/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200508.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, May 8, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 93

                            Headlines

012 SMILE: Suit Over Telephone Malfunction Repair Costs Settled
ALTERRA MOUNTAIN: Eckert Seeks Reimbursement of Unused Ikon Pass
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Ceren Sues in Calif. Over Labor Code Violations
AMERICAN NATIONAL: Barcenas Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
AR RESOURCES: Wright Files FDCPA Suit in Florida

BANK OF AMERICA: Informatech Questions Distribution of PPP Funds
BIG LOTS: Settlement Reached in Wage and Hour Class Suits in Cal.
BLUE DIAMOND: Biegel Files Yogurt Product Mislabeling Suit
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Gunza Sues Over Understaffed Living Facilities
CARGUARD ADMIN: Barrett Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Creasy Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
CITIZENS BANK: Faces Palmer Suit Over Unlawful Credit Inquiries
CONDOR HOSPITALITY: Graham Class Action Dismissed
CONDOR HOSPITALITY: Raul Class Action Dismissed
CONDOR HOSPITALITY: Sabatini Class Suit Dismissed

CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Faber Seeks Reimbursement of Tuition Fees
CQ HOLDING: Faces Hensiek Class Suit Alleging Violation of ERISA
DEUTSCHE BANK: Appeal in CHF LIBOR Litigation Shelved
DEUTSCHE BANK: Appeal in GBP LIBOR Related Class Suit Pending
DEUTSCHE BANK: Appeal in SIBOR & SOR-Related Class Suit Pending

DEUTSCHE BANK: Suits Related to Canadian SSA Bonds Ongoing
EOG RESOURCES: Aagesen Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
EVENFLOW CO: Sanchez Files Class Suit in Massachusetts
EVERQUOTE INC: Runyon Files TCPA Suit in Colorado
FEDERAL EXPRESS: Freem Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California

FORDHAM UNIVERSITY: Hassan Suit Seeks Return of Tuition and Fees
GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES: Workers Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS: Lansdale Sues Over Refusal to Pay Insureds
IMMANUEL CAMPUS: Arenas Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
IQIYI INC: Faces Jenkins Suit Over Decline in Value of Securities

JACK IN THE BOX: Szwanek Alleges Violation under ADA
JEFFREY G LERMAN: Zuckerbrod Files FDCPA Suit in New York
JETSTREAM AVIATION: Jones Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
JPMORGAN CHASE: Shiny Strands Challenges Processing of PPP Loans
KAYDEN INDUSTRIES: Breaux Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

LEAVE IT TO BEAVERS: Fails to Pay All Wages, Quagliariello Claims
LOCHEND ENERGY: Hernandez Suit Seeks OT Pay for Oilfield Workers
MACHOL & JOHANNES: Faces O'Neill FDCPA Suit in W.D. Washington
MERIDIAN SENIOR: Moscozo Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
MIELE INCORPORATED: Alcazar Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site

NATIONAL STEEL: Gomez Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California
NCAA: Baker Personal Injury Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
NS HOSPITALITY: Calderon Sues Over Denied Overtime Pay, Paystubs
PARTNER COMMS: Accord in Roaming Services Suit Awaits Court Okay
PARTNER COMMS: Bid for Class Cert. in Spam Messages Suit Dismissed

PARTNER COMMS: Class Suit Over Anti-Virus Service Costs Dropped
PARTNER COMMS: November 17, 2019 Claim in Preliminary Stage
PARTNER COMMS: October 2017 Claim for NIS 1 Billion Still Ongoing
PARTNER COMMS: Overcharging Suit Withdrawn
PARTNER COMMS: Revised Settlement in Severance Pay Suit Okayed

PARTNER COMMS: Settlement Agreement Filed in SMS Charges Suit
PARTNER COMMS: Settlement in Suit over Breach of License Okayed
PARTNER COMMS: Settlement in Suit over Junk Ad Messages Approved
PARTNER COMMS: Suit over Call Recording Settled
PARTNER COMMS: Suit Over Internet Malfunction Repairs Resolved

PATENAUDE & FELIX: Faces Reeves Suit Alleging Violation of FDCPA
REGIONAL FINANCE: Class Certification Proceedings Stayed
REYNOLDS ENERGY: Avila Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
RITE AID CORP: Website not Blind-Friendly, Alcazar Says
SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Charman Hits Auto-dialed Marketing Calls

SELIG PARKING: Campos Seeks Overtime Pay, Missing Paystubs
SET ENTERPRISES: Faces Levy FLSA Suit Over Illegal Kickbacks
SHERIDAN PRODUCTION: Bank Debt Trades at 73% Discount
STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY: Jama Suit Transferred to W.D. Wa.
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Dalen Sues Over Faulty Electrical System

TOTAL CARD: Arbee Contests Collection Letter Legality
UNITED GROUND: Bailey Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
UNITED STATES: Federal Employees Slams Missed Benefits Payments
UNITED STATES: John Doe Suit Challenges Enforcement of CARES Act
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO: Carpey Seeks Tuition Fee Refund

UNIVERSITY OF NC: McAllister Seeks Refunds of Tuition and Fees
US SPECIALTY: Breaches Recovery Insurance Policy, Egg and I Says
VAIL CORPORATION: McAuliffe Sues Over Refusal to Issue Refunds
VIRGINIA: DEQ Female Staff Sues Over Wage Gap
WISE TRAVEL INC: Adler Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts

ZOOM VIDEO: Greenbaum Sues Over Security Flaws of Cloud Platform
[^] WEBINAR: Best Practices in Qualifying the Class

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Accrues $589MM for Respirator Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Accrues $58MM Aearo-Related Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Still Faces 1,733 Claimants at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Defends 64 Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has 29,162 Pending Claims at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Emerson Electric Had $305MM Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Had 3,124 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Had 530 Open Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Faces Suits at March 31


                            *********

012 SMILE: Suit Over Telephone Malfunction Repair Costs Settled
---------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the court
approved the parties agreed remunerated withdrawal request in the
class action suit against the company and 012 Smile related to
malfunction in the telephony system of the Company and 012 Smile.

On March 28, 2018, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company and 012 Smile.

The claim alleges that there is a malfunction in the telephony
system of the Company and 012 Smile, according to which when a call
recipient activates a follow-me service to a number abroad
(directly or via intermediate destination, from which a follow-me
service is also diverted to a number overseas) and the call is
diverted abroad via 012 Smile, the call segment charge from Israel
to overseas applies to the caller, as if he placed an international
call, rather than to the recipient of the call that activated the
follow-me service, thereby violating the provisions of the law and
the agreements with their customers.

The plaintiff noted that it cannot estimate the total amount
claimed in the lawsuit, should the lawsuit be certified as a class
action.

The parties filed an agreed upon remunerated withdrawal request
that was approved by the Court in April 2019.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. ("Partner") is a leading
Israeli provider of telecommunications services (cellular,
fixed-line telephony, internet and television services). Partner's
ADSs are quoted on the NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its
shares are traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.


ALTERRA MOUNTAIN: Eckert Seeks Reimbursement of Unused Ikon Pass
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN ECKERT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ALTERRA MOUNTAIN COMPANY and IKON PASS, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-01158-STV (D. Colo., April 24, 2020), seeks reimbursement
for the unused value of the Defendants' expensive, pre-paid, Ikon
Pass ski products following the closure of Alterra's mountains, ski
lifts, ski slopes and recreational facilities due to COVID-19
pandemic.

The Plaintiff contends that as a result of Alterra's closures, he
and similarly situated consumers lost substantial value of the full
pre-paid benefits associated with their Ikon Passes for the
remainder of the ski season, at no fault of their own, and not
because of either a lack of snow or desire to utilize their ski
passes. The Plaintiff and the class seek refunds for the value of
the unused, pre-paid amounts of their Ikon Passes, on a pro-rata
basis, as well as other damages resulting from the early
termination of the duration of the ski season, particularly the
coveted spring ski season for avid skiers likely to purchase Ikon's
Passes.

The Defendants announced that it would be closing their mountains,
ski lifts, ski slopes and recreational facilities to consumers
until further notice on March 15, 2020, 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.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive, declaratory, and equitable relief,
and any other available remedies, resulting from the Defendants'
illegal and unfair conduct.

Mr. Eckert is a resident of New Mexico, who purchased one Ikon Base
Pass on October 16, 2019, for the 2019-2020 ski season, paying $749
for the Pass, and did not receive a partial refund when the
Defendants announced the closure.

The Defendants operate over 40 ski areas and mountain resorts
around the world, including Squaw Valley Alpine Meadows and June
Mountain.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rusty E. Glenn, Esq.
          SHUMAN, GLENN & STECKER
          600 17th Street, Ste. 2800 South
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 861-30003
          E-mail: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Kraus-Czeisler, 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
                  acohen@milberg.com
                  byagman@milberg.com

               - and -

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


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Ceren Sues in Calif. Over Labor Code Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Ceren, an individual, on behalf of himself and all aggrieved
employees v. American Medical Response Ambulance Service, Inc., a
Delaware corporation; American Medical Response of Southern
California, a California corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Case No. 20STCV15983 (Cal., Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 27,
2020), is brought against the Defendants for failing to comply with
California Labor Code requirements due to erroneous, willful and
intentional employment practices and policies.

The Defendants have had a consistent policy and/or practice of: (1)
failing to pay all hours worked, including overtime hours worked;
(2) failing to reimburse employees for required business expenses;
(3) failing to timely pay all wages owed; and (4) failing to
provide accurate wage statements and maintain accurate payroll
records, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly, nonexempt employee of the
Defendants.

American Medical Response Ambulance Service, Inc., is a California
corporation doing business in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
          KOUL LAW FIRM
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 761-5484
          Fax: (818) 561-3938
          Email: nazo@koullaw.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN, II
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Phone: (818) 609-0807
          Fax: (818) 609-0892
          Email: Sahagii@aol.com


AMERICAN NATIONAL: Barcenas Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Edgar Barcenas, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. American National Construction Inc., Jeffrey
M. Shaw and Jack Shaw, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01382, (S.D.
Tex., April 17, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
declaratory relief, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and taxable
costs of court pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

American National Construction, Inc. is a construction company
where Barcenas worked as a laborer in Houston, Texas for eight
years or from approximately 2011 to March 3rd of 2019. Barcenas
claims to have regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek
without overtime compensation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
      TRAN LAW FIRM
      2537 South Gessner Road, Suite 104
      Houston, TX 77063
      Tel: (713) 223–8855
      Fax: (713) 623–6399
      Email: ttran@tranlawllp.com
             service@tranlawllp.com

             - and -

      Nichole Nech, Esq.
      THE NECH LAW FIRM
      800 Bering Drive, Suite 220
      Houston, TX 77057
      Telephone: (713) 936-9496
      Facsimile: (888) 557-7257
      Email: Eservice@nechtriallaw.com


AR RESOURCES: Wright Files FDCPA Suit in Florida
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AR Resources, Inc.
The case is styled as Javontae Wright, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AR Resources, Inc.,
Premium Asset Recovery Corporation and John Does 1-25, Defendants,
Case No. 8:20-cv-00985 (M.D. Fla., April 29, 2020).

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

AR Resources, Inc. provides various bad debt collection programs
primarily for the Medical and Educational Industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin Zeig, Esq.
   Zeig Law Firm, LLC
   3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
   Hollywood, FL 33024
   Tel: (754) 217-3084
   Fax: (754) 217-3084
   Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com



BANK OF AMERICA: Informatech Questions Distribution of PPP Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Informatech Consulting, Inc., Individually and on behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION; BANK OF
AMERICA, N.A.; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-02892
(N.D. Cal. April 27, 2020), seeks an injunction preventing the
Defendants from continuing their illegal business practices and
compensation for the harms caused by their misconduct relating to
the distribution of funds under the Paycheck Protection Program.

The U.S. Small Business Administration ("SBA") Paycheck Protection
Program ("PPP") was intended to help "overcome the challenges" of
the Coronavirus crisis and "provide a direct incentive to small
businesses to keep their workers on the payroll" by providing
SBA-guaranteed loans of up to $10 million to qualified applicants.
Anticipating the massive demand for relief and to ensure
non-preferential distribution of funds, the PPP's governing rules
required that banks process applications on a "first-come,
first-served" basis.

In violation of these rules, California law, and their fiduciary
obligations, the Defendants favored their own interests by
prioritizing larger loan applications for bigger businesses and the
Defendants' own banking clients ahead of smaller businesses,
independent contractors and applicants, who were not existing
customers of the Defendants, according to the complaint. At no time
did the Defendants disclose and the Plaintiff was unaware that the
Defendants were violating the PPP governing rules by favoring
existing customers and applicants seeking larger loans and putting
smaller borrowers like the Plaintiff to the back of the queue or
not submitting their application at all.

As of the date of the complaint, the Plaintiff and other members of
the proposed Class have suffered enormous and potentially
irreversible damages. For example, unlike those favored by the
Defendants and other big banks, the Plaintiff and other Class
members have not received funds or approval of their loan
applications. Additionally, the delay caused by the Defendants'
misrepresentations and omissions caused hardship, including
business cessation, for many applicants who were and are
desperately seeking a lifeline through the PPP, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff provides information technology consulting services
and solutions to FDA regulated industries, including
pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, and medical device companies.

