/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200528.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, May 28, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 107

                            Headlines

ABM INDUSTRY: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Rodriguez Labor Suit
ACADEMY BANK: Panda Accounting Files FDCPA Suit in New York
ADT LLC: Preddy Sues Over Failure to Secure Security Services
AKAL SECURITY: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Dean FLSA Suit
ALLE PROCESSING: Faces Naiman Class Suit in District of Arizona

ALTERRA MOUNTAIN: Ikon Pass Holder Sues Over Shortened Season
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Weiss Files Suit under FDCPA
ANNTAYLOR INC: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Mendez ADA Suit
ARCH INSURANCE: Faces Heidarpour Class Suit in D. Arizona
ART OF SHAVING-FL: Second Cir. Appeal Filed in Calcano ADA Suit

AUTO CLUB GROUP: Mickalovski Files Consumer Suit in E.D. Michigan
BANANA REPUBLIC: Dominguez Appeals S.D.N.Y. Ruling to 2nd Circuit
BED BATH: Levi & Korskinsky Files Class Action Suit
BYTEDANCE INC: TikTok Collects Kids' Biometric Data, Suit Claims
CANIDO BASONAS: Trujillo Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

CAVALRY SPV I: Hurney Calls Debt Collection Letter "Unlawful"
CAVALRY SPV I: Pettway Alleges Violation under FDCPA
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Byrne Alleges Bait & Switch Scheme
CHINA EASTERN: Jauregui Seeks Refund for Cancelled Flight
COASTAL TREATMENT: Fails to Transmit Insurance Fees, Ritz Claims

COLLECTO INC: Rivera Files Suit under FDCPA
CONSUMER REPORTS: Faces Class Suit Over Automatic Service Renewals
CONTRACT CALLERS: Knudsen Asserts Breach of FDCPA
CORNED BEEF EXPRESS: Cortes et al. Seek Pay for Resto Staff
CRYSTEEL MANUFACTURING: Proserv Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania

DANBURY, CT: Sued for Failing to Protect Inmates From COVID-19
DARLING INGREDIENTS: Diaz Suit Removed to District of Colorado
DELTA AIR: Hagens Berman Files Class Action Lawsuit
DENNY'S INC: Fails to Pay for OT Work, Warren Claims
DEVA CONCEPTS: DevaCurl Products Cause Hair Problems, Biles Says

DON ALEX PERU: Castiblanco Sues in E.D.N.Y. Over FLSA Violation
DOORDASH INC: Fails to Pay for All Time Worked, Corbin Suit Says
DOUYU INT'L: Sokolove Investigating Class Action Claims
EHEALTH INC: Frank R. Cruz Announces Filing of Class Action
EMORY UNIVERSITY: Settles ERISA Lawsuit for $12.5 Million

EMPIRE TODAY: Childress Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
FCA US: Romanchuk Sues Over Oil Consumption Defect in Vehicles
FIFTH THIRD: Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Motion Set for June 8
FREERATEUPDATE.COM LLC: Schick Sues to Stop Unsolicited Calls
GEORGE HARMS: Narain et al Sue over Water Service Disruption

GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE: Putative Class Action Complaint Dismissed
GILEAD SCIENCES: Faces Suit for Disclosing HIV Patient Information
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: DeCostanzo Alleges False Advertising of Boostrix
GOLDEN STAR: Zhang Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Venator Securities Suit Pending

GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss VRDO-Related Suit Still Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Status Bid Pending in Interest Rate Swap Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Class Suits Over XP Inc. IPO
GOLDMAN SACHS: Securities Lending Antitrust Suit v GS&Co. Underway
GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement in GSE Bonds Suit Wins Initial Approval

GRAND CANYON: Offers Unaccredited Academic Programs, Ogdon Says
GREAT LAKES EDUCATIONAL: Mishandled Student Loan Relief, Sass Says
GSX TECHEDU: Faces Securities Class Action in New Jersey
HAIN CELESTIAL: Gimpel Appeals Order, Judgment in Securities Suit
HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS: Hair Studio Seeks Coverage of COVID Losses

IQIYI INC: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
JPI SERVICES: Faces Lewis Class Suit in California Superior Court
JPMORGAN CHASE: Misled PPP Applicants, Prioritized Larger Loans
JPMORGAN: Violates First-Come, First-Served COVID Loan Policy
KENTUCKY: Roberts Appeals E.D. Ky. Decision to Sixth Circuit

KERRY INC: Mahan Sues Over False Marketing of Vanilla Chai Tea
KNOXVILLE, TN: Mayor's COVID E.O. Is Unconstitutional, Simon Says
LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend California Wage & Hour Suit
LVNV FUNDING: Faces Raszewski Consumer Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
MDL 2804: Court Narrows Claims in National Prescription Opiate Suit

MDL 2879: Negligence Claims in Marriott Data Breach Suit Junked
MEADOW HILL: Singh Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
MEDGYN PRODUCTS: Thomas Sues over Unsolicited Fax Ads
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Lippitt Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC: 4 More Students Join Kelly Class Action

NEXTERA ENERGY: Mattwaoshshe Challenges Building of Wind Towers
NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Levi & Korsinksy Files Class Action Suit
ONEIDA COUNTY: Williamson Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
OPAI THAI: Nava Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
OYSTER BAY: Underpays Warehousemen & Laborers, Sifuentes Claims

PETE AND GERRY'S: Court Narrows Claims in Lugones False Ad Suit
POSTMATES INC: Fails to Pay All Time Worked, McGhee Suit Alleges
POWERSAT COMMUNICATIONS: Underpays Field Technicians, Jackson Says
RENOVATE AMERICA: Contractors Seek Payment for PACE Projects
RESIDENCE HERRON: Residents Launch Class Action Lawsuit

REVENUE MANAGEMENT: Landau Files FDCPA Suit in New York
SCION GROUP: Cristales Appeals D. Arizona Ruling to Ninth Circuit
SEE'S CANDY SHOPS: Faces Ping Suit Over Unpaid Compensations
SERVICEMASTER GLOBAL: Berger Montague Notes of June 9 Deadline
SMALL BUSINESS: Frost Launches Class Action Over PPP Loans

SOCIETY INSURANCE: Ambrosia Indy Seeks Pay for COVID-19 Losses
SOUTH BY SOUTHWEST: Faces Breach of Contract Class Action
STATE FARM: Denies Coverage of COVID-19 Losses, Royal Palm Claims
STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS: Franchi Says Menarini Merger Deal Lacks Info
SUNRISE CREDIT: Waller Sues in New York Alleging FDCPA Violation

SWAROVSKI NORTH: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Calcano ADA Suit
TEAM BEANS: Martinez Sues in E.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
TECNOVA ELECTRONICS: Unlawfully Cancels Job Offer, Ramirez Claims
TIKTOK INC: Faces GR Suit Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Info
UHS OF OKLAHOMA: McKinney Class Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma

UNITED SPECIALTY: Bradley Files Insurance Suit in E.D. Arkansas
UNITED STATES: ACLU Seeks Class-Action Status
UNITED STATES: Department of Health Faces Class Action
UNITED STATES: Doe Challenges Exclusion of Citizens in CARES Act
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Kincheloe Seeks Tuition Fee Refund

VISION FINANCIAL: Defrauds Commodities Customers, Kumaran Alleges
WHEREZ HEMP: Faces Klitzner TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Text
WILMINGTON TRUST: Settles ERISA Lawsuit for $19.5 Million
WW INTERNATIONAL: Faces Vodden Suit Over Unlawfully Charged Fees
YANKA INDUSTRIES: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

ZOOM VIDEO: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
[*] Timothy L. Miles Has Been Named Avvo Rated Top Lawyer
[*] US Firms Bring Wave of Class Actions v. Insurance Cos.

                            *********

ABM INDUSTRY: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Rodriguez Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant ABM Industry Groups, LLC, filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Gabriel Rodriguez, et al. v. ABM
Industry Groups, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-06735-GW-RAO, 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 the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Gabriel Rodriguez, et al v. ABM
Industry Groups, LLC, Case No. 20-55530, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by June 10, 2020;

   -- Transcript is due on July 10, 2020;

   -- Appellant ABM Industry Groups, LLC's opening brief is due
      on August 20, 2020;

   -- Appellees Gabriel Rodriguez and Jessica Sheehan's answering
      brief is due on September 21, 2020; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellees GABRIEL RODRIGUEZ and JESSICA SHEEHAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Dale Alan Harris, Esq.
          Priya Mohan, Esq.
          HARRIS & RUBLE
          655 N. Central Avenue, 17th Floor
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (323) 962-3777

Defendant-Appellant ABM INDUSTRY GROUPS, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, is represented by:

          Daniel F. Fears, Esq.
          Laura Fleming, Esq.
          Robert Matsuishi, Esq.
          PAYNE & FEARS LLP
          4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 851-1100
          E-mail: dff@paynefears.com


ACADEMY BANK: Panda Accounting Files FDCPA Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Academy Bank NA.  The
case is styled as Panda Accounting LLC, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Academy Bank NA, JP
Morgan Chase Bank NA doing business as: Chase Bank and MidFirst
Bank, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-03922 (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2020).

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

Academy National Bank operates as a full-service bank. The Bank
accepts deposits, makes loans and provides other services for the
public.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Benjamin Meiselas, Esq.
   Geragos & Geragos APC
   644 S Figueroa St.
   Los Angeles, CA 90017
   Tel: (213) 625-3900
   Fax: (213) 232-3255
   Email: ben@geragos.com

     - and -

   Brian C Gudmundson, Esq.
   Zimmerman Reed LLP - Minneapolis, MN
   1100 IDS Ctr.
   80 S 8th St.
   Minneapolis, MN 55402
   Tel: (612) 341-0400
   Fax: (612) 641-0844
   Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com

     - and -

   Harmeet K Dhillon, Esq.
   Dhillon Law Group Incorporated
   177 Post St., Ste. 700
   San Francisco, CA 94108
   Tel: (415) 433-1700
   Fax: (415) 520-6593

     - and -

   Hart Lawrence Robinovitch, Esq.
   Zimmerman Reed PLLP
   14646 N Kierland Blvd., Ste. 145
   Scottsdale, AZ 85254-2762
   Tel: (480) 348-6400
   Fax: (480) 348-6415
   Email: AZDocketing@zimmreed.com

     - and -

   Mark John Geragos, Esq.
   Geragos & Geragos APC
   644 S Figueroa St.
   Los Angeles, CA 90017
   Tel: (213) 625-3900
   Fax: (213) 232-3255
   Email: mark@geragos.com

     - and -

   Michael E Adler, Esq.
   Graylaw Group Incorporated
   26500 Agoura Rd., Ste. 102-127
   Calabasas, CA 91302
   Tel: (818) 532-2833
   Fax: (818) 532-2834

     - and -

   Michael Laird, Esq.
   Zimmerman Reed LLP - Minneapolis, MN
   1100 IDS Ctr.
   80 S 8th St.
   Minneapolis, MN 55402
   Tel: (612) 341-0400
   Fax: (612) 341-0844

     - and -

   Michael S Popok, Esq.
   Zampano Patricios & Popok PLLC
   417 5th Ave., Ste. 826
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 381-9999
   Fax: (212) 320-0332

     - and -

   Mitchell G Mandell, Esq.
   Zampano Patricios & Popok PLLC
   417 5th Ave., Ste. 826
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 381-9999
   Fax: (212) 320-0332

     - and -

   Nitoj P Singh, Esq.
   Dhillon Law Group Incorporated
   177 Post St., Ste. 700
   San Francisco, CA 94108
   Tel: (415) 433-1700
   Fax: (415) 520-6593



ADT LLC: Preddy Sues Over Failure to Secure Security Services
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alexia Preddy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ADT, LLC d/b/a ADT SECURITY SERVICES, a Delaware
limited liability company, Case No. 0:20-cv-60971-RAR (S.D. Fla.,
May 18, 2020), is brought against the Defendant based on its
intentional and negligent tortious acts in providing security
services to its customers with remote-viewing capabilities.

In April 2020, Alexia Preddy's mother received a terrifying phone
call from ADT: the technician, who had installed their indoor
security camera system had granted himself remote access--three
years prior when Ms. Preddy was a teenager--and had used that
access nearly one hundred times to spy on her and other household
members in their most private and intimate moments. Ms. Preddy was
not the only one. She soon found out that hundreds of households
had experienced the same staggering invasion of privacy over at
least a seven-year period. At fault for this breach of trust: ADT's
unsecure and unmonitored "security" services.

The Plaintiff asserts that ADT failed to provide the security
services its customers relied on by leaving large vulnerabilities
in the ADT Pulse application and, as a result, compromised the
safety and security of its customers' homes and family members. She
contends that the ADT vulnerability allowed any one of its
technicians to grant themselves (or for them to grant anyone else
for that matter) access to a customer's ADT Pulse application and
control every aspect of the customers' home security systems,
including surreptitiously opening locks and viewing security camera
footage.

Beyond the now-known technician, who accessed the Plaintiff's home,
potentially countless other unknown individuals, have been
accessing customer's ADT Pulse accounts and surreptitiously viewing
their camera footage, for years, all around the country, according
to the complaint. The mental and emotional impact this revelation
has had on every person receiving these calls from ADT is
immeasurable. Moments once believed to be private and inside the
sanctity of the home are now voyeuristic entertainment for a third
party. And worse, those moments could have been captured, shared
with others, or even posted to the internet. ADT's failure to
protect its customers irreparably destroyed their sense of
security, safety, intimacy, and well-being, the Plaintiff
contends.

The Plaintiff is a natural person and a citizen of the State of
Texas.

ADT is a home security company that touts its longstanding
expertise in security, and claims to have been providing security
services since the 19th century.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Karina D. Rodrigues, Esq.
          KELLEY UUSTAL, PLC
          500 North Federal Highway, Suite 200
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 522-6601
          Fax: (954) 522-6608
          Email: kdr@kulaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          J. Eli Wade-Scott, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Phone: 312.589.6370
          Fax: 312.589.6378
          Email: jedelson@edelson.com
                 brichman@edelson.com
                 ewadescott@edelson.com

               - and -

          Matthew R. McCarley, Esq.
          N. Majed Nachawati, Esq.
          C. Bryan Fears, Esq.
          S. Ann Saucer, Esq.
          Misty A. Farris, Esq.
          FEARS NACHAWATI PLLC
          5473 Blair Road
          Dallas, TX 75231
          Phone: 214.890.0711
          Fax: 214.890.0712
          Email: mmccarley@fnlawfirm.com
                 mn@fnlawfirm.com
                 fears@fnlawfirm.com
                 asaucer@fnlawfirm.com
                 mfarris@fnlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Amy M. Carter, Esq.
          Heather V. Davis, Esq.
          CARTER LAW GROUP, P.C.
          5473 Blair Rd.
          Dallas, TX 75231
          Phone: (214) 390-4173
          Email: amy@clgtrial.com
                 hdavis@clgtrial.com


AKAL SECURITY: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Dean FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Hayward Dean filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Hayward Dean v. Akal Security, Incorporated, Case
No. 20-30306, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Louisiana, Alexandria.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendant has a company policy of docking one hour
of pay on return flights for a lunch break. The Plaintiff alleges
he and other air security officers did not get to take these
breaks. The Plaintiff holds Akal Security Inc. responsible because
the Defendant also allegedly did not pay regular wages for the
hours worked that were improperly deducted for the forced lunch
break and failed to pay overtime wages.

The appellate case is captioned as Hayward Dean v. Akal Security,
Incorporated, Case No. 20-30306, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant HAYWARD DEAN, individually and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          James Edward Sudduth, III, Esq.
          SUDDUTH & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.
          1109 Pithon Street
          Lake Charles, LA 70601
          Telephone: (337) 480-0101
          Email: James@saa.legal

Defendant-Appellee AKAL SECURITY, INCORPORATED, is represented by:

          Charles Frederick Seemann, III, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS, P.C.
          650 Poydras Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 208-1755
          Email: Charles.Seemann@jacksonlewis.com


ALLE PROCESSING: Faces Naiman Class Suit in District of Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alle Processing
Corporation. The case is styled as Sidney Naiman, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Alle Processing
Corporation, a New York Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00963-DGC (D.
Ariz., May 18, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as other contract.

Alle Processing is a fully vertically integrated company, engaged
in the slaughtering, processing, and distribution of Glatt Kosher
beef, veal, lamb, and poultry, as well as a wide variety of
foodservice and retail consumer products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
          Stephen A. Klein, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Phone: (720) 213-0676
          Fax: (303) 927-0898
          Email: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
                 sklein@woodrowpeluso.com

               - and -

          Penny L. Koepke, Esq.
          MAXWELL & MORGAN PC
          Pierpont Commerce Center
          4854 E Baseline Rd., Ste. 104
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Phone: (480) 833-1001
          Fax: (480) 969-8267
          Email: pkoepke@hoalaw.biz


ALTERRA MOUNTAIN: Ikon Pass Holder Sues Over Shortened Season
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Kremer, writing for Denver-based Business Den, reports that a
California skier miffed at his shortened ski season has sued
Denver-based Alterra, claiming that he and thousands of other pass
holders are entitled to some sort of refund.

Villa Park resident Robert Kramer, a regular at Mammoth Mountain in
California, sued Alterra in federal court in Denver this week
seeking class-action status, alleging that the ski season he paid
for was supposed to last months longer.

Alterra, which owns 15 resorts, closed all its mountains on March
14 as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. The lawsuit claims that
the season goes as long as May at resorts such as Winter Park, and
into June or July at Mammoth Mountain in California.

"Defendants did not offer a refund (or even partial refund) on
passes," the lawsuit said. "Defendants kept all of skiers' money.
With hundreds of thousands of pass holders, this amounts to tens of
millions (or more) in unjust profits."

Alterra has said in previous news reports that it sells more than
250,000 Ikon passes annually priced at between $650 and $1,000 per
pass. The company said it does not comment on pending litigation.

Other companies faced with an abrupt closure have tried different
tacks. Some local gyms, such as yoga chain CorePower, refunded
customers who paid their monthly dues and then weren't able to
access gyms because of the shut-down orders. Other gyms kept
members' dues with no refunds. And then got sued.

Alterra this week started marketing pass renewals with a discount
of $200 on $1,000 Ikon passes and $100 on $700 passes if purchased
by the end of May. That's double the renewal discount last season.
In a press release the company said the price cut was a gesture of
"gratitude" to customers.

Kramer is attempting to form a class for a class-action lawsuit
that includes all pass holders.

"The core benefits of the Ikon Pass and Base Pass were
substantially the same; unlimited access to Ikon resorts, with
limited additional ski days at other destinations . . . Both groups
seek the same type of relief: compensation for the early
termination of pass benefits," the lawsuit reads.

The case was filed by Gregory Dovel from the firm Dovel & Luner.
[GN]



AMERICAN EXPRESS: Weiss Files Suit under FDCPA
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Express
Legal.  The case is styled as Salomon Weiss, on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. American
Express Legal and American Express Company, Defendants, Case No.
7:20-cv-03918-CS (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2020).

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

American Express offers world-class Charge and Credit Cards, Gift
Cards, Rewards, Travel, Personal Savings, Business Services,
Insurance and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

   Alexander Fink, Esq.
   Raymond Alexander Garcia, Esq.
   Stroock & Stroock & Lavan
   180 Maiden Lane
   New York, NY 10038
   Tel: (212) 806-5485
   Fax: (310) 407-6414
   Email: rgarcia@stroock.com



ANNTAYLOR INC: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Mendez ADA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Himelda Mendez filed an appeal from the District Court's
Judgment dated May 11, 2020, issued in her lawsuit styled Mendez v.
AnnTaylor, Inc., Case No. 19-cv-10625, 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 is
a class action lawsuit filed against AnnTaylor, Inc. pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Mendez v. AnnTaylor, Inc., Case
No. 20-1550, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Himelda Mendez, and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
          175 Varick Street
          New York, NY 10014
          Telephone: (646) 770-3775
          Facsimile: (646) 867-2639
          Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com

Defendant-Appellee AnnTaylor, Inc. is represented by:

          Michael Fleming, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          101 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10178
          Telephone: (212) 309-6207
          Email: michael.fleming@morganlewis.com


ARCH INSURANCE: Faces Heidarpour Class Suit in D. Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arch Insurance Group
Incorporated, et al. The case is styled as Fred Heidarpour, Sidney
Naiman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Arch Insurance Group Incorporated, a Delaware corporation;
Affinity Insurance Services Incorporated doing business as: Aon
Affinity, a Pennsylvania corporation; Case No. 2:20-cv-00968-MTL
(D. Ariz., May 18, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as other contract.

Arch Insurance Group Inc. provides insurance and reinsurance
products. The Company offers a range of property, casualty, and
specialty insurance for corporations, professional firms, and
financial institutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Penny L Koepke, Esq.
          MAXWELL & MORGAN PC
          Pierpont Commerce Center
          4854 E Baseline Rd., Ste. 104
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Phone: (480) 833-1001
          Fax: (480) 969-8267
          Email: pkoepke@hoalaw.biz


ART OF SHAVING-FL: Second Cir. Appeal Filed in Calcano ADA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Marcos Calcano filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Calcano v. The Art of Shaving-FL, LLC, Case No.
19-cv-10432, 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 Plaintiff
filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Calcano v. The Art of
Shaving-FL, LLC, Case No. 20-1594, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Marcos Calcano, On behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated, is represented by:

          Oliver Koppell, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF G. OLIVER KOPPELL & ASSOCIATES
          99 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 867-3838
          Email: okoppell@koppellaw.com

Defendant-Appellee The Art of Shaving-FL, LLC is represented by:

          Joseph J. Lynett, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          44 South Broadway
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 872-6888
          Email: Joseph.Lynett@jacksonlewis.com


AUTO CLUB GROUP: Mickalovski Files Consumer Suit in E.D. Michigan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Auto Club Group.
The case is styled as John B. Mickalovski, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Auto Club Group
doing business as: AAA Chicago Motor Club, Case No.
2:20-cv-11230-SFC-RSW (E.D. Mich., May 18, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.

The Auto Club operates an auto repair facility. The Company
provides insurance, travel, maintenance and repair, auto loan, and
related services for its members.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Scott Davidson, Esq.
          Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 581-5450
          Fax: (630) 575-8188
          Email: jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com
                 mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com


BANANA REPUBLIC: Dominguez Appeals S.D.N.Y. Ruling to 2nd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Yovanny Dominguez filed an appeal from the District
Court's Judgment issued on May 11, 2020, in the lawsuit styled
Dominguez v. Banana Republic, LLC, Case No. 19-cv-10171, 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 is
a class action lawsuit filed against Banana Republic, LLC, pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Dominguez v. Banana Republic,
LLC, Case No. 20-1559, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Yovanny Dominguez, on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, is represented by:

          Oliver Koppell, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF G. OLIVER KOPPELL & ASSOCIATES
          99 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 867-3838
          Facsimile: (212) 681-0810
          Email: okoppell@koppellaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Banana Republic, LLC is represented by:

          Beth Storper Joseph, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          200 South Biscayne Boulevard
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 415-3308
          Email: beth.joseph@morganlewis.com


BED BATH: Levi & Korskinsky Files Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, on April 29 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Bed Bath &
Beyond Inc. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff
have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further
details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There
is no cost or obligation to you.

Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. (BBBY)

BBBY Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 2, 2019
- February 11, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 15, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/bed-bath-beyond-inc-loss-form?prid=6254&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Bed Bath
& Beyond Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) due to "aggressive disposition
of inventory," the Company lacked sufficient inventory in key
categories to support holiday sales; (2) the Company's internal
control over inventory levels and financial reporting was not
effective; (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company was likely
to experience reduced sales; and (4) 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.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]


BYTEDANCE INC: TikTok Collects Kids' Biometric Data, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
H.S., a Minor, through her Guardian, J.S., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BYTEDANCE,
INC., TIKTOK, INC., BEIJING BYTEDANCE TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD, and
MUSICAL.LY, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03007 (N.D. Ill., May 20,
2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of herself as
well as the putative Class, against the Defendants for alleged
violation of the Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, each Defendant fails to inform
individuals of the purposes and duration for which it collects,
stores, and uses their biometric identifiers; fails to inform
individuals that they discloses or disclosed their biometric
identifiers between and among each Defendant; fails to inform
individuals that they maintain backup servers with biometric
database(s) outside of Illinois; fails to inform individuals that
their biometric identifiers are disclosed to currently unknown
third parties, which host the biometric identifiers in their data
centers; and, fails to obtain written releases from individuals
before collecting their biometric identifiers, as required by
BIPA.

Because Defendants neither publish a BIPA-mandated data retention
policy nor disclose the purposes for their collection and use of
biometric identifiers, TikTok users have no idea whether Defendants
sell, disclose, redisclose, or otherwise disseminate their
biometric data. Moreover, H.S., her legal guardian, and others
similarly situated are not told to whom Defendants disclose TikTok
user’s biometric data, or what might happen to the TikTok user's
biometric data in the event of a merger or a bankruptcy.

H.S. and her legal guardian J.S., were, at all times relevant,
residents of the State of Illinois.

ByteDance, Inc. is a Chinese multinational Internet technology
company headquartered in Beijing.

TikTok is a video-sharing social networking service owned by
ByteDance. It is used to create short dance, lip-sync, comedy and
talent videos.

Beijing ByteDance Technology Co. Ltd. is a privately held company
headquartered in Beijing, China.

