMR (S.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Thomas M. Rose entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification
and
      court-authorized notice;

   2. conditionally certifying the Fair Labor Standards Act
collective
      consisting of:

      "all former and current hourly employees of Defendant who
engaged in
      foot bath disinfecting, donning, doffing, handwashing, hand
sanitizing,
      and/or related travel and who worked 40 or more hours in any
workweek
      from November 22, 2016 to the conclusion of this matter";

   3. directing that notice be sent by United States mail and
email;

   4. directing the parties to jointly submit within 14 days a
proposed
      Notice informing such present and former employees of the
pendency of
      this collective action and permitting them to opt into the
case by
      signing and submitting a Consent to Join Form;

   5. directing the Defendant to provide within 14 days a Roster of
such
      present and former employees that includes their full names,
their
      dates of employment, and their last known home addresses and
personal
      email addresses;

   6. approving Notice, in the form approved by the Court, be sent
to such
      present and former employees within 30 days using the home
and email
      addresses listed in the Roster; and

   7. directing the Defendant to provide a Declaration that the
produced
      Roster fully complies with this Order.

The Court said the Plaintiff has satisfied his "fairly lenient"
burden at this first "notice" stage of conditional certification.
He has made the "modest factual showing" through pleadings and
sworn declarations, tethered to Defendant's admissions and video
submission, that his position is similar, even if not identical, to
the positions held by the putative class members. He has shown that
they were subjected to a single decision, policy, or plan. He has
also shown that his claims, and the claims of the putative
collective, are "unified by common theories of defendant's
statutory violations." The "similarly situated" employees for whom
Plaintiff is seeking conditional certification are only those who
"were employed by Defendant to process, package, and handle food
for human consumption," which would not include employees in
positions such as maintenance and sanitation. Plaintiff's First
Amended Complaint, his sworn declarations, and Defendant's video
and admissions make clear that Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees worked in and around raw or cooked food on a daily
basis.

In the case, Mr. Coleman and other non-exempt hourly workers like
him worked in and around raw and cooked food. The pre-shift
sanitation process Plaintiffs allege the Defendant required would
therefore be necessary, integral, indispensable, and intrinsic to
their job duties. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant has a
class-wide policy of not paying the Plaintiffs and those like him
for this allegedly compensable work. Likewise, the submitted
evidence shows that it was not administratively impossible for
Defendant to accurately record this unpaid compensable work. And,
the Plaintiffs and the putative class worked overtime hours that
were unpaid as a result of the Defendant's alleged class-wide
violations.

Trophy produces and distributes roasted, dry roasted, and honey
roasted nuts.[CC]

TRULY NOLEN: Faces Chiramel Suit Over False Business Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Chiramel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TRULY NOLEN OF AMERICA, INC. and TRULY NOLEN
EXTERMINATING, INC., Case No. CACE-20-006814 (Fla. Cir., Broward
Cty., April 22, 2020), seeks to remedy Truly Nolen's alleged
unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable business practices of
requiring consumers to pay more than they bargained for.

The Plaintiff brings this class action against Truly Nolen for
baiting the consuming public into purchasing its Total Termite
Protection Plan--the premium service offered by Truly Nolen that
covers all types termites and resulting damage--and then requiring
consumers to pay additional and unfair charges in the event of new
or continued infestation.

The Plaintiff also brings this class action case against Truly
Nolen on behalf consumers, who entered into any Wood Destroying
Organism Treatment Agreement that included a 40% discount off of
the cost of subsequent fumigation, but who were later charged for
subsequent fumigation in an amount that was more than 60% of the
fair market rate for the service. As a result of Truly Nolen's
wrongful actions, the Plaintiff and members of the proposed Classes
have been injured, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an individual and a resident of Cooper City,
Broward County, Florida.

Truly Nolen is a pest control and extermination company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
          Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
          EGGNATZ PASCUCCI
          7450 Griffin Rd., Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Phone: 954-889-3359
          Facsimile: 954-889-5913
          Email: jeggnatz@justiceearned.com
                 mpascucci@JusticeEamed.com


UNILEVER US: Vizcarra Sues Over Marketing of Breyers Ice Cream
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Vizcarra, individually, and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-02777
(N.D. Cal., April 21, 2020), seeks damages and an injunction to
stop Unilever's false and misleading marketing practices with
regard to Breyers Natural Vanilla Ice Cream.