Bank of America Corporation is a Delaware corporation that provides
a range of financial services, including banking, insurance,
investments, mortgage banking and consumer finance to individuals,
businesses, and other entities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex R. Straus, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          16748 McCormick Street
          Los Angeles, CA 91436
          Phone: (917) 471-1894
          Email: alex@whitfieldbryson.com

               - and -

          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          Scott C. Harris, Esq.
          Patrick M. Wallace, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27605
          Phone: 919-600-5000
          Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
          Email: dan@whitfieldbryson.com
                 scott@whitfieldbryson.com
                 pat@whitfieldbryson.com

               - and -

          Benjamin Galdston, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE, P.C.
          12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 340
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Phone: (619) 489-0300
          Email: bgaldston@bm.net

               - and -

          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 339-6900
          Fax: (612) 339-0981
          Email: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
                 rapeterson@locklaw.com

               - and –

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Phone: (865) 247-0080
          Email: lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com


BIG LOTS: Settlement Reached in Wage and Hour Class Suits in Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a tentative settlement
has been reached in four purported wage and hour class actions in
California.

The company is currently defending three purported wage and hour
class actions and several individual representative actions in
California.

The cases were brought by various current and/or former California
associates alleging various violations of California wage and hour
laws.

Upon further consideration of these matters, including outcomes of
cases against other retailers, during the first quarter of 2019,
the company determined a loss from these matters was probable and
the company increased its accrual for litigation by recording a
$7.3 million charge as its best estimate for these matters in
aggregate.

Since the end of the first quarter of 2019, the company reached
tentative settlements in each of the class actions, subject to
final documentation and court approval.

Big Lots said, "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against
the allegations levied in the remaining lawsuits. We believe the
existing accrual for litigation remains appropriate."

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

Big Lots, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a community
retailer in the United States. Big Lots, Inc. was founded in 1967
and is headquartered in Columbus, Ohio.


BLUE DIAMOND: Biegel Files Yogurt Product Mislabeling Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Biegel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Blue Diamond Growers, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-03032 (S.D. N.Y., April 15, 2020), seeks injunctive relief
resulting from negligence, unjust enrichment and breach of contract
and breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of
merchantability and for violation of the New York General Business
Law and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act.

Blue Diamond Growers manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and
sells yogurt products under the Almond Breeze brand. Plaintiffs
disputes Blue Diamond claim that their yogurt is flavored only with
vanilla.  Plaintiff asserts they contain non-vanilla flavors which
imitate and extend vanilla but are not derived from the vanilla
bean. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BROOKDALE SENIOR: Gunza Sues Over Understaffed Living Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE GUNZA, by and through his sister PEGGY FISHER, as power of
attorney, on his own behalf and all others similarly situated v.
BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00353 (M.D. Tenn.,
April 24, 2020), seeks monetary damages, declaratory and injunctive
relief and penalties to redress systemic the Defendant's breaches
of contract, and unfair and deceptive trade practices, including
understaffing its assisted living facilities.

The Plaintiff contends that he and the members of the proposed
Class and their families chose a Brookdale facility, or have chosen
to remain in a Brookdale facility, because they were and continued
to be deceived by Brookdale's repeated and ongoing promises and
misstatements that it will provide the basic care assistance and
daily living services needed, as assessed in PSAs, and paid for.
Instead, he asserts, they have all encountered, and continue to
encounter, in Brookdale a system of chronically understaffed
assisted living facilities that routinely and as a matter of
practice fail to provide sufficient staffing that correlates to the
service needs of its resident populations in order to provide the
most basic level of promised care and daily living services.

The Plaintiff and proposed Class Members are elderly, disabled, or
dependent individuals, who due to physical and/or cognitive
impairments require basic care services and assistance in
performing daily functions of life. They turned to Brookdale, who
promised that it could and would provide the care and daily living
services they required, says the complaint.

Brookdale operates assisted living facilities and memory care units
in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael S. Kelley, Esq.
          KENNERLY, MONTGOMERY & FINLEY, P.C.
          550 Main Street, Fourth Floor
          Knoxville, TN 37902
          P.O. Box 442
          Knoxville, TN 37901
          Telephone: (865) 546-7311
          Facsimile: (865) 524-1773
          E-mail: mkelley@kmfpc.com

               - and -

          Christa L. Collins, Esq.
          HARMON PARKER, P.A.
          110 North 11th Street, 2nd Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 222-3600
          Facsimile: (813) 222-3616
          E-mail: service.clc@harmonparkerlaw.com
                  clc@harmonparkerlaw.com

               - and -

          Kelly Bagby, Esq.
          M. Geron Gadd, Esq.
          Elizabeth Aniskevich, Esq.
          Ali Naini, Esq.
          AARP FOUNDATION
          601 E. Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20049
          Telephone: (202) 434-2072
          Facsimile: (202) 434-6424
          E-mail: kbagby@aarp.org
                  mgadd@aarp.org
                  eaniskevich@aarp.org
                  anaini@aarp.org

               - and -

          Stephen J. Gugenheim, Esq.
          GUGENHEIM LAW
          118 St. Mary's Street
          Raleigh, NC 27605
          Telephone: (919) 836-5551
          Facsimile: (919) 836-5550
          E-mail: steve@gugenheimlaw.com


CARGUARD ADMIN: Barrett Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Barrett and Matthew Silverman on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Carguard Administration,
Inc., Vehicle Protection Specialists LLC and Auto Protecht LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-10746, (D. Mass., April 16, 2020), seeks
statutory damages for willful violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, an injunction requiring Defendant to cease all
telemarketing communications and such further relief.

Defendants are into the car insurance business. It initiated
pre-recorded telemarketing calls to the Plaintiffs for the purposes
of advertising their goods and services, using an automated dialing
system. Barrett and Silverman claim that said calls were
"robo-calls." [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
     BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C.
     99 High St., Suite 304
     Boston, MA 02110
     Tel: (508) 221-1510
     Email: anthony@broderick-law.com

            - and -

     Alex M. Washkowitz, Esq.
     Jeremy Cohen, Esq.
     CW LAW GROUP, P.C.
     188 Oaks Road
     Framingham, MA 01701
     Email: alex@cwlawgrouppc.com


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Creasy Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stacy Creasy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Charter Communications, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 2:20-cv-01199, (E.D. La., April 15, 2020), seeks damages
and remedies pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Charter Communications operates as Spectrum, a telecommunications
and mass media company headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.
Creasy claims to have received telemarketing calls from Charter
Communications offering their services.  She has opt out of
receiving such offers yet claims to have received them despite of
this. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
      401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540
      Austin, Texas 78701
      Tel: (512) 803-1578
      Fax: (561) 961-5684
      Email: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com


CITIZENS BANK: Faces Palmer Suit Over Unlawful Credit Inquiries
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Palmer, an individual, on behalf of himself, and those
similarly situated v. CITIZENS BANK, N.A.; CITIZENS FINANCIAL
GROUP, INC.; FARMER GROUP, INC.; FARMERS EXCHANGE; HSBC BANK, USA
N.A.; DISCOVER FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; and DOEA 1-100, Case No.
CGC-20-584241 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., April 27, 2020),
arises from the Defendants' unauthorized and unlawful credit
inquiries, which violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Defendants have a standards operating procedures, and the
Defendants put in place those procedures and made unauthorized
credit report inquiries of the Plaintiff in order to determine
credit for the purpose of credit profiling, data modeling, and to
make promotional offerings, advertising, and to share data
concerning the same with other vendors, partners and affiliated
with the Defendants, all without the Plaintiff's consent, according
to the complaint.

The Defendants' inquires of the Plaintiff's consumer report
information, without the Plaintiff's consent, falls outside the
scope of any permissible use or access included in the FCRA;
therefore, the Defendants violated the FCRA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an individual residing in the State of
California.

The Defendants conducted business in the State of California in
that they each performed marketing, advertising, promotions,
searches, and credit functions.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Blake J. Lindemann, Esq.
          Dona R. Dishbak, Esq.
          LINDEMANN LAW FIRM
          433 N. Camden Drive, 4th Floor
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Phone (310) 279-5269
          Facsimile (310) 300-0267
          Email: blake@lawbl.com


CONDOR HOSPITALITY: Graham Class Action Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
Condor Hospitality Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the class action
suit entitled, Graham v. Condor Hospitality Trust, Inc., et al.,
Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-01552, has been voluntarily dismissed.

On August 20, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company and each of the Company directors, the
company's operating partnership, NHT Operating Partnership, LLC
(NHT Parent), NHT REIT Merger Sub, LLC  (NHT Merger Sub), and NHT
Operating Partnership II, LLC (NHT Merger Op) in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware under the caption
Graham v. Condor Hospitality Trust, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.
1:19-cv-01552.

The case was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs on January 28,
2020.

Condor Hospitality Trust, Inc. operates as a real estate investment
trust. The Company deals in the investment and ownership of hotels.
Condor Hospitality Trust serves customers in the United States. The
company is based in Norfolk, Nebraska.

CONDOR HOSPITALITY: Raul Class Action Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------
Condor Hospitality Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the putative
class action suit entitled, Raul v. Condor Hospitality Trust, Inc.,
et al., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-07968, has been voluntarily
dismissed.  

On August 26, 2019, a putative class action was filed against the
Company and each of the Company's directors in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York under the
caption Raul v. Condor Hospitality Trust, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 1:19-cv-07968.

The complaint asserted claims, purportedly brought on behalf of a
class of shareholders, under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 14a-9 and alleged that
the Preliminary Proxy Statement contained materially incomplete and
misleading disclosures.

The complaint sought, among other things, injunctive relief
enjoining defendants from taking steps to consummate the proposed
transaction and damages, along with fees and costs.

The case was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs on November 19,
2019.

Condor Hospitality Trust, Inc. operates as a real estate investment
trust. The Company deals in the investment and ownership of hotels.
Condor Hospitality Trust serves customers in the United States. The
company is based in Norfolk, Nebraska.


CONDOR HOSPITALITY: Sabatini Class Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
Condor Hospitality Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the putative
class action suit entitled, Sabatini v. Condor Hospitality Trust,
Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-01564, has been voluntarily
dismissed.

A putative class action complaint was filed on August 23, 2019
against the Company and each of the Company directors, the
Operating Partnership, Parent, Merger Sub and Merger OP in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware under the
caption Sabatini v. Condor Hospitality Trust, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 1:19-cv-01564.

The complaint asserted claims, purportedly brought on behalf of a
class of shareholders, under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 14a-9, and alleged
that the preliminary proxy statement filed by the Company with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Schedule 14A on August 9,
2019 (the "Preliminary Proxy Statement") contained materially
incomplete and misleading disclosures. The complaint sought, among
other things, injunctive relief enjoining defendants from taking
steps to consummate the proposed transactions and damages, along
with fees and costs.  

The case was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs on January 28,
2020.

Condor Hospitality Trust, Inc. operates as a real estate investment
trust. The Company deals in the investment and ownership of hotels.
Condor Hospitality Trust serves customers in the United States. The
company is based in Norfolk, Nebraska.


CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Faber Seeks Reimbursement of Tuition Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALEC FABER, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00471-MAD-ML (N.D.N.Y.,
April 25, 2020), arises from the Defendant's decision to close
campus, constructively evict students, and transition all classes
to an online/remote format as a result of the Novel Coronavirus
Disease pandemic.

The Plaintiff contends that while closing campus and transitioning
to online classes was the right thing for the Defendant to do, this
decision deprived her and the other members of the Class from
recognizing the benefits of in-person instruction, meals, access to
campus facilities, student activities, and other benefits and
services in exchange for which they had already paid fees and
tuition. She adds that the Defendant has either refused to provide
reimbursement for the tuition, meals, fees and other costs that
Defendant is no longer providing, or has provided inadequate and/or
arbitrary reimbursement that does not fully compensate her and
members of the Class for their loss.

The action seeks refunds of the amount the Plaintiff and other
members of the Class are owed on a pro-rata basis, together with
other damages.

Cornell is a private institution of higher learning located in
Ithaca, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kelsey W. Shannon, Esq.
          LYNN LAW FIRM, LLP
          101 South Salina Street, Suite 750
          Syracuse, NY 13202-4983
          Telephone: (315) 474-1267
          E-mail: kshannon@lynnlaw.com

                - and -

          Edward Toptani, Esq.
          TOPTANI LAW PLLC
          375 Pearl Street, Suite 1410
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 699-8930
          E-mail: edward@toptanilaw.com

               - and -

          Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
          Roy T. Willey IV, Esq.
          ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC
          32 Ann Street
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Telephone: (843) 614-8888
          E-mail: eric@akimlawfirm.com
                  roy@akimlawfirm.com


CQ HOLDING: Faces Hensiek Class Suit Alleging Violation of ERISA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Hensiek and Jason Gill, on behalf of themselves individually,
and on behalf of similarly situated v. Board of Directors of CQ
Holding Company, Inc. (a/k/a Casino Queen Board of Directors), the
Administrative Committee of the Casino Queen Employee Stock
Ownership Plan, Charles Bidwill III, Timothy J. Rand, James G.
Koman, Jeffrey Watson, Robert Barrows, and John and Jane Does 1-20,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00377 (S.D. Ill., April 27, 2020), is brought
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 on behalf
of the participants and beneficiaries in the Casino Queen Employee
Stock Ownership Plan.

As participants in the Casino Queen ESOP, the Plaintiffs were told
initially that the ESOP was a great opportunity that would lead to
the creation of wealth for Casino employees. However, this alluring
promise was revealed to be a mere illusion in 2019 when the value
of Casino Queen stock--the sole asset held in the participants'
ESOP accounts--was disclosed to be worth vastly less than what the
ESOP's fiduciaries led them to believe it was worth, the Plaintiffs
allege.

