---

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

              Friday, May 29, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 108

                            Headlines

ACTIVATE FINANCIAL: Settlement in Johnson Suit Gets Final Approval
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE: Lake Hits Delayed/Denied Cancer Treatment
ALLIED COMMUNICATIONS: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Brown FLSA Suit
AV HOMES: Partial Certification in Gundel Suit Upheld in Part
B O X ACQUISITIONS: Ramos Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

BEIERSDORF INC: Somers Appeals S.D. California Ruling to 9th Cir.
BOARDWALK PIPELINES: Doucet Seeks Unpaid OT Wages for Inspectors
BRANDT INDUSTRIES: Sherman Hits Biometrics Data Retention Policy
CADUS CORP: NY County Supreme Court Junks Freedman Stockholder Suit
CAPITAL BLUE CROSS: Bellan Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

CENLAR AGENCY: Faces Class Action Over Debt Collection Calls
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS: Sued Over Business Income Coverage
CHARTER COMMS: Bid to Strike Portions of Harper Partly Granted
CHICAGO BOARD: 7th Circuit Appeal Filed in Barry Antitrust Suit
CONNECTICUT: ACLU's Class Action Seeks Release of Prisoners

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Ammons Law Firm Files Class Action
DOLLY INC: Court Narrows Claims in Vann FLSA Suit
DURON TECH: Perez Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
EARTHWHILE ENDEAVORS: Misleads Pet Product Buyers, Lan Do Claims
ENTERTAINMENT CONSULTING: Seefeldt Stayed Pending Ruling in Barr

FLORIDA CAREER: Former Students File Class Action
GDS HOLDINGS: He & Zollo Appeal Ruling in Ramzan Securities Suit
GRACO CHILDREN'S: Kids' Booster Seats Unsafe, Tehomilic Claims
GRAND CANYON: Ogdon Sues Over Unlawful Enrolment of Students
HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Student A Sues Over Failure to Refund Fees

HD CLINIC: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages Under FLSA, Ponder Claims
HEROIC REAL: Faces Phelps TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Marketing Texts
HEXO CORP: Court Consolidates Perez & Hudak Securities Suits
HOUSEPARTY: Swigart Law Group Files Privacy Class Action
HYDROPONICS INC: Camacho Sues Over Illegal SMS Ads

HYVEE: Must Face Class Action Over Data Breach
JANSSEN PHARMA: Allen Alleges Elmiron Causes Retina Damage
JC PENNEY: Settlement in Hernandez TCPA Suit Gets Prelim. Approval
JERSEY MIKE'S: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Thorne ADA Suit
JOHN DOE CORP: Sapon Sues Over Underpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages

JPMORGAN CHASE: Smukler Sues Over Refusal to Pay for Services
K-3 RESOURCES: Underpays Drivers, Skinner Claims
KENTUCKY TAX: Court Rules on Case Dismissal Motion in Nagel Suit
KIBO SOFTWARE INC: West Claims Website Inaccessible to Blind
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Court Stays Davis Suit Pending Ruling in Accardi

LUSTRE-CAL: Hulce Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
MARIST COLLEGE: Fedele Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
MARYLAND MARKETSOURCE: Esparza Remanded to San Mateo Superior Court
MASSACHUSETTS BAY: Caballero Sues Over Denied Benefit Claims
MBF INSPECTION: Erwin Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

MDL 2742: Settlement in Sunedison Securities Suit Gets Final OK
MERCY COLLEGE: Thomas Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
MONSANTO COMPANY: Myhre Sues Over Crop System's Damaging Effect
MONSANTO COMPANY: Sells Defective Crop System, Hawkins Alleges
MT. HAWLEY INSURANCE: Drama Camp Hits Denied Benefit Claims

NESTLE WATERS NA: Conner Claims Website not Blind-accessible
NEVADA: Dismissal of Shannon Suit Over Lump-Sum Award v. DIR Upheld
PFIZER INC: Cesar Castillo Sues for Delayed Generic Lipitor Rival
PRIME CONSULTING: Wagner Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
PRIVATE LENDERS: Alliant CPA Seeks to Recover Agent Fees

QUEBEC: Inmate with COVID-19 Files Class Action
RANBAXY INC: MSP et al. Allege Racketeering in Generic Drug Market
RASH CURTIS: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Perez Telemarketing Suit
ROADRUNNER TIRE: Wallace Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages, Injury
RYDER SYSTEM: Key West Sues Over Drop in Securities' Market Value

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Silvester Claims
SC JOHNSON: Shimanovsky Hits Toxic Ingredients in Windex Product
SIRIUS XM: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Meza TCPA Suit
SK ENERGY: Conspired to Increase Gas Prices, Accurate Testing Says
SOUTH CAROLINA: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Turka Securities Suit

SPEEDWAY LLC: Wagner Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
SQUARETRADE INC: Florenzano Appeals Decision in Swinton Suit
ST. RITA CORP: Soliman Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
TAN REPUBLIC: Faces Rogers TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Text Ads
TILT HOLDINGS: Averts Class Action Over Unwanted Texts

TILT HOLDINGS: Two Law Firms File Shareholder Class Action
UNITED STATES: ACLU Sues ICE on Behalf of Yuba County Detainees
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO: Two Class Actions Seek Fee Refunds
USA: Denial of Bid to Reconsider Claim Order in Pigford Upheld
UTICA NATIONAL: Refuses Coverage of COVID-19 Losses, Slate Claims

UTZ QUALITY FOODS: West Claims Website Inaccessible to Blind
VIKING GROUP: Crace Seeks Overtime Premiums, Withheld Tips
WAL-MART STORES: $2.9M Settlement in Evans Suit Gets Prelim. OK
WAL-MART STORES: Court Grants Partial Dismissal Bid in Garrett Suit
WEICHERT CO: Denial of NJR's Bid to Intervene in Kennedy Upheld

WELLS FARGO: Faces Tanner RESPA Suit Alleging Breach of Contract
WESCO AIRCRAFT: Gray Appeals Order in Securities Suit to 2nd Cir.
WESTERN LAND SERVICES: Turner Sues Over Denied Overtime Pay
WESTERN UNION: 10th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Smallen Trust Suit
YES ONLINE INC: Compton Files Suit Under FDCPA

[*] Waterloo Village Joins Seneca Lake Contamination Class Action

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Still Defends Mount Vernon Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Had $337MM Reserves at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Has Ongoing SEC Claims Investigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Has $135MM PCC Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had 56,000 Claims at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Had $5.5MM Asbestos Coverage at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Had 39,200 Claims Pending in March
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules LLC Had $242MM Reserves at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $1.5BB Bendix Liabilities in March
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $844MM NARCO Liabilities at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Seeks to Nix Suit on Asbestos Accounting
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Units Had 24,000 Claims Pending at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson & Johnson Still Defends 4 Derivative Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Mexico Files Consumer Case on J&J Products
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 574 Claims Pending at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had 1,585 Fibro Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor's Appeal in Calif. Suit Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Tech. Has $532.6MM Liabilities at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Still Face 9 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Faces 11,144 Claims at March 31



                            *********

ACTIVATE FINANCIAL: Settlement in Johnson Suit Gets Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ARTHUR JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ACTIVATE FINANCIAL, LLC, and JOHN
DOES 1-25, Defendants, No. 1:19-cv-3359-GHW (S.D. N.Y.), Judge
Gregory H. Woods of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted final approval of the class action
settlement.

The Court has preliminarily approved the settlement class defines
as all consumers located in New York City, to whom the Defendant
sent initial letters and/or notices from April 15, 2018 through and
including April 15, 2019, attempting to collect a debt owed to NCB
Management Services, Inc., which stated in part: Unless you notify
Activate Financial, LLC to the address specified above, within 30
days after receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of
this debt or any portion thereof, Activate Financial, LLC will
assume this debt to be valid.

Having reviewed and considered the terms and conditions of the
Settlement Agreement, and having determined that the Parties have
complied with the Court's Nov. 22, 2019 Preliminary Approval Order,
Judge Woods approved the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the
Preliminary Approval Order.  The Judge concluded that the
settlement is sufficiently within the range of reasonableness to
warrant final certification of the settlement class (as that term
is defined in the Settlement Agreement) and consummation of the
settlement.

Joseph K. Jones, Esq., is appointed as class counsel; and Johnson
as class representative of the class.

The settlement, on the terms and conditions provided for in the
Settlement Agreement, are finally approved as fair, reasonable and
adequate.  The released claims of Johnson, his related parties and
the class members, should be dismissed on the merits and with
prejudice, as to the Defendant.  The class members, as individuals
and as class members, are permanently precluded from asserting
claims, individually or as a class member, that arise from or
relate to the subject matter of the lawsuit against the Released
Parties by the class members or any other persons.

The application for attorneys' fees, costs and expenses submitted
by the Class Counsel in connection with the Final Approval Hearing
is approved.  

The application for payment of statutory and actual damages to
Johnson is also approved.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 21, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/d5Hxrm from Leagle.com.

Arthur Johnson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Jarret Wolf, Jones,
Wolf & Kapasi, LLC & Joseph Karl Jones, Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC.

Activate Financial, LLC, Defendant, represented by Patrick Jacob
Bernal -- pjbernal@michaelbest.com -- Witten, Woolington & Campbell
P.C. & Michael C. Barnhill -- mcbarnhill@michaelbest.com -- Michael
Best & Friedrich LLP.


AETNA LIFE INSURANCE: Lake Hits Delayed/Denied Cancer Treatment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Lake, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-01085, (M.D. Fla., May 11, 2020), seeks disgorgement from
Aetna Life of the funds it has saved in delaying treatment to
policyholders. The Plaintiff also seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief resulting from unjust enrichment, breach of contract and
violation of fiduciary obligations under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

Proton Beam Radiation Therapy is a radiation therapy to treat a
tumor while reducing doses to healthy tissues and organs, which
results in fewer complications and side effects than traditional
radiation treatments. Lake is an Aetna Life policy holder who claim
to spend a significant amount of time in appeals, and pleas, to
Aetna to reverse its initial denials and approve the treatment
despite proton beam radiation therapy being recognized as an
established, medically appropriate treatment for various forms of
cancer for decades.

Aetna is a global health care benefits company which offers,
insures, underwrites and administers health benefits plans,
including Lake's health benefits plan. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stephanie A. Casey, Esq.
     COLSON HICKS EIDSON
     255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Telephone: (305) 476-7400
     Facsimile: (305) 476-7444
     E-mail: eservice@colson.com
             scasey@colson.com

             - and -

     Harley S. Tropin, Esq.
     Maria D. Garcia, Esq.
     Robert Neary, Esq.
     Frank A. Florio, Esq.
     KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON, LLP
     2525 Ponce de Leon, 9th Floor
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Telephone: (305) 372-1800
     Facsimile: (305) 372-3508
     Email: hst@kttlaw.com
            mgarcia@kttlaw.com
            rn@kttlaw.com
            fflorio@kttlaw.com


ALLIED COMMUNICATIONS: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Brown FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL BROWN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALLIED COMMUNICATIONS CORP. d/b/a
BOOST MOBILE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00689 (S.D.
Ohio), Judge Michael E. Barrett of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, denied the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6).

Brown commenced the civil action seeking unpaid wages, specifically
overtime wages, under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and
the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA").  His claims
are asserted as a collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) and
as a class action to remedy any violations of the OMFWSA.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants -- Allied and Sameh Ayoub
-- are Boost Mobile retailers with some 130 locations in Ohio and
multiple other states.  He was employed by them as a non-exempt
sales representative between October 2017 and June 2018.  The
Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek, on
average approximately ten overtime hours per workweek.  However, he
was not paid overtime compensation for those additional hours;
rather, the Plaintiff was only paid straight time for those hours
worked more than 40 hours per workweek.

The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint under Rule
12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and under Rule
12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.

Judge Barrett finds that (i) the Plaintiff has sufficiently pled
that the Defendants were his employers; (ii) the Plaintiff has
sufficiently pled an overtime violation; (iii) the Plaintiff does
not allege a separate cause of action relating to the Defendants'
failure to keep accurate record; and (iv) the Defendants do not
currently challenge the "numerosity" requirement vis-a-vis the
Plaintiff's class allegations.

For these reasons, Judge Barrett denies the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss in its entirety.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 21, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/jyB6P8 from Leagle.com.

Michael Brown, on behalf of yourself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Chastity Lynn Christy --
chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com -- & Lori M. Griffin --
lori@lazzarolawfirm.com -- Lazzaro Law Firm, LLC.

Allied Communications Corp, doing business as Boost Mobile & Sameh
Ayoub, Defendants, represented by Carl A. Aveni, II --
caveni@cpmlaw.com -- Carlile Patchen & Murphy LLP, Jeffrey James
Patter, Carlile Patchen & Murphy LLP & Maria Consolacion Mariano
Guthrie -- mguthrie@keglerbrown.com -- Kegler Brown Hill + Ritter.


AV HOMES: Partial Certification in Gundel Suit Upheld in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NORMAN GUNDEL; WILLIAM MANN; and BRENDA TAYLOR,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons,
Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. AV HOMES, INC. and AVATAR
PROPERTIES, INC., Appellees/Cross-Appellants, Case No. 2D18-3199
(Fla. Dist. App.), the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second
District, affirmed in part and reversed in part the non-final order
granting in part the Appellants' amended motion for class
certification.

Residents Gundel, Mann, and Taylor filed a class action complaint
against AV Homes and Avatar Properties alleging violations of
Florida's Homeowners' Association Act, and the Florida Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act, seeking declaratory relief,
injunctive relief, and damages.  Avatar Properties is the developer
of Solivita, the retirement community in Polk County in which the
Residents own homes.  In their complaint, the Residents claimed
that Avatar Properties and AV Homes violated the law when they
created both the Solivita Community Association and the Club Plan,
each of which require Solivita homeowners to pay fees.

The second amended class action complaint includes five counts for
declaratory relief under Florida's Homeowners' Association Act, two
counts for injunctive relief under the HOA Act and the FDUTPA, and
five counts for damages.

The counts pertinent to the issues on appeal by the Residents are
as follows:

      a. Count I sought a declaration that (a) the HOA Act applies
         to the Club Plan; (b) the HOA Act applies to Avatar
         Properties and AV Homes; and (c) the liens the Club Plan
         purports to impose on Solivita homes are invalid.

      b. Count II sought a declaration that the residents, as
         mandatory members in the Club, are entitled to voting
         rights in its operations.

      c. Count III sought a declaration that (a) the Club
         facilities are common property under the HOA Act that
         had to be delivered to the association upon the sale
         of 90% of the units; and (b) Avatar Properties and AV
         Homes were prohibited from unilaterally amending the
         governing documents to the prejudice of the residents'
         rights to use and enjoy them.

      d. Count V sought a declaration that the perpetual
         covenant purportedly imposed by the Club Plan is
         invalid and so the obligation to pay Club Dues is
         terminable at will.

      e. Count VI sought to enjoin Avatar Properties and AV Homes
         from profiting from the mandatory Club membership fees
         in violation of the HOA Act and their fiduciary duty.
      
      f. Count VII sought to enjoin Avatar Properties and AV
         Homes from continuing to violate FDUTPA through their
         deceptive and unfair club fee scheme.

      g. Count VIII sought damages and an accounting based on
         Avatar Properties and AV Homes violation of section
         720.308 of the HOA Act by collecting dues through a
         perpetual assessment that exceeded expenses.

      h. Count XI sought damages for Avatar Properties and
         AV Homes violations of FDUTPA for the amount Club
         dues assessments exceeded expenses.

On Oct. 5, 2017, Avatar Properties and AV Homes moved for final
summary judgment.  On Jan. 23, 2018, the lower court issued an
order granting in part and denying in part the motion for final
summary judgment.

On March 21, 2018, the Residents filed their amended motion for
class certification.  A hearing was held on April 6, 2018, and the
lower court entered the order granting the motion in part on June
29, 2018.  The lower court certified the narrowed class defined as
all persons who currently own a home in Solivita and who have paid
a Club membership fee under the Club Plan on or after April 26,
2013, for counts II, V, VI (as to alleged direct violation of
section 720.308), and VIII of the second amended class action
complaint against Avatar Properties.

The Residents appeal from the non-final order granting in part
their amended motion for class certification of the claims asserted
in their 12-count amended complaint against the Defendants.  Of the
12 counts, the lower court certified the class as to four of them:
Counts II, V, VI (partially), and VIII.  As to those four counts,
the lower court limited the class to current homeowners in the
Solivita community who have paid Club membership fees since April
26, 2013, four years before suit was filed, and ruled that the
claims may proceed only as to Avatar Properties.

The Residents assert that the class should have been certified as
to counts I, II, III, V, VI (partially), VII, VIII, and XI and as
against both Avatar Properties and AV Homes.  They also argue that
the class should not have been narrowed to include only current
Solivita homeowners but should include both current and former
Solivita homeowners who have paid Club membership fees since April
26, 2013.  The Residents do not challenge the lower court's ruling
that no class should be certified as to counts IV, IX, X, and XII.


Avatar Properties and AV Homes cross-appeal, contending that the
lower court erred in certifying the class as to counts II, VI, and
VIII.  They do not challenge the certification of the class as to
count V.

The Appellate Court finds that with the express agreement of the
Residents, the lower court made various legal determinations
regarding the applicability of the HOA Act and those legal
determinations completely resolved counts I and III as well as all
counts against AV Homes.  It was also appropriate for the lower
court to limit the class to current homeowners with respect to
count II (seeking declaratory relief regarding voting rights),
count V (seeking declaratory relief regarding whether the perpetual
covenant imposed by the Club Plan is invalid making the Club dues
terminable at will), and count VI (seeking to enjoin Avatar
Properties from further profiting from the Club membership fees),
as the former homeowners have no interest in the relief sought.  

Next, though including former homeowners in the class with respect
to count VIII will certainly increase its size, it will not make it
unmanageable, the Appellate Court notes.  Furthermore, because the
other findings made by the lower court with respect to count VIII
do not support excluding former homeowners, it was error for the
lower court to narrow the class as it did with respect to that
count.   The lower court did not cite any authority in support of
what appears to be its primary basis for determining that it was
appropriate to narrow the class to include only current homeowners:
namely, that claims for prospective monetary damages do not
predominate but are incidental to claims for declaratory relief.
The lower court, however, misapplied that principle, the Appellate
Court finds.

Finally, with regard to counts VII and XI, the FDUTPA counts, given
the nature of the Residents' claims as they were presented to the
lower court in the second amended complaint, the amended motion for
certification, and at the certification hearing, the Appellate
Court does not believe that the trial court erred in determining
that they are not amenable to class certification.

For the reasons set forth, the Appellate Court reversed the order
on the amended motion for class certification to the extent that
former homeowners were excluded from the class with respect to
count VIII.  The class, certified only against Avatar Properties
and not AV Homes, should include current homeowners in the Solivita
community who paid Club membership fees pursuant to the Club Plan
on or after April 26, 2013, for counts II, V, and VI (as to the
alleged direct violation of section 720.308) and current and former
homeowners in the Solivita community who paid Club membership fees
pursuant to the Club Plan on or after April 26, 2013, for count
VIII.  The order is otherwise affirmed in all respects.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's Feb. 21, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/hbC46h from Leagle.com.

Kristin A. Norse -- knorse@kmf-law.com -- and Stuart C. Markman --
smarkman@kmf-law.com -- of Kynes, Markman & Felman, P.A., Tampa;
and Kenneth G. Turkel -- kturkel@bajocuva.com -- and Shane B. Vogt
-- shane.vogt@bajocuva.com -- of Bajo Cuva Cohen & Turkel, P.A.,
Tampa, for Petitioners.

Daniel J. Fleming and Christian M. Leger of Gray Robinson, P.A.,
Tampa, for Respondents.


B O X ACQUISITIONS: Ramos Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Ramos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. B O X ACQUISITIONS, LLC d/b/a B O X PARTNERS, LLC, Case
No. 1:20-cv-02991 (N.D. Ill., May 20, 2020), is brought to recover
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, statutory penalties,
prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and other damages
related to the Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant violated the FLSA and
IMWL by knowingly suffering and/or permitting the Plaintiff to
routinely work in excess of 40 hours per week without properly
compensating them at an overtime premium rate for these overtime
hours. The Defendant frequently directed its hourly employees to
work, and they routinely did work, in excess of 40 hours in given
workweeks, but they were often not compensated for overtime wages
at a rate of one and one-half times their regular, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Richard Ramos worked for the Defendant as an hourly,
full-time forklift operator at its facility located in Elgin,
Illinois, from April 2015 to the present.

The Defendant is a wholesaler of packaging, shipping, and
industrial supplies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BEIERSDORF INC: Somers Appeals S.D. California Ruling to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Stacie Somers filed an appeal from a court ruling in her
lawsuit entitled Stacie Somers v. Beiersdorf, Inc., Case No.
3:14-cv-02241-LAB-AGS, in the U.S. District Court for Southern
District of California, San Diego.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
arises from the Defendants' false and misleading representations of
its' Nivea Skin Firming Hydration Body Lotion with CoQ10 Plus
formulated with Co-Enzyme Q10 Complex, Hydra-IQ and glycerin, that
its improves skin firmness within 2 weeks.

The appellate case is captioned as Stacie Somers v. Beiersdorf,
Inc., Case No. 20-55541, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant Stacie Somers' opening brief is due on July 17,
      2020;

   -- Appellee Beiersdorf, Inc.'s answering brief is due on
      August 17, 2020; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant STACIE SOMERS, On Behalf of Herself and All
Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC
          2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          Email: eryan@bffb.com

               - and -

          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT PC
          600 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6978
          Email: psyverson@bffb.com

Defendant-Appellee BEIERSDORF, INC., a Delaware corporation, is
represented by:
       
          Alycia A. Degen, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 West 5th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 896-6000
          Email: adegen@sidley.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth M. Chiarello, Esq.
          Kara Lynn McCall, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1 South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-7000
          Email: echiarello@sidley.com
                 kmccall@sidley.com


BOARDWALK PIPELINES: Doucet Seeks Unpaid OT Wages for Inspectors
----------------------------------------------------------------
NICK DOUCET, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. BOARDWALK PIPELINES, LP, Defendant, Case No.
4:20-cv-01793 (S.D. Tex., May 22, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Safety Inspector from
approximately February 2018 until December 2018.

The complaint asserts that Defendant improperly paid Plaintiff and
the similarly situated Safety Inspectors by paying them a flat
daily rate only despite regularly working in excess of 40 hours
each workweek, thereby failing to pay them overtime at one and
one-half times their regular rates for hours worked in excess of 40
in a workweek.

Boardwalk Pipelines, LP provides transportation and storage of
natural gas and liquids. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: 713-352-1100
          Fax: 713-352-3300
          Emails: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  cfitz@mybackwages.com

                - and –

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


BRANDT INDUSTRIES: Sherman Hits Biometrics Data Retention Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Sherman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Brandt Industries USA Ltd., Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-01185 (C.D. Ill., May 11, 2020), seeks an injunction
requiring Defendants to cease all unlawful activity related to the
capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics, statutory
damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant
to the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Sherman was required to "clock-in" and "clock-out" using a
timeclock that scanned fingerprints. He claims that he was never
provided a retention schedule and/or guideline for permanently
destroying his biometric identifiers and biometric information.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
      KEOGH LAW, LTD.
      55 W. Monroe St. Ste. 3390
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 726-1092, (312) 726-1093
      Email: keith@keoghlaw.com


CADUS CORP: NY County Supreme Court Junks Freedman Stockholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge O. Peter Sherwood of the New York County Supreme Court
granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss motions the case, IN RE
CADUS CORP. STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION, Docket No. 653318/2018, Mot.
Seq. Nos. 004 & 005 (N.Y. Sup.).

Cadus was a biotechnology company formed in 1992 by a group of
investors and Princeton University scientists.  In 1999, Cadus
ceased doing new drug research and began operating as a public
shell.  By 2014, Cadus transitioned into a luxury real estate
holding company with properties in Southern Florida and East
Hampton, New York.

Defendants Jack Wasserman, Peter Liebert, and Tara Elias Schuchts
served as members of Cadus' Board of Directors.  Defendant Hunter
C. Gary, Cadus' was CEO.  Its controlling stockholders were
Starfire, which owned 68% of Cadus stock, and its affiliates BC and
HRLP ("Controlling Stockholders").  Defendant Carl C. Icahn owned
99.52% of Starfire and was its Chairman and CEO.

On Sept. 20, 2017, the Controlling Stockholders delivered a letter
to the Board offering to acquire Cadus' remaining unaffiliated
common stocks at $1.30 per share.  The Buyout proposal was
conditioned upon: (i) approval by a Special Committee of
independent Cadus Board members empowered to select advisors and
reject the buyout; and (ii) an informed vote by the unaffiliated
shareholders.

Accordingly, on Oct. 9, 2017, a Special Committee was formed
consisting of Liebert, Wasserman, and Schuchts.  Gary, Icahn's
son-in-law, was not appointed to the Special Committee.  The
Special Committee retained the legal services of Dorsey & Whitney
LLP ("Advisors"), and financial advice services of Alvarez and
Marcel Valuation Services LLC ("Financial Advisors") to assist it.
About a month later, negotiations began between the Controlling
Stockholders and the Special Committee as to the price of the
common stock shares and the terms and conditions of a possible
merger agreement.

Initially, the Special Committee determined that the Buyout offer
of $1.30 per share was inadequate and countered with an offer of
$1.78 per share. Thereafter, the Controlling Stockholders increased
its offer to $1.51 per share.  The Special Committee then
instructed its Legal Advisors that it would consider an offer of
$1.69 per share.  After numerous negotiations among the parties'
attorneys, including a discussion between the Legal Advisors and
defendant Icahn on Jan. 3, 2018, the Controlling Stockholders
increased their offer to $1.61 per share.  The Special Committee
countered with a price of $1.63 per share.  The Controlling
Stockholders responded that $1.61 per share was their best and
final offer.

At a Jan. 20, 2018, meeting, the Financial Advisors presented an
updated Cadus financial analysis and the Special Committee accepted
the Controlling Stockholders' best and final offer.  The Board then
approved sale of Cadus' remaining unaffiliated stocks at an agreed
price of $1.61 per share and on Jan. 22, 2018, Cadus issued a press
release memorializing the Merger Agreement.