Unilever falsely and misleadingly markets Breyers Natural Vanilla
Ice Cream to consumers as containing only vanilla flavor from
vanilla (i.e. the vanilla plant) and not from non-vanilla sources,
the Plaintiff alleges. Unfortunately for consumers, this is untrue,
as much of the vanilla flavor comes from non-vanilla plant sources.
In fact, Breyers Natural Vanilla Ice Cream has, at most, only a
trace of real vanilla and what consumers taste is vanilla flavor
provided by non-vanilla sources.

Rather than only containing real vanilla, Breyers Natural Vanilla
Ice Cream contains non-vanilla flavors and vanilla enhancers, which
are not disclosed, contrary to the legal requirements and
expectations of reasonable consumers, the Plaintiff contends.
Unilever charges a price premium for Breyers Natural Vanilla Ice
Cream.

The Plaintiff would not have purchased or paid more for Breyers
Natural Vanilla Ice Cream had the Plaintiff realized that much, if
not all, of the vanilla flavor came from non-vanilla plant sources,
says the complaint. The Plaintiff would not have purchased or paid
more for Breyers Natural Vanilla Ice Cream had the Plaintiff known
that it does not exclusively contain flavor derived from vanilla
beans.

The Plaintiff purchased Breyers Natural Vanilla Ice Cream in
California.

Breyers Natural Vanilla Ice Cream is an ice cream manufactured,
sold and marketed by Unilever.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          George V. Granade, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515
          Los Angeles, CA 90211
          Phone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          Email: ggranade@reesellp.com

               - and -

          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


UNITED COLLECTION: Kizelnik Alleges Violation of FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Collection
Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Meyer Kizelnik, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. United
Collection Bureau, Inc., LVNV Funding LLC and John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01952 (E.D.N.Y., April 28, 2020).

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

United Collection Bureau Inc. provides debt collection and accounts
receivable management services to creditors. The Company offers
services to various market sectors including financial, health
care, utilities, communications, and government.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
   Stein Saks PLLC
   285 Passaic st
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (347) 668-9326
   Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


VAIL RESORTS: Sued by Han Over Refusal to Give Epic Pass Refund
---------------------------------------------------------------
BERNARD HAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. VAIL RESORTS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01121 (D. Colo.,
April 21, 2020), seeks remediation from Vail Resorts' refusal to
provide refunds to its consumers, who had previously purchased Epic
Pass products, following the closure of its mountains, ski lifts,
ski slopes and recreational facilities due to the COVID-19
Pandemic.

As a result of this refusal, the Plaintiff and similarly situated
consumers lost the full benefits associated with their Epic Passes
for the remainder of the ski season. They seek refunds of the
amounts they paid on a pro-rata basis, as well as other damages
that resulted from being unable to use these expensive ski passes
they paid for throughout the duration of the ski season, including
the coveted spring skiing season for avid skiers.

On March 15, 2020, the Defendant announced that it would be closing
its mountains, ski slopes and recreational facilities to consumers
until further notice because of the COVID-19 pandemic. At around
the same time, the Centers for Disease Control, and multiple state
and local governments, including the Governor of Colorado issued a
form of "Stay at Home, Stay Safe" order requiring consumers to
remain in their homes except for essential activities, such as
grocery shopping.

The Plaintiff contends that even if the Defendant did not have a
choice in closing its ski slopes, ski lifts, mountains and
recreational facilities to its consumers, it nevertheless
improperly retained an unfair share of the costs of its consumers'
Epic Passes.

The Plaintiff brings this class action for injunctive, declaratory,
and equitable relief, and any other available remedies, resulting
from Defendant's illegal and unfair conduct, namely retaining the
full amounts its consumers paid for Epic Passes while closing its
recreational facilities to these consumers.

The Plaintiff purchased five Epic Passes--two adult passes and
three children's passes--on September 2, 2019, for the 2019/2020
ski season paying $3,348.95 for all five Passes, and did not
receive a partial refund when the Defendant announced the closure
of its recreational facilities in March 2020.