Three of the Selling Shareholders, who stood to profit handsomely
from the sale of the Casino, were also members of the Casino Queen
Board of Directors ("Selling Board Members"); the majority of the
other Sellers were family members of individuals on the Board.
Given their inability to find a buyer willing to pay what the
Selling Shareholders wanted for Casino Queen, the Selling Board
Members created their own buyer for the Company by establishing the
ESOP to buy it outright.

The Selling Board Members--with the assistance of the Co-Trustees
and Administrative Committee--indulged their significant conflicts
and violated ERISA through two major transactions, the details of
which were largely concealed from employee participants and the
public, according to the complaint. In summary, despite ERISA's
mandate that plan fiduciaries administer the Casino Queen ESOP
solely in the interests of the participants and beneficiaries, the
Board Members, Administrative Committee, and Co-Trustees
orchestrated a highly leveraged and imprudent purchase designed to
benefit corporate insiders and then concealed this fact from ESOP
participants and beneficiaries until 2019.

The Defendants' ERISA violations caused tens of millions of dollars
in losses to the ESOP participants, who overpaid for the Company
stock and will not receive the deferred compensation they had
earned, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other
ESOP participants to obtain redress for the Defendants' fiduciary
breaches and prohibited transactions, including restoration of the
losses that they suffered, disgorgement of the profits that
Defendants wrongfully obtained, and other equitable and remedial
relief as provided by ERISA and applicable law.

The Plaintiffs were participants in the Casino Queen ESOP.

The Casino Queen Hotel & Casino is a former riverboat gambling
house, which moved on land in 2007, to East St. Louis,
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and –

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


DEUTSCHE BANK: Appeal in CHF LIBOR Litigation Shelved
-----------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit has ordered that the appeal in the
putative class action alleging manipulation of the Swiss Franc
(CHF) LIBOR, be held in abeyance.

A putative class action alleging manipulation of the Swiss Franc
(CHF) LIBOR remains pending.

On September 16, 2019, the SDNY granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the action, dismissing all claims against Deutsche Bank.

Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal; the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit has ordered that the appeal be held in
abeyance pending that court's decision in the appeal of the SIBOR
and SOR class action.

Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft provides investment, financial,
and related products and services to private individuals, corporate
entities, and institutional clients worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Private &
Commercial Bank (PCB), and Asset Management. Deutsche Bank
Aktiengesellschaft was founded in 1870 and is headquartered in
Frankfurt am Main, Germany.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Appeal in GBP LIBOR Related Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the appeal made
in the Pound Sterling (GBP) LIBOR related class suit remains
pending.

A putative class action alleging manipulation of the Pound Sterling
(GBP) LIBOR remains pending.

On December 21, 2018, the SDNY partially granted defendants'
motions to dismiss the action, dismissing all claims against
Deutsche Bank. On August 16, 2019, the court denied plaintiffs'
motion for partial reconsideration of the court’s December 21,
2018 decision.

Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal; the US Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit has ordered that the appeal be held in
abeyance pending that court's decision in the appeal of the SIBOR
and SOR class action.

Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft provides investment, financial,
and related products and services to private individuals, corporate
entities, and institutional clients worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Private &
Commercial Bank (PCB), and Asset Management. Deutsche Bank
Aktiengesellschaft was founded in 1870 and is headquartered in
Frankfurt am Main, Germany.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Appeal in SIBOR & SOR-Related Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that plaintiffs'
appeal in the putative class action alleging manipulation of the
Singapore Interbank Offered Rate (SIBOR) and Swap Offer Rate (SOR)
remains pending.

A putative class action alleging manipulation of the Singapore
Interbank Offered Rate (SIBOR) and Swap Offer Rate (SOR) remains
pending.

On July 26, 2019, the SDNY granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the action, dismissing all claims against Deutsche Bank,
and denied plaintiff's motion for leave to file a fourth amended
complaint. Plaintiff appealed that decision to the US Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft provides investment, financial,
and related products and services to private individuals, corporate
entities, and institutional clients worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Private &
Commercial Bank (PCB), and Asset Management. Deutsche Bank
Aktiengesellschaft was founded in 1870 and is headquartered in
Frankfurt am Main, Germany.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Suits Related to Canadian SSA Bonds Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend putative class action suits in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice and Federal Court of Canada related to
Sovereigns, Supranationals and Agencies (SSA) bonds.

Deutsche Bank is a defendant in putative class actions filed on
November 7, 2017 and December 5, 2017 in the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice and Federal Court of Canada, respectively, claiming
violations of antitrust law and the common law relating to alleged
manipulation of secondary trading of SSA bonds.

The complaints rely on allegations similar to those in the US class
actions involving SSA bond trading, and seek compensatory and
punitive damages.

The cases are in their early stages.

Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft provides investment, financial,
and related products and services to private individuals, corporate
entities, and institutional clients worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Private &
Commercial Bank (PCB), and Asset Management. Deutsche Bank
Aktiengesellschaft was founded in 1870 and is headquartered in
Frankfurt am Main, Germany.


EOG RESOURCES: Aagesen Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Aagesen, on of behalf himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. EOG Resources, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-01386 (S.D. Tex., April 17, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime and other damages for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

EOG is an oil and gas exploration and production company with
operations throughout the United States where Aagesen worked as a
Landman from April 2018 to February 2020. Aagesen was paid a day
rate with no overtime compensation and was misclassified as an
independent contractor, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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


EVENFLOW CO: Sanchez Files Class Suit in Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Evenflow Company,
Inc. The case is styled as Mona Sanchez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Evenflow Company,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-10823 (D. Mass., April 29,
2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Fraud
filed pursuant to the Diversity-(Citizenship).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Weld , Jr., Esq.
   Todd & Weld
   One Federal Street
   27th Floor
   Boston, MA 02110
   Tel: (617) 720-2626
   Fax: (617) 227-5777
   Email: cweld@toddweld.com


EVERQUOTE INC: Runyon Files TCPA Suit in Colorado
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Everquote, Inc. The
case is styled as Scott M. Runyon, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Everquote, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01206 (D. Colo., April 29, 2020).

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

EverQuote, Inc. operates as an Internet based marketing firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph Scott Davidson, Esq.
   Sulaiman Law Group Ltd.
   2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200
   Lombard, IL 60148
   Tel: (630) 575-8181 Ext. 116
   Fax: (630) 575-8188
   Email: jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com

     - and -

   Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
   Sulaiman Law Group Ltd.
   2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200
   Lombard, IL 60148
   Tel: (630) 575-8181 Ext. 114
   Fax: (630) 575-8188
   Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com



FEDERAL EXPRESS: Freem Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MITCHELL FREEM, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. FEDERAL EXPRESS
CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Case
No. 30-02019-01046404-CU-OE-CX (Filed Jan. 23, 2019), was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on April 24, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:20-cv-0080 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff filed this collective and class action complaint
purporting to represent current and/or former vehicle technicians
in the State of California, asserting claim for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff is a former vehicle technician for FedEx.

FedEx is an American multinational delivery services company
headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee.[BN]

Federal Express is represented by:

          Craig E. Lindberg, Esq.
          FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION
          2601 Main Street, Suite 340
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 862-4678
          Facsimile: (901) 492-5641
          E-mail: craig.lindberg@fedex.com


FORDHAM UNIVERSITY: Hassan Suit Seeks Return of Tuition and Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
KAREEM HASSAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FORDHAM UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-03265 (S.D.N.Y.,
April 24, 2020), is brought on behalf of all people, who paid
tuition and other fees for the Spring 2020 academic semester at
Fordham, and who, because of the Defendant's response to the
COVID-19 pandemic, lost the benefit of the education for which they
paid, without having their tuition and some other fees refunded to
them.

Effective March 9, 2020, Fordham suspended all classes for the
Spring 2020 semester because of the global COVID-19 pandemic.
Fordham has not held any in-person classes since March 9, 2020.
Classes that have continued have only been offered in an online
format, with no in-person instruction.

The Plaintiff contends that 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
he and the putative class contracted and paid for. The online
learning options being offered to Fordham students are subpar in
practically every aspect, from the lack of facilities, materials,
and access to faculty, Mr. Hassan alleges.

According to the complaint, 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 Plaintiff and the
putative class members contracted and paid for. Nonetheless,
Fordham has announced on its website that it will not refund any
tuition for the Spring 2020 semester. While Fordham has announced
that it will reduce some fees by 50%, it has not committed to
reducing all fees.

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

Fordham is one of the country's most preeminent universities, with
an enrollment of over 16,000 students. The University offers more
than 70 formal major fields for undergraduate students, as well as
a number of graduate programs including law and business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip L. Fraietta, 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: pfraietta@bursor.com
                  swestcot@bursor.com


GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES: Workers Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Victor Ballast and Luis Simone, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Griffin Industries, LLC,
Griffin Security Services, Inc., Consolidated Edison Company Of New
York, Inc., Michael E. Smith, Winston Smith and Andy Muniz, jointly
and severally, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-03108, (S.D. N.Y., April
17, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime
premium pay owed pursuant to both the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law including claims for unpaid spread-of-hours
premiums, unlawfully withheld gratuities and for failure to provide
proper wage notices and wage statement violations.

Plaintiffs are construction flaggers who worked the public streets,
roadways and sidewalks throughout New York City and New York State,
pursuant to contracts with Consolidated Edison Company. Simone
additionally performed work as a security guard at multiple
locations in the Bronx. They claim to have typically worked well in
excess of forty hours each week and was paid an hourly rate that
did not include overtime premiums for hours worked over forty in a
given workweek and was not paid the statutory minimum wage.
Plaintiff also did not receive accurate wage notices or wage
statements. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
      Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
      PELTON GRAHAM LLC
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 385-9700
      Email: pelton@peltongraham.com
             graham@peltongraham.com
      Website: www.PeltonGraham.com


HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS: Lansdale Sues Over Refusal to Pay Insureds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lansdale 329 Prop, LLC, 329 Mainlans, LLC, and Lincoln Liquor LLC
d/b/a Stove and Tap; 560 Wellington Square Associates LLC d/b/a Al
Pastor; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company and The Hartford
Financial Services Group, Inc. d/b/a The Hartford, Case No.
2:20-cv-02034 (E.D. Pa., April 27, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants for breach of contract arising from their refusal to pay
the Plaintiffs' insured premises for losses suffered due to any
executive orders by civil authorities that have required the
necessary suspension of business.

To protect their businesses in the event that they suddenly had to
suspend operations for reasons outside of their control, the
Plaintiffs purchased Business Owner's coverage from The Hartford.
Each of the Business Owner's polices included separate endorsements
for "Business Income and Extra Expense" (the "Business Income
endorsement") and Business Income for Civil Authority Actions (the
"Civil Authority endorsement").

The Plaintiffs say they were forced to suspend or reduce business
at Stove and Tap and Al Pastor restaurants due to orders issued by
civil authorities in Pennsylvania mandating the suspension of
business for on-site services to prevent potential exposure to
COVID-19. The Plaintiffs were also required to take necessary steps
to prevent further damage and minimize the suspension of business
and continue operations. The Plaintiffs' insured premises did not
experience any known presence of, suspected presence of, or
exposure to the COVID-19 virus.

The Plaintiffs contend that they were denied business income
coverage by The Hartford. The Hartford has, on a wide scale and
uniform basis, refused to pay its insureds for losses suffered due
to any executive orders by civil authorities that have required the
necessary suspension of business, and any efforts to prevent
further property damage or to minimize the suspension of business
and continue operations. None of The Hartford's policy exclusions
apply to the Plaintiffs' claims for coverage, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs own and operate Stove and Tap and Al Pastor, full
service restaurants with locations in Lansdale, Malvern, and Exton,
Pennsylvania.

Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company is a property and casualty
company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel E. Bacine, Esq.
          Mark R. Rosen, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Barrack, Esq.
          Meghan J. Talbot, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          3300 Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103

               - and –

          Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          One America Plaza
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101


IMMANUEL CAMPUS: Arenas Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Arenas, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. Immanuel Campus of Care
Foundation and Terry McNellis and Jane Doe McNellis, Defendants,
Case No. 20-cv-00730, (D. Ariz., April 14, 2020), seeks unpaid
wages for overtime compensation due, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorney's fees, costs and expenses of this action and such other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants owned and operated assisted living and nursing facility
that offers independent living, assistant living, memory care,
behavioral health and skilled nursing services in Phoenix AZ where
Arenas worked as a kitchen server. Arenas claims to have worked in
excess of 40 hours in a given workweek and worked through her meal
breaks without being paid overtime premiums.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
      Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
      THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC
      P.O. Box 97066
      Phoenix, AZ 85060
      Telephone: (480) 382-5176
      Facsimile: (480) 304-3805
      Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
             chris@bendaulaw.com


IQIYI INC: Faces Jenkins Suit Over Decline in Value of Securities
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Jenkins, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. IQIYI, INC., YU GONG, XIAODONG WANG, ROBIN YANHONG LI,
QI LU, HERMAN YU, XUYANG REN, VICTOR ZHIXIANG LIANG, and CHUAN
WANG, Case No. 3:20-cv-02882 (N.D. Cal., April 27, 2020), seeks to
pursue claims against the Defendants under the Securities Act of
1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as a result of the
precipitous decline in the market value of iQIYI's securities.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all persons and entities other
than the Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) iQIYI
American Depository Shares ("ADSs") pursuant and/or traceable to
the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about March
29, 2018; or (b) iQIYI securities between March 29, 2018, and April
7, 2020, both dates inclusive.

