/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200519.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, May 19, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 100

                            Headlines

3M CO: Billing Class Suit Still Stayed in Alabama Court
3M CO: DuPont Bid to Transfer NY Suits to AFFF MDL Denied
3M CO: Faces 25 Putative Class Suits Related to AFFF
3M CO: Michigan Bellwether Trials Set to Begin October 2020
3M CO: Plaintiffs in King Suit Drop Class Allegations

3M CO: St. John Class Action Remains Stayed
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Have Harmful Effects, Stengel Alleges
ACUITY: Refuses to Cover COVID-19 Losses, Egg Works Suit Claims
ALLSTATE CORP: Shannon Alleges Discriminatory Insurance Schemes
AMBRY GENETICS: Fails to Protect Patients' Data, Brodsky Says

ASSURANCE IQ: Faces Javier Suit Over Use of Wiretap on Web Sites
B COMMUNICATIONS: Breach of Contract Suit v Pelephone Ongoing
B COMMUNICATIONS: Press Coverage Related Suit v Walla Ongoing
B COMMUNICATIONS: Site Visitors Class Suit Against Walla Ongoing
B COMMUNICATIONS: Subscriber Suit Against Pelephone Ongoing

B COMMUNICATIONS: Suit over Advertising Articles v Walla Ongoing
BAKER MILLS: Kodiak Cakes' Labeling "Deceptive," Minor Alleges
BANK OF AMERICA: Georges Appeals Decision in Discrimination Suit
BAOZUN INC: Continues to Defend Snyder and AUS Class Suits
BEXAR SHERIFF: Court Denies Williams' Class Certification Bid

BIRDIES INC: Conner Sues in E.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
BOEING CO: Texas Eastern District Narrows Claims in Earl RICO Suit
CANADIAN SOLAR: Trial in Ontario Class Suit Set for November 2020
CEMEX SAB: Environmental Class Action Ongoing in Philippines
CEMEX SAB: Homeowners Suit in Israel Against Subsidiary Closed

CHAD WOLF: Court Provisionally Certified Class of Detainees
CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Kellams Seek Royalty Payments
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Appeal in Ong Class Action Still Pending
CIOX HEALTH: Class Certification Bid Denied with Leave to Renew
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Padilla Class Action Pending

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bowden Suit Underway in Louisiana State Court
COMMUNITY HEALTH: July 7 Trial in Zwick Partners Class Suit
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Motion to Dismiss Kirk Class Suit Still Pending
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Still Faces Gibson Suit over Hospital Liens
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH: Judge Says Class Cert. Bid "Premature"

CORRIGAN MOVING: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Oliver FLSA Suit
DAVID JENNINGS: Court Grants Provisional Class Certification
DELIVER TECHNOLOGY: Fralish Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Texts
DEVA CONCEPTS: DevaCurl Products Harmful, Calabrese Claims
DIRECTV GROUP: Judge Wants New Class Certification Bid by Thursday

DOUYU INTERNATIONAL: Huang Sues Over Misleading IPO Statements
FAT BRANDS: Bid for Class Certification in "Vignola" Denied
FAT BRANDS: Bid for Class Certification in Rojany Suit Pending
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss Allred Class Suit Pending
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Patterson Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval

FRED BEANS: Brogan Appeals E.D. Pa. Order in Consumer Credit Suit
GLOBAL DIGITAL: Final Settlement Judgment in Hull Suit Entered
GLUMETZA ANTITRUST: Direct Purchasers Seek to Certify Class
GROCERY DELIVERY: Appeals D. Minnesota Ruling in Engen Class Suit
GROUPON INC: Macovski Sues Over 44% Share Price Decline

GRUPO AVAL ACCIONES: Appeal in Toll Road Concession Suit Pending
HARTFORD CASUALTY: Chorak Sues Over Denial of COVID-19 Coverage
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Rinnigade Art Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
HC2 HOLDINGS: Court Grants Bid for Expedited Hearing in Tera Suit
HF FOODS: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Class Action in Calif.

HOMEAWAY.COM INC: Kirkpatrick Appeals W.D. Tex. Order to 5th Cir.
IBM CORP: Continues to Defend ERISA-Related Class Suit in New York
IMPINJ INC: Suit by Plymouth Retirement System Remains Stayed
IMPINJ INC: Trial in W.D. Wash. Securities Suit Set for Feb. 2021
ITAU UNIBANCO: Parties Agree to Extend Settlement Opt-In Period

KANDI TECH: Time to Appeal Nixed N.Y. Securities Suit Expires
KM INDUSTRIAL: Appeals N.D. Cal. Order in Harris Suit to 9th Cir.
L'OREAL USA: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification in "Carter"
LIBERTY HOMECARE: Headly Seeks Proper Overtime Pay for Caregivers
LINEAGE CELL: Paid $221,000 Legal Tab in Asterias Merger Suit

LIVE NATION: Iderstine et al. Allege Anticompetitive Practices
LOS ANGELES, CA: Cullors Wants Prisoners Out Due to COVID Threat
LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY: Lott Suit Seeks to Certify Class
MASIMO CORP: Trial of Individual Plaintiffs' Claims Set for June 2
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in Fuentes Labor Suit

MDL 2555: Bid to Certify Class in Coca-Cola Sales Suit Partly OK'd
MIDLAND FUNDING: Faces Glad Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
MOMO INC: Aug. 5 Oral Argument on Bid to Dismiss Marchand Suit
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Certification of Sales Reps Class Sought
MONDELEZ INT'L: Plaintiffs Win Class Certification

MONMOUTH UNIVERSITY: Fittipaldi Demands COVID-19 Tuition Refunds
NEW JERSEY: Faces Vazquez Suit Alleging Violation of Civil Rights
NEW YORK: Board Appeals Order in Gulino Suit to Second Circuit
NEW YORK: NYSBOE Appeals Opinion in Yang Suit to Second Circuit
OREGON: Smith Appeals Decision in FCA Class Suit to Ninth Circuit

PAKSN INC: Illegally Deducts Nursing Staff Pay, Udarbe et al. Say
PARSLEY ENERGY: Streety Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
PATENAUDE & FELIX: Faces Hailstork FDCPA Suit in Pennsylvania
PATENAUDE & FELIX: Moyer Appeals E.D. Pa. Ruling to Third Circuit
PAYCHEX OF NEW YORK: Bedolla Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois

PENNSYLVANIA: Fails to Inspect Nursing Homes, Gill Claims
PHARMACYCLICS INC: Final Judgment in Evangelista Suit Upheld
PHILIP MORRIS: Amended Complaint in Rebolledo Suit Not Yet Served
PHILIP MORRIS: Canadian Appeals Court Cuts Damages Award in Blais
PHILIP MORRIS: Canadian Appeals Court Upholds Ruling in Letourneau

PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Adams Class Suit in Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Kunta Class Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: Dorion Class Complaint Has Not Yet Been Served
PHILIP MORRIS: Plaintiffs Ask Court to Reconsider Dismissal Order
PHILIP MORRIS: Semple Class Action Ongoing

PHILIP MORRIS: Still Defends McDermid Class Action
PORTLAND GENERAL: Oregon High Court Asked to Reverse Decision
PPG INDUSTRIES: To Make Settlement Payments This Year
QUDIAN INC: Bid to Revive Securities Class Action Claim Pending
QUDIAN INC: Song Class Action Suit Still Stayed

RATNER COMPANIES: Ferrante Suit Seeks Wages and Commissions
REGIONS FINANCIAL: Accounting Firm Seeks Agent Fees for PPP Loans
RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC: Ford Suit Demands COVID-19 Tuition Refund
REXALL SUNDOWN: Seegert Appeals S.D. Cal. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
SAGE LAW OFFICES: Chames Sues in E.D. Texas Over FDCPA Violation

SEI INVESTMENTS: Court Approves Stevens Class Settlement
SEI INVESTMENTS: Suits over SPTC Services Ongoing
SIBANYE STILLWATER: New York Securities Suit Ongoing
SIBANYE STILLWATER: Selection of Trustees in TB Suit Underway
SIRIUS XM: Continues to Defend Flo & Eddie Class Action

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Appeal in Airfare-Related Class Suit Underway
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Court Narrows Claims in Aircraft Defect Suit
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Securities Class Suit in Dallas
STATE AUTOMOBILE: Dino Palmieri Seeks Coverage for COVID-19 Losses
T ROWE PRICE: Continues to Defend 401(k) Plan-Related Suit

TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Brown Student Loan Suit Moved to W.D. Wash.
TRAVELERS CASUALTY: Khuzi Sues Over Denial of Insurance Coverage
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Kashner Sues Over Denial of Insurance Claims
TTE TECHNOLOGY: Julian Sues in Calif. Over Fraud-Related Issues
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Class Suits Filed in Calif. & Florida

ULTIMATE SOFTWARE: Cottingham Class Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois
UNITED STATES: Doe Appeals Decision in Migrant Detention Suit
UNITED STATES: Faces Uzoegwu Civil Rights Suit in S.D. New York
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Santiago et al. Allege ERISA Violation
VICTAULIC COMPANY: Faces Dow Labor Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Pay

VOLUSION LLC: Faces Lopez FDUTPA Suit in Florida Over Data Breach
VOXX LIQUORS: Valle Seeks OT Pay, Tip Credit for Bar Staff
XUNLEI LIMITED: NY Consolidated Securities Class Suit Dismissed
[^] WEBINAR: Best Practices in Qualifying the Class

                            *********

3M CO: Billing Class Suit Still Stayed in Alabama Court
-------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the proceedings in the "Billing" case
remains stayed.

In August 2016, a group of over 200 plaintiffs filed a putative
class action against West Morgan-East Lawrence Water and Sewer
Authority (Water Authority), 3M, Dyneon, Daikin, BFI, and the City
of Decatur in state court in Lawrence County, Alabama (the
"Billings" case).

Plaintiffs are residents of Lawrence, Morgan and other counties who
are or have been customers of the Water Authority. They contend
defendants have released PFAS that contaminate the Tennessee River
and, in turn, their drinking water, causing damage to their health
and properties.

In January 2017, the court in the St. John case, discussed above,
stayed this litigation pending resolution of the St. John case.

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

3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.


3M CO: DuPont Bid to Transfer NY Suits to AFFF MDL Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that DuPont De Nemours' motion to transfer
the cases related to water contamination to the multi-district
litigation related to Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) has been
denied.

In New York, 3M is defending 42 individual cases and one putative
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York and four additional cases filed in New York
state court against 3M, Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.
(Saint-Gobain), Honeywell International Inc. and E.I. DuPont De
Nemours and Co. (DuPont).

The plaintiffs allege that 3M manufactured and sold PFOA that was
used for manufacturing purposes at Saint-Gobain's and Honeywell's
facilities located in the Village of Hoosick Falls and the Town of
Hoosick.

The plaintiffs claim that the drinking water around Hoosick Falls
became contaminated with unsafe levels of PFOA due to the
activities of the defendants and allege that they suffered bodily
injury due to the ingestion and inhalation of PFOA.

The plaintiffs seek unstated compensatory, consequential, and
punitive damages, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

3M has answered the complaints in these cases, which are now
proceeding through discovery. 3M is also defending eight additional
cases in New York filed by Nassau County drinking water providers
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The plaintiffs in these cases allege that 3M, DuPont, and
additional unnamed defendants are responsible for the contamination
of plaintiffs' water supply sources with various PFAS compounds.
DuPont's motion to transfer these cases to the AFFF MDL was denied
in March 2020. These cases are in the preliminary stages of
litigation.

3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.


3M CO: Faces 25 Putative Class Suits Related to AFFF
----------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the company has been named as a
defendant in 25 putative class action suits related to the use of
Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF).

3M manufactured and marketed Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) for
use in firefighting at airports and military bases from
approximately 1963 to 2002.

As of March 31, 2020, 576 lawsuits (including 25 putative class
actions) have been filed against 3M (along with other defendants)
in various state and federal courts where current or former
airports, military bases, or fire training facilities are or were
located.

As previously noted, some of these cases have been brought by state
or territory attorneys general. In most of these cases, plaintiffs
typically allege that certain PFAS used in AFFF contaminated the
soil and groundwater where AFFF was used and seek damages for loss
of use and enjoyment of properties, diminished property values,
investigation costs, remediation costs, and in some cases, personal
injury and funds for medical monitoring.

131 cases filed since October 2019 have been brought by current or
former firefighters who claim to have suffered personal injury as a
result of exposure to AFFF while using the product.

The United States, the U.S. Department of Defense and several
companies have been sued along with 3M, including but not limited
to Ansul Co. (acquired by Tyco, Inc.), Angus Fire, Buckeye Fire
Protection Co., Chemguard, Chemours, DuPont, National Foam, Inc.,
and United Technologies Corp.

In December 2018, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (JPML) granted motions to transfer and consolidate all
AFFF cases pending in federal courts to the U.S. District Court for
the District of South Carolina to be managed in an MDL proceeding
to centralize pre-trial proceedings. Additional AFFF cases continue
to be transferred into the MDL as they are filed or removed to
federal court.

As of March 31, 2020, there were 576 cases in the MDL, 568 of which
name 3M as a defendant. The parties in the MDL are currently in the
process of conducting discovery.

3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.


3M CO: Michigan Bellwether Trials Set to Begin October 2020
-----------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the next bellwether trials in the
Michigan state court lawsuits over drinking water contamination are
set to begin in October 2020.

In Michigan, one consolidated putative class action is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan
against 3M and Wolverine World Wide (Wolverine) and other
defendants.

The action arises from Wolverine's allegedly improper disposal of
materials and wastes, including 3M Scotchgard, related to
Wolverine's shoe manufacturing operations.

Plaintiffs allege Wolverine used 3M Scotchgard in its manufacturing
process and that chemicals from 3M's product contaminated the
environment and drinking water sources after disposal.

In addition to the consolidated federal court putative class
action, as of March 31, 2020, 3M has been named as a defendant in
approximately 262 private individual actions in Michigan state
court based on similar allegations.

These cases are coordinated for pre-trial purposes. Four of these
cases were selected for bellwether trials in 2020.

In January 2020, the court issued the first round of dispositive
motion rulings related to the first two bellwether cases, including
dismissing the second bellwether case entirely and dismissing
certain plaintiffs' medical monitoring, risk of future disease, and
granting summary judgment to the defendants on one plaintiff's
cholesterol injury claims.

An agreement to resolve the first bellwether case was reached in
February 2020, subject to court approval.

The next bellwether trials are currently set to begin in October
2020.

3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.


3M CO: Plaintiffs in King Suit Drop Class Allegations
-----------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the plaintiffs in the so-called King
class action have amended their complaint to withdraw all class
allegations.

In November 2017, a putative class action (the "King" case) was
filed against 3M, its subsidiary Dyneon, Daikin America, and the
West Morgan-East Lawrence Water and Sewer Authority (Water
Authority) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama.

The plaintiffs are residents of Lawrence and Morgan County, Alabama
who receive their water from the Water Authority and seek
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, compensatory and punitive
damages for their alleged personal injuries.

The plaintiffs contend that the defendants own and operate
manufacturing and disposal facilities in Decatur that have released
and continue to release PFOA, PFOS and related chemicals into the
groundwater and surface water of their sites, resulting in
discharges into the Tennessee River.

The plaintiffs contend that, as a result of the alleged discharges,
the water supplied by the Water Authority to the plaintiffs was,
and is, contaminated with PFOA, PFOS, and related chemicals at a
level dangerous to humans.

In November 2019, the King plaintiffs amended their complaint to
withdraw all class allegations, dismiss the Water Authority as a
defendant, and add 24 new individual plaintiffs (for a total of 59
plaintiffs).

3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.


3M CO: St. John Class Action Remains Stayed
-------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the so-called St. John class action
remains stayed.

A former employee filed a putative class action lawsuit against 3M,
BFI Waste Management Systems of Alabama, and others in the Circuit
Court of Morgan County, Alabama (the "St. John" case), seeking
property damage from exposure to certain perfluorochemicals at or
near the Company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility.

The parties have agreed to continue to stay the St. John case
through April 2020, pending ongoing mediation between the parties
involved in this case and another case (the Tennessee Riverkeeper,
Inc. case),.

Two additional putative class actions filed in the same court by
certain residents in the vicinity of the Decatur plant seeking
relief on similar grounds (the Chandler case and the Stover case,
respectively) are stayed pending the resolution of class
certification issues in the St. John case.

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

3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.


3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Have Harmful Effects, Stengel Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MIKE STENGEL on behalf of himself and C.S., a minor, and SONDRA
MARAGUGLIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY, F/K/A MINNESOTA MINING and
MANUFACTURING CO.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P., successor-in-interest
to THE ANSUL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
CO.; CHEMGUARD; E.I DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; and THE CHEMOURS CO.
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00072-GMG (N.D.W. Va., April 29,
2020) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
battery, strict liability, design defect, and punitive damages, and
medical monitoring.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, allege that the Defendants designed, marketed,
developed, distributed, sold, manufactured, released, trained users
on, produced instructional materials for, and/or otherwise handled
and/or used aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS, which caused contamination of Plaintiffs' blood and/or body
with PFAS, and the resultant biopersistence and bioaccumulation of
such PFAS in the blood and/or body of the Plaintiffs. Moreover, the
Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants continued to manufacture and
sell AFFF knowing that the PFAS contained in the AFFF presented an
unreasonable risk to human health and are dangerous.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.

Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.

National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.

Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.

Chemguard is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.

E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.

The Chemours Co. LLC is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Stephen G. Skinner, Esq.
         Levi B. Pellegrin, Esq.
         SKINNER LAW FIRM
         Charles Town, WV 25414
         Telephone: (304) 725-7029
         E-mail: sskinner@skinnerfirm.com
                 pellegrin@skinnerfirm.com

               - and –

         Anthony J. Maestro, Esq.
         POWELL & MAJESTRO, PLLC
         405 Capital Street, Suite P-1200
         Charleston, WV 25301
         Telephone: (304) 346-2889
         E-mail: amajestro@powellmajestro.com

ACUITY: Refuses to Cover COVID-19 Losses, Egg Works Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
EGG WORKS HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, et al. v. ACUITY, A Mutual
Insurance Company, a Wisconsin corporation, Case No.
2:20-cv-00748-RFB-VCF (D. Nev., April 24, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's failure to pay for losses and expenses related to the
COVID-19 crisis under the Plaintiffs' Commercial Package Policy.

Governor Steve Sisolak has issued a Guidance for Declaration of
Emergency Directive 003 ordering the closure of dine-in restaurants
to combat transmission of COVID-19.

Egg Works was forced to suspend business operations at the
restaurants. This suspension, the Plaintiff contends, which is
ongoing, has caused it to suffer significant losses and incur
significant expenses.

Egg Works purchased a Commercial Package Policy from Acuity in
September 2019. The Policy is an "All Risk" policy, meaning all
risks of physical loss or damage are covered unless specifically
and unambiguously excluded. All non-excluded losses are covered.
Under the Policy, the Plaintiffs have paid substantial premiums to
Defendant, and in turn the Defendant promised to pay these losses
and expenses and it is obligated to pay for them.

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant has breached the terms of
the Policy and has failed to pay for these losses and expenses. The
Defendant has failed to pay for similar losses and expenses for
numerous other insureds holding policies that are, in all material
respects, identical, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs include EGG WORKS HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, a Nevada
limited liability company; E & I, CATERING, LLC, a Nevada limited
liability company; EW LIVE, LLC dba EGG WORKS, a Nevada limited
liability company; 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-iability company.

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.

Acuity is a mutual property and casualty insurance company.[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


ALLSTATE CORP: Shannon Alleges Discriminatory Insurance Schemes
---------------------------------------------------------------
SARA SHANNON, ROSA PALACIOS and DEBRA CORBELLO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE ALLSTATE
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00448 (W.D. Tex., April
28, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of
the Texas Insurance Code.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated Allstate Texas personal auto insurance
policyholders, allege that Allstate is engaged in two
discriminatory practices:

     (1) open/closed book scheme wherein existing Allstate Texas
Closed Book policyholders are paying higher premiums than otherwise
identically-situated Allstate Texas policyholders pay in the Open
Books for the same or virtually identical coverages and precluding
them from the lower rates provided to new customers in the Open
Books, and

     (2) price tolerance scheme wherein the Defendant assigns most
Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company (F&C) Texas
policyholders to microsegments with positive Complimentary Group
Rating (CGR) factors, while a minority are assigned to
microsegments with negative CGR factors.

The policyholders whom Allstate assigns to a microsegment with a
positive CGR factor, by definition, pay higher premiums than
otherwise-identically situated policyholders.

Allstate Corporation is an insurance provider that maintains its
principal place of business at 2775 Sanders Road, Northbrook,
Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         John R. Davis, Esq.
         Michael L. Slack, Esq.
         SLACK DAVIS SANGER LLP
         6001 Bold Ruler Way, Suite 100
         Austin, TX 78746
         Telephone: (512) 795-8686
         Facsimile: (512) 795-8787
         E-mail: jdavis@slackdavis.com
                 mslack@slackdavis.com

               - and –

         Joe K. Longley, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF JOE K. LONGLEY
         3305 Northland Dr. Suite 500
         Austin, TX 78731
         Telephone: (512) 477-4444
         Facsimile: (512) 477-4470
         E-mail: joe@joelongley.com

               - and –

         Roger N. Heller, Esq.
         LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
         275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 956-1000
         Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
         E-mail: rheller@lchb.com

               - and –

         Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
         LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
         250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
         New York, NY 10013
         Telephone: (212) 355-9500
         Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
         E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com

AMBRY GENETICS: Fails to Protect Patients' Data, Brodsky Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA BRODSKY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. AMBRY GENETICS CORP., Defendant,
Case No. 8:20-cv-00811 (C.D. Cal., April 27, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendant for negligence, invasion of privacy,
breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary
duty, breach of confidence, and violations of the California Unfair
Competition Law, the California Consumer Privacy Act, the
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, and Florida's Unfair
Trade Practices Act.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated patients of the Defendant whose sensitive
personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health
information (PHI) were stolen as a result of a data breach that
occurred between January 22, 2020 and January 24, 2020, alleges
that the Defendant failed to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber security procedures and protocols necessary to protect the
Plaintiff's and Class members' sensitive information and the
Defendant also failed to timely notify them about the data breach,
which was announced on or about April 15, 2020, three months after
the incident.

The Plaintiff suffered actual injury from having her sensitive
information exposed as a result of the data breach including, but
not limited to: (a) paying monies to Ambry for its goods and
services which she would not have, had Ambry disclosed that it
lacked data security practices adequate to safeguard consumers'
sensitive information from theft; (b) damages to and diminution in
the value of her sensitive information -- a form of intangible
property that the Plaintiff entrusted to Ambry as a condition for
healthcare services; (c) loss of her privacy; (d) imminent and
impending injury arising from the increased risk of fraud and
identity theft; and (e) the time and expense of mitigation efforts
as a result of the data breach.

Ambry Genetics Corporation is a provider of healthcare services
throughout the United States, headquartered in Aliso Viejo,
California. Through its online services, Ambry offers a
comprehensive genetic testing menu of more than 300 tests for
screening and diagnosis for inherited and non-inherited diseases,
such as cancer, heart disease, neurodevelopmental disorders, and
other medical issues. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
          Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          8383 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (323) 456-8638
          Facsimile: (323) 456-8601
          E-mail: pbishop@ssbla.com

               - and -
          
          Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 687-7230
          Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
          E-mail: memert@ssbny.com

               - and -
          
          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN PC
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Telephone: (845) 356-2570
          Facsimile: (845) 356-4335
          E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com

ASSURANCE IQ: Faces Javier Suit Over Use of Wiretap on Web Sites
----------------------------------------------------------------
FLORENTINO JAVIER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ASSURANCE IQ, LLC and ACTIVEPROSPECT INC.,
Case No. 5:20-cv-02860-VKD (N.D. Cal., April 24, 2020), is brought
against the Defendants for wiretapping the electronic
communications of visitors to Assurance IQ's Web sites, in
violation of the California Invasion of Privacy and the
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act.

The wiretaps, which are embedded in the computer code on the Web
sites--http://Assurance.com/and http://Nationalfamily.com/--are
used by the Defendants to secretly observe and record Web site
visitors' keystrokes, mouse clicks, and other electronic
communications, including the entry of Personally Identifiable
Information and Protected Health Information, in real time, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff contends that he visited Nationalfamily.com in
January 2019. During this visit, the Defendants recorded his
electronic communications in real time, used the intercepted data
to attempt to learn his identity, zip code, date of birth, height,
weight, use of prescription medications and tobacco products, and
other PII and PHI.

Assurance IQ provides software solutions. ActiveProspect is a
marketing SaaS company for online lead acquisition, enabling
real-time data decisions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


B COMMUNICATIONS: Breach of Contract Suit v Pelephone Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
B Communications Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Pelephone continues to
defend a putative class action suit related to its breach of
contract.

Pelephone is a subsidiary of Bezeq The Israel Telecommunications
Corp., Ltd.  On April 14, 2010, B Communications completed its
acquisition of 30.44% of Bezeq's outstanding shares and became the
controlling shareholder of Bezeq.

On November 2018 a customer filed a financial claim filed with a
motion to certify as a class action against Pelephone in the
District Court of Tel-Aviv.

The claimants allege that, due to disruptions that occurred in
Pelephone's network, the defendant is required to compensate its
customers for breach of contract with the customers, as well as a
breach of the provisions of its license and various laws, including
the Communications Law.

The amount of claims is 200 NIS million.

B Communications Ltd., through its subsidiaries, provides a range
of telecommunications services for business and private customers
in Israel. The company was formerly known as 012 Smile.
Communications Ltd. and changed its name to B Communications Ltd.
in March 2010. B Communications Ltd. was founded in 1999 and is
based in Ramat Gan, Israel. B Communications Ltd. is a subsidiary
of Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.


B COMMUNICATIONS: Press Coverage Related Suit v Walla Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
B Communications Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Walla Communication
continues to defend a putative class action suit related to its
biased press coverage on its website in favor of the Prime
Minister.

Walla Communication is a subsidiary of Bezeq. The Israel
Telecommunications Corp., Ltd.  On April 14, 2010, B Communications
completed its acquisition of 30.44% of Bezeq's outstanding shares
and became the controlling shareholder of Bezeq.

In December 2018, a Walla website visitor filed an action against
Walla in the Tel-Aviv District Court and filed a motion to certify
a class action.

It is alleged that Walla biased press coverage on its website in
favor of the Prime Minister, allegedly in exchange for excessive
regulatory benefits granted to its controlling shareholder --
Bezeq, and its (former) controlling shareholder.

The petitioner alleges that the members of the class suffered
non-monetary damage in the form of a violation of autonomy, and
also demands restitution of Walla's alleged unjust "enrichment." As
stated in the motion, the amount of the class action is unknown.

The amount of the claim or that it is a non-monetary claim was not
indicated.

B Communications Ltd., through its subsidiaries, provides a range
of telecommunications services for business and private customers
in Israel. The company was formerly known as 012 Smile.
Communications Ltd. and changed its name to B Communications Ltd.
in March 2010. B Communications Ltd. was founded in 1999 and is
based in Ramat Gan, Israel. B Communications Ltd. is a subsidiary
of Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.


B COMMUNICATIONS: Site Visitors Class Suit Against Walla Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
B Communications Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Walla Communication
(Walla) continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated
by site visitors.

Walla Communication (Walla) is a subsidiary of Bezeq. The Israel
Telecommunications Corp., Ltd.  On April 14, 2010, B Communications
completed its acquisition of 30.44% of Bezeq's outstanding shares
and became the controlling shareholder of Bezeq.

On December 2018 site visitors of Walla filed a suit against Walla
and  four other respondents in the Israel Central District Court.

It is alleged that Walla and two of the other defendants published
advertisements on their websites and applications for the
marketing, sale and distribution of smoking and tobacco products,
including electronic smoking products, which are allegedly
manufactured and distributed by two other defendants.

The petitioners' main argument in the claim is that such
advertisements are prohibited by law in general, and, specifically,
when targeted to minors. The petitioners further claim that use of
certain advertising and marketing means is prohibited, and this
constitutes, inter alia, a violation of the provisions of the
Restriction on Advertising and Marketing of Tobacco Products Law,
the Consumer Protection Law, the Consumer Protection Regulations
(Advertisements and Marketing Methods Targeted at Minors), breach
of statutory duty, violation of personal autonomy, negligence,
breach of the duty of good faith and unjust enrichment. The
plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class action.

The amount of the claim 300 NIS million against all 5 respondents.

B Communications Ltd., through its subsidiaries, provides a range
of telecommunications services for business and private customers
in Israel. The company was formerly known as 012 Smile.
Communications Ltd. and changed its name to B Communications Ltd.
in March 2010. B Communications Ltd. was founded in 1999 and is
based in Ramat Gan, Israel. B Communications Ltd. is a subsidiary
of Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.


B COMMUNICATIONS: Subscriber Suit Against Pelephone Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
B Communications Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Pelephone continues to
defend a putative class action suit related to its violation
against the Protection of Privacy Law.

Pelephone is a subsidiary of Bezeq The Israel Telecommunications
Corp., Ltd.  On April 14, 2010, B Communications completed its
acquisition of 30.44% of Bezeq's outstanding shares and became the
controlling shareholder of Bezeq.

On December 2018 a customer filed a financial claim filed with a
motion to certify as a class action against Pelephone in Israel
Central District Court.

The claimant alleges that Pelephone uses information it has on the
location of its subscribers for its business needs, and sends them
text messages regarding the sale of relevant services for their
location, thereby violating the Protection of Privacy Law.

The amount of the claim is not stated, but the claim is estimated
at millions of shekels.

B Communications Ltd., through its subsidiaries, provides a range
of telecommunications services for business and private customers
in Israel. The company was formerly known as 012 Smile.
Communications Ltd. and changed its name to B Communications Ltd.
in March 2010. B Communications Ltd. was founded in 1999 and is
based in Ramat Gan, Israel. B Communications Ltd. is a subsidiary
of Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.


B COMMUNICATIONS: Suit over Advertising Articles v Walla Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
B Communications Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Walla Communication
continues to defend a putative class action suit related to its
advertising-related articles.

Walla Communication is a subsidiary of Bezeq. The Israel
Telecommunications Corp., Ltd.  On April 14, 2010, B Communications
completed its acquisition of 30.44% of Bezeq's outstanding shares
and became the controlling shareholder of Bezeq.

On March 2019 a site visitior filed a suit agaisnt Walla and eight
other respondents in the Tel-Aviv District court and filed a motion
to certify a class action.

It was alleged that Walla and other defendants publish
"advertising-related articles" on their websites, their
applications and the social media without due disclosure of the
fact that they contain marketing content, and that the publication
of marketing content without proper disclosure, as alleged, is,
among other things, a breach of the provisions of the Consumer
Protection Law, violation of the Rules of Journalism Ethics, a
tort, breach of the duty of good faith and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiffs also refer to the motion to certify a class action
on a similar subject and indicate that they wish to add further
layers to the motion to certify.

The motion allegedly indicates an alleged conservative estimate of
damages of NIS 300 million per Walla website consumer. The motion
does not stipulate the precise amount of the claim for all members
of the class, but an overall damage estimate.

B Communications Ltd., through its subsidiaries, provides a range
of telecommunications services for business and private customers
in Israel. The company was formerly known as 012 Smile.
Communications Ltd. and changed its name to B Communications Ltd.
in March 2010. B Communications Ltd. was founded in 1999 and is
based in Ramat Gan, Israel. B Communications Ltd. is a subsidiary
of Internet Gold - Golden Lines Ltd.