Musical.ly was a social media service headquartered in Shanghai
with an office in Santa Monica, California, on which platform users
created and shared short lip-sync videos. ByteDance Ltd. acquired
musical.ly Inc. on November 9, 2017, and merged it into TikTok on
August 2, 2018.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
          Megan E. Shannon, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
          Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                 jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                 aficzko@stephanzouras.com
                 mshannon@stephanzouras.com

                    - and -

          Erik H. Langeland, Esq.
          ERIK H. LANGELAND, P.C.
          733 Third Avenue, 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 354-6270
          Email: elangeland@langelandlaw.com

                    - and -

          Jon A. Tostrud, Esq.
          TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 278-2600
          Email: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com

CANIDO BASONAS: Trujillo Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Amaro Ochoa Trujillo (a/k/a Emanuel Lopez) and Marcelo
Mendoza Marin, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. CANIDO BASONAS CONSTRUCTION CORP. (D/B/A CANIDO BASONAS
CONSTRUCTION), THE RESTORATION SITE, INC. (D/B/A THE RESTORATION
SITE), MIGUEL A. BRION, and RAMIRO ANGAMARCA, Case No.
1:20-cv-02241 (E.D.N.Y., May 18, 2020), is brought to recover
unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938, and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate overtime compensation for the hours that
they worked, according to the complaint. Rather, the Defendants
failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and
failed to pay the Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked,
either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime
premium.

The Plaintiffs were employed as construction workers at the
construction corporations.

The Defendants own, operate, or control two construction companies,
located in Brooklyn, New York, under the names "Canido Basonas
Construction" and "The Restoration Site."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


CAVALRY SPV I: Hurney Calls Debt Collection Letter "Unlawful"
-------------------------------------------------------------
FARIDA ROSE HURNEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAVALRY SPV I, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 20CV366656 (Cal. Sup. Ct., May 20, 2020) is a
class action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged
violations of the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act
(CFDBPA).

According to the complaint, Plaintiff was alleged to have incurred
a debt in the form of credit account issued by Synchrony Bank which
Plaintiff denied she owed any debt. The alleged debt was
consequently treated as "charged-off consumer debt" by Synchrony
Bank, which was then purchased by Defendant on or after January 1,
2014 for collection. Defendant contracted with Cawley & Bergmann,
LLC as an authorized agent to collect the debt from Plaintiff.

Thereafter, Defendant requested the authorized agent to send a
written communication to Plaintiff on or about May 23, 2019 on
Defendant's behalf. However, the notice failed to comply with
CFDBPA requirements.

The complaint contends that the collection of Plaintiff's alleged
debt by Defendant was unlawful.

Cavalry SPV I, LLC is a debt collector that engages in purchasing
and collecting charged-off consumer debts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Fred W. Schwinn, Esq.
          Raeon R. Roulston, Esq.
          Matthew C. Salmonsen, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC.
          1435 Koll Circle, Suite 104
          San Jose, CA 95112-4610
          Tel: (408)294-6100
          Fax: (408)294-6190
          Email: fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com
                 raeon.roulston@sjconsumerlaw.com
                 matthew.samonsen@sjconsumerlaw.com


CAVALRY SPV I: Pettway Alleges Violation under FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cavalry SPV I, LLC.
The case is styled as Anthony Pettway, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cavalry SPV I, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-03922 (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2020).

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

Cavalry SPV I LLC is an affiliate of Cavalry Portfolio Services, a
company established in 2002 with the sole purpose of buying up high
risk debt.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Byrne Alleges Bait & Switch Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------
RANDALL BYRNE, DAVID KLEUSKENS, JERRY HENRY, JASON WEBER, and SUSAN
FOSTER-HARPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., CHARTER
COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS, LLC, CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS OPERATING,
LLC, and SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 3:20-cv-00712-CSH (D. Conn., May 21, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Ohio and Kentucky
Consumer Sales Practices Act, breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Defendants engaged in false and
deceptive advertising of their cable television service packages by
promising a fixed monthly rate for a period of one to two years,
but after consumers sign up or renew their service for the promised
fixed-rate period, Charter deceptively increases the monthly rate
in multiple deceptive ways including imposing and increasing a
so-called "Broadcast TV Surcharge"; pegging customer discounts to a
list price rate, increasing that list price rate, and increasing
the customer's "discounted" rates with it; removing channels
originally presented as part of the package and then charging extra
for them; and increasing the monthly price of customer equipment
such as cable boxes which are utilized by customers to receive
television service. Through this bait-and-switch scheme, Charter
has unfairly and improperly extracted billions of dollars in
ill-gotten gains from consumers across the country, including those
in Ohio and Kentucky.

Charter Communications, Inc. is a telecommunications company and a
holding company whose principal asset is a controlling equity
interest in Charter Communications Holdings, LLC. It is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business located at 400
Atlantic Street, Stamford, Connecticut.

Charter Communications Holdings, LLC is a holding company and the
parent company of Charter Communications Operating, LLC. It is a
Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of
business located at 400 Atlantic Street, Stamford, Connecticut.

Charter Communications Operating, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary
of Charter Communications, Inc. and is the entity under which
substantially all of Charter's operations reside. It is located at
400 Atlantic Street, Stamford, Connecticut.

Spectrum Management Holding Company, LLC, formerly known as Time
Warner Cable Inc., is a provider of video, high-speed data and
voice services in the United States, with its principal place of
business also located at 400 Atlantic Street, Stamford,
Connecticut. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:           
         
         Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
         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: msobol@lchb.com
                 rheller@lchb.com

               - and –
         
         Daniel E. Seltz, Esq.
         Avery S. Halfon, 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: dseltz@lchb.com
                 ahalfon@lchb.com

               - and –
         
         Daniel M. Hattis, Esq.
         Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq.
         HATTIS & LUKACS
         400 108th Ave NE, Ste. 500
         Bellevue, WA 98004
         Telephone: (425) 233-8650
         Facsimile: (425) 412-7171
         E-mail: dan@hattislaw.com
                 pkl@hattislaw.com

               - and –
         
         Hugh W. Cuthbertson, Esq.
         Steve C Rickman, Esq.
         ZANGARI COHN CUTHBERTSON DUHL & GRELLO PC
         59 Elm Street, Suite 400
         New Haven, CT 06510
         Telephone: (203) 789-0001
         Facsimile: (203) 782-2766
         E-mail: hcuthbertson@zcclawfirm.com
                 srickman@zcclawfirm.com

CHINA EASTERN: Jauregui Seeks Refund for Cancelled Flight
---------------------------------------------------------
The case CARLOS A. JAUREGUI, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CHINA EASTERN AIRLINES
CORPORATION LIMITED, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-04552 (C.D. Cal.,
May 20, 2020), is a class action lawsuit regarding the failure of
Defendant China Eastern Airlines Corporation Limited to provide
full refunds to customers including the Plaintiff whose flights
were cancelled as a result of the coronavirus, or COVID-19.

Plaintiff, like many other travelers, was scheduled to fly with
China Eastern. As part of Plaintiff's trip, Plaintiff was to embark
on a departing flight from or destined for the United States: a
departing flight from Los Angeles, California to Shanghai, China,
and a return flight from and from Shanghai to Los Angeles.

As a result of the coronavirus pandemic, China Eastern suspended
flights to and from the United States. China Eastern's customers
who, like Plaintiff, were affected by the cancellations, have
sought refunds from Defendant, to no avail.

The Defendant's acts are in violation of the Enforcement Notice of
the United States Department of Transportation to provide Plaintiff
a prompt refund when it cancelled his flight as well as in
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, California
Business & Professions Code.

China Eastern Airlines Corporation Limited is the second largest
airline in China.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

COASTAL TREATMENT: Fails to Transmit Insurance Fees, Ritz Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Theresa Ritz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. COASTAL TREATMENT CENTER, CLEARWATER LLC d/b/a THE WAVE
OF CLEARWATER, Case No. 8:20-cv-01149-SDM-AAS (M.D. Fla., May 18,
2020), is brought as a matter of right alleging that the Defendant
failed to transmit premium payments to the health/dental insurance
companies, as required by the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of, as amended by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1985.

The Defendant offered a qualified group health plan to its
employees as a part of their benefit package ("Plan"). The
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated ERISA by failing to
discharge fiduciaries duties with respect to the Plan. As a result
of these violations, the Plaintiff seeks statutory penalties,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and other
appropriate relief.

The Plaintiff was denied coverage for dental services on November
5, 2019, and December 27, 2019, and suffered losses, the Plaintiff
alleges. The Defendant's failure to transmit premium payments to
the insurer, which were deducted from the Plaintiff's paycheck is
the direct cause of the losses suffered by the Plaintiff, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff began working for the Defendant as a Director of
Clinical Services Program Director in February 2019, and she worked
in this capacity until November 2019 and is a covered employee and
participant in the Plan.

The Defendant is a limited liability company and operates a
residential treatment facility in Clearwater, Florida, in Pinellas
County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donna V. Smith, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Main Number: 813-224-0431
          Direct Dial: 813-386-0995
          Facsimile: 813-229-8712
          Email: dsmith@wfclaw.com
                 rcooke@wfclaw.com


COLLECTO INC: Rivera Files Suit under FDCPA
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Collecto, Inc.  The
case is styled as James Rivera, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Collecto, Inc., doing
business as: EOS CCA, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02274 (E.D.N.Y.,
May 20, 2020).

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

Collecto, Inc., doing business as EOS CCA, operates as a debt
management and recovery resource company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



CONSUMER REPORTS: Faces Class Suit Over Automatic Service Renewals
------------------------------------------------------------------
Marian Johns, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Consumer
Reports is facing a class action lawsuit alleging they violated
California law by enrolling consumers in automatic renewal and
continuous subscriptions.

Nino Koller and Michelle Brown, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a complaint April 6 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California against
Consumer Reports Inc., alleging violation of the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiffs allege that Consumer Reports failed to disclose to
consumers who signed up for their monthly magazine the terms of
their automatic renewal and continuous service plans. They also
claim Consumer Reports charge the consumer's credit, debit card or
third party account without consent and failed to provide a
cancellation policy.  

The plaintiffs seek monetary relief, interest, trial by jury and
all other proper relief. They are represented by Zach Dostart of
Dostart Hannink & Coveney LLP in LaJolla.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California case
number 20-CV0660-JLS-KSC. [GN]



CONTRACT CALLERS: Knudsen Asserts Breach of FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Contract Callers,
Inc.  The case is styled as Jesse Knudsen, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Contract
Callers, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02269 (M.D. Tenn., May
20, 2020).

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

Contract Callers Inc or CCI is a top tier provider of call center
services and utility field services solutions for creditors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



CORNED BEEF EXPRESS: Cortes et al. Seek Pay for Resto Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, BEATRIZ CORONA CORTES, CARLOS CLEMENTE MAXIMINO,
FRANCISCO JAVIER GARCIA SANTOS, JOSE LUIS LARA TORRES, JOSE ORTIZ
GARCIA, MIGUEL PANO SERRANO, SANTOS ALEJANDRO TZUBAN TAX, and
VENANCIO SALDANA VILLANUEVA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly-situated v. CORNED BEEF EXPRESS, LLC, D/B/A
ARTIE'S; JOHN DOE CORP., D/B/A NANJING; M A K FOOD GROUP INC.,
D/B/A COZUMEL TORTILLA; WALTER SINGH; AVATAR SINGH; and ARUN KUMAR,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03546 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2020), arises
from the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiffs and all others
similarly-situated restaurant workers of the required minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
the New York Labor Law. The Defendants also failed to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked by the Plaintiffs and
Class members and refused to give them any breaks or meal periods
of any kind.

The Plaintiffs were employed as cooks, delivery workers,
dishwashers, food preparers at the restaurants located at 2290
Broadway, New York, NY 10024, 241 W 51st Street, New York, NY
10019, and 877 10th Avenue, New York, NY 10019.

Corned Beef Express, LLC, doing business as Artie's, is a
restaurant operator located at 2290 Broadway, New York, New York.

John Doe Corp., doing business as Nanjing, is a restaurant operator
located at 241 W 51st Street, New York, New York.

M A K Food Group Inc., doing business as Cozumel Tortilla, is a
restaurant operator located at 877 10th Avenue, New York, New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
          
         Michael Faillace, Esq.
         MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES PC
         60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
         New York, NY 10165
         Telephone: (212) 317-1200
         Facsimile: (212) 317-1620

CRYSTEEL MANUFACTURING: Proserv Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CRYSTEEL
MANUFACTURING, INC. The case is styled as Proserv Removal, Inc., on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. CRYSTEEL
MANUFACTURING, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-02331 (E.D. Pa., May 18,
2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

Crysteel Manufacturing, Inc. was founded in 2006. The Company's
line of business includes the manufacturing of motor vehicle parts
and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK
          1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 985-9177
          Fax: (215) 985-4169
          Email: rgolomb@golombhonik.com


DANBURY, CT: Sued for Failing to Protect Inmates From COVID-19
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelan Lyons, writing for CTMIRROR.ORG, reports that attorneys from
a Stamford law firm, Quinnipiac University School of Law and Yale
Law School filed a class-action federal lawsuit on April 27 to
force authorities to take emergency measures to protect the more
than 1,000 men and women incarcerated at the Federal Correctional
Institution in Danbury.

"Public health experts uniformly agree that prisons are hot spots
for the spread of COVID-19 that require prison officials to take
swift action to protect the lives of those in their custody," said
Sarah Russell, a professor at Quinnipiac University and one of the
lawyers on the case. "FCI Danbury has completely disregarded these
warnings, placing incarcerated people at an unbearable and
unconstitutional risk of contracting the disease."

The lawsuit alleges the Bureau of Prisons and Danbury prison
officials are aware of the dangers posed by COVID-19 but have
failed to take action to protect those in their custody.

Due to the "unlawful and unconstitutional confinement," the suit's
petitioners are seeking an emergency order to immediately transfer
the prison's most medically vulnerable inmates to home confinement,
and the implementation of social distancing and hygiene measures
for those who remain incarcerated, to lower the risk of spreading
the virus.

A request seeking comment from the Bureau of Prisons was not
immediately answered on April 28.

Attorney General William Barr ordered the expedited release of
inmates from the low-security Danbury penitentiary to home
confinement, but it is unclear how many incarcerated people have
been sent home to serve out their sentence. More than 40 inmates
and 30 staff have contracted the virus, making it one of the
largest outbreaks in the federal prison system.

The case features four named incarcerated plaintiffs, all of whom
have underlying medical conditions that, the suit alleges, put them
at risk of death if they contract COVID-19: Dianthe
Martinez-Brooks, a 50-year-old woman who suffers from lupus, asthma
and hypertension; Rejeanne Collier, a 64-year-old woman who also
suffers from lupus, hepatitis C and hypertension, and who has been
treated for cancer since becoming incarcerated; Jackie Madore, a
50-year-old woman who has hypertension, hypothyroidism and
hepatitis C; and Kenneth Cassidy, a 54-year-old man who has
suffered three heart attacks and suffers from chronic asthma. None
of the plaintiffs are Connecticut residents.

Because of each inmate's medical conditions, the suit says, they
each face a "grave risk" that they will "not make it out of FCI
Danbury alive or will become terribly ill."

The lawsuit alleges officials have been "deliberately indifferent
to the known serious medical needs" of the four plaintiffs.
Officials routinely deny inmates have fevers by attributing high
temperatures to medical equipment or operator error, or by
requiring sick inmates to drink a glass of ice water before testing
them again. Even when medical staff confirm the fever, inmates are
often sent back to their units and told to take Tylenol.

Those incarcerated at the prison live in close quarters, with 100
people sleeping beside each other in bunk beds, sharing communal
bathrooms and dining areas. Many individuals have high fevers or
difficulty breathing, the lawsuit says, but have not been tested or
removed from crowded living spaces.

Unlike many prisons in the federal system, the suit says, Danbury
does not have a separate medical unit or facility for sick inmates.
There is no space where someone who is ill can recover, isolated
from their peers. And, the correctional facility has a "woefully
inadequate" number of nasal swab COVID-19 test kits, requiring
prison staff to ration them and refuse testing inmates exhibiting
symptoms of the virus.

Failure to isolate sick inmates and staff from the healthy
population creates a serious risk for others, the class-action
lawsuit states. The lawsuit also alleges that those who complain of
symptoms of COVID-19 are unable to immediately obtain a medical
exam, are not tested for the virus and are returned to the general
population until the symptoms worsen. Instead, the lawsuit says,
prison staff tell the sick they "did the crime" and should "do the
time," and that the virus is not "going to get you out of prison."

"The only effective way to minimize the potential devastation from
COVID-19 in BOP facilities generally and at FCI Danbury in
particular is to downsize immediately the incarcerated population
and, for the prisoners who remain at the institution, to undertake
aggressively the detection, prevention, and treatment measures that
public health and medical experts have recommended, including
effective social distancing," the lawsuit says. "These measures are
not possible in prisons, like FCI Danbury, without substantial
reductions in the prisoner population." [GN]


DARLING INGREDIENTS: Diaz Suit Removed to District of Colorado
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Diaz, Nicole Diaz,
Albert Maldonado, and Lorraine Maldonado, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Darling Ingredients Inc. doing
business as: DarPro and Pepcol Manufacturing, Case No. 2020CV30728,
was removed from the Colorado District Court, Denver County, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on May 5, 2020.

The District of Colorado Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-01259-SKC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge S. Kato Crews.

The lawsuit alleges violation of Torts to Land-related laws.

Darling Ingredients collects and recycles animal processing
by-products and used restaurant cooking oil. The Company also
provides grease trap collection services to restaurants. Darling
processes such raw materials into finished products, such as
tallow, meat and bone meal, and yellow grease for sale in the
United States and overseas.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Lippa, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          1144 15th Street, Suite 3300
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 572-6535
          Facsimile: (303) 572-6540
          E-mail: LippaJ@gtlaw.com


DELTA AIR: Hagens Berman Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Delta Air Lines was the latest defendant to be named in a
class-action lawsuit seeking refunds for consumers refused ticket
refund requests for flights cancelled due to the outbreak of
COVID-19, according to attorneys at Hagens Berman.

The class-action law firm brought similar claims against United
Airlines recently, in its suit against Delta. If an airline denied
your refund request after your flight was cancelled due to the
outbreak, find out more about the lawsuit and your rights.

According to the lawsuit filed Apr. 17, 2020 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division,
Atlanta-based Delta has acted in deceptive and unfair manners in
failing to honor ticket refunds and requests from its passengers in
light of the outbreak of the novel coronavirus.

The suit's named plaintiff is a Maryland resident who booked four
round-trip tickets for $3,090.22, for travel from Washington Dulles
to Cairo, Egypt in April 2020. Delta twice cancelled his flights,
according to the lawsuit, once for the initial departure date, and
once after the plaintiff rebooked the flights to an earlier date.
His requests for a refund were rejected, and Delta informed him he
was limited to a voucher for travel to occur within one year of his
original booking date. The lawsuit states, "At the time of his
ticket purchase, Plaintiff understood that he would be entitled to
a refund if his flight was . . . Plaintiff seeks a refund because
he does not know when or if he will be able to use a travel
voucher."

Delta's Changing Refund Policy

Under Delta's Contract of Carriage, if the airline cancelled a
flight or changed a flight time by more than 90 minutes, passengers
could receive a full refund. However, Delta is focused on keeping
passenger money through providing travel credits, not refunds. The
front page of Delta's website has a "Coronavirus Travel Updates"
banner and a large red button to encourage consumers to "Change or
Cancel" their flight, yet the refund request form is not referenced
on Delta's "Coronavirus Travel Updates," and is only located by
searching the website specifically for the refund request form.

According to the suit, " . . . regardless of the method by which
Delta sells its tickets, Delta has engaged in unfair, deceptive,
and unjust conduct: it is refusing to issue refunds to passengers
for coronavirus related flight cancellations," highlighting that
with mounting cancellations, Delta tried to make it "difficult, if
not impossible, for consumers to receive any refund on pandemic
cancelled flights."

As the Department of Transportation advises consumers of their
rights: "If your flight is cancelled and you choose to cancel your
trip as a result, you are entitled to a refund for the unused
transportation—even for non-refundable tickets." Yet, Delta has
refused to give its customers the option of a refund, going as far
as automatically issuing a travel voucher if a passenger is
travelling soon, and cannot get through to a customer service
representative due to high demand.

"Simply put, we find Delta's actions in light of the pandemic
utterly unacceptable," said Steve Berman, managing partner of
Hagens Berman and attorney for consumers in the class action. "That
Delta is offering time-limited vouchers during an unprecedented
time of chaos and uncertainty in our nation's history only
underscores its primary focus of profits over people, and we intend
to fight for their right to monetary relief. Americans are losing
their sources of income at alarming rates. Vouchers just won't cut
it."

"The separation caused by COVID-19 and related protective efforts
has particularly impacted travel, including air travel. Opportunity
and ability to travel is flat-out eliminated for many Americans,
both financially and physically," the lawsuit states. "To add to
the difficulties such passengers already face, Delta refuses to
issue monetary refunds to passengers with canceled flights. It does
so even though all airline passengers are entitled to a refund if
the airline cancels a flight, regardless of the reason the airline
cancels the flight. Instead, Delta represents it will only rebook
and/or provide travel vouchers."

The lawsuit against Delta seeks refunds for class members for the
amount paid for airline tickets, punitive damages and an injunction
directing United to issue refunds for cancelled flights.

Find out more about the class-action lawsuit against airlines for
failure to refund tickets due to COVID-19-related cancellations.

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP is a consumer-rights class-action
law firm with nine offices across the country. The firm's tenacious
drive for plaintiffs' rights has earned it numerous national
accolades, awards and titles of "Most Feared Plaintiff's Firm," and
MVPs and Trailblazers of class-action law. More about the law firm
and its successes can be found at www.hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm
for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw.

Contact:

         Ashley Klann
         Hagens Berman
         E-mail: ashleyk@hbsslaw.com
         Tel: 206-268-9363
[GN]



DENNY'S INC: Fails to Pay for OT Work, Warren Claims
----------------------------------------------------
The case, SAMANTHA WARREN, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DENNY'S INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-00428 (M.D. Tenn., May 19, 2020) arises from Defendant's
alleged unlawful practice and policy of refusing to pay overtime in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was hired by Defendant in 2017 as a server.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and the Collective Class
either work or have worked within the past 3 years as non-exempt
employees and were required to work more than 40 hours per week.
Plaintiff regularly work 60 to 65 hours per week. However,
Defendant refuses to properly pay servers, including Plaintiff,
overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours.

Plaintiff and the Collective Class contend that Defendant's General
Manager manipulated their clock in and clock out records to
reconcile in the computer system and to show that they were not
constantly working.

Denny's Inc. is a restaurant that serves American comfort food,
including appetizer, breakfast, lunch or dinner, located at 1420
HWY 96 North. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kyle F. Biesecker, Esq.
          BIESECKER DUTKANYCH & MACER, LLC
          3200 West End Avenue, Suite 500
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Tel: (615)783-2171
          Fax: (812)424-1005
          Email: kfb@bdlegal.com


DEVA CONCEPTS: DevaCurl Products Cause Hair Problems, Biles Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
KATHLEEN BILES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. DEVA CONCEPTS, LLC, d/b/a
DEVACURL, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03537 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2020)
is a class action against the Defendant for violation of
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of express warranty, breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, negligence,
and violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all
similarly-situated consumers who purchased Defendant's DevaCurl
hair products, which are used for personal cosmetic purposes,
alleges that the Defendant deceives consumers by claiming that the
No-Poo Product and other DevaCurl Products can allow scalp
regulation and do not contain sulfates found in shampoos that dry
out curls. Due to the Defendant's product representation, the
Plaintiff and consumers have purchased the No-Poo Product as a
complete alternative to traditional shampoo at a premium price.
However, despite the Defendant's assurances of the products'
benefits, use of the products has caused scalp irritation,
excessive shedding, hair loss, thinning, breakage, and/or balding
during normal use by thousands of consumers. Moreover, the
Defendant provides no warning about these consequences, and in fact
makes numerous assertions about the gentle and beneficial nature of
the products. Had the Plaintiff and other Class members known that
Defendant's products would cause hair loss, scalp irritation and
other problems, they would not have purchased the products.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
         Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
         Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq.
         John A. Macoretta, Esq.
         Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
         Diana J. Zinser, Esq.
         SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF PC
         2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
         Philadelphia, PA, 19103
         Telephone: (215) 496-0300
         E-mail: espector@srkattorneys.com
                 jcorrigan@srkattorneys.com
                 jmacoretta@srkattorneys.com
                 jspector@srkattorneys.com
                 dzinser@srkattorneys.com

               - and –
         
         Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
         Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
         FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
         2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
         Bannockburn, IL 60015
         Telephone: (224) 632-4500
         E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com
                 dmillen@fklmlaw.com

               - and –
         
         Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
         Kimberly A. Justice, Esq.
         FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
         923 Fayette Street
         Conshohocken, PA 19428
         Telephone: (610) 234-6487
         E-mail: jjagher@fklmlaw.com
                 kjustice@fklmlaw.com

               - and –
         
         Philip A. Steinberg, Esq.
         124 Rockland Avenue
         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
         Telephone: (610) 664-0972
         E-mail: pasteinbe@aol.com

DON ALEX PERU: Castiblanco Sues in E.D.N.Y. Over FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Don Alex Peru, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Karen Milena Guauque Castiblanco,
Leidy Vivian Guauque Castiblanco, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Don Alex Peru, Inc. doing business as:
Don Alex, BBQ Chicken Don Alex Inc. doing business as: Don Alex,
BBQ Chicken Don Alex II Inc. doing business as: Don Alex, Diavi
Osores, Gelsen Doe, Case No. 1:20-cv-02235 (E.D.N.Y., May 18,
2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Don Alex is a family owned and operated restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: (212) 317-1200
          Fax: (212) 317-1620
          Email: michael@faillacelaw.com


DOORDASH INC: Fails to Pay for All Time Worked, Corbin Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
REGINA CORBIN, individually, and on behalf of other individuals
similarly situated v. DOORDASH, INC., a Delaware company; and DOES
1-100, inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-584342 (Cal. Super., San
Francisco Cty., May 5, 2020), alleges that the Defendants failed to
reimburse necessary business expenses and to pay for all time
worked in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee in the position of "courier." The Plaintiff and fellow
couriers provide food delivery throughout the State of California.