The Defendant is a global mountain resort operator.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rusty E. Glenn, Esq.
          SHUMAN, GLENN & STECKER
          600 17th Street, Ste. 2800 South
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 861-3003
          Facsimile: (303) 536-7849
          E-mail: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Kraus-Czeisler, Esq.
          Sanford Dumain, Esq.
          Adam H. Cohen, Esq.
          Blake Yagman, Esq.
          MILBERG PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1920
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          E-mail: jczeisler@milberg.com
                  sdumain@milberg.com
                  acohen@milberg.com
                  byagman@milberg.com

               - and -

          James Evangelista, Esq.
          David Worley, Esq.
          EVANGELISTA WORLEY LLC
          500 Sugar Mill Road
          Building A, Suite 245
          Atlanta, GA 30350
          Telephone: (404) 205-8400
          E-mail:jim@ewlawllc.com
                 david@ewlawllc.com


VALE SA: June 10 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
issued a SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III)
MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES in In Re Vale
S.A. Securities Litigation, Case No. 15 Civ. 09539 (GHW).

The notice is for all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common or preferred American Depository
Receipts ("ADRs") of Vale S.A. ("Vale") during the period from May
8, 2014 through November 27, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
and were damaged as a result of declines in the prices of Vale ADRs
allegedly caused by the revelation of the truth of alleged false
statements made by Vale before the collapse of the Fundão Dam on
November 5, 2015 concerning the safety of its mining operations and
dams, including, in particular, various representations concerning
Vale's risk mitigation plans, policies and procedures (the
"Settlement Class"). Certain persons and entities are excluded from
the Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the full Notice
of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II)
Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees
and Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"), available at
www.ValeSecuritiesLitigation.com.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.  IF YOU ARE A SETTLEMENT CLASS
MEMBER, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned securities class action (the "Action") is pending
in the Court.

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs in the Action have
reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $25,000,000 in cash
(the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve the Action.

A hearing will be held on June 10, 2020 at 4:00 p.m., before the
Honorable Gregory H. Woods at the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United
States Courthouse, Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY
10007-1312, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should
be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether, for
purposes of the proposed Settlement only, the Action should be
certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, Lead
Plaintiffs should be certified as Class Representatives for the
Settlement Class, and Lead Counsel should be appointed as Class
Counsel for the Settlement Class; (iii) whether the Action should
be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases
specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated February 5, 2020 as amended February 20, 2020 (and
in the Notice) should be granted; (iv) whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (v)
whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses should be approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to a payment from the Settlement.  If you have not yet
received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Vale Securities
Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box 91315, Seattle,
WA 98111; 1-855-961-0960; or info@ValeSecuritiesLitigation.com.  
Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the
Settlement website, http://www.ValeSecuritiesLitigation.com.   

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit
a Claim Form postmarked no later than July 14, 2020.  If you are a
Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you
will not be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, but
you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered
by the Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than May 20, 2020, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the
Settlement.  Excluding yourself is the only option that may allow
you to be part of any other current or future lawsuit against
Defendants or any of the other released parties concerning the
claims being resolved by the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
litigation expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to
Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no
later than May 20, 2020, in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Defendants, or
their counsel regarding this notice.  All questions about this
notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate
in the Settlement should be directed to the Claims Administrator or
Lead Counsel.

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

Contact Information:

          Vale Securities Litigation
          c/o JND Legal Administration
          P.O. Box 91315
          Seattle, WA 98111
          1-855-961-0960
          www.ValeSecuritiesLitigation.com

          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          John C. Browne, Esq.
          1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
          New York, NY 10020
          (800) 380-8496
          settlements@blbglaw.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel.


WALGREEN COMPANY: Ramirez Sues for Negligence Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Ramirez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. WALGREEN COMPANY, Case No. 8:20-cv-00784 (C.D. Cal.,
April 22, 2020), is brought for actual and statutory damages, as
well as punitive damages for negligence, negligence per se for
violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and violation of
California's Confidentiality of Medical Information Act in
connection with a data breach announce in March 2020.