BAKER MILLS: Kodiak Cakes' Labeling "Deceptive," Minor Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SHERRIS MINOR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated v. BAKER MILLS, INC. and KODIAK CAKES, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-02901-DMR (N.D. Cal., April 28, 2020),
arises from the Defendants' violations of the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, false advertising, fraud, deceit, and/or
misrepresentation, unfair business practices, and unjust
enrichment.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, alleges that the Defendants are engaged in
deceptive practices of labeling and marketing their Kodiak Cakes
Flapjack and Waffle Mixes because the products do not contain the
amount of protein that their labels claim. The Defendants' products
prominently make protein content claims but fail to provide the
required percent daily value of protein as mandated by state and
federal regulations. As a result of the Defendants'
misrepresentations and misbranding, the Plaintiff and Class members
paid a price premium for the products.

Baker Mills, Inc., doing business as Kodiak Cakes, is a provider of
bakery products with principal place of business in Utah.

Kodiak Cakes, LLC is a Utah-based manufacturer, distributor,
marketer, advertiser, and seller of flapjack and waffle mixes in
the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
          Adam J. Gutride, Esq.
          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Marie A. McCrary, Esq.
          Hayley Reynolds, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 271-6469
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6469

BANK OF AMERICA: Georges Appeals Decision in Discrimination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Aleksander Georges and Ida Jelveh filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Aleksander Georges, et al. v.
Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 8:19-cv-02329-DOC-KES, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendant for its misleading and illegal
business practices relating to age discrimination in its
maintenance fees, in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

In each type of personal bank accounts, Bank of America imposes a
monthly maintenance fee of $12. To meet the requirements of a
student waiver, a consumer must show: (1) that he or she is a
student enrolled in a high school or a college, university or
vocational program, and (2) the consumer is under 24 years old.

Due to their financial circumstances, the Plaintiffs say, they were
unable to meet the requirements that they have at least one
qualifying direct deposit of $250 or more; maintain a minimum daily
balance of $1,500 or more in the account; or enroll in Preferred
Rewards program and qualify for the Gold, Platinum or Platinum
Honors tier. Despite still being full-time students, the Plaintiffs
are now required to pay a Maintenance Fee of $12 simply because
they are twenty-four years or older, says the complaint.

The appellate case is captioned as Aleksander Georges, et al v.
Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 20-55499, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appellants Aleksander Georges and Ida Jelveh's opening
      brief is due on July 6, 2020;

   -- Appellee Bank of America, N.A.'s answering brief is due on
      August 5, 2020; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants ALEKSANDER GEORGES and IDA JELVEH,
Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, are
represented by:

          Nicholas Ryan Barthel, Esq.
          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fischer Ave, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          Email: nicholas@kazlg.com
                 ak@kazlg.com

                 - and -

          Jason Ibey, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          321 N Mall Drive, Suite R108
          St. George, UT 84790
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          Email: jason@kazlg.com

Defendant-Appellee BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., is represented by:

          Apalla Chopra, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-6000
          Email: achopra@omm.com

                 - and -

          Elizabeth Lemond McKeen, Esq.
          Ashley M. Pavel, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          610 Newport Center Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 823-7150
          Email: emckeen@omm.com
                 apavel@omm.com


BAOZUN INC: Continues to Defend Snyder and AUS Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Baozun Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend class action suits entitled, Snyder, et. al. v. Baozun Inc.
et al. (Case No. 1:19-cv-11290) and AUS, et al. v. Baozun Inc., et.
al. (Case No. 1:19-cv-11812).

On December 10, 2019 and December 26, 2019, purported securities
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the company,
its chief executive officer and its chief financial officer.  

These suits, which are captioned Snyder, et al. v. Baozun Inc. et
al. (Case No. 1:19-cv-11290) and AUS, et al. v. Baozun Inc., et al.
(Case No. 1:19-cv-11812), allege, among other things, that
defendants made materially false and misleading statements, or
failed to disclose material facts, regarding the termination of the
company's business relationship with a Chinese electronics brand.

The various suits assert claims covering the period from March 6,
2019 through November 20, 2019 and seek compensatory damages, costs
and expenses incurred in such actions, as well as equitable or
other relief.

The court has not yet appointed a lead plaintiff or consolidated
the separate actions into a consolidated action as of April 26,
2020.

Baozun said, "We believe that the claims against us are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend against the actions."

Baozun Inc. provides e-commerce solutions. The Company's services
include website design, development and hosting, information
technology infrastructure, customer service, warehousing, and
logistics services, as well as digital marketing. Baozun serves
customers in China.


BEXAR SHERIFF: Court Denies Williams' Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as EMADARI CHINUA WILLIAMS v.
BEXAR COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, ET AL., Case No. 5:18-cv-01235-XR
(W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order the Hon.
Judge Xavier Rodriguez entered an order denying a motion for
putative class certification.

The Court finds Williams has failed to show the required class
certification elements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and
fair and adequate representation. Because he has failed to carry
his required burden, his motion must be denied, the Court added.

Williams claims he was "green lighted" because he had earlier
criticized the officer's handling of an altercation between two
other inmates. Williams asserts that as a result of the "green
light," six inmates assaulted him in the dormitory restroom.
Williams alleges he suffered serious physical injuries in the
attack, and later, Post-traumatic stress disorder. He contends
former Bexar County Deputy Sheriff Andrew McDermott was present in
the dormitory at the time of the "green light" attack but failed to
intervene, thereby failing to protect him in violation of the
Eighth Amendment.

Bexar County is a county of the U.S. state of Texas.[CC]

BIRDIES INC: Conner Sues in E.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Birdies, Inc. The
case is styled as Mary Conner, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Birdies,
Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02082-BMC (E.D.N.Y., May 7, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Birdies, Inc., doing business as Birdies Slippers, Inc., operates
as an online footwear store. The Company provides wedges, bellies,
heels, shoes, and slippers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


BOEING CO: Texas Eastern District Narrows Claims in Earl RICO Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAMONIE EARL, LINDA RUGG, ALESA BECK, TIMOTHY BLAKEY,
JR., STEPHANIE BLAKEY, MARISA THOMPSON, MUHAMMAD MUDDASIR KHAN,
ELIZABETH COOPER, JOHN ROGERS, VALERIE MORTZ-ROGERS, and LAKESHA
GOGGINS, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE BOEING COMPANY and SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO, Civil
Action No. 4:19-cv-00507 (E.D. Tex.), Judge Amos L. Mazzant of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman
Division, granted in part and denied in part (i) Defendant Boeing's
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing and Failure to State a
Claim; and (ii) Defendant Southwest's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to
Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 9(b) or, in the Alternative, Motion
to Strike the Class Allegations.

The litigation centers around the allegedly fraudulent
representations and conspiratorial conduct of the Defendants.
Plaintiffs Earl, Rugg, Beck, Timothy Blakey, Jr., Stephanie Blakey,
Thompson, Khan, Cooper, Rogers, Mortz-Rogers, and Goggins bring
their own claims against the Defendants and seek to represent a
putative class of similarly situated individuals who -- they claim
-- were overcharged at the moment they purchased their airplane
tickets.

According to the Plaintiffs, increasing competition from Airbus,
another aircraft manufacturer, caused Defendant Boeing to look for
shortcuts in order to get its new airplanes to customers quicker.
After the launch of the Airbus A320neo, the Plaintiffs contend that
Defendant Boeing chose to adapt one of its existing aircraft into a
new product to compete with Airbus.  Defendant Boeing wanted to
save on design and development costs with the new plane, and it
also wanted to avoid forcing pilots -- who were used to flying the
old Boeing 737s -- from having to learn to fly an entirely new
aircraft.  Enter the Boeing 737 MAX 8.

Defendant Boeing allegedly took the old 737 and modified the
engine, engine position, and the airplane's nose gear in an effort
to make the MAX 8 more fuel efficient.  But because the engines
were more powerful and mounted differently than on prior models,
Defendant Boeing had to combat the increased risk that the nose of
the MAX 8 would pitch up, which could result in a deadly
aerodynamic stall.  To combat the tendency of the nose to pitch up,
Defendant Boeing designed the Maneuvering Characteristics
Augmentation System ("MCAS"), a computer-controlled system designed
to bring the MAX 8's nose down in the event of a pitch up without
the need for pilot input.

The Plaintiffs state that the "MCAS was defective by design --
fatally so," and claim that the Defendants knew of the defect.
They also assert that Defendant Boeing made misrepresentations to
regulators during the MAX 8 approval process and that Defendant
Southwest was involved with the development and testing of the MAX
8.  The purpose of these misrepresentations, as the Plaintiffs
allege, was to signal that the MAX 8 was safe in order to keep
demand and ticket prices up.

But the Defendants' claims of safety were soon undermined by two
tragic MAX 8 crashes: both the Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian
Airlines Flight 302 crashed due to the alleged MCAS defect.  Every
passenger died.  Soon after the crashes, the Federal Aviation
Administration ("FAA") grounded the MAX 8 in the United States.
According to the Plaintiffs, it was only after the FAA grounded the
plane that Defendants made "calculated admissions" about their
knowledge of and actions surrounding the MAX 8's defect.

Throughout their pleadings, the Plaintiffs allege two theories of
injury: (1) If they had known the MAX 8 was fatally defective, the
Plaintiffs would never have purchased tickets, so they want their
money back; and (2) The Defendants' fraudulent misrepresentations
and omissions allowed Defendant Southwest to overcharge the
Plaintiffs for their tickets.

The Plaintiffs do not dispute that they used the tickets they
purchased to complete a flight.  And they expressly disclaim any
recovery in the action for physical injury resulting from the MCAS
Defect.  The relevance of the MAX 8's defect to the suit, the
Plaintiffs claim, is that the injuries non-parties suffered in
crashes as a result of the defect implicate Defendants Southwest
and Boeing's aircraft and constitute evidence supporting various
claims, including overcharge for tickets.

The Plaintiffs allege causes of action against the Defendants for:
(1) violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization
Act ("RICO"); (2) fraud by concealment; (3) fraud by
misrepresentation; (4) negligent misrepresentation; (5) unjust
enrichment; (6) negligence; and (7) various claims brought on
behalf of California, Florida, New York, Arizona, Indiana, and
Georgia subclasses.

On Sept. 13, 2019, the Defendants filed their motions to dismiss.
On Dec. 9, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the Defendants'
motions to dismiss.

Judge Mazzant finds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded
an injury in fact.  The Plaintiffs advance two theories of economic
injury to establish an injury in fact: (1) if the Plaintiffs had
known the MAX 8 was fatally defective, they would never have
purchased a ticket, so the Plaintiffs want their money back; and
(2) the Defendants' RICO enterprise and fraudulent actions allowed
Defendant Southwest to overcharge the Plaintiffs for their
tickets.

The Defendants counter the Plaintiffs' dual theories of injury with
two main arguments of their own: (1) the Plaintiffs' first "injury"
is the kind of no-injury products liability claim proscribed by
Rivera v. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs.; and (2) the Plaintiffs cannot claim
they were overcharged for their tickets because they purchased a
safe flight and received a safe flight, which was the benefit of
their bargain.

The Court finds that the Defendants' first argument is correct.
Under Rivera, the Plaintiffs cannot establish an injury in fact on
their theory that, had they known about the risk of physical harm,
they would never have purchased tickets and are now entitled to a
refund.  The Plaintiffs' first theory of injury is the type of
no-injury products liability claim that Rivera definitively
foreclosed.

But the Plaintiffs can and do plead an economic injury in fact on
their second theory: that the Defendants' RICO enterprise and
fraudulent actions allowed Defendant Southwest to overcharge
Plaintiffs for their tickets.  And despite what the Defendants
suggest, the fact that the Plaintiffs received a safe flight -- or
some benefit from their ticket purchase -- does not vitiate the
Plaintiffs' otherwise well-pleaded economic injury in fact.
Because the Plaintiffs have properly pleaded an economic injury,
the Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden at this stage and may
invoke the Court's jurisdiction.

In their response, the Plaintiffs abandoned all but five causes of
action.  Thus, their state-law claims alleged in counts six through
17 of their Complaint for: (1) unjust enrichment; (2) negligence
against Defendant Southwest; (3) negligence against Defendant
Boeing; (4) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies
Act; (5) violation of the California False Advertising Law; (6)
violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act;
(7) violations of the New York General Business Law Section 349;
(8) violation of the New York General Business Law Section 350; (9)
violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act; (10) violation of the
Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act; (11) violation of the Georgia
Fair Business Practices Act; and (12) violation of the Georgia
Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act are dismissed without
prejudice.  

Accordingly, the Court's 12(b)(6) analysis will address the
Plaintiffs' remaining claims for: (1) civil RICO violations under
18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c); (2) civil RICO violations under 18
U.S.C. Section 1962(d); (3) fraud by concealment; (4) fraud by
misrepresentation; and (5) negligent misrepresentation.

The Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs failed to plead the
elements of their state-law claims and failed to plead a cause of
action under RICO.  They also argue that the Airline Deregulation
Act ("ADA") preempts the Plaintiffs' remaining state-law claims for
fraud by concealment, fraud by misrepresentation, and negligent
misrepresentation.

The Court disagrees with the Defendants' assertion that the
Plaintiffs' failed to plead the elements of their state-law claims
and failed to plead a cause of action under RICO.  But he agrees
that the Plaintiffs' remaining state-law claims for fraud by
concealment, fraud by misrepresentation, and negligent
misrepresentation are preempted by the ADA.

Defendant Southwest claims that three reasons support striking the
Plaintiffs' class allegations at the pleadings stage: (A)
individual issues of injury, causation, reliance, and damages will
predominate, (B) the laws of all 50 states governing their
state-law claims vary, so common issues will not predominate, and
(C) the proposed class is facially overbroad for myriad reasons.

The Court finds that Defendant Southwest's second argument for
striking the class allegations -- that the laws of all 50 states
governing the Plaintiffs' state-law claims vary -- can no longer be
a concern; the Plaintiffs do not have any state-law claims
remaining.  And Defendant Southwest's other two arguments are
better addressed at the certification stage; the Plaintiffs' claims
are sufficiently alleged to defeat a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

Accordingly, Judge Mazzant granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.  The Judge dismissed without
prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims for: (1) unjust enrichment; (2)
negligence against Defendant Southwest; (3) negligence against
Defendant Boeing; (4) violation of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act; (5) violation of the California False Advertising
Law; (6) violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act; (7) violations of the New York General Business Law
Section 349; (8) violation of the New York General Business Law
Section 350; (9) violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act; (10)
violation of the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act; (11)
violation of the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act; and (12)
violation of the Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

The Court also dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims for:
(1) fraud by concealment; (2) fraud by misrepresentation; and (3)
negligent misrepresentation.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have two remaining causes of action
for: (1) civil RICO violations under 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c); and
(2) civil RICO violations under 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d).

The Court denied all other relief requested.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 14, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/78qJLo from
Leagle.com.

Damonie Earl, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Linda Rugg, indivudually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Alesa Beck, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Timothy Blakey, Jr., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Stephanie Blakey,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Marisa
Thompson, indivudually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Muhammad Muddasir Khan, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Elizabeth Cooper, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, John Rogers, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Valerie
Mortz-Rogers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Lakesha Goggins, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Yavar Bathaee
-- yavar@piercebainbridge.com -- Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price &
Hecht LLP, Andrew Jay Lorin -- alorin@piercebainbridge.com --
Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP, Andrew Wolinsky, Pierson
Intellectual Property, PLC, Barron McGinnis Flood --
bflood@piercebainbridge.com -- Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht
LLP, Brian James Dunne -- bdunne@piercebainbridge.com -- Pierce
Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP, David L. Hecht --
dhecht@piercebainbridge.com -- Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht
LLP, Elizabeth L. DeRieux, Capshaw DeRieux LLP & Michael Pomerantz
-- mpomerantz@piercebainbridge.com -- Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price
& Hecht LLP.

The Boeing Company, Defendant, represented by Benjamin L. Hatch --
bhatch@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods, Brian D. Schmalzbach --
bschmalzbach@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP, Clyde Moody
Siebman -- clydesiebman@siebman.com -- Siebman Forrest Burg & Smith
LLP, Elizabeth Siebman Forrest, Siebman Forrest Burg & Smith LLP &
Thomas Miles Farrell -- tfarrell@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods
LLP.

Southwest Airlines Co., Defendant, represented by Michael Alan
Swartzendruber, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Geraldine W. Young,
Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, James Vincent Leito, IV, Norton Rose
Fulbright US LLP, Jason K. Fagelman, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP &
Philip Alexandar Tarpley, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP.


CANADIAN SOLAR: Trial in Ontario Class Suit Set for November 2020
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Solar Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the common issues trial
in the class action suit pending before the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice is scheduled for November 2020.

A class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of
its executive officers in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on
August 10, 2010. The lawsuit alleges generally that the Company's
financial disclosures during 2009 and 2010 were false or misleading
and brings claims under the shareholders' relief provisions of the
Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA), Part XX III.1 of the
Ontario Securities Act as well as claims based on negligent
misrepresentation.

In December 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Ontario
action on the basis that the Ontario Court has no jurisdiction over
the claims and potential claims advanced by the plaintiff. The
court dismissed the Company's motion on August 29, 2011. On March
30, 2012, the Ontario Court of Appeal denied the Company's appeal
with regard to its jurisdictional motion.

On November 29, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada denied the
Company's application for leave to appeal the order of the Ontario
Court of Appeal. The plaintiff's motions for class certification
and leave to assert the statutory cause of action under the Ontario
Securities Act were served in January 2013 and initially scheduled
for argument in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in June 2013.
However, the plaintiff's motions were adjourned in view of the
plaintiff's decision to seek an order compelling the Company to
file additional evidence on the motions. On July 29, 2013 the Court
dismissed the plaintiff's motion to compel evidence.

On September 24, 2013 the plaintiff's application for leave to
appeal from the July 29 order was dismissed. In September 2014, the
plaintiff obtained an order granting him leave to assert the
statutory cause of action under the Ontario Securities Act for
certain of his misrepresentation claims.

In January 2015, the plaintiff in a class action lawsuit filed
against the company and certain of its executive officers in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice obtained an order for class
certification in respect of certain claims for which he had
obtained leave in September 2014 to assert the statutory cause of
action for misrepresentation under the Ontario Securities Act, for
certain negligent misrepresentation claims and for oppression
remedy claims advanced under CBCA.

The Court dismissed the company's application for leave to appeal
and the class action is at the merits stage. The common issues
trial is scheduled for November 2020.

Canadian Solar said, "We believe the Ontario action is without
merit and we are defending it vigorously."

Canadian Solar Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs,
develops, manufactures, and sells solar ingots, wafers, cells,
modules, and other solar power products primarily under the
Canadian Solar brand name. The company has operations in North
America, South America, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Australia,
and Asia. Canadian Solar Inc. was founded in 2001 and is based in
Guelph, Canada.


CEMEX SAB: Environmental Class Action Ongoing in Philippines
------------------------------------------------------------
CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a putative environmental class action suit in the
Philippines.

On September 20, 2018, a landslide occurred in Sitio Sindulan,
Barangay Tina-an, Naga City, Cebu, Philippines, a site located
within an area covered by mining rights of APO Land & Quarry
Corporation (ALQC).

CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V. is an indirect minority shareholder in ALQC,
the principal raw material supplier of one of the company's
subsidiaries in the Philippines, APO.

On November 19, 2018, CEMEX Holdings Philippines, Inc (CHP) and APO
Cement Corporation (APO) were served summons concerning an
environmental class action lawsuit filed by 40 individuals and one
legal entity (on behalf of 8,000 individuals allegedly affected by
the Landslide) at the Regional Trial Court of Talisay, Cebu (the
"Talisay Court"), against CHP, ALQC, APO, the Mines and Geosciences
Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the
City Government of Naga, and the Province of Cebu, for "Restitution
of Damage of the Natural and Human Environment, Application for the
Issuance of Environmental Protection Order against Quarry
Operations in Cebu Island with Prayer for Temporary Protection
Order, Writ of Continuing Mandamus for Determination of the
Carrying Capacity of Cebu Island and Rehabilitation and Restoration
of the Damaged Ecosystems."

In the complaint, among other allegations, plaintiffs claim that
the Landslide occurred as a result of the defendants' gross
negligence; and seek, among other relief, (i) monetary damages in
the amount of 4.3 billion Philippine Pesos ($84.92 million as of
December 31, 2019, based on an exchange rate of 50.635 Philippine
Pesos to $1.00), (ii) the establishment of a 500 million Philippine
Pesos ($9.87 million as of December 31, 2019, based on an exchange
rate of 50.635 Philippine Pesos to $1.00) rehabilitation fund, and
(iii) the issuance of a Temporary Environment Protection Order
against ALQC aiming to prevent ALQC from performing further
quarrying activities while the case is still pending.

As of December 31, 2019, among other defenses and based on a report
by the Mines and Geosciences Bureau of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, CHP, APO and ALQC (individually,
each a "Private Defendant" and collectively, the "Private
Defendants") deny liability and hold the position that the
Landslide occurred due to natural causes.

In an Order dated August 16, 2019, the Talisay Court denied
plaintiffs' Application for Temporary Environment Protection Order.
Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration, but the Talisay Court also
denied plaintiffs' Motion in an Order dated September 30, 2019.
Plaintiffs may appeal this ruling to the Court of Appeal but only
on ground of grave abuse of discretion.

Likewise, in a separate Order also dated September 30, 2019, the
Talisay Court partially granted the affirmative defenses raised by
the Private Defendants in their respective answers, and ruled,
among others, that the subject case against CHP and APO is
dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.

The Talisay Court also ruled that: (i) the 22 plaintiffs who failed
to sign the verification and certification against forum shopping
are dropped as party-plaintiffs; (ii) the subject case is not a
proper class suit, and that the remaining 17 plaintiffs can only
sue for their respective claims, but not as representatives of the
more than 8,000 alleged victims of the landslide incident; (iii)
plaintiffs' cause of action against ALQC for violation of Section
19(a) of Republic Act No. 10121 is dismissed; (iv) there is a
misjoinder of causes of action between the environmental suit and
the damage suit; and (v) the damage suit of the remaining
plaintiffs will proceed separately upon payment of the required
docket fees within 30 days from receipt of Order, otherwise, the
case for damages will be dismissed.

This Court Order is not yet final and may be still be appealed by
the parties thereto. A motion for reconsideration was filed on
November 26, 2019 by the plaintiffs, such motion is yet to be heard
by the Talisay Court.

In the event that the latter Order is reconsidered and a final
adverse resolution is issued in this matter, plaintiffs will have
the option to proceed against any one of ALQC, APO or CHP for
satisfaction of the entirety of the potential judgement award,
without the need to proceed against any other Private Defendant
beforehand.

Thus, ALQC's, APO's or CHP's assets alone could be exposed to
execution proceedings.

CEMEX said, "As of December 31, 2019, because of the status and
preliminary stage of the lawsuit, considering all possible defenses
available, we cannot assess with certainty the likelihood of an
adverse result in this lawsuit, and, in turn, we cannot assess if a
final adverse resolution, if any, would have a material adverse
impact on our results of operations, liquidity and financial
condition."

CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V., together with its subsidiaries, produces,
markets, distributes, and sells cement, ready-mix concrete,
aggregates, clinker, and other construction materials. The company
operates in Mexico; the United States; Europe; South and Central
America, and the Caribbean; Asia; the Middle East; and Africa.
CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V. was founded in 1906 and is based in San Pedro
Garza Garcia, Mexico.


CEMEX SAB: Homeowners Suit in Israel Against Subsidiary Closed
--------------------------------------------------------------
CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the putative class action
suit initiated by a homeowner in Israel against one of the
company's subsidiaries had been closed.

On June 21, 2012, one of the company's subsidiaries in Israel was
notified about an application for the approval of a class action
suit against it. The application was filed by a homeowner who built
his house with concrete supplied by the company's Israeli
subsidiary in October 2010 (a same application was filed against
three other companies by the same legal representative).

According to the application, the plaintiff claims that the
concrete supplied to him did not meet with the "Israel Standard for
Concrete Strength No. 118" and that, as a result, the company's
Israeli subsidiary acted unlawfully toward all of its customers who
requested a specific type of concrete but that received concrete
that did not comply with Israeli standard requirements.

As per the application, the plaintiff claims that the supply of the
alleged non-conforming concrete has caused financial and
non-financial damages to those customers, including the plaintiff.


The company presumes that the class action would represent the
claim of all the clients who purchased the alleged non-conforming
concrete from our Israeli subsidiary during the past seven years,
the limitation period according to applicable laws in Israel. The
damages that could be sought amount to 276 million Israeli Shekels
($79.86 million as of December 31, 2019, based on an exchange rate
of 3.456 Israeli Shekels to $1.00).

The company's Israeli subsidiary submitted a formal response to the
corresponding court. Both parties presented their preliminary
arguments. In a hearing held on December 20, 2015, the preliminary
proceeding was completed, and the court set dates for hearing
evidence on May 8, 10 and 16, 2016.

In addition, the court decided to join together all claims against
all four companies, including our subsidiary in Israel, in order to
simplify and shorten court proceedings, however, it should be
mentioned that the court had not formally decided to join together
all claims.

On the hearing dates, the applicants in all four claims presented
evidence, including expert testimony. An abandonment of action has
been submitted to the court with respect to two of the four
defendant companies, but our Israeli subsidiary and another company
remain as defendants.

The company's subsidiary in Israel and the applicant already
submitted their summations with regards to the application for the
approval of the class action.

On July 9, 2019, the application for approval of the class action
against CEMEX Holdings (Israel) Ltd. was dismissed. No appeals were
submitted prior to the October 10, 2019 deadline for appealing the
judgment.

As of December 31, 2019, following the dismissal of the class
action and considering that no appeals were submitted prior to the
deadline, this case is closed.

CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V., together with its subsidiaries, produces,
markets, distributes, and sells cement, ready-mix concrete,
aggregates, clinker, and other construction materials. The company
operates in Mexico; the United States; Europe; South and Central
America, and the Caribbean; Asia; the Middle East; and Africa.
CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V. was founded in 1906 and is based in San Pedro
Garza Garcia, Mexico.

CHAD WOLF: Court Provisionally Certified Class of Detainees
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as KELVIN HERNANDEZ ROMAN, et
al. v. CHAD F. WOLF, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-00768-TJH-PVC (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. entered an order:

   1. provisionally certify case as class action on behalf of:

      "all people who: (1) Are currently detained in civil
      immigration detention at the Adelanto Immigration and
      Customs Enforcement Processing Center; (2) Were detained
      in civil immigration detention at the Adelanto Immigration
      and Customs Enforcement Processing Center at any time
      between March 23, 2020, and the final disposition of this
      case but have been transferred by BICE to another
      immigration detention facility, regardless of whether the
      other detention facility is within the Central District of
      California; or (3) Were detained in civil immigration
      detention at the Adelanto Immigration and Customs
      Enforcement Processing Center at any time between March
      23, 2020, and the final disposition of this case but have
      been released pursuant to a temporary restraining order, a
      preliminary injunction, or Provisional Class Certification
      Order - other temporary release order issued by this
      Court";

   2. appointing the Petitioners to represent the class;

   3. appointing Ahilan Arulanantham, Jessica Karp Bansal,
      Michelle (Minju) Cho and Michael Kaufmann, all of the ACLU
      of Southern California as class counsel; and

   4. staying pending resolution of this class action all
      related cases of class members who have previously filed,
      or who will file, their own cases seeking habeas relief,
      injunctive relief and/or declaratory relief regarding the
      conditions of their confinement at Adelanto related to
      COVID-19. The Court will issue stay orders in those
      related cases.[CC]

CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Kellams Seek Royalty Payments
----------------------------------------------------
CHARLES KELLAM and PHYLLIS KELLAM and all other persons and
entities similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA,
LLC, SWN PRODUCTION COMPANY and EQUINOR USA ONSHORE PROPERTIES,
INC. Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-00085-JPB (N.D. W.Va., April 28,
2020) contends that the Defendants intentionally kept and withheld
payments, benefits and property rights rightfully due and owing the
Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated persons and/or entities
for the oil and gas lease agreement through the retention and
deduction of post production costs from the royalty share payable
to them and, therefore, have committed illegal and improper
conversion.

Plaintiffs are husband and wife.  According to the complaint,
Plaintiffs executed an oil and gas lease agreement with Great Lakes
Energy Partners, LLC in August 2007. Defendants CHK, Equinor and
SWN have all engaged in oil and gas production efforts under the
authority of the subject agreement and each have deducted
post-production costs from royalty checks due and payable to
Charles Kellam and Phyllis Kellam and other similarly situated
persons and/or entities.

The Kellam lease lacks any specific method of calculating the
amount of alleged post-production costs to be deducted directly
from the Lessor's share of production and, at best, creates
ambiguity in the language of the lease agreement itself.

There is no proof that any of the actual costs deducted by any of
the Defendants have been actually incurred or that they are or were
reasonable in any way. The burden is on the lessees to prove, by
evidence of the type normally developed in legal proceedings
requiring an accounting, that the lessees actually incurred such
costs and that they were reasonable.

Defendants had the responsibility to pay the Kellams, and all other
similarly situated persons and/or entities, all moneys exactly due
and owing to them under and pursuant to the leases above and West
Virginia law. They were also responsible to account for the oil
and/or gas which was removed from Kellam property, and from the
properties of all other similarly situated persons and/or entities,
and to pay them all monies exactly due them. By deducting
post-production costs, Defendants CHK, Equinor and SWN have
breached the Kellam lease as well as the leases of all other
similarly situated persons and/or entities.

The Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated persons and/or
entities have been damaged through Defendants CHK, Equinor and
SWN's breaches in that they have not received monies that were due
and owing to them and have experienced a loss of use of these
monies, including but not limited to being prevented from using
said monies for their own personal purposes including but not
limited to the investment of those monies.

Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC is an Oklahoma-based company that
engages in the exploration, production, processing, and
transportation of natural gas.

SWN Production Company, LLC is a Texas-based oil and gas operator.

Equinor USA Onshore Properties, Inc. is a Texas-based oil and gas
operator.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

            James G. Bordas III, Esq.
            Jeremy M. McGraw, Esq.
            BORDAS & BORDAS, PLLC
            1358 National Road
            Wheeling, WV 26003
            Telephone: (304) 242-8410

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Appeal in Ong Class Action Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the appeal from a
decision in the class action lawsuit initiated by Susie Ong is
still pending.

On January 8, 2016, Susie Ong filed a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of shares of the company's common
stock between February 4, 2015 and January 5, 2016.

The complaint purports to state claims against the company, each of
the co-Chief Executive Officers serving during the claimed class
period and the Chief Financial Officer under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
related rules, based on the company's alleged failure during the
claimed class period to disclose material information about the
company's quality controls and safeguards in relation to consumer
and employee health.

The complaint asserts that those failures and related public
statements were false and misleading and that, as a result, the
market price of the company's stock was artificially inflated
during the claimed class period.

The complaint seeks damages on behalf of the purported class in an
unspecified amount, interest, and an award of reasonable attorneys'
fees, expert fees and other costs. On March 22, 2018, the court
granted our motion to dismiss, with prejudice.

On April 20, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from
the judgment and seeking leave to file a third amended complaint,
and on November 20, 2018, the court denied the motion.  