Doordash offers local delivery of restaurant-prepared meals,
groceries and other goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq.
          Lirit Ariella King, Esq
          BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
          31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805) 270-7100
          Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
          E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                  kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
                  Iking@bradleygrombacher.com


DOUYU INT'L: Sokolove Investigating Class Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Sokolove Law announces an investigation into a securities class
action lawsuit filed against DouYu International Holdings Limited
(DOYU) on behalf shareholders. DOYU investors who purchased stock
during the IPO on July 18, 2019 or up to December 31, 2019 who are
interested in learning more about the class action lawsuit should
call 800-576-6505 to explore their legal rights. Time is extremely
limited -- shareholders are encouraged to call without delay.

For more information visit: DOYUFraud.com

DouYu International Holdings Limited (DOYU) is a game-focused live
streaming platform in China and a major company in the eSports
platform as well. DouYu operates its platform on PC and mobile
apps, through which users can play interactive games and live
stream entertainment.

The lawsuit in question against DouYu alleges that the IPO
Registration Statement and Prospectus the company and other
defendants used to ultimately secure over $489 million in net
proceeds from investors hid extensive problems at the company.
DouYu allegedly concealed that its top streamer was actively
misrepresenting herself and costs associated with retaining top
streamers was ballooning. DouYu also allegedly did not ensure that
all of its products were fully compliant with current regulatory
requirements before the products were made available online and key
features of DouYu's "Lucky Draw" were non-compliant with current
regulatory requirements.

If you are a DOYU investor who purchased shares during the IPO on
July 18, 2019 or up to December 31, 2019, call our experienced case
managers now at 800- 576-6505 to discuss your legal rights in this
securities fraud class action lawsuit.

The class has not been certified yet. You are not represented by an
attorney until certification occurs. If you do not take action you
can remain an absent class member. There is no required minimum
number of shares to be a class member.

                       About Sokolove Law

Sokolove Law provides quality legal services that help people
obtain access to the civil justice system. For more than 40 years,
Sokolove Law has worked to educate people about their legal rights
and helped thousands of injured parties obtain the compensation
they deserved from their legal claims. Sokolove Law is a national
law firm with offices and a licensed attorney in nearly every
state. The firm operates as a limited liability company in all
states except Virginia, California, Michigan and Tennessee, where
it operates as a limited liability partnership. For more
information on Sokolove Law, please visit www.sokolovelawfirm.com
[GN]



EHEALTH INC: Frank R. Cruz Announces Filing of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired eHealth, Inc. (NASDAQ:EHTH)
securities between March 19, 2018 and April 7, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). eHealth investors have until June 8, 2020 to file
a lead plaintiff motion.

On April 8, 2020, Muddy Waters Research published a report
alleging, among other things, that eHealth misled investors
regarding member churn and revenue recognition. The report stated
that the Company's "member churn . . . skyrocketed" and "that EHTH
is pursuing low quality, lossmaking growth while its LTVs are based
on lower churn, pre-growth cohorts."

On this news, eHealth's stock price fell $12.82, nearly 12%, to
close at $103.20 per share on April 8, 2020, thereby injuring
investors.

The complaint alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) its highly aggressive accounting and modeling assumptions; (2)
its skyrocketing rate of member churn, resulting from eHealth's
pursuit of low quality, lossmaking growth; (3) its reliance on
direct response television advertising, which attracts an
unprofitable, high churn enrollee; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased eHealth securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than June 8, 2020 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff.  To be a member of the Class you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class.  If you purchased eHealth securities, have information or
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact

         Frank R. Cruz
         The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz
         1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
         Los Angeles, California 90067
         Tel: 310-914-5007
         E-mail: info@frankcruzlaw.com
         Web site: http://www.frankcruzlaw.com/
[GN]



EMORY UNIVERSITY: Settles ERISA Lawsuit for $12.5 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
In Geneva Henderson et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Emory University, et
al., Civil Action No. 16-2920-CAP (N.D. Ga.), Emory University in
Atlanta will settle a 45,000-person class action targeting the fees
and investment options in its retirement plan.

According to Investment News, Putnam Investments is settling a
longstanding 401(k) lawsuit for $12.5 million, recent court filings
show.

According to Pension & Investments, the lawsuit, originally filed
in August 2016 by law firm Schlichter, Bogard & Denton in U.S.
District Court in Atlanta, alleged Emory University and Emory
Healthcare, a university-affiliated health system, breached their
fiduciary duties by causing participants in their 403(b) plans to
pay excessive record-keeping, administrative and investment
management fees, and by retaining high-cost and poor-performing
investment options.

The motion for preliminary approval of the settlement is due on or
before May 29, according to a court filing.[GN]



EMPIRE TODAY: Childress Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STACY CHILDRESS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EMPIRE TODAY, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02687 (N.D. Ill.,
May 4, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant
for its alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

According to the complaint, a pre-recorded voice call from
Defendant's number (217) 413-4362 was received by Plaintiff to his
cell phone on March 12, 2020 attempting to promote its flooring and
carpeting products. Plaintiff asserts that she did not provide
"prior express consent" to Defendant to receive such solicitation
call.

The complaint claims that Defendant's telemarketing calls have
caused Plaintiff actual harm in the form of annoyance, nuisance,
and invasion of privacy.

Plaintiff seeks statutory damages and costs, and injunctive relief
requiring Defendant to cease all unsolicited artificial or
pre-recorded voice-calling activities.

Empire Today, LLC is a Northlake, Illinois-based home improvement
and home furnishing company, specializing in installed carpet,
flooring, and window treatments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Juneitha Shambee, Esq.
          SHAMBEE LAW OFFICE, LTD.
          701 Main St., Ste. 201A
          Evanston, IL 60202
          Tel: (773) 741-3602
          Email: juneitha@shambeelaw.com

                - and –

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Tel: (877) 333-9427
          Fax: (888) 498-8946
          Email: Law@StefanColeman.com

                - and –

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


FCA US: Romanchuk Sues Over Oil Consumption Defect in Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nathanael Romanchuk, Katie Kuczkowski, and Tera Castillo, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. FCA US LLC, Case
No. 2:20-cv-11233-GAD-MJH (E.D. Mich., May 19, 2020), is brought
against the Defendant on behalf of current and former owners and
lessees of 2014-2020 Jeep Cherokees, 2015-2020 Jeep Renegades,
2017-2020 Jeep Compasses, 2013-2016 Dodge Darts, 2015-2020 Ram
ProMaster City's, 2015-2016 Chrysler 200's, and 2016-2020 Fiat
500X's that are all equipped with a 2.4L Tigershark multiair
four-cylinder engine.

The Plaintiffs allege that these engines suffer from a defect that
causes them to burn or consume excessive amounts of engine oil (the
"Oil Consumption Defect" or "Defect").

As a result of the Defect, the Class Vehicles stall unexpectedly
and without warning, often when turning at an intersection or when
accelerating or decelerating, creating a serious safety hazard,
according to the complaint. The Defect can also result in engine
damage and premature wear that necessitates costly repairs,
including engine replacements. Owners and lessees are also forced
to incur considerable expense and burden in continually having to
add oil to their vehicles. Because the Oil Consumption Defect makes
Class Vehicles unreliable and can render them inoperable, it
affects their central functionality.

FCA is aware of the Oil Consumption Defect but has refused to
provide adequate repairs to eliminate it under warranty, and has
continually sold the Class Vehicles without disclosing this known
defect to purchasers, the Plaintiffs contend. FCA has been aware of
the defect since at least 2013, as evidenced by, inter alia, large
numbers of consumers who have complained about this Defect dating
back to at least 2013, including when consumers brought their Class
Vehicles to FCA's authorized dealers for repairs.

In most instances, FCA has refused to perform any repair, instead
telling consumers that it is acceptable to burn 1 quart for every
1,000 miles and advising them to add additional oil between oil
changes, according to the complaint. In rare circumstances FCA will
provide a full engine replacement but upon information and belief
the replacement engines suffer the same defect. Despite FCA's
knowledge of the Defect, which renders the Class Vehicles hazardous
and unsuitable for their intended purpose, it has failed to provide
adequate repairs and has also failed to disclose the Defect to
unsuspecting consumers. Due to the undisclosed Oil Consumption
Defect, the Plaintiffs and Class Members were deprived of the
benefit of their bargain in purchasing or leasing their FCA
vehicles.

The Plaintiffs purchased one of the Class Vehicles from an
authorized FCA dealership.

FCA is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing,
warranting, marketing, advertising and selling vehicles, including
the Class Vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Douglas L. Toering, Esq.
          Kenneth R. Chadwell, Esq.
          MANTESE HONIGMAN, P.C.
          1361 E. Big Beaver Rd.
          Troy, MI 48083
          Phone: (248) 457-9200
          Email: dtoering@manteselaw.com
                 kchadwell@manteselaw.com

               - and -

          Timothy N. Mathews, Esq.
          Alex M. Kashurba, Esq.
          CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON SMITH LLP
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Phone: (610) 642-8500
          Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
          Email: tnm@chimicles.com
                 amk@chimicles.com

               - and -

          Steven R. Weinmann, Esq.
          Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
          Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
          Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 556-4811

               - and -

          Russell D. Paul, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Osterwise, Esq.
          Amey J. Park, Esq.
          Abigail J. Gertner, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          Email: rpaul@bm.net
                 josterwise@bm.net
                 apark@bm.net
                 agertner@bm.net


FIFTH THIRD: Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Motion Set for June 8
--------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, on April 29 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Fifth Third
Bancorp. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have
until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details
about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no
cost or obligation to you.

Fifth Third Bancorp (FITB)

FITB Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 26,
2016 - March 6, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 8, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/fifth-third-bancorp-loss-form?prid=6254&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Fifth
Third Bancorp made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) as a result of Fifth Third
Bank's aggressive incentive policies to promote its cross-sell
strategy, Fifth Third Bank employees engaged in unauthorized
conduct with customer accounts; (ii) since at least 2008, Fifth
Third Bank, and by extension, Fifth Third, was aware of such
unauthorized conduct and, thus, that it was violating relevant
regulations and laws aimed at protecting its consumers; (iii) Fifth
Third failed to properly implement and monitor its cross-sell
program, detect and stop misconduct, and identify and remediate
harmed consumers; (iv) all the foregoing subjected the Company to a
foreseeable risk of heightened regulatory scrutiny or
investigation; (v) Fifth Third's revenues were in part the product
of unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; and (vi) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]


FREERATEUPDATE.COM LLC: Schick Sues to Stop Unsolicited Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Debora Schick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FreeRateUpdate.com, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability
Company, and Home Mortgage Alliance Corporation d/b/a American Bay
Financial, A California Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00969-MTL (D.
Ariz., May 18, 2020), is brought against the Defendants under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act to stop their practices of
placing calls using an automatic telephone dialing system to the
telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior express
consent.

The Defendants have violated, and continue to violate, the TCPA by
placing autodialed calls to telephone subscribers who have not
expressly consented to receiving such calls, the Plaintiff
contends. In effort to obtain leads for their services, the
Defendants made (or had made on their behalves) autodialed calls to
the telephone of the Plaintiff without first obtained express
consent to do so--all in violation of the TCPA, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person and a citizen off the State of
Arizona.

The Defendant FRU is a licenses mortgage broker.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Penny L. Koepke, Esq.
          MAXWELL & MORGAN, P.C.
          4854 E. Baseline Road, Suite 104
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Phone: (480) 833-1001
          Email: pkoepke@hoalaw.biz

               - and -

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


GEORGE HARMS: Narain et al Sue over Water Service Disruption
------------------------------------------------------------
DIN NARAIN, HETRAM SINGH, JOHN SANTOS, and MAUREEN CHANDRA,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. GEORGE HARMS CONSTRUCTION CO, INC., SUEZ, SUEZ NORTH AMERICA,
SUEZ WATER NEW JERSEY, INC., ABC CORPS. 1-100, Defendants, Case No.
HUD-L001702-20 (N.J. Sup. Ct., May 4, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged negligence
and breach of duty.

Plaintiffs are water customers and residents of Jersey City who
experienced disruption of water service as a result of the water
main break.

The complaint arises from a water main rupture on April 28, 2020,
allegedly caused by Defendant George Harms Construction Co, Inc. at
its State of NJ construction project on Route 7, which consequently
disrupted water service to Jersey City and Hoboken water customers
and resident.

Although the water has been restored to Jersey City customers on
April 30, 2020 at 8:00 a.m., they were ordered to boil water and
advised to run cold water to clear discolored water.

The complaint alleges that Defendants failed to properly and
accurately flag underground utility systems under its operation or
control prior to excavating by Defendant Harms Construction.

Suez, Suez North America, and Suez Water New Jersey, Inc. are water
service companies in North America.

George Harms Construction Co, Inc. is a construction company. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul M. da Costa, Esq.
          Thomas Paciorkowski, Esq.
          SNYDER SARNO D'ANIELLO
            MACERI & DA COSTA LLC
          425 Eagle Rock Avenue
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Tel: (973) 274-5200
          Email: pdacosta@snydersarno.com
                 tpaciorkowski@snydersarno.com


GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE: Putative Class Action Complaint Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keller and Heckman LLP wrote an article on The National Law Review
on the dismissal by a California federal judge on April 8, 2020, of
a putative class action complaint challenging Ghirardelli Chocolate
Co.'s labels on its cocoa-free white baking chips. Cheslow, et al.
v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., Case No. 19-cv-07467-PJH, 2020 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 62044 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2020).

Plaintiffs asserted they purchased Ghirardelli's "Premium Baking
Chips Classic White Chips" under the impression that they contained
"real" white chocolate, and that the product label, advertising,
and marketing (including use of the term "premium"; references to
"white" chips; and inclusion (until at least June 2019) of the term
"chocolate" on product packaging and website) would mislead and
deceive a reasonable consumer to believe the product contained
"real" white chocolate.  Plaintiffs alleged that due to the absence
of cocoa butter/cacao fat, however, and the use of purportedly
inferior ingredients such as hydrogenated and palm oils, the
product contains "fake" white chocolate instead.

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton (Northern District of California) granted
Ghirardelli's motion to dismiss, noting, among other things: the
words "chocolate" and "cocoa" did not appear anywhere on the
product label, at the time of the order (other than as part of
Ghirardelli's logo, which did not apply); the word "white" in
"White Chips" defined the color of the food and not the quality of
the product ("white wine may define the characteristic of the
wine's color but does not inform the consumer whether the wine is a
zinfandel or gewürztraminer"); and the use of "premium"
constituted mere puffery.

While the motion was dismissed without prejudice and plaintiffs
were granted leave to amend their complaint, Judge Hamilton noted
that "[b]ecause defendant's product packaging would not change in
an amended complaint, the court is skeptical that the complaint can
be amended to state a claim."  [GN]



GILEAD SCIENCES: Faces Suit for Disclosing HIV Patient Information
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA DOE and INDIANA DOE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-03473 (N.D. Cal., May 21, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of California
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act and California Unfair
Competition Law, negligence, breach of contract, invasion of
privacy, and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated individuals who are prescribed to Gilead's
HIV-related medications and enrolled in Gilead's Advancing Access
Program, allege that the Defendant disclosed their confidential
HIV-related information. In or around April 2020, Gilead's HIV
Prevention Team sent the Plaintiffs and Class members who enrolled
in the Advancing Access Program a one-page letter titled "The
Latest from Gilead Sciences." The letter was sent in an envelope
which stated the name and address of the recipient and on the
outside of the envelope, in large, red font, was the return
address: HIV Prevention Team, 1649 Adrian Road, Burlingame, CA
94010. The words "HIV Prevention Team" were in a larger font than
the mailing address causing it to stand out in relation to the
address. Gilead's actions, carelessly, recklessly, negligently, and
impermissibly revealed confidential HIV-related information of
patients who were prescribed Gilead medications, including to their
family, friends, roommates, landlords, neighbors, mail carriers,
and complete strangers. Gilead easily could have avoided the
disclosure of this private information by using a return address
that did not identify the sender as the HIV Prevention Team.

Gilead Sciences, Inc. is an American biopharmaceutical company that
researches, develops, and commercializes drugs, including drugs
used for the treatment and prevention of the human immunodeficiency
virus (HIV), with principal place of business located in Foster
City, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
           
         Benjamin Galdston, Esq.
         BERGER MONTAGUE PC
         12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 340
         San Diego, CA 92130
         Telephone: (619) 489-0300
         E-mail: bgaldston@bm.net

               - and –
         
         Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
         Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
         BERGER MONTAGUE PC
         1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 875-4656
         E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                 sschalman-bergen@bm.net

               - and –
         
         John Albanese, Esq.
         BERGER MONTAGUE PC
         43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
         Minneapolis, MN 55414
         Telephone: (612) 594-5997
         E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
                 jalbanese@bm.net

               - and –
         
         Ronda B. Goldfein, Esq.
         Yolanda French Lollis, Esq.
         Adrian M. Lowe, Esq.
         AIDS LAW PROJECT OF PENNSYLVANIA
         1211 Chestnut Street, Suite 600
         Philadelphia, PA 19107
         Telephone: (215) 587-9377
         E-mail: goldfein@aidslawpa.org
                 alowe@aidslawpa.org
                 lollis@aidslawpa.org

               - and –
         
         John J. Grogan, Esq.
         David A. Nagdeman, Esq.
         LANGER, GROGAN & DIVER PC
         1717 Arch Street, Suite 4020
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 320-5660
         E-mail: jgrogan@langergrogan.com
                 dnagdeman@langergrogan.com

GLAXOSMITHKLINE: DeCostanzo Alleges False Advertising of Boostrix
------------------------------------------------------------------
LORI DECOSTANZO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:20-cv-02284 (E.D.N.Y., May 20, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty of
fitness for a particular purpose, common law unjust enrichment,
common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of
New York General Business Law, the State Consumer Protection
Statutes, and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent similarly-situated consumers who
received Boostrix, a tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and
acellular pertussis biological product manufactured by the
Defendant. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant made false and
deceptive claims that those receiving Boostrix are less likely to
infect babies with pertussis. In reality, Boostrix may reduce the
symptoms of pertussis but it does not prevent those receiving this
product from becoming infected with and transmitting pertussis.

The complaint claims researchers at the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration and at premier universities have established that
even though Boostrix decreases the odds of a person experiencing
the symptoms of pertussis, it creates a defective form of immunity
to pertussis in the person receiving the product. This defective
immunity actually renders them susceptible to becoming repeatedly
infected with pertussis, potentially every month, without knowing
they are infected.

Glaxosmithkline PLC is a multinational pharmaceutical company with
its principal place of business located at 980 Great West Road,
Brentford, Middlesex TW89GS, England. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
           
         Aaron Siri, Esq.
         Elizabeth Brehm, Esq.
         Jessica Wallace, Esq.
         SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
         200 Park Avenue, Seventeenth Floor
         New York, NY 10166
         Telephone: (212) 532-1091
         E-mail: aaron@sirillp.com

GOLDEN STAR: Zhang Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of Golden Star Resources Ltd. (NYSE:
GSS) between February 20, 2019 and July 30, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 1, 2020.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.

To join the class action,
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=golden-star-resources-ltd&id=2240
call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, the company failed to disclose and/or
misstated:  (1) the Company had insufficient geological and
geotechnical data in its Prestea mine; (2) the Company had
experienced deficiencies in its operating practices and mining
methods including inaccurate long hole drilling and blasting in its
Prestea mine; (3) the Company did not have the mining flexibility
and more measured resources to ensure higher reserve grade; (4) the
Company had experienced increased tonnage at much lower grade where
it had to supplement some of the production with oxide material;
(5) the Company had excessive dilution which drove lower mining
rates at the Prestea mine; and (6) as a result, defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

A class has not been certified.  You may retain counsel of your
choice.  You may take no action at this time and be an absent class
member.  Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon
being a lead plaintiff.  

Contact:

         Zhang Investor Law P.C.
         99 Wall Street, Suite 232
         New York, New York 10005
         E-mail: info@zhanginvestorlaw.com
         Tel: (800) 991-3756
[GN]

GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Venator Securities Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the defendants' motion
to dismiss the consolidated complaint in the federal action related
to Venator Materials PLC's US$522 million August 2017 initial
public offering and US$534 million December 2017 secondary equity
offering remains pending.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in putative securities class actions in Texas District
Court, Dallas County, New York Supreme Court, New York County, and
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, filed
beginning in February 2019, relating to Venator Materials PLC's
(Venator) $522 million August 2017 initial public offering and $534
million December 2017 secondary equity offering.

In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Venator,
certain of its officers and directors and certain of its
shareholders. GS&Co. underwrote 6,351,347 shares of common stock in
the August 2017 initial public offering representing an aggregate
offering price of approximately $127 million and 5,625,768 shares
of common stock in the December 2017 secondary equity offering
representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $127
million.

On January 21, 2020, the Texas Court of Appeals reversed the Texas
District Court and dismissed the claims against the underwriter
defendants, including GS&Co., in the Texas state court action for
lack of personal jurisdiction.

On February 18, 2020, defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint in the federal action.

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

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


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss VRDO-Related Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the defendants' motion
to dismiss the class action suit related to variable rate demand
obligations (VRDOs) is still pending.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") is among the defendants named in
a putative class action relating to variable rate demand
obligations (VRDOs), filed beginning in February 2019 under
separate complaints and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

The consolidated amended complaint, filed on May 31, 2019,
generally asserts claims under federal antitrust law and state
common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the
defendants to manipulate the market for VRDOs.

The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
unspecified amounts of compensatory, treble and other damages.

Defendants moved to dismiss on July 30, 2019.

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

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


GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Status Bid Pending in Interest Rate Swap Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the class plaintiff's
March 2019 motion for class certification in the Interest Rate Swap
Antitrust Litigation is still pending.

The Company ("Group Inc."), Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co."),
Goldman Sachs Bank USA ("GS Bank USA") and Goldman Sachs Financial
Markets, L.P. ("GSFM") are among the defendants named in a putative
antitrust class action relating to the trading of interest rate
swaps, filed in November 2015 and consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The same Goldman Sachs entities also are among the defendants named
in two antitrust actions relating to the trading of interest rate
swaps, commenced in April 2016 and June 2018, respectively, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three
operators of swap execution facilities and certain of their
affiliates.

These actions have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings.

The complaints generally assert claims under federal antitrust law
and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among
the defendants to preclude exchange trading of interest rate swaps.


The complaints in the individual actions also assert claims under
state antitrust law. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive
relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount.

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

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

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

The plaintiffs in the putative class action moved for class
certification on March 7, 2019.

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

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


GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Class Suits Over XP Inc. IPO
--------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company has been
named as a defendant in putative securities class action lawsuits
related to XP Inc.'s (XP) $2.3 billion December 2019 initial public
offering.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") is among the underwriters named
as defendants in putative securities class actions pending in New
York Supreme Court, County of New York, and the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of York, filed beginning March 19, 2020,
relating to XP Inc.'s (XP) $2.3 billion December 2019 initial
public offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants
include XP, certain of its officers and directors and certain of
its shareholders.

GS&Co. underwrote 19,326,218 shares of common stock in the December
2019 initial public offering representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately $522 million.

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


GOLDMAN SACHS: Securities Lending Antitrust Suit v GS&Co. Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company and Goldman
Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.), continue to defend against a putative
antitrust class action regarding alleged antitrust law breaches
over securities lending transactions.

The Company ("Group Inc.") and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) are
among the defendants named in a putative antitrust class action and
three individual actions relating to securities lending practices
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York beginning in August 2017.

The complaints generally assert claims under federal and state
antitrust law and state common law in connection with an alleged
conspiracy among the defendants to preclude the development of
electronic platforms for securities lending transactions.

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

The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
unspecified amounts of compensatory, treble, punitive and other
damages. Group Inc. was voluntarily dismissed from the putative
class action on January 26, 2018.

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

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

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

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


GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement in GSE Bonds Suit Wins Initial Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York has preliminarily approved
the settlement between Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC and class plaintiffs
in the class action suit related to GSE Bonds.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") is among the dealers named as
defendants in numerous putative antitrust class actions relating to
debt securities issued by Federal National Mortgage Association,
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Federal Farm Credit Banks
Funding Corporation and Federal Home Loan Banks (collectively, the
GSEs), filed beginning in February 2019 and consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The third consolidated amended complaint, filed on September 10,
2019, asserts claims under federal antitrust law in connection with
an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to manipulate the
secondary market for debt securities issued by the GSEs.

The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
treble damages in unspecified amounts.

On December 12, 2019, the court preliminarily approved a settlement
between the firm and class plaintiffs.

The firm has reserved the full amount of its contribution to the
settlement.

Beginning in September 2019, the State of Louisiana and the City of
Baton Rouge filed complaints in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana against the class defendants and a
number of dealers alleging the same claims as in the class action.


In January 2020, the State of Louisiana and City of Baton Rouge
voluntarily dismissed their actions with prejudice against GS&Co.
in favor of participating in the class settlement.

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

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


GRAND CANYON: Offers Unaccredited Academic Programs, Ogdon Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Ogdon, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Grand Canyon University, Inc.,
an Arizona corporation, and Grand Canyon Education, Inc. d/b/a
Grand Canyon University, a Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00709-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal., May 20, 2020) is an action
brought by the Plaintiff to hold Defendants accountable for
violating California law by unlawfully, unfairly, and fraudulently
enrolling students in professional degree programs that are not
accredited in such a way so as to qualify the students for
licensure and/or practice in California.

The Defendants' deceptive practice results in students taking
classes and paying –- or becoming indebted for -– thousands of
dollars in tuition for academic programs that will not be accepted
for professional licensure. The Defendants perpetrate this scheme
by aggressively marketing their unaccredited programs to potential
students through financially-motivated salespeople Defendants term
"advisors." These "advisors" are trained and incentivized by
Defendants to push prospective students to take courses even when
the courses will not qualify the students for licensure.

According to the complaint, each Defendant knew that the other
Defendant was engaging in or planned to engage in the violations of
law alleged in this Class Action Complaint. Knowing that the other
Defendant was engaging in such unlawful conduct, each Defendant
nevertheless facilitated the commission of those unlawful acts.
Each Defendant intended to and did encourage, facilitate, or assist
in the commission of the unlawful acts alleged, and there by aided
and abetted the other Defendant in the unlawful conduct.