Between January 9, 2020, and January 15, 2020, Walgreens was the
subject of a data breach when an error within the Walgreens mobile
app personal secure messaging feature "allowed certain personal
messages from Walgreens that are stored in a database to be
viewable by other customers using the Walgreens mobile app."

The disclosed information included users' names, prescription
number and drug name, store number, and shipping address where
applicable (collectively, the "personal identifying information" or
"PII"). This "error" in the app was due to the Defendant's failure
to conduct proper testing and monitoring of the app, the Plaintiff
alleges. He asserts that despite the incident occurring in January,
Walgreens waited two months--until March 2020--to announce the data
breach to consumers.

Walgreens has not offered the Plaintiff or other affected consumers
any remedy for the data breach; nor could they as the damage has
already been done, says the complaint. The medical information
class members entrusted the Defendant to safeguard has been
accessed by third parties and that cannot be undone.

Mr. Ramirez is a customer of Walgreens, who uses the Walgreens
App.

Walgreen Company is an Illinois corporation with a principal place
of business in Deerfield, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          Email: ykopel@bursor.com


WATERSTONE FINANCIAL: Liable for Damages, Arbitrator Says
---------------------------------------------------------
Waterstone Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the arbitrator in
Herrington et al. v. Waterstone Mortgage Corporation, has issued a
written award, in which he found Waterstone liable for damages but
has not yet awarded a damages figure.

Waterstone Mortgage Corporation was a defendant in a class action
lawsuit that was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin and subsequently compelled to
arbitration before the American Arbitration Association.

The plaintiff class alleged that Waterstone Mortgage Corporation
violated certain provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
and failed to pay loan officers consistent with their employment
agreements.

On July 5, 2017, the arbitrator issued a Final Award finding
Waterstone Mortgage Corporation liable for unpaid minimum wages,
overtime, unreimbursed business expenses, and liquidated damages
under the FLSA.

On December 8, 2017, the District Court confirmed the award in
large part, and entered a judgment against Waterstone in the amount
of $7,267,919 in damages to Claimants, $3,298,851 in attorney fees
and costs, and a $20,000 incentive fee to Plaintiff Herrington.

The judgment was appealed by Waterstone to the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals, where oral argument was held on May 29, 2018.  

On October 22, 2018, the Seventh Circuit issued a ruling vacating
the District Court's order enforcing the arbitration award. It
found that Plaintiff Herrington had an enforceable class action
waiver in her arbitration agreement, and remanded the case to the
District Court.  

On April 25, 2019, the District Court held that Plaintiff’s
claims must be resolved through single-plaintiff arbitration. As a
result, it vacated the July 5, 2017 arbitration award in its
entirety, and issued a revised judgement in Waterstone's favor.

In May 2019, Herrington re-initiated her individual arbitration.
Over Waterstone's objection, the arbitrator considered evidence
from the prior vacated proceeding. A hearing was held in
Herrington's individual arbitration in November 2019, and
Herrington sought over $55,000 in damages on her individual claim,
plus punitive damages, attorney fees and costs.

The arbitrator issued a written award on February 18, 2020 and in
which he found Waterstone liable for damages. Herrington has
requested damages of approximately $15,000. The arbitrator has not
yet awarded a damages figure. The arbitrator also has not yet ruled
on the issue of attorney fees.

Waterstone disagrees with the ruling and will vigorously pursue all
available challenges to it. Waterstone still retains the right to
challenge the award in Court, through a motion to vacate or modify
the award.

Waterstone said, "Even if the award is confirmed and a judgment is
entered, it retains its appellate rights to challenge the award
before the Seventh Circuit."

Waterstone believes there are meaningful avenues for appeal,
including challenging the arbitrator's reliance on prior findings
from a vacated proceeding.

Waterstone further said, "Given these recent developments,
Waterstone does not believe a loss is probable at this time, as
that term is used in assessing loss contingencies. Accordingly, in
accordance with the authoritative guidance in the evaluation of
contingencies, the Company has not recorded an accrual related to
this matter. However, given the award, a loss is reasonably
possible and Waterstone would not characterize the chance of any
loss as "remote." If the arbitrator's award is confirmed, we
estimate that Herrington would recover approximately $15,000 in
damages.