On February 27, 2018, iQIYI filed a registration statement on Form
F-1 with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which, after several
amendments, was declared effective by the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 28, 2018. On March 29, 2018, iQIYI filed a
prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC in connection with the IPO,
which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement
(collectively, the "Offering Documents"). That same day, iQIYI
conducted the IPO pursuant to the Offering Documents and issued
125,000,000 ADSs to the public at the Offering price of $18.00 per
share. iQIYI reaped approximately $2,182,500,000 in proceeds upon
the IPO's completion, after underwriting discounts and commission.

The Plaintiff contends that the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing their preparation.
Specifically, the Offering Documents and the Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
iQIYI inflated its number of users, total revenue, deferred
revenue, barter transaction revenue, and barter sublicensing
revenue; (ii) iQIYI masked these inflated metrics by inflating its
expenses, the prices it pays for content, other assets, and
acquisitions; (iii) iQIYI accomplished all the foregoing, in part,
by improperly accounting for the number of users, revenues, and
expenses attributable to its business partners; and (iv) as a
result, the Offering Documents and the Company's public statements
were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state
information required to be stated therein.

On April 7, 2020, Wolfpack Research, a global financial research
and due diligence firm, published a report alleging that iQIYI "was
committing fraud well before its IPO in 2018 and has continued to
do so ever since." For example, Wolfpack estimated that iQIYI
inflated its 2019 revenue by approximately RMB18 billion to RMB13
billion, or 27% to 44%, by overstating its number of users by
approximately 42% to 60%. Wolfpack also alleged that the Company
then "inflates its expenses, the prices it pays for content, other
assets, and acquisitions in order to burn off fake cash to hide the
fraud from its auditor and investors."

Following publication of the Wolfpack Report, iQIYI's ADS price
fell $0.79 per share, or 4.57%, to close at $16.51 per share on
April 8, 2020. As of the time this Complaint was filed, iQIYI ADSs
continue to trade below the IPO price of $18.00 per share.

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

The Plaintiff acquired iQIYI ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to the
Offering Documents issued in connection with the Company's IPO,
and/or purchased or otherwise acquired iQIYI securities at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

iQIYI, together with its subsidiaries, provides online
entertainment services under the iQIYI brand in China.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
          HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
          1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Phone: (770) 392-0090
          Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
          Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com


JACK IN THE BOX: Szwanek Alleges Violation under ADA
----------------------------------------------------
Jack in the Box, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Judy Szwanek and James Lopez, II, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Jack in the Box, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-02952 (N.D. Cal., April 29, 2020).

Jack in the Box Inc. operates and franchises restaurants. The
Company provides a variety of food items including hamburgers,
specialty sandwiches, salads, Mexican food, finger foods, and side
items. Jack in the Box offers its products and services throughout
the United States and Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.



JEFFREY G LERMAN: Zuckerbrod Files FDCPA Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Law Office of Jeffrey
G. Lerman, P.C. The case is styled as Deborah Zuckerbrod also known
as: Deborah Saks, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Law Office of Jeffrey G. Lerman,
P.C. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-03343-PMH
(S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2020).

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

Jeffrey G. Lerman, P.C. is a firm serving Mineola, NY in Personal
Injury, Automobile Accidents and Slip And Fall cases.[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



JETSTREAM AVIATION: Jones Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnny Jones, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated v.
JETSTREAM AVIATION PARTNERS, LLC D/B/A AIRN'STYLE AIRCRAFT
INTERIORS, LLC and JAMES D. MASON, Case No. 3:20-cv-01039-S (N.D.
Tex., April 27, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards
Act to recover unpaid overtime compensation.

The Defendants misclassified the Plaintiff and Collective Members
as independent contractors, when in fact, they were employees,
according to the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly worked more
than 40 hours in a workweek and was not paid one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an interior
fabricator.

Jetstream provides customer seating and interior finish out for VIP
and commercial aircraft interiors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          Scott E. Brady, Esq.
          BOHRER BRADY, LLC
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Phone: (225) 925-5297
          Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
          Email: phil@bohrerbrady.com
                 scott@bohrerbrady.com

               - and –

          Corinna Chandler, Esq.
          CHANDLER & SHAVIN, P.C.
          12377 Merit Drive, Suite 880
          Dallas, TX 75251
          Phone: 972-863-9063
          Email: chandler@chandlerlawpc.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Shiny Strands Challenges Processing of PPP Loans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shiny Strands, Inc., on behalf of itself and those similarly
situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO, JPMORGAN BANK, N.A., Case No.
1:20-cv-02547 (N.D. Ill., April 27, 2020), seeks to stop the
Defendants' unlawful conduct relating to their processing of
Paycheck Protection Program applications, and to obtain redress for
all persons and businesses injured by the conduct.

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

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

As a result of Chase's dishonest behavior, however, thousands of
small businesses that were entitled to loans under the PPP were
left with nothing because Chase chose to maximize its loan
origination fees rather than comply with the rules of the program
and serve the needs of its small business customers, says the
complaint. Had Chase informed the Plaintiff and the general public
of the truth, then the Plaintiff would have submitted their PPP
applications to other lending institutions that were processing
applications on a first come, first-served basis.

Shiny Strands, Inc., is a small business.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven Smith, Esq.
          5514 N. Wayne Avenue
          Chicago IL, 60640
          Phone: 312-622-5545
          Email: stevesmithlaw88@gmail.com


KAYDEN INDUSTRIES: Breaux Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Russel Breaux, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Kayden Industries (USA), Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-00027 (E.D. N.Y., April 16, 2020), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime and other damages for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

Kayden Industries is a global solids control company serving the
oil and gas industry in several countries and several states in the
US where Breaux was employed as a solids control equipment
operator. Kayden paid Breaux on a day-rate basis without paid
overtime for the hours he worked in excess of 40 hours each week,
asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Richard J. Burch, Esq.
      David I. Moulton, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 877-8788
      Fax: (713) 877-8065
      Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
             dmoulton@brucknerburch.com


LEAVE IT TO BEAVERS: Fails to Pay All Wages, Quagliariello Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tori Ann Quagliariello, Crystal Lear, Maria Simon, and Christlynn
Karns, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons
v. LEONARD DiPASQUALE, individually and t/d/b/a LEAVE IT TO BEAVERS
GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, ABC CORP. t/d/b/a LEAVE IT TO BEAVERS GENTLEMEN'S
CLUB, JOHN DOE t/d/b/a LEAVE IT TO BEAVERS GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, DUANE
CRAIG, and JOSEPH SHOEMAKER, Case No. 3:20-cv-00699 (M.D. Pa.,
April 27, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, the Pennsylvania Wage and
Payment Collection Law and Pennsylvania common law as a result of
the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiffs all earned wages.

According to the complaint, the Defendants willfully violated the
FLSA, the PMWA, the WPCL, and Pennsylvania common law by:
improperly classifying Dancers as independent contractors; failing
to pay Dancers minimum wage; failing to pay Dancers overtime for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week; and unlawfully taking
or withholding a portion of Plaintiffs' and other Dancers'
gratuities received from customers. Specifically, the Plaintiffs
and other Dancers were not paid anything by the Defendants. Rather,
the Defendants required the Plaintiffs and other Dancers to perform
adult entertainment work, such as stage and VIP room performances,
solely for tips, and thereafter share the tips with the
Defendants.

The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as Dancers.

The Defendants own and/or operate an adult nightclub located in
Sugarloaf, Pennsylvania, under the name "Leave it to Beavers."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter C. Wood, Jr., Esq.
          MOBILIO WOOD
          900 Rutter Ave., Box 24
          Forty Fort, PA 18704
          Phone: (570) 234-0442
          Fax: (570) 266-5402
          Email: peter@mobiliowood.com

               - and -

          Matthew Mobilio, Esq.
          MOBILIO WOOD
          609 W. Hamilton St., Suite 301
          Allentown, PA 18101
          Phone: (610) 882-4000
          Fax: (866) 793-7665
          Email: matt@mobiliowood.com


LOCHEND ENERGY: Hernandez Suit Seeks OT Pay for Oilfield Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
LUPE HERNANDEZ, MATTHEW MASON, AND BROCK STRATTON, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LOCHEND ENERGY
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00064-CRH (D.N.D., April 24,
2020), seeks to recover overtime compensation for oilfield workers,
who did not receive the proper overtime compensation to which they
were entitled during their employment with Lochend Energy.

In order to offer its coil tubing and flow back services, Lochend
employs several hundreds of non-exempt oilfield workers that work
in the United States. The Plaintiffs and similarly situated
Oilfield Workers work on the oil well sites and typically work at
least 12-hour shifts, 7 days a week, for weeks at a time, all while
in some of the harshest working conditions.

The Plaintiffs contend that Lochend Energy pays its Oilfield
Workers (Salaried Coil Tubing Supervisors, day-rate Flowback
Supervisors, and hourly Assistants/Junior Supervisors/Operators) on
three types of compensation structures, all of which result in
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and corresponding state
wage and hour laws. They add that they are paid with a salary and
day rate without regard to the amount of hours they work in a given
week.

Lupe Hernandez was employed by Lochend Energy as a Coil Tubing
Supervisor from August 2018 through August 2019.

According to its Web site, Lochend Energy is an oilfield services
company that provides a complete line of coil tubing and flow back
production testing for the oil and gas sector in both
Canada and the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
          Armando A. Ortiz, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375


MACHOL & JOHANNES: Faces O'Neill FDCPA Suit in W.D. Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marielle O'Neill, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. MACHOL & JOHANNES, PLLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00634 (W.D.
Wash., April 27, 2020), accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

In connection with the collection of an alleged debt owed by the
Plaintiff, the Defendant sent her written communication dated
October 9, 2019. However, nowhere in the Defendant's October 9,
2019 letter does it meaningfully convey the identity of the
creditor to whom the Debt is owed, the Plaintiff avers.

The October 9, 2019 letter states, "CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A. AS
ASSIGNEE OF HSBC BANK NEVADA, N.A." The October 9, 2019 letter then
states: "This law firm has been retained by CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA),
N.A. AS ASSIGNEE OF HSBC BANK NEVADA, N.A for resolution of the
above listed account." When the Plaintiff received and read the
letter, she says she did not know to whom the Debt was current
owed.

In addition, the Plaintiff, or the least sophisticated consumer,
would not know what the term "assignee" meant, and may reasonably
interpret the letter in two different ways, one of which is
inaccurate, according to the complaint. Because the Defendant's
October 9, 2019 letter was subject to more than one reasonable
interpretation, at least one of which is inaccurate, it is
misleading as a matter of law. The Defendant's October 9, 2019
letter, therefore, failed to meaningfully convey the name of the
creditor to whom the Debt is owed, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person, who resided in the State of
Washington, County of Snohomish, and City of Arlington.

The Defendant is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amorette Rinkleib, Esq.
          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
          5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Phone: (602) 899-9189
          Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
          Email: arinkleib@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com


MERIDIAN SENIOR: Moscozo Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ROSAMOND MOSCOZO,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
MERIDIAN SENIOR LIVING, LLC, a corporation and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, Case No. 20CV365257 (Filed March 19, 2019), was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa
Clara, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on April 24, 2020.

The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:20-cv-02846 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to provide rest
periods, failed to furnish timely, accurate, and itemized wage
statements, and failed to pay wages due upon discharge pursuant to
the California Labor Code.

Meridian Senior is a real estate owner and developer.[BN]

Defendant Meridian Senior is represented by:

          Leonora M. Schloss, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
          Telephone: (213) 689-0404
          Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
          E-mail: Leonora.Schloss@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          Isabella L. Shin, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          333 West San Carlos, Suite 1625
          San Jose, CA 95110
          Telephone: (408) 579-0404
          Facsimile: (408) 454-0290
          E-mail: Isabella.Shin@jacksonlewis.com


MIELE INCORPORATED: Alcazar Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Alcazar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MIELE, INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
to 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-02890 (N.D. Cal., April 27,
2020), is brought to secure redress against the Defendants for
their failure to design, construct, maintain and operate their Web
site to be fully and equally accessible to and independently usable
by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Web site,
https://www.mieleusa.com/, and therefore denial of its products and
services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil Rights
Act, according to the complaint. Because the Defendant's Web site
is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers in violation of the ADA, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies,
practices and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will
become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using his
computer.

The Defendant's Web site provides consumers with access to an array
of household and commercial appliances and services which are
available online and in retail stores for purchase.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thiago Coelho, Esq.
          Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989


NATIONAL STEEL: Gomez Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as CYNTHIA GOMEZ, an individual,
on behalf of herself, and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. NATIONAL STEEL AND SHIPBUILDING COMPANY; and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, (Filed Feb. 18, 2020), was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Diego
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
on April 24, 2020.

The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-00781-BEN-RBB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff's complaint alleges that NASSCO violated California
Labor Code by failing to pay overtime and minimum wages and failing
to provide meal periods and rest periods.

NASSCO is an American shipbuilding company with three shipyards
located in San Diego, Norfolk, and Mayport. NASSCO is a division of
General Dynamics.[BN]

National Steel is represented by:

          Jason S. Mills, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, Twenty-Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: 213 612 2500
          Facsimile: 213 612 2501
          E-mail: jason.mills@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Alexander L. Grodan, Esq.
          P. Bartholomew Quintans, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
          Telephone: 1 830 0600
          Facsimile: 1 830 0700
          E-mail: alexander.grodan@morganlewis.com
                  bart.quintans@morganlewis.com


NCAA: Baker Personal Injury Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Thomas Baker, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate
Athletic Association (NCAA), Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00846 (S.D.
Ind., March 16, 2020), was transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on April 16, 2020 under Case
No. 20-cv-02319.