Grand Canyon University Inc. is a for-profit private Christian
university in Phoenix, Arizona.

Grand Canyon Education, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and is the
publicly traded holding company that operates Grand Canyon
University.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Annick Persinger, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 254-6808
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          Email: apersinger@tzlegal.com

                    - and -  

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Kristen G. Simplicio, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street, Northwest, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                 ksimplicio@tzlegal.com

GREAT LAKES EDUCATIONAL: Mishandled Student Loan Relief, Sass Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
KATHERINE SASS and CODY HOUNANIAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GREAT LAKES
EDUCATIONAL LOAN SERVICES, INC.; EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC;
TRANS UNION, LLC; EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; and
VANTAGESCORE SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-03424-DMR
(N.D. Cal., May 20, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the California
Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, and the California Unfair
Competition Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have mishandled the
federal relief granted to students by inaccurately reporting
information about student loan payments that were suspended under
the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act).
Rather than reporting federal student loans held by the Department
of Education as though the borrower had made all required payments,
as dictated by the terms of the CARES Act, Defendants Great Lakes
and Equifax instead reported millions of loans held by the
Department of Education as "deferred." Also, Defendants Equifax,
Experian, Trans Union and Vantage failed to adjust the Vantage
Score algorithm to account for relief that was automatically
provided to student loan borrowers whose loans are held by the
Department of Education. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct,
the Plaintiffs and other Class members will suffer long lasting
credit stigma, including inaccurate and lower credit scores
resulting in no, limited or more costly access to credit.

Great Lakes Educational Loan Services, Inc. is a student loans
servicer with its principal office in Madison, Wisconsin.

Equifax Information Services, LLC is a foreign corporation that
offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and analytical
solutions, with its principal place of business in Atlanta,
Georgia.

Trans Union LLC is a global information and insights company with
its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is a corporation that operates
as an information services company with its principal place of
business in Costa Mesa, California.

VantageScore Solutions, LLC is a Connecticut-based joint venture
that focuses on credit data, credit risk modeling and analytics.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:         
         
         Benjamin Galdston, Esq.
         BERGER MONTAGUE PC
         12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 340
         San Diego, CA 92130
         Telephone: (619) 489-0300
         E-mail: bgaldston@bm.net

               - and –
         
         E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
         John G. Albanese, Esq.
         BERGER MONTAGUE PC
         43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
         Minneapolis, MN 55414
         Telephone: (612) 594-5999
         Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
         E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
                 jalbanese@bm.net

               - and –
         
         Alexander Hood, Esq.
         TOWARDS JUSTICE
         1410 High Street, Suite 300
         Denver, CO 80218
         Telephone: (720) 239-2606
         E-mail: alex@towardsjustice.org

GSX TECHEDU: Faces Securities Class Action in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against GSX Techedu Inc. (NYSE:  GSX) and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, and indexed under 20-cv-04457, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired GSX securities
between June 6, 2019, and April 13, 2020, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased GSX securities during the
class period, you have until June 16, 2020, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.

GSX is a technology-driven education company that provides online
K-12 after-school tutoring services in China.  The Company also
provides a variety of other tutoring courses and services, such as
English courses for children in kindergarten, foreign language
courses, English test preparation courses for students taking
post-graduate entrance exams, professional courses for working
adults preparing for professional qualification exams, personal
interest courses, and offline business consulting courses.
Additionally, the Company operates Weishi, an interactive learning
platform on the popular Chinese digital application ("app")
WeChat.

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

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

Following publication of the Grizzly Report, GSX's ADS price fell
$1.33 per share, or 2.93%, to close at $44.09 per share on February
25, 2020.

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

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

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com

CONTACT:

         Robert S. Willoughby
         Pomerantz LLP
         E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
[GN]



HAIN CELESTIAL: Gimpel Appeals Order, Judgment in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Plaintiffs Salamon Gimpel and Rosewood Funeral Home filed an
appeal from the District Court's Memorandum of Decision and Order,
dated April 6, 2020, and Judgment dated April 7, 2020, entered in
the lawsuit styled IN RE THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 16-cv-4581, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
involves allegations that the Hain and certain of its current and
former officers and directors made materially false and misleading
statements concerning Hain's inventory and revenues by allegedly
engaged in the practice of "channel stuffing" in violation of
Sections 10(b), Rule 10(b)-5 promulgated thereunder, and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Hain manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells organic and
natural products in the United States and several other countries.
During the Class Period, 55-60% of Hain's net sales were generated
within the United States. Hain's products are marketed as "better
for you" foods, and its product line includes brands such as Almond
Dream, Arrowhead Mills, BluePrint, Celestial Seasonings, Coconut
Dream, Earth's Best, Garden of Eatin', Hain Pure Foods, Joya,
MaraNatha, Rice Dream, Soy Dream, Terra Chips, The Greek Gods, and
WestSoy. Hain's largest customer during the Class Period was United
Natural Foods, Inc. ("UNFI"), a distributor that accounted for 12%
of Hain's net sales during the Class Period.

Lead Plaintiffs Rosewood Funeral Home and Salamon Gimpel, along
with the members of the proposed class, purchased or otherwise
acquired the publicly traded common stock of Hain, and call and put
options on the publicly traded common stock, during the period from
November 5, 2013, through February 10, 2017.

The appellate case is captioned as In Re The Hain Celestial Group,
Case No. 20-1517, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.[BN]

Lead Plaintiffs-Movants-Appellants Salamon Gimpel and Rosewood
Funeral Home are represented by:

          Jonathan Gardner, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Email: jgardner@labaton.com

Defendants-Appellees The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al., are
represented by:

          John M. Hillebrecht, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 335-4590
          Email: john.hillebrecht@dlapiper.com


HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS: Hair Studio Seeks Coverage of COVID Losses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HAIR STUDIO 1208, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE CO., Case No.
2:20-cv-02171-TJS (E.D. Pa., May 5, 2020), seeks to ensure that the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated policyholders receive the
insurance benefits to which they are entitled and for which they
paid.

Due to COVID-19, Governor Tom Wolf's "Stay at Home" Order, and
Order of the Secretary of Health of the Pennsylvania, the Plaintiff
has been required to close its business and cannot provide hair
styling or other personal care services.

In a letter dated April 3, 2020, the Defendant denied coverage for
the Plaintiff's losses, the complaint says

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's insurance policy issued
to them promises to pay them for "direct physical loss of or direct
physical damage to" covered property. The Defendant's issued
insurance policy includes Business Income Coverage, Extra Expense
Coverage, Extended Business Income Coverage and Civil Authority
Coverage. The Plaintiff adds that it paid all premiums for the
coverage when due.

The Plaintiff is a hair salon and personal care business located at
1208 Juniper St., in Quakertown, Pennsylvania.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
          SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
          1109 Lancaster Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (610) 200-0580
          Facsimile: (610) 421-1326
          E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com
                  jbk@sstriallawyers.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


IQIYI INC: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP announces that on April 17, 2020, it filed a
securities class action lawsuit, captioned Shiferaw v. iQIYI, Inc.,
No. 20-cv-3115 (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Action"), on behalf of its client
Sintayehu Shiferaw ("Shiferaw") against iQIYI, Inc. ("iQIYI" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: IQ) and certain executive officers
(collectively, "Defendants"). The Action asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired iQIYI's securities between March 29, 2018 through April 7,
2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), who were damaged
thereby (the "Class").

iQIYI operates a Chinese online streaming platform which is
currently one of the largest video-based websites in the world,
with on-demand video content. The Company generates its revenue
primarily from membership services and online advertising. The
Action alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and omissions.
Specifically, Defendants overstated iQIYI's 2019 revenue by 27%-44%
and the Company's user numbers by 42%-60%. iQIYI also inflated its
expenses to conceal these misstatements from investors.

This fraud was revealed on April 7, 2020 by Wolfpack Research. On
that date, Wolfpack Research published a 37-page report detailing
Defendants' scheme to defraud investors. Among other things, this
report explained how iQIYI had materially overstated its revenue
and subscriber numbers. On this news, iQIYI's American Depositary
Shares ("ADSs") fell $1.01 per share, or 5.8 percent, over the
remainder of the day and the next full trading day to close at
$16.51 per share April 8, 2020. As a result of Defendants false
and/or misleading statements and/or omissions, the Class suffered
harm under the Exchange Act.

If you purchased iQIYI securities, including ADSs, during the Class
Period and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the Class and
may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff
motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York no later than June 15, 2020. The Lead
Plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent members of
the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff to
share in any Class recovery in the Action. If you are a Class
member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that
recovery as an absent Class member. You may retain counsel of your
choice to represent you in the Action.

If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have any
questions about this lawsuit, you may contact David J. Schwartz,
Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via email at
dschwartz@labaton.com.

Shiferaw is represented by Labaton Sucharow. which represents many
of the largest pension funds in the United States and
internationally with combined assets under management of more than
$2 trillion. Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its
excellence by the courts and peers, and it is consistently ranked
in leading industry publications. Offices are located in New York,
NY, Wilmington, DE, and Washington, D.C. More information about
Labaton Sucharow is available at www.labaton.com.

Contact:

         David J. Schwartz
         Labaton Sucharow LLP
         Tel: (800) 321-0476
         E-mail: dschwartz@labaton.com
[GN]



JPI SERVICES: Faces Lewis Class Suit in California Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jet Pro, Inc. The
case is captioned as JEFFREY LEWIS, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF
HIMSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. JET PRO, INC., A
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; JPI SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION, and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC20584347
(Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., May 5, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Garrett L. Wong. A case
management conference will be held on Oct. 7, 2020.

Jet Pro provides air freight services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Harmik Yeremian, Esq.
          DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          535 N Brand Blvd., Ste. 705
          Glendale, CA 91203-1989
          Telephone: (818) 230-8380
          Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
          E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Misled PPP Applicants, Prioritized Larger Loans
---------------------------------------------------------------
KPA PROMOTIONS & AWARDS, INC. and ABOVE & BEYOND PRESCHOOL, LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03910-MKV (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2020) is
a class action against the Defendants for fraudulent concealment,
breach of fiduciary Duty, negligence, and violations of New York
General Business, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act, and the Florida Statute.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly-situated entities, allege that the Defendants  engaged in
unlawful acts and/or intentional practices of making false,
misleading, and deceptive representations and omissions concerning
their processing of economic assistance via the Federal Paycheck
Protection Program (PPP).

The U.S. Small Business Administration's Paycheck Protection
Program is designed to provide a direct incentive for small
businesses to help them keep their workers on the payroll following
the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the Defendants intentionally
ignored the equitable and critical guideline set by the federal
government that loans would be processed on a first come, first
served basis and instead prioritized the processing of larger loans
over smaller loans, thereby ensuring their receipt of greater
origination fees, which were based on the loan amounts.

Had the Plaintiffs and Class members known that the Defendants
prioritized larger loans, they could have decided to apply for PPP
assistance through another financial institution. As a result of
the Defendants' misrepresentations, omissions, and wrongdoing,
countless of small businesses, including the Plaintiffs, were
prevented from benefitting from the program designed to help them
survive during the COVID-19 pandemic.

KPA Promotions & Awards, Inc. is a small business located in West
Palm Beach, Florida that offers promotional products, recognition
items, awards, medals, and plaques.

Above & Beyond Preschool, LLC is a preschool that offers programs
for children from six weeks of age through fifth grade with
principal place of business in Royal Palm Beach, Florida.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a multinational financial services
institution headquartered in New York, New York.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is a multinational financial services
provider headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:         
         
         Alex R. Straus, Esq.
         GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
         16748 McCormick Street
         Los Angeles, CA 91436
         Telephone: (917) 471-1894
         E-mail: alex@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and –
         
         Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
         Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
         LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
         100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
         Minneapolis, MN 55401
         Telephone: (612) 339-6900
         Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
         E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
                 rapeterson@locklaw.com

               - and –
         
         Benjamin Galdston, Esq.
         BERGER MONTAGUE PC
         12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 340
         San Diego, CA 92130
         Telephone: (619) 489-0300
         E-mail: bgaldston@bm.net

               - and –
         
         Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
         William A. Ladnier, Esq.
         Arthur Stock, Esq.
         GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
         First Tennessee Plaza
         800 South Gay Street, Suite 100
         Knoxville, TN 37929
         Telephone: (865) 247-0080
         E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                 Will@gregcolemanlaw.com
                 Arthur@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and –
         
         Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
         Scott C. Harris, Esq.
         Patrick M. Wallace, Esq.
         WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
         900 West Morgan Street
         Raleigh, NC 27603
         Telephone: (919) 600-5000
         E-mail: dan@whitfieldbryson.com
                 scott@whitfieldbryson.com
                 pat@whitfieldbryson.com

JPMORGAN: Violates First-Come, First-Served COVID Loan Policy
-------------------------------------------------------------
VR CONSULTANTS, INC., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. and JPMORGAN
CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-06110 (D.N.J., May
20, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, fraudulent concealment, and
tortious interference.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly-situated small businesses, alleges that the Defendants
are engaged in unlawful acts and/or intentional practices of making
false, misleading, and deceptive representations and omissions
concerning their processing of economic assistance via the Paycheck
Protection Program (PPP). The Defendants represented, and continues
to represent, to PPP loan applicants that their applications would
be processed on a first-come, first-served basis as mandated by the
federal government. However, contrary to the Defendants'
representations, Chase employed a two-tiered program that
prioritized its wealthiest clients' PPP applications before it
would process PPP loan applications from smaller, less wealthy
clients, including the Plaintiff and Class members. Had the
Plaintiff and Class members known that the Defendants prioritized
larger loans, they could have decided to apply for PPP assistance
through another financial institution. As a result of the
Defendants' misrepresentations, omissions, and wrongdoing,
countless of small businesses, including the Plaintiff, were
prevented from benefitting from the program designed to help them
survive during the COVID-19 pandemic.

VR Consultants, Inc. is a provider of information technology
solutions and management consulting with its principal place of
business in New Jersey.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a multinational financial services
institution headquartered in New York, New York.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is a multinational financial services
provider headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:         
         
         Javier L. Merino, Esq.
         Marc E. Dann, Esq.
         THE DANN LAW FIRM PC
         372 Kinderkamack Road, Suite 5
         Westwood, NJ 07675
         Telephone: (216) 373-0539
         Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
         E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com

               - and –
         
         Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
         Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
         Sharon A. Harris, Esq.
         Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq.
         ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES PC
         77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Telephone: (312) 440-0020
         Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
         E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
                 matt@attorneyzim.com
                 sharon@attorneyzim.com
                 jeff@attorneyzim.com

               - and –
         
         Joshua W. Denbeaux, Esq.
         DENBEAUX & DENBEAUX
         372 Kinderkamack Road, Suite 5
         Westwood, NJ 07675
         Telephone: (201) 664-8855
         Facsimile: (201) 666-8589
         E-mail: jdenbeaux@denbeauxlaw.com

               - and –
         
         Lee M. Perlman, Esq.
         1926 Greentree Road, Suite 100
         Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
         Telephone: (856) 751-4224
         Facsimile: (888) 635-5933
         E-mail: lperlman@newjerseybankruptcy.com

KENTUCKY: Roberts Appeals E.D. Ky. Decision to Sixth Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs THEODORE JOSEPH ROBERTS, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Theodore Roberts, et al v.
Robert Neace, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00054, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Covington.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
involves the alleged unconstitutional threats faced by the
Plaintiffs that are solely as a result of their free exercise of
their religious beliefs in attending an Easter Sunday service on
April 12, 2020, in accordance with guidelines during the COVID-19
outbreak, where they practiced appropriate social distancing. As
the evidence shows, the Plaintiffs are the subject of selective
enforcement against their closely held religious beliefs and
practices, while other activities either are not prohibited, or go
on unchecked despite being prohibited.

The appellate case is captioned as Theodore Roberts, et al. v.
Robert Neace, et al., Case No. 20-5465, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants THEODORE JOSEPH ROBERTS, RANDALL DANIEL, and
SALLY O'BOYLE, on behalf of themselves and all other similariy
situated, are represented by:

          Christopher David Wiest, Esq.
          BECK LAW OFFICE
          25 Town Center Boulevard
          Crestview Hills, KY 41017
          Telephone: (859) 486-6850

                  - and -

          Robert Albert Winter, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT A. WINTER JR.
          P.O. Box 175883
          Fort Mitchell, KY 41017-5883
          Telephone: (859) 250-3337
          Email: robertawinterjr@gmail.com

                  - and -

          Thomas Bernard Bruns, esq.
          BRUNS, CONNELL, VOLLMAR & ARMSTRONG, LLC
          4750 Ashwood Drive, Suite 200
          Cincinnati, OH 45241
          Telephone: (513) 312-9890

Defendants-Appellees HONORABLE ROBERT D. NEACE, only as Boone Co.
Attorney on behalf of all other County Attorneys, et al., are
represented by:

           Jeffrey C. Mando, Esq.
           Jennifer H. Langen, Esq.
           ADAMS, STEPNER, WOLTERMANN & DUSING
           40 W. Pike Street
           Covington, KY 41012
           Telephone: (859) 394-6200
           Email: JMando@aswdlaw.com
                  JLangen@aswdlaw.com
               
                  - and -

           Steven Travis Mayo, Esq.
           Marc Griffin Farris, Esq.
           Taylor Allen Payne, Esq.
           OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
           700 Capitol Avenue, Suite 106
           Frankfort, KY 40601
           Telephone: (502) 564-2611

                  - and -

           Wesley Warden Duke, Esq.
           David Thomas Lovely, Esq.
           KENTUCKY CABINET FOR HEALTH & FAMILY SERVICES
           275 E. Main Street, Room 5W-B
           Frankfort, KY 40621
           Telephone: (502) 564-4001

Amicus Curiae COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY is represented by:

           Barry Lee Dunn, Esq.
           OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
           700 Capital Avenue, Suite 118
           Frankfort, KY 40601
           Telephone: (502) 696-5653


KERRY INC: Mahan Sues Over False Marketing of Vanilla Chai Tea
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Mahan, individually, and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Kerry Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-03346 (N.D. Cal., May 18,
2020), seeks to stop the Defendant's false and misleading marketing
practices with regards to its Vanilla Chai Tea Latte.

Vanilla Chai Tea Latte is a powdered chai tea mix with a purported
primary characterizing flavor of vanilla manufactured, sold and
marketed by the Defendant under the Oregon Chai brand. During the
Class Period, the Plaintiff purchased the Vanilla Chai Tea Latte in
California.

According to the complaint, the Defendant falsely and misleadingly
markets Vanilla Chai Tea Latte to consumers as having a primary
characterizing flavor of "Vanilla" that comes from the vanilla
plant. In fact, Vanilla Chai Tea Latte has, at most, only a trace
of real vanilla from the vanilla plant and what consumers taste is
vanilla flavor provided by non-vanilla sources. Rather than having
a primary characterizing flavor of real vanilla, Vanilla Chai Tea
Latte contains non-vanilla flavors plant and vanilla enhancers
which enhance vanilla, contrary to the legal requirements and
expectations of reasonable consumers. The Defendant charges a price
premium for Vanilla Chai Tea Latte.

The Plaintiff would not have purchased or paid more for Vanilla
Chai Tea Latte had the Plaintiff realized that much, if not all, of
the vanilla flavor came from non-vanilla plant sources and that the
primary characterizing flavor was not from the vanilla plant. The
Plaintiff would not have purchased or paid more for Vanilla Chai
Tea Latte had the Plaintiff known that what small amount of vanilla
it did contain is not exclusively derived from vanilla beans, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased Oregon Chai Vanilla Chai Tea Latte for
personal, family, or household use at a supermarket in Brentwood,
California, in December 2019.

Kerry is one of the world's largest food conglomerates, started by
Ireland's dairy industry, and produces and markets powdered chai
tea mix products in the United States and throughout the
world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


KNOXVILLE, TN: Mayor's COVID E.O. Is Unconstitutional, Simon Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD PIERSON SIMON, class plaintiff, as well as all other
similar situated individuals v. CITY OF KNOXVILLE, and KNOXVILLE
MAYOR INDYA KINCANNON, Case No. 3:20-cv-00197-TRM-DCP (E.D. Tenn.,
May 5, 2020), arises out of Knoxville Mayor Indya Kincannon's
Orders related to the Covid-19 disease, which blatantly violate the
constitutional rights of individuals in the City of Knoxville.

The Plaintiff contends that his job, and those of all others
similarly situated employees, were adversely affected by their
employers being ordered to shut down by way of the Mayor's Order.
He adds that they were not provided fair notice of the shutdown
Order before it occurred; neither have they been afforded a fair
hearing to challenge the same. With the forced closures, the
Defendants caused considerable damage to the Plaintiff, and all
other similarly situated employees of the shut-down business, as to
their wages, says the complaint.

The World Health Organization and the Center for Disease Control
and Prevention identified COVID-19 as a "public health emergency of
international concern." Likewise, the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services declared that COVID-19 has created a public health
emergency. On March 16, 2020, Mayor Indya Kincannon, proclaimed the
existence of a state of emergency throughout the City of
Knoxville.

The Plaintiff was a shoe salesman for Dillard's department store at
West Town Mall located in Knoxville, Tennessee.

The City of Knoxville is a duly organized City pursuant to the laws
of the State of Tennessee. Defendant Indya Kincannon is the
Knoxville Chief Executive Officer and Mayor, who issued the alleged
unconstitutional Orders.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Russ Egli, Esq.
          THE EGLI LAW FIRM
          The Wisdom Building
          11109 Lake Ridge Drive, FL3
          Concord, TN 37934
          Telephone: (865) 304-4125
          Facsimile: (855) 827-0624
          E-mail: russelleglilaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          Darren V. Berg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DARREN V. BERG
          P.O. Box 33113
          Knoxville, TN 37933
          Telephone: (865) 773-8799
          E-mail: dberglawfirm@gmail.com


LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend California Wage & Hour Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8,
2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the
company continues to defend a consolidated putative class action
suit related to California wage and hour laws.

Three putative class action lawsuits related to California wage and
hour laws have been served on the Company.

On September 21, 2018, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Alma Haro v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et
al., filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles.

On June 10, 2019, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Ignacio v. Laboratory Corporation of America, filed
in Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.

On July 1, 2019, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Jan v. Laboratory Corporation of America, filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento.

All three cases were subsequently removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, and then consolidated
for all pre-trial proceedings.

In the lawsuits, Plaintiffs allege that employees were not properly
paid overtime compensation, minimum wages, meal and rest break
premiums, did not receive compliant wage statements, and were not
properly paid wages upon termination of employment.

The Plaintiffs assert these actions violate various California
Labor Code provisions and constitute an unfair competition practice
under California law.

The lawsuits seek monetary damages, civil penalties, and recovery
of attorney's fees and costs.

The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuits.

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

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.


LVNV FUNDING: Faces Raszewski Consumer Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Raszewski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LVNV FUNDING, LLC, and RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES,
L.P., Case No. 3:20-cv-00095-SLH (W.D. Pa., May 18, 2020), accuses
the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
the Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, Chapter 63 of the
Consumer Credit Code, and the Unfair  Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law by regularly filing lawsuit against Pennsylvania
consumers on "open end credit agreements" without meeting the prior
notice requirements.

At some time in the past, Capital One Bank issued the Plaintiff
credit card accounts. In September 2019, the Defendants filed two
lawsuits against the Plaintiff in the Somerset County Court of
Common Pleas. The Defendants claimed LVNV purchased the Accounts
from Capital One Bank. The Plaintiff filed preliminary objections
in the lawsuits the Defendants filed against the Plaintiff. On
October 21, 2019, the Plaintiff's preliminary objections were
granted. On January 23, 2019, the lawsuits the Defendants filed
were dismissed with prejudice.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff should not have had to
defend the lawsuits, or pay an attorney to do so, because the
Defendants could not lawfully collect the Accounts by filing suit
against the Plaintiff or by subjecting the Plaintiff to legal
process. In order to lawfully use the Pennsylvania court system to
collect defaulted "open end credit agreements," holders of such
accounts must provide prior notice that complies with Section 6309
of the CCC.

The Defendants did not meet the prior notice requirements of
Section 6309 of the CONTENDS, the Plaintiff contends. Prior to
filing suit against the Plaintiff, the Defendants did not send the
Plaintiff a notice that informed the Plaintiff of: i) right to cure
the default on the Account within 21 days of the date of receipt of
the notice; ii) the name, address and telephone number of the
seller or holder of the Account; iii) the total amount due on the
Account; iv) the exact date by which the amount due on the Account
must be paid; v) the name, address and telephone number of the
person to whom payment must be made; and vi) any other performance
necessary to cure default on the Account, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Somerset County, Pennsylvania.

LVNV's sole business is purchasing defaulted consumer debt to
collect debt for profit.[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
          Phone: (412) 223-5740
          Email: 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
          Phone: (412) 322-9243
          Fax: (412) 231-0246
          Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                 ekilepal@carlsonlynch.com


MDL 2804: Court Narrows Claims in National Prescription Opiate Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dan Aaron Polster of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District Ohio, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part
the Defendants' motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in
IN RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT
RELATES TO: Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Health and Welfare Fund,
et al. v. Purdue Pharma, L.P., et al., Case No. 1:18-op-45432-DAP,
MDL No. 2804 (N.D. Ohio).

On June 18, 2018, Plaintiffs, Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Health
and Welfare Fund and Pipe Fitters Local Union No. 120 Insurance
Fund, filed their First Amended Complaint.  On Dec. 20, 2019, the
Plaintiffs filed their Corrected Unredacted Amended Complaint.  The
Complaint identifies two categories of the Dfendants: the Marketing
Defendants and the Distributor Defendants.