On December 20, 2018, the plaintiff initiated an appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Chipotle said, "We intend to continue vigorously defending the
case, but it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate
the outcome of or any potential liability from the case."

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

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurants. As of December 31,
2018, it operated 2,491 restaurants, including 2,452 Chipotle
restaurants in the United States, 37 Chipotle restaurants
internationally, and two non-Chipotle restaurants. The company was
founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Newport Beach, California.


CIOX HEALTH: Class Certification Bid Denied with Leave to Renew
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as RYAN DEMING, BRIANA FRASIER,
MICHAEL MCFARLAND and LUCAS GRISWOLD, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CIOX HEALTH, LLC,  SCL
HEALTH-MONTANA, d/b/a ST. VINCENT HEALTHCARE, BOZEMAN HEALTH
DEACONESS HOSPITAL, KALISPELL REGIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC., ST.
JAMES HEALTHCARE, RCHP BILLINGS-MISSOULA, LLC, d/b/a COMMUNITY
MEDICAL CENTER, and JOHN DOES 5-20, the Hon. Judge Donald W. Molloy
entered an order:

   1. granting Defendants' motion to extend the response deadline
      to the motion for class certification; and  

   2. denying the motion for class certification, subject to
      renewal according to this schedule:

      Class Discovery Deadline:         September 3, 2020

      Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion
      For Class Certification:          September 10, 2020

      Defendants' Response to
      Motion for Class Certification:   September 24, 2020

The Defendants are doing business in healthcare industry.[CC]

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Padilla Class Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company's
motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled, Caleb Padilla,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v
Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T. Smith, Larry Cash, and
Thomas J. Aaron, is pending.

This purported federal securities class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
on May 30, 2019.

It seeks class certification on behalf of purchasers of our common
stock between February 20, 2017 and February 27, 2018 and alleges
misleading statements resulted in artificially inflated prices for
our common stock.

On November 20, 2019, the District Court appointed Arun
Bhattacharya and Michael Gaviria as lead plaintiffs in the case.

The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class complaint on January
21, 2020. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
class complaint on March 23, 2020. That motion is pending.

Community Health said, "We believe this matter is without merit and
will vigorously defend this case."

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

Community Health Systems, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns,
leases, and operates general acute care hospitals in the United
States. The company offers general acute care, emergency room,
general and specialty surgery, critical care, internal medicine,
obstetrics, diagnostic, psychiatric, and rehabilitation services,
as well as skilled nursing and home care services. It also provides
outpatient services at urgent care centers, occupational medicine
clinics, imaging centers, cancer centers, and ambulatory surgery
centers. Community Health Systems, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bowden Suit Underway in Louisiana State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company's
motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the case captioned as, Bowden, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ruston Louisiana
Hospital Company, LLC d/b/a Northern Louisiana Medical Center, are
still pending.

This case is a purported class action lawsuit filed in the 3rd
Judicial District Court for the State of Louisiana and served on
September 7, 2016, claiming our affiliated Ruston, Louisiana
hospital violated payor contracts by allegedly improperly asserting
hospital liens against third-party tortfeasors and seeking class
certifications for any similarly situated plaintiffs.

The company's motion for summary judgment is pending, as is
plaintiff's motion for class certification.

Community Health said, "We believe these claims are without merit
and will vigorously defend the case."

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

Community Health Systems, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns,
leases, and operates general acute care hospitals in the United
States. The company offers general acute care, emergency room,
general and specialty surgery, critical care, internal medicine,
obstetrics, diagnostic, psychiatric, and rehabilitation services,
as well as skilled nursing and home care services. It also provides
outpatient services at urgent care centers, occupational medicine
clinics, imaging centers, cancer centers, and ambulatory surgery
centers. Community Health Systems, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: July 7 Trial in Zwick Partners Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that trial in the class
action suit entitled, Zwick Partners, LP and Aparna Rao,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Quorum Health Corporation, Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T.
Smith, W. Larry Cash, Thomas D. Miller, and Michael J. Culotta, is
set for July 7, 2020.

This purported class action lawsuit previously filed in the United
States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee was amended on
April 17, 2017 to include Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T.
Smith and W. Larry Cash as additional defendants.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of Quorum Health
Corporation, or QHC, shareholders and allege that the failure to
record a goodwill and long-lived asset impairment charge against
QHC at the time of the spin-off of QHC violated federal securities
laws.

The District Court denied all defendants' motions to dismiss on
April 20, 2018. The plaintiffs moved for class certification.
Plaintiffs also amended their complaint on September 14, 2018.

The company moved to dismiss the additional claims in the
plaintiffs' September 14, 2018 amended complaint and responded to
plaintiffs' class certification motion. On March 29, 2019, the
court granted the company's motion to dismiss the additional
claims.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification on
that same date. On April 12, 2019, we filed a petition for
permission to appeal the court's order granting class certification
with the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit,
which was denied on July 31, 2019.

On May 17, 2019, the plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint for
a third time to add additional claims, which the District Court
denied on August 2, 2019.

The trial for this matter is set for July 7, 2020.

Community Health said, "We believe the claims are without merit and
will vigorously defend the case."

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

Community Health Systems, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns,
leases, and operates general acute care hospitals in the United
States. The company offers general acute care, emergency room,
general and specialty surgery, critical care, internal medicine,
obstetrics, diagnostic, psychiatric, and rehabilitation services,
as well as skilled nursing and home care services. It also provides
outpatient services at urgent care centers, occupational medicine
clinics, imaging centers, cancer centers, and ambulatory surgery
centers. Community Health Systems, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Motion to Dismiss Kirk Class Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss a class action suit entitled, Becky Kirk, Perry Ayoob, and
Dawn Karzenoski, as representatives of a class of similarly
situated persons, and on behalf of the CHS/Community Health
Systems, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan v. Retirement Committee of
CHS/Community Health Systems, Inc., John and Jane Does 1-20,
Principal Life Insurance Company, Principal Management Corporation,
and Principal Global Investors, LLC, is still pending.

This purported class action was filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on August 8, 2019.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of current and former
participants in the CHS/Community Health Systems, Inc. Retirement
Savings Plan and allege that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by offering certain investments in the Plan that
were more expensive and/or did not perform as well as other
marketplace alternatives.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on October 18,
2019, which is pending.

Community Health said, "We believe these claims are without merit
and will vigorously defend the case."

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

Community Health Systems, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns,
leases, and operates general acute care hospitals in the United
States. The company offers general acute care, emergency room,
general and specialty surgery, critical care, internal medicine,
obstetrics, diagnostic, psychiatric, and rehabilitation services,
as well as skilled nursing and home care services. It also provides
outpatient services at urgent care centers, occupational medicine
clinics, imaging centers, cancer centers, and ambulatory surgery
centers. Community Health Systems, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Still Faces Gibson Suit over Hospital Liens
-------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Gibson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
National Healthcare of Leesville, Inc. d/b/a Byrd Regional Medical
Center.

This case is a purported class action lawsuit filed in the 30th
Judicial District Court for the State of Louisiana and served on
August 3, 2016, claiming the company's formerly affiliated
Leesville, Louisiana hospital violated payor contracts by allegedly
improperly asserting hospital liens against third-party tortfeasors
and seeking class certifications for any similarly situated
plaintiffs.

The court has certified a class and denied the company's motion for
summary judgment.

The company appealed both rulings to the Louisiana Third Circuit
Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's decisions on
March 7, 2019. The company filed an application for writ of
certiorari to the Louisiana Supreme Court, which was denied on May
29, 2019.

Plaintiff's motion for approval of notice of class action was
granted on October 24, 2019.

Community Health said, "We believe these claims are without merit
and will vigorously defend the case."

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

Community Health Systems, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns,
leases, and operates general acute care hospitals in the United
States. The company offers general acute care, emergency room,
general and specialty surgery, critical care, internal medicine,
obstetrics, diagnostic, psychiatric, and rehabilitation services,
as well as skilled nursing and home care services. It also provides
outpatient services at urgent care centers, occupational medicine
clinics, imaging centers, cancer centers, and ambulatory surgery
centers. Community Health Systems, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.


COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH: Judge Says Class Cert. Bid "Premature"
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as GIOVANNA SUAREZ, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH
SERVICES, LLC, and CALIBURN INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Case No.
1:19-cv-24573-JLK (S.D. Fla., Filed Nov. 5, 2019), the Hon. Judge
James Lawrence King has entered an order denying as premature the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Court said, "The Defendants oppose the motion, arguing that
certification would be premature because the Plaintiff relies
solely on the disputed pleadings without having conducted any
discovery. The Court agrees. Class certification is "proper only if
the trial court is satisfied, after a rigorous analysis, that the
prerequisites of Rule 23(a) have been satisfied." Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2551 (2011) (internal quotation
marks omitted); see also Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 33
(2013). The Supreme Court has repeatedly "emphasized that it may be
necessary for the court to probe behind the pleadings before coming
to rest on the certification question," and the court's analysis
"will frequently entail overlap with the merits of the plaintiff's
underlying claim." Based on the current record, the Court cannot
adequately engage in the "rigorous analysis" required by Rule 23.
Thus, the Court finds that the Motion must be denied as premature.

The Plaintiff brought this putative class action against the
Defendants asserting violations of the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act of 1988. The Plaintiff alleges that she
and other "similarly situated employees" were terminated due to a
"mass layoff at the Homestead Temporary Shelter for Unaccompanied
Children without receiving 60-days advance written notice as
required by the Act.

Comprehensive Health is a for-profit medical management services
provider that contracts with the United States federal government.
Caliburn is a professional services provider headquartered in
Reston, Virginia with approximately 8,500 employees. They offer
engineering, environmental, and technical solutions; logistics;
risk management; construction; and consulting activities, as well
as medical and humanitarian services.[CC]

CORRIGAN MOVING: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Oliver FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jordan Oliver and Jordan Petkus filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit titled Jordan Oliver, et al. v.
Corrigan Moving Systems, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00421, in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand
Rapids.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Jordan Oliver, et al. v.
Corrigan Moving Systems, et al., Case No. 20-1402, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants JORDAN OLIVER and JORDAN PETKUS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Robert Anthony Alvarez, Esq.
          AVANTI LAW GROUP
          600 28th Street, S.W.
          Wyoming, MI 49509
          Telephone: (616) 257-6807
          E-mail: ralvarez@avantilaw.com

Defendants-Appellees CORRIGAN MOVING SYSTEMS-GRAND RAPIDS, INC., a
Michigan Corporation, et al., are represented by:

          Mark R. Smith, Esq.
          RHOADES MCKEE
          55 Campau Avenue, N.W., Suite 300
          Grand Rapids, MI 49503
          Telephone: (616) 235-3500
          Email: mrsmith@rhoadesmckee.com


DAVID JENNINGS: Court Grants Provisional Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ANGEL DE JESUS ZEPEDA RIVAS,
et al. v. DAVID JENNINGS, et al., Case No. (Filed ), the Hon. Judge
Vince Chhabria entered an order:

   1. granting a motion for provisional class certification;

   2. granting a motion for temporary restraining order; and

   3. denying a motion for a stay.

The Court said, "There is nothing about the procedural posture of
this lawsuit -- such as the fact that it seeks habeas relief or
that it is on behalf of immigration detainees -- that precludes
provisional class certification. As the plaintiffs argue in their
papers, "class members have suffered the same injury -- the
substantial risk of contracting COVID-19 due to the lack of social
distancing -- and all class members would benefit from the same
remedy -- an order requiring social distancing at Yuba and Mesa
Verde." The likelihood that some people would need to be released
as part of the effort to alleviate dangerous conditions at the jail
(presumably by prioritizing people who have health vulnerabilities
and whose records indicate they are not a danger to the community)
does not change the ultimate relief the plaintiffs seek. And
therefore it is not a reason to deny provisional class
certification."[CC]

DELIVER TECHNOLOGY: Fralish Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Texts
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Fralish, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Deliver Technology, LLC and Fluent Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-00353
(N.D. Ind., May 4, 2020), alleges that the Defendants promote and
market their merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text
messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that Fluent routinely and systematically
delivers more than one advertisement or marketing text message to
residential or cellular telephone numbers registered with the
National Do-Not-Call Registry without the prior express invitation
or permission required by the TCPA. In March and April 2020, he
says he received a total of at least 15 text messages from the
Defendants.

Fluent is an advertising and marketing corporation headquartered in
New York. Deliver operates advertising and affiliate marketing
websites.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
          Boca Raton, FL 33487
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com


DEVA CONCEPTS: DevaCurl Products Harmful, Calabrese Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
TONI A. CALABRESE, MARINA A. MALIK, and KARISSA FRINK, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. DEVA
CONCEPTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03309 (S.D.N.Y., April
28, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the North Carolina Unfair and
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, breach of express warranty, breach
of implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, and
negligence.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly-situated consumers who purchased the Defendant's DevaCurl
No-Poo Original non-lathering conditioning cleanser and other
DevaCurl hair care products in the U.S., allege that the Defendant
engaged in false and deceptive advertising of the products by
failing to disclose that these products can cause scalp irritation,
excessive shedding, hair loss, thinning, relaxing of curl,
breakage, and/or balding during normal use by consumers. The
Plaintiffs also claim that despite notice and knowledge of the
problems caused by the products, the Defendant has not recalled
them, has not provided any warnings of the known risks, has denied
that they cause the reported health issues, and has not offered its
customers any compensation for their damages.

Deva Concepts LLC is a manufacturer of hair care products with its
principal place of business at 560 Broadway Suite 206 New York, New
York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
          
          Brittany Weiner, Esq.
          IMBESI LAW GROUP PC
          1501 Broadway, Suite 1915
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (646) 767-2271
          Facsimile: (212) 658-9177
          E-mail: brittany@lawicm.com

               - and -
          
          Joel R. Rhine, Esq.
          Martin A. Ramey, Esq.
          RHINE LAW FIRM PC
          1612 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 300
          Wilmington, NC 28403
          Telephone: (910) 772-9960
          Facsimile: (910) 772-9062
          E-mail: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com
                  mjr@rhinelawfirm.com

DIRECTV GROUP: Judge Wants New Class Certification Bid by Thursday
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ANGELA JOAQUIN v. DIRECTV
GROUP ORDER HOLDINGS. INC., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-08194-MAS-DEA
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Michael A. Shipp has entered an order:

   1. denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to
      certify class;

   2. directing the Clerk to terminate the Defendants' motions
      for summary judgment; and

   3. directing the Plaintiff to file a new motion for class
      certification by May 21, 2020.

Directv was founded in 2015. The company's line of business
includes the dissemination of visual and textual television
programs on a subscription or fee basis.[CC]

DOUYU INTERNATIONAL: Huang Sues Over Misleading IPO Statements
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, HENG HUANG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated v. DOUYU INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LIMITED, SHAOJIE
CHEN, WENMING ZHANG, CHAO CHENG, MINGMING SU, HAO CAO, TING YIN,
HAIYANG YU, XI CAO, XUEHAI WANG, ZHAOMING CHEN, ZHI YAN, TENCENT
HOLDINGS LIMITED, and COGENCY GLOBAL INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-03914 (C.D. Cal., April 29, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

The Plaintiff -- individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated who purchased DouYu American Depositary Shares
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement
issued in connection with the Company's July 16, 2019 initial
public offering (IPO) -- alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements associated to DouYu's IPO on July 16, 2019
and failed to disclose that prior to the IPO:

     (i) DouYu's risks related to its top streamers had
materialized, including that (a) a top streamer was actively
misrepresenting herself on DouYu's platform, and (b) the costs
associated with retaining top streamers was swelling;

    (ii) DouYu did not ensure that all of its products were fully
compliant with current regulatory requirements before those
products became available online; and

   (iii) key interactive features of DouYu's "lucky draw" were
non-compliant with current regulatory requirements, requiring DouYu
to remove them from operations, which negatively impacted user
engagement activity and caused disappointing financial results.

The Plaintiff and the Class members have sustained damages. The
value of DouYu ADSs has declined substantially subsequent to and
because of Defendants' violations.

Douyu International Holdings Limited is a live-streaming video-game
platforms company based in China.

Tencent Holdings Limited is an investment holding company located
at 2747 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, California.

Cogency Global Inc. is DouYu International's authorized U.S.
representative for purposes of the IPO. [BN]

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

               - and –

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

               - and –

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

FAT BRANDS: Bid for Class Certification in "Vignola" Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
FAT Brands Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 29, 2019, that the trial court in
Vignola v. FAT Brands, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-07469-PSG-PLA, has
denied Lead Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

On August 24, 2018, FAT Brands, Inc., Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe,
James Neuhauser, Edward H. Rensi, Marc L. Holtzman, Squire Junger,
Silvia Kessel, Jeff Lotman, Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc., and
Tripoint Global Equities, LLC (collectively, the "Original
Defendants") were named as defendants in a putative securities
class action lawsuit entitled Vignola v. FAT Brands, Inc., Case No.
2:18-cv-07469-PSG-PLA, in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.

On October 23, 2018, Charles Jordan and David Kovacs (collectively,
"Lead Plaintiffs") moved to be appointed lead plaintiffs, and the
Court granted Lead Plaintiffs' motion on November 16, 2018. On
January 15, 2019, Lead Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class
Action Complaint against the Original Defendants.

The allegations and claims for relief asserted in Vignola are
substantively identical to those asserted in the Rojany Case.  

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss First Amended Class Action
Complaint, or, in the Alternative, to Stay the Action In Favor of a
Prior Pending Action.  

On June 14, 2019, the Court denied Defendants' motion to stay but
granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amended Class
Action Complaint, with Leave to Amend.

Lead Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint on
August 5, 2019. On September 9, 2019, Defendants' filed a Motion to
Dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint.

On December 17, 2019, the Court granted Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint in Part, Without
Leave to Amend.  

The allegations remaining in Vignola are substantively identical to
those remaining in the Rojany Case. Defendants filed their Answer
to the Second Amended Class Action Complaint on January 14, 2020.


On December 27, 2019, Lead Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class
Certification.  

By order entered March 16, 2020, the Court denied Lead Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification. By order entered April 1, 2020, the
Court set various deadlines for the case, including a fact
discovery cut-off of December 29, 2020, expert discovery cut-off of
February 23, 2021 and trial date of March 30, 2021.  Defendants
dispute Lead Plaintiffs’ allegations and will continue to
vigorously defend themselves in this litigation.

FAT Brands Inc., a multi-brand franchising company, acquires,
markets, and develops fast casual and casual dining restaurant
concepts. The company was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in
Beverly Hills, California. FAT Brands Inc. is a subsidiary of Fog
Cutter Capital Group Inc.


FAT BRANDS: Bid for Class Certification in Rojany Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
FAT Brands Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 29, 2019, that the motion for class
certification in the consolidated class action suit entitled,
Rojany v. FAT Brands, Inc., Case No. BC708539, is pending.

On June 7, 2018, FAT Brands, Inc., Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe,
James Neuhauser, Edward H. Rensi, Marc L. Holtzman, Squire Junger,
Silvia Kessel, Jeff Lotman, Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc., and
Tripoint Global Equities, LLC (collectively, the "Original
Defendants") were named as defendants in a putative securities
class action lawsuit entitled Rojany v. FAT Brands, Inc., Case No.
BC708539 (the "Rojany Case"), in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles.

On July 31, 2018, the Rojany Case was designated as complex,
pursuant to Rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court, and
assigned the matter to the Complex Litigation Program.

On August 2, 2018, the Original Defendants were named defendants in
a second putative class action lawsuit, Alden v. FAT Brands, Case
No. BC716017 (the "Alden Case"), filed in the same court.

On September 17, 2018, the Rojany and Alden Cases were consolidated
under the Rojany Case number. On October 10, 2018, plaintiffs Eric
Rojany, Daniel Alden, Christopher Hazelton-Harrington and Byron
Marin filed a First Amended Consolidated Complaint against FAT
Brands, Inc., Andrew Wiederhorn, Ron Roe, James Neuhauser, Edward
H. Rensi, Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc., and Tripoint Global
Equities, LLC, thereby removing Marc L. Holtzman, Squire Junger,
Silvia Kessel and Jeff Lotman as defendants.

On November 13, 2018, Defendants filed a Demurrer to First Amended
Consolidated Complaint. On January 25, 2019, the Court sustained
Defendants' Demurrer to First Amended Consolidated Complaint with
Leave to Amend in Part.

Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint on
February 25, 2019. On March 27, 2019, Defendants filed a Demurrer
to the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint. On July 31, 2019, the
Court sustained Defendants' Demurrer to the Second Amended
Complaint in Part, narrowing the scope of the case.  

Defendants filed their Answer to the Second Amended Consolidated
Complaint on November 12, 2019.  

On January 29, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class
Certification. Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is fully
briefed, and the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification is set for April 23, 2020.  

Defendants dispute Plaintiffs' allegations and will continue to
vigorously defend themselves in this litigation.

FAT Brands Inc., a multi-brand franchising company, acquires,
markets, and develops fast casual and casual dining restaurant
concepts. The company was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in
Beverly Hills, California. FAT Brands Inc. is a subsidiary of Fog
Cutter Capital Group Inc.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss Allred Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28,
2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the
motion to dismiss or stay the class action suit initiated by Blake
E. Allred and Melissa M. Allred remains pending.

Chicago Title Insurance Company is one of the company's title
insurance underwriters.

Five lawsuits have been filed by various parties against Chicago
Title Company and Chicago Title Insurance Company as its alter ego,
among others. Generally, plaintiffs claim they are investors who
were solicited by Gina Champion-Cain to provide funds that
purportedly were to be used for high-interest, short-term loans to
parties seeking to acquire California alcoholic beverage licenses.


Plaintiffs contend that under California state law, alcoholic
beverage license applicants are required to escrow an amount equal
to the license purchase price while their applications remain
pending with the State.

It is further alleged that Chicago Title Company participated with
Ms. Champion-Cain and her entities in a fraud scheme involving an
escrow account maintained by Chicago Title Company into which the
plaintiffs' funds were deposited.

On November 5, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit styled, Blake
E. Allred and Melissa M. Allred v. Chicago Title Co., Chicago Title
Ins. Co., Adelle E. Ducharme, Betty Elixman, Gina Champion-Cain,
Joelle Hanson, Cris Torres, and Rachel Bond, was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California.

Plaintiffs seek class certification and consequential, treble, and
punitive damages.

The Named Companies are defending and have filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint on several grounds, or alternatively, to stay
the case.

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. (FNF), incorporated on May 24,
2005, is a holding company. The Company is a provider of title
insurance, and transaction services to the real estate and mortgage
industries. The Company's segments include Title, FNF Core
Corporate and Other, Restaurant Group, and FNFV Corporate and
Other. Its business is organized into groups, including FNF Group
and FNF Ventures (FNFV). The company is based in Jacksonville,
Florida.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Patterson Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28,
2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the
settlement agreement in the class action suit entitled,  Patterson,
et al. v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, et al., has
received preliminary approval.

In a class action captioned, Patterson, et al. v. Fidelity National
Title Insurance Company, et al., originally filed on October 27,
2003, and pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania, plaintiffs allege the named Company underwriters
violated Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law ("UTPCPL") by failing to provide premium discounts
in accordance with filed rates in refinancing transactions.

Contrary to rulings in similar federal court cases that considered
the rate rule and agreed with the Company's position, the court
held that the rate rule should be interpreted such that an
institutional mortgage in the public record is a "proxy" for prior
title insurance entitling a consumer to a discount rate when
refinancing when there is a mortgage of record within the number of
years required by the rate rule.

The rate rule requires sufficient evidence of a prior policy, and
because not all institutional mortgages were insured, the Company's
position is that a recorded first mortgage alone does not
constitute sufficient evidence of an earlier policy entitling
consumers to a discounted rate.

The court certified the class refusing to follow prior Pennsylvania
Supreme Court and appellate court decisions holding that the UTPCPL
requires proof of reliance, an individual issue that precludes
certification.

After notice to the class, plaintiffs moved for partial summary
judgment on liability, and defendants moved for summary judgment.
On June 27, 2018, the court entered an order granting plaintiffs'
motion for partial summary judgment on liability, and denying the
Company's motion. The court also determined that a multiplier of
1.5, not treble, should be applied to the amount of damages, if
any, proven by class members at trial, and that Plaintiffs should
bear the responsibility of identifying class members and
calculating damages.

The Company's requests for interlocutory appeals of both the
liability and damage multiplier issues were denied. The parties
executed a written settlement agreement and received preliminary
approval.

Notice must now be given, and the class action settlement
administrator will follow the claims process.

Fidelity said, "We do not believe the settlement will have a
material adverse effect on our financial condition."

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. (FNF), incorporated on May 24,
2005, is a holding company. The Company is a provider of title
insurance, and transaction services to the real estate and mortgage
industries. The Company's segments include Title, FNF Core
Corporate and Other, Restaurant Group, and FNFV Corporate and
Other. Its business is organized into groups, including FNF Group
and FNF Ventures (FNFV). The company is based in Jacksonville,
Florida.


FRED BEANS: Brogan Appeals E.D. Pa. Order in Consumer Credit Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Christopher Brogan filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Christopher Brogan v. Fred Beans Chevrolet Inc.,
Case No. 5-17-cv-05628, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
seeks certification of four classes:

   1. False Finance Charge Class:

      All consumers who purchased vehicles from Fred Beans in the
      United States where the retail installment sales contract
      falsely stated the finance charge; (2) were Pennsylvania
      residents at the time the contract to purchase the vehicle
      was executed; (3) within the five years prior to the filing
      of the Complaint until the date of final judgment in the
      action;

   2. Multiple RISC Class:

      All consumers who purchased vehicles from Fred Beans in the
      United States that: (1) entered into a retail sales
      installment contract with Fred Beans; (2) who were
      presented with more than one retail sales installment
      contract without a written cancellation of the prior retail
      installment sales contract; (3) were Pennsylvania residents
      at the time of the purchase; (4) within the five years
      prior to the filing of the Complaint until the date of
      final judgment in the action;

   3. Document Fee/Dealer Fee Class:

      All consumers who entered into retail sales installment
      contracts with Fred Beans: (1) that included within the
      retail installment sales contract a Document Fee/Dealer
      Fee; (2) were Pennsylvania residents at the time of the
      purchase; (3) within five years prior to the filing of the
      Complaint until the date of final judgment in the action;
      and

   4. Unauthorized Inquiry Class:

      All consumers who entered into retail sales installment
      contracts with Fred Beans in the United States: (1) where
      Fred Beans continued to conduct hard credit inquiries
      following the execution of the retail sales installment
      contract; (2) within five years prior to the filing of the
      Complaint until the date of final judgment in the action.

The appellate case is captioned as Christopher Brogan v. Fred Beans
Chevrolet Inc., Case No. 20-1944, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant CHRISTOPHER BROGAN, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, is represented by:

           Richard H. Kim, Esq.
           THE KIM LAW FIRM
           1500 Market Street, Suite W-3110
           Philadelphia, PA 19102
           Telephone: (855) 996-6342
           Facsimile: (855) 235-5855
           E-mail: rkim@thekimlawfirmllc.com

                     - and -

           Kevin J. Kotch, Esq.
           FERRARA LAW GROUP
           50 West State Street, Suite 1100
           Trenton, NJ 08608
           Telephone: (609) 571-3742
           Facsimile: (609) 498-7440
           E-mail: kevin@Ferraralawgp.com

                     - and -

           David M. Promisloff, Esq.
           PROMISLOFF LAW
           100 North 22nd Street, Unit 105
           Philadelphia, PA 19103
           Telephone: (215) 259-5156
           Facsimile: (215) 600-2642
           E-mail: david@prolawpa.com

Defendant-Appellee FRED BEANS CHEVROLET INC., doing business as
FRED BEAN CHEVROLET OF DOYLESTOWN AND FRED BEANS CHEVROLET, is
represented by:

           Devin J. Chwastyk, Esq.
           Barbara A. Darkes, Esq.
           James P. DeAngelo, Esq.
           Rachel R. Hadrick, Esq.
           MCNEES WALLACE & NURICK
           100 Pine Street, P.O. Box 1166
           Harrisburg, PA 17108
           Telephone: (717) 237-5482
           Email: dchwastyk@mcneeslaw.com
                  bdarkes@mcneeslaw.com
                  jdeangelo@mcneeslaw.com
                  rhadrick@mcneeslaw.com


GLOBAL DIGITAL: Final Settlement Judgment in Hull Suit Entered
--------------------------------------------------------------
Global Digital Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that an order and
final judgment has been entered granting a motion to approve
settlement in the class action suit entitled, Jeff Hull,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Global Digital Solutions, Inc., Richard J. Sullivan, David A.
Loppert, William J. Delgado, Arthur F. Noterman and Stephanie C.
Sullivan United States District Court, District of New Jersey
(Trenton), Case No. 3:16-cv-05153-FLW-TJB.

On August 24, 2016, Jeff Hull, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated filed suit in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey against Global Digital
Solutions, Inc. ("GDSI"), Richard J. Sullivan, David A. Loppert,
William J. Delgado, Arthur F. Noterman and Stephanie C. Sullivan
seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants'
alleged violations of federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On January 18, 2018, pursuant to the Court's December 19, 2017
Order granting Plaintiff Hull leave to file an amended Complaint,
Plaintiff Hull filed a Second Amended Complaint against Defendants.


On February 8, 2018, Defendants GDSI and Delgado filed a Second
Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. On February 8, 2018, Defendant
Loppert filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File an Answer. On
February 13, 2018, Defendant Loppert filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint for Lack of (personal) Jurisdiction and
for Failure to State a Claim.

On February 20, 2018, Plaintiff Michael Perry filed a Brief in
Opposition to Defendants GDSI and Delgado's Second Motion to
Dismiss the Complaint and to Defendant Loppert's Motion to Dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint for Lack of (personal) Jurisdiction
and for Failure to State a Claim.

On February 26, 2018, Defendants GDSI and Delgado filed a Reply
Brief to Plaintiff Michael Perry's Brief in Opposition to their
Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On February 26,
2018, Defendant Loppert filed a Response in Support of Defendants
GDSI and Delgado's Second Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. On March
12, 2018, Defendant Loppert filed a Reply Brief to Plaintiff
Perry's Brief in Opposition to Defendant Loppert's Motion to
Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for Lack of (personal)
Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Claim.

On September 14, 2018, an Order was entered denying the Defendants
GDSI and Loppert's Motions to Dismiss. On September 28, 2018, both
Defendants filed Answers to the Amended Complaint. On February 13,
2019, an Order was entered referring the case to mediation. The
parties were to submit a status report by April 15, 2019.

On June 12, 2019, Plaintiff Perry filed a Motion for Entry of an
Order Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement and
Establishing Notice Procedures. On July 15, 2019, an Order was
entered granting Plaintiff Perry's Motion for Entry of Preliminary
Approval of a Class Action Settlement.

On October 9, 2019, Plaintiff Perry filed a Motion for Entry of an
Order Granting Final Approval of a Class Action Settlement and a
Motion for Attorney Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Awards to
Lead Plaintiff and Lopez.

On November 6, 2019, an Order was entered granting Plaintiff
Perry's Motion for Attorney Fees.

On November 6, 2019, an Order and Final Judgment was entered
granting Plaintiff Perry's Motion for Settlement.

Global Digital said, "This settlement amount was paid for by the
Director's and Officer’s insurance. Attorney's fees were included
in the settlement amount. No amount is accrued or paid from the
Company."