At a special meeting with Cadus' stockholders, 57.83% of the
minority shareholders approved the Merger Agreement.  Subsequently,
the common stock was canceled and converted to the right to receive
$1.61 per share, without interest.  The Controlling Stockholders
ultimately conveyed their interest in Cadus to Starfire, which then
acquired the remaining 32% of Cadus' common stock at $1.61 per
share.  Cadus survived the buyout as a subsidiary of Starfire.

Plaintiffs Emily Kahn-Freedman and Brian Gorban commenced the
action individually and derivatively on behalf of similarly
situated Cadus stockholders seeking damages in connection with the
subject transaction on grounds that the Defendants helped the
Controlling Stockholders acquire Cadus through a partial buyout
process that took the company "private" at an unfair price to its
minority stockholders.  The complaint alleged that the Special
Committee was not "independent" but rather "interested" to the
extent that its members were substantially connected to defendants
Icahn and Starfire.

The Plaintiffs claim that as a result of the aforementioned facts,
the Definitive Proxy Statement filed with the SEC on May 15, 2018,
and in accordance with Delaware law, was materially misleading to
Cadus stockholders because it failed to disclose that: (i) Icahn
and Liebert had a personal and professional business relationship
spanning 50 years; (ii) Schuchts' family had a close social
relationship with Icahn; and (iii) the Special Committee's Legal
Advisors' Jan. 3, 2018, meeting with Icahn resulted in undisclosed
changes presumed favorable to Icahn and the Controlling
Stockholders.

The Plaintiffs contend that although they cannot properly value
Cadus' shares as of the time the buyout was being negotiated, the
purchase price of the transaction was unfair as it was a mere 7%
premium to book value price and because: (i) the Financial Advisors
failed to take into account that properties affected by hurricanes,
such as the ones owned by Cadus, experience a 3% and 4% increase
three years after such occurrences; (ii) the Controlling
Stockholders proposed a low price of $1.30 per share in order to
keep the acquisition price at a low point in potential value; (iii)
the Financial Advisors did not accurately and independently
disclose Cadus' value on the Proxy in that 10 of Cadus' 13 empty
lots were undervalued, as only an implied current value range was
recorded, rather than the potential increase in book value or
potential cash flows from property improvements; (iv) the ultimate
buyout price of $1.61 per share was below the Financial Advisors'
estimate of Cadus' value under a Net Asset Approach which ranged
from $1.69 to $1.95 per share and under the Guideline Public
Company Approach which ranged from $1.55 to $1.74 per share; (v)
Cadus' market value was not taken into consideration as third-party
feedback was not sought; and (vi) Icahn and the Controlling
Stockholders pressured the Special Committee to sell at $1.61 per
share despite the fact that its long-term value was worth more than
the agreed upon purchase price.

The Plaintiffs do not dispute that the transaction was an
arms'-length negotiated agreement.  Rather, the Complaint alleges
that:

(1) the Special Committee breached its fiduciary duty (the first
cause of action) because it: (a) placed Icahn's interests ahead of
those of the minority stockholders, (b) failed to negotiate a fair
buyout price, and (c) engaged in an unreasonable transaction
process with a common plan to unfairly deprive plaintiffs of the
true value of their Cadus investment; and

(2) the Controlling Stockholders breached their fiduciary duty to
the minority stockholders (the second cause of action) because
they: (a) were unjustly enriched, and (b) deprived plaintiffs of
fair value in Cadus stock resulting in an amount of damages to be
determined by the court.  The Plaintiffs further contend that
Delaware's "fairness standard of review" must be applied because
Starfire was Cadus' controlling majority stockholder at the time of
the Buyout proposal and the Special Committee was required to be
"independent," yet was not.

The Defendants responded to the Complaint by filing the instant
motions to dismiss.

Judge Sherwood concludes that the Plaintiffs' conclusory
allegations cannot defeat a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion to dismiss or
meet the heightened pleading requirement applicable to this case
pursuant to CPLR 3016(b).  As long as a board attempts to meet its
duties, no matter how incompetently, the directors did not
consciously disregard their obligations.

After reviewing the Complaint under Delaware's business judgment
rule and giving the Plaintiffs the benefit of all reasonable
inferences, the bare assertions in the Complaint fail to allege
sufficiently that the Special Committee, the Controlling
Stockholders, Icahn, or Gary breached a fiduciary duty to the
Plaintiffs, the Court opines.  The Plaintiffs' failure to
demonstrate the existence of fraud or bad faith and failure to
overcome the presumption of loyalty and good faith under Delaware
law warrants dismissal of the Complaint.

Accordingly, Judge Sherwood grants the motions to dismiss of
Wasserman, Liebert, Schuchts, Cadus, Starfire, Barberry, High
River, Icahn and Gary, respectively.  The Clerk of the Court will
enter judgment in favor of these moving Defendants against
Plaintiffs Kahn-Freedman and Gorban, dismissing the Complaint
together with costs to be taxed in amounts fixed by the Clerk upon
presentation of proper bills of costs.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 25, 2020 Decision &
Order is available at https://is.gd/H1tNYL from Leagle.com.


CAPITAL BLUE CROSS: Bellan Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Bellan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Capital Blue Cross, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00744 (M.D. Pa., May 6, 2020), seeks monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and
costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act.

Capital Blue Cross is a Pennsylvania-based health insurance company
that provides and administers healthcare coverage for its members.
Bellan worked for Capital Blue Cross as a utilization reviewer. She
claims that Defendant misclassified her as exempt from state and
federal overtime laws and was not paid overtime for all hours
worked over 40 in an individual workweek. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott B. Cooper, Esq.
      SCHMIDT KRAMER, PC
      209 State St.
      Harrisburg, PA 17101
      Telephone: (717) 232-6300
      Fascimile: (717) 232-6467
      Email: scooper@schmidtkramer.com

             - and -

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

             - and -

      Jack L. Siegel, Esq.
      SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
      4925 Greenville, Suite 600
      Dallas, TX 75206
      Tel: (214) 790-4454
      Fax: (469) 339-0204
      Email: jack@siegellawgroup.biz
      Website: www.4overtimelawyer.com

CENLAR AGENCY: Faces Class Action Over Debt Collection Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Petrishen, writing for Telegram & Gazette, reports that a
Gardner man is pursuing a class-action lawsuit in federal court
that the defendant, a large mortgage debt collector, said could be
worth as much as $100 million in court filings.

In a case referred to a federal magistrate judge in Worcester April
10, lawyers for Ely Gemborys of Gardner allege that one of the
nation's largest mortgage subservicing companies called him at
least four times a week to collect a debt in 2017 in violation of
state law.

In removing the case to federal court, lawyers for the defendant
company, Cenlar Agency Inc. of New Jersey, wrote that, assuming
Gemborys' claims prevailed -- which they did not concede -- the
case could be worth up to $100 million if there were 1,000 class
members.

The lawyers made the argument in requesting that the case proceed
under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, an act that expands
federal jurisdiction over class-action lawsuits worth more than $5
million.

The law firm representing Gemborys, Lemberg Law LLC of Wilton,
Connecticut., recently secured a $2.3 million settlement in
Worcester federal court after a class-action debt collection
lawsuit against a subsidiary of retail giant Target.

In that lawsuit, a Clinton woman alleged Target violated
Massachusetts state law by placing more than two debt collection
calls in seven days to her and other state residents.

Former Attorney General Martha Coakley in 2011 deemed more than two
calls or texts a week to be a violation of consumer protection law,
even if the creditor uses a "predictive dialer" or does not leave a
message.

Gemborys alleges in his lawsuit that Cenlar attempted called him at
least four times a week for all of 2017, despite him repeatedly
telling the agency he could not afford to pay his mortgage debt and
asking them to stop calling.

He alleges the repeated calls were an "inconvenience" that wasted
his time and caused him anxiety and emotional distress.

His lawyers seek to create a class of potentially thousands of
Massachusetts residents who received more than two calls a week
from Cenlar at any point over the last four years.

Any class-action lawsuit would need to be approved by a judge. Any
potential settlement amount would depend on whether triple damages
are awarded as requested, and on the number of class members -- a
figure that can only be determined later in the litigation. [GN]


CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS: Sued Over Business Income Coverage
--------------------------------------------------------
Donald Ottaunick, Esq. -- dottaunick@coleschotz.com -- of Cole
Schotz, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on April 17, 2020,
six federal class action complaints were filed against six
insurance companies in six different states seeking coverage under
Business Income coverage parts of insurance policies to obtain
relief for losses occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Cole Schotz has previously reported on individual suits filed
against Certain Underwriters of Lloyd's of London (Texas and
California) and Society Insurance (Illinois) that offered policies
that did not include a Virus Exclusion.  Now, class action
complaints have been filed against, Lloyd's (New York), Society
(Wisconsin), Aspen American Insurance Company (Texas), Owners
Insurance (Ohio), Topa Insurance Company (Wisconsin) and Oregon
Mutual Insurance Company (Oregon). Despite the missing exclusion,
Lloyds, and the other companies, disclaimed coverage for other
reasons including the lack of direct physical loss to insured
property by the virus.  The cases all seek to enforce coverage for
Business Income, Civil Authority and Extra Expense related losses
for policy holders across the country.

Another class action was filed on April 9 by a Florida restaurant
against Llyod's of London for Business Income losses seeking to
advance claims for a national class of entities that entered into
standard "all-risk commercial property insurance policies" that
failed to exclude pandemic related damages.

It remains to be seen whether a Court will certify the purported
classes in any of these actions.  One element that needs to be
established to obtain class certification is that all of the claims
must involve common questions of law and fact. That could be
difficult for a few reasons, including the impact that the virus
may have had on a particular business and how it actually resulted
in a loss.  For example, a retail establishment that needs its
physical property in order to do business versus a service oriented
business that may be able to work remotely, but just not as
efficiently yet still incurs recoverable loss of income are
impacted differently by the virus and its consequences.  There will
also be issues regarding the impact of different State laws both
with regard to regulating the insurance industry in its State but
also with respect to the various, and somewhat dissimilar Executive
Orders issued by the Governors shutting down certain
"non-essential" businesses.  Some members of the purported class
could have been deemed "essential" yet decided to shut down anyway
creating further problems in class certification.   Finally, unless
all of the policies contain identical language, it is unlikely that
a class will be certified.

Although it is apparent that the business and legal community are
becoming aggressive in their challenge to the insurance industry's
refusal to cover COVID-19 business losses, you can be certain that
insurers will do whatever is necessary to avoid paying claims on
those policies. [GN]


CHARTER COMMS: Bid to Strike Portions of Harper Partly Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LIONEL HARPER and DANIEL SINCLAIR, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated and all aggrieved
employees, Plaintiffs, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00902 WBS DMC (E.D. Cal.), Judge William B. Shubb
of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
granted in part and denied in part Charter's motion to strike
and/or dismiss portions of the Plaintiffs' First Amended
Complaint.

Plaintiffs Harper and Sinclair brought the putative class action
against Charter, alleging various violations of the California
Labor and Business and Professions Code.  The Plaintiffs were
employed by Charter as salespeople in California.  Harper worked
for Charter from September 2017 to March 2018, and Sinclair worked
for Charter from January 2015 to December 2016.

During and after training weeks, the Plaintiffs allege they were
erroneously treated as exempt employees because Charter mistakenly
categorized them as "outside salespersons."  They claim they were
denied, inter alia, commission wages as a result of the
misclassification.

Harper initially brought the suit in California state court on
behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals, and
Charter removed the action to the Court.  The Court denied Harper's
motion to remand in July 2019, and thereafter the parties
stipulated to Harper filing a First Amended Complaint.  Sinclair
was added as a named Plaintiff at that time.

Collectively, the Plaintiffs allege 10 causes of action: (1)
failure to pay minimum wages for all hours worked in violation of
California Labor Code Sections 1182.12, 1194, 1197, and 1194.4; (2)
failure to pay overtime wages for all overtime hours worked in
violation of California Labor Code Sections 510 and 1197; (3)
failure to provide meal periods or pay premium wages in lieu
thereof in violation of California Labor Code Sections 512 and
226.7; (4) failure to provide rest breaks or pay premium wages in
lieu thereof in violation of California Labor Code Section 226.7;
(5) unlawful calculation, deduction, and payment of commission
wages under California Labor Code Sections 204, 221, 223, 224, and
2751; (6) failure to provide accurate wage statements in violation
of California Labor Code Section 226; (7) failure to pay all wages
owed upon termination in violation of California Labor Code Section
203; (8) failure to provide timely and complete copies of
employment records in violation of California Labor Code Sections
226, 432, and 1198.5; (9) violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL") under California Business and Professions
Code Section 17200; and (10) civil penalties under the Private
Attorney General Act ("PAGA").

Charter now seeks to dismiss the Plaintiffs' third, fourth, sixth,
and ninth causes of action in full or in part for failure to state
a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and
strike portions of the operative complaint pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(f).

Judge Shubb granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss or strike
Plaintiffs' claim for restitution under the UCL to the extent it is
predicated on Section 226.7.  The Plaintiffs' UCL claims founded on
failures to timely and properly pay all minimum, overtime, and
commission wages; taking of unlawful commission wage reductions and
deductions; and misclassification are unchallenged and will remain
operative.

The Court finds that regardless of whether premium wages are
"wages" under other provisions of the Labor Code, restitution under
the UCL is intended to restore the status quo by returning to the
Plaintiff funds in which he or she has an ownership interest.
Consequently, restitution under the UCL is not available for all
violations of the Labor Code.  The employees have no ownership
interest in premium wages awarded for a Section 226.7 violation,
and restitution would not serve to "restore the status quo" by
returning the Plaintiffs' funds to them.

The Judge granted the Defendant's motion to strike plaintiffs'
claim for injunctive and declaratory relief be.  He denied in all
other respects.  Among other things, he finds that in the suit,
Harper seeks individual, representative, and public injunctive and
declaratory relief that compels Charter to stop its unlawful and
unfair practices and fix its broken timekeeping, recordkeeping, and
wage payment systems and practices, its misclassification of
Outside Salespersons Class members both during training and after
training, and its improper use of commission agreements with
Commissions Class members in conjunction with his UCL claim.  A
former employee currently seeking to be reinstated or rehired may
have standing to seek injunctive relief against a former employer.
However, Harper only seeks to be reinstated as an employee with
Charter in another lawsuit.  The consequence of a distinct (albeit
related) case will not be brought to bear on this action.
Accordingly, the Judge granted the Defendant's motion to strike the
Plaintiffs' request for injunctive and declaratory relief.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 25, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/p4d4vF from Leagle.com.

Lionel Harper, Plaintiff, represented by Jamin S. Soderstrom --
jamin@soderstromlawfirm.eom -- Soderstrom Law Firm.

Charter Communications, LLC & Charter Communications, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Kathryn T. McGuigan --
kathryn.mcguigan@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP,
Nicole Antonopoulos -- nicole.antonopoulos@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Zachary W. Shine --
zachary.shine@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.


CHICAGO BOARD: 7th Circuit Appeal Filed in Barry Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Brian Barry, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit styled Brian Barry, et al. v. Chicago Board of
Options Exchange, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-04171, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that the Defendants colluded with each other to manipulate
the settlement value of the VIX in order to affect the settlement
prices of derivative products linked to the VIX, in violation of
the Sherman Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Brian Barry, et al. v. Chicago
Board of Options Exchange, et al., Case No. 20-1843, in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript information sheet is due by June 2, 2020; and

   -- Appellants' brief is due on or before June 29, 2020, for
      Brian Barry, Spencer R. Bueno, FTC Capital GMBH, Amy Huang
      and David Samuel;[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants BRIAN BARRY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by:

          Jonathan C. Bunge, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          191 N. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 705-7400
          Email: jonathanbunge@quinnemanuel.com

                     - and -

          Kimberly A. Justice, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN, LLC
          923 Fayette Street
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (610) 234-6771
          Email: kjustice@fklmlaw.com

                     - and -

          Sharan Nirmul, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087-0000
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Email: snirmul@ktmc.com

Defendants-Appellees CHICAGO BOARD OF OPTIONS EXCHANGE, INC., et
al., are represented by:

          Gregory M. Boyle, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          353 N. Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654-3456
          Telephone: (312) 222-9350
          Email: gboyle@jenner.com

                     - and -

          Jonathan D. Cogan, Esq.
          KOBRE & KIM LLP
          800 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 488-1206
          Email: jonathan.cogan@kobrekim.com

                     - and -

          Charles DeVore, Esq.
          KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
          525 W. Monroe Street
          Chicago, IL 60661-3693
          Telephone: (312) 902-5478
          Email: charles.devore@katten.com

                     - and -

          Jonathan Lee Marcus, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          1440 New York Avenue N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005-0000
          Telephone: (202) 371-7596
          Email: jonathan.marcus@skadden.com

                     - and -

          P. Stephen Fardy, Esq.
          SWANSON, MARTIN & BELL, LLP
          330 N. Wabash Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60611-0000
          Telephone: (312) 321-9100
          Email: sfardy@smbtrials.com

                     - and -

          David B. Goroff, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          321 N. Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654-5313
          Telephone: (312) 832-4500
          Email: dgoroff@foley.com

                     - and -

          Julie B. Porter, Esq.
          SALVATORE PRESCOTT & PORTER PLLC
          1010 Davis Street
          Evanston, IL 60201
          Telephone: (312) 283-5711
          Email: porter@sppplaw.com

                     - and -

          Kristen R. Seeger, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          One S. Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603-0000
          Telephone: (312) 853-7000
          Email: kseeger@sidley.com

                     - and -

          Abby M. Mollen, Esq.
          BARTLIT BECK HERMAN PALENCHAR & SCOTT
          54 W. Hubbard
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 494-4400
          Email: abby.mollen@bartlitbeck.com


CONNECTICUT: ACLU's Class Action Seeks Release of Prisoners
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Storace, writing for Law.com, reports that the ACLU of
Connecticut filed a federal class action lawsuit early on April 21
seeking the release of hundreds of prisoners in state custody. The
group says incarcerating prisoners in close quarters during the
COVID-19 pandemic is dangerous and could cost prisoners their
lives. [GN]


CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Ammons Law Firm Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Ammons Law Firm has filed one of the country's first class
action lawsuits against an insurance company for failure to pay
coronavirus-related claims.

The lawsuit, brought by a restaurant and bakery in Las Cruces, New
Mexico, alleges that Continental Casualty Company, a subsidiary of
CNA Financial Corporation that handles their property insurance
operations, failed to honor its insurance contract and pay on the
restaurant's business interruption, civil authority, extra expense,
and "sue and labor" coverages.

"We are seeing an unprecedented number of businesses reaching out
to us that are immediately being denied coverage for their business
interruption insurance they have paid, in some cases, hundreds of
thousands of dollars a year for," says Rob Ammons, lead attorney
for the class action.  "We are filing this to let business owners
know that they deserve to get what they paid for.  These insurance
companies cannot be allowed to bankrupt businesses trying to
re-enter the economy after the quarantine is over just to protect
their bottom line."

In a class action lawsuit, one or a small group of plaintiffs
brings the lawsuit on behalf of all people or businesses who are in
the same position as the plaintiffs. This lawsuit asks the court to
determine whether Continental wrongfully denied all claims based on
COVID-19; whether the insurance contract applies to a business
suspension caused by COVID-19; and whether Continental breached the
insurance contract by denying all claims based on business
interruption, income loss, or closures related to COVID-19 and the
related closures.

The Ammons Law Firm is a Houston-based firm with a nationwide
practice handling COVID Insurance cases.

The lawsuit is Cafe Plaza de Mesilla Inc. v. Continental Casualty
Co., in the United States District Court for the District of New
Mexico.

Ammons Law Firm
www.ammonslaw.com
Case number: 2:20-cv-00354, U.S. District Court for the District of
New Mexico [GN]


DOLLY INC: Court Narrows Claims in Vann FLSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the case, ORLANDES VANN, ELLIOT VANN WILLS, DEMETRIOUS WALKER,
and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. DOLLY,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 18C4455 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Charles P.
Kocoras of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, (i) granted in part and denied in part
Dolly's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs's second amended complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); and (ii)
granted its motion moves to strike the Plaintiffs' class
allegations pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(f) and
23.

As is relevant in the case, the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs'
first amended complaint on April 24, 2019.  They filed their second
amended complaint on July 24, 2019, alleging that Dolly committed
minimum wage violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), and the Chicago
Minimum Wage Ordinance, Chicago Mun. Code Chap. 1-24-010 et seq.
("CMWO").  The Plaintiffs also allege unlawful paycheck deductions
under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA").

On Aug. 23, 2019, Dolly filed the instant motion to dismiss and
strike pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),
12(f), and 23.  Dolly moves the Court to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
claims for two reasons: (1) the Plaintiffs are not employees, which
is required to bring minimum wage claims under these statutes, and
(2) the Plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient facts to state a
claim for relief.  Additionally, Dolly moves to strike the
Plaintiffs' class allegations due to lack of typicality.

As for the Dolly's motion to dismiss, Judge Kocoras finds that
taken together, the allegations demonstrate a notable level of
control exercised by Dolly and are sufficient to plead the
existence of an employer-employee relationship at the motion to
dismiss stage.  Given that the relationship was adequately plead,
the Judge examines the sufficiency of the underlying minimum wage
claims.

The Court previously dismissed the Plaintiffs' allegations for
failure to state the amount they were compensated for any workweek
and the number of hours worked within that timeframe.  With respect
to Plaintiff Van Wills, these problems persist in the second
amended complaint.  The only allegations concerning Van Wills are
based on information and belief, and lack the factual support
required by the Court's initial opinion.  Indeed, the allegations
regarding Van Wills do not state his hours worked or rate of pay
for a weeklong date range, as required to state a minimum wage
violation.  Accordingly, the claims as to Van Wills are dismissed
with prejudice.

With respect to Plaintiffs Vann and Walker, those deficiencies were
corrected in the second amended complaint. Vann stated that during
the week of September 4, 2016, he earned $84 dollars and worked for
11.5 hours performing moving services.  This equates to an hourly
rate of $7.30, which is less than the IMWL and the CMWO.  However,
Vann also alleged that he worked an additional 48 hours of unpaid
time reviewing jobs, making bids, accepting jobs, and reviewing
e-mail instructions from Dolly regarding his services.  When
accounting for this time, his hourly rate fell to approximately
$1.41.  Vann also alleges that during the week of Sept. 24, 2016,
he earned $95 dollars in wages for 21.476 hours of work, bringing
his hourly wage to $4.42.  Both of these rates fall below that
mandated by the FLSA, IMWL, and CMWO.

Similarly, Walker alleged that during the week of April 15, 2018,
he worked one on-site job for 51 minutes and was paid $49.
Further, he alleged that he spent an additional 74 hours of unpaid
time during that week, completing largely the same tasks found in
Vann's allegations.  When accounting for this time, Walker's hourly
rate fell to $1.53 -- a rate below what is required by the FLSA,
IMWL, and CMWO.

Dolly asserts that the Plaintiffs cannot plead general assertions
of unpaid time to make their hourly rate fall below the minimum
wage.  They note that in Hirst v. SkyWest, Inc., the District
rejected "allegations to the effect that employees frequently or
typically performed uncompensated work" as speculative for purposes
of FLSA claims.

While this holding is correct, Judge Kocoras holds that it is
distinguishable from the allegations at issue.  Unlike the Hirst
plaintiffs, Vann and Walker alleged a specific number of
uncompensated hours for a particular workweek, allowing the Court
to calculate their hourly wages and assess whether they fell below
the minimum wage.  Accordingly, these allegations suffice to stave
off a motion to dismiss, and Dolly's motion to dismiss Counts I,
II, and III is denied as to Vann and Walker.

In granting Dolly's initial motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' IWPCA
claims, the court noted that the Plaintiffs only asserted
conclusory allegations of an agreement, devoid of any details as to
what the parties agreed.  While the Plaintiffs have asserted the
existence of a "Helper Agreement" in their second amended
complaint, that agreement does not specify a certain agreed upon
rate of pay.  Absent an agreement to pay the Plaintiffs a certain
wage, the Plaintiffs' IWPCA claims cannot proceed.  Accordingly,
Dolly's motion to dismiss Count IV is granted.

Finally, Dolly moves to strike the Plaintiffs' class allegations
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.  The Plaintiffs
propose four alleged class definitions in the second amended
complaint -- one for each of the statutes at issue.  Given that the
only remaining claims arise under the FLSA, IMWL, and CMWO, Judge
Kocoras only considers those definitions.

The Plaintiffs' proposed class definition under the FLSA and IMWL
is: All individuals who were employed by Defendant Dolly, Inc. to
perform moving services, in Illinois during the past three years.
The proposed class definition under the CMWO is: All individuals
who were employed by Defendant Dolly, Inc. to perform moving
services, in the geographic limits of the City of Chicago during
the past three years.

Under either definition, the defined class is too broad because it
exceeds the scope of the Plaintiffs' allegations.  The Plaintiffs
have only alleged harms suffered by those employed as "helpers,"
not in any other capacity.  Therefore, defining the class as "all
individuals who were employed by Defendant Dolly, Inc. to perform
moving services" would capture individuals who have not suffered
the harms complained of in the second amended complaint.
Therefore, the motion to strike is granted.

Accordingly, Judge Kocoras grants in part and denied in part
Dolly's motion to dismiss.  The Court also grants Dolly's Motion to
Strike.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 25, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/C5rl0x from Leagle.com.

Orlandes Vann, and All Other Similarly Situated Individuals, Elliot
Vann Wills, and All Other Similarly Situated Individuals &
Demetrious Walker, and All Other Similarly Situated Individuals,
Plaintiffs, represented by Maria De Las Nieves Bolanos --
nieves@potterlaw.org -- Potter Bolanos LLC, Robin B. Potter --
robin@potterlaw.org -- Potter Bolanos LLC, Patrick James Cowlin --
patrick@potterlaw.org -- Potter Bolanos LLC & Nicholas Joseph
Kreitman, Gainsberg Law, P.C.

Dolly, Inc., A Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Christopher Lepore -- clepore@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie Llp &
Jeannil D. Boji -- JBoji@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP.