The Marketing Defendants are generally described by the Plaintiffs
as having packaged, distributed, supplied, sold, placed into the
stream of commerce, labeled, described, marketed, advertised,
promoted, and purported to warn or purported to inform prescribers
and users regarding the benefits and risks associated with the use
of the prescription opioid drugs.  The Distributor Defendants are
described by the Plaintiffs as wholesale pharmaceutical
distributors who distributed, supplied, sold, and placed
prescription opioids into the stream of commerce without fulfilling
their alleged duty to detect and warn of the diversion of these
drugs for non-medical purposes.  Four of the Distributor Defendants
-- CVS, Rite Aid, Walgreens, and Walmart -- are also National
Retail Pharmacies.  The Plaintiffs refer to the Marketing
Defendants and the Distributor Defendants collectively as the
Defendants.

Similar to insurance companies, the two Plaintiff Funds provide
health and welfare benefits to members of their respective unions.
Both the Plaintiffs are headquartered in Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
Unlike the plaintiffs in Summit County and Cuyahoga County, neither
Plaintiff is a governmental entity.  Instead, they are private
third-party payors ("TPPs") who indirectly purchased, paid for,
and/or reimbursed others for the costs of opioids intended for
consumption by their covered participants and their dependents.

To qualify for payment or reimbursement by the Plaintiffs, a
prescription opioid had to be listed on a Plaintiff's formulary.  A
formulary is a list of prescription drugs covered by a prescription
drug plan or another insurance plan offering prescription drug
benefits.  In essence, access to the formulary is the 'ticket' that
ensures that TPPs will pay for prescriptions.  The Plaintiffs also
paid for hospital stays, emergency department visits, and
medications associated with opioid misuse, addiction, and overdose.


The Plaintiffs contend the Defendants sought to increase their
opioid sales and profits by selling more of their opioid products
to broader groups of users.  In contrast, they assert TPAs sought
to limit the opioids listed on their formularies and control opioid
costs.  They contend that, to advance their goals and circumvent
barriers to formulary inclusion, the Marketing Defendants made
numerous misrepresentations concerning prescription opioids,
targeting them through the agents that established their
formularies -- rheir TPAs, such as MMO and OptumRx, and the PBMs
that assisted them.  The Plaintiffs further contend their TPAs and
PBMs relied on the Defendants' misrepresentations when making
formulary decisions for them.

The Plaintiffs advance claims against the Marketing Defendants for
participating in a false marketing campaign designed to expand the
opioid market and, in turn, gainer higher profits from selling more
opioids.  They advance claims against all the Defendants based on
their roles in the opioid supply chain, complaining each Defendant
profited by failing to monitor and restrict improper opioid
distribution.  The Plaintiff Funds' alleged injuries are their
economic losses, which they explain occurred in two ways: (i)
opioid pill payments and (ii) addiction treatment payments.  

The Complaint describes the following 11 causes of action:

(A) Federal Law Claims: Count 1 Violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1961, et seq. -- Opioid Marketing Enterprise (against
Purdue, Cephalon, Janssen, Endo and Mallinckrodt); Count 2
Violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. Section 1961, et seq. -- Opioid Supply
Chain Enterprise (against Purdue, Cephalon, Endo, Mallinckrodt,
Actavis, McKesson, Cardinal, and AmerisourceBergen); and

(B) State Law Claims: Count 3 Violation of the Ohio Corrupt
Practices Act Ohio Revised Code Section 2923.31, et seq. -- Opioid
Marketing Enterprise (against Purdue, Cephalon, Janssen, Endo, and
Mallinckrodt); Count 4 Violation of the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act
Ohio Revised Code Section 2923.31, et seq. -- Opioid Supply Chain
Enterprise (against Purdue, Cephalon, Endo, Mallinckrodt, Actavis,
McKesson, Cardinal, and AmerisourceBergen); Count 5 Statutory
Public Nuisance (against all the Defendants); Count 6 Common Law
Absolute Public Nuisance (against all the Defendants); Count 7
Negligence (against all the Defendants); Count 8 Common Law Fraud
(against the Marketing Defendants); Count 9 Injury Through Criminal
Acts - Ohio Revised Code Section 2307.60 (against all the
Defendants); Count 10 Unjust Enrichment (against all the
Defendants); and Count 11 Civil Conspiracy (against all the
Defendants).

On July 23, 2018, the Manufacturer Defendants and the Distributor
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint.
On July 24, 2018, the Pharmacies filed a motion to dismiss.  On
Aug. 20, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an omnibus response in
opposition to the motions to dismiss.  On Sept. 10, 2018, the
Defendants filed reply briefs.

Judge Polster denied the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss with the
following exceptions: (i) the Plaintiffs Statutory Nuisance Claim
(Count Five) is dismissed for lack of standing; and (ii) to the
extent the Plaintiffs' Negligence Claim (Count Seven) asserts a
claim for negligence per se, the Plaintiffs have failed to state a
claim and this portion of their negligence claim is dismissed.

Count Five alleges statutory nuisance liability based on the
Defendants' violations of federal and state laws and regulations
controlling the distribution of a "drug of abuse," which conduct is
declared by the Ohio legislature to "constitute a public nuisance."
The Defendants contend the Plaintiffs lack standing to maintain
the cause of action asserted under Ohio nuisance statutes O.R.C.
Sections 3767 and 4729.35.

Judge Polster agrees.  Analyzing standing under these provisions,
the Court in Summit County previously concluded that Section
4729.35, as the special or local provision concerning authority to
sue to abate a nuisance resulting from a violation of applicable
drug laws, prevailed over the more general provisions of Section
3767.  Section 3767 includes a significantly broader list of
parties authorized to bring a public nuisance claim than Section
4729.35; the latter vests authority to maintain a nuisance action
to enjoin violations of drug control laws only in the attorney
general, the prosecuting attorney of any county in which the
offence was committed or in which the person committing the offense
resides; or the state board of pharmacy.  Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs in the instant action -- private TPPs -- are excluded
from maintaining Ohio statutory nuisance claims for the drug law
violations they allege.

Count Seven alleges a negligence claim against all the Defendants.
It is the Plaintiffs' position that the Defendants breached their
duties by distributing and selling opioids (i) in ways that
facilitated or encouraged their flow into the illegal, secondary
market; (ii) without maintaining effective controls against their
diversion; (iii) without effectively monitoring for, investigating,
reporting, or stopping suspicious orders; and (iv) prescribed by
"pill mills."  They further assert the Marketing Defendants
breached their duties to them by deceptively marketing opioids.
They also contend their injuries were foreseeable to the Defendants
to the extent reasonably prudent manufactures and distributors of
opioids should have anticipated injury to them as a probable result
of their marketing, distributing, and selling opioids.  And the
Plaintiffs allege they were damaged as a result of the Defendants'
acts and omissions.

Judge Polster holds that the Defendants' alleged scheme to increase
opioid sales and, in turn, increase profits, would only succeed if
they were paid for prescriptions.  They do not argue that TPPs and
individual patients were not ultimately responsible for these
payments.  Based on these allegations in the Complaint, Judge
Polster finds the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded that the
Defendants owed them a duty of care.

Judge Polster also finds the Complaint adequately alleges the
Distributor Defendants breached their alleged duties to the
Plaintiffs for purposes of the Court's limited 12(b)(6) analysis.
The Distributers, as well as the Marketing Defendants and
Pharmacies, will have the opportunity to request the identity of
specific pharmacies during discovery.  If the Plaintiffs cannot
support their theories with evidence, the Distributor Defendants
will have the opportunity to file appropriate motions later in
these proceedings seeking judgment on these claims.

The Judge further finds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently
pleaded proximate cause.

Because none of the statutes cited by the Plaintiffs are intended
to protect them or other TPPs from the harms alleged, to the extent
their Negligence Claim (Count Seven) asserts a claim for negligence
per se, the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim and this
portion of their negligence claim is dismissed.  The dismissal is
not intended to impact the Plaintiffs' remaining claim for
negligence.

Finally, the Court assumes, without deciding, the Plaintiffs'
intended to bring suit against the Pharmacies as retailers.  Based
on this assumption, the Court finds the portions of the Compliant
referenced by the Pharmacies satisfy the requirement of Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(a)(2).  The allegations provide the necessary short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief, so the Plaintiffs' dispensing claims against the
Pharmacy Defendants do not warrant dismissal.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 21, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/SDMv6c from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Peter H.
Weinberger, Spangenberg, Shibley & Liber, Steven J. Skikos, Skikos
Crawford Skikos & Joseph, Troy A. Rafferty, Levin Papantonio
Thomas
Mitchell Rafferty & Proctor, Bonnie A. Kendrick, Dugan Law Firm,
Celeste Brustowicz, Cooper Law Firm, Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Frank L. Gallucci, III --
fgallucci@pglawyer.com -- Plevin & Gallucci, James R. Dugan, II,
Dugan Law Firm, Linda J. Singer, Motley Rice, Michael J. Fuller,
Jr., McHugh Fuller Law Group, Paul T. Farrell, Jr., Greene Ketchum
Farrell Bailey & Tweel & Peter James Mougey, Levin Papantonio
Thomas Mitchell Rafferty & Proctor.

Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph F. Rice
-- jrice@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice, Paul T. Farrell, Jr.,
Greene Ketchum Farrell Bailey & Tweel, Paul J. Hanly, Jr., Simmons
Hanly Conroy, Amy M. Carter, Simon Greenstone Panatier, Bonnie A.
Kendrick, Dugan Law Firm, Celeste Brustowicz, Cooper Law Firm,
Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Frank
L. Gallucci, III, Plevin & Gallucci, James R. Dugan, II, Dugan Law
Firm, Linda J. Singer, Motley Rice, Peter James Mougey, Levin
Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Rafferty & Proctor, Peter H.
Weinberger,
Spangenberg, Shibley & Liber & Steven J. Skikos, Skikos Crawford
Skikos & Joseph.

Plaintiffs' Executive Committee, Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher A. Seeger, Seeger Weiss, Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Ellen Relkin, Weitz & Luxenberg,
Erin K. Dickinson, Crueger Dicksonson, Hunter J. Shkolnik --
hunter@napolilaw.com -- Napoli Shkolnik, James E. Cecchi, Carella,
Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, James R. Dugan, II, Dugan
Law Firm, James Dennis Young, Morgan & Morgan, Lynn L. Sarko,
Keller Rohrback, Michael J. Fuller, Jr., McHugh Fuller Law Group,
Peter James Mougey, Levin Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Rafferty &
Proctor, R. Eric Kennedy, Weisman, Kennedy & Berris, Roland K.
Tellis, Baron & Budd, W. Mark Lanier, Lanier Law Firm, Aelish
Marie
Baig, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, Anthony D. Irpino, Irpino Avin
Hawkins, Anthony J. Majestro, Powell & Majestro, Bonnie A.
Kendrick, Dugan Law Firm, Celeste Brustowicz, Cooper Law Firm,
Evan
M. Janush, Lanier Law Firm, Frank L. Gallucci, III, Plevin &
Gallucci, Linda J. Singer, Motley Rice, Mark P. Chalos, Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Mark P. Pifko, Baron & Budd, Paul
T.
Farrell, Jr., Greene Ketchum Farrell Bailey & Tweel, Paul J.
Geller, Law Office of Robert J. Hunt, Paulina Do Amaral, Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Peter H. Weinberger, Spangenberg,
Shibley & Liber, Salvatore C. Badala -- sbadala@napolilaw.com --
Napoli Shkolnik & Steven J. Skikos, Skikos Crawford Skikos &
Joseph.

Melissa Ambrosio, Erin Doyle, Darren and Elena Flanagan, James and
Teri Holland, Shannon Hunt, Tyler M Roach, Walter and Virginia
Salmons, Ms. Rachel Wood & Amanda M. Hanlon, Plaintiffs,
represented by Celeste Brustowicz, Cooper Law Firm & Theresa A.
Richthammer, Gallagher, Sharp, Fulton & Norman.

Derric and Ceonda Rees, Plaintiff, represented by Celeste
Brustowicz, Cooper Law Firm, Scott R. Bickford, Martzell &
Bickford
& Theresa A. Richthammer, Gallagher, Sharp, Fulton & Norman.

Purdue Pharma L.P., Defendant, represented by Andrew W. Durland,
Blair Graffeo Mattei, Frazer Greene Upchurch & Baker, Booker T.
Shaw, Thompson Coburn, Colin H. Hunter, Angeli Law Group, Donna M.
Welch, Kirkland & Ellis, Eric A. Riegner, Locke, Reynolds, Boyd &
Wiesell, Hannah E. Tokerud, Holland & Hart, Hayden A. Coleman,
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice, Jenai M.
Brackett, FROST BROWN TODD LLC, Judy L. Leone, Dechert, Noelle M.
Reed, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, Robert S. Hoff, Wiggin
and
Dana LLP, pro hac vice, Ronald J. Friedman, Karr Tuttle Campbell,
Samuel E. Masur, Gordon Arata Montgomery Barnett, Stephanie R.
Lakinski, Karr Tuttle Campbell, Stephen C. Matthews, DLA Piper,
Thomas Dean Adams, Karr Tuttle Campbell, William W. Mercer,
Holland
& Hart, Christopher Boisvert, Copo Strategies, Daniel J. Buckley,
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Elizabeth Y. Ryan, Lynn Pinker Cox
&
Hurst, Gretchen Maria Wolf, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom,
LLP,
John T. Cox, III, Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst, John D. Volney, Lynn
Pinker Cox & Hurst, Kevin James Minnick, Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom, Lisa Michelle Gilford, Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom, Mark S. Cheffo, Dechert, Patrick J. Fitzgerald,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Paul Byrd Simon, Gordon
Arata, R. Ryan Stoll, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Sean
O.
Morris, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, Sheila L. Birnbaum ,
Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Troy A. Bozarth, HeplerBroom, Victor
A. Walton, Jr., Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease & W. Jason Rankin,
HeplerBroom LLC.

Purdue Pharma Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew W. Durland --
adurland@karrtuttle.com -- Blair Graffeo Mattei, Frazer Greene
Upchurch & Baker, Booker T. Shaw, Thompson Coburn, Colin H.
Hunter,
Angeli Law Group, David H. Angeli, Angeli Law Group, Donna M.
Welch, Kirkland & Ellis, Eric A. Riegner, Locke, Reynolds, Boyd &
Wiesell, Hannah E. Tokerud, Holland & Hart, Hayden A. Coleman,
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice, Jenai M.
Brackett, FROST BROWN TODD LLC, Judy L. Leone, Dechert, Noelle M.
Reed, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, Robert S. Hoff, Wiggin
and
Dana LLP, pro hac vice, Ronald J. Friedman, Karr Tuttle Campbell,
Samuel E. Masur, Gordon Arata Montgomery Barnett, Stephanie R.
Lakinski, Karr Tuttle Campbell, Stephen C. Matthews, DLA Piper,
Thomas Dean Adams, Karr Tuttle Campbell, William W. Mercer,
Holland
& Hart, Christopher Boisvert, Copo Strategies, Daniel J. Buckley,
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Elizabeth Y. Ryan, Lynn Pinker Cox
&
Hurst, Gretchen Maria Wolf, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom,
LLP,
John T. Cox, III, Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst, John D. Volney, Lynn
Pinker Cox & Hurst, Kevin James Minnick, Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom, Lisa Michelle Gilford, Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom,
Mark S. Cheffo, Dechert, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom, Paul Byrd Simon, Gordon Arata, R. Ryan
Stoll, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Sean O. Morris,
Arnold
& Porter Kaye Scholer, Sheila L. Birnbaum, Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom, Troy A. Bozarth, HeplerBroom, Victor A. Walton,
Jr., Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease & W. Jason Rankin, HeplerBroom
LLC.

Purdue Frederick Company, Defendant, represented by Andrew W.
Durland, Booker T. Shaw, Thompson Coburn, Colin H. Hunter, Angeli
Law Group, David H. Angeli, Angeli Law Group, Donna M. Welch,
Kirkland & Ellis, Eric A. Riegner, Locke, Reynolds, Boyd &
Wiesell,
Hannah E. Tokerud, Holland & Hart, Jenai M. Brackett, FROST BROWN
TODD LLC, Judy L. Leone, Dechert, Noelle M. Reed, Skadden Arps
Slate Meagher & Flom, Ronald J. Friedman, Karr Tuttle Campbell,
Samuel E. Masur, Gordon Arata Montgomery Barnett, Stephanie R.
Lakinski, Karr Tuttle Campbell, Stephen C. Matthews, DLA Piper,
Thomas Dean Adams, Karr Tuttle Campbell, Christopher Boisvert,
Copo
Strategies, Daniel J. Buckley, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease,
Elizabeth Y. Ryan, Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst, John T. Cox, III, Lynn
Pinker Cox & Hurst, John D. Volney, Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst, Kevin
James Minnick, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Lisa Michelle
Gilford, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Mark S. Cheffo,
Dechert, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom, Paul Byrd Simon, Gordon Arata, R. Ryan Stoll, Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom, Sean O. Morris, Arnold & Porter Kaye
Scholer, Troy A. Bozarth, HeplerBroom, Victor A. Walton, Jr.,
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease & W. Jason Rankin, HeplerBroom LLC.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Craig
Andrew Stanfield, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Donna M. Welch,
Kirkland & Ellis, Harvey Bartle, IV, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius,
Leland G. Horton, Bradley Murchison, Matthew Ambrose Martin, Haar
&
Woods, Mitchell G. Blair, Calfee, Halter & Griswold, Richard S.
Crisler, Bradley, Murchison, Kelly & Shea, Robert T. Haar, Haar &
Woods, Thomas F. Hurka, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, pro hac vice,
Thomas E. Rice, Jr., Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, Adam M.
Hammoud, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Albert J. Lucas, Calfee, Halter
&
Griswold, Alison Tanchyk, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Brian M.
Ercole,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Collie Fitch James, IV, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius, Eric W. Sitarchuk, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Eric M.
Sommer
, Sommer Udall Hardwick & Jones, Georgia K.E. Yanchar, Calfee,
Halter & Griswold, Jason J. Blake, Calfee, Halter & Griswold,
Jeremy A. Menkowitz, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, Jonathan L. Stern,
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, Mark S. Cheffo, Dechert, Mark Fiore,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Michael C. Mims, Bradley Murchison et al,
Nancy Patterson, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Nathan J. Andrisani,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Rebecca J. Hillyer, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, Richard G. Shephard, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Sean
O.
Morris, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, Stacey Anne Mahoney, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius, Steven A. Reed, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Tinos
Diamantatos, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius & Wendy West Feinstein,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius.

Cephalon, Inc., Defendant, represented by Craig Andrew Stanfield,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Donna M. Welch,  
Kirkland & Ellis, Harvey Bartle, IV, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius,
Leland G. Horton, Bradley Murchison, Matthew Ambrose Martin, Haar
&
Woods, Mitchell G. Blair, Calfee, Halter & Griswold, Richard S.
Crisler, Bradley, Murchison, Kelly & Shea, Robert T. Haar, Haar &
Woods, Thomas F. Hurka, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, pro hac vice,
Thomas E. Rice, Jr., Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, Adam M.
Hammoud, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Albert J. Lucas, Calfee, Halter
&
Griswold, Alison Tanchyk, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Brian M.
Ercole,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Collie Fitch James, IV, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius, Eric W. Sitarchuk, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Eric M.
Sommer
, Sommer Udall Hardwick & Jones, Georgia K.E. Yanchar, Calfee,
Halter & Griswold, Jason J. Blake, Calfee, Halter & Griswold,
Jeremy A. Menkowitz, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, Jonathan L. Stern,
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, Mark S. Cheffo, Dechert, Mark Fiore,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Michael C. Mims, Bradley Murchison et al,
Nancy Patterson, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Nathan J. Andrisani,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Rebecca J. Hillyer, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, Richard G. Shephard, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Sean
O.
Morris, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, Stacey Anne Mahoney, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius, Steven A. Reed, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Tinos
Diamantatos, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius & Wendy West Feinstein,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius.


MDL 2879: Negligence Claims in Marriott Data Breach Suit Junked
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul W. Grimm District Court for the District of Maryland,
Southern Division, granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss in IN RE: MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL,
INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION. CONSUMER ACTIONS,
MDL No. 19-md-2879 (D. Md.).

The case involves the consolidated complaint filed by consumers
against Marriott and related entities following one of the largest
data breaches in history.  It is part of the Multidistrict
Litigation ("MDL") pending before the Maryland District Court
concerning the data breach.  The Plaintiffs and Marriott have
selected ten "bellwether" claims to test the sufficiency of the
pleadings.  The Plaintiffs argue that Marriott is liable under
theories of tort, contract, and statutory duties in various states.


On Nov. 30, 2018, Marriott announced that it was the target of one
of the largest data breaches in history.  The breach took place in
its Starwood guest reservation database.  Marriott International
acquired Starwood Hotels & Resorts in September 2016.  The
acquisition made Marriott the largest hotel chain in the world --
accounting for 1 in 15 hotel rooms worldwide -- with Marriott,
Courtyard, Ritz-Carlton, Sheraton, Westin, W Hotels, and St. Regis
properties under its umbrella.  When guests make a reservation to
stay at a Marriott property, they must provide personal information
including name, address, email address, phone number, and payment
card information.  In some instances, Marriott also collects
passport information, room preferences, travel destinations, and
other personal information.  Both Marriott and Starwood had privacy
statements, dated May 18, 2018 and Oct. 5, 2014 respectively,
concerning their collection and use of the personal information and
touting their ability to protect the security of the sensitive
information.

Investigations into the data breach indicated that for over four
years, from July 2014 to September 2018, hackers had access to
Starwood's guest information database.  In other words, the data
breach was ongoing before and after Marriott's acquisition of
Starwood.  The Plaintiffs allege that Marriott failed to conduct
appropriate due diligence of Starwood's cybersecurity risks before
and after the merger, despite the fact that Starwood disclosed a
data breach affecting more than 50 locations days before Marriott's
announcement of the merger, and after knowing that it and other
hotel chains were the targets of security threats in the months and
years preceding the data breach.  The Plaintiffs allege that
several cybersecurity assessments that were conducted revealed
deficiencies in Starwood's system.

During the course of the four-year data breach, the hackers
allegedly stole names, mailing addresses, phone numbers, email
addresses, passport numbers, Starwood Preferred Guest account
information, dates of birth, gender, arrival and departure
information, reservation dates, communication preferences, payment
card numbers, payment card expiration dates, and tools needed to
decrypt cardholder data.  Further, several files that the hackers
exfiltrated were deleted, so Marriott does not fully know how much
data was stolen.  In total, Marriott allegedly disclosed that the
breach impacted at least 383 million guest records, including
nearly 24 million passport numbers and more than 9 million credit
and debit cards.  The Plaintiffs allege that Marriott discovered
the breach on Sept. 8, 2018 when Accenture (a consulting company
providing cybersecurity assistance to the Defendants, and now a
third-party Defendant itself) reported an anomaly on Starwood's
database, but that Marriott waited more than two months to notify
guests.

The Plaintiffs are consumers who allegedly provided their personal
information to Marriott to stay at a Marriott property or use
Marriott's services before the data breach.  They allege that
Marriott is liable for the data breach under theories of tort,
contract, and breach of statutory duties.  The gravamen of these
allegations is that Marriott failed to take reasonable steps to
protect Plaintiffs' personal information against the foreseeable
risk of a cyber attack and contrary to their express privacy
statements and statutory duties.

Pending is the Defendants' motion to dismiss the bellwether claims
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).  They
argue that most of the Plaintiffs lack standing and that all of
them failed to state claims upon which relief could be granted.

Judge Grimm granted in part and denied in part Marriott's motion to
dismiss.  The Judge held that the Plaintiffs have standing to bring
their claims.  They have adequately alleged injury-in-fact in the
form of losses from identity theft, imminent threat of identity
theft, costs spent mitigating the harms from the data breach, loss
of the benefit-of-their-bargain, and loss of value of their
personal information.  These injuries are fairly traceable to the
Defendants' conduct.  The Plaintiffs have also adequately alleged
their respective tort, contract, and statutory claims under the
laws of California, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, New York,
and Oregon.  These claims may proceed.  

Judge Grimm dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims for negligence under
Illinois law.  The Judge found that based on the current state of
Illinois law, the Defendants did not owe a duty to the Plaintiffs
to protect their personal information, notwithstanding that the
Illinois Supreme Court itself has not spoken to the issue.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 21, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/wNTxUb from Leagle.com.

Harry Bell, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jessica H. Meeder,
Fegan Scott, LLC, John A. Yanchunis -- jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
-- Morgan and Morgan PA, pro hac vice, Patrick A. Barthle --
pbarthle@forthepeople.com -- Morgan and Morgan Complex Litigation
Group, pro hac vice, Ryan McGee -- jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com --
Morgan and Morgan Complex Litigation Group, pro hac vice, William
H. Murphy, III, Murphy Falcon and Murphy, pro hac vice & Veronica
Byam Nannis -- vnannis@jgllaw.com -- Joseph Greenwald and Laake
PA.

Edward Claffy, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jessica H. Meeder, Fegan
Scott, LLC, John A. Yanchunis, Morgan and Morgan PA, pro hac vice,
Patrick A. Barthle, Morgan and Morgan Complex Litigation Group, pro
hac vice, Ryan McGee, Morgan and Morgan Complex Litigation Group,
pro hac vice & William H. Murphy, III, Murphy Falcon and Murphy,
pro hac vice.