Global Digital Solutions, Inc., incorporated on August 28, 1995,
focuses on the area of cyber arms technology and complementary
security and technology solutions. The Company's subsidiaries are
North American Custom Specialty Vehicles, Inc. (NACSV), GDSI
Florida, LLC and Global Digital Solutions, LLC. The company is
based in West Palm Beach, Florida.


GLUMETZA ANTITRUST: Direct Purchasers Seek to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: GLUMETZA ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case
No. 3:19-cv-05822-WHA (N.D. Cal., San Francisco Cty.), the Direct
Purchaser Plaintiffs will move the Court on July 30, 2020, for an
order:

   1. certifying a direct purchaser class of:

      "all persons or entities in the United States and its
      territories who directly purchased Glumetza or generic
      Glumetza from a defendant from May 6, 2012 until the
      effects of the defendants' conduct ceased."

      Excluded from the class are the defendants and any of
      their officers, directors, management, employees,
      subsidiaries, and affiliates; the federal government and
      its agencies; and state and local governments and their
      agencies.;

   2. appointing Meijer Inc., Meijer Distribution, Inc., KPH
      Healthcare Services, Inc., Bi-Lo, LLC, and Winn-Dixie
      Logistics, Inc. as class representatives; and

   3. appointing Shana Scarlett and Lauren Barnes of Hagens
      Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve Shadowen of Hilliard &
      Shadowen LLP, and Joseph Vanek of Sperling & Slater LLP as
      co-lead class counsel for the direct purchaser class.[CC]

The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
          David S. Nalven, Esq.
          Lauren G. Barnes, Esq.
          Kristen A. Johnson, Esq.
          Jessica R. MacAuley, Esq.
          Rochella T. Davis, Esq.
          Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
          Cambridge, MA 02142
          Telephone: (617) 482-3700
          Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
          E-mail: Tom@hbsslaw.com
                  Lauren@hbsslaw.com
                  Kristenj@hbsslaw.com
                  Davidn@hbsslaw.com
                  JessicaM@hbsslaw.com
                  RochellaD@hbsslaw.com
                  shanas@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Steve Shadowen, Esq.
          Matthew C. Weiner, Esq.
          Nicholas Shadowen, Esq.
          HILLIARD & SHADOWEN LLP
          1135 W. 6th Street, Suite 125
          Austin, TX 78703
          Telephone: (855) 344-3298
          E-mail: steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
                  matt@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
                  nshadowen@hilliardshadowenlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
          David P. Germaine, Esq.
          Eamon P. Kelly, Esq.
          Alberto Rodriguez, Esq.
          John P. Bjork, Esq.
          SPERLING & SLATER
          55 w. Monroe Street, Suite 3200
          Chicago, IL 60603
          E-mail: jvanek@sperling-law.com
                  dgermaine@sperling-law.com
                  ekelly@sperling-law.com
                  arodriguez@sperling-law.com
                  jbjork@sperling-law.com

GROCERY DELIVERY: Appeals D. Minnesota Ruling in Engen Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Grocery Delivery E-Services filed an appeal from the
District Court's Judgment dated April 13, 2020, entered in the
lawsuit styled Amanda Engen v. Grocery Delivery E-Services, Case
No. 0:19-cv-02433-ECT, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought to enforce the consumer privacy provisions of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that Grocery Delivery E-Services USA Inc.,
doing business as Hello Fresh, sent automated telemarketing calls
to her and other putative class members without their prior express
written consent.

This Class Action Complaint also relates to Hello Fresh's conduct
of making telemarketing calls in the absence of an adequate "do not
call" policy or training. Because telemarketing campaigns generally
place calls to hundreds of thousands or even millions of potential
customers en masse, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a
proposed nationwide class of other persons who received illegal
telemarketing calls from or on behalf of Defendant, says the
complaint.

The appellate case is captioned as Amanda Engen v. Grocery Delivery
E-Services, Case No. 20-1923, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit.

The briefing schedule is set as follows:

   -- Transcript is due on or before June 15, 2020;

   -- Appendix is due on June 24, 2020;

   -- Appellant Grocery Delivery E-Services USA Inc.'s brief is
      due on June 24, 2020; and

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Amanda Engen, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Brenda L. Joly, Esq.
          Michael D. Reif, Esq.
          Stacey Slaughter, Esq.
          ROBINS & KAPLAN
          2800 LaSalle Plaza, 800 LaSalle Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015
          Telephone: (612) 349-8500
          Email: bjoly@robinskaplan.com
                 mreif@robinskaplan.com
                 sslaughter@robinskaplan.com

                   - and -

          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln Street
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (617) 485-0018
          Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com

                   - and -

          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS
          Suite 201, 613 Williamson Street
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 237-1755
          Email: sam@turkestrauss.com

Defendant-Appellant Grocery Delivery E-Services USA Inc., doing
business as Hello Fresh, is represented by:

           Caitlinrose Hoolihan Fisher, Esq.
           Robert James Gilbertson, Esq.
           GREENE & ESPEL
           Suite 2200, 222 S. Ninth Street
           Minneapolis, MN 55402-0000
           Telephone: (612) 373-0830
           Email: cfisher@greeneespel.com
                  bgilbertson@greeneespel.com
                 
                   - and -

           Shannon Z. Petersen, Esq.
           SHEPPARD & MULLIN
           12275 El Camino Real, Suite 200
           San Diego, CA 92130-2006
           Email: spetersen@sheppardmullin.com

                   - and -

           Lisa Yun, Esq.
           SHEPPARD & MULLIN
           501 W. Broadway
           San Diego, CA 92101
           Telephone: (619) 338-6541
           Email: lyun@sheppardmullin.com


GROUPON INC: Macovski Sues Over 44% Share Price Decline
-------------------------------------------------------
LAZAR MACOVSKI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. GROUPON, INC., RICH WILLIAMS, and MELISSA
THOMAS, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02581 (N.D. Ill., April 28,
2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Groupon
securities between November 4, 2019 and February 18, 2020,
inclusive, seeking claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On February 18, 2020, Groupon reported sales of $612.3 million, a
23% decline year-over-year. The Company's adjusted EBITDA for
fiscal 2019 was reported at $227.2 million, a significant miss from
its November 2019 forecast of $270 million. Groupon also announced
a "transformational plan to exit Goods" in North America by the
third quarter and globally by the end of the year.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.35 per share, or
over 44%, to close at $1.70 per share on February 19, 2020, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

On March 25, 2020, Groupon abruptly announced that its Chief
Executive Officer, Rich Williams, and Chief Operating Officer,
Steve Krenzer, are "no longer serving" in their roles, but would
continue as employees of the Company.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company was experiencing fewer customer
engagements in its Goods category; (2) that Groupon relied on its
Goods category to drive its sales, especially during the holiday
season; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company was
likely to experience reduced sales; and (4) that, as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

Groupon, Inc. offers a marketplace that connects consumers to
merchants through mobile applications and websites. Historically,
Groupon operates in three categories: Local, which comprises
subcategories of local experiences, including events and
activities, health and beauty, food and drink, home and garden, and
automotive; Goods, which includes product revenue from merchandise
inventory sold directly to customers and service revenue from third
party merchants who sell products using Groupon marketplaces; and
Travel, which offers hotels, airfare and package deals at
discounted and market rates.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
            Louis C. Ludwig, Esq.
            10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
            Chicago, IL 60603
            Telephone: (312) 377-1181
            Facsimile: (312) 229-8811
            Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
                   lcludwig@pomlaw.com

                      - and -

            Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
            Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
            Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
            GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
            1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
            Los Angeles, CA 90067
            Telephone: (310) 201-9150
            Facsimile: (310) 201-9160

GRUPO AVAL ACCIONES: Appeal in Toll Road Concession Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Grupo Aval Acciones y Valores S.A. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Episol
S.A.S. ("Episol"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Corficolombiana and
an indirect subsidiary of Grupo Aval, have taken an appeal before
Colombia's Supreme Court for Administrative Law Matters in the
class action suit related to the awarding of toll road concession
contract for Ruta del Sol Sector 2.

Soon after Odebrecht's guilty plea, Colombia's Attorney General's
Office (the "Fiscalia General de la Nacion" or "Fiscalia")
initiated several lines of investigations that have identified and
incarcerated Colombian recipients of the Odebrecht bribes; the
Fiscalia also established that Odebrecht effected payments through
its "division of structured operations", directly from its
Brazilian headquarters, to obtain the contract for the construction
of "Ruta del Sol Project Sector 2" toll road concession awarded to
Concesionaria Ruta del Sol S.A.S. ('CRDS") in 2009 and also to
obtain the amendment to the contract in connection with the
Ocana-Gamarra addition to the Ruta del Sol II toll road in 2014.
The Concession Contract No. 001 of 2010, for the construction of
Ruta del Sol Sector 2 (the "Concession Contract"), was entered into
on January 14, 2010 and the amendment in connection with the
Ocana-Gamarra addition was entered into on March 14, 2014. Episol
S.A.S. ("Episol"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Corficolombiana and
an indirect subsidiary of Grupo Aval, is a minority (33%)
non-controlling shareholder in CRDS and Odebrecht is the majority
controlling and operating shareholder with a participation of 62%.
A third shareholder, CSS Constructores S.A., has a 5% participation
in CRDS.

In January 2017, the Procurator-General Office (Procuraduria
General de la Nacion or "PGN")  filed a class action complaint
against the National Infrastructure Agency ("ANI") and CRDS, (a
company formed by Construtora Norberto Odebrecht S.A., Odebrecht
Investimentos em Infraestructura Ltda., CSS Constructores S.A. and
Episol or the Concessionaire) before the Tribunal Administrativo de
Cundinamarca, asserting the violation of administrative morality,
protection of public goods and access to public services as
collective rights, in connection with the corrupt acts related to
the awarding of the toll road concession contract for Ruta del Sol
Sector 2.

Through the Class Action, the PGN sought: (i) a court order to the
ANI to adopt the required measures to ensure the continuity of the
public service of transport in the Ruta del Sol Sector 2 project;
(ii) a court order addressed to the Concessionaire, Odebrecht and
the Concessionaire's remaining shareholders to pay U.S.$11.1
million in connection with the bribes paid by Odebrecht in
connection with the awarding of the Concession Contract No. 001 of
2010, according to Odebrecht's agreement with the Department of
Justice; (iii) a court order addressed to the Concessionaire and
its shareholders holding them responsible for any damage or
prejudice caused to the government or others in connection with the
corrupt acts related to the awarding of the toll road concession
contract for Ruta del Sol Sector 2; (iv) a court order declaring
that the decision shall prevail over other judicial decisions
regarding the same matters; and (v) a court order to convene a
monitoring committee composed by representatives of public
authorities, in order to ensure the proper use of public resources
and the fulfillment, transparency, effectiveness and efficiency of
the measures to be taken.

On February 9, 2017, the Tribunal Administrativo de Cundinamarca
issued a preventive injunction (medidas cautelares) including,
among others, the following interim measures: the interim
suspension of the effects of the Concession Contract No. 001 of
2010, a court order addressed to the President of Colombia to
choose and appoint a governmental entity to take over the
concession and related contracts and assets, the seizure (freezing)
up to the amount of Ps 191.1 billion (approximately U.S.$64.0
million) of the bank accounts and any future dividends declared by
the following companies: the Concessionaire, Construtora Norberto
Odebrecht S.A. (Sucursal Colombia), Odebrecht Latinvest Colombia
S.A.S., Episol S.A.S. and CSS Constructores S.A.

On February 15, 2017, Episol appealed the interim measures issued
by the Tribunal Administrativo de Cundinamarca and a final decision
is now to be reached by the Consejo de Estado (Supreme Court
competent on administrative law matters).

It is not possible to estimate when the Consejo de Estado will
reach a decision on this matter, however, the interim measure
remains in force and has resulted in the seizure of bank accounts
of Episol in the amount of Ps 24.9 billion (approximately U.S.$ 8.3
million).

Grupo Aval said, "As a defendant in this Class Action, Episol
presented legal arguments to discard any allegations of joint and
several liability resulting from the illegal conduct of Odebrecht
as controlling shareholder of the Concessionaire. However, the
Tribunal Administrativo de Cundinamarca ruled in December, 2018
that Episol, as shareholder of Concesionaria Ruta del Sol SA.S.
(33%), along with Odebrecht, controlling shareholder of CRDS (62%)
and other defendants, including the former president of
Corficolombiana, were jointly liable for the damages caused
relating the Ruta del Sol Project Sector 2, and ordered the
defendants to jointly and severally pay the Transportation Ministry
Ps 715.6 billion, and debarred them from contracting with Colombian
state entities and from assuming government positions for a period
of 10 years. Episol and the other defendants filed an appeal of
this ruling before Colombia's Supreme Court for Administrative Law
Matters (Consejo de Estado) and as a result, the Tribunal
Administrativo de Cundinamarca's order is not final or enforceable.
It is not possible to estimate when the Consejo de Estado will
reach a decision on this matter."

Grupo Aval Acciones y Valores S.A. provides a range of financial
services and products to public and private sector customers in
Colombia and Central America. It operates through Banco Bogota
S.A., Banco de Occidente S.A., Banco Popular S.A., Banco AV Villas
S.A., and Corficolombiana S.A. segments. The Company was founded in
1870 and is based in Bogota, Colombia.


HARTFORD CASUALTY: Chorak Sues Over Denial of COVID-19 Coverage
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO D. CHORAK, DMD, P.S., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00627-JRC (W.D. Wash.,  April 24, 2020), alleges
that Hartford wrongfully denied claims for coverage relating to
COVID-19 pandemic and/or orders issued by Governor Jay Inslee,
other Governors, and other civil authorities.

Due to COVID-19 and a state-ordered mandated closure, the Plaintiff
cannot provide dental orthodontic services. The Plaintiff intended
to rely on its business insurance to keep its business as a going
concern, says the complaint. The Plaintiff says it filed the
lawsuit to ensure that it and other similarly-situated
policyholders receive the insurance benefits to which they are
entitled and for which they paid.

The Plaintiff is an orthodontic business with locations at 14300 SE
Petrovitsky Road, in Renton, Washington, and 3022 78th Avenue SE,
in Mercer Island, Washington.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Rinnigade Art Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Hartford
Financial Services Group Inc., et al. The case is styled as
Rinnigade Art Works, individually and behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc.,
Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Twin City Fire Insurance Company,
Case No. 1:20-cv-10867-IT (D. Mass., May 7, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Breach of Contract.

The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., usually known as The
Hartford, is a United States-based investment and insurance
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
          101 Federal Street, 19th Flr.
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: (617) 573-5118
          Fax: (800) 922-4851
          Email: psheehan@whatleykallas.com


HC2 HOLDINGS: Court Grants Bid for Expedited Hearing in Tera Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HC2 Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Delaware Court of
Chancery has granted the plaintiff's motion for expedited
proceedings in the purported class action suit entitled, Tera v.
HC2 Holdings Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2020-0275-JRS.

On April 10, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
class action complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery captioned
Tera v. HC2 Holdings Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2020-0275-JRS (the
"Stockholder Litigation").

The complaint alleges that the Company's consent revocation
materials (i) contain misleading disclosures relating to the
Certificates of Designation, (ii) fail to disclose that a majority
of the Board may approve the Percy Rockdale nominees for purposes
of the Certificates of Designation such that the Percy Rockdale
nominees would be considered "Continuing Directors" (as defined in
the Certificates of Designation) and (iii) inaccurately state that
electing the Percy Rockdale nominees will cause a Change of Control
(as defined in the Certificates of Designation) under the
Certificates of Designation because it will lead to a person or
group obtaining the power to elect a majority of the members of the
Board.

The complaint seeks (i) a declaration requiring the Board to
approve the Percy Rockdale nominees for purposes of the
Certificates of Designation, (ii) a declaration that the Board
breached its fiduciary duties by issuing misleading disclosures and
(iii) an injunction requiring the Board to issue additional
disclosures relating to the Change of Control provisions in the
Certificates of Designation.

On April 19, 2020, the plaintiff amended his complaint to allege
that the Supplement to the Consent Revocation Statement, filed with
the SEC on April 17, 2020, contained misleading disclosures
relating to the Certificates of Designation. The amended complaint
seeks, among other remedies, (i) a declaration that the Board
breached its fiduciary duties by issuing misleading disclosures;
(ii) a declaration that, if a Change of Control could be deemed to
occur under the Certificates of Designation, that such Change of
Control provisions are invalid and unenforceable under Delaware
law; (iii) an injunction requiring the defendants to issue
corrective disclosures; and (iv) an order enjoining the Board from
relying upon consent revocations received to date.
On April 20, 2020, the Court of Chancery granted the plaintiff's
motion for expedited proceedings.

HC2 Holdings, Inc. provides construction, marine services, energy,
telecommunications, insurance, life sciences, broadcasting, and
other services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
internationally. The company was formerly known as PTGi Holding
Inc. and changed its name to HC2 Holdings, Inc. in April 2014. HC2
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.


HF FOODS: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Class Action in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of those who acquired HF Foods
Group Inc. (NASDAQ: HFFG) securities during the period from August
23, 2018 through March 23, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors
have until May 28, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as
lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to disclose that: (i)
HF Foods engaged in undisclosed related party transactions; (ii) HF
Foods insiders and related parties were enriching themselves by
misusing shareholder funds; and (iii) HF Foods was "gaming" the
FTSE/Russell Index by masking the true number of shares free
floating.

On March 23, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report alleging
that the Company engaged in "massive undisclosed related-party
transactions," that shareholder money was "spent on exotic
supercars," and that the Company had an "outrageous fundamental
valuation."

On this news, HF Foods shares fell $2.52, or 20.5%, to close at
$9.80 per share on March 23, 2020.

If you acquired HF Foods securities, have information, or would
like to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W.
Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by email at
investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to
discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters
without any cost to you.

Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney LLP's website: www.kmllp.com.

Contact:

          Kirby McInerney LLP
          Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
          Tel: (212) 371-6600
          E-mail: investigations@kmllp.com
          www.kmllp.com
[GN]



HOMEAWAY.COM INC: Kirkpatrick Appeals W.D. Tex. Order to 5th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs THEADORE KIRKPATRICK and CHRISTOPHER COLL filed an
appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Theadore
Kirkpatrick, et al. v. Homeaway.com, Incorporated, Case No.
1:16-CV-733, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas, Austin.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks damages and other relief arising from the Defendant's alleged
breach of contract, fraud, and violations of consumer protection
laws in relation to its marketplace model, including the
Defendant's promise and reassurance that it would not charge
additional fees to renters.

The appellate case is captioned as Theadore Kirkpatrick, et al. v.
Homeaway.com, Incorporated, Case No. 20-90025, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners THEADORE KIRKPATRICK and CHRISTOPHER COLL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Jasper D. Ward, IV, Esq.
          JONES WARD PLC
          1205 E. Washington Street
          Louisville, KY 40206
          Telephone: (502) 882-6000
          E-mail: jasper@jonesward.com

Defendant-Respondent HOMEAWAY.COM, INCORPORATED, a Delaware
Corporation, is represented by:

          Stephen E. McConnico, Esq.
          David Dean Shank, Esq.
          SCOTT, DOUGLASS & MCCONNICO, L.L.P.
          303 Colorado Street
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 495-6300
          Email: smcconnico@scottdoug.com
                 dshank@scottdoug.com


IBM CORP: Continues to Defend ERISA-Related Class Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
International Business Machines Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
28, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the
company continues to defend a class action suit alleging violation
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

In May 2015, a putative class action was commenced in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York related
to the company's October 2014 announcement that it was divesting
its global commercial semiconductor technology business, alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).


Management's Retirement Plans Committee and three current or former
IBM executives are named as defendants.

On September 29, 2017, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the first amended complaint. On December 10, 2018, the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court order.


On January 14, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States vacated
the decision and remanded the case to the Second Circuit.

International Business Machines Corporation operates as an
integrated technology and services company worldwide. The company
was formerly known as Computing-Tabulating-Recording Co. and
changed its name to International Business Machines Corporation in
1924. The company was incorporated in 1911 and is headquartered in
Armonk, New York.


IMPINJ INC: Suit by Plymouth Retirement System Remains Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Impinj, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the class action suit entitled, Plymouth
County Retirement System v. Impinj, Inc., et al., is still stayed.

On January 31, 2019, a fourth class-action complaint for violation
of the federal securities laws was filed in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York for the County of New York against the
company, its chief executive officer, former chief operating
officer, former chief financial officer, members of its board of
directors and the underwriters of its July 2016 initial public
stock offering, or IPO, and December 2016 secondary public
offering, or SPO.

Captioned Plymouth County Retirement System v. Impinj, Inc., et
al., the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of
the company's stock pursuant to or traceable to its IPO and SPO,
alleges that the company made false or misleading statements in the
registration statements and prospectuses in those offerings
concerning demand for our products and inventory in violation of
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.

On April 9, 2019, the New York Supreme Court entered an order
staying the action and requiring the parties to update the court
every 90 days as to the status of the pending federal securities
class action.

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

Impinj, Inc. operates a platform that enables wireless connectivity
for everyday items by delivering each items unique identity,
location, and authenticity to business and consumer applications.
Impinj, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Seattle,
Washington.


IMPINJ INC: Trial in W.D. Wash. Securities Suit Set for Feb. 2021
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Impinj, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that a trial date has been set for February
1, 2021, in a securities class action.

On August 7, 2018, a class-action complaint for violation of the
federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California against the company, its chief
executive officer and former chief operating officer.

Captioned Schultz v. Impinj, Inc., et al, the complaint,
purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of the company's
common stock from May 7, 2018 through and including August 2, 2018,
asserted claims that our quarterly statement filed on Form 10-Q for
the first quarter of 2018 and a concurrent press release made false
or misleading statements about the company's business prospects and
financial condition. The complaint sought monetary damages, costs
and expenses. On October 3, 2018, the plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed this complaint.

On August 27, 2018, a second class-action complaint for violation
of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington against the company, its
chief executive officer, former chief operating officer and former
chief financial officer.

Captioned Montemarano v. Impinj, Inc., et al., the complaint,
purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of  the company's
common stock from May 4, 2017 through and including August 2, 2018,
asserts claims that the company made false or misleading statements
in its financial statements, press releases and conference calls
during the purported class period in violation of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Securities
Exchange Act. The complaint seeks monetary damages, costs and
expenses.

On October 2, 2018, a third class-action complaint for violation of
the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington against the company, its
chief executive officer, former chief operating officer and former
chief financial officer.

Captioned Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge
and Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Impinj, Inc., et al., the
complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of  the
company's common stock from November 3, 2016 through and including
February 15, 2018, asserts claims that we made false or misleading
statements about customer demand for the company's products and
inventory in SEC filings, press releases and conference calls in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act. The
complaint seeks monetary damages, costs and expenses.

On January 14, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington consolidated the Montemarano and Baton Rouge
actions and appointed the Employees' Retirement System of the City
of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge as lead plaintiff.

On February 13, 2019, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that from
July 21, 2016 through February 15, 2018, the company made false or
misleading statements about customer demand and the capability of
the company's products and platform in violation of Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act.

On March 19, 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint, and on October 4, 2019, the court
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion.

The court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim against the company's
former chief operating officer, dismissed
product-capability-related allegations against the company's former
chief financial officer, and dismissed allegations that defendants
made false or misleading statements concerning increasing demand
prior to the first quarter of 2017. The court denied the motion as
to all other claims and defendants. A trial date has been set for
February 1, 2021.

Impinj, Inc. operates a platform that enables wireless connectivity
for everyday items by delivering each items unique identity,
location, and authenticity to business and consumer applications.
Impinj, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Seattle,
Washington.


ITAU UNIBANCO: Parties Agree to Extend Settlement Opt-In Period
---------------------------------------------------------------
Itau Unibanco Holding S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the parties in the
class action suit by holders of savings accounts have signed an
addendum to an agreement instrument to extend the period of
adhesion for another 60 months to include a greater number of the
holders of savings accounts and consequently increase the closure
of processes.

Itau Unibanco Holding is a defendant in lawsuits filed by
individuals, as well as class actions filed by (i) consumer
protection associations; and (ii) the public attorneys' office
(Ministerio Publico) on behalf of holders of savings accounts.

In connection with these class actions, the company established
provisions upon service of the individual claim requiring the
enforcement of a judgment handed down by the judiciary, using the
same criteria used to determine the provisions of individual
actions.

The Superior Tribunal Federal (Brazilian Federal Supreme Court/STF)
has issued a number of decisions in favor of the holders of savings
accounts, but has not ruled regarding the constitutionality of
economic plans and their applicability to savings accounts.
Currently, the appeals on this issue are suspended by order of the
STF, until there is a definitive decision by the STF regarding the
constitutional issue.

In December 2017, under the mediation of the Advocacia-Geral da
Uniao (or AGU), the representative entities of banks and the
representative entities of holders of savings accounts entered into
an agreement with the objective of ending the litigation related to
economic plans against the Brazilian banks. The agreement
establishes the conditions for the voluntary adhesion of the
holders of savings accounts for the receiving of amounts and
closure of processes.

The agreement was ratified at a plenary session of the STF on March
1, 2018 and the holders of savings accounts were able to adhere to
its terms for a period of 24 months.

Due to the end of this period, in March 2020, the parties signed an
addendum to the agreement instrument to extend the period of
adhesion for another 60 months to include a greater number of the
holders of savings accounts and consequently increase the closure
of processes. For the validity and effects of this additive, the
approval of the STF will be necessary, and is expected to occur in
the second quarter of 2020.

Itau Unibanco Holding S.A. provides a range of financial products
and services to individuals and corporate clients in Brazil and
internationally. The Company operates in three segments: Retail
Banking, Wholesale Banking, and Activities with the Market +
Corporation.  The Company was formerly known as Itau Unibanco Banco
Multiplo S.A. and changed its name to Itau Unibanco Holding S.A. in
April 2009.  Itau Unibanco Holding S.A. was founded in 1944 and is
headquartered in Sao Paulo, Brazil.


KANDI TECH: Time to Appeal Nixed N.Y. Securities Suit Expires
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the time to
appeal the dismissal of putative shareholder class actions in New
York federal court has run.

Beginning in March 2017, putative shareholder class actions were
filed against Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. and certain of its
current and former directors and officers in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California and the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.


The complaints generally alleged violations of the federal
securities laws based Kandi's disclosure in March 2017 that its
financial statements for the years 2014, 2015 and the first three
quarters of 2016 would need to be restated, and seek damages on
behalf of putative classes of shareholders who purchased or
acquired Kandi's securities prior to March 13, 2017.

Kandi moved to dismiss the remaining cases, all of which were
pending in the New York federal court, and that motion was granted
by an order entered on September 30, 2019, and the time to appeal
has run.

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

Kandi Technologies Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, designs,
develops, manufactures, and commercializes electric vehicle (EV)
products and parts and off-road vehicles in the People's Republic
of China and internationally.  It offers off-road vehicles,
including go-karts, all-terrain vehicles, utility vehicles, and
other vehicles for sale to distributors or consumers; and EV parts
comprising battery packs, EV drive motors, EV controllers, air
conditioners, and other electric products.  The company was
formerly known as Kandi Technologies, Corp. and changed its name to
Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. in December 2012.  Kandi
Technologies Group, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is headquartered
in Jinhua, the People's Republic of China.


KM INDUSTRIAL: Appeals N.D. Cal. Order in Harris Suit to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant KM Industrial, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit entitled Levone Harris v. KM Industrial, Inc., Case
No. 3:19-cv-07801-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the eight
claims alleged by the Plaintiff are: (1) Violation of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act; (2) Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (3)
Failure to Provide Rest Periods; (4) Failure to Pay Hourly Wages;
(5) Failure to Indemnify; (6) Failure to Provide Accurate Written
Wage Statements; (7) Failure to Timely Pay All Final Wages; and (8)
Unfair Competition.

The appellate case is captioned as Levone Harris v. KM Industrial,
Inc., Case No. 20-80079, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent, LEVONE HARRIS, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          William Matthew Pao, Esq.
          Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          315 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 315
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Email: william@setarehlaw.com
                 shaun@setarehlaw.com

Defendant-Petitioner KM INDUSTRIAL, INC., a Delaware corporation,
is represented by:

          Megan Marie Cooney, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          3161 Michelson Drive
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 451-3800
          Facsimile: 949.451.4220
          Email: mcooney@gibsondunn.com

                   - and -

          Carlos Jimenez, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON
          633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-4300
          Email: cajimenez@littler.com

                   - and -

          Jordan Mikhail Rex, Esq.
          Katherine V.A. Smith, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7122
          Email: jrex@gibsondunn.com
                 ksmith@gibsondunn.com


L'OREAL USA: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification in "Carter"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ANGELA CARTER, ELLA VALRIE,
and DORA BLACKMON, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. L'OREAL USA, INC., and SOFT SHEEN-CARSON, LLC, Case No.
2:16-cv-00508-TFM-B (S.D. Ala.. Filed Sept. 30, 2016), the Hon.
Judge Terry F. Moorer entered an order:

   1. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion to
      strike. It is granted as to the manufacturing records,
      which are hereby stricken. It is denied as to Barbara
      Mitchell's declaration.

   2. granting Defendants' amended motion for summary judgment;

   3. denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; and

   4. denying as moot Plaintiffs' motion for appointment of
      class counsel.

The Court notes that, even if the Plaintiffs could meet the
commonality requirement, their motion would fail on the basis of
predominance under Rule 23(b)(3) because the Plaintiffs have failed
to sufficiently address the differences in state product-liability
law that impede certification. "To assess the impact of a common
question on the class members' claims, a district court obviously
must examine not only the defendant's course of conduct towards the
class members, but also the class members' legal rights and
duties."

The Plaintiffs assert various claims against the Defendants in
relation to the Amla Legend Rejuvenating Ritual Relaxer Kit, a
hair-relaxer kit marketed primarily to African American women and
sold nationally through various retailers under the Soft
Sheen-Carson Optimum Salon Haircare brand.

L'Oreal manufactures and markets cosmetic products. The company's
cosmetic line includes brand names such as L'Oreal, L'Oreal
Professionel, Maybelline, Ralph Lauren Fragrances, and Georgio
Armani Parfums.[CC]

LIBERTY HOMECARE: Headly Seeks Proper Overtime Pay for Caregivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Phyllis Headly, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated Plaintiffs V. Liberty Homecare Options, LLC, and Lucia
Devivo Catalano, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00579 (D. Conn.,
April 28, 2020) alleges that Defendants fail to pay overtime to
employees including the Plaintiff who work over 40 hours in a week
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants failed to ensure that they accurately recorded all the
work their Home Health Aides, a/k/a Caregivers ("HHAs"), including
Plaintiff, performed during their meal breaks and when their sleep
time was interrupted to care for their clients.

Defendants hired Plaintiff to work as an HHA on April 3, 2016 and
she worked for Defendants until March 12, 2019.

Liberty Homecare Options, LLC is a home health care service
provider based in New Britain, Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
            Thomas J. Durkin, Esq.
            HAYBER MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC
            750 Main Street, Ste. 904
            Hartford, CT 06103
            Telephone: (860) 522-8888
            Facsimile: (860) 218-9555
            Email: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com
                   tdurkin@hayberlawfirm.com

                        - and -

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

LINEAGE CELL: Paid $221,000 Legal Tab in Asterias Merger Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lineage Cell Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
has agreed to pay for the legal defense of Neal Bradsher, director,
and Broadwood Partners, L.P., a shareholder of Lineage, and
Broadwood Capital, Inc., in connection with the lawsuit challenging
the company's acquisition of Asterias Biotherapeutics, Inc.