Waterstone lastly, said "The Company expects that Herrington will
also seek to recover significant fees from both the individual and
the prior vacated collective arbitration, but cannot estimate a
reasonable range of the fees Herrington will seek or that will be
awarded at this time. On the other hand, if Waterstone prevails in
challenging the award, it could be vacated in whole or in part."

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

Waterstone Financial, Inc. operates as a bank holding company for
WaterStone Bank SSB that provides various financial services to
customers in southeastern Wisconsin, the United States. It operates
through two segments, Community Banking and Mortgage Banking. The
company was formerly known as Wauwatosa Holdings, Inc. and changed
its name to Waterstone Financial, Inc. in August 2008. Waterstone
Financial, Inc. was founded in 1921 and is based in Wauwatosa,
Wisconsin.


WEST CLARA: Sued by Heidarpour Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
FRED HEIDARPOUR AND SIDNEY NAIMAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. WEST CLARA FUNDING LLC; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-02750 (N.D. Cal., April 21,
2020), alleges that the Defendants promote and market their
merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited telephone calls to
wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used an "automatic
telephone dialing system" to place its calls to the Plaintiffs
seeking to solicit its services. The Defendants contacted or
attempted to contact the Plaintiffs from telephone number
(866)986-3586 belonging to the Defendants.

West Clara offers access to financing and business loans.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are 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
          Telephone: 323-306-4234
          Facsimile: 866-633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com


WESTCHESTER SURPLUS: K's Inc. Sues Over Denied Insurance Coverage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The K's Inc. (d/b/a Sissy K's), individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01724-WMR (N.D. Ga., April 22, 2020), is
brought against the Defendant to seek damages as a result of
Westchester'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 asserts that its existence is now threatened by
SARS-CoV-2, sometimes called "Coronavirus" or by one of the names
of the disease that it causes and that spreads it. For ease of
reference, SARS-CoV-2 will be referred to as "COVID-19." To protect
its business 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 Westchester, including property
coverage, as set forth in Westchester's Business Income (And Extra
Expense) Coverage Form (Form No. CP 00 30 10 12) ("Special Property
Coverage Form").

Westchester's Special Property Coverage Form provides "Business
Income" coverage, which promises to pay for loss due to the
necessary suspension of operations following physical loss of or
damage to the insured premises. Westchester'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 because of damage at
other property. Westchester'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), Westchester's
Special Property Coverage Form does not include, and is not subject
to, any exclusion for losses caused by the viruses, the Plaintiff
contends. The Plaintiff avers that it was forced to suspend or
reduce business at Sissy K's due to COVID-19 and the resultant
closure orders issued by civil authorities in Massachusetts.

Westchester 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, says the complaint. Indeed, the Plaintiff
was told by its insurance agent that Westchester would not pay
under its policy for the losses the Plaintiff suffered due to
COVID-19 and the resultant civil authority orders.

The Plaintiff owns and operates Sissy K's, located in Boston,
Massachusetts, offering drinks, dancing, karaoke, and live music,
Sissy K's has served Boston for over twenty-five years.

Westchester is an insurance company organized under the laws of
Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Palmer, Esq.
          Bryan Knight, Esq.
          KNIGHT PALMER LCC
          One Midtown Plaza
          1360 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 1201
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 404-228-4822
          Email: jpalmer@knightpalmerlaw.com
                 bknight@knightpalmerlaw.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 -

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


Z RESTAURANT: Shibetti Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as BONNIE SHIBETTI and KATRINA
PUCCINI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Z RESTAURANT, DINER AND LOUNGE, INC., ADEL FATHELBAB,
ADAM FATHELBAB, KAMAL FATHELBAB, ESSAM ELBASSIONY, MIKO
ENTERPRISES, LLC, MICHAEL SIDERAKIS, CHRISTOS SIDERAKIS,
KONSTANTINOS SIKLAS, CROWN CROPSEY AVENUE LLC, LGMALONEY LLC, XYZ
CORP(s) 1–5, and JOHN DOE(s) 1–5, Case No. 18-cv-00856 (BMC)
(E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class asserting claims under the New York
      Labor Law comprised of:

      "all persons employed by defendants at any time between
      July 2014 through the present as waiters, waitresses, bus
      persons, hosts, hostesses, or in other non-exempt tipped
      positions at the Parkview Diner;

   2. certifying a class asserting claims under the New York
      City Human Rights Law comprised of:

      "all female persons employed by defendants at any time
      between September 2015 through the present who were
      subjected to the defendants' pattern and practice of
      creating and maintaining a sexually hostile and abusive
      work environment at the Parkview Diner;

   3. directing notice of the NYLL class to be posted at the
      Parkview Diner and sent to all putative members of the
      proposed NYLL class;

   4. directing notice of the NYCHRL class to be posted at the
      Parkview Diner and sent to all putative members of the
      proposed NYCHRL class; and

   5. directing Defendants to produce certain class discovery
      including, without limitation, the full names, residential
      addresses, telephone numbers and e-mail addresses of the
      putative members of the proposed NYLL class and the
      putative members of the proposed NYCHRL class.

The Defendants are engaged in the restaurant business.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Patrick McPartland, Esq.
          Jared E. Blumetti, Esq.
          Katelyn Canning, Esq.
          LAROCCA HORNIK ROSEN
          & GREENBERG LLP
          40 Wall Street, 32 nd Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 530-4837, 4831, 4839
          E-mail: : pmcpartland@lhrgb.com
                    jblumetti@lhrgb.com
                    kcanning@lhrgb.com

ZOOM VIDEO: Drieu Hits Share Drop Over App's Data Security Setback
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Drieu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc., Eric S.
Yuan and Kelly Steckelberg, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02353 (N.D.
Cal., April 7, 2020), seeks to recover compensable damages caused
by violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Zoom's chief product, "Zoom Meetings," provides online video
conferencing platform which includes remote conferencing services,
online meetings, chat and mobile collaboration. Drieu claims that
Zoom failed to properly safeguard the personal information of its
users as it collects the personal information of its users and
allegedly discloses it to third parties.

As a result of these disclosures and news, Zoom's stock price fell
$5.26 per share, or 4.10%, to close at $122.94 per share on April
6, 2020. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90024
      Telephone: (310) 405-7190
      E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

              - and -

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

             - and -

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

             - and -

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 697-6484
      Facsimile (212) 697-7296
      Email: peretz@bgandg.com



ZOOM VIDEO: Hartmann Sues over Deceptive Encryption Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
KRISTEN HARTMANN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-02620-NC (N.D. Cal., April 15, 2020) is
a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged
fraud, unjust enrichment, and violation of Maryland Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff was prompted to purchase a
"Zoom Pro" monthly account on or about April 23, 2019 after seeing
an advertisement that Zoom Meetings were equipped with end-to-end
encryption (E2EE) technology. However, The Intercept first reported
on March 31, 2020 that Zoom Meetings is not actually E2EE which
Zoom admitted to The Intercept. Zoom allegedly uses a form of
encryption called "transport encryption" which can access the
unencrypted video and audio content of Zoom Meetings.

Regardless of the admission, Zoom continued to prominently
advertise both on its website and within the Zoom Meetings platform
that it utilizes E2EE functionality.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages, equitable relief, injunctive
relief in the form of corrected advertising and a corrective
campaign to educate consumers, restitution, disgorgement,
reasonable costs and attorneys' fees.

Zoom Video Communications, Inc. provides modern enterprise video
communications. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachele R. Byrd, Esq.
          Brittany N. Dejong, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
          FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 1820
          San Diego, CA
          Tel: (619)239-4599
          Fax: (619)234-4599
          Emails: byrd@whafh.com
                  dejong@whafh.com

                - and –

          Matthew M. Guiney, Esq.
          Lydia Keaney Reynolds, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
          FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Tel: (212)545-4600
          Fax: (212)545-4653
          Emails: guiney@whafh.com
                  Reynolds@whafh.com

                - and –

          Carl Malmstrom, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
          FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          111 W. Jackson St., Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Tel: (312)985-0000
          Fax: (212)545-4653
          Emails: malmstrom@whafh.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 ***