James Sprowl, Philip S. Friedman, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Sarah Stone, Sheila Wolff, Jeanine St.
Hill, Kim Miller, Eilene Shaffer, Brandon Post, Destiny Esper,
Terrie Bennett, Bruce Fitzgerald, Terrance D. Bulger, Benjamin
Quinn, Jose Herrera, William Muckelroy II, Brad Ellish, Diane
Bernard, Gwendolyn McNeal, Ted Michelakos, Lisa Dotson, Andrea
Marwill, Juli Poloway, Cindy Medeiros, Jill Fleisher, Parth
Detroja, Latoya Aguillard, Doug Smith, Heidi Myers, Jeremiah Moore,
Terella Williams, Cleary Johs, Timothy Hawkins, Joseph Rollins,
Richard Williams, Nikki Davis, Debra Anthony, David Fasolino,
Lillian Harris, Lauren Vasiliadis, Shakimberly Jones, Brian Herman,
Ron Jones, James Schultz, Yong Woo Stephano Kwon, Oscar Moreno,
Camara Karamatic, Bret Crockett, Mark Catuogno, Kia Thomas, Louann
Cashill, Howard William Myones, Africa Green, Salvatore Caponigro,
Mark Maxey, Danny Tolver, Alan Teitleman, Davin Christiansen,
Patricia Daughtery, Abdjul Martin, Luis Herrera, Peter Karkazis,
Lawrence Brenner, Linda Quinones, Kevin S. Rogers, Elizabeth
Collins, Paul Vannoy, Samantha Hendricks, John Coakley, William
Forrester, Anthony Latore, Jobe Anthony Diagne, Alice Poole, Alyssa
Groski, Tanya Harris, Pete Tittl, Sherri Cook, Darren Perks,
Robeson Heard, Cynthia Griffith, Julie Evans, Ashley Logan, James
Hardin, Matthew Russo, Kathryn Lucas, Tenise Houston, Earline
Williams, Justin J. Schmid, Jennifer White, Dean Schrickel, Tracy
Bradford Lockaby, David Collins, Erik Goudie, Elizabeth Cunningham,
Trish Hamilton Cobourn, Julie Shippy, Nathan Royce Banks, Connie
Bowman, Eddie Williams, Lisa Ramirez, Elizabeth Maxwell, Robert
Josephberg, Ashley Webster, Deborah Koulpasis, Lisa McGuire, Robert
Jamerson, Brittany Cliff Snyman, LaToya Brown, Mike Galvin,
Samantha Summers, Brian Sharnick, Jesse Gore & Savannah Louise
Lyon, Consol Plaintiffs, represented by Gary E. Mason, Whitfield
Bryson and Mason LLP & Veronica Byam Nannis, Joseph Greenwald and
Laake PA.

Tracy Bradford & Marlo Johnson, Consol Plaintiffs, represented by
Gary E. Mason, Whitfield Bryson and Mason LLP.

Kashanna Price, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S.
Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Inc., pro hac vice, Gary E. Mason,
Whitfield Bryson and Mason LLP, Jay Paul Holland, Joseph Greenwald
and Laake PA, Steven M. Pavsner, Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA,
Timothy Francis Maloney, Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA & Veronica
Byam Nannis, Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA.

Deborah M. Harrison, Debra L. Lee, Bruce Hoffmeister & Stephanie C.
Linnartz, Defendants, represented by Adam Offenhartz, Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher Llp & Laura O'Boyle, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher Llp.

Bank of Louisiana, Defendant, represented by Christopher
Macchiaroli, Silverman Thompson Slutkin White LLC.

Marriott International, Inc., Consol Defendant, represented by
Daniel R. Warren -- dwarren@bakerlaw.com -- Baker and Hostetler
LLP, pro hac vice, Gilbert S. Keteltas -- gketeltas@bakerlaw.com --
Baker and Hostetler LLP, Lisa M. Ghannoum -- lghannoum@bakerlaw.com
-- Baker and Hostetler LLP, pro hac vice, Adam Offenhartz, Gibson
Dunn & Crutcher Llp, Jason Jacob Mendro, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
LLP, Jeffrey Saul Rosenberg, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Laura
O'Boyle, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher Llp & Dante A. Marinucci.

Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, LLC, Consol Defendant,
represented by Daniel R. Warren, Baker and Hostetler LLP, pro hac
vice, Gilbert S. Keteltas, Baker and Hostetler LLP, Lisa M.
Ghannoum, Baker and Hostetler LLP, pro hac vice & Dante A.
Marinucci.

Arne M. Sorenson, Kathleen Kelly Oberg, Bao Giang Val Bauduin &
Bruce Hoffmeister, Consol Defendants, represented by Jason Jacob
Mendro, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Jeffrey Saul Rosenberg,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Adam Offenhartz, Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher Llp & Laura O'Boyle, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.


MEADOW HILL: Singh Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kulwinder Singh, and Bikramjit Singh, on their own behalf and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. MEADOW HILL MOBILE INC d/b/a
Meadow Hill Mobil Mart; ABUJABER HAZIM, and AHMED GHADEER, Case No.
7:20-cv-03853 (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2020), is brought pursuant the
Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law to recover from the
Defendants: unpaid minimum wage compensation and unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest; and or attorney's fees and cost.

The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in pattern
and practice of failing to pay its employees, including the
Plaintiffs, minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek, according
to the complaint. The Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to
pay the Plaintiffs their lawful overtime compensation of one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over
40 in a given workweek.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants to work as Gas
Station Minimart Attendants.

Meadow Hill Mobile Inc., doing business as Meadow Hill Mobil Mart,
is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the
State of Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Phone: (718) 762-1324


MEDGYN PRODUCTS: Thomas Sues over Unsolicited Fax Ads
-----------------------------------------------------
KENNETH A. THOMAS MD, LLC, a Connecticut limited liability company,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. MEDGYN PRODUCTS, INC., an Illinois corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02691 (N.D. Ill., May 4, 2020) is a
class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

According to the complaint, Plaintiff received eight unsolicited
faxed pages from Defendant on March 21, 2019 and on February 24,
2020 in an attempt to advertise and/or promote medical products
availability and quality of Defendant's products and including
pricing. Plaintiff has never provided prior express consent to
Defendant to send solicitation faxes.

The complaint asserts that Plaintiff has suffered actual damages.

Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, pre-judgment interest and costs
and injunctive relief enjoining Defendant from further TCPA
violations.

MedGyn Products, Inc. manufactures and distributes medical devices
for the women's healthcare industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Juneitha Shambee, Esq.
          SHAMBEE LAW OFFICE, LTD.
          701 Main St., Ste. 201A
          Evanston, IL 60202
          Tel: (773) 741-3602
          Email: juneitha@shambeelaw.com

                - and –

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Tel: (877) 333-9427
          Fax: (888) 498-8946
          Email: Law@StefanColeman.com

                - and –

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


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Lippitt Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Elizabeth Ann Lippitt filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit entitled Elizabeth Lippitt v. Nationstar Mortgage,
LLC, Case No. 8:19-cv-01115-DOC-DFM, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Santa Ana.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
filed the case against the firm in relation to its mortgage
foreclosure procedures.

The appellate case is captioned as Elizabeth Lippitt v. Nationstar
Mortgage, LLC, Case No. 20-55529, 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 15, 2020;

   -- Transcript is due on July 14, 2020;

   -- Appellant Elizabeth Ann Lippitt's opening brief is due on
      August 24, 2020;

   -- Appellee Nationstar Mortgage, LLC's answering brief is due
      on September 23, 2020; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant, ELIZABETH ANN LIPPITT, individually, and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, is represented
by:

          Gabriel Shanti Barenfeld, Esq.
          Gretchen M. Nelson, Esq.
          NELSON & FRAENKEL LLP
          601 S. Figeroa Street, Suite 2050
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (844) 622-6469
          Email: gbarenfeld@nflawfirm.com
                 gnelson@nflawfirm.com

                   - and -

          Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
          WHATLEYKALLAS, LLP
          16870 W. Bernardo Drive, Suite 400
          San Diego, CA 92127
          Telephone: (619) 308-5034
          Email: amansfield@whatleykallas.com

Defendant-Appellee NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, DBA Mr. Cooper Group,
a Corporation, is represented by:

          Jan T. Chilton, Esq.
          Mark Douglas Lonergan, Esq.
          John B. Sullivan, Esq.
          SEVERSON & WERSON APC
          One Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 398-3344
          Email: jtc@severson.com
                 mdl@severson.com
                 jbs@severson.com

                   - and -

          Courtney Wenrick, Esq.
          SEVERSON & WERSON, APC
          19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 700
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 442-7110
          Email: ccw@severson.com


NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC: 4 More Students Join Kelly Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joey Chandler, writing for North Carolina-based Star News Online,
reports that four additional students of former Isaac Bear and
Laney teacher Michael Kelly have come forward to join a class
action lawsuit against him and the New Hanover County Board of
Education and school district employees.

On June 25, Kelly pleaded guilty to 59 charges related to child
sexual abuse.  According to attorney Martin Ramey of the Rhine Law
Firm, the four new plaintiffs were not part of the sentencing
hearing last June. Their details, part of a new amendment to the
lawsuit, were filed April 16 and brings the total number of
plaintiffs to 10, with abuse spanning from 2001-2018.

The class action complaint is against the Board of Education,
Kelly, former deputy superintendent Rick Holliday and former
Superintendent Tim Markley, among others. By filing a class action
suit, additional plaintiffs can sign on.

One of the new plaintiffs -- all named as John Does in the
complaint -- alleges that Kelly began taking him to the local YMCA,
where they would work out and then meet in the sauna. Kelly made
fun of him for wearing board shorts in the sauna and asked him to
take them off and sit with him. Kelly would sometimes touch himself
in the sauna.  [GN]



NEXTERA ENERGY: Mattwaoshshe Challenges Building of Wind Towers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Mattwaoshshe, and Justin Staullbaumer and on behalf of a
Putative Class similarly situated v. NEXTERA ENERGY, INC. and
NEXTERA ENERGY RESOURCES LLC and all of its wholly and
substantially owned subsidiaries incorporated in Delaware and with
the same "Mailing Address" with directions as listed: SOLDIER CREEK
WIND, LLC to "Attn Corp Gov", NEXTERA ENERGY CONSTRUCTORS LLC and
NEXTERA ENERGY TRASMISSION SOUTHWEST LLC to "CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
LAW/JB", NEXTERA ENERGY MARKETING LLC and NEXTERA ENERGY OPERATING
SERVICES LLC and NEXTERA ENERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT LLC to
"Corporate Governance", and JANE DOE NEXTERA SUBSIDIARIES 1-5,
WESTAR ENERGY of Kansas c/o Parent Corp Evergy Kansas Central,
Inc.; and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION with SECRETARY ELAINE CHAO in official capacity, and
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION with ADMINISTRATOR STEVE DICKSON in
official capacity, the FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION,
DEPARTMENT OF ARMY with RYAN MCCARTHY Secretary in official
capacity, and the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM
BAR in his official capacity, and all other subordinate
departments, agencies, offices, and entities of the Government
herein implicated, Case No. 1:20-cv-01317 (D.D.C., May 18, 2020),
is brought against the Defendants to enjoin further construction of
a massive wind tower project in Nemaha County, Kansas.

The Soldier Creek Wind LLC project by NextEra Energy, Inc., is
proposed to have 140 separate wind towers, each 499 feet in height,
in a densely arrayed footprint in southern Nemaha County, Kansas, a
relatively highly populated rural county with over 10,000
residents. The footprint of the project will completely surround
two Kansas municipalities with distinct city councils and
traditional main street, Corning, Kansas, Goff, Kansas, and
Wetmore, Kansas and within two miles of two additional cities,
Centralia and Kelly.

The Plaintiffs contend that this project heavily impacts the
environment around their properties and residences and is being
constructed without adequate review, oversight, or involvement by a
number of federal agencies in contravention of multiple federal
statutes. They add that the project will cause irreparable harm and
a radical transformation of their and the putative class'
surrounding environment.

According to the complaint, the project is being rushed into final
construction prior to the undertaking of, or as a result of
deficient, statutorily mandated processes, approvals,
determinations, and adjudications that have deprived, have harmed
and will harm the Plaintiffs' rights and interests. Further,
NextEra will operate these wind tower turbines near residential
communities in a way that will cause a nuisance and interfere with
property owners' and lease holders' use and enjoyment of their
property.

The Plaintiffs assert that the United States Government has failed
to comply with federal law to include but not be limited to the
National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and
the Indian Religious Freedom Act. For instance, there is an airport
in the vicinity of the project that is used extensively for crop
dusting. It involves low level flying all over the area, which
shortly will include the need to dip down under and around the 140
wind towers currently being erected. This creates a serious
aeronautical hazard for both the airplanes and the property owners
into whose homes and on whose property the planes could easily
crash. However the NextEra defendants seem to be presumptively
rushing hoping to complete enough work so a judge would never dare
to order them removed, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Justin Stallbaumer resides in Kansas. Plaintiff Jeremy
Mattwaoshshe is a citizen of the Kickapoo Nation and Indian Tribe
living on their sovereign land and federally recognized Native
American Reservation that runs adjacent to the eastern edge of the
huge Soldier Creek Wind LLC wind tower project.

NextEra Energy, Inc. is engaged in power generating activities on a
worldwide basis, to include other locations within the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Blair Drazic, Esq.
          Grand Junction, Colorado

               - and -

          James Renne, Esq.
          4201 Wilson Blvd., Suite 110521
          Arlington, VA 22203


NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Levi & Korsinksy Files Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, on April 29 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Norwegian
Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. (NCLH)

NCLH Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 20,
2020 - March 12, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 11, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/norwegian-cruise-line-holdings-ltd-loss-form?prid=6254&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the
Company was employing sales tactics of providing customers with
unproven and/or blatantly false statements about COVID-19 to entice
customers to purchase cruises, thus endangering the lives of both
their customers and crew members; and (2) as a result, Defendants'
statements regarding the Company's business and operations were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]


ONEIDA COUNTY: Williamson Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as NICOLE WILLIAMSON, SARAH
BARRETT, and SHANNON TERRELL, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. ROBERT MACIOL, Oneida County Sheriff,
in his official capacity; and LISA ZUREK, Chief Deputy Oneida
County Jail, in her official capacity, Case No.
9:20-cv-00537-MAD-DJS (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the
Court on July 7, 2020 for an order certifying this proceeding as a
class action together with other relief as may be just pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Oneida County is a county located in the state of New York.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua Cotter, Esq.
          Sara Adams, Esq.
          Maurie Heins, Esq.
          Samuel C. Young, Esq.
          LEGAL SERVICES OF CENTRAL NEW YOR
          221 S. Warren Street, Suite 300
          Syracuse, NY 13202
          E-mail: jcotter@lscny.org

OPAI THAI: Nava Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Isael Robles Nava, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. OPAI THAI INC. (D/B/A OPAI THAI), OPAI INC. (D/B/A OPAI
THAI), YAN BING CHEN, TINA DOE, and NOE CARRETERO, Case No.
1:20-cv-03848 (S.D.N.Y., May 18, 2020), is brought to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

The lawsuit also alleges violations of the N.Y. Labor Law, and the
"spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York
Commissioner of Labor.

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

The Plaintiff was employed as a cook and food preparer at the
restaurant.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a Thai restaurant, located
in the City of New York under the name "Opai Thai."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OYSTER BAY: Underpays Warehousemen & Laborers, Sifuentes Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JULIO SIFUENTES, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OYSTER BAY ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a America
Fence, RONALD J. ROBLEDO, individually, and LISA ROBLEDO,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 6:20-cv-00777 (M.D. Fla., May 4,
2020) is a class action complaint seeking to recover unpaid wages
and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a warehouseman and laborer
from approximately 2005 through approximately March or April of
2020.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and those similarly situated
warehousemen and laborers worked with Defendant for a fixed hourly
rate and were required by Defendant to work well in excess of 40
hours per week. However, Defendant failed to pay them at the
premium rate for most of those hours they worked in excess of 40.

The complaint asserts that Defendant:

     -- failed to maintain time-keeping records to memorialize the
number of hours worked by Plaintiff and other warehousemen and
laborers;

     -- intentionally under-records the number of hours worked by
taking unauthorized reductions from the hour-worked data; and

     -- avoids payment of overtime wages by bifurcating the number
of hours worked by Plaintiff and other warehousemen and laborers.

Moreover, Plaintiff charges Defendant of retaliation and breach of
agreement to pay wages.

Plaintiff also seeks reinstatement of employment and promotion.

Ronald J. Robledo and Lisa Robledo own and control Oyster Bay
Enterprises, Inc.

Oyster Bay Enterprises, Inc. markets aluminum fencing, gates,
canopies, shutters & trellises, balcony & stair railings, spiral
staircases, stairs & siding. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony F. Sanchez, Esq.
          ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A.
          6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101
          Miami, FL 33143
          Tel: (305) 665-9211
          Fax: (305) 328-4842
          Email: AFS@LABORLAWFLA.COM


PETE AND GERRY'S: Court Narrows Claims in Lugones False Ad Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHELLE LUGONES; TRICIA RIZZI; MARCUS SIEZING;
CLAUDIA VASSALLO; DENISE ALVARADO; MINOEE MODI; ISABELLE GRAY;
KARINE SEWELL; ANNE FLOURNOY; and SONJA ROMANO, Plaintiffs, v. PETE
AND GERRY'S ORGANIC, LLC and NELLIE'S FREE RANGE EGGS, Defendants,
Case No. 19 Civ. 2097 (KPF) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Katherine Polk
Failla of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's (i) motion
to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and (ii) motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim.

The Plaintiffs are residents of New York, California,
Massachusetts, Georgia, Maryland, and North Carolina.  The
Defendant is a limited liability company formed and headquartered
in New Hampshire.

The Plaintiffs commenced the action, on behalf of themselves and as
proposed representatives of a putative class of similarly situated
individuals, against Defendant Pete and Gerry's.  The Plaintiffs
allege that they purchased the Defendant's eggs, branded as
Nellie's Free Range Eggs, based on its advertisements indicating
that its hens are loved and are given ample access to open, green
spaces in which they can peck, perch, and play.  However, they
allege that the advertising is a lie, and conceals the facts that
(i) the Defendant's hens are kept in tightly constricted spaces,
with no real access to the outdoors, and (ii) the hens are subject
to numerous husbandry practices that they oppose, such as
beak-cutting and culling.

The Plaintiffs allege that if they had known the truth about
Defendant's practices, they would not have paid premium prices for
the Defendant's eggs.  Moreover, they would only consider
purchasing Nellie's eggs in the future if the Defendant were to
treat chickens in a manner consistent with its advertising.

The Plaintiffs initiated the action and filed their original
Complaint on March 6, 2019.  They then amended their Complaint and
added additional parties on May 7, 2019, prior to the Defendant
responding.  The Plaintiffs bring a wide variety of state-law
statutory claims relating to false and deceptive advertising, as
well as claims for fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, and breach
of express warranty, and request damages and injunctive relief.

The Defendant moves, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6), both to dismiss the claims brought by the
non-New York Plaintiffs and putative class members for lack of
personal jurisdiction and to dismiss the complaint as a whole for
failure to state a claim for relief.

Judge Failla will not at this stage in the litigation dismiss the
claims of potential class members who may not reside in New York.
At this point, any claims brought by the putative class are
hypothetical, and the Court has no knowledge of who will be
asserting such claims or what the bases for specific jurisdiction
might be.  The Judge concludes that it is wiser to follow the
course of its sister courts and defer any assessment of whether
there is specific jurisdiction over the claims of putative non-New
York class members until the class certification stage.  Therefore,
the Defendant's motion to dismiss the claims of putative non-New
York class members is denied without prejudice to renewal at the
class certification stage.

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs cannot show that they are
likely to suffer any future injury because they have alleged that
they do not intend to purchase Nellie's Free Range Eggs unless the
Defendant changes its practices to mirror its advertising.  The
Plaintiffs contend that this misstates the law, and point to
Petrosino v. Stearn's Prod., Inc., for support.  Indeed, the Second
Circuit has held that where a plaintiff has failed to allege that
he intends to use the offending product in the future, there is no
likelihood of future harm.  The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs
have failed to allege any actual intent to purchase Nellie's Free
Range Eggs again, and therefore they have not established a
likelihood of future injury sufficient to show standing.  The
Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief are dismissed.

Next, Judge Failla finds that there is significant authority
supporting the idea that it is inappropriate for a court to decide
whether a reasonable consumer could be misled at the Rule 12(b)(6)
stage, and the Judge finds that authority persuasive.  The Judge
cannot conclude as a matter of law that a significant portion of
the general consuming public would not read the Defendant's claims
about its hens having plenty of green space to peck, perch, and
play in -- together with its verdant images and slogans of "OUTDOOR
FORAGE" -- and not believe that Defendant's hens have significant
access to the outdoors.  The Plaintiffs have alleged that they
believed the advertising to mean that the Defendant's hens had
"space to move around both indoors and outdoors," and that the
portrait of a free range lifestyle is far from the cramped reality
alleged in the SAC.  These allegations are all that is needed for
the Plaintiffs' Section 349 and Section 350 claims to survive a
motion to dismiss.

It is clear that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged
reasonable reliance.  The Defendant's containers gave the
Plaintiffs no reason to be on alert as to potential
misrepresentations.  Moreover, the latter would have had no
independent means of ascertaining the truth of the Defendant's
misrepresentations -- short of driving themselves to the
Defendant's facilities and sleuthing about the grounds for the
truth.  Such an effort would go far beyond the "minimal diligence"
required.  Therefore, on the basis of the same representations
found actionable in their GBL Sections 349 and 350 claims, the
Plaintiffs have successfully alleged fraud and fraudulent
misrepresentation under New York law.

Finally, Judge Failla finds that the Plaintiffs have not alleged
any physical or personal injury as a result of the Defendant's
alleged breach.  The Plaintiffs' breach of express warranty claim
must be dismissed for failure to provide timely notice.

In sum, Judge Failla holds that the Plaintiffs have stated claims
for fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation and claims pursuant to
GBL Section 349 and 350 on the basis of the Defendant's statements
on its containers regarding its hens' access to the outdoors, and
therefore denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss as to those
specific claims.  However, Judge Failla grants the Defendant's
motion to dismiss insofar as it relates to any representations made
on its website, or to representations on its egg container
involving love, or to the statement "BETTER LIVES FOR HENS MEAN
BETTER EGGS FOR YOU," and grants its motion to dismiss as to the
entirety of the Plaintiffs' breach of express warranty claim.
Judge Failla likewise dismisses the Plaintiffs' claims for
injunctive relief for failure to allege standing, and dismisses the
non-New York named Plaintiffs' claims for lack of personal
jurisdiction.  The Judge denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss
for lack of personal jurisdiction insofar as it relates to non-New
York putative class members.

Accordingly, Judge Failla granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's motion to dismiss.  Defendant Nellie's Free Range Eggs
is dismissed from the case.  Defendant Pete and Gerry's' motion is
granted with respect to all claims brought on behalf of the non-New
York named Plaintiffs, and to the Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive
relief.  The Defendant's motion is further granted with respect to
the Plaintiffs' breach of express warranty claim and with respect
to their fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, and GBL Sections 349
and 350 claims that rely on statements identified as non-actionable
puffery in the Opinion.

Judge Failla denied the Defendant's motion with respect to claims
that may be brought on behalf of non-New York putative class
members at a later stage in the litigation.  The Defendant's motion
is further denied with respect to the Plaintiff's fraud, fraudulent
misrepresentation and GBL Sections 349 and 350 claims that rely on
statements identified as actionable in the Opinion.

The Clerk of Court is further directed to dismiss Denise Alvarado,
Minoee Modi, Isabelle Gray, Karine Sewell, and Sonja Romano as
Plaintiffs in the action.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 21, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/mTO1I4 from Leagle.com.

Anne Flournoy, member of the putative Class, Claudia Vassallo, on
behalf of themselves and as proposed class representatives of a
Class of similarly situated individuals, Marcus Siezing, on behalf
of themselves and as proposed class representatives of a Class of
similarly situated individuals, Michelle Lugones, on behalf of
themselves and as proposed class representatives of a Class of
similarly situated individuals & Tricia Rizzi, on behalf of
themselves and as proposed class representatives of a Class of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, represented by Asher
Smith -- AsherS@petaf.org -- Peta Foundation & Jeanne-Marie Bates
Christensen -- jchristensen@wigdorlaw.com -- Wigdor LLP.

Pete and Gerry's Organics, LLC, Defendant, represented by Peter T.
Shapiro -- Peter.Shapiro@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith LLP.


POSTMATES INC: Fails to Pay All Time Worked, McGhee Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
APRIL MCGHEE, individually, and on behalf of other individuals
similarly situated v. POSTMATES INC., a Delaware company; and DOES
1-100, inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-584341 (Cal. Super., San
Francisco Cty., May 5, 2020), alleges that the Defendants failed to
reimburse necessary business expenses and to pay for all time
worked in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee in the position of "courier." The Plaintiff and fellow
couriers provide food delivery throughout the State of California.

Postmates offers local delivery of restaurant-prepared meals,
groceries and other goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq.
          Lirit Ariella King, Esq.
          BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
          31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805) 270-7100
          Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
          E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                  kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
                  Iking@bradleygrombacher.com


POWERSAT COMMUNICATIONS: Underpays Field Technicians, Jackson Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. POWERSAT COMMUNICATION (USA) LP and POWERSAT
COMMUNICATIONS (USA) GP LTD, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-00486-KRS-GJF (D.N.M., May 20, 2020) is a class and
collective action complaint brought against Defendants for their
alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Field Technician.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated
Field Technicians regularly work more than 12 hours in a day and
more than 80 hours in a week. But, Defendants paid them a base
salary and a day-rate only regardless of the number of hours they
worked. Allegedly, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other
similarly situated Field Technicians overtime for hours they worked
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek at one and one-half times of
their regular rates of pay under the FLSA.

Powersat Communications (USA) LP and Powersat Communications (USA)
GP Ltd are oilfield services companies that provide communications
services to wells throughout the U.S., including in New Mexico.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq.
          HOMMEL LAW FIRM
          5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115
          Tyler, TX 75703
          Tel: 903-596-7100
          Fax: 469-533-1618
          Website: http://www.hommelfirm.com

                - and –

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
          Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
          Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
          John D. Garcia, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Tel: (361)452-1279
          Emails: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com
                  lauren@a2xlaw.com
                  cgordon@a2xlaw.com
                  carter@a2xlaw.com
                  john@a2xlaw.com


RENOVATE AMERICA: Contractors Seek Payment for PACE Projects
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DEPENDABLE HOME REMODELING LLC, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly-situated v. RENOVATE AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00940-JLS-WVG (S.D. Cal., May 20,
2020), alleges that the Defendant breached California's Implied
Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing and violated the California
Unfair Competition Law due to its failure to assist contractors,
including the Plaintiff, in receiving payments for Property
Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) projects that they completed on behalf
of third-party property owners under the Defendant's Home Energy
Renovation Opportunity (HERO) program and pursuant to their
participation agreements.