In April 2019, Lineage issued 251,835 common shares of Lineage to
Broadwood Partners, L.P., a shareholder of Lineage and Asterias
Biotherapeutics, Inc. ("Asterias"), in exchange for the settlement
of warrants to purchase shares of Asterias common stock in
connection with the company's acquisition of Asterias (the
"Asterias Merger").

In connection with the putative shareholder class action lawsuits
filed in February 2019 and October 2019 challenging the Asterias
Merger, Lineage has agreed to pay for the legal defense of Neal
Bradsher, director, and Broadwood Partners, L.P., a shareholder of
Lineage, and Broadwood Capital, Inc., which manages Broadwood
Partners, L.P., all of which were named in the lawsuits.

Through December 31, 2019, Lineage has incurred a total of $221,000
in legal expenses on behalf of the director, shareholder and the
manager of the shareholder.

Lineage Cell Therapeutics, Inc. operates as a biotechnology
company. The Company offers cell-based therapies and gene
marker-based molecular diagnostics for diseases and degenerative
conditions. Lineage Cell Therapeutics serves patients in the United
States. The company is based in Carlsbad, California.


LIVE NATION: Iderstine et al. Allege Anticompetitive Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Olivia Van Iderstine and Mitch Oberstein, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Live Nation
Entertainment, Inc. and Ticketmaster LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-03888 (C.D. Cal., April 28, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman
Act.

The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, allege that the Defendants are engaged in
anticompetitive acts since their merger in 2010 by requiring venues
to select Ticketmaster as their primary ticketing service provider
for them to obtain Live Entertainment concert tours, which limits
the ability of Ticketmaster's competitors to compete in the primary
ticketing market and harming venues that would benefit from
increased competition. The malpractice was unchecked for so long
because consumers had no reason to know how venues contract for
primary ticketing services and because the Defendants affirmatively
concealed the behavior. Moreover, the Plaintiffs claim that the
Defendants have improperly wielded the conditional copyright
license Ticketmaster employs to grant access to its online platform
as an anticompetitive weapon against all users on the site and they
have implemented a technology to prevent primary ticket purchasers
to transfer their tickets to whomever they want. The Defendants'
anticompetitive conduct harmed primary and secondary ticketing
services consumer classes.

Ticketmaster LLC is a provider of ticketing services for live music
events at major concert venues throughout the U.S. It is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., with
principal place of business at 7060 Hollywood Boulevard, Hollywood,
California.

Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. is a concert promotion services
provider in the U.S., with principal place of business at 9348
Civic Center Drive, Beverly Hills, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
          
          Frederick A. Lorig, Esq.
          Kevin Y. Teruya, Esq.
          Adam B. Wolfson, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
          Telephone: (213) 443-3000
          Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
          E-mail: fredlorig@quinnemanuel.com
                  kevinteruya@quinnemanuel.com
                  adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com

LOS ANGELES, CA: Cullors Wants Prisoners Out Due to COVID Threat
----------------------------------------------------------------
RODNEY CULLORS, DENEAL YOUNG, JESSICA HAVILAND, RANY UONG, MARK
AVILA, CAROLE DUNHAM, LEANDREW LEWIS, VICTOR GUTIERREZ, JEREMIAH
FARMER, on behalf of themselves and all others similar situated,
DIGNITY AND POWER NOW, YOUTH JUSTICE COALITION v. COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES, LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF ALEX VILLANUEVA, and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-03760-RGK-PLA (C.D. Cal., April 24,
2020), seeks a writ of habeas corpus to secure immediate release of
all prisoners, who are 55 and older and those with medical
conditions that place them at heightened health risk from COVID-19,
coupled with appropriate support and conditions upon release, as
informed by public health expertise.

According to the complaint, release of these vulnerable prisoners
will both remove them from a life-threatening situation and permit
social distancing measures recommended by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) and other public health officials to
be implemented for those who remain at the jail. The Plaintiffs
further seek class-wide relief requiring the Defendants to
implement CDC and public health measures to prevent the spread of
the virus.

The Petitioners are nine individuals held at the Los Angeles County
jail facilities. They include persons, who are elderly and/or have
serious pre-existing medical conditions, which the CDC has
determined place them at significantly higher risk of severe
diseases and death if they contract COVID-19.

Los Angeles County is the most populous county in the United
States, with more than ten million inhabitants as of 2018.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dan Stormer, Esq.
          Shaleen Shanbhag, Esq.
          Tanya Sukhija-Cohen, Esq.
          Theresa Zhen, Esq.
          HADSELL STORMER RENICK & DAI LLP
          128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (626) 585-9600
          Facsimile: (626) 577-7079
          E-mails: dstormer@hadsellstormer.com
                   sshanbhag@hadsellstormer.com
                   tanya@hadsellstormer.com
                   tzhen@hadsellstormer.com

               - and -

          Barrett S. Litt, Esq.
          Lindsay B. Battles, Esq.
          KAYE, MCLANE, BEDNARSKI, & LITT, LLP
          975 E. Green Street
          Pasadena, CA 91106
          Telephone: (626) 844-7660
          Facsimile: (626) 844-7670
          E-mail: blitt@kmbllaw.com
                  lbattles@kmbllaw.com

               - and -

          Peter J. Eliasberg, Esq.
          ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
          1313 W. 8th St.
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977-9500
          Facsimile: (213) 977-5299
          E-mail: peliasberg@aclu.sc.org

               - and -

          Catherine Sweetser, Esq.
          Alicia Virani, Esq.
          Aaron Littman, Esq.
          UCLA LAW CLINICS
          385 Charles E. Young Drive East
          Los Angeles, CA 90095
          (310) 825-9562
          E-mail: csweetser@sshhlaw.com
                  virani@law.ucla.edu
                  littman@law.ucla.edu
                  Andrea Woods, Esq.*

               - and -

          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 549-2528
          Facsimile: (212) 607-3329
          E-mail: awoods@aclu.org

               - and -

          Alec Karakatsanis, Esq.
          Katherine C. Hubbard, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          1601 Connecticut Ave. NW, Ste. 800
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 894-6126
          Facsimile: (202) 609-8030
          E-mail: alec@civilrightscorps.org
                  katherine@civilrightscorps.org

               - and -

          Eric Balaban, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT
          915 15th St., N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 393-4930
          Facsimile: (202) 393-4931
          E-mail: ebalaban@aclu.org


LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY: Lott Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as TYROME LOTT v.
LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT, et al., Case No.
3:19-cv-00271-RGJ (W.D. Ky.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order:

   1. certifying his case as a class action on behalf of:

      "all persons, past, present and future, with vehicles
      registered to them that were towed and assessed or will be
      assessed amounts in excess of the maximum storage fee
      charge of $10 for each of the first seven days a vehicle
      is or has been in storage, plus a $5.00 fee per day for
      each additional day thereafter that a vehicle remains or
      has remained in storage as authorized by Louisville Metro
      Ordinance 72.062, and those persons who had their vehicles
      auctioned, since February 2, 2008";

   2. appointing himself as class representative; and

   3. appointing his counsel as class counsel.

The Louisville/Jefferson County metro government is a statistical
entity in the U.S. state of Kentucky defined by the United States
Census Bureau to represent the portion of the consolidated
city-county of Louisville-Jefferson County that does not include
any of the 83 separate incorporated places (municipalities) located
within the city and county.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Deckard, Esq.
          HURT, DECKARD & MAY, PLLC
          127 W. Main St.
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Telephone: (859) 254-0000
          E-mail: jdeckard@hdmfirm.com

               - and -

          Michael T. Alexander, Esq.
          6701 Foxcroft Road
          Prospect, KY 40059
          Telephone: (502) 554-0139
          E-mail: alexanderandassociates123@gmail.com

MASIMO CORP: Trial of Individual Plaintiffs' Claims Set for June 2
------------------------------------------------------------------
Masimo Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that trial of the individual
plaintiffs' claims related to the class action suit initiated by
Physicians Healthsource, Inc., is scheduled for June 2, 2020.

On January 2, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California by Physicians Healthsource, Inc.

The complaint alleges that the Company sent unsolicited facsimile
advertisements in violation of the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005
and related regulations.

The complaint seeks $500 for each alleged violation, treble damages
if the District Court finds the alleged violations to be knowing,
plus interest, costs and injunctive relief.

On March 26, 2019, an amended complaint was filed adding Radha
Geismann, M.D. PC as an additional named plaintiff. On June 17,
2019, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. On
September 10, 2019, the parties filed motions for summary judgment.
On September 30, 2019, the Company filed its opposition to the
motion for class certification, and the plaintiffs filed their
reply on October 7, 2019.

On November 21, 2019, the District Court issued an order denying
the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and granting in
part and denying in part the Company's motions for summary
judgment, and deferring ruling on the plaintiffs’ motion for
summary judgment.

On December 5, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a petition for permission
to appeal the order denying class certification, which was denied
on January 24, 2020.

Trial of the individual plaintiffs' claims was scheduled for June
2, 2020, but the date was vacated. No new trial date has been set.


The Company believes it has good and substantial defenses to the
claims, but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail.

Masimo said, "The Company is unable to determine whether any loss
will ultimately occur or to estimate the range of such loss;
therefore, no amount of loss has been accrued by the Company in the
accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements."

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

Masimo Corporation, a medical technology company, develops,
manufactures, and markets noninvasive monitoring technologies
worldwide. Masimo Corporation was founded in 1989 and is
headquartered in Irvine, California.


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in Fuentes Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Elizabeth Fuentes and Myrna Johnston filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Elizabeth Fuentes, et al.
v. Maxim Healthcare Services Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-08932-AB-E, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
filed a putative class action complaint against the Defendant in
the Southern District of California alleging various wage and hour
claims against the Defendant, including failure to pay overtime and
minimum wages and related claims, along with a claim for violation
of the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").

The appellate case is captioned as Elizabeth Fuentes, et al v.
Maxim Healthcare Services Inc., Case No. 20-55497, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by June 2, 2020;

   -- Transcript is due on July 2, 2020;

   -- Appellants Elizabeth Fuentes and Myrna Johnston's opening
      brief is due on August 11, 2020;

   -- Appellee Maxim Healthcare Services Inc.'s answering brief
      is due on September 10, 2020; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants ELIZABETH FUENTES and MYRNA JOHNSTON,
individually, and on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Tom D. Rutledge, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS D. RUTLEDGE
          113 West G Street, Suite 231
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 886-7224
          Email: thomasrutledgelaw@gmail.com

Defendant-Appellee MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES INC., a Maryland
corporation, is represented by:

          John S. Battenfeld, Esq.
          Karen Cho, Esq.
          Brian Fahy, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: (213) 612-1018
          Email: john.battenfeld@morganlewis.com
                 karen.cho@morganlewis.com
                 brian.fahy@morganlewis.com
                                
                   - and -

          Lincoln Owens Bisbee, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 739-5807
          Email: lincoln.bisbee@morganlewis.com


MDL 2555: Bid to Certify Class in Coca-Cola Sales Suit Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GEORGE ENGURASOFF, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COCA-COLA
REFRESHMENTS USA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
14-md-02555-JSW (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jeffrey S. White of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California granted in
part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

The Plaintiffs in the multi-district litigation allege that the
Defendants, affirmatively, and by material omissions, misled the
public by representing on Coke's labels that Coke is, and always
has been, free of artificial flavors and chemical preservatives.

Coca-Cola lists phosphoric acid in the ingredients list on Coke's
labels.  However, the Plaintiffs allege Coca-Cola omitted the fact
that phosphoric acid is used as, an artificial flavoring and
chemical preservative.  They also allege that by failing to
identify phosphoric acid as an artificial flavor and a
preservative, Coca-Cola violated federal and state laws relating to
information that must be included on food labels.

The Plaintiffs also allege the phrase "no artificial flavors. no
preservatives added. since 1886.," which appears on some Coke
labels, is an affirmative misrepresentation because phosphoric acid
is a preservative and an artificial flavor.  Finally, they allege
the phrase "original formula" is an affirmative misrepresentation.
According to them, the composition of Coca-Cola has repeatedly
changed over time.  Those changes include the addition of
artificial ingredients like phosphoric acid.  Coca-Cola does not
concede that phosphoric acid is artificial flavor or an added
preservative.

Messrs. Engurasoff, Merritt, and Ogden assert statutory claims for
violations: of all three prongs of California's Unfair Competition
Law, Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.;
California's False Advertising Law, Business and Professions Code
sections 17500, et seq.; and California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, Civil Code sections 1750, et seq.  They also assert claims
under California law for negligent misrepresentation, negligence,
unjust enrichment, money had and received, and breach of express
warranty.

Mr. Woods asserts statutory claims for alleged violations of: the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practice Act, Florida Statutes
sections 510.201, et seq.; the Florida Food Safety Act, Florida
Statute sections 500, et seq.; and Florida's Misleading Advertising
Statute, Florida Statute section 817.41.  Mr. Woods also brings
claims under Florida law for negligent misrepresentation,
negligence, unjust enrichment, money had and received, and breach
of express warranty.

Mr. Sowizrol asserts statutory claims for alleged violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815
ILCS 505/1, et seq. and the Illinois Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,
410 ILCS 620/20.  Mr. Sowizrol also brings claims under Illinois
law for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, breach
of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, negligence,
unjust enrichment, and money had and received.

Ms. Marino asserts statutory claims for alleged violations of:
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A; Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 94, sections 187 and 190; Massachusetts Regulation 520.116.
She also asserts claims under Massachusetts law for breach of the
implied warranty of merchantability, breach of express warranty,
negligent misrepresentation, negligence, unjust enrichment, money
had and received, and for a declaratory judgment that Coca-Cola
violated federal and state laws regarding mislabeled and misbranded
food products.

Ms. Lazaroff and Ms. Dube assert statutory claims for alleged
violations of New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350
and New York Agriculture and Markets Law section 199-a.  Ms.
Lazaroff also asserts claims under New York law for breach of the
implied warranty of merchantability, breach of express warranty,
negligent misrepresentation, negligence, unjust enrichment, and
money had and received.

Ms. Dube also asserts statutory claims for alleged violations of
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, New Jersey Statutes Annotated
sections 56:8-1, et seq. and New Jersey Statutes Annotated section
24:5-1. She also asserts claims under New Jersey law for breach of
the implied warranty of merchantability, breach of express
warranty, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, unjust
enrichment, and money had and received.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify six classes consisting of persons
from California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and
Florida who: purchased Coca-Cola's Coke product within [those
states] that: (1) lists phosphoric acid on the ingredients list but
does not state that the product contains artificial flavoring and
chemical preservatives; (2) includes the label statement no
artificial flavors. no preservatives added. since 1886.; and/or (3)
includes the label statement original formula.

Class certification is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23.  Under Rule 23(a), a court may certify a class only if (1) the
class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable,
(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the
claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the
claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties
will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.  

The Plaintiffs assert state law claims in their respective
jurisdictions for breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability, breach of express warranty, negligent
misrepresentation, negligence, unjust enrichment, and money had and
received.  They state that for "efficiency's sake", their analysis
centers on the statutory claims.  They summarily argue that the
common law claims are also susceptible to common proof, but they do
not address the elements of those claims for each jurisdiction at
issue.

Even if the Court were to assume that there are common questions of
law or fact for each common law claim in each jurisdiction,
Plaintiffs seek damages as relief.  The Plaintiffs have not
demonstrated that any damages awarded on these common law claims
would be "incidental" to the injunctive relief they seek, i.e.
damages that flow directly from liability to the class as a whole
on the claims forming the basis of the injunctive or declaratory
relief.  The Court concludes the Plaintiffs have not met their
burden to show they are entitled to class certification of their
common law claims, and the Court denies in part their motion on
that basis.

Coca-Cola argues the Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to seek
injunctive relief but does not otherwise challenge their ability to
satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2).  The Court concludes
that (i) Mr. Merritt has met his burden to show he has standing to
seek injunctive relief on behalf of the California class; (ii) Mr.
Woods has met his burden to show he has standing to seek injunctive
relief on behalf of the Florida class; (iii) Ms. Marino has met her
burden to show she has standing to seek injunctive relief on behalf
of the Massachusetts class; (iv) Mr. Sowizrol has met his burden to
show he has standing to seek injunctive relief on behalf of the
Illinois class; (v) Ms. Lazaroff has met her burden to show she has
standing to seek injunctive relief on behalf of the New York class;
and (vi) Ms. Dube has met her burden to show she has standing to
seek injunctive relief on behalf of the New Jersey class.

Coca-Cola also argues that Ms. Marino, Ms. Lazaroff, and Ms. Dube
lack statutory standing to bring the Chapter 93A, the Sections 349
and 350 Claims, and the NJCFA Claim because they must prove an
ascertainable loss.  Unlike Article III standing, the issue of
whether a plaintiff has statutory standing does not necessarily
implicate the Court's jurisdiction.  To the extent Coca-Cola argues
it impacts Ms. Dube's ability to satisfy the commonality
requirement, the Court rejects that argument.  Coca-Cola does not
otherwise link the argument to these Plaintiffs' ability to satisfy
Rule 23(a)'s commonality and typicality requirements.  It also does
not contend these Plaintiffs' alleged failure to establish an
ascertainable loss prevents them from showing they have Article III
standing to pursue these claims.  The Court has carefully
considered Coca-Cola's argument on the issue, and the Court
concludes the argument goes to the merits of the Plaintiffs' claims
and should be addressed in that context.

Turning to the Rule 23(a) requirements, the Court finds that
Coca-Cola does not dispute the numerosity factor, and there is
evidence that each class has at least 1,000 members.  The Court
then concludes that the Plaintiffs have met their burden to show
they and their counsel will prosecute the action vigorously and
will adequately represent the class.  

As for commonality, the Court finds that it is evident that
Coca-Cola believes it will prevail on the issue of materiality when
the Court addresses the merits of the Plaintiffs' claims.  For
purposes of class certification, however, the Court concludes the
Plaintiffs have met their burden to show a fact-finder would be
able to answer the question of whether the statements are material
to a reasonable consumer on a class-wide basis.  Accordingly, the
Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have met their burden to show
common questions or law or fact exist on their statutory claim.

Finally, the Court concludes the Plaintiffs have met their burden
to satisfy the typicality requirement.  The Court finds that the
Plaintiffs satisfied the typicality requirement because their
claims and the absent class members' claims arose from the same
course of conduct.  The Court also noted that the named Plaintiffs
were not subject to unique defenses, which might have been the case
if any named Plaintiff had not relied on the label when they
purchased the Defendant's cooking oils.

For the foregoing reasons, the District Court granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 14, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/m5y6BG from Leagle.com.

George Engurasoff, Joshua Ogden, Plaintiffs, represented by Ben F.
Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates, Bradley F. Silverman --
bsilverman@fleischmanlawfirm.com -- Fleischman Law Firm, Dewitt
Marshall Lovelace, Sr., Lovelace Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice, Gene
M. Zona Jones, Provost Umphrey Law Firm, LLP, pro hac vice, June
Park -- jpark@fleischmanlawfirm.com -- The Fleischman Law Firm,
Keith M. Fleischman -- keith@fleischmanlawfirm.com -- The
Fleischman Law Firm, Robert L. Plotz & Don Barrett --
dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com -- Barrett Law Group.

Julia Hughes, Ayanna Nobles, Plaintiffs, represented by Sydney Jay
Hall, Attorney at Law, Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates & Don
Barrett, Barrett Law Group.

Paul Merritt, Plaintiff, represented by Keith M. Fleischman, The
Fleischman Law Firm, Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates, June
Park, The Fleischman Law Firm, Mark L. Knutson, Finkelstein &
Krinsk LLP, Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group & Mark L. Knutson,
Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP.

Bristol I. Aumiller, Plaintiff, represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore,
Pratt & Associates, Lucas Lanasa, Howard & Associates, P.A.,
Phillip Timothy Howard, Howard and Associates, P.A., Tammy Beth
Webb -- tbwebb@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. & Don Barrett,
Barrett Law Group.

Yocheved Lazaroff, Rachel Dube, Plaintiffs, represented by Ben F.
Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates, Bradley F. Silverman, Fleischman
Law Firm, Don Barrett, Barrett Law Group, June Park, The Fleischman
Law Firm & Keith M. Fleischman, The Fleischman Law Firm.

Ronald Sowizrol, Plaintiff, represented by Keith M. Fleischman, The
Fleischman Law Firm, Kristofer Scott Riddle, Clifford Law Offices,
Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates, Don Barrett, Barrett Law
Group, June Park, The Fleischman Law Firm, Robert Anthony Clifford,
Clifford Law Offices, P.C. & Shannon Marie McNulty, Clifford Law
Offices, P.C., pro hac vice.

Michelle Marino, Plaintiff, represented by Erica C. Mirabella
--erica@mirabellallc.com -- Mirabella Law, LLC, Ben F. Pierce Gore,
Pratt & Associates, Bonnie Prober, U.S. Department of Justice,
Charles J. LaDuca, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Dewitt Marshall
Lovelace, Sr., Lovelace Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice, Don Barrett,
Barrett Law Group, June Park, The Fleischman Law Firm, Keith M.
Fleischman, The Fleischman Law Firm, Robert Anthony Clifford,
Clifford Law Offices, P.C. & Zona Jones, Provost Umphrey Law Firm,
LLP.

Mary Rankin, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth R. Shemin, Shemin
Law Firm, PLLC, Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates, Don
Barrett, Barrett Law Group, Marcus Neil Bozeman, Thrash Law Firm &
Thomas P. Thrash, Thrash Law Firm, P.A..

Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by George
R. Dougherty -- gdougherty@shb.com -- Grippo & Elden LLC, Michelle
Cohen -- mcohen@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler,
Daniel Aaron Friedman -- dfriedman@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap
Webb and Tyler LLP -- ddjohnson@shb.com -- pro hac vice, David
Stephen Johnson, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, Ina Doung-May Chang --
ichang@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., James M. Simpson,
Jr., Friday Eldredge & Clark, LLP, Jane M. Metcalf --
jmetcalf@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, Martin
A. Kasten -- mkasten@fridayfirm.com -- Friday Eldredge & Clark,
LLP, Matthew Funk -- mfunk@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb and
Tyler LLP, pro hac vice, Sarah E. Zgliniec -- sezgliniec@pbwt.com
-- Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, Steven A. Zalesin --
sazalesin@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, Tammy
Beth Webb, Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. & Travis J. Tu, Patterson
Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP.

The Coca-Cola Company, Defendants, represented by George R.
Dougherty, Grippo & Elden LLC, Michelle Cohen, Patterson Belknap
Webb and Tyler, Daniel Aaron Friedman, Patterson Belknap Webb and
Tyler LLP, pro hac vice, David Stephen Johnson, Shook Hardy & Bacon
LLP, Ina Doung-May Chang, Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., James M.
Simpson, Jr., Friday Eldredge & Clark, LLP, Martin A. Kasten,
Friday Eldredge & Clark, LLP, Matthew Funk, Patterson Belknap Webb
and Tyler LLP, pro hac vice, Sarah E. Zgliniec, Patterson Belknap
Webb and Tyler LLP, Steven A. Zalesin, Patterson Belknap Webb and
Tyler LLP, Tammy Beth Webb, Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. & Travis J.
Tu, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP.

Coca-Cola Company, Defendant, represented by George R. Dougherty,
Grippo & Elden LLC, David Stephen Johnson, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP,
Ina Doung-May Chang, Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., James M. Simpson,
Jr., Friday Eldredge & Clark, LLP, Jane M. Metcalf, Patterson
Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, Martin A. Kasten, Friday Eldredge &
Clark, LLP, Matthew Funk, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, pro
hac vice, Sarah E. Zgliniec, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP,
Steven A. Zalesin, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, Tammy Beth
Webb, Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. & Travis J. Tu, Patterson Belknap
Webb and Tyler LLP.

BCI Coca Cola Bottling Company of Los Angeles, Defendant,
represented by Michelle Cohen, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler,
Daniel Aaron Friedman, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, pro
hac vice, Ina Doung-May Chang, Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Matthew
Funk, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, pro hac vice, Sarah E.
Zgliniec, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, Steven A. Zalesin,
Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, Tammy Beth Webb, Shook Hardy
& Bacon L.L.P. & Travis J. Tu, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler
LLP.

Coca Cola Bottling Company of Sonora, California, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Michelle Cohen, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler,
Daniel Aaron Friedman, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, pro
hac vice, David Stephen Johnson, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, Ina
Doung-May Chang, Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Matthew Funk,
Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, pro hac vice, Sarah E.
Zgliniec, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, Steven A. Zalesin,
Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler LLP, Tammy Beth Webb, Shook Hardy
& Bacon L.L.P. & Travis J. Tu, Patterson Belknap Webb and Tyler
LLP.


MIDLAND FUNDING: Faces Glad Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
DANA GLAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, and MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT,
INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00653-NR (W.D. Pa., May 4, 2020), seeks
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs against the Defendants for
their violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the
Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, and the Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

In November 2019, the Defendants filed a lawsuit against the
Plaintiff in an Allegheny County Magisterial District Court. The
Defendants claimed Midland purchased the Account from Capital One
Bank. Capital One Bank issued the Plaintiff a credit card account.
The Account allowed the Plaintiff to purchase goods and services
from businesses that agreed to accept the Account as payment for
goods and services.

The Plaintiff contends that the lawsuits filed against her and the
members of proposed classes unfairly subjected them to the legal
system. As a result of the Defendants' actions, they suffered
injury, including monetary harm for any attorneys' fees paid to
defend against the lawsuits the Defendants filed without legal
authority.

Midland Funding is the business of purchasing defaulted consumer
debt with the purpose of collecting debt for profit. Midland Credit
Management is collecting debts that are purchased and owned by
Midland Funding.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
          Kevin W. Tucker, Esq.
          EAST END TRIAL GROUP, LLC
          186 42nd Street, PO Box 40127
          Pittsburgh, PA 15201
          Telephone: (412) 223-5740
          E-mail: kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com
                  ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com

               - and -

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                  ekilepal@carlsonlynch.com


MOMO INC: Aug. 5 Oral Argument on Bid to Dismiss Marchand Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Momo Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the trial court
overseeing the case, Marchand v. Momo Inc., et al, Civil Action No.
19 CV 04433, has scheduled oral argument on the motion to dismiss
for August 5, 2020.

In May 2019, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the company, its chief executive officer and its
chief financial officer: Marchand v. Momo Inc., et al, Civil Action
No. 19 CV 04433 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed on May 15, 2019).

On September 18, 2019, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York appointed a lead plaintiff and
approved the lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel for the
class action lawsuit.

On November 20, 2019, lead and named plaintiffs filed --
purportedly on behalf of a class of persons who allegedly suffered
damages as a result of their purchases, acquisitions, and sales of
the company's American Depostiary Shares (ADSs) between April 20,
2015 and May 10, 2019, an amended class action complaint, which
advances that the company's public filings with the Securities and
Exchange Commission contained material misstatements or omissions
in violation of the federal securities laws.

On January 24, 2020, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended class action complaint. The court has scheduled oral
argument on the motion to dismiss for August 5, 2020. The action
remains at its preliminary stages.

Momo said, "We believe the case is without merit and intend to
defend the action vigorously."

Momo Inc. operates as a mobile-based social networking platform.
The Company enables users to establish and expand social
relationships based on location and interests. Momo Inc. operates
out of the Peoples Republic of China.


MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Certification of Sales Reps Class Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as GLEN BENZION, and all others
similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) v. MONDELEZ
GLOBAL, LLC, Case No. 0:20-cv-60508-RS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order:

   1. granting conditional certification of the case as a
      collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act for
      the following class:

      "all individuals that are or were employed as Sales
      Service Representatives for MONDELEZ GLOBAL LLC in the
      United States at any time during the past three years and
      who were not paid at time-and-a-half their regular rate of
      pay for all hours actually worked above 40 in any workweek
      of the employment period";

   2. appointing himself as the Representative of the Class with
      authority to negotiate and appear at settlement
      conferences / mediations on behalf of the class;

   3. appointing the law firms of USA Employment Lawyers --
      Jordan Richards PLLC and Eggnatz | Pascucci as counsel for
      the Class;

   4. expediting discovery production from the Defendants,
      within 10 calendar days of the Court's  Order granting
      this Motion, of a complete list, electronically in an
      Excel spreadsheet, of each and every Sales Service
      Representative listed alphabetically from "A" to "Z" –
      including their last known home address, cellular
      telephone number, e-mail addresses, and the last four
      digits of social security numbers, a separate field
      corresponding with each name -- who was ever employed as a
      Sales Service Representative in the United States by
      Defendant at any time between March 9 2017, and the
      present;

   5. permitting Plaintiffs’ counsel to send a Court-Approved
      Notice to all such persons about their rights to opt-in to
      this collective action by filing a Consent to Join
      Lawsuit; and

   6. granting the putative class 60 days to submit the Consents
      to Join to Plaintiffs’ Counsel.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has enforced an unlawful
nationwide pay policy by requiring its Sales Service
Representatives to work in excess of 40 hours per week without
properly compensating these employees at applicable federally
mandated overtime rates during their employment with the
company.

Mondelez is an American multinational confectionery, food, holding
and beverage company based in Chicago, Illinois which employs
approximately 83,000 individuals around the world.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS -
             JORDAN RICHARDS PLLC
          805 East Broward Blvd. Suite 301
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 871-0050
          E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  jake@jordanrichardspllc.com

               - and -

          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq
          Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
          EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI
          7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Telephone: (954) 889-3359
          E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com
                  Mpascucci@JusticeEarned.com

MONDELEZ INT'L: Plaintiffs Win Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------
Mondelez International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that a trial court has
granted plaintiffs' request to certify class.

On April 1, 2015, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
("CFTC") filed a complaint against Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez
Global LLC ("Mondelez Global") in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (the "District Court"), Eastern
Division (the "CFTC action") following its investigation of
activities related to the trading of December 2011 wheat futures
contracts that occurred prior to the spin-off of Kraft Foods Group.


The complaint alleges that Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global
(1) manipulated or attempted to manipulate the wheat markets during
the fall of 2011; (2) violated position limit levels for wheat
futures and (3) engaged in non-competitive trades by trading both
sides of exchange-for-physical Chicago Board of Trade wheat
contracts.

The CFTC seeks civil monetary penalties of either triple the
monetary gain for each violation of the Commodity Exchange Act or
$1 million for each violation of Section 6(c)(1), 6(c)(3) or
9(a)(2) of the Act and $140,000 for each additional violation of
the Act, plus post-judgment interest; an order of permanent
injunction prohibiting Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global from
violating specified provisions of the Act; disgorgement of profits;
and costs and fees.

On August 15, 2019, the District Court approved a settlement
agreement between the CFTC and Mondelez Global. The terms of the
settlement, which are available in the District Court's docket, had
an immaterial impact on the company's financial position, results
of operations and cash flows.

On October 23, 2019, following a ruling by the United States Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit regarding Mondelez Global's
allegations that the CFTC and its Commissioners violated certain
terms of the settlement agreement and the CFTC's argument that the
Commissioners were not bound by the terms of the settlement
agreement, the District Court vacated the settlement agreement and
reinstated all pending motions that the District Court had
previously mooted as a result of the settlement.