DURON TECH: Perez Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------
Juan Perez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Duron Tech, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-01611, (S.D. Tex., May 7, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, lost wages, liquidated damages and attorney's fees
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Duron Tech, LLC produces custom metal fabrications and offers other
mechanical technician services to its clients where Perez worked as
welder, helper and/or fitter. He claims to be uniformly paid and
not compensated for the extra time, in excess of forty hours per
work week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alfonso Kennard, Jr., Esq.
     KENNARD RICHARD PC
     2603 Augusta Drive, 1450
     Houston TX 77057
     Main: (713) 742-0900
     Fax: (713) 742-0951
     Email: Alfonso.Kennard@KennardLaw.com


EARTHWHILE ENDEAVORS: Misleads Pet Product Buyers, Lan Do Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
LAN DO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EARTHWHILE ENDEAVORS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:20-cv-03480 (N.D. Cal., May 22, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for unfair and unlawful business acts and
practices, deceptive advertising practices, violation of the
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, breach of express warranty, and
unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly-situated consumers who purchased the Defendant's
Earthbath Natural Pet Care line of products, alleges that the
Defendant engaged in false and deceptive advertising and labeling
of its pet care products as natural when in reality the products
contain numerous non-natural, synthetic, and/or artificial
ingredients and the Defendants only used vague and/or greenwashed
descriptors to identify them.

Had the Plaintiff and Class members known that the products
contained non-natural, synthetic, and/or artificial ingredients,
they would not have purchased the products or would have purchased
them on different terms.

Earthwhile Endeavors, Inc. is a manufacturer of pet care products
with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:           
         
         Christopher D. Moon, Esq.
         Kevin O. Moon, Esq.
         MOON LAW APC
         228 Hamilton Ave., 3rd Flr.
         Palo Alto, CA 94301
         Telephone: (619) 915-9432
         Facsimile: (650) 618-0478
         E-mail: chris@moonlawapc.com
                 kevin@moonlawapc.com

ENTERTAINMENT CONSULTING: Seefeldt Stayed Pending Ruling in Barr
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL SEEFELDT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ENTERTAINMENT CONSULTING
INTERNATIONAL, LLC., and OUTFIELD BREW HOUSE, LLC. d/b/a BUDWEISER
BREW HOUSE, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00188 (E.D. Mo.), Judge
Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted the Defendants'
motion to stay the case pending resolution by the U.S. Supreme
Court of Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants.

The case at hand involves a putative class action against
Defendants Entertainment Consulting International ("ECI") and
Outfield Brew House, LLC., doing business as Budweiser Brew House,
alleging both developed, acquired, licensed, and/or used custom,
high-powered text-messaging programs ("Autodialer") that can select
random, sequential, and/or store phone numbers, dial such numbers,
and send thousands of unsolicited automated text messages to such
numbers.  

ECI and Brew House purportedly compiled thousands of cell phone
numbers and used the Autodialer to bombard the individuals having
such cell phone numbers with special offers, prizes, events, and
happy hours via unsolicited text messages.  Specifically, named
Plaintiff Seefeldt takes issue with ECI and Brew House's use of the
Autodialer program -- between Jan. 24, 2015 and Jan. 24, 2019 -- to
send unsolicited text messages to him and the putative class
members promoting specials and events at the Brew House.  Seefeldt
says these actions are in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA").

The matter comes before the Court is on the Defendants' motion to
stay, which argues a stay is appropriate in the case pending
resolution by the U.S. Supreme Court of Barr.

Judge Limbaugh finds that the TCPA has been the subject of much
appellate discourse lately.  First, the government-debt exception
has been struck down as unconstitutional in Am. Assoc. of Political
Consultants, Inc. v. F.C.C., (striking down the TCPA's
government-debt exception as unconstitutional, but severing it);
and in Duguid v. Facebook, Inc., (striking down the TCPA's
government-debt exception as unconstitutional, but severing it).
Both the Fourth and Ninth Circuits found that the government-debt
exception rendered the TCPA "fatally underinclusive" and that it
does not further the purpose of the automated call ban in a
narrowly tailored fashion.  Both courts severed the government-debt
exception while leaving the remainder of the TCPA in place.

Their decisions are not without criticism, however, as made clear
in the United States' intervening brief.  Citing Brickman v.
Facebook, Inc., the United States argues, apparently on grounds of
sovereign immunity, that the TCPA does not apply to the government
-- that is, the TCPA does not impose liability on the government --
and thus the government-debt exception simply acts to protect those
who are collecting debts on its behalf.  As held by the Supreme
Court, congress did not waive the government's sovereign immunity
in enacting the TCPA, and a congressional act is required in order
for third parties to enjoy the government's immunity by way of the
derivative immunity doctrine.  Neither the court in Duguid nor the
court in Am. Assoc. of Political Consultants contemplated what
effect, if any, this sovereign immunity plays in the
underinclusiveness rationale.  In any event, the Supreme Court will
at least look at these criticisms as raised by the United States in
Barr.

Second, in the wake of the D.C. Circuit's decision in ACA Int'l. v.
F.C.C., which essentially reset the TCPA's definitional landscape,
appellate courts have been unable to agree on the exact definition
to give to an "autodialer" that lies at the heart of the TCPA's
prohibitive mandates.  It is a preliminary issue to the
determination of whatever possible exceptions might remain
following constitutional scrutiny.  The problem comes down to a
proper interpretation of Section 227(a)(1)(A).  The Third, Seventh,
and Eleventh Circuits have all concluded that it is both; an
autodialer must be capable of either storing telephone numbers
using a random or sequential number generator or produce such
numbers using a random or sequential number generator.

They admit, however, that that definition is "imperfect," and "runs
into interpretive hurdles.  Conversely, the Ninth Circuit has
concluded the phrase affects only the word produce, not store, such
that an autodialer can either be equipment with the capacity to
store numbers, or with the capacity to produce numbers to be called
using a random or sequential number generator.  Apparently, as
recognized by the Seventh Circuit, there are at least two other
options floated around by the district courts suggesting the
definition captures only equipment that dials randomly or
sequentially generated numbers or otherwise describes the manner in
which the telephone numbers are to be called, regardless of how
they are stored, produced, or generated.

In the instant case, the Defendants have filed a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion that takes a notably scattershot approach, attacking both
Section 227(b) and Section 227(c) of the TCPA under no less than
the First Amendment Free Speech Clause, the Fifth Amendment Equal
Protection Clause, and the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
But, the government-debt exception issue is certainly
front-and-center in their arguments, which now sits before the U.S.
Supreme Court in Barr.  The question in that case, though, is not
only whether the government-debt exception is unconstitutional;
more importantly, it is also whether the proper remedy was to sever
the offending exception from the TCPA, leaving the remainder of the
TCPA intact.  In their motion to stay, the Defendants say these
issues, challenging the stability of the TCPA at its core, risk
inconsistent rulings and otherwise avoidable resources expenditures
in the event the Court decides contrary to the Supreme Court.

At this stage, the Supreme Court has not revealed its hand whether
it will also take up review of the definitional problem.  But,
without a doubt, it creates that much more uncertainty about the
TCPA at large and, specifically, the viability of the Plaintiff's
claims. Of course, what the Supreme Court has accepted review of
risks a potential total collapse of the TCPA without regard to the
definitional problem.

Whatever the case, having studied the matter carefully, it seems
the best approach is to wait for much-needed clarity from the
Supreme Court -- at least as to the government-debt exception
problem, but also potentially the definitional problem.  Indeed,
the Court's has inherent power to stay proceedings as part of its
authority to control the disposition of the causes on its docket
with economy of time and effort in mind for itself, for counsel,
and for litigants.  How it can best be done calls for the exercise
of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an
even balance.  Generally speaking, the Court is to weigh the
potential prejudice or hardship to the parties, as well as the
interest of judicial economy.

Accordingly, for the reasons he stated, Judge Limbaugh granted the
Defendants' motion to stay.  The Case is stayed pending resolution
by the U.S. Supreme Court of Barr.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 25, 2020 Memorandum &
Order is available at https://is.gd/7Ya1fs from Leagle.com.

Michael Seefeldt, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony L. DeWitt,
BARTIMUS AND FRICKLETON, Edward D. Robertson, III, BARTIMUS AND
FRICKLETON, 109B E. High Street, Jefferson City, MO 65101,
Aristotle N. Rodopoulos -- ari@woodlaw.com -- WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC &
Kelly Clare Frickleton, BARTIMUS AND FRICKLETON, 109B E. High
Street, Jefferson City, MO 65101

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor, represented by Joshua
Charles
Abbuhl, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE-CIVIL DIVISION.

Entertainment Consulting International, LLC & Outfield Brew House,
LLC, doing business as Budweiser Brew House, Defendants,
represented by Geoffrey W. Castello -- gcastello@kelleydrye.com --
KELLEY AND DRYE, LLP, Lauri A. Mazzuchetti --
lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com -- KELLEY AND DRYE, LLP, pro hac vice,
Glenn T. Graham -- ggraham@kelleydrye.com -- KELLEY AND DRYE, LLP,
pro hac vice, Jacqueline M. Sexton -- jsexton@fwpclaw.com --
FOLAND
WICKENS, P.C., Whitney M. Smith -- wsmith@kelleydrye.com -- KELLEY
AND DRYE, LLP & Zachary T. Bowles -- zbowles@fwpclaw.com -- FOLAND
WICKENS, P.C..


FLORIDA CAREER: Former Students File Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Mora, writing for Law.com, reports that former students
have bad things to say about a for-profit college that allegedly
took their money and left them jobless.

To meet the quota of the predatory practices, the career services
director for the Florida Career College West Palm Beach campus took
recruiters "to a specific field called the 'Crying Field' when they
were overwhelmed by the pressure to perform. There was also a
specific closet called the 'Crying Closet," a class action
complaint also alleges. [GN]



GDS HOLDINGS: He & Zollo Appeal Ruling in Ramzan Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Plaintiff Yuanli He and named plaintiff Michael Zollo filed an
appeal from the District Court's memorandum opinion entered on
April 7, 2020, and the Clerk's judgment entered on April 9, 2020,
in the lawsuit styled Ramzan v. GDS Holdings Limited, Case No.
1:19-cv-09154-LAK, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint
is a class action on behalf of persons or entities, who purchased
or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities from March 29,
2018, and July 31, 2018, inclusive. The Plaintiff seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The appellate case is captioned as Ramzan v. GDS Holdings Limited,
Case No. 20-1511 in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Yuanli He and Michael Zollo, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          L. Kirstine Rogers, Esq.
          R. Dean Gresham, Esq.
          STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN PLLC
          12720 Hillcrest Road Suite 1045
          Dallas, TX 75230
          Telephone: (972) 387−4040
          Facsimile: (972) 387−4041
          Email: krogers@stecklerlaw.com
                dean@stecklerlaw.com

              - and -

          Jing Chen, Esq.
          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Yu Shi, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Fl.
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686−1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202−3827
          Email: jchen@rosenlegal.com
                lrosen@rosenlegal.com

              - and -

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA
          101 Greenwood Ave., Suite 440
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (212) 686−1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202−3827
          Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com

Defendants-Appellees GDS Holdings Limited, et al., are represented
by:

          James Glenn Kreissman
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          2475 Hanover Street
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 251−5000
          Facsimile: (650) 251−5002
          Email: jkreissman@stblaw.com

                    - and -

          Alan C Turner, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          425 Lexington Ave.
          New York, NY 10017−3954
          Telephone: (212) 455−2000
          Facsimile: (212) 455−2502
          Email: aturner@stblaw.com

                    - and -

          Clyde Moody Siebman, Esq.
          Elizabeth Siebman Forrest, Esq.
          SIEBMAN BURG PHILLIPS & SMITH LLP
          300 N Travis St.
          Sherman, TX 75090−0070
          Telephone: (903) 870−0070
          Facsimile: (903) 870−0066
          Email: clydesiebman@siebman.com
                 elizabethforrest@siebman.com


GRACO CHILDREN'S: Kids' Booster Seats Unsafe, Tehomilic Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
SILVIA TEHOMILIC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRACO CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS, INC.
and NEWELL BRANDS DTC, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02067
(E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants
for violation of State Consumer Fraud Acts, fraudulent concealment,
breach of express warranties, breach of implied warranties,
violation of the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and
unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated consumers, alleges that the Defendants are
engaged in false and deceptive advertising of Graco's TurboBooster
and Affix booster seats by labeling the seats as side-impact tested
and safe for children as light as 30 pounds and as young as three
years old. The Plaintiff claims that Graco's labels and marketing
claims deceive parents of young children by making them believe
that the Booster Seats provide side-impact protection without
revealing that those representations are virtually meaningless. In
reality, Graco designs their own testing, and despite Graco's
claims that they perform rigorous side-impact testing, they do not
publish or share internal crash test results and admit that Graco
has set its own testing protocols. Graco made their
misrepresentations in an effort to increase their share of the
booster seat market and their revenues and profits at the expense
of consumers.

Graco Children's Products, Inc. is a designer, manufacturer,
marketer, seller, and distributor of booster seats throughout the
United States, with its principal place of business at 6655
Peachtree Dunwoody Road, Atlanta, Georgia.

Newell Brands DTC, Inc. is a manufacturer of booster seats with
principal place of business at 6655 Peachtree Dunwoody Road,
Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is 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 –
         
         Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
         Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
         GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
         First Tennessee Plaza
         800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
         Knoxville, TN 37929
         Telephone: (865) 247-0080
         Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
         E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                 jonathan@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and –
         
         Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
         Martha A. Geer, Esq.
         Patrick M. Wallace, Esq.
         WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
         900 W. Morgan Street
         Raleigh, NC 27603
         Telephone: (919) 600-5000
         Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
         E-mail: dan@whitfieldbryson.com
                 martha@whitfieldbryson.com
                 pat@whitfieldbryson.com

GRAND CANYON: Ogdon Sues Over Unlawful Enrolment of Students
------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Ogdon, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Grand Canyon University, Inc., an Arizona
corporation, and Grand Canyon Education, Inc. d/b/a Grand Canyon
University, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:20-at-00363 (E.D.
Cal., May 20, 2020), is brought to hold the 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.

This 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 Plaintiff contends. She asserts that the Defendants
perpetrate this scheme by aggressively marketing their unaccredited
programs to potential students through financially-motivated
salespeople the Defendants term "advisors."

These "advisors" are trained and incentivized by the Defendants to
push prospective students to take courses even when the courses
will not qualify the students for licensure, according to the
complaint. Moreover, the federal government--which funds nearly all
tuition for Grand Canyon University students through various
federal student loan programs--should not be wasting hundreds of
millions of dollars each year on unaccredited degree programs,
which do not advance students or their professional careers.

The Plaintiff says she is one victim of this scam. She is a citizen
of the State of California, who signed up for Grand Canyon
University's Master of Science in Psychology with an Emphasis in
Health Psychology program. She avers she only did so based upon the
assurances of the Defendants' "advisors" and other personnel that
the program was suitable for her intended career, which was to be a
mental health therapist in the State of California. Two years and
tens of thousands of dollars in tuition later, she discovered that
Grand Canyon University was not accredited in such a way so as to
qualify her and those similarly situated for professional licensure
and/or practice in California and thus she could not become a
California-licensed mental health therapist as she was led to
believe, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Ms. Ogdon lives in Fresno, California.

Grand Canyon was a small non-profit Christian college in Arizona
until 2004 when it was sold to a for-profit company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Annick Persinger, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Phone: (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, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                 ksimplicio@tzlegal.com


HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Student A Sues Over Failure to Refund Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Student A, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HARVARD UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-10968-IT (D.
Mass., May 20, 2020), is brought on behalf of all people, who paid
tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 academic semester at Harvard,
and who, because of the Defendant's response to the Novel
Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic, lost the benefit of the
education for which they paid, and/or the services for which their
fees paid, without having their tuition and fees refunded to them.

On March 10, 2020, Harvard announced on its Web site that beginning
March 23, 2020 (the first day back from Spring Recess), it will
transition to virtual instruction for undergraduate and graduate
classes until further notice. Thus, Harvard has not held any
in-person classes since March 13, 2020. Classes that have continued
have only been offered in an online format, with no in-person
instruction. As a result of the closure of its facilities, the
Defendant has not delivered the educational services, facilities,
access and/or opportunities that Student A and the putative class
contracted and paid for, the Plaintiff avers.

Nonetheless, the Plaintiff notes, Harvard has not refunded any
tuition or mandatory fees for the Spring 2020 semester. The
Plaintiff and the putative class are, therefore, entitled to a
refund of tuition and fees for in-person educational services,
facilities, access and/or opportunities that the Defendant has not
provided. Even if the Defendant did not have a choice in cancelling
in-person classes, it nevertheless has improperly retained funds
for services it is not providing, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a graduate student at Harvard, who paid $11,422 to
the Defendant in tuition and a Health Fee for the Spring 2020
semester.

Harvard is one of the country's most prestigious private
universities, with an enrollment of over 20,700 students.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Pastor, Esq.
          PASTOR LAW OFFICE LLP
          63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: 617-742-9700
          Fax: 617-742-9701
          Email: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.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

               - and -

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


HD CLINIC: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages Under FLSA, Ponder Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Morganne Ponder, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. HD CLINIC, LTD., Case No. 4:20-cv-00542-KGB (E.D. Ark.,
May 20, 2020), seeks a declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and a reasonable
attorney's fee and costs as a result of the Defendant's failure to
pay proper overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff and others regularly worked hours for which they were
not paid, according to the complaint. Specifically, the Plaintiff
was directed by the Defendant to work over 40 hours per week but
not to record any hours over worked over 40 in a week.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from September 2019 to May
2020.

The Defendant owns and operates cannabis clinics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          April Rheaume, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Phone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          Email: april@sanfordlawfirm.com
                 josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


HEROIC REAL: Faces Phelps TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Marketing Texts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH PHELPS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HEROIC REAL ESTATE, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, Case No. 107193072 (Fla Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., May 7,
2020), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to
wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff contends that to solicit new paying clients, the
Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing with no regard for
privacy rights of the recipients of those messages. The Defendant
caused thousands of unsolicited text messages to be sent to the
cellular telephones of the Plaintiff and Class Members, causing
them injuries, including invasion of their privacy, aggravation,
annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion.

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

The Defendant operates an insurance brokerage that specializes in
life insurance and health insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          Garrett 0. Berg, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: 305-479-2299
          E-mail: gberg@shamisgentile.com
                  ashamis@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 3 3180
          Telephone: 305-975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com


HEXO CORP: Court Consolidates Perez & Hudak Securities Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York consolidated the cases, RONNIE PEREZ,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. HEXO CORP., SEBASTIEN ST. LOUIS, ED CHAPLIN, MICHAEL
MONAHAN, and STEVE Defendants and GEORGE HUDAK, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. HEXO CORP.,
SEBASTIEN ST. LOUIS, ED CHAPLIN, MICHAEL MONAHAN, and STEVE
BURWASH, Defendants, Case Nos. 19 Civ. 10965 (NRB), 20 Civ. 00196
(NRB) (S.D. N.Y.).

The class actions are brought against HEXO, its President and CEO
Sebastien St. Louis, its CFO Ed Chaplin and Michael Monahan, and
its VP of Strategic Finance Steve Burwash on behalf of a purported
class of persons and entities who acquired HEXO securities between
Jan. 25, 2019, and Nov. 15, 2019, inclusive.  The Actions allege
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

As the Actions concern substantially the same factual and legal
issues, Judge Buchwald consolidates them under Rule 42(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.   Any other securities actions
now pending or later filed in the District that arise out of or are
related to the same facts as alleged in the above cases will be
consolidated with the Actions for all purposes.  All relevant
filings and submissions will be maintained as one file under docket
number 19 Civ. 10965 with the caption In re HEXO Corp. Securities
Litigation.

Eleven applicants filed motions seeking to consolidate these cases,
be appointed as Lead Plaintiff, and appoint their attorneys as lead
counsel.  Nine of those applicants subsequently withdrew their
motions, leaving only the motions of Chi Fung Wong, and Medley and
Sweeney in contention.

Judge Buchwald holds that no evidence presented to the Court
provides proof to overcome the presumption that Medley and Sweeney
be appointed as Lead Plaintiff.   Given Wong's failure to provide
any information regarding his experience in his preliminary motion,
the Court questions whether Wong will meaningfully oversee and
control the prosecution of the consolidated class action.  By
contrast, Medley and Sweeney, who are next in line to become lead
plaintiff given their claimed losses of $661,789.41, have submitted
a joint declaration that offers detailed information in support of
their adequacy under Rule 23.

In light of their claimed losses and the additional information
provided regarding their capacity to manage the litigation, the
Court concludes that Medley and Sweeney are presumptively the Lead
Class Plaintiffs.  While Wong presents two arguments that Medley
and Sweeney will not adequately represent the class, neither
successfully rebuts the presumption.  Medley and Sweeney's motion
for appointment as Lead Plaintiff is thus granted, and Wong's
motion is denied.

Medley and Sweeney have retained Bernstein Liebhard LLP as their
counsel.  Bernstein Liebhard has experience prosecuting securities
class actions, and the Judge has no reason to believe that it will
not adequately represent the interests of the class.  Accordingly,
the Judge approves their selection as the lead counsel.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Buchwald consolidated the cases as
In re HEXO Corp. Securities Litigation, 19 Civ. 10965 (NRB).
Medley and Sweeney are appointed as Lead Lead Plaintiffs, and
Bernstein Liebhard LLP as lead counsel.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 25, 2020 Memorandum &
Order is available at https://is.gd/uJEsKG from Leagle.com.

Timothy Sweeney, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Enrico
Guarnero -- mguarnero@bernlieb.com -- Bernstein Liebhard LLP.

Joseph E. Majocha, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan
Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Ronnie Perez, Plaintiff, represented by Lucas E. Gilmore, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Reed R. Kathrein, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Jason Allen Zweig, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

George Hudak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan
Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP & Joseph Alexander Hood, II --
ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Maxwell Bergmann, Movant, represented by Matthew Moylan Guiney,
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.

HEXO Corp., Ed Chaplin, Michael Monahan, Steve Burwash & Sebastien
St. Louis, Defendants, represented by Peter Andrew Stokes --
peter.stokes@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Fulbright & Jaworski LLP &
Gerard G. Pecht -- gerard.pecht@nortonrosefulbright.com --
Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P.


HOUSEPARTY: Swigart Law Group Files Privacy Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Swigart Law Group, APC has filed the first lawsuit against popular
quarantine video chat app, Houseparty, owned by Epic Games Inc.,
for being out of compliance with the California Consumer Privacy
Act. This new law was effective January 1, 2020 and mandates
informing consumers about the information collected on them and
must allow for the consumer to opt out.  The law firm's client,
individually and on behalf of the class did not get those
disclosures and was not provided the opportunity to opt out and not
have her personal information shared.

Amid the novel Coronavirus pandemic, the app has seen a surge of 50
million new users in the past month alone. Joshua B. Swigart --
josh@swigartlawgroup.com -- of the Swigart Law Group, APC stated
"Consumers' information is of great value to companies as they are
quickly strategizing on how to reach and appeal to current and
potential consumers with Stay at Home orders still being enforced
throughout a majority of America. With technology and the economic
environment changing so rapidly protecting your personal
information is more important than ever."

The company who created the Houseparty app was acquired by Epic
Games, the makers of Fortnite, in June 2019. Both Life of Air, Inc.
and Epic Games, Inc. were listed as Defendants in the class action
lawsuit. The purpose of the California legislature passing the most
forward thinking and advanced piece of consumer legislature last
year was to give consumers transparency with what personal
information companies have access to and how it is collected or
sold to. Most importantly, this new law allows consumers to have
the right to opt out of these practices.

                   About Swigart Law Group, APC

Joshua B. Swigart, the lead attorney with the Swigart Law Group,
APC, has been litigating complex civil liability cases for over 17
years. He has obtained $750+ million for people in California and
nationwide. His firm's mission is to help people who have been
injured by banks, employers, drug and medical companies, or large
corporations, obtain maximum recovery and to create a meaningful
and profound impact on the lives of people in the community. [GN]


HYDROPONICS INC: Camacho Sues Over Illegal SMS Ads
--------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Camacho, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Hydroponics, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00980, (C.D. Cal., May 6, 2020), seeks statutory damages and
injunctive relief for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Hydroponics sells garden fixtures. To promote its products, it
engages in unsolicited text messaging using an auto-dialer. Camacho
expressly and clearly revoked his consent to continue receiving
text messages by sending an "opt-out" message yet continued to
receive such SMS ads, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HYVEE: Must Face Class Action Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------
Paul Brennan, writing for Little Village, reports that on April 20,
a federal judge in Illinois rejected a request by Hy-Vee to dismiss
a class action lawsuit filed by customers who had their credit and
debit card information stolen during a massive data breach at some
of the company's stores.

Judge Michael Mihm did dismiss three of the claims made by the
plaintiffs -- negligence, unjust enrichment and a claim related to
third-party contracts -- but found they did have viable claims that
Hy-Vee had violated an implied contract with customers to take
reasonable measures to safeguard consumer payment information,
failed to notify customers of the data breach in a timely manner
and may have violated certain consumer fraud laws.

The case can now proceed to discovery, the pre-trial phase in which
the plaintiffs' attorneys will be able to question company
officials and request documents related to the months-long data
breach.

On Aug. 14, 2019, Hy-Vee issued a press release announcing it had
discovered a data breach that affected customers who used debit and
credit cards at its fuel pumps, drive-thru coffee shops and
restaurants (Market Grilles, Market Grille Expresses and its
Wahlburgers locations). No purchases at "our grocery stores,
drugstores and inside our convenience stores" were at risk, the
company explained, because those sales are processed using a
different, more secure system.

Locations in all eight Midwestern states where the chain has its
more than 240 stores were affected by the breach, which lasted
between seven to eight months. Information from more than 5.3
million debit and credit cards was stolen during the data breach.

The stolen debit and credit card information was later reported to
be on sale at Joker's Stash, a site that traffics in stolen card
data.

In October, two Hy-Vee customers who had their data stolen -- one a
resident of Illinois, the other a resident of Missouri -- filed a
class action lawsuit against Hy-Vee over the data breach. The
following month, two Iowans were added as plaintiffs in the
lawsuit.