Under the agreements, the Defendant will not release payment to
contractors for a PACE-funded project until a third-party property
owner certifies that a project has been completed to his or her
subjective satisfaction. Unfortunately for the Plaintiff and
members of the Class, the Defendant provides no standards by which
third-party property owners must assess completion or determine
their satisfaction with a PACE project and, as a result, the
agreements essentially permit property owners to refuse payment
even after a contractor has completed a project in an objectively
satisfactory and timely manner. The Plaintiff and Class members
have suffered serious financial damages because of the Defendant's
actions and inactions.

Dependable Home Remodeling LLC is a registered contractor with
principal place of business at 5323 Millenia Lakes Boulevard, Suite
300, Orlando, Florida.

Renovate America, Inc. is a registered PACE program administrator
and finance lender in California, Florida, and Missouri, with
principal place of business located at 16409 West Bernardo Drive,
San Diego, California. [BN]

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

               - and –
         
         Michael P. Ols, Esq.
         SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
         1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (610) 891-9880
         Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
         E-mail: mols@sfmslaw.com

RESIDENCE HERRON: Residents Launch Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Global News Canada reports that an application to launch a
class-action lawsuit against the Residence Herron in Dorval, Que.,
where at least 30 people have died in the past month amid the novel
coronavirus pandemic, has been filed in Quebec Superior Court.

Lead plaintiff Barbara Schneider, whose mother Mary died after
contracting COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus, while at the
long-term care facility, is asking permission to seek at least $2
million in punitive damages for what the proposed lawsuit claims is
"inhumane and degrading maltreatment" of residents.

As part of the application, the plaintiff is also seeking $25,000
per resident in moral damages. It is also asking for $25,000 per
family for residents who have died since March 13, when COVID-19
was declared a public health emergency by the Quebec government.
Story continues below advertisement

If allowed to move forward, it will seek $10,000 in moral damages
for families of each of the 130 residents and reimburse rent fees
for the months of March and April 2020 for all residents.

The application states that Mary Schneider, 93, died on April 10 at
the Herron residence after she was diagnosed with the respiratory
illness and her condition rapidly deteriorated. She had been a
resident at the long-term care facility since late February. [GN]



REVENUE MANAGEMENT: Landau Files FDCPA Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Revenue Management
Services Corp.  The case is styled as Faigy Landau, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Revenue Management Services Corp, Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-03922
(S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2020).

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

Revenue Management Services Corp is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SCION GROUP: Cristales Appeals D. Arizona Ruling to Ninth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Janelle Cristales, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit styled Janelle Cristales, et al. v. Scion
Group LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-04950-DGC, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Arizona, Phoenix.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
seek damages and remedies pursuant to the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Janelle Cristales, et al. v.
Scion Group LLC, Case No. 20-15930, 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 15, 2020;

   -- Transcript is due on July 14, 2020;

   -- Appellants Marianna Carvajal and Janelle Cristales' opening
      brief is due on August 24, 2020;

   -- Appellee Scion Group LLC's answering brief is due on
      September 23, 2020; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants JANELLE CRISTALES and MARIANNA CARVAJAL, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Aaron David Radbil, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          106 East Sixth Street, Suite 913
          Austin, TX 78704
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Email: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com

Defendant-Appellee SCION GROUP LLC is represented by:

          Jessica D. Gallegos, Esq.
          KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP
          171 17th Street NW, Suite 1550
          Atlanta, GA 30363
          Telephone: (404) 400-7316
          Email: jgallegos@kcozlaw.com


SEE'S CANDY SHOPS: Faces Ping Suit Over Unpaid Compensations
------------------------------------------------------------
Laci Ping, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SEE'S CANDY SHOPS, INC., SEE'S CANDIES, INC., and DOES
1-10, inclusive, Case No. 20CV01023 (Cal. Super., Butte Cty., May
15, 2020), seeks unpaid compensations for uniforms, damages,
restitution, and penalties, as well as interest, attorney's fees,
costs, and injunctive relief pursuant to the California Labor Code,
IWC Wage Order No. 7, California Code of Civil Procedure, and
California Business & Professions Code.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants has required, by
company-wide policy, that the Plaintiff purchase and wear clothing
articles consistent with the brand image the Defendants attempt to
project in their stores, specifically, that of a 1940s-era candy
shop, according to the complaint. These clothing items are of a
distinctive design or color and are not generally usable in the
occupation and, therefore, constitute a uniform under the Wage
Order. By failing to pay for these uniforms, the Defendants violate
this provision of the wage order, the Plaintiff contends. Because
these clothing items are required as a condition of employment,
they constitute necessary business expenses, which must be
reimbursed by the Defendants, the Plaintiff adds.

By failing to reimburse the Plaintiff for these clothing items, the
Defendants violate the Labor Code, according to the complaint.
Furthermore, by requiring the Plaintiff, most of whom are paid at
or near the minimum wage, to purchase their own uniforms, the
Defendants pushes the Plaintiff's wages below the legal minimum as
well as the promised contractual rate of pay in violation of Labor
Code.

Ms. Ping was employed by the Defendants in Chico, California, as a
non-exempt store employee from October 2010 until December 2018.

The Defendants own and operate retail candy stores in California,
throughout the United States, and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Randall B. Aiman-Smith, Esq.
          Reed W.L. Marcy, Esq.
          Hallie Von Rock, Esq.
          Carey A. James, Esq.
          AIMAN-SMITH & MARCY
          7677 Oakport St., Suite 1150
          Oakland, CA 94621
          Phone: 510.817.2711
          Fax: 510.562.6830
          Email: ras@asmlawyers.com
                 rwlm@asmlawyers.com
                 hvr@asmlawyers.com
                 caj@asmlawyers.com
                 bar@asmlawyers.com


SERVICEMASTER GLOBAL: Berger Montague Notes of June 9 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Berger Montague is investigating securities fraud claims against
ServiceMaster Global Holdings, Inc. on behalf of all purchasers of
ServiceMaster common stock (NYSE: SERV) between February 26, 2019
and November 4, 2019 (the "Class Period").

If you purchased ServiceMaster shares, have information, would like
to discuss this investigation, or have any questions concerning
your rights or interests, please contact:

         BERGER MONTAGUE
         Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
         Tel: (215) 875-3080
         Andrew Abramowitz, Esq.
         Tel: (215) 875-3015
         E-mail: www.bergermontague.com/servicemaster-global

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period,
ServiceMaster and its senior management represented that the
Company was successfully executing upon initiatives to improve the
performance of its Terminix segment. Unbeknownst to investors,
however, the Terminix segment had experienced an adverse trend of
costly termite litigation, primarily related to Formosan activity,
in recent years.

Investors began to learn the truth when, on October 22, 2019,
ServiceMaster announced disappointing preliminary financial results
for the third quarter 2019 and blamed the poor performance on
"termite damage claims arising primarily from Formosan termite
activity" primarily in Mobile, Alabama.  At that time, the Company
revealed that this was a known issue for which mitigation efforts
had commenced "starting in 2018." The Company also announced that
the President of Terminix Residential had abruptly departed.

On this news, shares of ServiceMaster fell 20%, or $11.44 per
share.

On November 5, 2019, ServiceMaster released its final Q3 2019
financial results, informing investors that: (1) the increase in
termite claims litigation that occurred "[i]n the past few years"
impacted termite revenue by 7-8% and would continue throughout
2020; and (2) contract price increases in Mobile were part of an
effort to "mitigate" termite damage claims (essentially by
discouraging contract renewals). Shares fell further on this news,
dropping $1.42 (3.5%) on November 5, and another $3.41 (9%) on
November 6, as the market absorbed the news.

If you purchased ServiceMaster common stock during the Class
Period, you may seek Court appointment as lead plaintiff to
represent other injured investors in a class action.  The lead
plaintiff appointment deadline is June 9, 2020.  You do not need to
be a lead plaintiff to share in any potential Class recovery.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
ServiceMaster Global Holdings, Inc. should consider their options
to help Berger Montague's investigation or take advantage of the
SEC Whistleblower program. Under this program, whistleblowers who
provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to
thirty percent (30%) of successful recoveries obtained by the SEC.
For more information, contact us.

Berger Montague, with offices in Philadelphia, Minneapolis,
Washington, D.C., and San Diego, has been a pioneer in securities
class action litigation since its founding in 1970. Berger Montague
has represented individual and institutional investors for five
decades and serves as lead counsel in courts throughout the United
States.

Contact:

         Michael Dell'Angelo
         Managing Shareholder
         Berger Montague
         Tel: (215) 875-3080
         E-mail: mdellangelo@bm.net

                 - and -
         Andrew Abramowitz
         Senior Counsel
         Berger Montague
         Tel: (215) 875-3015
         E-mail: aabramowitz@bm.net



SMALL BUSINESS: Frost Launches Class Action Over PPP Loans
----------------------------------------------------------
Eye on Annapolis reports that Frost Law, an Annapolis based law
office has filed a class action lawsuit against the Small Business
Association relating the administration of the Paycheck Protection
Program (PPP) loan component of the federally funder CARES Act.

The suit alleges that the SBA discriminated against minority-owned
small business owners by disbursing loans and funds to larger
companies before even allowing smaller, self-employed businesses to
apply. Self-employed business owners were unable to apply for the
loans until the end of last week (April 10, 2020), and the funds
had been exhausted by April 16, 2020.

In a statement released by Glen Frost, Managing Partner:

    Frost Law filed a Class Action Lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland against the Small
Business Administration and Treasury Department for discrimination
against minority-owned and women-owned small businesses.

    The Paycheck Protection Program, part of the $2 trillion
government relief package, was written to be ‘first-come,
first-served' relief for small businesses suffering as a result of
the global pandemic. But that's not what happened.

    Instead, the government published guidance that expressly
prioritized the applications for larger businesses, knowing that it
would disproportionately harm minority and women owned businesses,
and even gave these larger businesses credit for particular
expenses that were specifically excluded in calculating loan
amounts and loan forgiveness for the smallest businesses.

    Moreover, the government gave these larger, more sophisticated
businesses a one-week head start to apply for relief. Remarkably,
banks were not even provided with the guidance needed for
processing loans for self-employed individuals until April 14,
2020, just two days before the funds were depleted.

    The funds are gone now, and the government's discriminatory
actions have resulted in a disproportionate number of
minority-owned and female-owned business owners unfairly left
without relief.  [GN]



SOCIETY INSURANCE: Ambrosia Indy Seeks Pay for COVID-19 Losses
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, AMBROSIA INDY LLC D/B/A AMBROSIA RESTAURANT, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. SOCIETY
INSURANCE, A MUTUAL COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00771-NJ
(E.D. Wis., May 21, 2020), arises from the Defendant's breach of
contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated restaurants in Indiana that purchased
comprehensive business insurance coverage from Defendant Society
Insurance which includes coverage for business interruption,
alleges that the Defendant denied its claim for business
interruption coverage and argued that a slowdown in business due to
the public's fear of the coronavirus or a suspension of business
because a governmental authority has ordered or recommended all or
certain types of businesses to close is not a direct physical loss.
Ambrosia and other Indiana restaurants reasonably believed they had
comprehensive coverage that would apply to business interruptions
under circumstances like the COVID-19 pandemic where they have done
everything right to protect their businesses and the public,
especially that the Defendant did not identify any exclusions from
coverage. The Plaintiff purchased comprehensive business owners'
liability and property insurance from Society Insurance for the
policy period of January 24, 2020 to January 24, 2021 to insure
against risks the business might face. Such coverage includes
business income with extra expense coverage for the loss, as well
as additional civil authority coverage. Once triggered, the policy
pays actual losses sustained for the business income and extra
expense coverage.

Ambrosia Indy LLC, doing business as Ambrosia Restaurant, a
restaurant owner based in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Society Insurance, A Mutual Company, is an insurance company with
its principal place of business in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
         Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
         Austin Doan, Esq.
         TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
         613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
         Madison, WI 53703
         Telephone: (608) 237-1775
         Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
         E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com
                 austind@turkestrauss.com

               - and –
         
         Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
         Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
         Amina A. Thomas, Esq.
         Lisa LaFornara, Esq.
         COHEN & MALAD LLP
         One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
         Indianapolis, IN 46204
         Telephone: (317) 636-6481
         E-mail: rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
                 ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
                 athomas@cohenandmalad.com
                 llafornara@cohenandmalad.com

               - and –
         
         Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
         GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
         505 14th Street, Suite 1110
         Oakland, CA 94612
         Telephone: (510) 350-9700
         Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
         E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com

               - and –
         
         Andrew N. Friedman, Esq.
         Victoria S. Nugent, Esq.
         Julie Selesnick, Esq.
         Geoffrey Graber, Esq.
         Eric Kafka, Esq.
         Karina G. Puttieva, Esq.
         COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
         1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor
         Washington, DC 20005
         Telephone: (202) 408-4600
         Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
         E-mail: afriedman@cohenmilstein.com
                 vnugent@cohenmilstein.com
                 jselesnick@cohenmilstein.com
                 ggraber@cohenmilstein.com
                 ekafka@cohenmilstein.com
                 kputtieva@cohenmilstein.com

               - and –
         
         J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
         BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS PLLC
         223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
         Nashville, TN 37203
         Telephone: (615) 254-8801
         E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com

SOUTH BY SOUTHWEST: Faces Breach of Contract Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Billboard.com reports that South by Southwest is the subject of a
class action lawsuit for not offering refunds to ticket buyers
after its 2020 edition was canceled due to the spread of
coronavirus. The class action suit is claiming breach of contract
and unjust enrichment. [GN]


STATE FARM: Denies Coverage of COVID-19 Losses, Royal Palm Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROYAL PALM OPTICAL, INC., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY and STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
9:20-cv-80749-RS (S.D. Fla., May 5, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants denied claims for lost business income and extra
expenses as a result of social distancing and/or stay-at-home
orders issued in connection with the COVID-19 global pandemic.

The Plaintiff purchased State Farm-branded "all risk" commercial
property insurance policies that included Loss of Income and Extra
Expense Coverage. The Plaintiff contends that it fully performed
its obligations under the Policy and paid over $3,000 to the
Defendants in annual premium payments. It asserts that the Policy,
which remains in force as of today, promised them the reimbursement
of lost income and other expenses in the event that its business
was suspended.

As a result of the Defendants' breach of the Policy, the Plaintiff
and Class members have sustained substantial damages for which
Defendants are liable, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff owns and operates Royal Palm Optical, which has
provided prescription eyewear and sunglasses to the Boca Raton and
Delray Beach areas since 1985.

State Farm Florida Insurance Company is a wholly owned subsidiary
of Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. The
Company writes property insurance in the State of Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachary S. Bower, Esq.
          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          Security Building
          117 NE 1st Avenue
          Miami, FL 33132-2125
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          E-mail: zbower@carellabyrne.com
                  jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                  ltaylor@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          Naumon Amjed, Esq.
          Ethan Barlieb, Esq.
          Jordan Jacobson, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
                  dcheck@ktmc.com
                  namjed@ktmc.com
                  ebarlieb@ktmc.com


STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS: Franchi Says Menarini Merger Deal Lacks Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case ADAM FRANCHI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS, INC., RON
BENTSUR, IVAN BERGSTEIN, DARREN CLINE, ALAN FORMAN, MARK SARD,
KENNETH ZUERBLIS, BERLIN-CHEMIE AG, and MERCURY MERGER SUB, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00683-UNA (D. Del., May 20, 2020)
arises from a proposed transaction announced on May 4, 2020,
pursuant to which Stemline Therapeutics, Inc. will be acquired by
affiliates of A. Menarini–Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite S.r.l.

On May 3, 2020, Stemline's Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Berlin-Chemie AG
and Mercury Merger Sub, Inc. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, Merger Sub commenced a tender offer to purchase all of
Stemline's outstanding common stock for $11.50 in cash and one
contingent value right, which represents the right to receive $1.00
per CVR, per share. The Tender Offer is set to expire on June 9,
2020.

The Defendants filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the Proposed Transaction on May 12, 2020.

The Solicitation Statement omits material information with respect
to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Solicitation
Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges
herein that defendants violated Sections 14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the
Solicitation Statement.

First, the Solicitation Statement omits material information
regarding the analyses performed by the Company's financial
advisors in connection with the Proposed Transaction, PJT Partners
LP and BofA Securities, Inc. Second, the Solicitation Statement
omits material information regarding PJT's and BofA's engagements.
Third, the Solicitation Statement fails to disclose the timing and
nature of all communications regarding future employment and
directorship of the Company’s officers and directors, including
who participated in all such communications.

Stemline Therapeautics Inc. is a New York-based commercial-stage
biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and
commercialization of novel oncology therapeutics.

Berlin-Chemie AG is a German Pharmaceutical company based in
Berlin, Germany. It is part of the Menarini Group.

Mercury Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Berlin-Chemie AG, and a party to the Merger
Agreement.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                    - and -

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

SUNRISE CREDIT: Waller Sues in New York Alleging FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Waller, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SUNRISE CREDIT SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-02229
(E.D.N.Y., May 18, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff has an alleged obligation that arises from a
transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services
that are the subject of the transaction were incurred primarily for
personal, family, or household purposes—namely, personal consumer
products (the "Debt"). In connection with the collection of the
Debt, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a letter dated December 24,
2019. The Defendant's December 24, 2019 letter was its initial
communication with the Plaintiff with respect to the Debt. The
front-side of the Defendant's December 24, 2019 letter lists the
name of the creditor, the creditor's account number, the
Defendant's account number, and the balance of the Debt.

However, the Plaintiff asserts, nowhere on the front-side of the
Defendant's December 24, 2019 letter does it advise the Plaintiff
that important information is printed on the back-side of the
letter. Upon receiving the Defendant's December 24, 2019 letter,
the Plaintiff, or the least sophisticated consumer, would not be
alerted that important information is printed on the back-side of
the letter. Thus, by failing to alert the Plaintiff, or the least
sophisticated consumer, that important information is on the
back-side of the Defendant's December 24, 2019 letter, the
Defendant overshadowed the Plaintiff's right to dispute and request
verification of the Debt within the 30-day time period, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person allegedly obligated to pay a
debt.

The Defendant is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Auslaender, Esq.
          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
          5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Phone: (347) 960-9671
          Facsimile: (347) 960-9252
          Email: justin@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com


SWAROVSKI NORTH: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Calcano ADA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Marcos Calcano filed an appeal from the District Court's
Judgment dated May 11, 2020, issued in his lawsuit styled Calcano
v. Swarovski North America Limited, Case No. 19-cv-10536, 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 is
a class action lawsuit filed against Swarovski North America
Limited pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Calcano v. Swarovski North
America Limited, Case No. 20-1552, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Marcos Calcano, On behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated, is represented by:

          Oliver Koppell, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF G. OLIVER KOPPELL & ASSOCIATES
          99 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 867-3838
          Facsimile: (212) 681-0810
          Email: okoppell@koppellaw.com   

Defendant-Appellee Swarovski North America Limited is represented
by:

          Michael Fleming, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          101 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10178
          Telephone: (212) 309-6207
          Email: michael.fleming@morganlewis.com


TEAM BEANS: Martinez Sues in E.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Team Beans, L.L.C.
The case is styled as Pedro Martinez individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Team
Beans, L.L.C. doing business as: Forever Collectibles, Case No.
1:20-cv-02223 (E.D.N.Y., May 18, 2020).

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

Forever Collectibles is a manufacturer and now eCommerce retailer
of sports and entertainment merchandise, with a product line that
includes apparel, accessories, toys, collectibles, novelty items,
and more.[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


TECNOVA ELECTRONICS: Unlawfully Cancels Job Offer, Ramirez Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, LUIS RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TECNOVA ELECTRONICS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02676 (N.D. Ill., May 4, 2020) arises
from Defendant's alleged willful violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA).

According to the complaint, Plaintiff applied for employment with
Defendant in the Spring of 2020 and accepted the offered job as an
SMT Operator 1 on March 9, 2020, though with pending background
check result. However, Defendant emailed Plaintiff on March 25
informing Plaintiff that the job offered is cancelled when
Plaintiff's background check finally came through which was
purchased by Defendant from a consumer reporting agency.

The complaint contends that Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff
with a copy of their consumer reports and a description of his
right under the FCRA before taking an adverse employment action
against him basing on the consumer report.

Tecnova Electronics, Inc. is an electronic manufacturing company
specializing in electronic manufacturing and engineering
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Burtnett, Esq.
          Eugene Bilmes, Esq.
          HECHT SCHONDORF, LLC
          900 Skokie Blvd., Suite 104
          Northbrook, IL 60062
          Tel: (312) 878-1202
          Emails: jburtnett@hechtschondorf.com
                  ebilmes@hechtschondorf.com

                - and –

          Andrew L. Weiner, Esq.
          Jeffrey B. Sand, Esq.
          WEINER & SAND LLC
          800 Battery Ave. SE, Suite 100
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Tel: (404) 205-5029
               (404) 254-0842
          Fax: (866) 800-1482
          Emails: aw@atlantaemployeelawyer.com
                  js@atlantaemployeelawyer.com


TIKTOK INC: Faces GR Suit Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case G.R., a Minor, by and Through Her Guardian Mayra De La
Cruz, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. TIKTOK, INC., a California Corporation, and BYTEDANCE
INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-04537
(C.D. Cal., May 20, 2020) arises from Defendants' unlawful and
intentional collection and use of minors' confidential biometric
information without their consent and subsequent unauthorized
disclosure of that information to third parties from approximately
May 14, 2017 to the present in violation of state law, in violation
of the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 and the California
Unfair Competition Law.

In direct violation of the CCPA, the TikTok app's proprietary
facial recognition technology scans every video uploaded to the app
for faces, extracts geometric data relating to the unique points
and contours of each face, and then uses that data to create and
store a template of each face -- all without ever informing anyone
of this practice.

According to the complaint, Defendants engaged in this conduct: (a)
without adequately informing the impacted individuals, including
Plaintiff and members of the proposed class, that their biometric
identifiers were being collected, captured, obtained, disclosed,
redisclosed, or otherwise disseminated; (b) without informing the
impacted individuals in writing of the purpose of the collection,
capture, obtainment disclosure, redisclosure, and dissemination of
the biometric identifiers and information; and (c) without seeking
and obtaining written releases from such impacted individuals or
their authorized representatives.

Plaintiff G.R. is a minor and brings this suit by and through her
legal guardian, Mayra De La Cruz.

TikTok is a video-sharing social networking service used to create
short videos, favored by children and teens.

ByteDance, Inc. is the parent company of TikTok, Inc. which first
launched the TikTok app in China in September 2016.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William A. Baird, Esq.
          BAIRD LAW FIRM
          2625 Townsgate Road, Suite 330
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805) 267-1209
          Facsimile: (866) 747-3905
          Email: william.a.baird.1@gmail.com

                    - and -

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

                    - and -

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

                    - and -

          Joseph A. Pettigrew, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (860) 537-5537
          Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
          Email: jpettigrew@scott-scott.com

                    - and -

          E. Kirk Wood, Esq.
          WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC
          P. O. Box 382434
          Birmingham, AL 35238-2434
          Telephone: (205) 908-4906
          Facsimile: (866) 747-3905
          Email: ekirkwood1@bellsouth.net

UHS OF OKLAHOMA: McKinney Class Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Michael McKinney, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. UHS of Oklahoma LLC, Case No.
CJ-20-00099-03, was removed from the Oklahoma District Court,
Garfield County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma on May 18, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-00459-G to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as other contract.

UHS of Oklahoma, Inc., provides health care services. The Company
offers cardiology, neurology, radiology, and rehabilitation
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Paige Lee, Esq.
          PAIGE LEE ATTORNEY AT LAW PC
          204 E Grand
          Ponca City, OK 74601
          Phone: (580) 762-5553
          Fax: (580) 762-2271
          Email: paige@paigeleelaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John D. Russell, Esq.
          Justin A. Lollman, Esq.
          GABLE & GOTWALS
          100 W 5th St., Suite 1100
          Tulsa, OK 74103-4217
          Phone: (918) 595-4800
          Fax: (918) 595-4990
          Email: jrussell@gablelaw.com
                 jlollman@gablelaw.com

               - and -

          Paula M Williams, Esq.
          GABLE & GOTWALS-OKC
          211 N Robinson Ave., 15th Floor
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Phone: (405) 235-5500
          Fax: (405) 235-2875
          Email: pwilliams@gablelaw.com

               - and -

          Philip D Hixon, Esq.
          GLASS WILKIN PC
          1515 S Utica Ave., Suite 250
          Tulsa, OK 74104
          Phone: (918) 582-7100
          Fax: (918) 582-7166
          Email: phixon@glf.us.gov


UNITED SPECIALTY: Bradley Files Insurance Suit in E.D. Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Specialty
Insurance Company. The case is styled as James Bradley, On Behalf
of Himself, and all Others Similarly Situated v. United Specialty
Insurance Company, Case No. 4:20-cv-00520-JM (E.D. Ark., May 18,
2020).

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

United Specialty Insurance Company operates as an insurance
company. The Company offers property and casualty insurance
products and solutions, as well as reinsurance and
investments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dylan Hugh Potts, Esq.
          GILL RAGON OWEN P.A.
          425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3800
          Little Rock, AR 72201-2413
          Phone: (501) 376-3800
          Email: potts@gill-law.com


UNITED STATES: ACLU Seeks Class-Action Status
---------------------------------------------
Liz Evans Scolforo, writing for the York Dispatch, reports that on
the heels of securing the temporary release of federal immigration
detainees being held in York County Prison and jails in Pike and
Clinton counties, the ACLU of Pennsylvania has now asked a federal
judge to convert its original case to a class-action lawsuit.