Baker seeks economic, monetary, actual, consequential,
compensatory, and punitive damages, past, present and future
medical expenses, other out of pocket expenses, lost time and
interest, lost future earnings, litigation and attorney fees,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, injunctive and/or
declaratory relief and such other and further relief resulting from
negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of express contract,
breach of implied contract, breach of third-party express contract
and unjust enrichment.

Thomas Baker played football in Alcorn from 1998 to 2000, as a wide
receiver. He suffered from numerous concussions, as well as
countless sub-concussive hits as part of routine practice and
gameplay. Baker is suffering from depression, headaches, memory
loss, loss of concentration and emotional instability.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal office
located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206.
The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics. Baker alleges NCAA knew
about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries and sub-concussive injuries that
resulted from playing college football, but did nothing.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Tel: (713) 554-9099
     Fax: (713) 554-9098
     Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com

NS HOSPITALITY: Calderon Sues Over Denied Overtime Pay, Paystubs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monica T. Calderon, and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. NS Hospitality Group LLC and Carlos Rivera,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-80643, (S.D. Fla., April 15, 2020),
seeks to recover from the Defendants regular and overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable
attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act.

NS Hospitality Group provides maintenance, cleaning and
housekeeping services to the hospitality industry where Calderon
worked as a non-exempted, hourly, full-time housekeeper from
approximately October 9, 2018 to March 3, 2020, at Addison Reserve
Country Club, located at Addison Reserve Blvd., Delray Beach.
Calderon claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours without
overtime. She also claims to be denied wage statements. [BN]

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
     Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


PARTNER COMMS: Accord in Roaming Services Suit Awaits Court Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the parties
in a class action related to the charging of V.A.T for roaming
services are seeking court approval of a settlement agreement.

On July 14, 2010, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company.

The claim alleges that Partner is breaching its contractual and/or
legal obligation and/or is acting negligently by charging V.A.T for
roaming services that are consumed abroad.

The plaintiff demands to return the total amount of V.A.T that was
charged by Partner for roaming services that were consumed abroad.
The plaintiff also pursued an injunction that will order Partner to
stop charging VA.T for roaming services that are consumed abroad.

In August 2014, the claim was dismissed and in October 2014, the
plaintiff filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. The hearing was
held in May 2016 before an expanded panel of seven judges and the
Supreme Court accepted the appeal in July 2017 and dismissed the
District Court's decisions.

The claim was reverted back to the District Court. In March 2020, a
settlement agreement was filed for the Court's approval.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. ("Partner") is a leading
Israeli provider of telecommunications services (cellular,
fixed-line telephony, internet and television services). Partner's
ADSs are quoted on the NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its
shares are traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.


PARTNER COMMS: Bid for Class Cert. in Spam Messages Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion
for class certification in the putative class action suit over spam
messages has been dismissed.

On September 5, 2018, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as
a class action were filed against the Company.

The claim alleges that the collection notices that the Company
sends to its customers through its computerized system, constitute
unlawful "spam" messages.

The total amount claimed from the Company was estimated by the
plaintiff to be approximately NIS 125 million.

In June 2019, the motion was dismissed without prejudice in
accordance with the plaintiff's request.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. ("Partner") is a leading
Israeli provider of telecommunications services (cellular,
fixed-line telephony, internet and television services). Partner's
ADSs are quoted on the NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its
shares are traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.


PARTNER COMMS: Class Suit Over Anti-Virus Service Costs Dropped
---------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a court has
approved the parties' agreed withdrawal request in the class action
suit related to unlawful charges for anti-virus services.

On March 3, 2019, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company and Partner Land-Line.


The claim alleges that the Company unlawfully charges its customers
for anti-virus services that are not part of an internet or
cellular service plan.

The plaintiff noted that it cannot estimate the total amount
claimed in the lawsuit, should the lawsuit be certified as a class
action.

The parties filed an agreed upon withdrawal request that was
approved by the Court in December 2019.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. ("Partner") is a leading
Israeli provider of telecommunications services (cellular,
fixed-line telephony, internet and television services). Partner's
ADSs are quoted on the NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its
shares are traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.


PARTNER COMMS: November 17, 2019 Claim in Preliminary Stage
-----------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a claim
dated November 17, 2019, against the company is still in its
preliminary stage.

On November 17, 2019, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as
a class action were filed against the Company and two additional
cellular operators.

The claim alleges that the Company, as well as the other
respondents collected money from its customers for content services
for third parties, by using the means of payment that were given to
the Company for the purpose of the cellular invoice payment for
content services, without receiving consent from these customers
prior to the charge, and/or without having documentation with
respect to the customers' consent, unlawfully and against its
license provisions and/or without the Company first ensuring that
the customers received a document that complies with the Consumer
Protection Law regarding the specific transaction for which it
intends to collect money from them.

The total amount claimed from each of the respondents if the
lawsuit is recognized as a class action is NIS 400 million in
addition to compensation in the amount of NIS 500 for each one of
the group members for non-monetary damages which were allegedly
caused to them.

The group on whose behalf the claim was filed is all Partner
subscribers who made such payments from September 2003 until the
date that Partner is found to have stopped charging customers for
such content services (from this group a group of customers charged
for certain content services were excluded in light of other court
decisions).

Partner Communications said, "The claim is still in its preliminary
stage of the motion to be certified as a class action."

Partner Communications Company Ltd. ("Partner") is a leading
Israeli provider of telecommunications services (cellular,
fixed-line telephony, internet and television services). Partner's
ADSs are quoted on the NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its
shares are traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.


PARTNER COMMS: October 2017 Claim for NIS 1 Billion Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a claim
dated October 24, 2017, against the company is still in its
preliminary stage.

On October 24, 2017, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company and another cellular
operator.

The claim alleges that Partner harms the privacy of its customers
by unlawfully using their location data.

The total amount claimed against Partner is estimated by the
plaintiff to be approximately NIS 1 billion.

The claim is still in its preliminary stage of the motion to be
certified as a class action.

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

Partner Communications Company Ltd. ("Partner") is a leading
Israeli provider of telecommunications services (cellular,
fixed-line telephony, internet and television services). Partner's
ADSs are quoted on the NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its
shares are traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.


PARTNER COMMS: Overcharging Suit Withdrawn
------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the court
has approved the parties' agreed remunerated withdrawal request in
the class action suit related to overcharging.

On September 29, 2016, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as
a class action were filed against the Company.

The claim alleges that Partner refunded its customers, in cases
where it was apparent that they were overcharged, not in accordance
with legal provisions.

In addition, the claim alleges that Partner charges some of its
customers that subscribe to the "One" service for the provision of
this special service even though it was terminated.

The plaintiff noted that it cannot estimate the total amount
claimed in the lawsuit, should the lawsuit be certified as a class
action.

In March 2020, the parties filed an agreed upon remunerated
withdrawal request that was approved by the Court the same day it
was filed.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. ("Partner") is a leading
Israeli provider of telecommunications services (cellular,
fixed-line telephony, internet and television services). Partner's
ADSs are quoted on the NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its
shares are traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.


PARTNER COMMS: Revised Settlement in Severance Pay Suit Okayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the revised
settlement agreement reached in the employees' severance
pay-related lawsuit has been approved.

In March 2014, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a class
action were filed against the Company.

The claim alleged that the Company did not include in the severance
pay calculation for its employees various components that
constitute an addition to the salary for the severance pay
calculation and thereby acted unlawfully.  

The total amount claimed from Partner was estimated by the
plaintiff to be approximately NIS 100 million.

In November 2015, the plaintiff filed an amended claim and a motion
to certify the claim as a class action.

In November 2017, the parties filed a revised settlement agreement
which was approved by the Court in July 2018.

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

Partner Communications Company Ltd. ("Partner") is a leading
Israeli provider of telecommunications services (cellular,
fixed-line telephony, internet and television services). Partner's
ADSs are quoted on the NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its
shares are traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.


PARTNER COMMS: Settlement Agreement Filed in SMS Charges Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a
settlement agreement has been filed in the court handling the class
action suit related to unlawful SMS charges.

On September 7, 2010, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as
a class action were filed against the Company.

The claim alleges that the Company unlawfully charges its customers
for services of various content providers, which are sent through
text messages (SMS).

The total amount claimed from the Company was estimated by the
plaintiffs to be approximately NIS 405 million.

The claim was certified as a class action in December 2016. In
January 2017, the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Supreme Court,
regarding the definition of the group of customers.

In November 2018, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and the
claim was reverted back to the District Court.

In February 2020, a settlement agreement was filed with the Court.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. ("Partner") is a leading
Israeli provider of telecommunications services (cellular,
fixed-line telephony, internet and television services). Partner's
ADSs are quoted on the NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its
shares are traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.


PARTNER COMMS: Settlement in Suit over Breach of License Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Court
has approved the settlement agreement in the class action suit
related to the company's breach on its license conditions which
Partner is currently implementing.

On April 3, 2012, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against Partner.

The claim alleges that Partner breached its license conditions in
connection with benefits provided to customers that purchased
handsets from third parties.

The amount claimed in the lawsuit was estimated by the plaintiffs
to be approximately NIS 22 million.

In September 2014, the Court approved the motion and recognized the
lawsuit as a class action.

In July 2017, the parties filed a request to the Court to approve a
settlement agreement.

In December 2019, the Court approved the settlement agreement which
Partner is currently implementing. The damages that Partner is
required to pay are immaterial.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. ("Partner") is a leading
Israeli provider of telecommunications services (cellular,
fixed-line telephony, internet and television services). Partner's
ADSs are quoted on the NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its
shares are traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.


PARTNER COMMS: Settlement in Suit over Junk Ad Messages Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the court
approved the parties settlement agreement in the class action suit
related to Junk Ad Messages.

On February 24, 2016, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as
a class action were filed against the Company.

The claim alleges that the Company harasses recipients by sending
advertising messages without receiving their prior approval.

In addition, the content of the advertisements does not comply with
the legal provisions, among others, with respect to the fact that
the Company does not enable the advertisement recipients an option
to easily remove themselves from the mailing list or send a refusal
notice.

The total amount claimed against the Company if the lawsuit is
certified as a class action was not stated by the plaintiff.

In January 2019, the parties filed a settlement agreement which was
approved by the Court in December 2019.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. ("Partner") is a leading
Israeli provider of telecommunications services (cellular,
fixed-line telephony, internet and television services). Partner's
ADSs are quoted on the NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its
shares are traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.


PARTNER COMMS: Suit over Call Recording Settled
-----------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a court has
approved the parties' remunerated withdrawal request in the class
action suit related to call recordings.

On May 3, 2018, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company and against additional
cellular operators.

The claim alleges that the Company breached legal provisions by not
providing customers with requested copies of call recordings with
customer service representatives and allowing them only to listen
to the recordings at the Company's service centers.

The plaintiff noted that it cannot estimate the total amount
claimed in the lawsuit, should the lawsuit be certified as a class
action.

The parties filed an agreed upon remunerated withdrawal request
that was approved by the Court in January 2020.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. ("Partner") is a leading
Israeli provider of telecommunications services (cellular,
fixed-line telephony, internet and television services). Partner's
ADSs are quoted on the NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its
shares are traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.


PARTNER COMMS: Suit Over Internet Malfunction Repairs Resolved
--------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 26,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the parties
in the putative class action suit related to technician visits for
internet malfunction repairs have filed an agreed upon remunerated
withdrawal request that was approved by the Court in December
2019.

On September 19, 2017, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as
a class action were filed against the Company.

The claim alleges that Partner breaches its license with respect to
coordination of technician visits for internet malfunction repairs.


The plaintiff noted that it cannot estimate the total amount
claimed in the lawsuit, should the lawsuit be certified as a class
action.

In November 2019, the parties filed an agreed upon remunerated
withdrawal request that was approved by the Court in December
2019.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. ("Partner") is a leading
Israeli provider of telecommunications services (cellular,
fixed-line telephony, internet and television services). Partner's
ADSs are quoted on the NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its
shares are traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.


PATENAUDE & FELIX: Faces Reeves Suit Alleging Violation of FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Reeves, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
PATENAUDE & FELIX, A.P.C., Case No. 2:20-cv-11034-JEL-DRG (E.D.
Mich., April 27, 2020), is brought against Defendant under the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

On September 23, 2019, the Defendant sent a written communication
to the Plaintiff in connection with the collection of a debt. The
manner in which the Defendant conveyed the validation notice
required by the FDCPA was ineffective, as it was inconsistent with,
and overshadowed and contradicted, the statutory notice, the
Plaintiff contends.

While the Defendant included the validation notice required by the
FDCPA with the appropriate thirty-day time period for disputing the
debt or requesting creditor information, in that same
communication, the Defendant advised the Plaintiff that payment was
due by October 16, 2019--a time period less than 30 days from her
receipt of the September 23, 2019 letter, the Plaintiff asserts. As
a result, the unsophisticated consumer, upon receiving the
Defendant's September 23, 2019 letter, would be confused as to
whether she (a) had the full thirty-day period from her receipt of
the letter to invoke her validation rights, (b) needed to pay
$4,074 by October 16, 2019--just 23 days from the date of the
letter, or (c) needed to pay $724 by October 16, 2019--again just
23 days from the date of the letter--while paying the remaining
balance at some later date, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person, who resided in Novi, Michigan.