The parties have reached a new agreement in principle to resolve
the CFTC action and have submitted the settlement to the District
Court for approval. The District Court has scheduled a conference
on June 4, 2020 to discuss the proposed settlement agreement.

Additionally, several class action complaints were filed against
Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global in the District Court by
investors in wheat futures and options on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated.

The complaints make similar allegations as those made in the CFTC
action, and the plaintiffs are seeking class action certification;
monetary damages, interest and unjust enrichment; costs and fees;
and injunctive, declaratory and other unspecified relief. In June
2015, these suits were consolidated in the District Court.

On January 3, 2020, the District Court granted plaintiffs' request
to certify a class.

Mondelez said, "It is not possible to predict the outcome of these
matters; however, based on our Separation and Distribution
Agreement with Kraft Foods Group dated as of September 27, 2012, we
expect to bear any monetary penalties or other payments in
connection with the CFTC action. Although the CFTC action and the
class action complaints involve the same alleged conduct, a
resolution or decision with respect to one of the matters may not
be dispositive as to the outcome of the other matter."

Mondelez International, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and markets snack food and beverage products
worldwide. It offers biscuits, including cookies, crackers, and
salted snacks; chocolates; gums and candies; coffee and powdered
beverages; and cheese and grocery products. Mondelez International,
Inc. was founded in 2000 and is based in Deerfield, Illinois.


MONMOUTH UNIVERSITY: Fittipaldi Demands COVID-19 Tuition Refunds
----------------------------------------------------------------
JODI FITTIPALDI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. MONMOUTH UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-05526 (D.N.J.,
May 4, 2020), seeks refund of the tuition and fees paid for the
Spring 2020 academic semester at the University, which closed its
doors due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

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

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
Ms. Fittipaldi and the putative class contracted and paid for.

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

Monmouth is a private university, with an enrollment of approx.
6,300 students comprising approx. 4,600 undergraduate students and
1,700 graduate students.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Obergfell, Esq.
          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: aobergfell@bursor.com
                  swestcot@bursor.com


NEW JERSEY: Faces Vazquez Suit Alleging Violation of Civil Rights
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Jersey Supreme
Court, et al. The case is captioned as JOEZIEL JOEY VAZQUEZ, FATHER
OF E.J, V.T, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Parents with paternity and or parentage determination v.
NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT, IN THEIR SUPERVISORY ROLE OF THE NEW
JERSEY JUDICIARY; THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; MERCER COUNTY SITTING
FAMILY COURT JUDGE; NEW JERSEY DEP'T OF PUBLIC WELFARE; NEW JERSEY
COMMISSIONER OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES; SECRETARY UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF STATE; NJ OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES; NEW
JERSEY DCPP; JANE DOE; CHILD SUPPORT OFFICIAL IN NEW JERSEY; and
NETERRA ALI, MOTHER OF E.J, V.T, Case No. 3:20-cv-05219-BRM-ZNQ
(D.N.J., April 25, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Brian R. Martinotti.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey is the highest court in the U.S.
state of New Jersey. New Jersey is a northeastern U.S. state with
some 130 miles of Atlantic coast.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]


NEW YORK: Board Appeals Order in Gulino Suit to Second Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from District Court's Order dated
March 12, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET AL. v. THE
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW
YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the
New York City public school system, alleged that Defendant, the
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New
York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain
racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a
license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance
Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified
the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).

On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to
the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief
in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to
the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule
23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and
classwide injunctive relief.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board, Case
No. 20-1479, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Deisy Espejo-Lao, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          Email: joshua.sohn@dlapiper.com

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District
of the City of New York is represented by:

          James Edward Johnson, Esq.
          CORPORATION COUNSEL
          CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-2500


NEW YORK: NYSBOE Appeals Opinion in Yang Suit to Second Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants New York State Board of Elections, et al., filed an
appeal from the District Court's Opinion and Order dated May 5,
2020, in the lawsuit styled Yang v. New York State Board of
Elections, Case No. 20-cv-3325, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges, among other claims, that the Plaintiffs' rights under the
First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution
were violated when, on April 27, 2020, their names were removed
from the New York Democratic presidential primary ballot and the
primary was cancelled.

The appellate case is captioned as Yang v. New York State Board of
Elections, Case No. 20-1494, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Andrew Yang, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, et al., are represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Kurzon, Esq.
          KURZON KOHEN LLP
          305 Broadway, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 203-8918

                 - and -

          Arthur Zachary Schwartz, Esq.
          ADVOCATES FOR JUSTICE, CHARTERED ATTORNEYS
          225 Broadway
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 285-1400
          Email: aschwartz@afjlaw.com

                 - and -

          Elena Louisa Cohen, Esq.
          Cohen & Green P.L.L.C.
          365 5th Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (413) 329-3238
          Email: elena@femmelaw.com

                 - and -

          Remy Green, Esq.
          COHEN & GREEN P.L.L.C.
          1639 Centre Street
          Ridgewood, NY 11385
          Telephone: (929) 888-948
          Email: remy@femmelaw.com

                 - and -

          Jonathan Wallace, Esq.
          P.O. 728
          Amagansett, NY 11930
          Telephone: (917) 359-6234

Defendants-Appellants New York State Board of Elections, et al.,
are represented by:

          Matthew Lawrence Conrad, Esq.
          Judith Naomi Vale, Esq.
          NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          28 Liberty Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 416-635

                 - and -

          Jennifer L. Clark, Esq.
          ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
          NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          The Capitol
          Albany, NY 12224
          Telephone: (518) 776-2024


OREGON: Smith Appeals Decision in FCA Class Suit to Ninth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Arlen Smith et al., filed an appeal from a Court ruling
in the lawsuit titled Arlen Smith, et al. v. Colette Peters, et
al., Case No. 2:14-cv-01982-SU, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon, Pendleton.

Colette S. Peters is the director of the Oregon Department of
Corrections.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the False Claims
Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Arlen Smith, et al. v. Colette
Peters, et al., Case No. 20-35385, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by June 1, 2020;

   -- Transcript is due on June 30, 2020;

   -- Appellants Jerry Harryman, Rotish Singh and Arlen Smith's
      opening brief is due on August 10, 2020;

   -- Appellees Brian Belleque, Kim Brockamp, Steven Franks, Mike
      Gowers, Mitch Morrow, Anita Nelson, Mark Nooth, Colette S.
      Peters and Kelly Raths' answering brief is due on
      September 10, 2020; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.

Plaintiffs-Appellants ARLEN SMITH, JERRY HARRYMAN, ROTISH SINGH,
ex. rel United States of America; on behalf of themself and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Harrison Latto, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF HARRISON LATTO
          1631 NE Broadway, No. 533
          Portland, OR 97232
          Telephone: (503) 223-0783

Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is represented by:

          Alexis Lien, Esq.
          DOJ-USAO
          1000 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite 600
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 727-1000
          Email: alexis.lien@usdoj.gov

Defendants-Appellees COLETTE S. PETERS, Director, Oregon Department
of Corrections, et al., are represented by:

          Andrew Hallman, Esq.
          OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          1162 Court Street N.E.
          Salem, OR 97301
          Telephone: (503) 947-4700
          Facsimile: (503) 947-4791
          Email: andrew.hallman@doj.state.or.us


PAKSN INC: Illegally Deducts Nursing Staff Pay, Udarbe et al. Say
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BASILIO UDARBE, JARMILA ROMANOVA, and BRANDON THIBEAULT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated,
Plaintiffs v. PREMA P. THEKKEK; ANTONY P. THEKKEK A/K/A ANTHONY P.
THEKKEK; PAKSN, INC.; AAKASH, INC. D/B/A PARK CENTRAL CARE & REHAB
CENTER; APPLE CARE CENTER, LLC D/B/A APPLE VALLEY POST ACUTE
CENTER; BAYVIEW CARE, INC. D/B/A HILLTOP CARE CENTER; CCRC, LLC;
DIYAVILLA, INC. D/B/A DIYAMONTE POST ACUTE CARE CENTER; GRACEVILLA,
INC. D/B/A GENESIS HEALTHCARE CENTER AND D/B/A VILLA MARIA CARE
CENTER-LONG BEACH; HCRC, INC.; KARMA, INC. D/B/A MANTECA CARE &
REHABILITATION CENTER; KAYAL, INC. D/B/A BAYPOINT HEALTHCARE
CENTER; MARINOAK, INC. D/B/A CORINTHIAN GARDENS HEALTH CARE CENTER;
MCRC, LLC; NADHAN, INC. D/B/A WINSOR HOUSE CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL,
D/B/A ORCHARD POST ACUTE CARE, and D/B/A CREEKSIDE CONVALESCENT &
MENTAL REHAB PROGRAM; NADHI, INC. D/B/A GATEWAY CARE &
REHABILITATION CENTER; NASAKY, INC. D/B/A YUBA SKILLED NURSING
FACILITY; OAKRHEEM, INC. D/B/A HAYWARD CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL; SAGAR
INC. D/B/A LA MARIPOSA REHABILITATION CARE CENTER; SANDHYA, INC.
D/B/A FIRCREST CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL; THEKKEK HEALTH SERVICES,
INC., D/B/A MARTINEZ CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL; WESTVILLA, INC. D/B/A
WEST VALLEY HEALTHCARE CENTER; MILLBRAE SKILLED CARE, LLC; HEIGHT
STREET SKILLED CARE, LLC; PREMIER REHAB. INC.; CARESYSTEMS, INC.;
BURLINGAME HACIENDA; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No.
CGC-20-584259 (Cal. Super., San Francisco, April 29, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of California
Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code, breach of
contract, fraud and intentional misrepresentation, and waiting time
penalties.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly-situated employees, allege that the Defendants are
engaged in unlawfully deducting their wages from January 2019 and
May 2019 and again from December 2019 through the present,
purportedly to satisfy Plaintiffs' and Class members' contributions
to an employer-sponsored health care service plan through Kaiser
Permanente. However, in reality, Defendants did not secure coverage
of the promised health care service plan.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants at their skilled
nursing facility in Sonoma County, California.

Paksn, Inc. is an owner, operator, and administrator of skilled
nursing facilities with its principal place of business located at
540 West Monte Vista Avenue in Vacaville, California.

Aakash, Inc., d/b/a Park Central Care & Rehab Center, is an owner
and operator of a skilled nursing facility located at 2100 Parkside
Drive, Fremont, California.

Apple Care Center, LLC, d/b/a Apple Valley Post Acute Center, is an
owner and operator of a skilled nursing facility located at 11959
Apple Valley Road, Apple Valley, California.

Bayview Care, Inc., d/b/a Hilltop Care Center, is an owner and
operator of a skilled nursing facility located at 3269 D Street,
Hayward, California.

CCRC, LLC is a provider of administrative services to skilled
nursing facilities located at 161 Smith Road, Alamo, California.

Diyavilla, Inc., d/b/a Diyamonte Post Acute Care Center, is an
owner and operator of a skilled nursing facility located at 33
Mateo Ave., Millbrae, California.

Gracevilla, Inc., d/b/a Genesis Healthcare Center and d/b/a Villa
Maria Care Center-Long Beach, is an owner and operator of a skilled
nursing facilities located at 1201 Walnut Avenue, Long Beach,
California and 723 E. 9th Street, Long Beach, California.

HCRC, Inc. is a landlord and property owner located at 538 West
Monte Vista Avenue, Vacaville, California.

Karma, Inc., d/b/a Manteca Care & Rehabilitation Center, is an
owner and operator of a skilled nursing facility located at 410
Eastwood Avenue, Manteca, California.

Kayal, Inc., d/b/a Baypoint Healthcare Center, is an owner and
operator of a skilled nursing facility located at 422 Sunset
Boulevard, Hayward, California.

Marinoak, Inc., d/b/a Corinthian Gardens Health Care Center, is an
owner and operator of a skilled nursing facility located at 1611
Height St., Bakersfield, California.

MCRC, LLC is a provider of administrative services to skilled
nursing facilities located at 540 West Monte Vista Avenue,
Vacaville, California.

Nadhan, Inc., formerly d/b/a Winsor House Convalescent Hospital,
d/b/a Orchard Post Acute Care and d/b/a Creekside Convalescent &
Mental Rehab Program, is an owner and operator of a skilled nursing
facility located at 101 South Orchard Avenue, Vacaville,
California.

Nadhi, Inc., d/b/a Gateway Care & Rehabilitation Center, is an
owner and operator of a skilled nursing facility located at 26660
Patrick Avenue, Hayward, California.

Nasaky, Inc., d/b/a Yuba Skilled Nursing Facility, is an owner and
operator of a skilled nursing facility located at 521 Lorel Way,
Yuba City, California.

Oakrheem, Inc., d/b/a Hayward Convalescent Hospital, is an owner
and operator of a skilled nursing facility located at 1832 B
Street, Hayward, California.

Sagar Inc., d/b/a La Mariposa Rehabilitation Care Center, is an
owner and operator of a skilled nursing facility located at 1244
Travis Boulevard, Fairfield, California.

Sandhya, Inc., d/b/a Fircrest Convalescent Hospital, is an owner
and operator of a skilled nursing facility located at 7025 Corline
Court, Sebastopol, California.

Thekkek Health Services, Inc., d/b/a Martinez Convalescent
Hospital, is an owner and operator of a skilled nursing facility
located at 4110 Alhambra Way, Martinez, California.

Westvilla, Inc., d/b/a West Valley Healthcare Center, is an owner
and operator of a skilled nursing facility located at 7057 Shoup
Ave, Canoga Park, California.

Millbrae Skilled Care, LLC is an owner and operator of a skilled
nursing facility located at 33 Mateo Ave., Millbrae, California.

Height Street Skilled Care, LLC is an owner and operator of a
skilled nursing facility located in Bakersfield, California.

Premier Rehab. Inc. is a physical therapy facility located in
California.

Caresystems, Inc. is a technology solutions development company in
California.

Burlingame Hacienda is a home health care service located at 1012
El Camino Real, Burlingame, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
          
          Robert S. Arns, Esq.
          Jonathan E. Davis, Esq.
          Kevin M. Osborne, Esq.
          Julie C. Erickson, Esq.
          Shounak S. Dharap, Esq.
          THE ARNS LAW FIRM
          515 Folsom Street, 3rd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 495-7800
          Facsimile: (415) 495-7888

PARSLEY ENERGY: Streety Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JIM STREETY, Individually and
For Others Similarly Situated v. PARSLEY ENERGY OPERATIONS, LLC,
Case No. 7:20-cv-00049-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order granting conditional certification of a Fair
Labor Standards Act collective and court-authorized notice on
behalf of:

   "all oilfield workers (including but not limited to Drilling
   Consultants, Drilling Superintendents, Drilling Supervisors,
   HSE Consultants, Completions Consultants, Completions
   Supervisors, and Mud Engineers), employed by, or working on
   behalf of, Parsley Energy Operating, LLC who were classified
   as independent contractors and paid a day-rate with no
   overtime at any time during the past three years."

The Plaintiff contends that he and the Putative Class Members
customarily worked more than 40 hours a week Indeed, Parsley
generally scheduled them to work 12-hour shifts (though they often
worked more) for weeks at a time. Despite regularly working 84 or
more hours in a week, they did not receive overtime compensation
under Parsley's day rate policy.

Parsley is a Permian based independent oil and natural gas company.
Parsley has drilled and operated hundreds of vertical and
horizontal wells. To perform their operations, Parsley employs oil
field workers on a day rate basis who they allegedly classified as
independent contractors.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 325-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 325-3300
          E-mail: adunlap@mybackwages.com
                 mjosephson@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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

PATENAUDE & FELIX: Faces Hailstork FDCPA Suit in Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PATENAUDE & FELIX,
A.P.C. The case is styled as Howard Hailstork, Brian McClellan,
Michael Cockerham, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. PATENAUDE & FELIX, A.P.C., Case No. 2:20-cv-00678-NR
(W.D. Pa., May 7, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Patenaude & Felix is a debt collection law firm based in San Diego,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua P. Ward, Esq.
          THE LAW FIRM OF FENTERS
          201 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 201
          Pittsburgh, PA 15206
          Phone: (412) 545-3015
          Fax: (412) 540-3399
          Email: jward@fentersward.com


PATENAUDE & FELIX: Moyer Appeals E.D. Pa. Ruling to Third Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Candace Moyer filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Candace Moyer v. Patenaude & Felix, Case No.
5-18-cv-04711, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
moves for an order granting her Motion to Certify Class pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellate case is captioned as Candace Moyer v. Patenaude &
Felix, Case No. 20-1937, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant CANDACE MOYER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, is represented by:

          Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          E-mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com

Defendant-Appellee PATENAUDE & FELIX, A.P.C., is represented by:

          Edward M. Koch, Esq.
          Marc L. Penchansky, Esq.
          WHITE & WILLIAMS
          1650 Market Street
          One Liberty Place, Suite 1800
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 864-6319
          Facsimile: (215) 789-7613
          Email: koche@whiteandwilliams.com
                 penchanskym@whiteandwilliams.com


PAYCHEX OF NEW YORK: Bedolla Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Arturo Bedolla, individually
and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. Paychex of New
York LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No.
2020CH01535, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (Chicago) on April 24, 2020.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-02526 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Elaine E. Bucklo.

The Defendant provides financial services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brendan James Duffner, Esq.
          Timothy Patrick Kingsbury, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 West Wacker Dr., 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002
          E-mail: bduffner@mcgpc.com
                  tkingsbury@mcgpc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew C. Wolfe, Esq.
          Melissa Anne Siebert, Esq.
          Ian Macaulay Hansen, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
          111 S. Wacker Drive, Ste. 4700
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 704-7777
          E-mail: docket@shb.com
                  masiebert@shb.com
                  ihansen@shb.com


PENNSYLVANIA: Fails to Inspect Nursing Homes, Gill Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
JODI GILL, as Representative and Next Friend of GLENN OSCAR GILL, a
Long Term Care Facility Resident, on his behalf and on behalf of
all others Similarly Situated Plaintiffs, vs. PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Health & Welfare Building 8th Floor West 625
Forster Street Harrisburg PA 17120, Case No. 2:20-cv-02038 (E.D.
Pa., April 28, 2020) arises from the denial of Pennsylvania
Department of Health (PA DOH) policy and practice of providing
appropriate safeguards and care to nursing home residents (Long
Term Care Facility residents) in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
in violation of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with
Disabilities Act; the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(ACA); and federal and state regulations concerning inspections and
investigations of Long Term Care Facilities (LTCFs), including the
Social Security Act, and its implementing regulations; the Civil
Rights Act as it applies to the Federal Nursing Home Reform
Amendments (FNRA); and the Pennsylvania Disease Prevention and
Control Law.

According to the complaint, the failure of the PA DOH to conduct
inspections has resulted in the apparent biomedical experimentation
on residents under the guise of clinical trials. It is unlikely
that such egregious conduct could have occurred had inspections not
been halted.

The inspections have come nearly to a halt, thereby putting all
LTCF residents at risk of infectious disease transmission.
Specifically, these residents are at high risk for contracting
SARS-COV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) which is pervasive
within the community-at-large, and which is easily transmissible
from close contact (respiratory droplets) and from surfaces
(fomites).

Plaintiff Gill is authorized to take this action on behalf of her
father, Glenn Oscar Gill, age 81, who is a resident of Brighton
Rehabilitation and Wellness Center in Beaver, Pennsylvania. Mr.
Gill suffers from disabilities within the meaning of the
Rehabilitation Act, including advanced dementia and cardiovascular
disease. Mr. Gill has been a resident at Brighton since September
25, 2019. She is the class representative.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Robert L. Sachs, Jr. Esq.
            Theresa M. Blanco, Esq.
            SHRAGER & SACHS
            2300 One Commerce Square
            2005 Market Street
            Philadelphia PA 19103
            Telephone: (215) 568-7771
            Email: rsachs@shragerlaw.com
                   tblanco@shragerlaw.com

                       - and -

            Peter D. Giglione, Esq.
            MASSA, BUTLER, GIGLIONE
            Three Gateway Center Suite 1543
            401 Liberty Avenue
            Pittsburgh, PA 15222
            Telephone: (412) 338-1800
            Email: pgiglione@mbp-law.com

                       - and -

            Martin S. Kardon, Esq.
            KANTER, BERNSTEIN & KARDON PC
            1617 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1150
            Philadelphia, PA 19103
            Telephone: (215) 568-5885
            Email: kardon@kbklaw.com

                       - and -

            Robert F. Daley, Esq.
            D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
            ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
            707 Grant Street, Suite 125
            Pittsburgh PA 15219
            Telephone: (412) 281-7229
            Email: bdaley@peircelaw.com

PHARMACYCLICS INC: Final Judgment in Evangelista Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTHONY EVANGELISTA et al., Plaintiffs and
Respondents, v. ROBERT W. DUGGAN et al., Defendants and
Respondents; SEAN J. GRIFFITH, Intervenor and Appellant, Case No.
H044087 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the
Sixth District affirmed the trial court's judgment granting final
approval to the settlement of a shareholder class action lawsuit
arising from the acquisition of Pharmacyclics by AbbVie, Inc. and
its subsidiaries.

Pharmacyclics is a biopharmaceutical company, incorporated in
Delaware, with principle offices in Sunnyvale, California.  Its
main product is IMBRUVICA, a blood cancer drug.  In March 2015,
Pharmacyclics announced that its board of directors had agreed to
sell the company to AbbVie, Oxford Amherst Corp., a direct wholly
owned subsidiary of AbbVie, and Oxford Amherst LLC, a direct wholly
owned subsidiary of AbbVie, having entered into a merger agreement,
pursuant to which AbbVie would commence a tender offer and acquire
Pharmacyclics for $261.25 per share.  Pharmacyclics announced the
merger agreement in early March 2015.

Following the announcement, four separate Plaintiffs, Evangelista,
Lawrence Treppel, Qiang Wang, and Kurt Wallach, and their attorneys
conducted a pre-suit investigation of Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, the
tender offer, and the proposed acquisition.  Based on the
investigation, the Plaintiffs each filed a class action lawsuit
against Pharmacyclics, its board of directors, and AbbVie; the
trial court later consolidated the actions.  These suits each
alleged the Pharmacyclics' board of directors, aided and abetted by
Pharmacyclics and AbbVie, breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the acquisition of Pharmacyclics by AbbVie.

Several weeks after announcing the merger agreement, AbbVie
commenced the tender offer; at the same time, Pharmacyclics filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission a "Solicitation
and Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9," which, according
to the Plaintiffs, included information concerning the background
of the Acquisition, the process leading to the agreement to sell
Pharmacyclics to AbbVie, and the financial analyses performed by
the Company's financial advisors in support of their fairness
opinion.  The tender offer was set to expire on April 17, 2015.

Upon receipt of the Recommendation Statement, the Plaintiffs'
counsel reviewed the statement with independent financial experts
and identified areas that they believed warranted further
investigation.  The Counsel concluded that the best possible result
for the shareholders was to obtain additional information that
would aid in making a fully informed decision on the tender offer.

The Plaintiffs' counsel demanded additional disclosures from the
Defendants, commencing negotiations between the attorneys for both
sides, which resulted in Defendants agreeing to make supplemental
disclosures before the close of the tender offer.  In mid-April
2015, the Defendants issued the supplemental disclosures.
Approximately 87% of Pharmacyclics' outstanding shares were validly
tendered into the transaction.  After completion of the acquisition
in May 2015, the Plaintiffs' counsel took the depositions of two
individuals, one from Centerview and one from J.P. Morgan, each of
whom had knowledge of the acquisition, to confirm the fairness of
the settlement.

Following additional discussions to finalize the settlement, the
parties executed a Stipulation of Settlement in January 2016,
setting forth the terms and conditions of the settlement, subject
to approval by the trial court.  In addition to providing the
Supplemental Disclosures, the Defendants agreed to pay the
Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, in the amount of $725,000, subject to
court approval.

In February 2016, the trial court issued an order approving the
Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement and entry of an order for notice.  The proposed Notice
of Settlement of Class Action attached as an exhibit to the
Stipulation of Settlement specified nine areas of additional
information purportedly included in the Supplemental Disclosures.
In April 2016, the trial court issued an amended order
preliminarily approving the settlement and providing for notice, as
well as an amended notice of settlement, specifying only three
areas of additional information included in the Supplemental
Disclosures: the financial projections of Pharmacyclics for
calendar years 2015-2028, and how those projections were
calculated; the fairness opinion of Centerview; and, the fairness
opinion of J.P. Morgan.

The Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion seeking final approval
of the class action settlement and award of attorneys' fees and
expenses.  The trial court held the fairness hearing in July 2016.
Shortly after the fairness hearing, the trial court issued its
order after hearing approving the settlement insofar as it
exchanged the release of the Plaintiffs' claims in exchange for the
Supplemental Disclosures.  It reduced the amount of attorneys' fees
and expenses awarded to the Plaintiffs' counsel from $725,000 to
$509,158.62, representing $486,205 in fees and $22,953.62 in costs.


After receiving the trial court's written order, the parties
stipulated that Griffith could file a complaint in intervention for
the purposes of precluding any argument that he lacks standing to
appeal.  The trial court accepted the stipulation, and Griffith
filed his complaint in September 2016.  In October 2016, the trial
court entered judgment approving the settlement and overruling the
objections of Griffith and McPherson.

Griffith timely noticed his appeal of the judgment.  Griffith asks
the Court to take judicial notice of the Recommendation Statement.
Griffith did not object to the accuracy of Morris' description of
the Recommendation Statement, or to the description provided by the
Plaintiffs' counsel in the pleadings submitted in support of the
settlement. It is these descriptions that the trial court relied on
to evaluate whether the Supplemental Disclosures provided any added
value to the shareholder class.  As Griffith did not raise any
concerns in this regard to the trial court, and has not provided
any explanation for his failure to do so, Judge Greenwood finds no
exceptional circumstances exist that would require her to now take
judicial notice of the Recommendation Statement.

The Plaintiffs argue Griffith does not have standing to appeal the
judgment approving the class action settlement, insisting that
Griffith does not have any immediate, pecuniary, or substantial
injuries from the judgment.  While Griffith may have other
interests in setting aside the settlement, he is a shareholder and
class member, who objected and intervened in the trial court, and
has standing to appeal on the basis he believes the release is too
broad relative to the benefit allegedly received by the class.

The Appellate Court reviews the trial court's approval of the class
action settlement for abuse of discretion.  The Appellate Court
concludes that it is clear from his pleadings that Griffith asks
the Court to engage in broad conclusions about the appropriateness
of disclosure-only shareholder class action settlements in
California by adopting the analysis of the Delaware Court of
Chancery in In re Trulia, Inc. Stockholder Litigation.  Because of
the procedural and evidentiary posture of the instant matter, the
Appellate Court need not address the application of Delaware law at
this time, as it is limited to the evidence presented by the
parties in the trial court, and the record designated by the
parties on appeal.  The Appellate Court thus makes no comment
regarding best practices in disclosure-only settlements or whether
Delaware standards should apply to these cases in California
courts.  Rather, the Appellate Court holds that the trial court in
the instant action did not abuse its discretion in approving the
subject settlement, and affirm the judgment accordingly.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement agreement, the
Defendants agreed to pay the Plaintiffs' counsel $725,000 for
attorneys' fees and expenses.  The trial court reduced the award to
$486,205 in attorneys' fees and $22,953.62 in costs and expenses.
Griffith alleges the trial court abused its discretion when it
allowed the Plaintiffs to recover even the reduced amount of fees,
given what he believes was the limited benefit obtained to the
class via the settlement.

The Appellate Court holds that given that an experienced judicial
officer is the best judge of the value of attorney services
rendered in his or her court, the record reflects the proper
application of the lodestar approach, and there is nothing in the
record revealing the trial court's evaluation to be "clearly
wrong," the Appellate Court finds no abuse of discretion and affirm
the attorneys' fees order.

Based on the foregoing, the Appellate Court affirmed the Final
Judgment in the Evangelista case filed Oct. 31, 2016.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's Feb. 14, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/X29Mp8 from Leagle.com.


PHILIP MORRIS: Amended Complaint in Rebolledo Suit Not Yet Served
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the amended
complaint in the purported class action suit Ana Ferrero Rebolledo
v. Philip Morris Colombia S.A., et al., has not yet been served.

In Colombia, an individual filed a purported class action, Ana
Ferrero Rebolledo v. Philip Morris Colombia S.A., et al., in April
2019 against the company's subsidiaries with the Civil Court of
Bogota related to the marketing of the Company's Platform 1
product.

Plaintiff alleged that the company's subsidiaries advertise the
product in contravention of law and in a manner that misleads
consumers by portraying the product in a positive light, and
further asserts that the Platform 1 vapor contains many toxic
compounds, creates a high level of dependence, and has damaging
second-hand effects. Plaintiff sought injunctive relief and damages
on her behalf and on a behalf of two classes (class 1 - all
Platform 1 consumers in Colombia who seek damages for the purchase
price of the product and personal injuries related to the alleged
addiction, and class 2 - all residents of the neighborhood where
the advertising allegedly took place who seek damages for exposure
to the alleged illegal advertising).

The company's subsidiaries answered the complaint in January 2020,
and in February 2020, plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

The amended complaint modifies the relief sought on behalf of the
named plaintiff and on behalf of a single class (all consumers of
Platform 1 products in Colombia who seek damages for the product
purchase price and personal injuries related to the use of an
allegedly harmful product).

Philip Morris said, "The amended complaint has not yet been served
on our subsidiaries."

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Canadian Appeals Court Cuts Damages Award in Blais
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that an appellate court
in Canada has issued a decision largely affirming the trial court's
findings of liability and the compensatory and punitive damages
award with respect to the class action, Conseil Quebecois Sur Le
Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd.,
Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI-Macdonald Corp., Quebec
Superior Court, Canada, filed in November 1998.

The plaintiffs, an anti-smoking organization and an individual
smoker, sought compensatory and punitive damages for each member of
the class who allegedly suffers from certain smoking-related
diseases. The class was certified in 2005.  Rothmans, Benson &
Hedges Inc. (RBH) and other Canadian manufacturers (Imperial
Tobacco Canada Ltd. and JTI-Macdonald Corp.) are defendants in the
matter.

The trial court issued its judgment on May 27, 2015. The trial
court found RBH and two other Canadian manufacturers liable and
found that the class members' compensatory damages totaled
approximately CAD 15.5 billion, including pre-judgment interest
(approximately $11 billion).

The trial court awarded compensatory damages on a joint and several
liability basis, allocating 20% to our subsidiary (approximately
CAD 3.1 billion, including pre-judgment interest (approximately
$2.2 billion)). In addition, the trial court awarded CAD 90,000
(approximately $63,760) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 30,000
(approximately $21,250) to RBH.

The trial court estimated the disease class at 99,957 members. RBH
appealed to the Court of Appeal of Quebec. In October 2015, the
Court of Appeal ordered RBH to furnish security totaling CAD 226
million (approximately $160.1 million) to cover both the Letourneau
and Blais cases, which RBH has paid in installments through March
2017.

The Court of Appeal ordered Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. to furnish
security totaling CAD 758 million (approximately $537 million) in
installments through June 2017. JTI Macdonald Corp. was not
required to furnish security in accordance with plaintiffs’
motion.

The Court of Appeal ordered that the security is payable upon a
final judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming the trial court's
judgment or upon further order of the Court of Appeal.