In mid-April 2020, the state chapter of the American Civil
Liberties Union amended its petition, filed in federal court in
Harrisburg, to add 11 new detainees that the organization argues
should be released. The 13 named in the original petition remain on
the amended one.

Six of the 11 new petitioners are being held in York County Prison,
according to Andy Hoover, spokesman for the ACLU of Pennsylvania.

Like those already released, the 11 civil detainees now added to
the case are particularly vulnerable to contracting and dying from
COVID-19 because of their medical conditions and/or because they
are age 45 or older.

The ACLU is also asking a federal judge to define the class of
people affected by the ruling "as anyone in immigration detention
who is at heightened risk of serious illness or death if they
contract COVID-19 due to age or underlying medical condition,"
according to a news release.

"It's increasingly clear to us that federal immigration authorities
are not serious about preventing the spread of COVID-19 in county
jails where our clients are held," Reggie Shuford, executive
director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, said in an emailed statement.
"In all of the facilities, people who are detained cannot
physically distance from each other. And they are still not being
rationed enough personal hygiene items, including soap. The court
has to act because ICE will not."

Class-action suit: The ACLU is asking that all U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement detainees at the three prisons who are age 45
or older or who have a serious medical condition that makes them
particularly vulnerable to the coronavirus, be released and
recognized as a class so that a class-action case can move
forward.

ICE has opposed the two earlier ACLU filings that convinced U.S.
District Judge John E. Jones III to issue a temporary restraining
order that released two groups of detainees being held in the
prisons.

In both filings, York County Prison Warden Clair Doll is named as a
respondent by the ACLU.

Jones' first ruling, on March 31, ordered ICE to release 10 of 13
detainees being represented by ACLU of Pennsylvania and Dechert Law
Firm in Philadelphia. The other three detainees were released by
ICE prior to the judge's order.  [GN]



UNITED STATES: Department of Health Faces Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
WHTM reports that the Department of Health is facing a class-action
lawsuit for not inspecting long-term care facilities.

The Brighton Rehabilitation and Wellness Center in Beaver County
had 58 residents die of COVID-19 and 248 others test positive.

According to the lawsuit the Department of Health did not regularly
inspect the facility and allegedly did not stop the facility from
using an experimental treatment on residents without their
consent.

The suit demands a court ordered injuction requiring these
inspections.

The Department of Health has not commented on it but says it is
following the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services
recommendations and guidelines. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Doe Challenges Exclusion of Citizens in CARES Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President
of the United States, MITCH MCCONNELL, in his official capacity as
Senate Majority Leader and sponsor of S.3548 CARES Act, STEVEN
MNUCHIN, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States
Department of the Treasury, Case No. 2:20-cv-04129-SVW-JEM (C.D.
Cal., May 5, 2020), alleges that the CARES Act discriminates
against any United States citizen, who is married to an individual,
who do not have a Social Security number by preventing them from
receiving critical payments.

On March 27, 2020, President Trump signed S.3548, the Coronavirus
Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), in response to
the economic impact of the COVID-19 outbreak.

The Plaintiff is a United States citizen, who resides in Gardena,
California, with his wife, a Belizean citizen, and his two young
children, both of whom are United States citizens.

The CARES Act provides funding for $1,200 payments to individuals,
plus an additional $500 payments per qualifying child, and phases
out when incomes exceed $75,000 (or $150,000 for joint filers). The
Plaintiff contends that the prohibition infringes on the
fundamental right to marry, the freedom of expression, and the
right to assemble, discriminates based on alienage and marital
status, and deprives United States citizens of due process rights
and equal protection as guaranteed by the Constitution.

Donald J. Trump is the President of the United States who signed
into law the CARES Act and insisted that his name appear on the
"memo" line of each stimulus check issued under it.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Joshua D. Boxer, Esq.
          Corey B. Bennett, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  jboxer@maternlawgroup.com
                  cbennett@maternlawgroup.com


UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Kincheloe Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
---------------------------------------------------------
ARICA KINCHELOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-03015 (N.D. Ill., May 20, 2020), sues Defendant for
breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

Plaintiff was enrolled as a full-time student for 2020 third and
fourth academic quarters at Defendant's institution and paid
tuition and fees for in-person activities and the benefit of taking
courses at the campus with live teacher interaction.

However, Defendant announced on March 12, 2020 that all class were
moving online and in-person on-campus activities were suspended or
restricted.

Plaintiff and members of the putative class claim that they were
deprived of fully utilizing services for which they already paid,
and thus, they demand for a refund of their tuition fees which
Defendant failed to adequately and properly comply.

The University of Chicago is a private research university located
in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Julie O. Herrera, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JULIE O. HERRERA
          53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1615
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Tel: 312-834-7150
          Email: jherrera@julieherreralaw.com

                - and -

          Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
          Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
          GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
          501 Fifth Ave., 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Tel: (212) 983-1300
          Emails: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
                  gegleston@gme-law.com


VISION FINANCIAL: Defrauds Commodities Customers, Kumaran Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA SIVA KUMARAN, CUSTOMERS 1-100, CTA'S 1-100, NEFERTITI RISK
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VISION FINANCIAL MARKETS, LLC;
VISION INVESTMENT ADVISORS, INC; VISION BROKERAGE SERVICES, LLC; H
ROTHMAN FAMILY ADVISORS, INC.; BOSHNACK FAMILY, LLC; HIGH RIDGE
HOLDING CORPORATION, INC.; HIGH RIDGE FUTURES, LLC; HOWARD ROTHMAN;
ROBERT BOSHNACK; JOHN FELAG; JULIE VILLA; GERARD STEPHEN LAZZARA;
and LAZZARA CONSULTING, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03871-UA
(S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, fraud, fraudulent inducement of contract, aiding
and abetting in fraud, civil conspiracy, misappropriation of trade
secrets, aiding and abetting in misappropriation, unfair
competition and misappropriation of confidential information,
interference in economic advantage, and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated individuals who opened accounts at ADM Investors
Services, Inc. (ADMIS) during the period September 2014 until
present date, allege that the Defendants engaged in a fraudulent
scheme, together with ADMIS, and the owners, employees, and
affiliates of the disbarred futures clearing merchant Vision
Financial Markets, LLC, and aided by various key insiders at the
National Futures Association, Tom Kadlec, and two compliance
officers, to deceive, and defraud thousands of commodities futures
customers and commodity trading advisors (CTA) in the commodities
futures markets, who innocently opened accounts at ADMIS.

The Defendants' illegal acts include (a) to extract an amount
estimated to be over $50 million in dollars of unauthorized fees
(b) to deplete the performance history of their competitor CTA's,
including Kumaran, to diminish their profitability of as much as
12% in return a year, by suppressing performance of their trading
account, in unfair market competition, (c) improperly acquired,
disseminated and used, the confidential trading records, and risk
management strategies of their competitor, CTA's and customers, and
then, in direct competition formed a computing CTA called Vision
Investment; (d) through the trading of numerous proprietary
accounts under the family offices of Rothman, Boshnack and other
affiliates named as Defendants, used and incorporate the
proprietary trading strategies and risk management strategies in
direct competition; (e) materially took actions to harm their
competitors CTA's, by the diversion of Assets Under Management by
having direct acquisition of their trade secrets, diverting capital
raise away from their competitors, and improperly acquired access
to all their confidential and proprietary trading record.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful conduct, the Plaintiffs and
Class members have suffered damages that include without
limitation, irreparable harm in loss of their confidential and
trade secrets, financial losses in their trading accounts,
depletion and losses in CTA's performance records, damages to their
good will and other impacts to their CTA careers, reductions to the
financial trading account balances, financial losses to their
property, livelihoods and investments in the futures industry, as
well as other significant damages.

Nefertiti Risk Capital Management, LLC was a minority women-owned
small business and sole proprietor located in New York.

Vision Financial Markets, LLC is a brokerage firm with principal
place of business located at 4 High Ridge Park, Suite 100,
Stamford, Connecticut.

Vision Investment Advisors, LLC is a money management and advisory
firm headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.

Vision Brokerage Services, LLC is a brokerage services provider
headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.

H Rothman Family Advisors, Inc. is a family office and trading firm
located at 4 High Ridge Park, Suite 100, Stamford, Connecticut.

Boshnack Family, LLC is a family office and trading firm located at
631 Long Ridge Rd, Unit 56, Stamford, Connecticut.

High Ridge Holding Corporation, Inc. is a registered holding
company located at 120 Long Ridge Road 3, North, Stamford,
Connecticut.

High Ridge Futures, LLC is an introducing broker located at 4 High
Ridge Park, Suite 100, Stamford, Connecticut.

Lazzara Consulting, Inc. is an introducing broker located at 11610
Fm 2244, Suite 210 Austin, Texas. [BN]

WHEREZ HEMP: Faces Klitzner TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Text
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Klitzner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WHEREZ HEMP, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00926-JLS-MSB (S.D.
Cal., May 18, 2020), arises from the illegal actions of the
Defendant in negligently contacting the Plaintiff's cellular
telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
thereby, invading the Plaintiff's privacy.

Through an unsolicited message, the Defendant contacted the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone regarding an unsolicited service via
an "automatic telephone dialing system" ("ATDS"), as defined by and
prohibited by the TCPA, according to the complaint. At no time did
the Plaintiff provide the Plaintiff's cellular number to the
Defendant through any medium, nor did the Plaintiff consent to
receive such unsolicited texts. The Plaintiff has never signed-up
for, and has never used, the Defendant's services, and has never
had any form of business relationship with the Defendant. The
Defendant is and was aware that it is placing unsolicited
telemarketing text messages to the Plaintiff and other consumers
without their prior express consent The Plaintiff was damaged by
the Defendant's message.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Broward County, Florida.

The Defendant is a California Profit Corporation and citizen of the
state of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WILMINGTON TRUST: Settles ERISA Lawsuit for $19.5 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
Pensions & Investments reports that Wilmington Trust agreed to pay
$19.5 million to settle an ERISA class-action lawsuit filed against
the company while denying the allegations or any wrongdoing.

"We are pleased to resolve the claims in this case and avoid what
could have been a protracted and expensive legal proceeding," a
spokeswoman said in an email. "While we deny all allegations with
respect to these claims, we feel that this settlement is the best
way for all parties to move forward."

The spokeswoman added: "As always, we believe we have acted in
accordance with all applicable laws, industry best practices and
will continue to carry out our legacy and commitment to quality
client services."

The class action, filed Nov. 2, 2017, in U.S. District Court in
Wilmington, Del., by Lyle J. Guidry and Rodney Choate, claimed
participants in the Martin Resource Management Corp. ESOP Plan were
"deprived of their hard-earned retirement benefits" as a result of
Wilmington Trust acquiring shares of Martin Resource Management
Corp.

In 2012 and 2013, Wilmington Trust bought stock in MRMC. Some of
the stock was purchased through loan proceeds. The two transactions
"allowed party in interest sellers to unload their interests in
MRMC at more than fair market value, and saddle plan participants
with millions of dollars of debt payable to parties in interest to
finance the transaction," the complaint said.

Martin Resource Management Corp. ESOP Plan had $60 million in
assets and $128 million in liabilities as of Dec. 31, 2018,
according to its latest Form 5550.[GN]



WW INTERNATIONAL: Faces Vodden Suit Over Unlawfully Charged Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Vodden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WW INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-03856
(S.D.N.Y., May 18, 2020), accuses the Defendant of violating the
New York General Business Law, California Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all of the Defendant's
customers nationwide, who have paid or were charged fees while the
Defendant's in person Weight Watchers workshops were cancelled. The
Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of express warranties,
negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment, money had
and received, conversion, and breach of contract.

To sign up for the Defendant's memberships, customers provide the
Defendant with their credit card or debit card information. The
Defendant then automatically charges their customers' credit or
debit cards as payments are due on a monthly basis. On March 14,
2020, the Defendant announced that all of its workshops would be
transitioned to virtual Workshops through April 4, 2020, due to the
COVID-19 crisis.  As of May 2020, all workshops were conducted
virtually, and the Defendant no longer offers in-person workshops.

However, the Plaintiff contends, unlike other companies, the
Defendant charged its customers for the full price of their
memberships and an additional virtual workshop fee, even though
their in-person workshops have been terminated and members have
already paid for workshops. Simply put, the Defendant is double
dipping by retaining members' usual in-person workshop fees and
charging them each month for their virtual workshops, the Plaintiff
alleges. She adds that the Defendant has also refused to reimburse
pre-paid customers for the time they were unable to attend
in-person workshops, or for the additional virtual workshop fee.

The Defendant has made the unconscionable decision to keep charging
its hundreds of thousands of members' membership fees while
stopping 100 percent of its in-person workshops as the novel
coronavirus, COVID-19, rages throughout the world and the United
States economy has gone into a deep recession, says the complaint.

Ms. Vodden became a member of the Defendant's in-person workshop
program.

The Defendant is the operator of more than 3,000 Weight Watchers
locations in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Phone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          Email: fklorczyk@bursor.com


YANKA INDUSTRIES: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yanka Industries,
Inc. The case is styled as Angel Rodriguez, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Yanka
Industries, Inc. doing business as: MasterClass, Case No.
1:20-cv-02228 (E.D.N.Y., May 18, 2020).

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

Yanka Industries Inc, doing business as MasterClass, provides
online education solutions. The Company offers online video
education solutions that includes class workbooks, interactive
assignments, and community activities.[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


ZOOM VIDEO: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP announces that on April 8, 2020, it filed a
securities class action lawsuit, captioned Brams v. Zoom Video
Communications, Inc., No. 20-cv-2396 (N.D. Cal.) (the "Action"), on
behalf of its client Kim Brams against Zoom Video Communications,
Inc. and certain executives (collectively, "Defendants"). The
Action, which asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, is brought on behalf of all persons
and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Zoom securities
from April 18, 2019 through April 6, 2020, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"), who were damaged thereby (the "Class").

Zoom designs, develops, and sells a popular cloud-based
communications platform that concentrates on video conferencing.
Zoom's flagship product is "Zoom Meetings" which is a service that
allows remote users to communicate with one another through video
conferencing, collaborative meetings, text based chat, and file
sharing. During the first quarter of 2020 and moving into April
2020, the COVID-19 pandemic placed millions of people under
directives from their state and local governments to "stay at home"
or "shelter in place." Because of Zoom's purported security,
reliability, and ease of use, the Company was seemingly well
positioned to capture this new market and see exponential growth.
Accordingly, Zoom video meetings exploded in popularity.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Zoom had
inadequate data privacy and security measures; (ii) contrary to
Zoom's assertions, the Company's video communications service was
not end-to-end encrypted; (iii) as a result of all the foregoing,
users of Zoom's communications services were at an increased risk
of having their personal information accessed by unauthorized
parties, including Facebook; (iv) usage of the Company's video
communications services was foreseeably likely to decline when the
foregoing facts came to light; and (v) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

While reports of deficiencies in Zoom's software encryption began
to come to light as early as July 2019, its services would only
come under enhanced scrutiny following its boom in popularity in
2020. Beginning in late March 2020, countless news reports detailed
shocking privacy issues and vulnerabilities with Zoom's products,
and revealed that the company had significantly overstated the
degree to which its video communication software was encrypted.
Zoom would be forced to issue numerous apologies, including the
admission by the Company's CEO that he "really messed up."
Following these revelations, the Company's stock price experienced
significant declines, thereby damaging investors.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Zoom securities during the
Class Period and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the
"Class" and may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Lead
Plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California no later than June 8, 2020.
The Lead Plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent
members of the Class.

You do not need to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff to share in
any Class recovery in the Action.

If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class,
you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may
retain counsel of your choice to represent you in the Action.

If you would like to learn more about these claims, or have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact:

         David J. Schwartz, Esq.
         Labaton Sucharow,
         Tel: (800) 321-0476,
         E-mail: dschwartz@labaton.com
[GN]

[*] Timothy L. Miles Has Been Named Avvo Rated Top Lawyer
---------------------------------------------------------
Avvo confirmed that Timothy L. Miles, a nationally recognized
securities class action attorney from Hendersonville, Tennessee,
has achieved the Avvo Rated Top Lawyer 2020, after first achieving
this rating in 2017. Mr. Miles is a Superb Rated Attorney by Avvo,
(10.0 out of 10), their Highest Rating Possible, and has maintained
this rating since since 2017.

Mr. Miles is a native of Nashville, Tennessee whose practice
focuses exclusively on representing investors in securities fraud
class actions, shareholder derivative actions and corporate mergers
and acquisitions class actions. Mr. Miles has maintained the AV
Preeminent Rating by Martindale-Hubbell since 2014, their highest
rating for both legal ability and ethics. This rating is only
awarded to approximately 10% of all attorneys across the United
States, and is the highest rating offered by the Martindale-Hubbell
Law Directory. According to Martindale-Hubbell, "[a]n elite group
of approximately 10 percent of all attorneys holds an AV Preeminent
Rating, a designation trusted worldwide by buyers and referrers of
legal services. Previously, Mr. Miles was awarded The Top-Rated
Lawyer in Litigation™ in Litigation for Ethical Standards and
Legal Ability by Martindale-Hubbell® (2015). Mr. Miles also
maintains an AV Preeminent Rating on Lawyers.com, after first
achieving this rating in 2018.

Additionally, Mr. Miles was recently selected for the second year
in a row as a 2020 Top Rank Litigator and 2020 Top Ranked Lawyer by
Martindale-Hubbell(R) and ALM. Last year, Mr. Miles was selected by
Martindale-Hubbell® and ALM as a 2019 Top Ranked Lawyer; 2019 Top
Rated Litigator; and a 2019 Elite Lawyer of The South. Mr. Miles is
also member of the prestigious Top 100 Civil Plaintiff Trial
Lawyers: The National Trial Lawyers Association, which is by
invitation only and is "extended to those attorneys who exemplify
superior qualifications, trial results, and leadership in their
respective state based upon objective and uniformly applied
criteria." Mr. Miles was also recognized as a Distinguished Lawyer,
Recognizing Excellence in Securities Law, Lawyers of Distinction
(2019) and named as a recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award
by Premier Lawyers of America, a prestigious, invitation-only
organization which recognizes the best lawyers in America.
View photos

                    About Timothy L. Miles

Timothy L. Miles is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
attorney raised in Nashville, Tennessee. Awards: Top Ranked Lawyer
by Martindale-Hubbell® and ALM (2019-20); Top Rated Litigator by
Martindale-Hubbell® and ALM (2019-20); 2019 Elite Lawyer of The
South by Martindale-Hubbell® and ALM (2019); Member of the Top 100
Civil Plaintiff Trial Lawyers: The National Trial Lawyers
Association (2017-2020); AV® Preeminent™ Rating by
Martindale-Hubble® (2014-2020); PRR AV Preeminent Rating on
Lawyers.com (2018-20); The Top-Rated Lawyer in Litigation™ for
Ethical Standards and Legal Ability (Martindale-Hubble® 2015);
Lifetime Achievement Award by Premier Lawyers of America (2019);
Superb Rated Attorney (Avvo); Avvo Top Rated Lawyer (Avvo)
(2017-20). Mr. Miles has authored numerous publications advocating
for shareholdings including most recently: Free Portfolio
Monitoring Services Offered by Plaintiff Securities Firms Provides
Significant Benefits To Investors (Timothy L. Miles, Dec. 3,
2019).

Contact:

         Timothy L. Miles, Esq.
         Law Offices of Timothy L. Miles
         124 Shiloh Ridge
         Hendersonville, TN 37075
         Telephone: (855-846-6529)
         E-mail: tmiles@timmileslaw.com
         Web site: http://www.timmileslaw.com/
[GN]



[*] US Firms Bring Wave of Class Actions v. Insurance Cos.
----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. businesses decimated by the COVID-19 pandemic filed federal
class-action lawsuits against six insurance companies for denial of
policy claims they had purchased to protect against business
interruptions. The suits represent the broadest effort yet to
compel insurance companies to fulfill promises made to hundreds of
thousands of U.S. businesses that purchased insurance coverage to
protect against precisely this situation. The class actions are
filed against Aspen American Insurance, Auto-Owners Insurance,
Lloyd's of London, Society Insurance, Oregon Mutual Insurance, and
Topa Insurance Company. Initial plaintiffs include a San Diego
restaurant and nightclub; a Cleveland-area bridal retailer; a
Madison, Wisc. bakery and cafe; a local Minnesota chain of
restaurants and bars; a St. Paul, Minn. dental practice; a
Portland, Ore. restaurant; and a New York restaurant group and
pizzeria.

Each of the lawsuits claims that the businesses purchased special
property insurance coverage to protect against business
interruptions or disruptions outside of their control. These
policies included business income coverage, which promises to pay
for losses due to necessary suspension of operations. In all
instances, these coverages either included or did not expressly or
effectively exclude losses caused by viruses such as COVID-19,
which caused state and municipal governments to mandate widespread
business closures. Despite these facts, the insurers have, on a
broad and uniform basis, refused to uphold their contractual
responsibilities for losses suffered due to COVID-19, as well as
losses caused by executive orders by civil authorities and any
efforts to prevent further property damage or to minimize the
suspension of business and continue operations.

"Businesses nationwide have, for years, purchased expensive
insurance policies to protect them from losses exactly like those
they are currently enduring," said Adam Levitt, co-counsel to the
plaintiffs' and a partner at DiCello Levitt Gutzler. "For many
small business owners trying to provide for their families and
employees, this type of insurance coverage was an additional
expense that they would have preferred not to carry but felt a
responsibility to do so. For insurers to now tell them, in the most
challenging of times, that the joke was on them and their policies
were worthless, is unethical and abhorrent."

Most property insurance policies sold in the United States,
including those sold by the defendants, are all-risk property
damage policies. These types of policies cover all risks of loss,
except for risks that are expressly and specifically excluded.

"Insurers will deny almost every claim – even the most legitimate
ones – because that's just how they operate," said Mark Lanier,
co-counsel to the plaintiffs and founder of The Lanier Law Firm.
"But at the end of the day, this really is a straightforward issue
about honoring their agreements. As our nation emerges from this
horrific pandemic, businesses of all sizes will be critical to
restarting the economy. In playing their usual claim-denial games,
these insurers are threatening the welfare of not only
small-business owners and their families, but the entire U.S.
economy."

The plaintiffs are represented by Adam Levitt, Mark DiCello and Ken
Abbarno of DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC; Mark Lanier and Alex Brown
of the Lanier Law Firm PC; Timothy Burns, Jeff Bowen, Freya Bowen
and Jesse Bair of Burns Bowen Bair LLP; and Douglas Daniels of
Daniels & Tredennick. They are joined by local counsel in all
jurisdictions.

"Countless businesses across the United States are pinning their
hopes of reopening and rehiring laid-off or furloughed employees on
proceeds from insurance," said Timothy Burns, a partner at Burns
Bowen Bair LLP. "Insurance companies thrive by selling protection
against maladies of all kinds. They pocket huge profits when
material events are avoided but must bear the responsibility of
honoring their policies on the rare occasions when these events
occur. By refusing to do so, they are not running a business at
all, but a large-scale rigged carnival game where no matter the
scenario, the customer always loses. It's just not right, and we
will do everything in our power to ensure that these businesses are
made whole."

The cases include:

    * Gio Pizzeria & Bar Hospitality, LLC and Gio Pizzeria Boca,
LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York
    * Rising Dough, Inc., et al. v. Society Insurance, U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
    * Bridal Expressions LLC v. Owners Insurance Company, U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
    * Caribe Restaurant & Nightclub, Inc. v. Topa Insurance
Company, U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California
    * Dakota Ventures, LLC d/b/a/Kokopelli Grill v. Oregon Mutual
Insurance Co.; U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
    * Christie Jo Berkseth-Rojas DDS v. Aspen American Insurance
Company; U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas

Copies of each of the complaints can be provided upon request and
the plaintiffs' attorneys are available for media interviews.

                     About DiCello Levitt

DiCello Levitt combines excellence in commercial litigation, class
action litigation, mass tort litigation, catastrophic injury
litigation, medical malpractice litigation, and civil rights
litigation. Practicing nationwide—and internationally—from
offices in Chicago, Cleveland, New York, and St. Louis, we are an
aggressive, attentive, and creative plaintiffs' firm whose work
speaks for itself—billions of dollars in recoveries in some of
the highest-profile matters in U.S. history. Revered by clients and
respected by defense counsel, our team gets results.

                 About The Lanier Law Firm PC

For more than 30 years, the men and women at the Lanier Law Firm
have worked tirelessly, throughout the United States, to find
unique and effective solutions for their clients. More than 60
skilled attorneys practice law in a broad array of areas, including
business litigation, pharmaceutical litigation, asbestos exposure,
oil and gas litigation, personal injury, and defective and
dangerous products, among others. Named an Elite Trial Law Firm by
The National Law Journal, the Lanier Law Firm has offices in
Houston, New York, Los Angeles, and Oklahoma City. To learn more
about Mark Lanier and the Lanier Law Firm, visit
https://www.lanierlawfirm.com.

                  About Burns Bowen Bair LLP

Based in Madison, Wisc., Burns Bowen Bair represents corporations,
boards of directors, investment funds, public entities,
professional firms, unions, tribes, hospitals, bankruptcy trustees,
churches, plaintiff classes, and individuals in complex coverage,
bad faith, financial fraud, and counterparty disputes with
insurance companies.

                  About Daniels & Tredennick

Daniels & Tredennick is a trial firm in Houston, Texas. Our lawyers
have over 100 years of combined experience practicing law. We come
from a variety of backgrounds having been involved in public
service, education, large law firms, and boutique personal injury
firms. We have grown to twenty-three attorneys: seven Partners,
eleven Associates, and five Of Counsel.

Contact:

         Jason Milch
         Baretz+Brunelle
         E-mail: jmilch@baretzbrunelle.com
         Tel: (312) 379-9406
[GN]




                            *********

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 ***