The Defendant is a professional law corporation with its principal
office located in San Diego County, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
          Boca Raton, FL 33487
          Phone: (561) 826-5477
          Email: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Ronald S. Weiss, Esq.
          7035 Orchard Lake Road, Suite 600
          West Bloomfield, MI 48322
          Phone: 248-737-8000
          Fax: 248-737-8003
          Email: Ron@RonWeissAttorney.com


REGIONAL FINANCE: Class Certification Proceedings Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Kathy Olesinski, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. REGIONAL FINANCE
CORPORATION OF WISCONSIN, d/b/a Regional Finance, Case No.
2:20-cv-00604-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin
granted Plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings on the
motion for class certification.

On April 14, 2020, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint. At
the same time, the plaintiff filed what the court commonly refers
to as a "protective" motion for class certification.

The plaintiff has moved to certify the class described in the
complaint but also moved the court to stay further proceedings on
that motion.

In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class‐action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint." "The
pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to
buy off the named plaintiffs."

However, because parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a
motion for class certification at the beginning of a case, the
Damasco court suggested that the parties "ask the district court to
delay its ruling to provide time for additional discovery or
investigation."

Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the
Clerk terminate the plaintiff's motion for class certification.
However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its
protective purpose under Damasco.

Regional Finance is a financial services company.[CC]

REYNOLDS ENERGY: Avila Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Avila, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Reynolds Energy Transport LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 20-cv-00463 (W.D. Tex., April 14, 2020), seeks to recover
overtime compensation for all unpaid hours worked in excess of
forty hours in any workweek at the rate of one-and-one-half times
their regular rates, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys'
fees, expert fees, costs and expenses of this action, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest and such other relief pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Reynolds Energy Transport serves the oil and gas industry moving
liquids in trucks from gas wells and drilling sites where Avila
worked as a truck mechanic at their Runge TX location. Avila would
work more than 40 hours per work week, without being paid overtime
compensation, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
      1340 N. White Chapel, Suite 100
      Southlake, TX 76092-4322
      Tel: (817) 416-5060
      Fax: (817) 416-5062
      Email: chris@crmlawpractice.com


RITE AID CORP: Website not Blind-Friendly, Alcazar Says
-------------------------------------------------------
Juan Alcazar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Rite Aid Corporation and Does 1 to 10,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-02588 (N.D. Cal., April 14,
2020), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory,
statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together
with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and
further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act and
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Defendant's website, https://www.riteaid.com/, provides a large
selection of drugstore products and additional services to augment
its stores. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that said site
cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bobby Saadian, Esq.
     Thiago Coelho, Esq.
     WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
     3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Tel: (213) 381-9988
     Fax: (213) 381-9989
     Email info@wilshirelawfirm.com


SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Charman Hits Auto-dialed Marketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thane Charman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Selectquote Insurance Services, Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-00710 (S.D. Cal., April 14, 2020), seeks injunctive
relief, statutory damages and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Selectquote Insurance Services is a term-life insurance sales
agency that operates in all 50 states. It attempted to contact
Charman his cellular telephone via an automated telephone dialing
system attempting to solicit its services. Charman did not give his
express consent to be contact in this manner, says the complaint.
[BN]

Charman is represented by:

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

             - and -

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


SELIG PARKING: Campos Seeks Overtime Pay, Missing Paystubs
----------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Campos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Selig Parking, Inc. and Does 1 through 20,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV14732 (Cal. Super., April 16,
2020), seeks unpaid wages and interest thereon for failure to pay
for all hours worked and minimum wage rate, failure to authorize or
permit required meal periods, failure to authorize or permit
required rest periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide
accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the form of
continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages
due upon separation of employment, breach of employment contract,
unfair competition, injunctive relief and other equitable relief,
reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest pursuant to
California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Orders.

Selig Parking does business in California as AAA Parking where
Campos worked as a Valet Operations Manager until May 6, 2019.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Vahe Hovanessian, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF VAHE HOVANESSIAN
      100 N. Brand Boulevard, Suite 536
      Glendale, CA 91203-2642
      Tel: (818) 240-1333
      Fax: (818) 240-1369
      E-mail: vahe@vhlaw.com


SET ENTERPRISES: Faces Levy FLSA Suit Over Illegal Kickbacks
------------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL LEVY and JESSICA THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE SET ENTERPRISES, INC. dba CHEETAH
HALLANDALE, a Florida Corporation; 100 ANSIN BLVD PROPERTY, LLC, a
Florida Limited Liability Company; JULIE RODRIGUEZ, an individual;
JOSE RODRIGUEZ, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 0:20-cv-60846-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 24, 2020), arises
from the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, taking of illegal kickbacks, and unlawful taking of
tips in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs worked at the Defendants' principal place of
business located at 100 Ansin Boulevard, in Hallandale Beach,
Florida.

SET Enterprises provides metal processing services to automotive
original equipment manufacturers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


SHERIDAN PRODUCTION: Bank Debt Trades at 73% Discount
-----------------------------------------------------
Participations in a syndicated loan under which Sheridan Production
Partners II-M LP is a borrower were trading in the secondary market
around 27 cents-on-the-dollar during the week ended Fri., May 1,
2020, according to Bloomberg's Evaluated Pricing service data.

The $34.8 million facility is a term loan.  About $23.7 million of
the loan remains outstanding.  The loan is scheduled to mature on
December 16, 2020.

The Company's country of domicile is United States.


STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY: Jama Suit Transferred to W.D. Wa.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Faysal A Jama, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. State Farm Fire & Casualty
Company, Defendant, was transferred from King County Superior Court
with the assigned Case No. 20-00002-06101-8 SEA to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington
(Seattle) on April 29, 2020, and assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-00652.

The case type of the suit is stated as Insurance.

The Company offers automobile, property, casualty, health,
disability, and life insurance services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel R Whitmore, Esq.
   2626 15TH AVENUE W., STE 200
   SEATTLE, WA 98119
   Tel: (206) 329-8400
   Email: dan@whitmorelawfirm.com

     - and -

   Duncan Calvert Turner, Esq.
   BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC
   19929 BALLINGER WAY NE, STE 200
   SEATTLE, WA 98155
   Tel: (206) 621-6566
   Email: dturner@badgleymullins.com

     - and -

   Mark A Trivett, Esq.
   BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC
   19929 BALLINGER WAY NE, STE 200
   SEATTLE, WA 98155
   Tel: (206) 621-6566
   Fax: (206) 621-9686
   Email: mtrivett@badgleymullins.com

The Defendant is represented by:

   Herbert Matthew Munson, Esq.
   BETTS PATTERSON & MINES (SEA)
   701 PIKE ST, STE 1400
   SEATTLE, WA 98101-3927
   Tel: (206) 292-9988
   Fax: (206) 343-7053
   Email: mmunson@bpmlaw.com

     - and -

   Joseph D Hampton, Esq.
   BETTS PATTERSON & MINES (SEA)
   701 PIKE ST, STE 1400
   SEATTLE, WA 98101-3927
   Tel: (206) 292-9988
   Fax: (206) 343-7053
   Email: jhampton@bpmlaw.com



SUBARU OF AMERICA: Dalen Sues Over Faulty Electrical System
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dustin Dalen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Subaru of America, Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 20-cv-04393 (D. N.J., April 16, 2020), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by negligence, unjust enrichment, breach
of implied and express warranty and violation of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act and Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act.

Dalen purchased a 2017 Subaru Outback back in March 2017 from Salem
Capital Subaru, an authorized Subaru dealership located in Salem,
Oregon. He claims that said vehicle has defective electrical
systems that cause unexpected battery failure resulting in unwanted
jump-starts and repeated battery replacements.

New Jersey-based Subaru of America is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, warranting, marketing, advertising and
selling vehicles under the "Subaru" brand name through a network of
more than 600 dealerships in the United States. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq.
      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      Bradley K. King, Esq.
      AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
      10728 Lindbrook Drive
      Los Angeles, CA 90024
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111
      Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
      Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
             rglezakos@ahdootwolfson.com


TOTAL CARD: Arbee Contests Collection Letter Legality
-----------------------------------------------------
Clifford Arbee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Total Card, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00305 (W.D. Mo., April 17, 2020), seeks damages and
declaratory relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

Total Card, Inc. operates a nationwide debt collection business and
attempts to collect debts from consumers in virtually every state.
It attempted to collect a consumer debt from Arbee owed to MSW
Capital, LLC via collection letter. Said debt was time-barred by
Missouri's 5-year statute of limitations and failed to warn that a
partial payment could restart the statute of limitations, and any
information about the debt being time-barred was overshadowed and
rendered ineffective by the threat to keep credit reporting,
asserts the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Ryan M. Callahan, Esq.
      James R. Crump, Esq.
      CALLAHAN LAW FIRM, LLC
      222 West Gregory, Suite 210
      Kansas City, MO 64114
      Tel: (816) 822-4041
      Fax: (913) 273-1799
      Email: ryan@callahanlawkc.com
             james@callahanlawkc.com


UNITED GROUND: Bailey Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEE BAILEY, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNITED GROUND
EXPRESS, INC., and DOES 1 THROUGH AND INCLUDING 10, Case No.
20STCV11158 (Filed March 20, 2020), was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April
24, 2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-03754 to the proceeding.

In the employment complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay
overtime and minimum wages and failing to provide meal breaks. The
Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendants.

United Ground, a subsidiary of United Airlines, Inc., is an airport
ground handling company that supports flights at a growing number
of airports across the United States.[BN]

United Ground Express is represented by:

          Carlos Jimenez, Esq.
          Kimberli A. Williams, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213 443 4300
          Facsimile: 213 443 4299
          E-mail: cajimenez@littler.com
                  kawilliams@littler.com


UNITED STATES: Federal Employees Slams Missed Benefits Payments
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3 and Jane Doe 1, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The
United States of America, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01947, (E.D.
Pa., April 17, 2020), seeks to recover lost earnings, including
lost earnings for future gains not realized, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs associated with
investigating and prosecuting this action, equitable or remedial
relief caused by violations of the Federal Employees' Retirement
Systems Act of 1986.

Plaintiffs are federal employees working for the FBI during the
2018 federal shutdown from December 22, 2018 to January 25, 2019.
They claim that they did not receive timely Thrift Savings Plan (a
defined contribution plan for federal employees) contributions
during the said period. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas J. Bench, Jr., Esq.
      1401 E. Bristol Street
      Office #2, V76
      Philadelphia, PA 19124
      Tel: (814) 241-7208
      Email: DouglasBench@live.com

             - and -

      Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
      FEGAN SCOTT LLC
      150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 741-1019
      Facsimile: (312) 264-0100
      Email: beth@feganscott.com

             - and -

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


UNITED STATES: John Doe Suit Challenges Enforcement of CARES Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the
United States; MITCH MCCONNELL, in his official capacity as a
Senator and Sponsor of S. 3548 CARES Act (the "CARES Act"); and
STEVEN MNUCHIN, in his official capacity as the Acting Secretary of
the U.S. Department of Treasury, Case No. 1:20-cv-02531 (N.D. Ill.,
April 24, 2020), arises from the Defendants' unconstitutional
deprivation of the rights, privileges, benefits and protections
provided to United States Citizens via the enactment and subsequent
enforcement of the S. 3548-CARES Act.

The CARES Act is to provide emergency assistance and health care
response for individuals, families, and businesses affected by the
2020 coronavirus pandemic.

The Plaintiff avers that any family that files a joint tax return
where one of the spouses has a Social Security number and one has
an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, which the Internal
Revenue Service issues to workers who lack Social Security numbers,
cannot receive a Stimulus Check--unless one spouse is a member of
the U.S. Armed Forces.

The Plaintiff is married to an immigrant, who pays taxes and files
tax returns with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number. The
couple files joint tax returns and neither are in the military. Had
he not been married to an immigrant, he and his children would have
otherwise qualified for a Stimulus Check, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a U.S. citizen, who resided in the Northern
District of Illinois.

U.S. Pres. Donald J. Trump is the President of the United States,
who signed into law the S. 3548-Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act (CARES Act) on March 27, 2020. Sen. Mitch
McConnel is the Sponsor of the S. 3548-CARES Act, introduced in the
Senate on March 19, 2020 and signed into law on March 27, 2020.
Secretary Steven MMnuchin is the Acting Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Treasury.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lana B. Nassar, Esq.
          Heather L. Blaise, Esq.
          Thomas J. Nitschke, Esq.
          BLAISE & NITSCHKE, P.C.
          123 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 250
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 448-6602
          Facsimile: (312) 803-1940
          E-mail: lnassar@blaisenitschkelaw.com

               - and -

          Vivian Khalaf, Esq.
          Omar Abuzir, Esq.
          KHALAF & ABUZIR, LLC
          20 N. Clark, Suite 720
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (708)-233-1122
          Facsimile: (708)-233-1161
          E-mail: vkhalaf@immigrationjd.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth Rose Gavin, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
          650 Page Mill Rd.
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1001
          Telephone: (650) 493-9300


UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO: Carpey Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
-------------------------------------------------------
Emily Carpey and Stuart Carpey, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. University of Colorado,
Boulder, through its Board, The Board of Regents of the University
of Colorado, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01064 (D. Colo., April 15,
2020), seeks a refund of certain tuition fees and other costs paid
to the University of Colorado for the 2020 Spring Semester.