According to a database of sites involved in the data breach,
posted by the company, Hy-Vee locations in 41 Iowa cities were
infected with the data-stealing malware, including locations in
Iowa City, Coralville, Cedar Rapids and Marion. [GN]


JANSSEN PHARMA: Allen Alleges Elmiron Causes Retina Damage
----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the case captioned Mary Lee Allen, individually
and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-02183 (E.D. Pa., May 6, 2020), seeks
appropriate diagnostic services and other declaratory relief for
placing at risk of loss of vision, retinal macular dystrophy,
pigmentary maculopathy, or atypical macular degeneration resulting
from the prescription of Elmiron.

Allen was prescribed Elmiron (pentosyn polysulfate sodium) for the
treatment of interstitial cystitis and bladder pain since 2009.
Elmiron is manufactured by Janssen and Johnson and Johnson. She
claims that Defendants failed to disclose in its labelling that
pentosyn polysulfate sodium can cause pigmentary maculopathy with
chronic use. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sol H. Weiss, Esq.
      Thomas R. Anapol, Esq.
      Shayna S. Slater, Esq.
      Paola Pearson, Esq.
      ANAPOL WEISS
      One Logan Square
      130 N. 18th St., Suite 1600
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 735-1130
      Fax: (215) 875-7701 (F)
      Email: sweiss@anapolweiss.com
             ppearson@anapolweiss.com

             - and -

      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      Stacy K. Hauer, Esq.
      Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER PLLC
      444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
      St. Paul, MN 55101
      Tel: (612) 436-1800
      Fax: (612) 436-1801
      Tel: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com
           shauer@johnsonbecker.com
           jrusch@johnsonbecker.com


JC PENNEY: Settlement in Hernandez TCPA Suit Gets Prelim. Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JANIMARY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and the
Class, Plaintiff, v. J. C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 18-CV-05759 (S.D. N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
grants preliminary approval to the proposed class settlement in the
case.

The Plaintiff brings claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA").  She claims, inter alia, that the Defendant violated
the TCPA by sending multiple commercial text messages to her and
the others similarly situated, without the prior express consent
required by law.  The Plaintiff, for herself and others she claims
are similarly situated, sought to recover, inter alia, statutory or
treble damages for each violation of the TCPA, an Order enjoining
Defendant from further violations of the TCPA, and attorneys' fees
and costs.  The Defendant has disputed, and continues to dispute,
the Plaintiff's allegations in the lawsuit, and the Defendant
denies any liability for any of the claims that have or could have
been alleged by Plaintiff or the persons that she seeks to
represent.

After participating in a private mediation session, and despite
their adversarial positions in the matter, the Parties have entered
into the Settlement Agreement solely for the purposes of
compromising and settling their disputes in the matter.  As part of
the Settlement Agreement, the Defendant has agreed not to oppose,
for settlement purposes only, conditional certification under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(c) of the Settlement Class as
defined in Section 2.6(c) of the Settlement Agreement.

In a February 2020 Motion to the Court, Plaintiff requested that,
for settlement purposes only, the Court conditionally certifies a
class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.  The Plaintiff also
requested that it grants preliminary approval to the Settlement
Agreement, including the plan of allocation in that Agreement, and
that the Court approves the Class Notice.

Upon review, Judge Lehrburger certified the Class for the purposes
of settlement, notice and award distribution only.

Named Plaintiff Hernandez is appointed as the representative of the
Class, C.K. Lee, Esq. of Lee Litigation Group, PLLC as the class
counsel, and the parties intend to retain either RUST Consulting or
Epiq as the Claims Administrator.

On further review, the Judge concludes that the Settlement is
within the range of possible Settlement approval such that notice
to the Class is appropriate.  Accordingly, the Judge granted
preliminary approval to the Settlement Agreement and the Plan of
Allocation.

The Judge also approved the form and manner of distributing the
proposed Class Notices.

The Court scheduled the Final Approval Hearing for July 28, 2020 at
10:00 a.m.  The Class Counsel will file their petition for an award
of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of costs/expenses and the
petition for an award of service payments no later than 10 days
prior to the Final Approval Hearing.  All objections and opt-outs
will be filed in the manner described in the Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 25, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/j8u82Q from Leagle.com.

Janimary Hernandez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Melissa Seelig, Lee
Litigation Group, PLLC & C.K. Lee, Lee Litigation Group, PLLC.

J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas E.
Ahlering -- tahlering@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Michael
John Burns -- mburns@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


JERSEY MIKE'S: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Thorne ADA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Braulio Thorne filed an appeal from the District Court's
Memorandum Opinion and Order dated April 27, 2020, Order dated May
13, 2020, and Judgment dated May 13, 2020, entered in the lawsuit
entitled Thorne v. Jersey Mike's Franchise System, Case No.
19-cv-9934, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Jersey Mike's Franchise Systems, Inc. owns and operates a chain of
sub sandwich restaurants. The Company provides roast beefs, fresh
grilled bacons, turkey breast and provolone, and Swiss cheese, as
well as franchising and catering services.

The appellate case is captioned as Thorne v. Jersey Mike's
Franchise System, Case No. 20-1588, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          150 East 18th Street
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com

Defendant-Appellee Jersey Mike's Franchise Systems, Inc., 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


JOHN DOE CORP: Sapon Sues Over Underpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tomas F. Sapon Sapon, individually and in behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. JOHN DOE CORPORATION d/b/a IGGY'S
PIZZERIA and IGNAZIO SCIULARA, jointly and severally, Case No.
1:20-cv-03924 (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2020), is brought pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law alleging that
the Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff for unpaid or underpaid
minimum wages, overtime compensations, spread-of-hours wages,
uniform maintenance pay, and other relief.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants
between 55 and 60 hours per week. The Defendants willfully failed
to pay the Plaintiff the applicable minimum wages. The Plaintiff
worked more tha forty hours each workweek, yet the Defendants
willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation of one
and one-half times their regular rate of pay.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a delivery man.

The Defendants' business is a limited-service restaurant, doing
business as Iggy's Pizzeria, located in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
          Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007-2036
          Phone: (212) 229-2249
          Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
          Email: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
                 jazeller@zellerlegal.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Smukler Sues Over Refusal to Pay for Services
-------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Smukler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., an Ohio corporation, and
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., a New York corporation, Case No.
4:20-cv-03413-JCS (N.D. Cal., May 20, 2020), is brought to seek
compensation from the Defendants, who refuse to pay for services
Smukler and countless other agents rendered on behalf of recipients
of Small Business Administration emergency loans.

In the past two months, COVID-19 has destroyed national commerce
and shuttered countless businesses across virtually all sectors.
Responding to mass layoffs occurring around the country, Congress
created a program that would quickly distribute money to small
businesses, like the Plaintiff's client, on a first-come,
first-served basis.

The Defendants are multi-trillion dollar banking entities that
have, since the launch of the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP),
collectively approved hundreds of thousands of PPP applications
worth over $29 billion. They have, accordingly, been allocated--or
will be allocated--hundreds of millions of dollars in origination
fees.

However, the Defendants apparently decided that they need not
complete the final step of the process and refused to pay agents,
who assisted PPP loan recipients with their applications, according
to the complaint. This refusal is harming countless accountants and
attorneys around the country, and is in blatant violation of PPP
regulations stating that agent fees "will be paid by the lender out
of the fees the lender receives from SBA." These agents, like and
including the Plaintiff, have no other option for collecting fees
on PPP loan applications they assisted in preparing because SBA
regulations provide that "agents may not collect fees from the
borrower or be paid out of the PPP loan proceeds." Thus, lenders
alone are responsible for paying agents. The Defendants refuse to
do so, despite this.

As a result of the Defendants' acts and omissions, the Plaintiff
and countless others like him are being deprived of payment for
their critical work in processing PPP loan applications, says the
complaint. As such, the Plaintiff brings this Class Action
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial in order to vindicate his
rights, and those of agents everywhere who are similarly situated,
and to hold the Defendants accountable.

Plaintiff Howard Smukler is a natural person and a citizen of the
State of California.

Chase Bank conducts substantial business throughout this District
and the State of California, and throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rafey Balabanian, Esq.
          Lily Hough, Esq.
          Brandt Silver-Korn, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Phone: 415.212.9300
          Facsimile: 415.373.9435
          Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com
                 lhough@edelson.com
                 bsilverkorn@edelson.com


K-3 RESOURCES: Underpays Drivers, Skinner Claims
------------------------------------------------
GARY SKINNER, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. K-3 RESOURCES, LP d/b/a K-3BMI,
Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-01785 (S.D. Tex., May 22, 2020) alleges
that Defendant failed to pay non-exempt employees overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a driver from approximately
October 2012 to November 2019 and typically worked 5-7 shifts per
week in which each shift could last longer than 24 hours.

Plaintiff claims that he was not paid by Defendant at the rate of
time and one-half of his hourly regular rate of pay for all hours
worked over 40.

K-3 Resources, LP d/b/a K-3BMI operates in the oil and gas industry
providing municipal and biosolids recycling services to communities
throughout Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don J. Forty, Esq.
          HODGES & FORTY, L.L.P.
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Tel: (713) 523-0001
          Fax: (713) 523-1116
          Email: dfoty@hfttrialfirm.com


KENTUCKY TAX: Court Rules on Case Dismissal Motion in Nagel Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE DONALD R. NAGEL, JR. Chapter 13, Debtor. DONALD
R. NAGEL, JR., Plaintiff, v. KENTUCKY TAX BILL SERVICING, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 19-20055, Adv. No. 19-2009 (E.D. Ky.), Judge
Tracey N. Wise of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky, Covington Division, (i) granted in part the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Class Action
Complaint; and (ii) denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to
Amend Complaint.

The adversary proceeding is before the Court on the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint that
Plaintiff/Debtor Nagel filed against Defendant/Creditor Kentucky
Tax Bill Servicing ("KTBS").  Nagel previously owned real property
located at 291 Rogers Road, Demossville, Pendleton County,
Kentucky.  He failed to pay property taxes assessed on the
Demossville Property for tax years 2003, 2004, 2006, and 2007
resulting in Pendleton County's tax lien on the property.  KTBS
purchased the four certificates of delinquency for the unpaid
taxes.

In 2010, KTBS filed an action in Kentucky state court against Nagel
seeking to collect on the Certificates.  The state court entered an
"In Rem Judgment and Order of Sale" on April 10, 2012.  The Master
Commissioner offered the Demossville Property for sale in July 2012
but received no bids.  The Master Commissioner then conveyed the
Demossville Property to KTBS, who later sold it in 2017 for
$4,500.

In 2015, based on the 2012 Judgment, KTBS filed a notice of
judgment lien against all of Nagel's property in Pendleton County
and filed a second state court complaint seeking a personal
judgment against Nagel and sale of his home at 9710 Kentucky
Highway 467, Williamstown, Pendleton County, Kentucky.

The state court initially entered the requested in personam
judgment against Nagel and ordered the sale of the Williamstown
Property.  However, in 2017, the state court set aside the
judgment.

The Complaint then sets forth a series of allegations concerning
KTBS's conduct in other bankruptcy cases in the district to support
Nagel's claim that KTBS files false liens and claims in the
Bankruptcy Court to further an illegal scheme.  

The Complaint seeks to bring the claims as a class action on behalf
of the following purported class members:  All persons who had a
certificate of delinquency issued by the Kentucky Department of
Revenue on real property in which they held an ownership interest
that was purchased by Kentucky Tax Bill Servicing, Inc., and who
subsequently filed a petition for relief under Title 11, Chapters
13 or 7, in the Eastern District of Kentucky, and in which Kentucky
Tax Bill Servicing, Inc., filed a false proof of claim.

The Complaint contains seven counts:  Count 1 -  Filing False
Claims in Bankruptcy; Count 2 - Violation of KRS Section 434.155 -
Filing an Illegal Lien; Count 3 - Violation of KRS Section 134.452;
Count 4 - Slander of Title; Count 5 - Abuse of Process; Count 6 -
Injunctive Relief; and Count 7 - Declaratory Relief

Nagel requests an award of monetary damages totaling $11,935.05,
representing attorneys' fees and costs charged to him by the first
mortgage holder on the Williamstown Property.  The fees and costs
were incurred to defend the mortgage holder's interest during the
2015 Case and subsequent appeals.  Nagel also requests declaratory
and injunctive relief against KTBS.

KTBS's Motion to Dismiss asserts that Nagel has no private right of
action under federal law for Count 1 and, as a result, is not
entitled to either the injunctive or declaratory relief sought
under Counts 6 and 7.  Further, KTBS argues that the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over Counts 2, 3, 4, and 5 ("State Law
Claims") because they have no relationship to the Bankruptcy Code
and have no conceivable effect on the bankruptcy estate.  Lastly,
KTBS argues the State Law Claims are not well-pleaded to survive a
motion to dismiss.

During the briefing period, Nagel filed a motion for leave to amend
stating that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 15, made applicable, by
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7015, he respectfully requests an order allowing
him leave to amend the Complaint should the Court grant Defendant
KTBS's Motion to Dismiss.  Under the rule, leave is to be granted
freely.  Nagel did not provide a proposed amended pleading with the
Motion to Amend.

As for Counts 1, 6, and 7, Nagel alleges that KTBS made false
representations in its proof of claim filed in his underlying
bankruptcy case by stating that it (1) held a secured claim, (2)
held a valid judgment lien against Debtor and his real property,
(3) had a legally enforceable claim, and (4) was entitled to
interest on fees in violation of KRS Section 134.452.  Nagel argues
that under Section 105(a), the Court may award monetary damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief against KTBS because it filed a
false claim.

Judge Wise finds that there is no cause of action for "false
claims" in the Code.  The Sixth Circuit's interpretation of Section
105(a) leaves no doubt that Count 1 must be dismissed because
Section 105(a) may not be used to create a private cause of action
that does not otherwise exist.

Count 6, titled "Injunctive Relief," requests an order enjoining
KTBS from collecting or receiving money on false claims.
Injunctive relief is not an independent cause of action, it is a
remedy.  Accordingly, Count 6, which is not a stand-alone claim,
must be dismissed, the Court holds.

Finally, Count 7 requests declaratory relief that KTBS acted
unlawfully and fraudulently in the filing of false proofs of claim.
Count 7 must also be dismissed, the Court finds.  The Declaratory
Judgment Act has been understood to confer on federal courts unique
and substantial discretion in deciding whether to declare the
rights of litigants.  The Declaratory Judgment Act is procedural in
nature and does not create an independent cause of action that can
be invoked absent some showing of an articulated legal wrong.  A
court may dismiss as moot a claim for declaratory relief where the
claim duplicates or is wholly subsumed by another claim that has
been dismissed.  With Count 1 dismissed, Nagel has no substantive
right to be addressed via declaratory relief.  Accordingly, Count 7
is dismissed, the Court holds.

Turning to Nagel's Motion to Amend, the Court finds that not only
is there no proposed amendment, there is no amendment which could
be made to fortify Count 1 (and thus Count 7).  There simply is no
private cause of action for filing a false proof of claim.
Similarly, as a matter of law, injunctive relief is not a cause of
action.  No amendment to the Complaint can change it, and any
amendment would be futile.  Thus, as to Counts 1, 6 and 7, the
Motion to Amend is denied, the Court opines.

Each of the remaining counts assert purely state law claims.
Counts 2 and 3 assert claims for violations of Kentucky statutory
law; to-wit: filing illegal liens in violation of KRS Section
434.155 and claiming interest on fees and other charges in
violation of KRS Section 134.452.  Count 4 asserts a slander of
title claim under Kentucky law based on alleged illegal liens.
Count 5 asserts abuse of process claims under Kentucky law based on
the alleged improper employment of judicial process to enforce
illegal claims and liens.

Judge Wise finds that although the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction over the State Law Claims, he will sua sponte abstain
from hearing them pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1334(c)(1).  There
are related proceedings in the state court, and state law issues
not only predominate but are exclusively at issue in the remaining
counts.  The parties' briefs identify state law issues which may be
unsettled or difficult, including whether attorneys' fees charged
to Debtor's mortgage can be deemed "special damages" for purposes
of a slander of title claim.  A Kentucky state court is in a better
position to decide the State Law Claims.

The remaining State Law Claims are non-core claims.  There is no
basis for the Court's jurisdiction other than 28 U.S.C. Section
1334.  Abstention will not affect the efficient administration of
the bankruptcy estate.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Wise grants in part the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.  The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
is granted as to Counts 1, 6, and 7 in the Complaint.  Counts 1, 6,
and 7 are dismissed with prejudice.  Based on abstention, Counts 2,
3, 4, and 5, are dismissed without prejudice.  The Judge denied
Nagel's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint as to Counts 1, 6 and
7.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 21, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/g9bG0q from Leagle.com.

Donald R. Nagel Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Michael B. Baker --
mbb@caltech.edu -- Matthew T. Sanning & Robert R. Sparks, Strauss
Troy.

Kentucky Tax Bill Servicing, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joshua
M. Bilz -- joshua.bilz@bilzlaw.com -- & G. Michael Cain --
cain@kchfirm.com.


KIBO SOFTWARE INC: West Claims Website Inaccessible to Blind
------------------------------------------------------------
Mary West, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. Kibo
Software, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-03595 (S.D. N.Y., May 8,
2020), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory,
statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together
with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and
further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York
State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.

Kibo is a children's toy company that owns and operates
www.hape.com. It offers products and services for online sale and
general delivery to the public. Plaintiff is legally blind and
claims that said website cannot be accessed by the
visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Paul Force, Esq.
      STEIN SAKS, PLLC
      285 Passaic Street
      Hackensack, NJ 07601
      Tel: (201) 282-6500 Ext. 107
      Fax: (201) 282-6501
      Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Court Stays Davis Suit Pending Ruling in Accardi
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HARRY C. DAVIS, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-169-FL (E.D. N.C.),
Judge Louise W. Flanagan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, Eastern Division, granted the parties'
joint motion to stay proceedings in the case pending disposition of
Accardi v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company, No. 42A19 (N.C.
Jan. 25, 2019).   

Judge Flanagan directed the parties to alert the Court without
delay of the disposition of Accardi.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 21, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/ts8uPW from Leagle.com.

Harry C. Davis, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew E. Lee --
matt@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP.

Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Christopher S. Edwards -- csedwards@wardandsmith.com -- Ward and
Smith, P.A. & E. Bradley Evans -- ebe@wardandsmith.com -- Ward &
Smith, P.A..


LUSTRE-CAL: Hulce Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
-----------------------------------------------
JAMES HULCE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. LUSTRE-CAL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-00775 (E.D. Wis., May 22, 2020) is a class action complaint
brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff received a fax advertisement
from Defendant on May 18, 2020 which he never consented to receive
and never has preexisting business relationship with Defendant.

Plaintiff asserts that he was harmed by the acts of Defendant
because his privacy has been violated.

Lustre-Cal Corporation sells medical equipment. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and –

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
          Hingham, MS 02043
          Tel: (617) 485-0018
          Email: Anthony@paronichlaw.com


MARIST COLLEGE: Fedele Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
----------------------------------------------------
Melanie Fedele, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Marist College, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-03559 (S.D. N.Y., May 7, 2020), seeks disgorgement of all
amounts wrongfully obtained for tuition, fees, on-campus housing,
and meals, injunctive relief including enjoining Marist College
from retaining the pro-rated, unused monies paid for tuition, fees,
on-campus housing and meal.  The Plaintiff further seeks reasonable
attorney's fees, costs and expenses, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest on any amounts awarded and such other and further relief
as may be just and proper, including refunds of all tuition fees
paid on a pro-rata basis, together with other damages resulting
from breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

Marist operates a higher learning campus in Poughkeepsie, New York
where Fedele is an undergraduate student pursuing a Bachelor's
Degree in Business Administration and Fashion Merchandising. Marist
decided to close campus, constructively evict students, and
transition all classes to an online/remote format as a result of
the Novel Coronavirus Disease. Fedele claims to be deprived the
benefits of in-person instruction, access to campus facilities,
student activities and other benefits and services in exchange for
which they had already paid fees and tuition. Marist refused to
provide reimbursement for the tuition, fees and other costs,
asserts the Plaintiff. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
      Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
      888 Seventh Avenue
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (646) 837-7150
      Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
      Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
             aleslie@bursor.com

             - and -

      Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      2665 S. Bayshore Drive, Suite 220
      Miami, FL 33133
      Telephone: (305) 330-5512
      Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
      Email: swestcot@bursor.com


MARYLAND MARKETSOURCE: Esparza Remanded to San Mateo Superior Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge George J. Hazel of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maryland, Southern Division, remanded the case, JOHNNY ESPARZA,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. MARYLAND MARKETSOURCE, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
GJH-19-23 (D. Md.), to the Superior Court of California for the
County of San Mateo.

The Plaintiff, a resident of California, filed the action in the
Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo on April
12, 2018 against Maryland corporations Maryland Marketsource,
Allegis Group, Inc., and Allegis Group Holdings, Inc.  Filed as a
putative class action, the Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that he
worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly employee from
approximately Nov. 19, 2013 until he was terminated on Oct. 17,
2017.

The Complaint included 10 counts.  Counts 5 through 9 alleged
violations of California labor laws.  Counts 1 through 4 centered
on the claim that the Defendants performed credit and background
investigations on Plaintiff when he applied for employment but
failed to provide him adequate disclosures about the investigations
as required by the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA")
(Counts 1 and 2) and two similar California statutes, the
Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act ("ICRAA") and the
Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act ("CCRAA") (Counts 3 and 4).
Count 10, brought under Section 17200 of the California Business
and Professions Code, known as the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"),
alleged that the violations of the FCRA, ICRAA, CCRAA, and
California labor laws alleged in Counts 1 through 9 constituted
unlawful business practices under California law.

The Defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1441 on May 18, 2018.  The Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint
pursuant to a stipulation on July 26, 2018, which added an eleventh
count for civil penalties under the California Labor Code.  On
Sept. 21, 2018, pursuant to a stipulation that followed a partial
Motion to Dismiss by the Defendants on the same grounds, the court
entered an order severing Counts 5 through 9 of the Amended
Complaint and the component of Count 10 based on those counts and
transferring them to the Eastern District of California, where a
previously filed action against the same defendants was pending.

Further pursuant to the stipulation and also previously sought in
the partial Motion to Dismiss, the court dismissed the Plaintiff's
remaining claim in Count 10 that was predicated on violations of
the FCRA, CCRAA, and ICRAA, dismissed Count 1 to the extent it
alleged a negligent violation of the FCRA and sought injunctive and
equitable relief under that statute, and Count 3's request for
class damages under the ICRAA.  Notably, the Defendants' partial
Motion to Dismiss for dismissal of Count 10's allegations
predicated on FCRA, CCRAA, and ICRAA violations asserted that the
Plaintiff lacked standing for such a claim.

The Defendants also moved on Aug. 2, 2018 to transfer the case to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.  The
Plaintiff responded in opposition, and the Defendants replied.  The
court held a hearing and granted the motion to transfer from the
bench on Oct. 25, 2018.  On May 17, 2019, after arriving in the
Maryland Court, the Plaintiff filed the pending Motion to Remand
the case to the Superior Court of California for the County of San
Mateo.  The Defendants responded on May 31, and the Plaintiff
replied on June 14, 2019.  The Defendants have filed several
notices of supplemental authority that the Court has reviewed.

In opposing the Plaintiff's motion, the Defendants assert that the
Complaint and Amended Complaint establish several grounds for a
cognizable injury across Counts 1, 3, 4, and 10.  First, though the
Defendants only select isolated passages to this effect from Counts
1, 3, and 4, each claim asserts that as as a result of the
Defendants' unlawful or illegal procurement of credit and/or
background reports by way of their inadequate notice or
disclosures, the Plaintiff and the class members have been injured,
including but not limited to, having their privacy and statutory
rights invaded in violation of the FCRA, ICRAA, or CCRAA.  Second,
the Defendants note that the Plaintiff seeks "statutory damages
and/or actual damages" and "punitive damages" for each of those
claims.

Third, Defendants point to the allegation in Count 1 that they have
a policy and practice of procuring investigative consumer reports
or causing investigative consumer reports to be procured for
applicants and employees without informing them of their right to
request a summary of their rights under the FCRA at the same time
as the disclosure explaining that an investigative consumer report
may be made.  Finally, the Defendants point to the allegation in
Count 10 that their alleged violations of the FCRA, ICRAA, and
CCRAA constitute "unfair competition" under California law and that
the Plaintiff lost money or property as a result of the
aforementioned fair competition.

Taking the final allegation first, Judge Hazel finds that the
Defendants' reliance on the Plaintiff's claim of "lost money or
property" is misplaced because Count 10 has been dismissed by joint
stipulation of the parties.  The claim was thereby struck from the
Amended Complaint and any allegations of injury that it contains
are no longer before the Court.  Therefore, the "lost money or
property" allegation in that Count is irrelevant.

The remaining allegations that the Defendants claim assert a
cognizable injury in fact fail to do so, as several decisions
assessing highly similar claims in the Northern District of
California have concluded.  First, the claim that they unlawfully
procured credit or background reports on the Plaintiff and the
class members without adequate disclosures, invading their "privacy
and statutory rights," is the kind of bare procedural violation of
one of the FCRA's procedural requirements that the Supreme Court in
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins held is insufficiently concrete to
constitute an injury in fact.  Second, the Defendant's last claimed
source of an injury in fact, the Plaintiff's requests for "actual
damages," falls well short of the mark.  Allowing a Plaintiff to
manufacture a justiciable case simply by requesting damages would
eviscerate the case or controversy requirement.

Because none of the post-stipulation Amended Complaint's
allegations give rise to a cognizable injury in fact, the case may
not proceed in federal court.  

The Defendants finally claim that if the Maryland Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction, a remand to state court would be
futile because the Plaintiff's claims are time-barred, and
therefore the Maryland Court should dismiss the case.  Though some
circuits have recognized a narrow futility exception to Section
1447(c), the Fourth Circuit has not, holding that the plain
language of Section 1447(c) gives no discretion to dismiss rather
than remand an action removed from state court over which the court
lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.  Thus, because the Plaintiff
lacks standing and the Maryland Court accordingly lacks subject
matter jurisdiction, Section 1447(c) requires the Maryland Court to
remand the case.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Hazel remands the Esparza class
suit to the Superior Court of California for the County of San
Mateo.