On March 1, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued a decision largely
affirming the trial court's findings of liability and the
compensatory and punitive damages award while reducing the total
amount of compensatory damages to approximately CAD 13.5 billion
including interest (approximately $9.6 billion) due to the trial
court's error in the calculation of interest. The compensatory
damages award is on a joint and several basis with an allocation of
20% to RBH (approximately CAD 2.7 billion, including pre-judgment
interest (approximately $1.91 billion)).

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's findings that
defendants violated the Civil Code of Quebec, the Quebec Charter of
Human Rights and Freedoms, and the Quebec Consumer Protection Act
by failing to warn adequately of the dangers of smoking and by
conspiring to prevent consumers from learning of the dangers of
smoking.

The Court of Appeal further held that the plaintiffs either need
not prove, or had adequately proven, that these faults were a cause
of the class members' injuries.

In accordance with the judgment, defendants are required to deposit
their respective portions of the damages awarded in both the
Letourneau case and the Blais case, approximately CAD 1.1 billion
(approximately $779 million), into trust accounts within 60 days.
RBH's share of the deposit is approximately CAD 257 million
(approximately $194.1 million).

PMI recorded a pre-tax charge of $194 million in its consolidated
results, representing $142 million net of tax, as tobacco
litigation-related expense, in the first quarter of 2019.

The charge reflects PMI's assessment of the portion of the judgment
that represents probable and estimable loss prior to the
deconsolidation of RBH and corresponds to the trust account deposit
required by the judgment.

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Canadian Appeals Court Upholds Ruling in Letourneau
------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that an appellate court
in Canada has issued a decision largely affirming the trial court's
findings of liability and the total amount of punitive damages
awarded allocating CAD 57 million including interest (approximately
$40.4 million) to RBH in the case, Cecilia Letourneau v. Imperial
Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. (RBH) and
JTI-Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in
September 1998.

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, sought compensatory and
punitive damages for each member of the class who is deemed
addicted to smoking. The class was certified in 2005.  RBH and
other Canadian manufacturers (Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. and
JTI-Macdonald Corp.) are defendants.

The trial court issued its judgment on May 27, 2015. The trial
court found RBH and two other Canadian manufacturers liable and
awarded a total of CAD 131 million (approximately $93 million) in
punitive damages, allocating CAD 46 million (approximately $32.6
million) to RBH.

The trial court estimated the size of the addiction class at
918,000 members but declined to award compensatory damages to the
addiction class because the evidence did not establish the claims
with sufficient accuracy.

The trial court found that a claims process to allocate the awarded
punitive damages to individual class members would be too expensive
and difficult to administer.

On March 1, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued a decision largely
affirming the trial court's findings of liability and the total
amount of punitive damages awarded allocating CAD 57 million
including interest (approximately $40.4 million) to RBH.

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Adams Class Suit in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Adams v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al.

In a class action pending in Canada, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan,
Canada, filed July 10, 2009, the company, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges
Inc. (RBH), and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and
other members of the industry are defendants.

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco
products.

She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked a minimum
of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or suffer, from
COPD, emphysema, heart disease, or cancer, as well as restitution
of profits.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Kunta Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Kunta v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al.

In a class action pending in Canada, Kunta v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Winnipeg,
Canada, filed June 12, 2009, the company, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges
Inc. (RBH), and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and
other members of the industry are defendants.

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
("COPD"), severe asthma, and mild reversible lung disease resulting
from the use of tobacco products.

She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents
and family members, as well as restitution of profits, and
reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by
tobacco products.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Dorion Class Complaint Has Not Yet Been Served
-------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the complaint in
the class action suit entitled, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., has not been properly served.

In a class action pending in Canada, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Alberta, Canada,
filed June 15, 2009, the company, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.
(RBH), and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other
members of the industry are defendants.

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and chronic bronchitis and severe sinus infections
resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking
compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class
comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family
members, restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government
health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products.

Philip Morris said, "To date, we, our subsidiaries, and our
indemnitees have not been properly served with the complaint."

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Plaintiffs Ask Court to Reconsider Dismissal Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the plaintiffs in
the class action suit entitled, In re Philip Morris International
Inc. Securities Litigation, are asking the court to reconsider a
decision granting the company's motion to dismiss.

A putative shareholder class action lawsuit, In re Philip Morris
International Inc. Securities Litigation, is pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Philip Morris International
Inc. stock between July 26, 2016 and April 18, 2018.  

The lawsuit names Philip Morris International Inc. and certain
officers and employees as defendants and includes allegations that
the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose information about PMI's business, operations,
financial condition, and prospects, related to product sales of,
and alleged irregularities in clinical studies of, PMI's Platform 1
product.  

The lawsuit seeks various forms of relief, including damages. In
November 2018, the court consolidated three putative shareholder
class action lawsuits with similar allegations previously filed in
the Southern District of New York (namely, City of Westland Police
and Fire Retirement System v. Philip Morris International Inc., et
al, Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters’ Pension Fund v. Philip
Morris International Inc., et al., and Gilchrist v. Philip Morris
International Inc., et al.) into these proceedings.

A putative shareholder class action lawsuit, Rubenstahl v. Philip
Morris International Inc., et al., that had been previously filed
in December 2017 in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff
due to similar allegations in these proceedings.

On February 4, 2020, the court granted defendants' motion in its
entirety, dismissing all but one of the plaintiffs' claims with
prejudice.  

The court noted that one of plaintiffs' claims (allegations
relating to four non-clinical studies of PMI's Platform 1 product)
did not state a viable claim but allowed plaintiffs to replead that
claim by March 3, 2020.

On February 18, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of the court's February 4th decision.

The court extended the time for plaintiffs to replead the claim
relating to four non-clinical studies mentioned above within 30
days after the court's decision on the motion. "We believe that
this lawsuit is without merit and will continue to defend it
vigorously," the Company said.

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Semple Class Action Ongoing
------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Semple v.
Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al.

In the fifth class action pending in Canada, Semple v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Supreme Court (trial
court), Nova Scotia, Canada, filed June 18, 2009, the company,
Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. (RBH), and the company's indemnitees
(PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are
defendants.

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to
tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco
products.

He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents
and family members, as well as restitution of profits, and
reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by
tobacco products.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Still Defends McDermid Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, McDermid v.
Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al.

In the seventh class action pending in Canada, McDermid v. Imperial
Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia,
Canada, filed June 25, 2010, the company, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges
Inc. (RBH), and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and
other members of the industry are defendants.

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to
tobacco products and heart disease resulting from the use of
tobacco products.

He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12,
2007, and who suffered from heart disease allegedly caused by
smoking, their estates, dependents and family members, plus
disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1,
1954, to the date the claim was filed.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


PORTLAND GENERAL: Oregon High Court Asked to Reverse Decision
-------------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24,
2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the
plaintiffs have petitioned the Oregon Supreme Court requesting
review and reversal of the Court of Appeals opinion in the Trojan
Investment Recovery related suit.

In 1993, Portland General Electric Company (PGE) closed the Trojan
nuclear power plant (Trojan) and sought full recovery of, and a
rate of return on, its Trojan costs in a general rate case filing
with the Public Utility Commission of Oregon (OPUC).

In 1995, the OPUC issued a general rate order that granted the
Company recovery of, and a rate of return on, 87% of its remaining
investment in Trojan.

Numerous challenges and appeals were subsequently filed in various
state courts on the issue of the OPUC's authority under Oregon law
to grant recovery of, and a return on, the Trojan investment. In
2007, following several appeals by various parties, the Oregon
Court of Appeals issued an opinion that remanded the matter to the
OPUC for reconsideration.

In 2003, in two separate legal proceedings, lawsuits were filed
against PGE on behalf of two classes of electric service customers
as a result of OPUC actions arising from PGE's closure of the
Trojan nuclear power plant in 1993: i) Dreyer, Gearhart and Kafoury
Bros., LLC v. Portland General Electric Company, Marion County
Circuit Court (Circuit Court); and ii) Morgan v. Portland General
Electric Company, Marion County Circuit Court.

The class action lawsuits seek damages totaling $260 million, plus
interest, as a result of the Company's inclusion, in prices charged
to customers, of a return on its investment in Trojan.

In 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court (OSC) issued a ruling ordering
abatement of the class action proceedings. The OSC concluded that
the OPUC had primary jurisdiction to determine what, if any, remedy
could be offered to PGE customers, through price reductions or
refunds, for any amount of return on the Trojan investment that the
Company collected in prices.

In 2008, the OPUC issued an order (2008 Order) that required PGE to
provide refunds, including interest, which were completed in 2010.
Following appeals, the 2008 Order was upheld by the Oregon Court of
Appeals in 2013 and by the OSC in 2014.

In 2015, based on a motion filed by PGE, the Circuit Court lifted
the abatement on the class action proceedings and heard oral
argument on the Company's motion for Summary Judgment. In 2016, the
Circuit Court entered a general judgment that granted the Company's
motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed all claims by the
plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the Circuit Court dismissal to
the Court of Appeals for the state of Oregon.

In November 2019, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion that
affirmed the Circuit Court dismissal. On December 30, 2019, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court of
Appeals denied on February 4, 2020.

On April 7, 2020 the Plaintiffs filed a petition with the OSC
requesting review and reversal of the Court of Appeals opinion.

PGE believes that the 2014 OSC decision, the Circuit Court
decisions, and the Court of Appeals decisions that followed have
reduced the risk of any loss to the Company beyond the amounts
previously recorded and refunds discussed above. However, because
the class actions remain subject to a potential review by the OSC,
management believes that it is reasonably possible that such a loss
to the Company could result. As these matters involve unsettled
legal theories and have a broad range of potential outcomes,
sufficient information is currently not available to determine the
amount of any such loss.

Portland General Electric Company, an integrated electric utility
company, engages in the generation, wholesale purchase,
transmission, distribution, and retail sale of electricity in the
state of Oregon. The company was founded in 1930 and is
headquartered in Portland, Oregon.


PPG INDUSTRIES: To Make Settlement Payments This Year
-----------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that payments on account of
the settlement in the cases, Trevor Mild v. PPG Industries, Inc.,
Michael H. McGarry, Vincent J. Morales, and Mark C. Kelly, are
expected to occur in 2020.

On May 20, 2018, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against the Company and three of its current and former
officers.  

On September 21, 2018, an Amended Class Action Complaint was filed
in the lawsuit. The Amended Complaint, captioned Trevor Mild v. PPG
Industries, Inc., Michael H. McGarry, Vincent J. Morales, and Mark
C. Kelly, asserted securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a
putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired stock
of the Company between January 19, 2017 and May 10, 2018.

The allegations related to, among other things, allegedly false and
misleading statements and/or failures to disclose information about
the Company's business, operations and prospects. The parties
reached a settlement in principal on May 1, 2019.  

On June 2, 2019, the plaintiff filed with the Court a Petition for
Preliminary Approval of the proposed settlement, including the
proposed settlement amount of $25 million.

On November 22, 2019, the Court entered final judgment approving
the settlement.

PPG's insurance carriers confirmed to the Company insurance
coverage for the full amount of the settlement.

Settlement payments are expected to occur in 2020.

PPG Industries, Inc. manufactures and distributes paints, coatings,
and specialty materials worldwide. The company was founded in 1883
and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


QUDIAN INC: Bid to Revive Securities Class Action Claim Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Qudian Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the decision on the
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration in the court's order
granting in part and denying in part the company's motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, filed in the class action
suit entitled, In re Qudian Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File
No. 1:17-cv-09741-RA (S.D.N.Y.), is pending.   

The company and certain of its directors and officers were named as
defendants in four putative securities class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York:
Ramnath v. Qudian Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-09741-RA
(S.D.N.Y.), Maia v. Min Luo et al., Civil Action No.
1:17-cv-09796-RA (S.D.N.Y.), Foat v. Qudian Inc. et al., Civil
Action No. 1:17-cv-09875-RA (S.D.N.Y.), and Perez v. Qudian Inc. et
al., Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-09903-RA (S.D.N.Y.) (collectively,
the "Federal Actions").

The Federal Actions -- purportedly brought on behalf of a class of
persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of their
purchase of the company's American Depositary Shares (ADSs)
pursuant and/or traceable to the company's initial public offering
(IPO) -- allege violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the United
States Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the company's
disclosure of business and regulatory risks.

On March 16, 2018, the Court entered an order consolidating the
Federal Actions under master caption In re Qudian Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 1:17-cv-09741-RA (S.D.N.Y.) and
appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for the consolidated
case. On May 18, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint, and, on July 27, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint. On October 12, 2018, we filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim under the
federal securities laws.

On September 27, 2019, the Court issued an Order granting in part
and denying in part the company's motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint. The Order granted the motion to dismiss with
leave to amend the Second Amended Complaint with respect to certain
of Plaintiffs' allegations, and denied the motion to dismiss with
respect to the launch of the Company's Dabai Auto business.

On October 17, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a stipulation confirming that
they will not seek to amend the Second Amended Complaint.

On November 8, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to
reconsider the Order with respect to one of the dismissed
allegations. On December 6, 2019, the Company filed an opposition
to the motion for reconsideration. On December 20, Plaintiffs filed
a reply in support of the motion for reconsideration.

A decision on the motion is pending.

Qudian Inc. provides online small consumer credit products in the
People's Republic of China. It uses big data-enabled technologies,
including artificial intelligence and machine learning to transform
the consumer finance experience. The company offers small credit
products, such as cash credit products; merchandise credit products
to finance borrowers' direct purchase of merchandise offered on its
marketplace on installment basis; and budget auto financing
products. In addition, it operates a platform for loan
recommendations and referrals. Qudian Inc. was founded in 2014 and
is headquartered in Beijing, the People's Republic of China.


QUDIAN INC: Song Class Action Suit Still Stayed
-----------------------------------------------
Qudian Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the class action suit
entitled, Song v. Qudian Inc. et al., Case No. 18CIV01425, remains
stayed.

The company and certain of its directors and officers were named as
defendants in Song v. Qudian Inc. et al., Case No. 18CIV01425 (Cal.
Supr. Ct., San Mateo Cty.), a putative securities class action
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. The
California Action, purportedly brought on behalf of a class of
persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of their
purchase of the company's American Depositary Receipts (ADSs)
pursuant and/or traceable to the company's initial public offering
(IPO), alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
United States Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the
company's disclosure of business and regulatory risks.

On May 15, 2018, the company filed a motion to stay the action in
light of, inter alia, the Federal Actions. Plaintiff filed an
opposition to the motion to stay on June 8, 2018, and the company
filed a reply on June 22, 2018.

A hearing on the motion to stay was held on September 14, 2018. On
December 21, 2018, the court granted the company's motion to stay.

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

Qudian Inc. provides online small consumer credit products in the
People's Republic of China. It uses big data-enabled technologies,
including artificial intelligence and machine learning to transform
the consumer finance experience. The company offers small credit
products, such as cash credit products; merchandise credit products
to finance borrowers' direct purchase of merchandise offered on its
marketplace on installment basis; and budget auto financing
products. In addition, it operates a platform for loan
recommendations and referrals. Qudian Inc. was founded in 2014 and
is headquartered in Beijing, the People's Republic of China.


RATNER COMPANIES: Ferrante Suit Seeks Wages and Commissions
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA FERRANTE, individually, and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. RATNER COMPANIES, L.C., a Virginia limited
liability company, Case No. CACE-20-007011 (Fla. Cir., Broward
Cty., April 24, 2020), alleges that the Defendant has not paid the
Plaintiff and the proposed class their wages and commissions for
work performed during the months of February and March of 2020
pursuant to the Florida Statutes.

On March 21, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 crisis, the
Defendant ceased operations at all of their retail locations across
the country. This action came in the middle of a pay period that
originally began on March 15, 2020. The Plaintiff and Class worked
several hours during the pay period, and earned an agreed upon
commission for each service provided but the Defendant failed to
provide payment, the complaint says.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a hairdresser since
March 1, 2020.

Ratner owns and operates hair salons doing business as Hair
Cuttery.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Whitelock, Esq.
          Davod Frank, Esq.
          WHITELOCK & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          300 Southeast Thirteenth Street
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 463-2001
          Facsimile: (954) 463-0410
          E-mail: cjw@whitelocklegal.com
                  davidfrank@whitelocklegal.com


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Accounting Firm Seeks Agent Fees for PPP Loans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leigh, King, Norton & Underwood, LLC, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated in the United States of America,
Plaintiff, vs. Regions Financial Corporation and Regions Bank,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00591-JHE (N.D. Ala., April 28, 2020)
is a class action complaint filed by Plaintiff, for itself and all
others similarly situated, to recover damages resulting from unfair
and wrongful actions by the Defendants after it failed and refused
to compensate Plaintiff and the Class Members, and continue to do
so, for their role as CARES Act loan applicant agents.

The Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP") was authorized by Congress
and the President of the United States under the Coronavirus Aid,
Relief, and Economic Security Act, H.R. 748 ("CARES Act"), and is a
loan program designed to provide a direct incentive for small
businesses to keep their workers on payroll.

Plaintiff Leigh, King, Norton & Underwood, LLC (LKNU) has assisted,
as an agent, many of its clients in preparing an application for
their PPP loans.

On April 6, 2020, LKNU, by and through Tim Leigh, who is a
certified public accountant and one of its owners, timely submitted
a loan application to the Defendant on behalf of a client, and
included an engagement letter setting forth the agency relationship
along with the documentation that was required to be submitted with
the loan application.

When reviewing the first of the loan applications, Will Pebworth,
Regions' Shoals Alabama Area Market Executive in Commercial
Banking, informed Leigh that "Regions is not paying agent fees for
PPP loans," and requested that Leigh let Regions know if his client
wanted to proceed with the Regions PPP application in light of the
fact that Regions was refusing to pay agent fees.

The conduct of Regions has caused Plaintiff and Class Members to go
uncompensated for acting as agents assisting clients in applying
for PPP loans. The provisions of the PPP loan program accounted for
applicant agents being compensated not directly from the struggling
businesses in need of the loans, but from the participating program
lenders like Regions.

Regions Financial Corporation is a bank holding company
headquartered in the Regions Center in Birmingham, Alabama.

Regions Bank is a subsidiary of Regions Financial Corporation
headquartered in the Regions Center in Birmingham, Alabama.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Joseph "Jay" H. Aughtman, Esq.
            AUGHTMAN LAW FIRM, LLC
            1722 Platt Place
            Montgomery, AL 36117
            Telephone: (334) 215-9873
            Facsimile: (334) 213-5663
            Email: jay@aughtmanlaw.com

                      - and -

            Richard D. Morrison, Esq.
            THE MORRISON LAW FIRM, LLC
            418 Scott Street
            Montgomery, AL 36104
            Telephone: (334) 513-1323
            Facsimile: (334) 513-1343
            Email: Rick.morrison@morrisonfirm.com

                      - and -

            Adam B. Burchell, Esq.
            JOHNSON, PASEUR & MEDLEY, LLC
            1847 North Wood Avenue
            Post Office Box 2760
            Florence, AL 35630
            Telephone: (256) 766-3131
            Facsimile: (256) 766-3124
            Email: Adam.burchell@johnsonpaseur.com

RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC: Ford Suit Demands COVID-19 Tuition Refund
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MORGAN FORD, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, Case No.
1:20-cv-00470-DNH-CFH (N.D.N.Y., April 25, 2020), seeks refunds of
the fees and tuition the Plaintiff and other members of the Class
are owed on a pro-rata basis, together with other damages.

The Plaintiff asserts that the claim 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.

The Plaintiff contends that while closing campus and transitioning
to online classes was the right thing for the Defendant to do, this
decision deprived him 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.

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

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute is an institution of higher
learning located in Troy, 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 -

          John M. Bradham, Esq.
          Peter B. Katzman, Esq.
          MOREA SCHWARTZ BRADHAM
          FRIEDMAN & BROWN LLP
          444 Madison Avenue, 4th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 695-8050
          E-mail: jbradham@msbllp.com
                  pkatzman@msbllp.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


REXALL SUNDOWN: Seegert Appeals S.D. Cal. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Sandra Seegert filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Sandra Seegert v. Rexall Sundown, Inc., Case No.
3:17-cv-01243-BEN-JLB, in the U.S. District Court for Southern
District of California, San Diego.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case is a
consumer protection class action arising out of the Defendant's
false and misleading advertising of its glucosamine products.

The Defendant markets, sells and distributes a line of joint health
dietary supplements under the "Osteo Bi-Flex" brand name, and
Defendant represents that these products are beneficial to the
joints of the consumers who use them.

According to the lawsuit, the Defendant's Osteo Bi-Flex products,
however, are incapable of supporting or benefiting the health of
human joints because the main ingredients in each of the
Defendant's Osteo Bi-Flex products at issue, either alone or in
combination with other ingredients, cannot support or benefit joint
health.

The appellate case is captioned as Sandra Seegert v. Rexall
Sundown, Inc., Case No. 20-55486, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The parties shall meet the following time schedule:

   -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of record shall be
      served and filed on July 13, 2020;

   -- Appellee's answering brief and excerpts of record shall be
      served and filed on August 13, 2020; and

   -- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and
      served within 21 days of service of the appellee's
      brief.[BN]


SAGE LAW OFFICES: Chames Sues in E.D. Texas Over FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sage Law Offices, et
al. The case is styled as Melissa Sharon Chames, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sage Law Offices,
John Does 1-25, Case No. 4:20-cv-00372 (E.D. Tex., May 7, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Sage Law Offices is a Florida Law Firm formed in 1991 by healthcare
lawyers to provide specialized services on behalf of Healthcare
Providers in the reimbursement of their accounts receivables.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


SEI INVESTMENTS: Court Approves Stevens Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
SEI Investments Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the court overseeing
the class action suit initiated by Gordon Stevens has issued an
order approving the parties' settlement agreement.

On September 28, 2018, a class action complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania by Gordon Stevens, individually and as the
representative of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the
SEI Capital Accumulation Plan (the "Plan") naming the Company and
its affiliated and/or related entities SEI Investments Management
Corporation, SEI Capital Accumulation Plan Design Committee, SEI
Capital Accumulation Plan Investment Committee, SEI Capital
Accumulation Plan Administration Committee, and John Does 1-30 as
defendants (the "Stevens Complaint").

The Stevens Compliant seeks unspecified damages for defendants'
breach of fiduciary duties under The Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) with respect to selecting and
monitoring the Plan's investment options and by retaining
affiliated investment products in the Plan.

Although SEI believes its defenses against the plaintiff's
allegations were valid, the Company agreed to settle this matter in
the very early stages of the litigation in order to avoid the high
cost of protracted class-action litigation and internal
distractions such cases bring.

On March 3, 2020, the Court issued its Approval Order approving the
settlement agreement.

The financial impact of the settlement agreement is not material to
the Company.

SEI Investments Company is a publicly owned asset management
holding company. Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides wealth
management, retirement and investment solutions, asset management,
asset administration, investment processing outsourcing solutions,
financial services, and investment advisory services to its
clients. SEI Investments Company was founded in 1968 and is based
in Oaks, Pennsylvania.


SEI INVESTMENTS: Suits over SPTC Services Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------
SEI Investments Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company and SEI
Private Trust Company (SPTC) continue to defend several class
action suits related to SPTC's services to Stanford Trust Company.

SEI has been named in seven lawsuits filed in Louisiana courts;
four of the cases also name SEI Private Trust Company (SPTC) as a
defendant. The underlying allegations in all actions relate to the
purported role of SPTC in providing back-office services to
Stanford Trust Company.

The complaints allege that SEI and SPTC participated in some manner
in the sale of "certificates of deposit" issued by Stanford
International Bank so as to be a "seller" of the certificates of
deposit for purposes of primary liability under the Louisiana
Securities Law or so as to be secondarily liable under that statute
for sales of certificates of deposit made by Stanford Trust
Company.

Two of the actions also include claims for violations of the
Louisiana Racketeering Act and possibly conspiracy, and a third
also asserts claims of negligence, breach of contract, breach of
fiduciary duty, violations of the uniform fiduciaries law,
negligent misrepresentation, detrimental reliance, violations of
the Louisiana Racketeering Act, and conspiracy.

The procedural status of the seven cases varies.

The Lillie case, filed originally in the 19th Judicial District
Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, was brought as a class
action and is procedurally the most advanced of the cases. SEI and
SPTC filed exceptions, which the Court granted in part, dismissing
claims under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act and
permitting the claims under the Louisiana Securities Law to go
forward.

On March 11, 2013, newly-added insurance carrier defendants removed
the case to the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana.

On August 7, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred the matter to the Northern District of Texas where MDL
2099, In re: Stanford Entities Securities Litigation (""the
Stanford MDL"), is pending.

On September 22, 2015, the District Court on the motion of SEI and
SPTC dismissed plaintiffs' claims for primary liability under
Section 714(A) of the Louisiana Securities Law, but declined to
dismiss plaintiffs' claims for secondary liability under Section
714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law based on the allegations
pled by plaintiffs.

On November 4, 2015, the District Court granted SEI and SPTC's
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims under Section 712(D) of the
Louisiana Securities Law.

Consequently, the only claims of plaintiffs remaining in Lillie are
plaintiffs' claims for secondary liability against SEI and SPTC
under Section 714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law.

On May 2, 2016, the District Court certified the class as being
"all persons for whom Stanford Trust Company purchased or renewed
Stanford Investment Bank Limited certificates of deposit in
Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009". Notice of
the pendency of the class action was mailed to potential class
members on October 4, 2016.

On December 1, 2016, a group of plaintiffs who opted out of the
Lillie class filed a complaint against SEI and SPTC in the United
States District Court in the Middle District of Louisiana ("Ahders
Complaint"), alleging claims essentially the same as those in
Lillie. In January 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transferred the Ahders proceeding to the Northern
District of Texas and the Stanford MDL.

During February 2017, SEI and SPTC filed their response to the
Ahders Complaint, and in March 2017 the District Court for the
Northern District of Texas approved the stipulated dismissal of all
claims in this Complaint predicated on Section 712(D) or Section
714(A) of the Louisiana Securities Law.

In both cases, as a result of the proceedings in the Northern
District of Texas, only the plaintiffs' secondary liability claims
under Section 714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law remain.
Limited discovery and motions practice have occurred, including SEI
and SPTC's filing of a dispositive summary judgment motion in the
Lillie proceeding.

On January 31, 2019, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
remanded the Lillie and Ahders proceedings to the Middle District
of Louisiana.

With respect to the Lillie proceeding, on July 9, 2019, the
District Court issued an order granting SEI's Summary Judgment
Motion to dismiss the remaining Section 714(B) claim and denying
Plaintiffs' Motion for Continuance of SEI and SPTC’s Motion for
Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56(d).

On July 17, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration
and/or New Trial. The Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for
Reconsideration and/or New Trial and entered a Final Judgment in
favor of SEI and SPTC on August 15, 2019. On August 27, 2019,
Plaintiffs-Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit of the District Court's
dismissal of the Lillie matter.

On November 20, 2019, Plaintiffs-Appellants filed a Motion in
Support of the Notice of Appeal. On January 17, 2020, SEI and SPTC
timely filed their brief in opposition to the
Plaintiffs-Appellants' motion for appeal. On February 7, 2020,
Plaintiffs-Appellants filed their reply brief.

With respect to the Ahders proceeding, on July 16, 2019, SEI and
SPTC filed a Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56(d) to
have the remaining Section 714(B) claim dismissed.

On January 24, 2020, the District Court issued an order granting
SEI's Summary Judgment Motion to dismiss the remaining Section
714(B) claim.

On March 17, 2020, Plaintiffs-Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit of the
District Court's dismissal of the Ahders matter.

Another case, filed in the 23rd Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Ascension, also was removed to federal court and
transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to
the Northern District of Texas and the Stanford MDL.

The schedule for responding to that Complaint has not yet been
established.

Two additional cases remain in the Parish of East Baton Rouge.
Plaintiffs filed petitions in 2010 and have granted SEI and SPTC
indefinite extensions to respond. No material activity has taken
place since.

In two additional cases, filed in East Baton Rouge and brought by
the same counsel who filed the Lillie action, virtually all of the
litigation to date has involved motions practice and appellate
litigation regarding the existence of federal subject matter
jurisdiction under the federal Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act (SLUSA).

The matters were removed to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas and consolidated. The court then
dismissed the action under SLUSA.

The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed that order, and
the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the Court of
Appeals judgment on February 26, 2014. The matters were remanded to
state court and no material activity has taken place since that
date.

SEI said, "While the outcome of this litigation remains uncertain,
SEI and SPTC believe that they have valid defenses to plaintiffs'
claims and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously. Because of
uncertainty in the make-up of the Lillie class, the specific
theories of liability that may survive a motion for summary
judgment or other dispositive motion, the relative lack of
discovery regarding damages, causation, mitigation and other
aspects that may ultimately bear upon loss, the Company is not
reasonably able to provide an estimate of loss, if any, with
respect to the foregoing lawsuits."

SEI Investments Company is a publicly owned asset management
holding company. Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides wealth
management, retirement and investment solutions, asset management,
asset administration, investment processing outsourcing solutions,
financial services, and investment advisory services to its
clients. SEI Investments Company was founded in 1968 and is based
in Oaks, Pennsylvania.


SIBANYE STILLWATER: New York Securities Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Sibanye Stillwater Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a purported class action suit in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York.

In 2018, two groups of plaintiffs filed purported class action
lawsuits, subsequently consolidated into a single action (Class
Action), against Sibanye Gold Limited (Sibanye-Stillwater) and Neal
Froneman (collectively, the Defendants) in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging
violations of the US securities laws.

Specifically, the Class Action alleges that the Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements about its safety practices and
record and thereby violated the US securities laws. The Class
Action seeks an unspecific amount of damages.

The Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the Class Action.

The Court may decide the motion to dismiss with or without oral
argument.

Sibanye said, "As the case is still in the early stages, it is not
possible to determine the likelihood of success on the merits or
any potential liability from the Class Action nor estimate the
duration of the litigation. Sibanye-Stillwater intends to defend
the case vigorously."

Sibanye Stillwater Limited is the largest individual producer of
gold from South Africa and is one of 10 largest gold producers
globally.[citation needed] Sibanye-Stillwater is also the third
largest producer of palladium and platinum. Following the proposed
acquisition of Lonmin, it will further increase its production of
palladium and platinum.


SIBANYE STILLWATER: Selection of Trustees in TB Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sibanye Stillwater Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the appointment of
trustees is underway in the class action suit involving gold miners
who contracted silicosis or tuberculosis.

In May 2016, a class-action suit, filed to obtain compensation for
South African gold miners affected by silicosis or TB, was approved
by the High Court in Johannesburg.

Six of the largest mining companies decided to work together with
lawyers for the miners and come to a settlement agreement out of
court. Parties finally reached an agreement in May 2018. In an
historic judgment, the court approved this agreement on 26 July
2019.

The Tshiamiso Trust has been tasked with locating, verifying,
medically screening and paying out thousands of miners across
southern Africa. The working group has developed an industry
database to facilitate the administration of queries and claims
submitted to the Tshiamiso Trust. The database has passed a
rigorous audit and final updates have been completed.

The silicosis and TB class action settlement imposed a 90-day opt
out period ended on 24 November 2019. The opt out submission
underwent an independent audit and three class members chose to opt
out. Since the agreement is now unconditional, the Tshiamiso Trust
was registered on 28 November 2019 and the appointment of trustees
is underway.