Emily Carpey is enrolled as a full time student for the spring 2020
academic semester at the University of Colorado. Stuart Carpey is
Emily Carpey's father.

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the University of Colorado
has suspended all in person on-campus activities. Carpey has paid
her tuition in full. The University of Colorado has decided to move
all classes on an online format. Carpey claims to be denied all
aspects of campus life associated with physical contact because of
this scheme and deprived of utilizing services for which they have
already paid, such as access to campus facilities, and other
opportunities. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
      Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq.
      ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC
      32 Ann Street
      Charleston, SC 29403
      Tel: (843) 614-8888


UNIVERSITY OF NC: McAllister Seeks Refunds of Tuition and Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gina McAllister, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SYSTEM, through its
governing body, the BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH
CAROLINA, and UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA WILMINGTON, a
constituent institution, Case No. 7:20-cv-00078-FL (S.D.N.C., April
27, 2020), is brought to seek refunds of the amount the Plaintiff
is owed on a pro-rata basis as a result of the Defendant's decision
to close campus, constructively evict students, and transition all
classes to an online/remote format as a result of the Novel
Coronavirus Disease.

While closing campus and transitioning to online classes was the
right thing for the Defendants to do, this decision deprived the
Plaintiff and the other members of the Class from recognizing the
benefits of in-person instruction, housing, meals, access to campus
facilities, student activities, and other benefits and services in
exchange for which they had already paid fees and tuition,
according to the complaint.

The Defendants have either refused to provide reimbursement for the
tuition, housing, meals, fees and other costs that the Defendants
are no longer providing, or have provided inadequate and/or
arbitrary reimbursement that does not fully compensate the
Plaintiff and members of the Class for their loss, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff has paid substantial tuition for the Spring 2020
semester either out of pocket or by utilizing student loan
financing or otherwise.

The University of North Carolina System is the multi-campus public
university system for the state of North Carolina, consisting of 17
constituent institutions throughout the state.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
          Roy T. Willey IV, Esq.
          ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC
          32 Ann Street
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Phone: (843) 614-8888
          Email: eric@akimlawfirm.com
                 roy@akimlawfirm.com


US SPECIALTY: Breaches Recovery Insurance Policy, Egg and I Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
EGG AND I, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; EGG WORKS, LLC,
a Nevada limited-liability company; EGG WORKS 2, LLC, a Nevada
limited-liability company; EGG WORKS 3, LLC, a Nevada
limited-liability company; EGG WORKS 4, LLC, a Nevada
limited-liability company; EGG WORKS 5, LLC, a Nevada
limited-liability company; EGG WORKS 6, LLC, a Nevada
limited-liability company; and EW COMMISSARY, LLC, a Nevada
limited-liability company v. U.S. SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a
Texas corporation; PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY AGENCY, INC. dba TOKIO
MARINE, HCC- SPECIALTY GROUP a New Jersey corporation, Case No.
2:20-cv-00747 (D. Nev., April 24, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants have breached the terms of the Restaurant Recovery
Insurance Policy they issued to the Plaintiffs and have failed to
pay for losses and expenses under the Policy.

Egg Works purchased a Restaurant Recovery Insurance Policy from
U.S. Specialty and Tokio Marine, providing for a policy period of
September 1, 2019, through to September 1, 2020. The Policy
protects the Plaintiffs against a loss of business income due to a
suspension of each restaurants' operations, identified in the
Policy and generally known as business interruption coverage. The
Policy also provides "Extra Expense" coverage, under which the
Defendants promise to pay expenses incurred to minimize the
suspension of business.

On April 1, 2020, Governor Steve Sisolak issued a Declaration of
Emergency Directive 010, Stay at Home Order, extending Declaration
of Emergency Directive 003 to April 30, 2020. In accordance with
the Directives, Egg Works was forced to suspend business operations
at the restaurants. This suspension, which is ongoing, has caused
them to suffer significant losses and incur significant expenses,
the Plaintiffs assert.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for breach of contract, breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, declaratory and
injunctive relief against the Defendants.

Egg Works is a local family owned and operated group of restaurants
known mostly for their family-oriented breakfasts, lunches and
dining environment throughout Las Vegas and in Henderson, Nevada,
employing over 400 Clark County residents.

U.S. Specialty is a Texas-domiciled property and casualty insurance
company operating on an admitted basis throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregg A. Hubley, Esq.
          Christopher A.J. Swift, Esq.
          ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS, LLP
          7201 W. Lake Mead Blvd., Suite 570
          Las Vegas, NE 89128
          Telephone: (702) 789-7529
          Facsimile: (702) 909 7865
          E-mail: gregg@aswtlawyers.com
                  christopher@aswtlawyers.com

               - and -

          Mike Arias, Esq.
          Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
          ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS, LLP
          6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (310) 844-9696
          E-mail: mike@aswtlawyers.com
                  alfredo@aswtlawyers.com

               - and -

          Alan Brayton, Esq.
          Gilbert Purcell, Esq.
          James Nevin, Esq.
          Andrew Chew, Esq.
          BRAYTON PURCELL, LLP
          222 Rush Landing Road
          Novato, CA 94945
          Telephone: (800) 598-0314
          E-mail: abrayton@braytonlaw.com
                  gpurcell@braytonlaw.com
                  jnevin@braytonlaw.com
                  achew@braytonlaw.com


VAIL CORPORATION: McAuliffe Sues Over Refusal to Issue Refunds
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael McAuliffe, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. THE VAIL CORPORATION d/b/a Vail Resorts
Management Company, Case No. 1:20-cv-01176-RM (D. Colo., April 27,
2020), is brought to secure partial refunds for each and every
similarly situated consumer that the Defendant has wronged by
refusing to issue refunds for season passes and Epic Daily Passes
with unused days, when the Defendant closed its resorts starting
between March 15 and March 20, 2020.

According to the complaint, activities, such as skiing and
snowboarding--and especially using lifts to access the ski and
snowboard routes--are difficult, if not impossible, to safely
participate in while social distancing to help avoid contracting
the coronavirus. As such, beginning on March 15, 2020, the
Defendant suspended operations at all of its resorts in North
America, and, within the following five days, closed all of its
resorts.

After the Defendant closed its ski resorts early due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, class members were unable to use the remaining
value in their passes, and Defendant has refused to refund the
Plaintiffs and Class members for the unusable portion of the
passes, according to the complaint. The Defendant has shifted the
financial burden of this extraordinary crisis onto its customers,
who paid hundreds or thousands of dollars for lift tickets and
passes to ski or snowboard at the Defendant's properties.

Specifically, the Defendant has refused to refund to its customers
any portion of the money paid for tickets and passes they cannot
use; money that they need to provide for themselves and their
families during this crisis, says the complaint. The Plaintiff
contends that the Defendant's conduct breaches its contract with
passholders, is unfair, unlawful, and unconscionable, and unjustly
enriches it at the expense of its customers.

The Plaintiff purchased an Epic Pass from the Defendant, which gave
him unlimited access to the Defendant's ski areas for the entire
2019-20 ski season.

The Defendant operates 37 "mountain ski resorts and urban ski
areas" across the world, the majority of which are located in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katherine Varholak, Esq.
          Melissa Reagan, Esq.
          SHERMAN & HOWARD, LLC
          633 17th Street, Suite 3000
          Denver, CO 80202
          Phone: (303) 297-2900
          Email: kvarholak@shermanhoward.com
                 mreagan@shermanhoward.com

               - and -

          Nyran Rose Rasche, Esq.
          Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
          Kaitlin Naughton, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          150 S. Wacker, Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 782-4880
          Email: nrasche@caffertyclobes.com
                 nhagman@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          205 N. Monroe St.
          Media, PA 19063
          Phone: 215-864-2800
          Email: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
          1109 Lancaster Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Phone: (610) 200-0581
          Email: jgs@sstriallawyers.com


VIRGINIA: DEQ Female Staff Sues Over Wage Gap
---------------------------------------------
Elizabeth C. Abe, Leann K. Moran, Sheryl A. Kattan and Elizabeth
Polak, each individually and on behalf of persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00270 (E.D. Va., April 15,
2020), seeks redress for alleged violations of the Equal Pay Act of
1963 for gender pay discrimination and pursuant to Sections 16(b)
of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Plaintiffs are female employees of the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality who claims they are paid less than their male
counterparts for performing equal work. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sydney E. Rab, Esq.
      THE RAB LAW FIRM
      5407 Langdon Drive
      Richmond, VA 23225
      Tel: (804) 822-8981
      Email: Msydrab@comcast.net

             - and -

      Tim Schulte, Esq.
      Blackwell N. Shelley, Jr., Esq.
      SHELLEY CUPP SCHULTE, P.C.
      2020 Monument Avenue, First Floor
      Richmond VA 23220
      Tel: (804) 644-9700
      Fax: (804) 278-9634
      Email: schulte@scs-work.com
             shelley@scs-work.com

             - and -

      Timothy E. Cupp, Esq.
      SHELLEY CUPP SCHULTE, P.C.
      1951 Evelyn Byrd Avenue, Suite D
      Harrisonburg, VA 22803
      Tel: (540) 432-9988
      Fax: (804) 278-9634
      Email: Cupp@scs-work.com


WISE TRAVEL INC: Adler Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
------------------------------------------------------
Zvi Adler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Wise Travel, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-21590 (S.D. Fla., April 15, 2020), seeks statutory damages,
punitive damages, costs and attorney fees for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Wise Travel operates a travel agency. To promote its services, it
engages in unsolicited SMS ads sent en masse via an auto dialer.
Adler did not give express consent to receive such texts. Adler
opted out the service but received them despite of this, says the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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


ZOOM VIDEO: Greenbaum Sues Over Security Flaws of Cloud Platform
----------------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL GREENBAUM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, Inc., Case No.
5:20-cv-02861-NC (April 24, 2020), alleges that the Zoom has been
slow to address significant security flaws and vulnerabilities in
its cloud platform.

The Plaintiff contends that software design choices and security
flaws have made Zoom users vulnerable to harassment and privacy
invasions. She adds that Zoom has falsely and misleadingly
represented the security and privacy capabilities of its platform.

This class action is brought on behalf of Zoom users to prevent
Zoom from continuing these deceptive, invasive, and unlawful
business practices and further seeks an award of damages (actual,
statutory, and/or punitive), reasonable attorneys' fees and other
litigation costs reasonably incurred, and such other preliminary
and equitable relief appropriate under the circumstances to remedy
alleged Zoom's wrongdoing.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of California. Prior to
installing the application, Ms. Greenbaum was not aware that Zoom
would share her personal information with third parties. If she had
known about Zoom's failure to implement adequate and proper
security measures or Zoom's practice of sharing her personal
information with third parties, she asserts that she would not have
installed the application.

Zoom provides video communications services using a cloud platform
for video and audio conferencing, collaboration, chat, and
webinars. These services are accessible through a desktop
application available for Windows and macOS and a mobile
application available for Android and iOS. Each Zoom application
permits a user to join a meeting with or without signing in with a
Zoom account.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


[^] WEBINAR: Best Practices in Qualifying the Class
---------------------------------------------------
Beard Group, Inc. is hosting a webinar for plaintiff practitioners
on client intake for mass torts and class actions on Thurs., May
28
at 2 p.m. Eastern Time.

Register FREE at bit.ly/2KqkcIV

Lead generation is just half the battle. You still have to win
over
the client. Register now and learn the following:

     -- Primary elements in responding to a lead
     -- How to customize scripts for case, demographics
     -- Developing effective screening criteria
     -- Tactics in converting leads to plaintiffs on first
        contact
     -- Minimize lead loss
     -- Publicity vs. conversion budgets

Benefits:

     -- Optimize your marketing budget's ROI
     -- Maximize the size of your class
     -- Reduce acquisition cost per client

Tom Ball, Senior Vice President at Alert Communications, will
present what his company has learned after completing millions of
new client intakes for law firms and legal marketing agencies.

Thurs., May 28
2 p.m. Eastern
Register FREE at bit.ly/2KqkcIV

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Accrues $589MM for Respirator Suits at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company had an accrual of US$589 million as of March 31, 2020,
for respirator mask and asbestos liabilities (excluding those
related to Aearo Technologies), according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.

3M states, "The Company regularly conducts a comprehensive legal
review of its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities.  The Company
reviews recent and historical claims data, including without
limitation, (i) the number of pending claims filed against the
Company, (ii) the nature and mix of those claims (i.e., the
proportion of claims asserting usage of the Company's mask or
respirator products and alleging exposure to each of asbestos,
silica, coal or other occupational dusts, and claims pleading use
of asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured by the
Company), (iii) the costs to defend and resolve pending claims, and
(iv) trends in filing rates and in costs to defend and resolve
claims, (collectively, the "Claims Data").  As part of its
comprehensive legal review, the Company regularly provides the
Claims Data to a third party with expertise in determining the
impact of Claims Data on future filing trends and costs.  The third
party assists the Company in estimating the costs to defend and
resolve pending and future claims.  The Company uses these
estimates to develop its best estimate of probable liability.

"Developments may occur that could affect the Company's estimate of
its liabilities.  These developments include, but are not limited
to, significant changes in (i) the key assumptions underlying the
Company's accrual, including, the number of future claims, the
nature and mix of those claims, the average cost of defending and
resolving claims, and in maintaining trial readiness (ii) trial and
appellate outcomes, (iii) the law and procedure applicable to these
claims, and (iv) the financial viability of other co-defendants and
insurers.