A full-text copy of the Maryland District Court's Feb. 21, 2020
Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/HvgN0f from
Leagle.com.

Johnny Esparza, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Denise M. Clark, Clark Law
Group, PLLC & William Pao -- william@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law
Group, pro hac vice.

Maryland MarketSource Inc., a Maryland corporation, Allegis Group,
Inc., a Maryland corporation & Allegis Group Holdings, Inc., a
Maryland corporation, Defendants, represented by Alison Sue
Hightower -- ahightower@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC, pro
hac vice, Emily A. Mertes, Littler Mendelson PC, pro hac vice, Paul
J. Kennedy, Littler Mendelson PC & Rod M. Fliegel --
rfliegel@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC, pro hac vice.


MASSACHUSETTS BAY: Caballero Sues Over Denied Benefit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos O. Caballero DDS, MS, PS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Massachusetts Bay
Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-05437 (W.D. Wash., May
8, 2020), seeks damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
reasonable attorney fees and costs and such further and other
relief for breach of contract.

Caballero operates as "Master Orthodontics," an orthodontics
practice in Bremerton, Port Orchard and Gig Harbor. He was
prohibited from practicing dental services except for urgent and
emergency procedures amidst the closure of all non-essential
businesses during the COVID19 pandemic.

Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company is an insurance carrier
incorporated in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. Caballero took out
a business insurance from them to maintain income in case of an
insured loss. However, Caballero asserts that he was denied
business interruption claims due to closure. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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


MBF INSPECTION: Erwin Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, RANDY ERWIN, individually and for others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MBF INSPECTION SERVICES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00499 (D.N.M., May 22, 2020) arises from
Defendant's alleged failure to properly pay employees' overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately May 2019
until July 2019 as a Field Supervisor throughout northeast Wyoming,
including the Thunder Basin region.

According to the complaint, Defendant has a policy of compensating
Plaintiff and other similarly situated workers a flat daily rate
for each day worked regardless of the total hours they worked in a
workweek throughout their employment with Defendant.

The complaint contends that Plaintiff and the collective Day Rate
Workers were deprived by Defendant of overtime wages at one and
one-half times their regular rates for hours worked in excess of 40
in a workweek.

MBF Inspection Services Inc. provides construction management and
third party inspection services for pipelines and facilities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: 713-352-1100
          Fax: 713-352-3300
          Emails: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  cfitz@mybackwages.com

                - and –

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


MDL 2742: Settlement in Sunedison Securities Suit Gets Final OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge P. Kevin Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York has entered final judgment in IN RE SUNEDISON,
INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. This Document Applies to: In re
TerraForm Global, Inc. Securities Litigation, No.
1:16-cv-07967-PKC, and consolidated cases, Case No.
1:16-md-02742-PKC (S.D. N.Y.).

Upon due deliberation, Judge Castel finally certified the Sunedison
Inc securities case as a class action for purposes of the
Settlement proposed in the case, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all Persons
who purchased or acquired the Common Stock of Terraform Global,
Inc. pursuant to or traceable to the Form S-1 Registration
Statement as amended, that became effective on July 31, 2015,
without limitation as to time.

For the purposes of the Settlement only, the Plaintiffs are
certified as class representatives, and the Plaintiffs' Lead
Counsel previously selected by the Plaintiffs and appointed by the
Court, as class counsel.

The Action and all related claims, as well as all of the Released
Claims, are dismissed with prejudice as against the Defendants and
the Released Parties.  The Settling Parties are to bear their own
costs, except as otherwise provided in the Stipulation.

All Administrative Costs as defined in the Stipulation as modified
by the Settlement Modification Agreement, will be paid from the
Settlement Fund as set forth in the Stipulation.  In the event the
Settlement is not consummated, or otherwise fails to become
effective, neither the Plaintiffs nor any of the Plaintiffs'
Counsel will have any obligation to repay any amounts actually and
properly disbursed from the Settlement Fund.

All funds held by the Escrow Agent will be deemed to be in custodia
legis and will remain subject to the jurisdiction of the Court
until such time as the funds are distributed or returned pursuant
to the Stipulation, as modified by the Settlement Modification
Agreement, and/or further order of the Court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 25, 2020 Order &
Final Judgment is available at https://is.gd/nj6MID from
Leagle.com.

Charles Bloom, Indiviually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated & Sharon Burnstein, Indiviually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by John Jasnoch
-- jjasnoch@scott-scott.com -- Scott+Scott, Attorneys At Law, LLP,
pro hac vice.

Omega Capital Investors, L.P., Omega Capital Partners, L.P., Omega
Equity Investors, L.P., Omega Overseas Partners, Ltd., Cobalt
Partners, LP., Cobalt Partners II, LP, Cobalt Offshore Master Fund,
LP, Cobalt KC Partners, LP, Glenview Capital Partners, L.P.,
Glenview Institutional Partners, L.P., Glenview Capital Master
Fund, Ltd., Glenview Capital Opportunity Fund, L.P. & Oklahoma
Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, Plaintiffs, represented
by Darren J. Robbins , Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, Dennis J. Herman , Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, James I. Jaconette , Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro
hac vice, Jennifer Nunez Caringal , Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, pro hac vice, Scott H. Saham , Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, pro hac vice, Susan G. Taylor , Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, pro hac vice, David Avi Rosenfeld , Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP & Francis P. Karam , Francis P. Karam, Esq. PC.

Dina Horowitz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by James J. Rosemergy, CAREY AND
DANIS & Maurice B. Graham, Gray, Ritter & Graham, P.C.

The Zecher Family Group, Plaintiff, represented by Norman E.
Siegel
-- siegel@stuevesiegel.com -- Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Municipal Employees Retirement System of Michigan, Plaintiff,
represented by Adam David Hollander -- adam.hollander@blbglaw.com
-- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Katherine Mccracken
Sinderson -- katherine@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Maurice B. Graham, Gray, Ritter &
Graham, P.C., Max Wallace Berger -- MWB@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP & Salvatore Jo Graziano
SGraziano@blbglaw.com, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP.

The Zecher Family Group, Movant, represented by Norman E. Siegel,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

SUNEDISON, INC., Defendant, represented by Charles N. Insler --
cinsler@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM, Glenn E. Davis --
glenn.davis@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM, Hille R. Sheppard --
hsheppard@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AND AUSTIN, pro hac vice, Jaime
Allyson Bartlett -- JBARTLETT@SIDLEY.COM -- SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP,
pro
hac vice, Norman Jeffrey Blears -- NBLEARS@SIDLEY.COM -- SIDLEY
AUSTIN LLP, pro hac vice & Sara B. Brody, Sidley Austin LLP, pro
hac vice.


MERCY COLLEGE: Thomas Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
---------------------------------------------------
Nickesha Thomas, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated Plaintiff v. Mercy College, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-03584 (S.D. N.Y., May 7, 2020), seeks disgorgement of all
amounts wrongfully obtained for tuition, fees, on-campus housing,
and meals, and injunctive relief including enjoining Mercy College
from retaining the pro-rated, unused monies paid for tuition, fees,
on-campus housing and meals.  The Plaintiff further seeks
reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded and such other and
further relief as may be just and proper, refunds of all tuition
fees paid on a pro-rata basis, together with other damages
resulting from breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

Mercy operates a higher learning campus in Dobbs Ferry, New York
where Thomas is an undergraduate student at Mercy pursuing a
Bachelor's Degree in Nursing. Mercy decided to close campus,
constructively evict students, and transition all classes to an
online/remote format as a result of the Novel Coronavirus Disease.
Fedele claims to be deprived the benefits of in-person instruction,
access to campus facilities, student activities and other benefits
and services in exchange for which they had already paid fees and
tuition. Mercy refused to provide reimbursement for the tuition,
fees and other costs. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
      Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
      888 Seventh Avenue
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (646) 837-7150
      Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
      Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
             aleslie@bursor.com

             - and -

      Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      2665 S. Bayshore Drive, Suite 220
      Miami, FL 33133
      Telephone: (305) 330-5512
      Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
      Email: swestcot@bursor.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Myhre Sues Over Crop System's Damaging Effect
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN MYHRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY, BASF SE, and BASF
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-04028 (N.D. Iowa, May 22,
2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the
Lanham Act, general negligence, strict liability, failure to warn,
breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranties, trespass,
nuisance, and civil conspiracy.

According to the complaint, Monsanto and BASF acted together and in
concert as joint venturers to design, develop, market, promote,
distribute, license, and sell the Xtend Crop System, a
dicamba-resistant integrated crop system. The Defendants jointly
proceeded with full-scale launch of the Xtend Crop System despite
knowing that it would result in damage to susceptible non-resistant
plants and crops and with knowledge and intent that farmers would
have no alternative but to purchase seed containing the trait as a
defense. After release, through their concerted activities, the
Defendants continuously and heavily promoted and represented that
the Xtend Crop System is safe, sought to discredit opinions of
independent scientists, vigorously denied that volatility was a
contributing factor of off-target movement in 2017 or 2018,
misrepresented and concealed dangers, and otherwise sought to and
did mislead consumers so as to further create and maintain
expectations that the Xtend Crop System would be reasonably safe,
and to continue and increase sales and use of the Xtend Crop
System. The Defendants' unlawful actions resulted in damage to the
Plaintiff and other similarly-situated farmers and producers in
Iowa as they need to purchase seed containing the dicamba-resistant
trait out of self-defense.

Monsanto Company is a corporation that designs, develops,
manufactures, licenses, and sells biotechnology, chemicals, and
other agricultural products with its corporate headquarters and
principal place of business in St. Louis County, Missouri.

BASF SE is a chemical company with its overall headquarters in
Ludwigshafen, Germany.

BASF Corporation is a producer and marketer of chemicals and
related products in North America, with corporate headquarters at
100 Park Avenue, Florham Park, New Jersey and/or research
headquarters at 26 Davis Drive, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:         
         
         Ward A. (Sam) Rouse, Esq.
         ROUSE LAW, PC
         4940 Pleasant Street
         West Des Moines, IA 50266
         Telephone: (515) 223-9000
         Facsimile: (866) 223-9005
         E-mail: wardrouse@rouselaw.us

               - and –
         
         Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
         ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
         14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145
         Scottsdale, AZ 85254
         Telephone: (480) 348-6400
         Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
         E-mail: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Sells Defective Crop System, Hawkins Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD HAWKINS and JAMES NEISES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MONSANTO COMPANY, BASF SE,
and BASF CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02255-JWB-KGG
(D. Kan., May 22, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants
for violation of the Lanham Act, strict liability, negligent
design, negligent failure to warn, negligent training, breach of
implied warranty, breach of express warranties, trespass, nuisance,
and civil conspiracy.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly-situated farmers in Kansas, allege that the Defendants
conspired in order to develop the Xtend Crop System, a
dicamba-resistant integrated crop system. The object of the
conspiracy was and is to create and perpetuate an ecological
disaster through use of the defective, dangerous Xtend Crop System,
forcing farmers to purchase dicamba-resistant technology out of
self-defense in order to protect their crops from dicamba damage at
the expense of producers like the Plaintiffs and Class members,
whose non-resistant crops were damaged. The Defendants continued to
falsely advertise and market the Xtend Crop System's dicamba
herbicides as low volatility and capable of remaining on target to
mislead farmers, create and increase demand for the
dicamba-resistant trait technology and herbicides, thus increasing
their sales and profits.

Monsanto Company is a corporation that designs, develops,
manufactures, licenses, and sells biotechnology, chemicals, and
other agricultural products with its corporate headquarters and
principal place of business in St. Louis County, Missouri.

BASF SE is a chemical company with its overall headquarters in
Ludwigshafen, Germany.

BASF Corporation is a producer and marketer of chemicals and
related products in North America, with corporate headquarters at
100 Park Avenue, Florham Park, New Jersey and/or research
headquarters at 26 Davis Drive, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:         
         
         Ashlea Schwarz, Esq.
         PAUL LLP
         601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
         Kansas City, MO 64106
         Telephone: (855) 984-8100
         Facsimile: (816) 984-8101
         E-mail: Ashlea@PaulLLP.com

               - and –
         
         Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
         ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
         14646 N. Kierland Boulevard, Suite 145
         Scottsdale, AZ 85254
         Telephone: (480) 348-6400
         Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
         E-mail: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com

MT. HAWLEY INSURANCE: Drama Camp Hits Denied Benefit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Drama Camp Productions, Inc. and J&M LLC, on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Co.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00266 (S.D. Ala., May 8, 2020), seeks
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable
attorney fees and costs and such further and other relief for
breach of contract.

Drama Camp owns and operates a children's drama studio in Mobile,
Alabama while J&M owns and operates several "Shades" retail stores
in Alabama, as well as in four other states, where it sells
sunglasses and sportswear.

Mt. Hawley issued Drama Camp and J&M commercial property insurance
policies. However, they were denied business interruption claims
due to closure, asserts the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard H. Talyor, Esq.
      W. Lloyd Copeland, Esq.
      Steven A. Martino, Esq.
      P.O. Box 894
      Mobile, AL 36601
      Phone: (251) 433-3131
      Fax: (251) 433-4207
      Email: richard@taylormartino.com
             lloyd@taylormartino.com
             stevemartino@taylormartino.com

             - and -

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


NESTLE WATERS NA: Conner Claims Website not Blind-accessible
------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Conner, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Nestle Waters North
America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-02058 (E.D. N.Y., May 6,
2020), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory,
statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together
with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and
further relief under the Americans With Disabilities Act, New York
State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.

Nestle Waters North America, Inc. operates the website
ReadyRefresh.com offering numerous brands of bottled water,
sparkling water, water dispensers and other related products.
Conner is legally deaf and claims that Nestle's website cannot be
accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dan Shaked, Esq.
      SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
      44 Court St., Suite 1217
      Brooklyn, NY 11201
      Tel. (917) 373-9128
      E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com


NEVADA: Dismissal of Shannon Suit Over Lump-Sum Award v. DIR Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH SHANNON; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
JOSEPH DECKER; et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-16697 (9th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims based on
qualified immunity.

Shannon, Penny Lucille Behrens, Christopher Robert Braggs, and
Joseph Lopez Gomez, individually and on behalf of a class of
partially permanently disabled persons who elected to receive
permanent partial disability ("PPD") payments under Nevada's
workers' compensation scheme in lump sum payments, brought the
putative class action in federal court under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
against current and former administrators of the Division of
Industrial Relations ("DIR administrators").  The Plaintiffs
alleged that the DIR administrators violated their due process
rights by failing to update the actuarial tables that insurers must
use to calculate lump sum PPD payments under Nevada's workers'
compensation scheme.  

The district court dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims based on
qualified immunity.  The Plaintiffs timely appealed.  The Ninth
Circuit affirmed.

The Ninth Circuit holds that the district court properly concluded
that the DIR administrators were entitled to invoke qualified
immunity.  Qualified immunity shields only actions taken pursuant
to discretionary functions.   At the time that insurers calculated
the Plaintiffs' PPD benefits, Nevada law required only that the
actuarial tables be reviewed annually by a consulting actuary, not
that the DIR revise or update the actuarial tables.  Because no
Nevada statutes specified the precise action that the DIR must take
after an actuary reviewed the actuarial tables, the district court
did not err in concluding that the DIR administrators had
discretion to revise the actuarial tables used for calculating lump
sum PPD payments.

The district court did not also err in concluding that the DIR
administrators were entitled to qualified immunity, the Ninth
Circuit opines.  To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must
plead clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of
which a reasonable person would have known.  The Plaintiffs
presented no law, statutory or decisional, at the required level of
specificity sufficient to give notice to the DIR administrators
that they were obligated to change the discount rate or actuarial
lives to conform with the annual review of the consulting actuary.
Because the law prevailing at the time of the DIR administrators'
alleged misconduct did not clearly establish that the failure to
update the actuarial tables violated the Plaintiffs' due process
rights, the DIR administrators were entitled to qualified immunity,
the Ninth Circuit holds.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's Feb. 21, 2020 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/I6ROhs from Leagle.com.


PFIZER INC: Cesar Castillo Sues for Delayed Generic Lipitor Rival
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CESAR CASTILLO, LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly-situated v. PFIZER, INC.; PFIZER MANUFACTURING
IRELAND; WARNER-LAMBERT COMPANY; RANBAXY, INC.; RANBAXY
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; and RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-06255 (D.N.J., May 22, 2020), arises
from the Defendants' violation of 15 U.S. Code Sections 1 and 2.

According to the complaint, the Defendants entered into agreements
in order to delay the entry of generic versions of the brand name
prescription drug Lipitor. The Defendants delayed generic
competition through entering into, around June of 2008, an
anticompetitive and unlawful reverse payment patent settlement
agreement under which Ranbaxy received a large and unexplained
payment from Pfizer in exchange for Ranbaxy's agreement to delay
its launch of generic atorvastatin calcium until November 30, 2011,
and using the Ranbaxy Agreement to thwart other generic companies'
efforts to enter the market for atorvastatin calcium.

As a result of the Defendants' scheme to delay generic Lipitor
competition, the Plaintiff and all others direct purchasers pay
billions of dollars more for atorvastatin calcium than they would
have paid if competition had prevailed.

Cesar Castillo LLC is a distribution service provider with its
principal place of business and headquarters located at Bo.
Quebradas Arena, Rd. #1 Km. 26.0, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico.

Pfizer, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company with principal place of
business located at 235 East 42nd Street, New York, New York.

Pfizer Manufacturing Ireland, formerly known as Pfizer Ireland
Pharmaceuticals, formerly known as Warner Lambert Export, Ltd., is
a pharmaceutical manufacturing company with registered offices at
Pottery Road, Dun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin, Ireland.

Warner-Lambert Company is a pharmaceutical company with offices for
service of process at 235 East 42nd Street, New York, New York.

Ranbaxy, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company with principal place of
business located at 600 College Road East, Princeton, New Jersey.

Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company with
principal place of business located at 600 College Road East,
Princeton, New Jersey.

Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited is a pharmaceutical company with
principal place of business located at Plot 90, Sector 32, Gurgaon,
India. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
         James E. Cecchi, Esq.
         CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
         5 Becker Farm Road
         Roseland, NJ 07068-1739
         Telephone: (973) 994-1700

               - and -
         
         Linda Nussbaum, Esq.
         Peter E. Moran, Esq.
         NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
         1211 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10038
         Telephone: (917) 438-9189

PRIME CONSULTING: Wagner Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Wagner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PRIME CONSULTING LLC, D/B/A FINANCIAL PREPARATION
SERVICES, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case
No. 8:20-cv-00936 (C.D. Cal., May 20, 2020), arises from the
illegal actions of the Defendants in negligently contacting the
Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, specifically the National Do-Not-Call
provisions, thereby, invading his privacy.

Beginning December 2018, the Defendants contacted the Plaintiff on
his cellular telephone number in an attempt to solicit the
Plaintiff to purchase the Defendant's services. During these calls,
the Defendant utilized an "artificial or prerecorded voice."
Moreover, the Plaintiff asserts, during all relevant times the
Defendants did not possess his "prior express consent" to receive
calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial
or prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone pursuant to the
TCPA.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number was added to the National Do-Not-Call Registry on December
21, 2011. The Plaintiff received numerous solicitation calls from
the Defendant within a 12-month period. The Defendant continued to
call the Plaintiff in an attempt to solicit its services and in
violation of the National Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA.

The Plaintiff is a natural person residing in The Bronx, New York.

The Defendant is a student debt education company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PRIVATE LENDERS: Alliant CPA Seeks to Recover Agent Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
Alliant CPA Group, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bank of America, Corp., Bank of
America, N.A., Ameris Bank, Bank Ozk, Cadence Bancorporation,
Cadence Bank, N.A., Centerstate Bank Corporation, Centerstate Bank,
N.A., Newton Federal Bank, Synovus Bank, Truist Financial Corp.,
Truist Bank, United Community Bank, Inc., United Community Bank
(Georgia), Wells Fargo and Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02026 (N.D. Ga., May 11, 2020), seeks
damages and declaratory relief resulting from unjust enrichment,
conversion and for violation of the CARES Act.

On March 25, 2020, in response to the economic damage caused by the
COVID-19 crisis, the United States Senate passed the Coronavirus
Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act. This legislation
included $377 billion in federally-funded loans to small businesses
and a $500 billion governmental lending program, administered by
the United States Department of Treasury to provide support to
entrepreneurs and small businesses. Part of the CARES Act is the
"Paycheck Protection Program" (PPP) that provides small businesses
with loans to provide small businesses with eight weeks of
cash-flow assistance to fund payrolls. Said loans are administered
by Treasury, backed by the Federal Government, but funded by
private lenders, including the Defendants.

Alliant CPA Group is an accounting practive from Marietta, Georgia.
It sought to obtain PPP loans through the Defendants on behalf of
its clients and expected to be paid agent fees from the Lenders
upon funding of its clients' loans under the PPP. However, it was
either denied or would be paid only fifty percent of the mandated
fees. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James F. McDonough, III, Esq.
      HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
      3621 Vinings Slope, Suite 4320
      Atlanta, GA 30339
      Telephone: (404) 996-0869
      Facsimile: (205) 326-3332
      Email: jmcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com

             - and -

      W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq.
      HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
      2224 1st Avenue North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 326-3336
      Facsimile: (205) 326-3332
      Email: lewis@hgdlawfirm.com

             - and -

      Mark J. Geragos, Esq.
      Ben J. Meiselas, Esq.
      Matthew M. Hoesly, Esq.
      GERAGOS & GERAGOS, APC
      644 South Figueroa Street
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 625-3900
      Facsimile: (213) 232-3255

             - and -

      Michael E. Adler, Esq.
      GRAYLAW GROUP, INC.
      26500 Agoura Road, #102-127
      Calabasas, CA 91302
      Telephone: (818) 532-2833
      Facsimile: (818) 532-2834

             - and -

      Harmeet K. Dhillon, Esq.
      Nitoj P. Singh, Esq.
      DHILLON LAW GROUP INC.
      177 Post St., Suite 700
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Telephone: (415) 433-1700
      Facsimile: (415) 520-6593


QUEBEC: Inmate with COVID-19 Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Sidhartha Banerjee, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that a
federal inmate who contracted COVID-19 has filed a proposed
class-action lawsuit over Correctional Service Canada's handling of
the pandemic at its Quebec-based prisons.

The application for a lawsuit for plaintiff Joelle Beaulieu, an
inmate at the federal women's prison in Joliette, Que., was filed
at the Montreal courthouse on April 20.

The filing is on behalf of all federal inmates incarcerated in
Quebec since March 13, and alleges that federal prison officials
acted too slowly in implementing protective measures at the
institutions.

Beaulieu's action seeks $100 per day for all federal inmates since
Quebec declared a medical emergency on March 13, and an additional
$500 lump sum for those stricken by COVID-19.

The allegations have not been tested in court and Quebec Superior
Court has not authorized the application.

Correctional Service Canada did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.

Beaulieu said in a 24-page court document that she believes she's
"Patient Zero" at the institution northeast of Montreal.

She has been housed at the facility for about a year and performed
cleaning chores around the facility, which is how she believes she
was infected.

Beaulieu alleges in the filing that she was rebuffed when she
sought gloves and a mask, and says she wasn't immediately tested
for COVID-19 despite exhibiting clear symptoms.

She further alleges she did not have the necessary help and care
when she became very sick.

"The applicant, Ms. Beaulieu, felt diminished and discredited," the
filing states. "She felt that she had been overlooked by prison
authorities and that her life was of little value to them."

According to figures published by Correctional Service Canada on
April 20, three federal prisons in Quebec have reported cases of
COVID-19 — Port Cartier, the Federal Training Centre and the
Joliette Institution.

Of the 114 confirmed cases in Quebec, 51 were at the women's only
facility where Beaulieu is an inmate.

There are also 64 positive cases in British Columbia -- where one
inmate has died -- and eight cases in federal prisons in Ontario.

The situation in Quebec provincial jails is different -- a
spokeswoman for the Public Security Department said as of
April 21, there are no confirmed COVID-19 cases among inmates.

There are, however, six cases among correctional agents and one in
the management of a provincial jail. [GN]


RANBAXY INC: MSP et al. Allege Racketeering in Generic Drug Market
------------------------------------------------------------------
MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC; MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC; and SERIES
PMPI, a designated series of MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
RANBAXY INC. and SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., Defendants,
Case No. 5:20-cv-00982-PAB (N.D. Ohio, May 6, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Unfair And Deceptive
Practices Under State Laws, and monopolization under state law.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly-situated entities, allege that the Defendants are engaged
in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, deceptive or
fraudulent acts or practices through Ranbaxy's exploitation of the
Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA process by ignoring the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) documenting, testing, and
storage protocols to ensure the new generic drug's safety,
efficacy, and equivalency to the brand drug. While most generic
pharmaceutical companies devoted 18 months to the necessary testing
before filing an ANDA, Ranbaxy required only 12 months. Ranbaxy
routinely received first-to-file status. As the first entry generic
and only competitor to the brand product, Ranbaxy can price its
drug slightly below the brand competitor, gain most of the market
share, and all the associated profits with none of the front-end
research and development costs required to develop new drugs. The
Plaintiffs' Assignors' and the Class' suffered damages and economic
losses as the direct, proximate, foreseeable, and natural
consequences of Defendants' racketeering activity.

MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, is a Delaware series limited
liability company that offers comprehensive platform to recover on
any claims, with its principal place of business located at 2701 S.
Lejeune Road, Floor 10, Coral Gables, Florida.

MSPA Claims 1, LLC is a Florida limited liability company that
offers recovery claims, with its principal place of business
located at 2701 S. Lejeune Road, Floor 10, Coral Gables, Florida.

Series PMPI, a designated series of MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC, is a
Delaware series limited liability company with its principal place
of business at 45 Legion Drive, Cresskill, New Jersey.

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited is a specialty pharmaceutical
company with its registered office at Sun Pharma Advanced Research
Centre (SPARC), Tandalja, Vadodara – 390 020, Gujarat, India.