Sibanye-Stillwater Limited is the largest individual producer of
gold from South Africa and is one of 10 largest gold producers
globally.[citation needed] Sibanye-Stillwater is also the third
largest producer of palladium and platinum. Following the proposed
acquisition of Lonmin, it will further increase its production of
palladium and platinum.


SIRIUS XM: Continues to Defend Flo & Eddie Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Sirius XM Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit initiated by Flo & Eddie Inc.

On October 2, 2014, Flo & Eddie Inc. filed a class action suit
against Pandora in the federal district court for the Central
District of California. The complaint alleges a violation of
California Civil Code Section 980, unfair competition,
misappropriation and conversion in connection with the public
performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972
(referred to as, "pre-1972 recordings").

On December 19, 2014, Pandora filed a motion to strike the
complaint pursuant to California’s Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against
Public Participation ("Anti-SLAPP") statute, which following denial
of Pandora’s motion was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. In March 2017, the Ninth Circuit requested certification
to the California Supreme Court on the substantive legal questions.
The California Supreme Court accepted certification.

In May 2019, the California Supreme Court issued an order
dismissing consideration of the certified questions on the basis
that, following the enactment of the Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte
Music Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 115-264, 132 Stat. 3676 (2018)
(the "MMA"), resolution of the questions posed by the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals was no longer "necessary to . . . settle an
important question of law."

The MMA grants a potential federal preemption defense to the claims
asserted in the aforementioned lawsuits. In July 2019, Pandora took
steps to avail itself of this preemption defense, including making
the required payments under the MMA for certain of its uses of
pre-1972 recordings.

Based on the federal preemption contained in the MMA (along with
other considerations), Pandora asked the Ninth Circuit to order the
dismissal of the Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media, Inc. case.

On October 17, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a
memorandum disposition concluding that the question of whether the
MMA preempts Flo and Eddie's claims challenging Pandora's
performance of pre-1972 recordings "depends on various unanswered
factual questions" and remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings.

After Flo & Eddie filed its action in 2014 against Pandora, several
other plaintiffs commenced separate actions, both on an individual
and class action basis, alleging a variety of violations of common
law and state copyright and other statutes arising from allegations
that Pandora owed royalties for the public performance of pre-1972
recordings. Many of these separate actions have been dismissed or
are in the process of being dismissed. None of the remaining
pending actions is likely to have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition or results of operations.

Sirius XM said, "We believe we have substantial defenses to the
claims asserted in these actions, and we intend to defend these
actions vigorously."

Sirius XM Holdings Inc. provides satellite radio services in the
United States. The company broadcasts music, sports, entertainment,
comedy, talk, news, traffic, and weather channels, including
various music genres ranging from rock, pop and hip-hop, country,
dance, jazz, Latin, and classical; live play-by-play sports from
principal leagues and colleges; multitude of talk and entertainment
channels for various audiences; national, international, and
financial news; and limited run channels. The company was founded
in 1990 and is headquartered in New York, New York. Sirius XM
Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Liberty Media Corporation.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Appeal in Airfare-Related Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the appeal from a lower
court decision approving the settlement of the airfare-related
class suit remains pending even as the objectors to the settlement
have opted to drop the appeal.

On July 1, 2015, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
putative classes of consumers alleging collusion among the Company,
American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United Airlines to limit
capacity and maintain higher fares in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.

Since then, a number of similar class action complaints were filed
in the United States District Courts for the Central District of
California, the Northern District of California, the District of
Columbia, the Middle District of Florida, the Southern District of
Florida, the Northern District of Georgia, the Northern District of
Illinois, the Southern District of Indiana, the Eastern District of
Louisiana, the District of Minnesota, the District of New Jersey,
the Eastern District of New York, the Southern District of New
York, the Middle District of North Carolina, the District of
Oklahoma, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Northern
District of Texas, the District of Vermont, and the Eastern
District of Wisconsin.

On October 13, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation centralized the cases to the United States District
Court in the District of Columbia. On March 25, 2016, the
plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint in the
consolidated cases alleging that the defendants conspired to
restrict capacity from 2009 to present.

The plaintiffs seek to bring their claims on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased tickets for domestic airline travel on the
defendants' airlines from July 1, 2011 to present. They seek treble
damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and expenses.

On May 11, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Amended Complaint, and on October 28, 2016, the Court denied this
motion.

On December 20, 2017, the Company reached an agreement to settle
these cases with a proposed class of all persons who purchased
domestic airline transportation services from July 1, 2011, to the
date of the settlement.

The Company agreed to pay $15 million and to provide certain
cooperation with the plaintiffs as set forth in the settlement
agreement. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement
on January 3, 2018, and the plaintiffs provided notice to the
proposed settlement class.

The Court held a fairness hearing on March 22, 2019, and it issued
an order granting final approval of the settlement on May 9, 2019.


On June 10, 2019, three objectors filed notices of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit. Two of the objectors dismissed their appeals, and the
Company and the other settling parties moved to dismiss the
remaining appeal because the district court did not certify the
approval order as appealable.

After the district court denied the remaining objectors' request to
certify the approval order as a final appealable order, on November
6, 2019, the objectors asked the court of appeals to dismiss their
appeal.

The court of appeals has instructed the parties to brief the
jurisdictional issues together with the merits of the objectors'
objections to the settlement.

The case is continuing as to the remaining defendants.

The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing.

Southwest Airlines Co. operates a passenger airline that provides
scheduled air transportation services in the United States and
near-international markets. Southwest Airlines Co. was founded in
1967 and is based in Dallas, Texas.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Court Narrows Claims in Aircraft Defect Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
the class action suit related to the company's concealment of
defects in the Boeing MAX aircraft, has been granted in part and
denied in part.

On July 11, 2019, a complaint alleging violations of federal and
state laws and seeking certification as a class action was filed
against Boeing and the Company in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas in Sherman.

The complaint alleges that Boeing and the Company colluded to
conceal defects with the MAX aircraft in violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO") and also asserts
related state law claims based upon the same alleged facts.

The complaint seeks damages on behalf of putative classes of
customers who purchased tickets for air travel from either the
Company or American Airlines between August 29, 2017, and March 13,
2019.

The complaint generally seeks money damages, equitable monetary
relief, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees
and other costs.

On September 13, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint and to strike certain class allegations. Boeing also
moved to dismiss.

On February 14, 2020, the trial court issued a ruling that granted
in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss the complaint.

The trial court order, among other things: (i) dismissed without
prejudice various state law claims that the plaintiffs abandoned in
response to the motions, (ii) dismissed with prejudice the
remaining state law claims, including fraud by concealment, fraud
by misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation on the
grounds that federal law preempts those claims, and (iii) found
that plaintiffs lack Article III standing to pursue one of the
plaintiffs' theories of RICO injury.

The order denied the motion to dismiss with respect to two RICO
claims premised upon a second theory of RICO injury and denied the
motion to strike the class allegations at the pleadings stage.

Southwest Airlines said, "The Company denies all allegations of
wrongdoing, including those in the complaint that were not
dismissed. The Company believes the plaintiffs' positions are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself."

Southwest Airlines Co. operates a passenger airline that provides
scheduled air transportation services in the United States and
near-international markets. Southwest Airlines Co. was founded in
1967 and is based in Dallas, Texas.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Securities Class Suit in Dallas
---------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a putative class action suit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Dallas.

On February 19, 2020, a complaint alleging violations of federal
securities laws and seeking certification as a class action was
filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Dallas.


The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 of the
Securities Exchange Act and alleges that the Company made material
misstatements to investors regarding the Company's safety and
maintenance practices and its compliance with federal regulations
and requirements.

The initial complaint seeks damages on behalf of a putative class
of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between
February 7, 2017, and June 25, 2019.

The complaint generally seeks money damages, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and other costs.

The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing, including those
in the complaint.

The Company believes the plaintiffs' positions are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend itself.

Southwest Airlines Co. operates a passenger airline that provides
scheduled air transportation services in the United States and
near-international markets. Southwest Airlines Co. was founded in
1967 and is based in Dallas, Texas.


STATE AUTOMOBILE: Dino Palmieri Seeks Coverage for COVID-19 Losses
------------------------------------------------------------------
DINO PALMIERI SALONS, INC., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated 31005 Bainbridge Road, #5 Solon, Ohio
44139 Plaintiff vs. STATE AUTOMOBILE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY dba
STATE AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES c/o CT Corporation Systems, 4400
Easton Commons Way, Suite 125 Columbus, Ohio 43219 Defendant, Case
No. 1989583 (Ohio Common Pleas Ct., Cuyahoga County, April 26,
2020) is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiff, the named
insured, against Defendant related to an insurance policy that
insures Plaintiff's property, business operations, and potential
liabilities in connection with Plaintiffs business operations,
including coverage for loss of Business Income, Extra Expense
coverage, and coverage for loss due to the actions of a Civil
Authority.

In 2020, the State of Ohio, like much of the country, became
plagued by the outbreak of the virus SARS-CoV-2 and the disease
that virus causes, COVID-19. This has resulted in losses to
businesses throughout the state. Indeed, many businesses had to
alter or shutter operations due to orders from Civil Authorities,
such as the Ohio Governor and Director of Public Health. As a
result, many insureds filed insurance claims for coverage for loss
of BI, EE coverage, and coverage for loss due to the actions of a
Civil Authority.

Upon information and belief, Defendant systematically denied and or
claimed a reservation of rights refusing to pay on insurance claims
brought by Plaintiff and hundreds of other putative class members
for coverage for losses stemming from SARS-CoV-2, including BI, EE
coverage, and coverage for loss due to the actions of Civil
Authority.

Defendant's decision not to provide coverage and/or its decision to
reserve its rights and refuse to pay claims under the common policy
form(s) issued to Plaintiff and the putative class members gives
rise to Plaintiff's and the putative class members' right to seek
declaratory judgment.

Plaintiff has sustained direct physical loss and damage to items of
property located at its premises and direct physical loss and
damage to its premises described in the Policy as a result of the
presence of SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, and/or the COVID-19 Pandemic.

State Automobile Insurance Company dba State Auto Insurance
Companies is a for-profit insurance company organized under Ohio
law with its principal place of business in Columbus, Ohio. It
offers uniform coverage for loss of BI, EE coverage, and coverage
for loss due to the actions of a Civil Authority under common
forms.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by
    
            Robert P. Rutter, Esq.
            Robert A. Rutter, Esq.
            RUTTER & RUSSIN, LLC
            One Summit Office Park, Suite 650
            4700 Rockside Road
            Cleveland, OH 44131
            Telephone: (216) 642-1425
            Email: brutter@OhioInsuranceLawyer.com
                   bobbyrutter@OhioInsuranceLawyer.com

                        - and -

            Nicholas A. DiCello, Esq.
            Dennis R. Lansdowne, Esq.
            Stuart E. Scott, Esq.
            Jeremy A. Tor, Esq.
            SPANGENBERG, SHIBLEY & LIBER, LLP
            1001 Lakeside Ave., Suite 1700
            Cleveland, OH 44114
            Email: ndicello@spanglaw.com
                   dlansdowne@spanglaw.com
                   sscott@spanglaw.com
                   jtor@spanglaw.com

T ROWE PRICE: Continues to Defend 401(k) Plan-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend itself from a class action suit pending before the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland over its 401(k) Plan.

On February 14, 2017, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., T. Rowe Price
Associates, Inc., T. Rowe Price Trust Company, current and former
members of the management committee, and trustees of the T. Rowe
Price U.S. Retirement Program were named as defendants in a lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland.

The lawsuit alleges breaches of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act's (ERISA's) fiduciary duty and prohibited transaction
provisions on behalf of a class of all participants and
beneficiaries of the T. Rowe Price 401(k) Plan from February 14,
2011, to the time of judgment.

The matter has been certified as a class action.

T. Rowe Price believes the claims are without merit and is
vigorously defending the action.

T. Rowe Price said, "This matter is in the expert discovery phase
of litigation and we cannot predict the eventual outcome, or
whether it will have a material negative impact on our financial
results, or estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may
arise from any negative outcome."

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

T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., incorporated on February 4, 2000, is a
financial services holding company. The Company provides global
investment management services through its subsidiaries to
investors across the world. The Company provides an array of
Company-sponsored mutual funds, other sponsored pooled investment
vehicles, sub advisory services, separate account management,
recordkeeping, and related services to individuals, advisors,
institutions, financial intermediaries and retirement plan
sponsors. The firm was previously known as T. Rowe Group, Inc. and
T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. was
founded in 1937 and is based in Baltimore, Maryland.


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Brown Student Loan Suit Moved to W.D. Wash.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as OSURE BROWN, on his own
behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated persons v.
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS, INC.; PATENAUDE & FELIX, APC; U.S. BANK, NA;
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2004-1; NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2004-2; NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST
2005-1; NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2005-2; NATIONAL
COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2005-3; NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT
LOAN TRUST 2006-1; NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2006-2;
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2007-1; and NATIONAL
COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2007-2, Case No. 20-2-07503-5 SEA
(Filed April 6, 2020), was removed from the Washington Superior
Court, King County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington on May 4, 2020.

The Western District of Washington Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-00669 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff seeks relief for himself and on behalf of a putative
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class, including statutory
damages against TSI and P&F in the sum of $500,000 per Defendant;
actual damages; declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining the
Defendants from further collection of discharged debts; and costs
including attorney fees.

TSI is a debt collection agency. P&F is a law practice company
based out of 4545 Murphy Canyon Rd. third floor, San Diego,
California. US Bank NA operates as a bank. US Bank offers products
and services such as internet and mobile banking, internet bill
pay, credit cards, options for paying bills, online statements,
saving account, mortgages, and home loans.

National Collegiate Student Loan Trust is a group of entities that
holds private student loans.[BN]

TSI is represented by:

          Emily J. Harris, Esq.
          Benjamin C. Byers, Esq.
          CORR CRONIN LLP
          1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3900
          Seattle, WA 98154-1051
          E-mail: eharris@corrcronin.com
                  bbyers@corrcronin.com

               - and -

          Bryan C. Shartle, Esq.
          Justin H. Homes, Esq.
          Bradley J. St. Angelo, Esq.
          SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL
          Lakeway Two
          3850 North Causeway Boulevard, Suite 200
          Metairie, LA 70002-7227
          Telephone: (504) 828-3700
          Facsimile: (504) 828-3737

Defendants U.S. Bank National Association, National Collegiate
Student Loan Trust 2004-1, National Collegiate Student Loan Trust
2004-2, National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-1, National
Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-2, National Collegiate Student
Loan Trust 2005-3, National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-1,
National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-2, National Collegiate
Student Loan Trust 2007-1, and National Collegiate Student Loan
Trust 2007-2, are represented by:

          Kristine E. Kruger, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
          Seattle, WA 98101-3099
          Telephone: 206 359 8000
          Facsimile: 206 359 9000
          E-mail: KKruger@perkinscoie.com

               - and -

          Albert J. Rota, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          2727 North Harwood St.
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 220-3939
          Facsimile: (214) 969-5100
          E-mail: ajrota@jonesday.com

P&F is represented by:

          Marc Rosenberg, Esq.
          LEE SMART, P.S., INC.
          1800 One Convention Place
          701 Pike St.
          Seattle, WA 98101-3929
          Telephone: (206) 624-7990
          E-mail: mr@leesmart.com


TRAVELERS CASUALTY: Khuzi Sues Over Denial of Insurance Coverage
----------------------------------------------------------------
KHUZI HSUE, DDS, PS, v. TRAVELERS CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF
AMERICA, Case No. 2:20-cv-00622 (W.D. Wash., April 24, 2020),
alleges that Travelers wrongfully denied claims for insurance
coverage relating to COVID-19 crisis and/or orders issued by
Washington Governor Jay Inslee, other Governors, and other civil
authorities.

Washington Governor Jay Inslee's issued proclamations and orders
affecting many persons and businesses in Washington, whether
infected with COVID-19 or not, requiring public health precautions,
including closure of all non-essential businesses, including the
Plaintiff's dental practice.

The Plaintiff contends that due to COVID-19 and a state-ordered
mandated closure, it cannot provide dentistry services. The lawsuit
is filed to ensure that Plaintiff and other similarly-situated
policyholders receive the insurance benefits to which they are
entitled and for which they paid. The Plaintiff intended to rely on
its business insurance to keep the business alive, says the
complaint.

Travelers issued one or more insurance policies to the Plaintiff,
including Businessowners Property Coverage and related
endorsements, insuring the Plaintiff's property and business
practice and other coverages at all relevant times. The business
property includes property owned and leased by the Plaintiff and
used for general business purposes for the specific purpose of
dentistry and other business activities.

The Plaintiff owns and operates a dentistry practice located at
15668 W. Valley Highway in Tukwila, Washington.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Kashner Sues Over Denial of Insurance Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY E. KASHNER, DDS, MSD v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF
AMERICA, Case No. 2:20-cv-00625-BJR (W.D. Wash., April 24, 2020),
is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated
regarding the Defendant's alleged wrongful denial of claims for
coverage relating to COVID-19 crisis and/or orders issued by
Governor Jay Inslee, other Governors, and other civil authorities.

Due to COVID-19 and a state-ordered mandated closure, the Plaintiff
cannot provide dentistry services. The Plaintiff intended to rely
on his business insurance to keep his practice alive. The lawsuit
is filed to ensure that the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated
policyholders receive the insurance benefits to which they are
entitled and for which they paid, says the complaint.

Travelers issued one or more insurance policies to the Plaintiff,
including Businessowners Property Coverage and related
endorsements, insuring the Plaintiff's property and business
practice and other coverages at all relevant times. The business
property includes property owned and leased by the Plaintiff and
used for general business purposes for the specific purpose of
dentistry and other business activities.

On January 2020, Washington Governor Jay Inslee issued certain
proclamations and orders affecting many persons and businesses in
Washington, whether infected with COVID-19 or not, requiring
certain public health precautions. Governor Inslee's "Stay Home,
Stay Healthy" order required the closure of all non-essential
businesses, including the Plaintiff's dental practice.

The Plaintiff owns and operates a dentistry practice located at
27015 169th Pl. SE, in Covington, Washington.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TTE TECHNOLOGY: Julian Sues in Calif. Over Fraud-Related Issues
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TTE Technology, Inc.
The case is captioned as Christopher Julian, Mark Pacana, and Wayne
Lewald, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. TTE Technology, Inc., doing business as TTE USA Assets, Inc.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-02857-EMC (N.D. Cal., April 24, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Edward M. Chen. The suit
demands $5 million in damages alleging fraud-related violation.

TTE designs and markets televisions. The Company operates a network
of research centers, manufacturing facilities, and sales offices
that distribute its products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alex R. Straus, Esq.
          Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          William A. Ladnier, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          16748 McCormick Street
          Los Angeles, CA 91436
          Telephone: (917) 471-1894
          Facsimile: (310) 496-3176
          E-mail: alex@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  adam@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  will@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Benjamin A. Kaplan, Esq.
          Charles J. Crueger, Esq.
          Erin K. Dickinson, Esq.
          CRUEGER DICKINSON LLC
          4532 North Oakland Avenue
          Whitefish Bay, WI 53211
          Telephone: (414) 210-3886
          E-mail: bak@cruegerdickinson.com
                  cjc@cruegerdickinson.com
                  ekd@cruegerdickinson.com

               - and -

          Luke P. Hudock, Esq.
          HUDOCK LAW GROUP, S.C.
          P.O. Box 83
          Muskego, WI 53150
          Telephone: (414) 526-4906
          E-mail: lphudock@law-hlg.com


TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Class Suits Filed in Calif. & Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
Tupperware Brands Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that the company has
been named as a defendant in putative class action suits in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
and three other actions in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida.

In February, March and April 2020, three putative stockholder class
actions and one shareholder derivative action were filed against
the Company and certain current and former officers and directors.


One putative class action was filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California and the other three
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida.

The putative stockholder class action complaints allege that
statements in public filings between January 30, 2019 and February
24, 2020 (the "potential class period") regarding the Company's
disclosure of controls and procedures and financial guidance, as
well as the need for an amendment of its credit facility, violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Act of 1934.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of stockholders who
purchased the Company's shares during the potential class period
and demand unspecified monetary damages.

The shareholder derivative action complaint alleges that certain
officers and directors breached fiduciary duties to the Company,
were unjustly enriched, and violated Sections 10(b), 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Act of 1934, on generally the same fact
pattern.

The Company believes the complaints and allegations to be without
merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the actions.


Tupperware said, "The Company is unable at this time to determine
whether the outcome of these actions would have a material impact
on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows."

Orlando, Florida-based Tupperware Brands Corporation is a global
marketer of household, beauty and personal care products across
multiple brands utilizing social selling. Product brands and
categories include design-centric preparation, storage and serving
solutions for the kitchen and home through the Tupperware brand and
beauty and personal care products through the Avroy Shlain, Fuller
Cosmetics, NaturCare, Nutrimetics and Nuvo brands.


ULTIMATE SOFTWARE: Cottingham Class Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Colin Cottingham,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. The
Ultimate Software Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2020L0000031, was removed from the Eleventh Judicial Circuit to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois (Peoria)
on April 24, 2020.

The Central District of  Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-01172-JES-JEH to the proceeding.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge James E. Shadid.

Ultimate Software is an American technology company that develops
and sells UltiPro, a cloud-based human capital management software
system for businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew T. Heldut, Esq.
          Jad Sheikali, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002

The Defendant is represented by:

          Colman Douglas McCarthy, Esq.
          Erin Bolan Hines, Esq.
          Melissa A. Siebert, Esq.
          SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP
          2555 Grand Blvd.
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 474-6550
          Facsimile: (816) 421-5547
          E-mail: cdmccarthy@shb.com
                  ehines@shb.com
                  masiebert@shb.com


UNITED STATES: Doe Appeals Decision in Migrant Detention Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jane Doe # 1, Jane Doe # 2 and Norlan Flores filed an
appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Jane Doe, et
al. v. John Kelly, et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00250-DCB, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona, Tucson.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
allege inadequate and inhumane conditions in the Border Patrol's
migrant detention facilities in southern Arizona.

In January 2016, U.S. District Court Judge David Bury approved the
class action status of the lawsuit. The certification motion was
filed by several civil- and immigration-rights groups, including
the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, on behalf of two
unnamed women, who were detained and Norlan Flores, who has been
detained twice.

The appellate case is captioned as Jane Doe, et al. v. John Kelly,
et al., Case No. 17-15381, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.

The cross-appeal briefing schedule is set as follows:

   -- First cross appeal brief is due on July 30, 2020, for Mark
      A. Morgan, Manuel Padilla Jr., Rodney S. Scott, Jeffrey
      Self and Chad F. Wolf;

   -- Second brief on cross appeal is due on August 31, 2020, for
      Norlan Flores and Jane Doe;

   -- Third brief on cross appeal is due on October 1, 2020, for
      Mark A. Morgan, Manuel Padilla Jr., Rodney S. Scott,
      Jeffrey Self and Chad F. Wolf; and

   -- Optional cross appeal Reply brief for Norlan Flores and
      Jane Doe is due within 21 days of service of Third brief on
      cross appeal.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants JANE DOE, # 1; JANE DOE, # 2; and NORLAN
FLORES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Elisa Della-Piana, Esq.
          LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
          131 Steuart Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (510) 847-3001
          Facsimile: (415) 543-0296
          E-mail: edellapiana@lccr.com

                    - and -

          Alvaro M. Huerta, Esq.
          Linton Joaquin, Esq.
          NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
          3450 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 108-62
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 674-2829
          Email: huerta@nilc.org
                  joaquin@nilc.org

                    - and -

          Mary A. Kenney, Esq.
          Karolina Joanna Walters, Esq.
          AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL
          1331 "G" Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Email: mkenney@immcouncil.org
                 kwalters@immcouncil.org
               
                    - and -

          Jack Williford Londen, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7415
          Email: jlonden@mofo.com

                    - and -

          Colette Reiner Mayer, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          755 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1018
          Telephone: (650) 813-5600
          Email: crmayer@mofo.com

                    - and -

          Louise Stoupe, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          Shin-Marunouchi Building, 29th Floor
          5-1 Marunouchi 1-Chome Chiyoda-ku
          Tokyo, Japan
          Telephone: 81-3-3214-6522
          Email: lstoupe@mofo.com

Defendants-Appellees CHAD F. WOLF, Secretary, United States
Department of Homeland Security, et al., are represented by:

          Michael Anthony Celone, Esq.
          Sarah Fabian, Esq.
          Katelyn Masetta-Alvarez, Esq.
          Christina Parascandola, Esq.
          DOJ - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 305-5033
          Email: Michael.a.celone@usdoj.gov
                 sarah.b.fabian@usdoj.gov
                 katelyn.masetta.alvarez@usdoj.gov
                 christina.parascandola@usdoj.gov


UNITED STATES: Faces Uzoegwu Civil Rights Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the United States of
America, et al. The case is captioned as Jerysse Uzoegwu, on behalf
of herself as an individual and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Steven T. Mnuchin, in his official capacity as
Secretary of the United States Department of Treasury; United
States Department of Treasury; Charles P. Retting, in his official
capacity as Commissioner of the United States Internal Revenue
Service; United States Internal Revenue Service; and United States
of America, Case No. 1:20-cv-03264-NRB (S.D.N.Y., April 24, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the civil rights laws regarding
denial of due process.

The Department of the Treasury is the national treasury of the
federal government of the United States where it serves as an
executive department. The Internal Revenue Service is the revenue
service of the United States federal government.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander Gabriel Cabeceiras, Esq.
          DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC
          1 Penn Plaza, 49th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 587-0760
          Facsimile: (212) 587-4169
          E-mail: alexc@dereksmithlaw.com


UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Santiago et al. Allege ERISA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
AUGUSTINO SANTIAGO, LILLY LEYVA, GUILLERMO CREAMER, and MARIA
ACEITUNO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-21784-MGC (S.D. Fla., April 29, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated participants and beneficiaries of the University
of Miami Retirement Savings Plan, allege that the Defendant failed
to investigate, examine, and understand the real cost to Plan's
participants for administrative services, thereby causing the Plan
to pay unreasonable and excessive fees for investment and
administrative services. Further, the Defendant selected and
retained investment options for the Plan that historically and
consistently underperformed their benchmarks and charged excessive
investment management fees, as well as share classes that were more
expensive than other share classes readily available to qualified
retirement plans that provided Plan investors with the identical
investment at a lower cost.

The University of Miami Retirement Savings Plan is a defined
contribution, individual account, employee pension benefit plan
under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1002(2)(A) and Sec. 1002(34).

The University of Miami is a private, not-for-profit, nonsectarian
institution of higher learning with its principal place of business
in Miami, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
          
         Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
         Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
         WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
         1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Telephone: (813) 337-7992
                    (813) 224-0431
         Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
         E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  gnichols@wfclaw.com

               - and –

         Michael C. McKay, Esq.
         5635 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 170
         Scottsdale, AZ 85250
         Telephone: (480) 681-7000
         E-mail: mckay@mckay.law

               - and –

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

VICTAULIC COMPANY: Faces Dow Labor Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
ERNEST DOW, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. VICTAULIC COMPANY, Case No. 5:20-cv-02146 (E.D. Pa.,
May 4, 2020), alleges that the Defendant failed to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment
and Collection Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that he was an hourly employee of the
Defendant, which failed to properly pay him at least one and
one-half times the regular rate for all hours worked more than 40
hours in a workweek as required by the FLSA.

Victaulic is a developer and producer of mechanical pipe joining
systems and is the originator of the grooved pipe couplings joining
system.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1101 Kings Highway N., Suite 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685-7417


VOLUSION LLC: Faces Lopez FDUTPA Suit in Florida Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JULIO LOPEZ, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated
v. VOLUSION, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-21727-FAM (S.D. Fla., April 24,
2020), alleges that Volusion violated the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act in connection to a data breach.

Between on September 7, 2019, and October 10, 2019, unauthorized
third parties were able to steal consumers' personally identifiable
information (PII) from Volusion's e-commerce platform by inserting
malicious code into a Volusion JavaScript library. Consumers, who
made purchases through the online stores using Volusion's
compromised payment software during this time period, had their
card details and other personal information stolen and passed to an
unauthorized third party, the complaint says.

On October 9, 2019, Trend Micro's Security Intelligence Blog
reported that it had discovered an "online credit card skimming
attack" that was "actively operating on 3,126 online shops" hosted
on Volusion's e-commerce platform. By March 12, 2020, the Gemini
Advisory firm identified over 239,000 compromised credit card
records from the Data Breach that were sold on the dark web for
$1.6 million.  Yet it was not until April 21, 2020, that Volusion
distributed a notice of the Data Breach to its victims, including
Plaintiff Lopez.

The Plaintiff contends that his PII has been stolen as a result of
the Data Breach. Past breaches within the e-commerce industry,
including by the same hacker group Magecart, put Volusion on notice
that its security and privacy protections were inadequate, he
adds.

Volusion is a technology company, which provides infrastructure for
ecommerce stores online.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
          Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 389-0600
          Facsimile: (612) 389-0610
          E-mail: mweiner@pswlaw.com
                  jbourne@pswlaw.com


VOXX LIQUORS: Valle Seeks OT Pay, Tip Credit for Bar Staff
----------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA VALLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VOXX LIQUORS, LLC d/b/a VERA BAR & GRILL,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05200 (D.N.J., April 28, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law by maintaining
an unlawful tip pool, unlawfully retaining a portion of the tips
earned by the Plaintiff and Class members, and failing to
accurately track and pay them for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as bottle server and
bartender from in or around February 2016, until July 2016. She
returned to work in or around November 2016.

Voxx Liquors, LLC, doing business as Vera Bar & Grill, is a
for-profit limited liability company with principal place of
business address at 2310 Marlton Pike W, Cherry Hill, New Jersey.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Michael Murphy, Esq.
         MURPHY LAW GROUP LLC
         Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000
         1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (267) 273-1054
         Facsimile: (215) 525-0210
         E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com

XUNLEI LIMITED: NY Consolidated Securities Class Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Xunlei Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the class action suit
entitled, In re Xunlei Limited Securities Litigation, has been
dismissed.

Two putative shareholder class action lawsuits have been filed in
the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New
York against the Company and certain current and former officers
and directors of the Company.

Purporting to sue on behalf of all investors who purchased or
acquired Xunlei stock from October 10, 2017 to January 11, 2018,
plaintiffs allege that certain statements regarding OneCoin, later
renamed as LinkToken, in the Company's press releases and on a
quarterly investor call were false and misleading because, among
other things, they failed to disclose that OneCoin was a disguised
"initial coin offering" and "initial miner offering" and
constituted "unlawful financial activity."

Plaintiffs seek to recover under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

On April 12, 2018, the court consolidated the actions under the
caption In re Xunlei Limited Securities Litigation, No. 18-cv-467
(RJS) and appointed lead plaintiffs who filed a consolidated
amended compliant on June 4, 2018.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended compliant on
August 3, 2018, and the motion of dismiss was granted by United
States District Court Southern District of New York on September
11, 2019 and no notice of appeal or motion for extension of time
was filed by the plaintiffs within 60 days after entry of the
court"s motion, therefore the class action was dismissed in
November 2019.

Xunlei Limited, a cloud-based acceleration technology company,
operates an Internet platform for digital media content in the
People's Republic of China. Xunlei Limited was founded in 2003 and
is based in Shenzhen, the People's Republic of China.


[^] 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


                            *********

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 ***