"As a result of its review of its respirator mask/asbestos
liabilities, of pending and expected lawsuits and of the cost of
resolving claims of persons who claim more serious injuries,
including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease,
the Company increased its accruals in the first three months of
2020 for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities by US$8 million.  In
the first three months of 2020, the Company made payments for legal
defense costs and settlements of US$27 million related to the
respirator mask/asbestos litigation.  During the first quarter of
2019, the Company recorded a pre-tax charge of US$313 million in
conjunction with an increase in the accrual as a result of the
March and April 2019 settlements-in-principle of the coal mine dust
lawsuits and the Company's assessment of other current and expected
coal mine dust lawsuits (including the costs to resolve all current
and expected coal mine dust lawsuits in Kentucky and West
Virginia).

As of March 31, 2020, the Company had an accrual for respirator
mask/asbestos liabilities (excluding Aearo accruals) of US$589
million.  This accrual represents the Company's best estimate of
probable loss and reflects an estimation period for future claims
that may be filed against the Company approaching the year 2050.
The Company cannot estimate the amount or upper end of the range of
amounts by which the liability may exceed the accrual the Company
has established because of the (i) inherent difficulty in
projecting the number of claims that have not yet been asserted or
the time period in which future claims may be asserted, (ii) the
complaints nearly always assert claims against multiple defendants
where the damages alleged are typically not attributed to
individual defendants so that a defendant's share of liability may
turn on the law of joint and several liability, which can vary by
state, (iii) the multiple factors that the Company considers in
estimating its liabilities, and (iv) the several possible
developments that may occur that could affect the Company's
estimate of liabilities.

"As of March 31, 2020, the Company's receivable for insurance
recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation was
US$4 million.  The Company continues to seek coverage under the
policies of certain insolvent and other insurers.  Once those
claims for coverage are resolved, the Company will have collected
substantially all of its remaining insurance coverage for
respirator mask/asbestos claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/cqz4ZT


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Accrues $58MM Aearo-Related Claims at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, through its Aearo Technologies subsidiary, had accruals
of US$58 million as of March 31, 2020, for product liabilities and
defense costs related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos
and silica-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.

The Company states, "On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company
acquired the stock of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo
Technologies ("Aearo").  Aearo manufactured and sold various
products, including personal protection equipment, such as eye,
ear, head, face, fall and certain respiratory protection products.

"As of March 31, 2020, Aearo and/or other companies that previously
owned and operated Aearo's respirator business (American Optical
Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and Cabot Corporation
("Cabot")) are named defendants, with multiple co-defendants,
including the Company, in numerous lawsuits in various courts in
which plaintiffs allege use of mask and respirator products and
seek damages from Aearo and other defendants for alleged personal
injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica-related, coal
mine dust, or other occupational dusts found in products
manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace.

"As of March 31, 2020, the Company, through its Aearo subsidiary,
had accruals of US$58 million for product liabilities and defense
costs related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos and
silica-related claims.  This accrual represents the Company's best
estimate of Aearo's probable loss and reflects an estimation period
for future claims that may be filed against Aearo approaching the
year 2050.  The accrual was increased by US$9 million during the
three months ended March 31, 2020, reflecting the Company's
assessment of pending and expected lawsuits, its review of its
respirator mask/asbestos liabilities, and the cost of resolving
claims of persons who claim more serious injuries.  Responsibility
for legal costs, as well as for settlements and judgments, is
currently shared in an informal arrangement among Aearo, Cabot,
American Optical Corporation and a subsidiary of Warner Lambert and
their respective insurers (the "Payor Group").  Liability is
allocated among the parties based on the number of years each
company sold respiratory products under the "AO Safety" brand
and/or owned the AO Safety Division of American Optical Corporation
and the alleged years of exposure of the individual plaintiff.
Aearo's share of the contingent liability is further limited by an
agreement entered into between Aearo and Cabot on July 11, 1995.
This agreement provides that, so long as Aearo pays to Cabot a
quarterly fee of US$100,000, Cabot will retain responsibility and
liability for, and indemnify Aearo against, any product liability
claims involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products
for respirators sold prior to July 11, 1995.  Because of the
difficulty in determining how long a particular respirator remains
in the stream of commerce after being sold, Aearo and Cabot have
applied the agreement to claims arising out of the alleged use of
respirators involving exposure to asbestos, silica or silica
products prior to January 1, 1997.  With these arrangements in
place, Aearo's potential liability is limited to exposures alleged
to have arisen from the use of respirators involving exposure to
asbestos, silica, or silica products on or after January 1, 1997.
To date, Aearo has elected to pay the quarterly fee.  Aearo could
potentially be exposed to additional claims for some part of the
pre-July 11, 1995 period covered by its agreement with Cabot if
Aearo elects to discontinue its participation in this arrangement,
or if Cabot is no longer able to meet its obligations in these
matters."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/cqz4ZT


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Still Faces 1,733 Claimants at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company remains a named defendant in numerous respirator mask
and asbestos lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent
approximately 1,733 individual claimants, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.

The Company states, "The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims
resolved by and currently pending against the Company allege use of
some of the Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages
from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury
from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or
other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace.  A minority of the
lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the
Company generally allege personal injury from occupational exposure
to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the Company,
which are often unspecified, as well as products manufactured by
other defendants, or occasionally at Company premises.

"The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is
substantially lower than it experienced at the peak of filings in
2003.  The Company expects that filing of claims by unimpaired
claimants in the future will continue to be at much lower levels
than in the past.  Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more
serious injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and
black lung disease, will represent a greater percentage of total
claims than in the past.  Over the past twenty plus years, the
Company has prevailed in fourteen of the fifteen cases tried to a
jury (including the lawsuits in 2018).  In 2018, 3M received a jury
verdict in its favor in two lawsuits – one in California state
court in February and the other in Massachusetts state court in
December – both involving allegations that 3M respirators were
defective and failed to protect the plaintiffs against asbestos
fibers.

"In April 2018, a jury in state court in Kentucky found 3M's 8710
respirators failed to protect two coal miners from coal mine dust
and awarded compensatory damages and punitive damages.

"In August 2018, the trial court entered judgment and the Company
appealed.  During March and April 2019, the Company agreed in
principle to settle a substantial majority of the coal mine dust
lawsuits in Kentucky and West Virginia for US$340 million,
including the jury verdict in April 2018 in the Kentucky case.
That settlement was completed in 2019, and the appeal has been
dismissed.

"The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that
its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when
used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances.
Consequently, the Company believes that claimants are unable to
establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are
attributable to the Company's respiratory protection products.
Nonetheless, the Company's litigation experience indicates that
claims of persons alleging more serious injuries, including
mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease, are
costlier to resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it
therefore believes the average cost of resolving pending and future
claims on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it
experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were
asserted by medically unimpaired claimants."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/cqz4ZT


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Defends 64 Cases at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. is still facing 64 asbestos cases
pending as of March 31, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.

Aerojet Rocketdyne states, "The Company has been, and continues to
be, named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury or
death and seeking various monetary damages due to exposure to
asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing
operations.  The majority of cases are pending in Illinois state
courts.  There were 64 asbestos cases pending as of March 31,
2020.

"Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as
to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed
against the Company, the Company is generally unable to make a
reasonable estimate of the future costs of pending claims or
unasserted claims.  The aggregate settlement costs and legal and
administrative fees associated with the Company's asbestos
litigation has been immaterial for the last three years.  As of
March 31, 2020, the Company has accrued an immaterial amount
related to pending claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/kgHrM8


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has 29,162 Pending Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. has 29,162 pending asbestos-related claims as of March
31, 2020, according to the Company's Form 8-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2020.

The Company states, "Of the 29,162 pending claims as of March 31,
2020, approximately 18,000 claims were pending in New York,
approximately 100 claims were pending in Texas, approximately 300
claims were pending in Mississippi, and approximately 200 claims
were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions in which legislation or
judicial orders restrict the types of claims that can proceed to
trial on the merits.

"We have tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts by the
jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court.  We further
have pursued appeals of certain adverse jury verdicts that have
resulted in reversals in favor of the defense.  We have also tried
several other cases resulting in plaintiff verdicts which we paid
or settled after unsuccessful appeals."

A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://is.gd/GmAsfC


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Emerson Electric Had $305MM Liability at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Emerson Electric Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that it has liabilities of US$305 million for
asbestos litigation, included in Other Liabilities, at March 31,
2020, compared to US$313 million at September 30, 2019.

The Company also recorded US$105 million for asbestos-related
insurance receivables, included in Other Assets, at March 31, 2020,
compared to US$115 million at September 30, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/2mqSWC


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Had 3,124 Claims at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020, that the Company was a co-defendant as
of March 31, 2020, in cases alleging asbestos-induced illness
involving claims by approximately 3,124 plaintiffs, which is a net
decrease of 109 claims from those previously reported.

The Company states, "In each instance, the Company is one of a
large number of defendants.  The asbestos claimants seek
compensatory and punitive damages, in most cases for unspecified
sums.  Since January 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant
in other similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 55,122
of those claims were dismissed, 23 were tried to defense verdicts,
7 were tried to plaintiff verdicts (which were reversed or resolved
after appeal), 1 was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount
and 1,005 were decided in favor of the Company following summary
judgment motions."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/itgaDC


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Had 530 Open Claims at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that it is aware of approximately 530 open and
active asbestos-related claims pending against the Company and
certain of its subsidiaries as of March 31, 2020.

The Company states, "These claims consist of non-PC Relationship
Claims against PPG and claims against a PPG subsidiary the Company
acquired on April 1, 2013.  The Company is defending these open and
active claims vigorously.

"PPG has established reserves totaling approximately US$190 million
for asbestos-related claims that would not be channeled to the
Trust which, based on presently available information, we believe
will be sufficient to encompass all of PPG's current and estimable
potential future asbestos liabilities.  These reserves, which are
included within Other liabilities on the accompanying condensed
consolidated balance sheets, represent PPG's best estimate of its
liability for these claims.

"These reserves include a US$162 million reserve established in
2009 in connection with an amendment to the PC plan of
reorganization for non-PC Relationship Claims other than claims
arising from premises-related exposures.  PPG does not have
sufficient current claim information or settlement history on which
to base a better estimate of this liability in light of the fact
that the Bankruptcy Court's injunction staying most asbestos claims
against the Company was in effect from April 2000 through May
2016.

"These reserves also include PPG's best estimate, following an
analysis performed in 2019 of its claims history and discussions
with consultants and its counsel, of the value of the Company's
potential liability for premises-related non-PC Relationship Claims
against it and claims against PPG's subsidiary acquired on April 1,
2013 that are presently pending, and that are projected to be
asserted through December 31, 2028.

"PPG monitors the activity associated with its asbestos claims and
evaluates, on a periodic basis, its estimated liability for such
claims, its insurance assets then available, and all underlying
assumptions to determine whether any adjustment to the reserves for
these claims is required.

"The amount reserved for asbestos-related claims by its nature is
subject to many uncertainties that may change over time, including
(i) the ultimate number of claims filed; (ii) the amounts required
to resolve both currently known and future unknown claims; (iii)
the amount of insurance, if any, available to cover such claims;
(iv) the unpredictable aspects of the litigation process, including
a changing trial docket and the jurisdictions in which trials are
scheduled; (v) the outcome of any trials, including potential
judgments or jury verdicts; (vi) the lack of specific information
in many cases concerning exposure for which PPG is allegedly
responsible, and the claimants' alleged diseases resulting from
such exposure; and (vii) potential changes in applicable federal
and/or state tort liability law.  All of these factors may have a
material effect upon future asbestos-related liability estimates.
As a potential offset to any future asbestos financial exposure,
under the PC plan of reorganization PPG retained, for its own
account, the right to pursue insurance coverage from certain of its
historical insurers that did not participate in the PC plan of
reorganization.  While the ultimate outcome of PPG's asbestos
litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, PPG believes that
any financial exposure resulting from its asbestos-related claims
will not have a material adverse effect on PPG's consolidated
financial position, liquidity or results of operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/ICQ8Gl


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Faces Suits at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that "currently there are a few thousand
claimants" in asbestos-related lawsuits that name the Company as
defendants, together with hundreds of other companies.

The Company states, "We (including our subsidiaries) have been
named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components
of our products many years ago, including products from divested
businesses for which we have agreed to defend and indemnify claims.
Currently there are a few thousand claimants in lawsuits that name
us as defendants, together with hundreds of other companies.  But
in all cases, for those claimants who do show that they worked with
our products or products of divested businesses for which we are
responsible, we nevertheless believe we have meritorious defenses,
in substantial part due to the integrity of the products, the
encapsulated nature of any asbestos-containing components, and the
lack of any impairing medical condition on the part of many
claimants.  We defend those cases vigorously.  Historically, we
have been dismissed from the vast majority of these claims with no
payment to claimants.

"Additionally, we have maintained insurance coverage that includes
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for many of these claims.  We believe these
arrangements will provide substantial coverage for future defense
and indemnity costs for these asbestos claims throughout the
remaining life of asbestos liability.  The uncertainties of
asbestos claim litigation make it difficult to predict accurately
the ultimate outcome of asbestos claims.  That uncertainty is
increased by the possibility of adverse rulings or new legislation
affecting asbestos claim litigation or the settlement process.
Subject to these uncertainties and based on our experience
defending asbestos claims, we do not believe these lawsuits will
have a material effect on our business, financial condition or
results of operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/7PzdzF



                            *********

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 ***