Ranbaxy Inc. is a generic drug manufacturer with its principal
place of business located at 600 College Road East, Princeton, New
Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Tracy L. Turner, Esq.
         Christopher L. Coffin, Esq.
         Anna K. Higgins, Esq.
         PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN LLP
         1100 Poydras Street, Suite 2505
         New Orleans, LA 70163
         Telephone: (504) 355-0086
         E-mail: tturner@pbclawfirm.com
                 ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com
                 ahiggins@pbclawfirm.com

RASH CURTIS: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Perez Telemarketing Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Rash Curtis & Associates filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit styled Ignacio Perez v. Rash Curtis &
Associates, Case No. 4:16-cv-03396-YGR, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, Oakland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
brings the class action against Rash Curtis, alleging that the
Defendant called the Plaintiff and the class members without
consent. On Sept. 6, 2017, the Court certified four classes with
Perez as the class representative, both for injunctive relief
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and damages pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3).

The appellate case is captioned as Ignacio Perez v. Rash Curtis &
Associates, Case No. 20-15946, 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 Rash Curtis & Associates' opening brief is due on
      August 24, 2020;

   -- Appellee Ignacio Perez'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-Appellee IGNACIO PEREZ, on Behalf of Himself and all
Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 989-9113
          Email: scott@bursor.com

                    - and -

          Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 N. California Boulevard Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
                 ykrivoshey@bursor.com

Defendant-Appellant RASH CURTIS & ASSOCIATES is represented by:

          Mark Ellis, Esq.
          ELLIS LAW GROUP, LLP
          1425 River Park Drive Suite 400
          Sacramento, CA 95815
          Telephone: (916) 283-8820
          E-mail: mellis@ellislawgrp.com

                    - and -

          Rebecca Grace Powell, Esq.
          Felix Shafir, Esq.
          Robert H. Wright, Esq.
          HORVITZ & LEVY LLP
          3601 West Olive Avenue, 8th Floor
          Burbank, CA 91505-4681
          Telephone: (818) 995-0800
          Email: rpowell@horvitzlevy.com
                 fshafir@horvitzlevy.com
                 rwright@horvitzlevy.com


ROADRUNNER TIRE: Wallace Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages, Injury
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Wallace, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Roadrunner Tire and Brake Express, LLC and Timothy
Bevington, individually, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00470 (M.D.
Fla., May 7, 2020), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs and other relief for violation
of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate an automotive repair shop in Lake City, Florida
where Wallace was an hourly non-exempt employee, working on
vehicles. He claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek but was not paid the required overtime rates for hours in
excess of the 40 hours. Wallace suffered a workplace injury when he
was hit behind by a tire rim for which he filed a claim for
workers' compensation benefits. Wallace alleges that Road Runner
would fire him should he report the injury. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
      LECHNER LAW/JAY P. LECHNER, P.A.
      Fifth Third Center
      201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 412
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 842-7071
      Facsimile: (813) 225-1392
      Email: jplechn@jaylechner.com
             shelley@jaylechner.com


RYDER SYSTEM: Key West Sues Over Drop in Securities' Market Value
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Key West Police & Fire Pension Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. RYDER SYSTEM, INC., ROBERT E. SANCHEZ,
ART A. GARCIA, and SCOTT T. PARKER, Case No. 1:20-cv-22109 (S.D.
Fla., May 20, 2020), seeks to pursue claims against the Defendants
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities.

The Defendants misrepresented Ryder's true financial condition by
overstating the residual value of its trucking fleet, which allowed
the Company to record smaller depreciation expense on those assets
each year, and artificially inflated Ryder's earnings, according to
the complaint. The Defendants represented to investors that its
financial results "benefited from lower depreciation associated
with increased residual values" and that the Company had been
"conservative" in establishing the residual values of its
vehicles.

While Ryder kept increasing the expected residual value of its
trucking fleet, the actual amount Ryder was receiving from sales of
its used trucks had started to decrease beginning in 2015,
according to the complaint. Nevertheless, when asked about the
residual values of the Company's trucks during Ryder's July 27,
2016 earnings call, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Defendant
Robert Sanchez stated that "I wouldn't envision an increase or
decrease in residual values out over the next four, five years."

The Plaintiff contends that these and similar statements during the
Class Period were false and misleading because the Defendants knew
or recklessly disregarded that the residual values that Ryder
assigned to its trucking fleet were grossly overstated, which had
the effect of allowing the Company to record smaller depreciation
expenses and artificially inflated Ryder's earnings. As a result of
these misrepresentations, shares of Ryder common stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

The truth began to emerge on July 30, 2019, when the Company
drastically reduced its full-year 2019 earnings forecast and
management indicated that the majority of the lowered guidance
reflected Ryder's weaker valuations of its tractors. In response to
these disclosures, Ryder's stock price declined 10%, from $59.32
per share to $53.38 per share. The Company also announced that, for
2020, it expected to incur another $275 million in depreciation
expense on its fleet due to the reductions in residual value plus
an additional $20 million estimated loss on used vehicle sales. In
response to these disclosures, Ryder's stock price declined 20%
over two trading days, from $50.19 per share to $40.12 per share,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff Key West P&F purchased Ryder common stock at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.

Ryder is a global provider of transportation and supply chain
management solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert D. Klausner, Esq.
          Stuart A. Kaufman, Esq.
          KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN & LEVINSON
          7080 Northwest 4th Street
          Plantation, FL 33317
          Phone: (954) 916-1202
          Fax: (954) 916-1232
          Email: bob@robertdklausner.com
                 stu@robertdklausner.com

               - and –

          Hannah Ross, Esq.
          Avi Josefson, Esq.
          Michael D. Blatchley, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
          New York, NY 10020
          Phone: (212) 554-1400
          Fax: (212) 554-1444
          Email: hannah@blbglaw.com
                 avi@blbglaw.com
                 michaelb@blbglaw.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Silvester Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL SILVESTER, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York Business Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-04002
(S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2020) brought this complaint against Defendant
seeking to recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
          
Plaintiff was hired by Defendant as a non-exempt Field Sales
Manager in approximately July 2012.

Plaintiff claims that he was deprived by Defendant of overtime
compensation at a rate of one and one-half times his regular rate
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single work week
from at least July 2013 and continuing through September 30, 2018.

The complaint asserts that Defendant failed to maintain proper time
records.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. manufactures electronics
products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Tel: (954) WORKERS
          Fax: (954) 327-3013
          Email: afrisch@forthepeople.com


SC JOHNSON: Shimanovsky Hits Toxic Ingredients in Windex Product
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Shimanovsky, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-03588 (S.D. N.Y., May 7, 2020), seeks
restitution and disgorgement of inequitably obtained profits,
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, monetary and punitive
damages and interest, costs and expenses, including reasonable fees
for attorneys and experts and such other and further relief
resulting from unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation and
for violation of New York General Business Law and the Magnuson
Moss Warranty Act.

S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets,
labels and sells window cleaning solution described as a "Non-Toxic
Formula," under the "Windex" brand. Shimanovsky disputes its
non-toxic claim because of its 2-Hexoxyethanol content which is a
toxic chemical compound with potentially profound negative effects
on humans, household pets and the environment and may cause central
nervous system depression and kidney failure and may be absorbed
through the skin. Another one of its ingredients is butoxypropanol,
a highly hazardous, harsh chemical compound that causes skin
irritation and serious eye damage and irritation, asserts the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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


SIRIUS XM: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Meza TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHELLE MEZA and STEVE MEZA, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. SIRIUS XM
RADIO INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-CV-02252-AJB-JMA (S.D. Cal.),
Judge Anthony J. Battaglia of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California (i) denied without prejudice Sirius
XM's motion to strike class allegations, and (ii) denied its motion
to dismiss the Complaint.

The case is a putative class action alleging violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA").  In July 2016,
the Plaintiffs allege they purchased a Hyundai Sonata which
included a "free" three-month trial subscription to Sirius XM
Radio.  According to the Plaintiffs, at no time did they provide
their current cellular telephone numbers.  But around October 2016,
Sirius XM apparently contacted them on their respective cellphones.


It is the Plaintiffs' contention that the calls were placed using
an "automatic telephone dialing system," ("ATDS") and an
"artificial or prerecorded voice" in violation of the TCPA.  The
calls were made in an effort to convince the Plaintiffs to pay to
extend Sirius XM's radio service following expiration of the free
trial.  The Plaintiffs expressed to Sirius XM they were not
interested in the service, but nevertheless continued to receive
calls to their cellphones.  They allege that at the beginning of
some of the calls, there was a long pause before a live agent of
Sirius XM would come on the line, which the Plaintiffs claims
demonstrates that the telephone dialling equipment used by Sirius
XM has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be
called, using a random or sequential number generator.

Presently before the Court is Sirius XM's motion to strike class
allegations, and motion to dismiss the Complaint.  The Plaintiffs
opposed the motion, and the Defendant replied.  The United States
of America also opposed the motion, and filed a brief in support of
the constitutionality of the TCPA.

The Plaintiffs request judicial notice of three documents filed in
Hooker v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., Case No. 13-CV-3 (E.D. Va. 2013) in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Judicial notice is sought for: (1) the final order approving
settlement and certifying the settlement class; (2) the settlement
agreement in Hooker; and the docket report in Hooker.  Sirius XM
does not oppose the request.

Judge Battaglia holds that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
201, judicial notice of the final order approving settlement, the
settlement agreement, and the docket report in Hooker is
appropriate.  Based on this authority, Judge Battaglia granted the
Plaintiffs' request for judicial notice.

Sirius XM urges the Court to strike the class allegations from the
Complaint, or dismiss the Complaint entirely based on the
unconstitutionality of the TCPA provision which the Plaintiffs
rely.  As an initial matter, Sirius XM requests that to the extent
the Plaintiffs are challenging Sirius XM's dialling practices
generally, their class allegations should be stricken because
Plaintiffs' counsel has a conflict of interest.  Alternatively,
Sirius XM argues that to the extent the Plaintiffs seek only to
challenge its compliance with the Hooker settlement, the Court
should dismiss their Complaint in favor of the Hooker court, or
limit the Plaintiffs' claims to only a challenge to compliance with
the terms of the Hooker settlement, and not a challenge to the
legality of the dialing practices specified in that settlement.

Judge Battaglia holds that striking the class allegations at the
pleading stage is an extreme and harsh measure the Court is not
willing to take at this time.  The Judge finds that a motion to
strike is an improper vehicle to test the purported conflict of
interest, the issue of adequacy of the counsel may more
appropriately be addressed in the context of a motion for class
certification.  The Judge also does not find sufficient reasons to
warrant limiting Plaintiffs at the pleading stage.  Accordingly,
Judge Battaglia denied without prejudice Sirius XM's motion to
strike the Plaintiffs' class allegations.

Next, Judge Battaglia turns to Sirius XM's motion to dismiss the
Complaint.  Sirius XM's sole ground for dismissing the Complaint is
that Sirius XM may not be held liable for its alleged violations of
the TCPA's ATDS provision because that provision, as interpreted by
the Ninth Circuit in Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC, violates the
First Amendment as an overbroad restriction on protected speech.
In particular, it maintains that the Ninth Circuit's interpretation
in Marks results in all smartphones qualifying as ATDS equipment.

Judge Battaglia holds that Marks and uguid v. Facebook, Inc. are
recent, binding authority on the Court, and so, the Court is bound
to follow the decisions of the Ninth Circuit.  Additionally, the
arguments offered by Sirius XM presents the Court with no reason to
deviate from binding authority.  As neither Marks nor Duguid have
been overruled, the Court is bound by these decisions and rejects
Sirius XM's constitutional attacks.

Even if the Court were to construe Sirius XM's argument as a direct
attack on the constitutionality of the TCPA and ATDS provisions,
Judge Battaglia finds that there is ample binding authority holding
that the ATDS provision, as promulgated by Congress, survives
intermediate scrutiny.  

In light of the foregoing, Judge Battaglia denies without prejudice
the Sirius XM's motion to strike class allegations.  The Judge also
denies Sirius XM's motion to dismiss the Complaint.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 25, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/4rh9dT from Leagle.com.

Michelle Meza, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated & Steve Meza, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Abbas Kazerounian --
ak@kazlg.com -- Kazerounian Law Group, APC, Jason A. Ibey --
jason@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group, APC & Nicholas Ryan
Barthel, Kazerouni Law Group APC.

Sirius XM Radio Inc., Defendant, represented by Allison Waks, Jones
Day, pro hac vice, Jeffrey Ryan Johnson, Jones Day, pro hac vice,
Karen P. Hewitt, Jones Day, Lee Alan Armstrong --
laarmstrong@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro hac vice, Shay Dvoretzky
-- sdvoretzky@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro hac vice & Thomas
Demitrack -- tdemitrack@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro hac vice.

United States of America, Intervenor, represented by Anjali Motgi,
U.S. Department of Justice.


SK ENERGY: Conspired to Increase Gas Prices, Accurate Testing Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCURATE TESTING & INSPECTION, LLC, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. SK ENERGY AMERICAS
INC.; SK TRADING INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD.; VITOL INC.; DAVID
NIEMANN; and BRAD LUCAS, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-03483 (N.D.
Cal., May 22, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Sherman and Clayton Acts, the Cartwright Act, the
Unfair Competition Law, and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly-situated businesses and consumers in California, alleges
that the Defendants engaged in a number of collusive and
coordinated schemes to illicitly restrain competition in the spot
market for gasoline. The Defendants took advantage of an explosion
at a large gasoline refinery complex in Torrance, California in
February 2015, which caused an unanticipated undersupply of refined
gasoline in the state, to artificially inflate the price of
gasoline traded on wholesale spot markets in California and
increase the price of alkylates, whose prices are tied directly to
the wholesale price of gasoline.

The Defendants' anticompetitive and unlawful conduct has caused
injury to the Plaintiff and members of the Class by restraining
competition and thereby raising, maintaining and/or stabilizing the
price of gasoline at levels above what would have occurred if
competition had prevailed.

Accurate Testing & Inspection, LLC is a provider of construction
inspection and consulting services based in California.

SK Energy Americas, Inc. is a Houston, Texas-based energy company
and a wholly-owned subsidiary of SK Energy International.

SK Trading International Co. Ltd. is an energy trading company with
its head office at 26 Jongno, Jongno-gu, Seoul, South Korea.

Vitol, Inc. is an energy and commodities company based in Houston,
Texas and conducts business in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:   
         
         Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
         Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
         Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
         BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
         7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
         La Jolla, CA 92037
         Telephone: (858) 914-2001
         Facsimile: (858) 914-2002
         E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
                 achang@bottinilaw.com
                 ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com

SOUTH CAROLINA: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Turka Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Murray C. Turka, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. South Carolina Public Service
Authority and Lonnie N. Carter, Defendants, Civil Action No.
2:19-1102-RMG (D. S.C.), Judge Richard Mark Gergel of the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston
Division, denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint
for failure to state a claim.

The case is a securities fraud putative class action arising out of
the abandoned construction of two 1,117-megawat AP1000 nuclear
reactors at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station in
Jenkinsville, South Carolina.   The Nuclear Project was a joint
venture between state-owned utility, South Carolina Public Service
Authority ("Santee Cooper"), owning 45%, and SCANA Corp.'s primary
subsidiary, SCE&G, owning 55%.  They agreed to the joint venture in
2008 and applied for a tax credit under the Energy Policy Act,
which would provide an approximately $2.2 billion credit if the
Nuclear Project were completed by Jan. 1, 2021.

To fund the Nuclear Project, Santee Cooper marketed and sold small
denomination corporate bonds ("Mini-Bonds") exclusively to its
electricity customers and other South Carolina residents.  Santee
Cooper and SCANA began construction of the Nuclear Project in early
2013.  On July 31, 2017, they publicly announced that they were
abandoning construction due to cost.  Approximately one year later,
Moody's Investment Services downgraded Santee Cooper's credit
rating.

Plaintiff Turka commenced the action on behalf of those that
purchased or acquired the Mini-Bonds between May 1, 2014 and July
31, 2017.  Plaintiff brings two causes of action: violation of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and of Rule
10b-5 by Santee Cooper and Lonnie Carter, its President and CEO
during the class period; and violation of Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act by Carter.  The basis of these claims is
that Santee Cooper and Carter made or approved false or misleading
statements to the Mini-Bond holders in Official Statements.

On the basis of these and other communications, the Plaintiff
alleges that Santee Cooper and Carter were aware that the Official
Statements mischaracterized the Nuclear Project's profile and,
therefore, were aware that they were marketing and selling a
security that carried a different risk than what the Mini-Bond
holders were lead to understand from the offering documents.  As a
result, the Plaintiff alleges, the Mini-Bond holders were injured
by receiving artificially deflated interest payments on the
security.

Before the Court is the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint
for failure to state a claim.  

In Count One, Plaintiff alleges that Santee Cooper and Carter
violated Section 10(b) and SEC Rule 10b-5 by disseminating or
approving false statements in the Official Statements during the
class period.  Santee Cooper and Carter argue that the Plaintiff
lacks both individual and class standing, and that he failed to
satisfy the PSLRA pleading standard as to all elements of a Section
10(b) claim, except "connection with purchase or sale of
security."

The Court finds that (i) the Plaintiff has individual standing
relating to the 2014 Mini-Bonds; (ii) the Plaintiff has class
standing relating to the 2015 and 2016 Mini-Bonds; (iii) the
Plaintiff sufficiently alleged misstatements or material omissions
as to Santee Cooper and Carter; (iv) the Plaintiff plausibly pled
at least reckless scienter as to Santee Cooper and Carter; (v) the
Plaintiff's allegations suffice to satisfy the PSLRA pleading
standard of reliance; (vi) the Plaintiff has plausibly pled that he
and the putative class suffered an economic loss as a result of the
alleged misstatements and material omissions contained in the
Official Statements; and (vii) the complaint plausibly alleges the
elements of a Section 10(b) claim to the PSLRA pleading standard.
Accordingly, the Court denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss
Count One.

In Count Two, the Plaintiff claims that Carter is liable for
causing Santee Cooper to disseminate the false and misleading
statements and omissions of material facts because he had control
over the statements' content by virtue of his position as President
and CEO during the class period.  Section 20(a) imposes a
derivative liability of Section 10(b): an individual is liable
under Section 20(a), to the same extent the corporation is liable
under Section 10(b), if he directly or indirectly, controls any
person liable for violating Section 10(b), unless the controlling
person acted in good faith and did not directly or indirectly
induce the act or acts constituting the violation.  The Defendants
move to dismiss the Section 20(a) claim solely because the
complaint fails to establish a Section 10(b) claim; they make no
argument that Carter acted in good faith.  Because the Plaintiff
has established Santee Cooper's liability under Section 10(b),
Carter's motion to dismiss the Section 20(a) claim is denied.

Accordingly, Judge Gergel denies the Defendants' motion to
dismiss.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 25, 2020 Order &
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/in5qoR from Leagle.com.

Murray C Turka, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher L. Nelson --
cln@weiserlawfirm.com -- Weiser Law Firm PC, pro hac vice, James
Ficaro -- jmf@weiserlawfirm.com -- The Weiser Law Firm PC, pro hac
vice, Joseph Clay Hopkins, Hopkins Law Firm & William E. Hopkins,
Jr. , Hopkins Law Firm.

South Carolina Public Service Authority & Lonnie N Carter,
Defendants, represented by Benjamin Rush Smith, III --
rush.smith@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley and
Scarborough, Robert Lauri Lindholm, Jr. --
robert.lindholm@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley and
Scarborough, pro hac vice & William Coleman Hubbard --
william.hubbard@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley and
Scarborough.


SPEEDWAY LLC: Wagner Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Atheena Wagner, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. SPEEDWAY LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-03014 (N.D. Ill., May
20, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, statutory penalties, prejudgment interest,
attorneys' fees and costs, and other damages related to the
Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was required to work a
minimum of 50 hours each workweek, regularly working between 55 and
65 hours each week. Despite regularly working over forty hours each
week, all general managers were denied overtime compensation (i.e.,
one and one-half times their regular rate). The Defendant failed to
pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated for all overtime hours
actually worked at a rate of 1.5 times their regular rate of pay.
Accordingly, the Defendant is liable for its failure to pay
overtime compensation to the Plaintiff for time worked in excess of
40 hours in given workweeks in violation of the FLSA and IMWL.

Plaintiff Atheena Wagner is a resident of Illinois, who has worked
for the Defendant as a non-exempt GM.

Speedway LLC is based in Enon, Ohio, and operates gas stations and
convenience stores in Illinois and throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SQUARETRADE INC: Florenzano Appeals Decision in Swinton Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Movant David Florenzano filed an appeal from the District Court's
Order dated April 14, 2020, and Judgment dated April 15, 2020,
entered in the lawsuit styled DAVID M. SWINTON, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. SQUARETRADE, INC.,
Case No. 4:18-cv-00144-SMR, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order:

   a. preliminarily approving the parties' Settlement as fair,
      reasonable, and adequate;

   b. preliminarily certifying an opt-out Settlement Class of:

      "purchasers of certain types of protection plans that
      Defendant sells through Amazon.com."

   c. appointing Harley C. Erbe of Erbe Law Firm and Steven
      Wandro of Wandro & Associates, P.C., as Class Counsel;

   d. appointing David Swinton as the Representative Plaintiff
      for the Settlement Class;

   e. approving issuance of the Class Notice and Claim Form to
      the Class; and

   f. approving schedule of events and setting a final fairness
      hearing.

The appellate case is captioned as David Swinton, et al. v. David
Florenzano, Case No. 20-2002, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee David M. Swinton, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Harley Christopher Erbe, Esq.
          ERBE LAW FIRM
          2501 Grand Avenue
          Des Moines, IA 50312
          Telephone: (515) 281-1460
          Facsimile: (515) 281 1474
          E-mail: erbelawfirm@aol.com

                    - and -

          Alison Florence Kanne, Esq.
          Steven P. Wandro, Esq.
          WANDRO & ASSOCIATES
          Suite B, 2501 Grand Avenue
          Des Moines, IA 50312-0000
          Telephone: (515) 281-1475
          Facsimile: (515) 281 1474
          Email: akanne@2501grand.com
                 swandro@2501grand.com

Defendant-Appellee Squaretrade, Inc., is represented by:

          Michael A. Berta, Esq.
          Katelyn Elizabeth Rey, Esq.
          Douglas A. Winthrop, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER
          10th Floor, Three Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 471-3100
          Email: michael.berta@arnoldporter.com
                 katelyn.rey@arnoldporter.com
                 douglas.winthrop@arnoldporter.com

                    - and -

          John F. Lorentzen, Esq.
          NYEMASTER & GOODE
          Suite 1600, 700 Walnut Street
          Des Moines, IA 50309-3899
          Telephone: (515) 283-3100
          Email: jfl@nyemaster.com

Movant-Appellant David Florenzano is represented by:

          Adam J. Blander, Esq.
          Matthew Tucker Insley-Pruitt, Esq.
          Chet B. Waldman, Esq.
          WOLF & POPPER
          12th Floor 845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 759-4600
          Email: ablander@wolfpopper.com
                 minsley-pruitt@wolfpopper.com
                 cwaldmann@wolfpopper.com

                    - and -

          Solomon N. Klein, Esq.
          Bradley J. Nash, Esq.
          SCHLAM & STONE
          26 Broadway
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 344-5400
          Email: sklein@schlamstone.com
                 bnash@schlamstone.com  

                    - and -

          Mark Schlachet, Esq.
          SCHLACHET LAW OFFICES
          3515 Severn Road
          Cleveland, OH 44118
          Telephone: (216) 225-7559
          Email: markschlachet@me.com


ST. RITA CORP: Soliman Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heber Noe Lopez Soliman, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. ST. RITA CORPORATION (D/B/A BROADWAY BAGELS),
MIKE MAI, and FERMIN DOE, Case No. 1:20-cv-03933 (S.D.N.Y., May 20,
2020), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and for violations of the New
York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Lopez worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation
for the hours that he worked, according to the complaint. 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.

Plaintiff Lopez was employed as a cook at the Bagel Shop.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a Bagel Shop, located in
New York under the name "Broadway Bagels."[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


TAN REPUBLIC: Faces Rogers TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Text Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
Darrell Rogers, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TAN REPUBLIC FRANCHISE COMPANY, LLC, doing business as
TAN REPUBLIC, an Oregon Limited Liability Company, Case No.
6:20-cv-00809-MC (D. Ore., May 20, 2020), alleges that the
Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and
implementing regulations by using an automatic telephone dialing
system when it sent the Plaintiff text message advertisements
without obtaining prior express written consent.

By sending text message advertisements to the Plaintiff without
their Prior Express Written Consent, the Defendant invaded the
privacy rights and right to seclusion of the Plaintiff, according
to the complaint. The Plaintiff sues the Defendant for its actions
that violated the TCPA and invaded their right to privacy and
seclusion, which it benefited from, and which arise from text
message advertisements sent to the Plaintiff in order to advertise
the commercial availability or quality of the Defendant's products
and services without the requisite Prior Express Written Consent.

The Plaintiff, Darrell Rogers, owns and maintains a cell phone that
was sent Tan Republic Text Messages.

Tan Republic is an Oregon Limited Liability Company that is engaged
in the tanning business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leta Gorman, Esq.
          Shawn Alex Heller, Esq.
          BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC
          One SW Columbia Street, Suite 800
          Portland, OR 97258
          Phone: 503.228.6351
          Facsimile: 503.295.0915
          Email: leta.gorman@bullivant.com
                 shawn@sjlawcollective.com


TILT HOLDINGS: Averts Class Action Over Unwanted Texts
------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a California federal court has released
cannabis producer Tilt Holdings from a proposed class action over
unwanted promotional texts, but said a customer outreach company
tied to the firm could still be on the hook for violating federal
consumer protection laws. [GN]

TILT HOLDINGS: Two Law Firms File Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Kalloghlian Myers LLP and Paul Bates Barrister have commenced a
shareholder class proceeding against TILT Holdings, Inc. and its
former directors and officers.

The class proceeding alleges that, to justify its lofty share price
when it listed on the Canadian Securities Exchange in December
2018, TILT improperly inflated the value of its goodwill. However,
unbeknownst to investors, TILT's goodwill was not calculated in
accordance with generally accepted accounting standards. The
Statement of Claim alleges that the truth about TILT's goodwill was
revealed in its very first quarterly filing for the period ending
December 31, 2018, just five weeks after TILT over-stated the value
of its goodwill, when TILT disclosed for the first time that its
goodwill needed to be written down by nearly US$500 million. On
this news, the price of TILT's shares dropped, causing steep
financial losses to investors.

The proposed class action was commenced in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice and is brought on behalf of all individuals who
acquired TILT's shares between October 12, 2018 and May 1, 2019.

"TILT's investors are angry about their very substantial losses as
a result of TILT's $500 million goodwill impairment charge which
came as a surprise just five weeks after it listed on the Canadian
Securities Exchange," says Garth Myers, a lawyer at Kalloghlian
Myers LLP, co-lead counsel to TILT's shareholders.

If you acquired TILT shares or purchased TILT shares in its US$119
million equity capital raise, contact Kalloghlian Myers LLP:

Email: tilt@kalloghlianmyers.com
Telephone: (647) 969-4472
Website: www.kalloghlianmyers.com/tilt

Kalloghlian Myers LLP is a Toronto law firm specializing in class
actions, civil litigation and investor protection. Kalloghlian
Myers LLP's broad class action practices focuses on obtaining
justice for victims of securities fraud, financial crimes, physical
and sexual abuse, discrimination, and other forms of misconduct.
Kalloghlian Myers LLP is also co-lead counsel in a securities class
action against CannTrust Holdings Inc.

Paul Bates has extensive experience in high-stakes business
litigation, class actions, and appeals. In his 37+ years of
professional experience, Paul has appeared at all levels of the
Canadian court system, including the Supreme Court of Canada,
generating countless reported decisions.

Contacts:

Garth Myers
Kalloghlian Myers LLP
garth@kalloghlianmyers.com
(647) 969-4472 [GN]


UNITED STATES: ACLU Sues ICE on Behalf of Yuba County Detainees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Luiz, writing for KGET, reports that a class-action lawsuit
has been filed against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on
behalf of Immigrants detained at the Mesa Verde ICE detention
center in Bakersfield and the Yuba County Jail.

The American Civil Liberties Union said the lawsuit is asking the
federal district court to order the immediate release of detainees
from unsafe conditions which endanger their health and lives in the
midst of the coronavirus pandemic.

While a federal judge has ordered the release of some individuals
in response to legal challenges, this is the first class action
filed on behalf of everyone detained at these two facilities,
according to the ACLU.

"Everyone in these facilities faces a risk of death because of how
tightly they are packed together," said Bill Freeman, senior
counsel at the ACLU of Northern California. "ICE must immediately
reduce the number of detainees so that they can achieve the
necessary social distancing and be safe."

ICE said it does not comment on litigation.

The ACLU said immigrants at both facilities generally sleep in
packed dormitory rooms on bunk beds bolted to the floor only a few
feet from each other. They also use shared bathrooms and line up to
get meals in cafeterias.

"I learned about ‘social distancing' from watching the news in
the detention center," said Javier Alfaro, a 39-year-old father
detained at Mesa Verde. "Even if the authorities had told us about
social distancing though, it doesn't seem like there would be any
way to practice social distancing here."

Detainees at the Mesa Verde center held a hunger strike challenging
their continued detention in unsafe conditions amid this pandemic.
The ACLU said they faced retaliation from detention center
authorities who threatened to deny them access to commissary food
unless they broke the hunger strike.

A coalition of legal organizations is representing the plaintiffs,
including the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, the ACLU
Foundations of Northern California and Southern California,
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area,
Lakin & Wille LLP, and Cooley LLP.

"Despite consensus among public health experts that these
conditions will lead to an outbreak of the deadly coronavirus, ICE
has consistently failed to take necessary steps to protect the
health of detainees," said San Francisco Public Defender Manohar
Raju. "We cannot sit and watch our clients suffer in these
outrageous conditions -- we have to use whatever legal tools we
have to protect them." [GN]


UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO: Two Class Actions Seek Fee Refunds
----------------------------------------------------------
Justine Coleman, writing for The Hill, reports that Colorado
college students have filed two class-action lawsuits against two
universities requesting the refund of student fees after campuses
have been mostly shut down due to the coronavirus pandemic.

The lawsuits, filed against the University of Colorado's Board of
Regents and Colorado State University's Board of Governors, argue
that students should not have to pay fees separate from tuition,
The Denver Post reported.

These fees are typically associated with having access to events
and services like the student recreation center, bus passes,
athletic events and arts performances, which are not available to
students in the coronavirus era.

Local attorney Igor Raykin who is representing the students told
The Hill they "view this primarily as an issue of fairness" for
universities to refund the "share of the services they can't
provide."

He said he has received "numerous" calls from attorneys across the
country dealing with similar issues.

"I don't understand why these universities feel the need right now
to hold onto something that frankly doesn't belong to them," he
said.

One of his clients Miles Levin, a University of Colorado in Boulder
student, said he paid more than $650 in fees for the spring 2020
semester, according to the lawsuit.

Ken McConnellogue, a spokesman for the University of Colorado, said
the fees allow students to use the 24/7 nurse hotline, virtual
fitness classes and counseling.

"Additionally, student fees cover debt service on some facilities,
which students voted to approve," McConnellogue said. "Fees also
pay salaries and benefits for staff who provide ongoing
maintenance, and whose work will help ensure readiness to reopen at
the appropriate time."

Colorado State University declined to comment to the Post on
pending litigation but referenced a March statement from Provost
Rick Miranda, which said fees fund the library system, mental
health services, student legal services and career advising.

The universities switched to online learning in March, leaving
dorms open to students without a place to go but shutting down most
public spaces.

The University of Colorado spent $44 million refunding housing and
dining fees for its students after moving to online classes, while
Colorado State University dolled out $19 million in rebates for
housing and dining. [GN]


USA: Denial of Bid to Reconsider Claim Order in Pigford Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
affirmed the district court's denial of the petition for monitor
review and the denial of the motion for reconsideration in the
case, TIMOTHY C. PIGFORD, ET AL., Appellee, v. SONNY PERDUE,
SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Appellee,
MAURICE McGINNIS, BY HIS CONSERVATOR DERRICK K. JONES, Appellant,
Case No. 19-5023, Consolidated with No. 19-5027 (D.C. App.).

In 1997, three African American farmers, representing a putative
class of 641 African American farmers, filed a class action lawsuit
against the Department of Agriculture alleging racial
discrimination in denying their applications for farm loans, credit
and other benefit programs.  The parties settled in 1999 and agreed
to a Consent Decree that would ensure that in the future all the
class members in their dealings with the USDA will 'receive full
and fair treatment' that is 'the same as the treatment accorded to
similarly situated white persons.'

The Consent Decree established two tracks for class members to
claim monetary damages: Track A and B.  Track A provides those
class members with little or no documentary evidence with a
virtually automatic cash payment of $50,000, and forgiveness of
debt owed to the USDA.  Because the arbitrator can award actual
damages, the class members who pursue claims on Track B can receive
much more than the $50,000 available on Track A, but the
evidentiary standard required to show discrimination is higher.
The Consent Decree makes the adjudicator's decisions on Track A and
the arbitrator's decisions on Track B "final."  

Maurice G. McGinnis is an African American farmer from Mississippi
who sought but was denied farm credit from the Department of
Agriculture.  In 1999, he initiated a claim under the Consent
Decree.  In an earlier phase of the litigation, the persons
responsible under the Consent Decree for processing his claim
ignored or misinterpreted his clearly expressed wishes to proceed
under Track B.  There was extensive confusion between the claims
facilitator, who processed class member claims, and McGinnis as to
whether he was pursuing a claim under Track A or Track B.  McGinnis
was represented by his privately retained attorney John M. Shoreman
during part of that litigation.  McGinnis was ultimately able to
submit his claim under Track B, as he intended.

On May 29, 2015, the arbitrator issued a formal hearing notice for
McGinnis's Track B claim.  On Jan. 21, 2016, the arbitrator issued
a formal hearing notice adopting the schedule proposed by the
government and set the hearing for July 20, 2016.  The arbitrator's
formal revised hearing notice made clear: Should McGinnis fail to
provide an expert report by Feb. 11, 2016, he will be precluded
from offering any expert report, testimony, or other expert
evidence related to economic damages.  McGinnis did not disclose
his expert's report or submit direct testimony, and neither he nor
his counsel sought to depose the government expert or take
discovery on the government's expert report.

On June 30, 2016, Shoreman filed an "unsigned economic damages
report," "a package of miscellaneous documents that included a
three-page letter from Mr. McGinnis himself," and other documents
with handwritten annotations.  On July 5, 2016, the arbitrator
excluded the damages report because it was not timely.  On Dec. 13,
2016, the arbitrator released his decision denying McGinnis damages
because he introduced no evidence in support of his claim of
discrimination.

Approximately four months after the arbitrator's decision, in a
state court proceeding, Derrick K. Jones was appointed as
conservator on behalf of McGinnis.  Jones is McGinnis' nephew and
long-time personal attorney.  Shortly after Jones was appointed,
Shoreman filed a petition for monitor review of the arbitrator's
decision, "purportedly on behalf of Derrick K. Jones."
Specifically, the petition asserts that McGinnis' failure to meet
deadlines for the arbitration process was attributable to his
mental health conditions, which the petition asserted from the
record were obvious to the participants in the process.

The district court dismissed the petition for monitor review.  It
first explained that monitor review would be futile because the
monitor can direct a reexamination of the decision only when there
is a clear error based on the evidence in the record before the
arbitrator.  Next, it considered, but ultimately rejected,
modifying the Consent Decree under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b)(5).  The district court explained, Because Mr. McGinnis has
been represented by Mr. Shoreman in the matter since at least 2012,
he is not entitled to a Rule 60(b)(5) modification for any failures
or mistakes made by his retained counsel.  Rather, he is bound by
his agent's acts and omissions.

McGinnis filed a motion for reconsideration on June 28, 2018, but
the district court denied the motion without prejudice on Aug. 6,
2018, because Shoreman had not properly added Jones, the
conservator, as a party to the case.  After the court granted
Shoreman's motion to substitute Jones as a party, Shoreman filed a
renewed motion for reconsideration on Oct. 31, 2018.  The district
court denied the renewed motion for reconsideration on Jan. 2,
2019, because the motion merely retread the grounds in the original
petition for monitor review.  McGinnis filed a timely notice of
appeal on Feb. 8, 2019, for both the dismissal of the petition for
monitor review and the denial of the renewed motion for
reconsideration.

The Appellate Court agrees with the district court that monitor
review would be futile because there was no evidence of McGinnis'
incompetency in the record before the arbitrator.  The record
contained evidence of McGinnis' potential frustration and confusion
with the process.  The evidence could indicate McGinnis'
frustration or confusion with the process but do not raise an
inference of mental incompetence.

There is also no evidence that Shoreman raised the issue of
McGinnis's potential incompetence before the arbitrator either by
alerting the arbitrator or by moving to stay the case pending
conservatorship proceedings in state court.  Nor does Shoreman's
briefing explain why he failed to take action to protect his
client's interests if he believed that competency was an issue.
The Appellate Court agrees with the arbitrator and the district
court that McGinnis' actions could be interpreted as a product of
irrationality or confusion or frustration but do not support an
inference of incompetence.

The Appellate Court also finds that the district court did not
abuse its discretion when it refused to modify the Consent Decree.
Because McGinnis voluntarily chose his attorney, the presumption is
not rebutted on that ground.  He is therefore bound by his
attorney's failure to submit documents and memoranda by the
arbitrator-imposed deadlines.  As a result, the district court did
not abuse its discretion when it declined to modify the Consent
Decree because Shoreman did not meet the arbitration deadlines, the
Appellate Court opines.

McGinnis' failure or inability to cooperate with his attorney may
be another unforeseen obstacle.  But the district court did not
abuse its discretion in declining to modify the Consent Decree
because McGinnis' alleged incompetence made it impossible for him
to cooperate with or supervise his attorney.  The district court
provided a reasoned and reasonable explanation for its decision not
to modify the consent decree, the Appellate Court notes.

For the foregoing reasons, the Appellate Court affirmed the
district court's denial of the petition for monitor review and the
denial of the motion for reconsideration.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's Feb. 21, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/M7RqnD from Leagle.com.

TIMOTHY C. PIGFORD, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Herman --
aherman@cov.com -- COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Charles Jerome Ware -
- charlesjeromeware@msn.com -- CHARLES JEROME WARE, P.A., David
A. Branch -- info@dbranchlaw.com -- LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A.
BRANCH & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Faya R. Toure -- fayarose@gmail.com --
Jacob A. Stein -- jstein@steinmitchell.com -- STEIN, MITCHELL &
MUSE, L.L.P., Richard Talbot Seymour -- rick@rickseymourlaw.net -
- LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD T. SEYMOUR, P.L.L.C., Barbara Kim Kagan -
- bkagan@steptoe.com -- STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP & Joshua A. Doan,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Natural Resources Section.

SONNY PERDUE, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture,
Defendant, represented by Andrew Marwill Bernie, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE Civil Division & Elbert Lin, OFFICE OF THE WEST
VIRGINIA ATTORNEY GENERAL.


UTICA NATIONAL: Refuses Coverage of COVID-19 Losses, Slate Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SLATE HILL DAYCARE CENTER INC., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. UTICA NATIONAL INSURANCE GROUP, Case No.
7:20-cv-03565-PMH (S.D.N.Y., May 7, 2020), seeks declaratory relief
arising from the Plaintiff and Class members' contracts of
insurance with the Defendant.

In light of the COVID-19 pandemic and state and local government
orders mandating that all non-essential in-store businesses must
shut down nationwide, daycare centers, including the Plaintiff's
business, have suffered significant business losses. Because of the
shutdown, the Plaintiff and Class members only provide daycare to a
de-minimis number of customers, who work in essential employment
during the pandemic, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff contends that its and Class members' insurance
policies provide coverage for all non-excluded business losses, and
thus provide coverage here. But the Defendant has accepted policy
premiums paid from them with no intention of providing coverage for
business income losses resulting from orders of a Civil Authority
that the insured businesses be shutdown, or any related property
damage.

The Defendant asserts any loss resulting from property damage or
from Civil Authority Orders to cease normal business operations are
excluded under the terms of the Policy's Virus or Bacteria
Exclusion. The Defendant is wrong, the Plaintiff claims. They are
entitled to declaratory relief that their businesses are covered
for all business losses that have been incurred in an amount
greater than $5,000,000, the Plaintiff adds.

Slate Hill owns, operates, manages, and/or controls two daycare
centers (The Kids Place and The Kids Place for Little Tykes), both
of which are located at 2920 Route 6, in Slate Hill, New York.

Utica is an insurance carrier headquartered at 180 Genesee Street,
in New Hartford, New York. The Company provides business
interruption insurance to Plaintiff and Class members.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arnold Levin, Esq.
          Laurence Berman, Esq.
          Frederick Longer, Esq.
          Daniel Levin, Esq.
          Michael Weinkowitz, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
          E-mail: alevin@lfsblaw.com
                  flonger@lfsblaw.com
                  dlevin@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
          1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 985-9177
          Facsimile: (215) 985-4169
          E-mail: rgolomb@golombhonik.com
                  kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com

               - and -

          Aaron Rihn, Esq.
          ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES
          707 Grant Street, Suite 125
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-7229
          Facsimile: (412) 281-4229

               - and -

          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          Rachel N. Boyd, Esq.
          Paul W. Evans, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          P.O. Box 4160
          Montgomery, AL 36103
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555


UTZ QUALITY FOODS: West Claims Website Inaccessible to Blind
------------------------------------------------------------
Mary West, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. UTZ Quality
Foods, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-03590 (S.D. N.Y., May 8,
2020), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory,
statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together
with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and
further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York
State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.

UTZ is a food and snack company that owns and operates
www.utzsnacks.com. It offers products and services for online sale
and general delivery to the public. Plaintiff is legally blind and
claims that said website cannot be accessed by the
visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Paul Force, Esq.
      STEIN SAKS, PLLC
      285 Passaic Street
      Hackensack, NJ 07601
      Tel: (201) 282-6500 Ext. 107
      Fax: (201) 282-6501
      Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


VIKING GROUP: Crace Seeks Overtime Premiums, Withheld Tips
----------------------------------------------------------
Ian Crace, for himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Viking Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00176
(S.D. Ohio, May 6, 2020) seeks to recover unpaid compensation,
including overtime wages and liquidated damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act
and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

Viking Group operates 19 Donatos restaurants in the Dayton and
Springfield, Ohio areas where Crace worked at two of its
Springfield, Ohio locations as a delivery driver. Viking failed to
pay him for the hours in excess of 40 they worked in a workweek,
including premium pay for the overtime hours worked and illegally
took out a tip credit, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bradley L. Gibson, Esq.
      Brian G. Greivenkamp, Esq.
      GIBSON LAW, LLC
      9200 Montgomery, Rd., Suite 11A
      Cincinnati, OH 45242
      Tel: (513) 834-8254
      Fax: (513) 834-8253
      Email: brad@gibsonemploymentlaw.com


WAL-MART STORES: $2.9M Settlement in Evans Suit Gets Prelim. OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHARDE EVANS, Plaintiff(s), v. WAL-MART STORE, INC.,
Defendant(s), Case No. 2:10-CV-1224 JCM (VCF) (D. Nev.), Judge
James C. Mahan of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada granted Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class
action settlement.

Charde Evans commenced the case on her own behalf, on behalf of all
others similarly situated, and on behalf of proposed additional
Plaintiff Lisa Pizzurro-Westcott.  The instant action arises from
Walmart's alleged practice of requiring employees to work in excess
of eight hours in a workday without receiving overtime pay in
violation of Nevada Revised Statute 608.018.  The case has been
heavily litigated since it was filed in 2010.   

In August 2018, the case was stayed to allow the parties to engage
in private mediation.  The parties have, after a year of
arm's-length negotiations, reached a resolution.   The Plaintiffs
now move for preliminary approval of class action settlement.
Their motion is unopposed.  Defendant Wal-Mart has not responded,
and the time to do so has passed.

The parties move to certify two classes for the purpose of
settlement: the voluntary termination settlement class and the
involuntary termination settlement class.  The Court has already
certified the voluntary termination settlement class and need not
revisit that determination.  Judge Mahan now certifies the
involuntary termination class for the purpose of settlement.

Next, Judge Mahan finds that the incentive awards to Plaintiffs
Evans and Pizzuro-Westcott, once reduced, are preliminarily fair,
adequate, and reasonable.  The Judge reduces the incentive awards
to $15,000 to Evans and $5,000 to Pizzuro-Westcott.

Judge Mahan then turns to the experience and views of the counsel.
Not only does the factor support preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement, it also supports the award of $2.9 million in
attorneys' fee and up to $65,000 in litigation costs contemplated
by the settlement agreement.

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the proposed
settlement is, for the purposes of preliminary approval, fair,
adequate, and reasonable.  

The Court has reviewed the parties' proposed notice of class action
settlement and finds that it is reasonable and adequate.  The Court
finds the notice to adequately describe the purpose of the notice,
nature of the lawsuit and settlement, potential opt-in Plaintiffs'
options under the settlement, and the consequences of opting in or
out of the settlement.  Although the notice is simple and
straightforward, it nonetheless instructs the potential Plaintiffs
on how to get more information and to whom they should direct their
questions.

Accordingly, Judge Mahan granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement.  

The Court conditionally certified the following classes solely for
purposes of settlement:

(1) voluntary termination settlement class, defined as: any hourly
employees of Walmart who: (i) worked at a Walmart store in Nevada
between Feb. 27, 2009 and July 31, 2010; (ii) earned 1.5 times the
minimum wage per hour or less; and (iii) commenced a work shift any
day less than 24 hours after commencement of their shift on the
previous day; and (iv) whose employment voluntarily terminated
prior to Sept. 1, 2010; and

(2) involuntary termination settlement class defined as: any hourly
employees of Walmart who: (i) worked at a Walmart store in Nevada
between Feb. 27, 2009 and July 31, 2010; (ii) earned 1.5 times the
minimum wage per hour or less; and (iii) commenced a work shift any
day less than 24 hours after commencement of their shift on the
previous day; and (iv) whose employment involuntarily terminated
prior to Sept. 1, 2010.

The Court approved, as to form and content, the notice to the class
of proposed settlement and the claim form.  Walmart is directed to
provide to Simpluris, Inc., a database report showing the names,
last known addresses, and social security numbers of each
settlement class member no later than 14 calendar days after entry
of the Order.

Named Plaintiffs Charde Evans and Lisa Pizzuro-Westcott are
appointed as class representatives.  The Court preliminarily
approved incentive payments for the following amounts: $15,000 to
Plaintiff Charde Evans and $5,000 to Lisa Pizurro-Westcott.
Thierman Buck LLP is appointed as class counsel and the Court
preliminarily approved their attorneys' fee request of $2.9 million
and litigation costs not to exceed $65,000.

The Court ordered Simpluris, Inc., to send the notice of the
proposed settlement and claim form by first class mail to each
settlement class member, within 14 days of receipt of the database
report showing the names, last known addresses, and social security
numbers of each settlement class member.  The acceptance period
deadline will be 45 days from the initial mailing of the notice of
settlement.

The Plaintiffs will file their motion for final approval of the
settlement within 21 days after the acceptance period deadline.
Responses to the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval, if any,
will be due within 21 days of the motion.  The Plaintiffs will file
their reply, if any, to such responses within 14 days.

The Court will hold a final approval hearing on July 8, 2020, at
10:00 a.m.  All other proceedings in the matter are stayed pending
consideration of final approval.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Feb. 21, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/d0f3Hd from Leagle.com.

Charde Evans, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Markham --
CONTACT@MARKHAM-LAW.COM -- The Markham Law Firm, pro hac vice,
James M. Treglio, Clark & Markham LLP, pro hac vice, Mark R.
Thierman -- info@thiermanbuck.com -- Thierman Buck, LLP, R. Craig
Clark, Clark & Markham LLP, pro hac vice & Joshua D. Buck,
Thierman
Buck, LLP.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian L. Duffy --
duffyb@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, pro hac vice, Eric W.
Swanis, Greenberg Traurig, Naomi Beer -- beern@gtlaw.com --
Greenberg Traurig, pro hac vice & Mark E. Ferrario --
ferrariom@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig.


WAL-MART STORES: Court Grants Partial Dismissal Bid in Garrett Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia
granted Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint in the case captioned MARY GARRETT, Plaintiff, v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant, Civ. Action No. 1:19-CV-69
(Kleeh), (N.D.W.V.).

Plaintiff Mary Garrett filed her Complaint against Defendant
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964.  Specifically, Plaintiff alleged disparate
treatment regarding not only her compensation but also promotion
decisions.  She also claimed an alleged disparate impact of certain
Wal-Mart policies and practices against female employees'
compensation and promotional opportunities.  

Defendant filed its Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint and to Strike Immaterial Allegations in response.

Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") by
U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael J. Aloi, which recommends that the
Court deny Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Complaint and Motion to Strike as moot; grant Defendant's Partial
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint; and deny
Defendant's Motion to Strike as to the Amended Complaint.

To date, no objections have been filed with respect to the R&R.

Because no party has objected, the Court is under no obligation to
conduct a de novo review.  Accordingly, District Judge Thomas Kleeh
grants the Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint.  

A full-text copy of Judge Kleeh's March 19, 2020 Opinion and Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/vbfzbau from Leagle.com

Mary Garrett, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory G. Paul , Morgan &
Paul, PLLC, First and Market Building100 First Avenue, Suite 1010,
Pittsburgh, PA 15222

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Allison R. Brown -
arbrown@littler.com - Littler Mendelson, PC, pro hac vice, Scott A.
Forman - sforman@littler.com - Littler Mendelson, P.C., pro hac
vice & Constance H. Weber  - cweber@littler.com - Littler
Mendelson, P.C..


WEICHERT CO: Denial of NJR's Bid to Intervene in Kennedy Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed the
trial court's order denying New Jersey Realtors' motion to
intervene of right or permissively in the case captioned JAMES
KENNEDY, II, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. WEICHERT CO. d/b/a WEICHERT
REALTORS, Defendant-Respondent, NEW JERSEY REALTORS(R), Appellant,
Case No. A-0395-19T2 (N.J. Super. App. Div.).

By leave granted, New Jersey Realtors (NJR) appeals from the trial
court's order denying its motion to intervene in the pending
putative class action by a real estate salesperson against his real
estate brokerage firm.  NJR is concerned that the precedential or
persuasive effect of a pro-plaintiff result will harm its members'
interests.

Kennedy alleges in his March 2019 complaint that Defendant Weichert
misclassified him and other real estate salespersons as independent
contractors; and Weichert wrongfully withheld or diverted their
wages for various purposes in violation of the New Jersey Wage
Payment Law.  Kennedy contends that his employment status should be
determined according to the so-called "ABC test" in N.J.S.A.
43:21-19(i)(6)(A), (B), and (C), consistent with Hargrove v.
Sleepy's, LLC.  He seeks damages for himself and the putative
class, attorney's fees, and a declaration that he and the putative
class were misclassified.

Roughly four months later, NJR sought to intervene.  NJR is a trade
association of about 55,000 members, including real estate
salespersons and brokers.  In its proposed answer denying Kennedy's
and the class's right to relief, NJR professed no knowledge of the
factual allegations specific to Kennedy's relationship with
Weichert.  

NJR proposed to file a counterclaim seeking a declaration, under
the Declaratory Judgment Act, that the exemption in N.J.S.A.
43:21-19(i)(7)(K) governed "whether a New Jersey real estate
licensee (such as the Plaintiff and the putative class members) is
considered an employee under the WPL.  Alternatively, NJR's
proposed counterclaim seeks a declaration that, "consistent with
the Real Estate Brokers and Salesman Act, independent contractor
agreements, between Weichert and Kennedy and the putative class
members govern their relationship.

The trial court denied NJR's motion.  Judge Garry Furnari concluded
that NJR had no interest in the relationship between Weichert and
Kennedy and the putative class.  The Judge stated that NJR's sole
interest was whether the Supreme Court's decision in Sleepy's
applies to them.  Judge Furnari concluded that NJR lacked a
sufficient interest in the property or transactions at issue in the
case.  The Judge also concluded that permitting NJR to intervene,
and to engage in discovery, would significantly complicate the
case.

On appeal, NJR contends the trial court erred in denying its motion
to intervene of right, and abused its discretion in denying its
motion to intervene permissively.

The Appellate Court finds that NJR filed a timely application.
However, in all other respects, it has failed to satisfy the
requirements for intervention of right.  As a threshold matter, NJR
lacks standing to intervene, the Appellate Court holds.  NJR has no
real dispute with Kennedy or the putative class of Weichert
salespersons.  Were NJR to intervene, it would put in issue
contractual relationships of which Kennedy and the putative class
have no knowledge.  The analysis is not altered by NJR filing a
declaratory judgment action.  NJR has no dispute with Kennedy, and
would lack standing to file its own claim, on behalf of itself or
its members, against Kennedy.

Even if NJR had standing, it has failed to claim an interest
relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the
action, the Appellate Court adds.  Consequently, resolution of the
lawsuit will not impair or impede the ability of NJR to protect
that interest.   NJR does not have an interest in those agreements
separate from Weichert's.

Lastly, regarding its motion to intervene of right, NJR has not
demonstrated that Weichert will not adequately represent its
interests, the Appellate Court opines.  NJR does not contend it
will make arguments that Weichert will omit; that Weichert is
incapable of making the arguments that need to be made; or that
Weichert will neglect matters of interest to NJR.  

NJR lacks standing to bring its counterclaim against Kennedy and
the putative class.  In any event, the Appellate Court will not
disturb Judge Furnari's assessment that permitting NJR to intervene
would significantly expand, complicate, and delay the litigation.
The trial court did not abuse it discretion in denying NJR's motion
for permissive intervention.  Accordingly, the Appellate Court
affirmed.

Although Kennedy opposed NJR's motion to intervene, he concedes
that NJR's proper role in the case is to serve as amicus curiae.
Therefore, the Appellate Court grants NJR permission to do so.
This will assure its timely opportunity to participate in
Weichert's appeal, by leave granted, from the court's order denying
Weichert's motion to dismiss.  NJR may file an amicus brief, and
Kennedy and Weichert may file a reply.  NJR may present oral
argument.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's Feb. 21, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/8AvH83 from Leagle.com.

Darren C. Barreiro -- dbarreiro@greenbaumlaw.com -- argued the
cause for appellant (Greenbaum Rowe Smith & Davis LLP, attorneys;
Barry S. Goodman -- bgoodman@greenbaumlaw.com -- and Darren C.
Barreiro, of counsel; Darren C. Barreiro and Conor J. Hennessey --
chennessey@greenbaumlaw.com -- on the brief).

Ravi Sattiraju -- rsattiraju@sattirajulawfirm.com -- argued the
cause for respondent James Kennedy, II (Sattiraju & Tharney, LLP,
attorneys; Ravi Sattiraju, of counsel and on the brief; Anthony S.
Almeida, on the brief).


WELLS FARGO: Faces Tanner RESPA Suit Alleging Breach of Contract
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amy S. Tanner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. 1:20-cv-01104-DAP
(N.D. Ohio, May 20, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
breach of contract and over the Plaintiff's claims that arise under
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

Every residential mortgage loan that is insured by the Federal
Housing Administration ("FHA"), including the Plaintiff's loan with
Wells Fargo, contains substantially similar contractual provisions
requiring lenders to comply with the rules and regulations
promulgated by the Secretary of the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"). The Plaintiff and each
member of the Class executed and were subject to the provisions of
an FHA-insured mortgage loan for a single family home.

After submitting their First Applications to Wells Fargo, the
Plaintiff, as well as certain other Class members, were offered and
accepted loss mitigation options, such as an FHA-HAMP loan
modification, but later defaulted on the terms thereof. At least 24
months after they entered into their Initial Loss Mitigation Plans,
and while they were still in default on the terms thereof, the
Plaintiff and each of these Class members submitted Second
Applications to Wells Fargo. Therefore, Wells Fargo had an
obligation to review the Plaintiff's and each Class member's Second
Application, pursuant to the rules and regulations promulgated by
the Secretary and HUD which were incorporated into the terms of
their Loans.

However, instead of reviewing the Plaintiff's and Class members'
Second Applications for eligibility for any and all available loss
mitigation options (and advise Plaintiff and Class members of its
determination as to same), Wells Fargo refused to review each of
the Second Applications and provided the Plaintiff and each Class
member with correspondence stating that "your account is not
eligible to be reviewed for assistance" (the "Refusal Notices"),
according to the complaint.

The Plaintiff contends that Wells Fargo's actions in sending each
of the Refusal Notices was in violation of the HUD requirement to
review and evaluate each and every complete loss mitigation
application submitted by Plaintiff and each Class member or to
otherwise evaluate Plaintiff and each Class member monthly for all
loss mitigation options available during the duration of their
delinquency. As a result of Wells Fargo's breach, the Plaintiff and
Class members' attempts to obtain a review of their eligibility for
all available loss mitigation options were delayed, causing them,
who would have been eligible for a loss mitigation option, to
unnecessarily remain in a delinquent state on their Loans, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Amy S. Tanner is a natural person residing in Cuyahoga
County, Ohio.

Wells Fargo was the mortgagee and servicer of the Plaintiff's and
Class members' Loans.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marc E. Dann, Esq.
          Whitney P. Horton, Esq.
          Daniel M. Solar, Esq.
          Brian D. Flick, Esq.
          DANN LAW
          P.O. Box. 6031040
          Cleveland, OH 44103
          Phone: (216) 373-0539
          Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
          Email: mdann@dannlaw.com
                 whorton@dannlaw.com
                 dsolar@dannlaw.com
                 bflick@dannlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
          Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Office: (312) 440-0020
          Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
          Email: tom@attorneyzim.com
                 matt@attorneyzim.com


WESCO AIRCRAFT: Gray Appeals Order in Securities Suit to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jacob Gray filed an appeal from the District Court's
Amended Opinion and Order dated April 16, 2020, and Amended
Judgment dated April 17, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled Gray
v. Wesco Aircraft Holdings, Inc., Case No. 19-cv-8528, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that the definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A filed
by the Company on September 13, 2019, omits certain information
regarding the confidentiality agreements between the Company and
the potentially interested parties, the Company's updated
projections, the analysis performed by the financial advisors, and
services the financial advisors previously provided to certain
parties.

The appellate case is captioned as Gray v. Wesco Aircraft Holdings,
Inc., Case No. 20-1530, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Jacob Gray, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Miles Dylan Schreiner, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES, PC
          350 5th Avenue
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (2120 971-1341

Defendants-Appellees Wesco Aircraft Holdings, Inc., et al., are
represented by:

          J. Christian Word, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          555 11th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 637-2200


WESTERN LAND SERVICES: Turner Sues Over Denied Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brenadette Turner, for herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Western Land Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00406, (W.D. Mich., May 11, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
compensation, including overtime wages and liquidated damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

Western Land Services (WLS) is a land brokerage firm offering
midstream acquisitions for crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas
lines, abstracts for drilling title opinions, oil and gas
abstracts, coal title, right-of-way title, due diligence, HBP,
heirship, mineral title and limited title services. Turner worked
for WLS as a Right of Way Agent from approximately September 2017
to December 2018. WLS allegedly classified Turner as a contractor
and denied her compensation for the hours in excess of 40 worked in
a workweek, including premium pay for the overtime hours worked.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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

             - and -

      Jennifer L. McManus, Esq.
      FAGAN MCMANUS, P.C.
      25892 Woodward Avenue
      Royal Oak, MI 48067-0910
      Tel: (248) 542-6300
      Email: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com


WESTERN UNION: 10th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Smallen Trust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LAWRENCE HENRY SMALLEN AND LAURA ANNE SMALLEN
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, and UA LOCAL 13 PENSION
FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. THE WESTERN UNION COMPANY; HIKMET ERSEK; SCOTT T.
SCHEIRMAN; RAJESH K. AGRAWAL, Defendants-Appellees, and BARRY KOCH,
Defendant, Case No. 19-1154 (10th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of
the Plaintiff-Appellant's securities-fraud class action.

Western Union is the world's largest provider of money-transfer
services, operating through an international network of over
500,000 agent locations in more than 200 countries and territories
worldwide.  As a major player in the money-transmitter industry,
which is heavily regulated, Western Union is no stranger to dealing
with compliance issues and government investigations.

On Jan. 19, 2017, Western Union reached a joint settlement with
several federal regulators, including the Department of Justice and
the Federal Trade Commission, in which it agreed to pay $586
million to resolve investigations into the company's AML and
anti-fraud programs.  As part of the settlement with DOJ, Western
Union entered into a deferred prosecution agreement wherein the
company admitted to willfully failing to implement an effective AML
compliance program from 2004 through December 2012.  Less than two
weeks later, Western Union also agreed to pay $5 million to settle
charges arising out of the same compliance issues with the attorney
generals of 49 states and the District of Columbia.

Following the announcement of the Joint Settlement, the price of
Western Union stock shares declined.  And shortly thereafter, the
Plaintiff filed its Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, on
behalf of itself and other similarly situated shareholders, against
Western Union and a select group of its senior executives.

In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges the Defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
Securities Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, by making false and
materially misleading statements during the five-year Class Period.
These misrepresentations include the Defendants' statements in
public and in SEC filings that Western Union's then-current
compliance efforts were legally sufficient and effectively
combating the significant AML and fraud problems the company faced
around the world.  Count II of the Plaintiff's complaint also
asserts claims against the Individual Defendants under Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, which creates joint and
several liability for "control persons" of entities found liable
for violations of securities laws.

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b) and the
PSLRA.  As for the misstatements concerning Western Union's
compliance with AML and anti-fraud laws, which is the only category
of statements at issue, the district court held that the complaint
failed to create a strong inference of scienter as required to
state a claim under the PSLRA.  Accordingly, the district court
dismissed the Plaintiff's claims of securities fraud under Section
10(b) and Rule 10b-5.  Because the Plaintiff failed to plead a
primary violation of the securities laws -- a required element for
control-person liability -- the district court also held the
Plaintiff's Section 20(a) claims could not proceed.  The district
court therefore dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and the
appeal followed.

On appeal, the Plaintiff argues the district court erred in
concluding the complaint does not create a strong inference of
scienter with respect to the Defendants' misstatements concerning
Western Union's compliance with AML and anti-fraud laws.

The Tenth Circuit disagrees.  The Tenth Circuit is not persuaded
the stock sales of Mr. Ersek, Mr. Agrawal, or the other Western
Union executives identified in the complaint demonstrate the
Individual Defendants had motive to defraud investors.  The
Plaintiff has therefore failed to plead facts showing any of the
Individual Defendants had a particularized motive to engage in
wrongful conduct.  Although the absence of an alleged motive is not
fatal to the Plaintiff's claims, it does weigh against a finding of
scienter.  

After evaluating all of the Plaintiff's allegations with respect to
the alleged misstatements regarding Western Union's legal
compliance and considering the competing inference of nonfraudulent
intent, the Tenth Circuit concludes the complaint fails to raise a
strong inference any of the Individual Defendants acted with
scienter.  The district court, therefore, did not err in dismissing
the Plaintiff's Section 10(b) claims against the Individual
Defendants, the Tenth Circuit holds.

Even if the Appellate Court deemed it possible to plead scienter
against a corporation without pleading scienter against an
individual, the facts alleged here would not give rise to corporate
scienter under any recognized theory of the doctrine.  Thus, the
Plaintiff has failed to adequately plead scienter with respect to
Western Union, and the district court correctly determined the
Section 10(b) claim against the company could not proceed, the
Tenth Circuit notes.

In sum, the Tenth Circuit concludes the Plaintiff has failed to
state a control-person claim against the Individual Defendants.
Control-person claims under Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, are predicated on some underlying primary
violation of the securities laws.  Because the complaint does not
allege a primary violation of the securities laws, the Plaintiff's
Section 20(a) claims necessarily fail.  Therefore, the district
court did not err in dismissing the complaint.

For the foregoing reasons, the Tenth Circuit upholds the judgment
of the district court.

A full-text copy of the Tenth Circuit's Feb. 25, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/rMpJQt from Leagle.com.

Kazmiera Frazier, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Rhonda Laubler, Teresa Riggs, Anita Seward &
Koaleshia Simon, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam Jay Levitt --
alevitt@dlcfirm.com -- DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Daniel R. Ferri
-- dferri@dlcfirm.com -- Vitale Vickrey Niro & Gasey, LLP, James
Edward Tonrey, Jr., Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer PA, Kenneth Steven
Canfield, Doffermyre Shields Canfield Knowles & Devine, LLC, Kevin
Peter Roddy -- kroddy@wilentz.com -- Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer PA
&
Ty Cheung Gee -- tgee@hmflaw.com -- Haddon Morgan & Foreman, P.C.

The Western Union Company, Western Union Financial Services, Inc.
&
Hikmet Ersek, and Various "Doe" Defendants, Including Western
Union
Officers, Directors, and Agents, Defendants, represented by Hille
Von Rosenvinge Sheppard -- HSHEPPARD@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin,
LLP, Claire Elizabeth Wells Hanson -- cehanson@hollandhart.com --
Holland & Hart LLP, David Franklin Graham -- DGRAHAM@SIDLEY.COM --
Sidley Austin, LLP, Holly Stein Sollod --
hsteinsollod@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart, LLP & Joseph Ryan
Dosch -- JDOSCH@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin, LLP.


YES ONLINE INC: Compton Files Suit Under FDCPA
----------------------------------------------
Robin Compton, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Yes Online, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 20-cv-01353 (S.D. Ind., May 11, 2020), seeks actual and
statutory damages, costs of the action, reasonable attorney's fees
and all other damages for violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Ac.

Defendant is a debt collector attempting to collect a debt incurred
by Compton to Telekom Deutschland GmbH in 2013 for personal
cellular service during his oversees deployment as a U.S. Army
service member. Yes Online called Compton on October 28, 2019 to
collect on said debt but failed to advise Compton of this right to
dispute his debt and failed to provide him with the name and
address of the original creditor. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Syed Ali Saeed, Esq.
      SAEED & LITTLE, LLP
      18 W. Vermont St.
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Telephone: (317) 614-5741
      Facsimile: (888) 422-3151
      Email: ali@sllawfirm.com


[*] Waterloo Village Joins Seneca Lake Contamination Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FingerLakes1.com reports that the Waterloo Village Board has joined
a lawsuit.

It's a class action suit against the manufacturer of aqueous
film-forming foam.

Also known as AFFF, the foam has been identified as a contaminant
in Seneca Lake, the source of the village's public water supply,
according to the Finger Lakes Times.

The board voted April 13 to retain New York City-based
Napoli-Shkolnik, one of the nation's largest environmental law
firms, to conduct the investigation and take legal action related
to the perfluorinated chemical contamination of the lake. [GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Still Defends Mount Vernon Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. continues to be a defendant in some
asbestos cases as the "successor in interest" to Mount Vernon
Mills, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended:
March 31, 2020.

The Company states, "In some of these asbestos cases, the Company
is named both as a direct defendant and as the "successor in
interest" to Mount Vernon Mills ("Mount Vernon").  We acquired
certain assets from Mount Vernon in 1993.  Certain plaintiffs
allege injury caused by asbestos-containing products alleged to
have been sold by Mount Vernon many years prior to this
acquisition.  Mount Vernon is contractually obligated to indemnify
the Company against any liability arising out of such products.  We
deny any liability for products sold by Mount Vernon prior to the
acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets.  Pursuant to its
contractual indemnification obligations, Mount Vernon has assumed
the defense of these claims.  On this basis, we have successfully
moved for dismissal in a number of actions."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Had $337MM Reserves at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Global Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020, that total reserves for asbestos
claims were US$337 million at March 31, 2020 compared to US$352
million at September 30, 2019.

The Company states, "The claims alleging personal injury caused by
exposure to asbestos asserted against Ashland result primarily from
indemnification obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with
the sale of Riley.  The amount and timing of settlements and number
of open claims can fluctuate from period to period.

"From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it
believes to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation
defense and claim settlement costs, which generally approximates
the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure from model
results.  Ashland reviews this estimate and related assumptions
quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-inflated,
non-discounted approximate 50-year model developed with the
assistance of Nathan.

"During the most recent annual update of this estimate completed
during the June 2019 quarter, it was determined that the liability
for Ashland asbestos-related claims should be increased by US$1
million.  Total reserves for asbestos claims were US$337 million at
March 31, 2020 compared to US$352 million at September 30, 2019."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Has Ongoing SEC Claims Investigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that it continues to fully cooperate with an SEC
investigation related to the Company's accounting for
asbestos-related claims not yet asserted.

The Company states, "On July 31, 2018, the Division of Enforcement
of the SEC informed the Company that it is conducting an
investigation related to the Company's historical accounting for
asbestos-related claims not yet asserted.  The Company is fully
cooperating with the SEC in connection with its investigation."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Has $135MM PCC Liability at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the total amount of remaining payments
due in years 2020 through 2023 is US$135 million, of which US$35
million will be paid in the second quarter of 2020 and is
classified as a current liability.

The Company states, "Corning and PPG Industries, Inc. each owned
50% of the capital stock of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation ("PCC").
PCC filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in 2000, and the Modified
Third Amended Plan of Reorganization for PCC (the "Plan") became
effective in April 2016.  At December 31, 2016, the Company's
liability under the Plan was US$290 million, which is required to
be paid through a series of fixed payments that began in the second
quarter of 2017.  Payments of US$50 million and US$35 million were
made in June 2019 and June 2018, respectively.  The total amount of
remaining payments due in years 2020 through 2023 is US$135
million, of which US$35 million will be paid in the second quarter
of 2020 and is classified as a current liability.  The remaining
US$100 million is classified as a non-current liability."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/x09VuE


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had 56,000 Claims at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc. (fka Crown Cork & Seal Co Inc.) had 56,000
outstanding claims related to asbestos matters as of March 31,
2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020.

The Company also disclosed that during the three months ended March
31, 2020, it paid US$1 million to settle outstanding claims.  In
the same period, there were also 500 new claims and 500 settlements
or dismissals.

The Company states, "Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. ("Crown Cork")
is one of many defendants in a substantial number of lawsuits filed
throughout the U.S. by persons alleging bodily injury as a result
of exposure to asbestos.  These claims arose from the insulation
operations of a U.S. company, the majority of whose stock Crown
Cork purchased in 1963.  Approximately ninety days after the stock
purchase, this U.S. company sold its insulation assets and was
later merged into Crown Cork.

"Prior to 1998, amounts paid to asbestos claimants were covered by
a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985 settlement with
carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976, when Crown Cork became
self-insured.  The fund was depleted in 1998 and the Company has no
remaining coverage for asbestos-related costs.

"In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted
legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of
Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate merger
to companies involved with asbestos.  The legislation limits the
successor's liability for asbestos to the acquired company's asset
value adjusted for inflation.  Crown Cork has paid significantly
more for asbestos-related claims than the acquired company's
adjusted asset value.

"In November 2004, the legislation was amended to address a
Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision (Ieropoli v. AC&S Corporation,
et al., No. 117 EM 2002) which held that the statute violated the
Pennsylvania Constitution due to retroactive application.  The
Company cautions that the limitations of the statute, as amended,
are subject to litigation and may not be upheld.

"In June 2003, the state of Texas enacted legislation that limits
the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies such
as Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because
they are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been
involved with asbestos.  The Texas legislation, which applies to
future claims and pending claims, caps asbestos-related liabilities
at the total gross value of the predecessor's assets adjusted for
inflation.  Crown Cork has paid significantly more for
asbestos-related claims than the total adjusted value of its
predecessor's assets.

"In October 2010, the Texas Supreme Court held that the Texas
legislation was unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution when
applied to asbestos-related claims pending against Crown Cork when
the legislation was enacted in June 2003.  The Company believes
that the decision of the Texas Supreme Court is limited to
retroactive application of the Texas legislation to
asbestos-related cases that were pending against Crown Cork in
Texas on June 11, 2003 and therefore, in its accrual, continues to
assign no value to claims filed after June 11, 2003.

"In recent years, the states of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas,
Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan,
Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West
Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming enacted legislation that limits
asbestos-related liabilities under state law of companies such as
Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because they
are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been
involved with asbestos.  The legislation, which applies to future
and, with the exception of Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, South
Dakota, West Virginia and Wyoming, pending claims, caps
asbestos-related liabilities at the fair market value of the
predecessor's total gross assets adjusted for inflation.  Crown
Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims than
the total value of its predecessor's assets adjusted for inflation.
Crown Cork has integrated the legislation into its claims defense
strategy.

"The Company further cautions that an adverse ruling in any
litigation relating to the constitutionality or applicability to
Crown Cork of one or more statutes that limits the asbestos-related
liability of alleged defendants like Crown Cork could have a
material impact on the Company."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/tl6cyz


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Had $5.5MM Asbestos Coverage at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Enpro Industries, Inc. had approximately US$5.5 million of
insurance coverage for asbestos claims payments and certain expense
payments as of March 31, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.

The Company states, "The historical business operations of certain
of our subsidiaries resulted in a substantial volume of asbestos
litigation in which plaintiffs alleged personal injury or death as
a result of exposure to asbestos fibers.  In 2010, certain of these
subsidiaries, including Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC ("GST"),
filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of
the United States Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the Western District of North Carolina (the "Bankruptcy Court").
An additional subsidiary filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition
with the Bankruptcy Court in 2017.  The filings were part of a
claims resolution process for an efficient and permanent resolution
of all pending and future asbestos claims through court approval of
a plan of reorganization to establish a facility to resolve and pay
these asbestos claims.

"These claims against GST and other subsidiaries were resolved
pursuant to a joint plan of reorganization (the "Joint Plan") filed
with the Bankruptcy Court which was consummated on July 29, 2017.
Under the Joint Plan, GST and EnPro Holdings retained their rights
to seek reimbursement under insurance policies for any amounts they
have paid in the past to resolve asbestos claims, including
contributions made to the asbestos claims resolution trust
established under the Joint Plan (the "Trust").  These policies
include a number of primary and excess general liability insurance
policies that were purchased by EnPro Holdings and were in effect
prior to January 1, 1976 (the "Pre-Garlock Coverage Block").  The
policies provide coverage for "occurrences" happening during the
policy periods and cover losses associated with product liability
claims against EnPro Holdings and certain of its subsidiaries.
Asbestos claims against GST are not covered under these policies
because GST was not a subsidiary of EnPro Holdings prior to 1976.
The Joint Plan provides that EnPro Holdings may retain the first
US$25 million of any settlements and judgments collected for
non-GST asbestos claims related to insurance policies in the
Pre-Garlock Coverage Block and EnPro Holdings and the Trust will
share equally in any settlements and judgments EnPro Holdings may
collect in excess of US$25 million.  To date, EnPro Holdings has
collected almost US$22 million in settlements for non-GST asbestos
claims from the Pre-Garlock Coverage Block and anticipates further
collections once the Trust begins making claims payments.

"As of March 31, 2020, approximately US$5.5 million of available
products hazard limits or insurance receivables existed under
primary and excess general liability insurance policies other than
the Pre-Garlock Coverage Block (the "Garlock Coverage Block") from
solvent carriers with investment grade ratings, which we believe is
available to cover GST asbestos claims payments and certain expense
payments, including contributions to the Trust.  We consider such
amount of available insurance coverage under the Garlock Coverage
Block to be of high quality because the insurance policies are
written or guaranteed by U.S.-based carriers whose credit rating by
S&P is investment grade (BBB-) or better, and whose AM Best rating
is excellent (A-) or better.  The remaining US$5.5 million is
available to pending and estimated future claims.  There are
specific agreements in place with carriers regarding the remaining
available coverage.  Based on those agreements and the terms of the
policies in place and prior decisions concerning coverage, we
believe that all of the US$5.5 million of insurance proceeds will
ultimately be collected, although there can be no assurance that
the insurance companies will make the payments as and when due.
Assuming the insurers pay according to the agreements and policies,
we anticipate that all US$5.5 million will be collected in 2020.

"We also believe that EnPro Holdings will bill, and could collect
over time, as much as US$10 million of insurance coverage for
non-GST asbestos claims to reimburse it for Trust payments to
non-GST Trust claimants.  After EnPro Holdings collects the first
approximately US$3 million of that coverage, remaining collections
for non-GST asbestos claims from the Pre-Garlock Coverage Block
will be shared equally with the Trust.

"GST has received US$8.8 million of insurance recoveries from
insolvent carriers since 2007, and may receive additional payments
from insolvent carriers in the future.  No anticipated insolvent
carrier collections are included in the US$5.5 million of
anticipated collections.  The insurance available to cover current
and future asbestos claims is from comprehensive general liability
policies that cover EnPro Holdings and certain of its other
subsidiaries in addition to GST for periods prior to 1985 and
therefore could be subject to potential competing claims of other
covered subsidiaries and their assignees."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Apw6sn


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Had 39,200 Claims Pending in March
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company has 39,200 pending claims
related to asbestos matters as of March 31, 2020, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.

The Company states, "We are a defendant in numerous lawsuits
alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to
result from alleged exposure to asbestos in certain products
manufactured by us or present in certain of our facilities.
Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple
defendants in state and federal courts.  To date, we have disposed
of approximately 152,900 claims by defending, obtaining the
dismissal thereof, or entering into a settlement.  The sum of our
accrued asbestos-related liability and gross payments to date,
including legal costs, by us and our insurers totaled approximately
US$557 million through March 31, 2020 and US$554 million through
December 31, 2019."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/o3Y62A



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules LLC Had $242MM Reserves at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Global Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020, that wholly-owned subsidiary Hercules
LLC's total reserves for asbestos claims were US$242 million at
March 31, 2020, compared to US$272 million at March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "Hercules has liabilities from claims alleging
personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos.  Such claims
typically arise from alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from resin
encapsulated pipe and tank products which were sold by one of
Hercules' former subsidiaries to a limited industrial market.  The
amount and timing of settlements and number of open claims can
fluctuate from period to period.

"From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it
believes to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation
defense and claim settlement costs, which generally approximates
the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure from model
results.  Ashland reviews this estimate, and related assumptions
quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-inflated,
non-discounted approximate 50-year model developed with the
assistance of Nathan.  As a result of the most recent annual update
of this estimate, completed during the June 2019 quarter, it was
determined that the liability for Hercules asbestos-related claims
should be decreased by US$10 million.  Total reserves for asbestos
claims were US$242 million at March 31, 2020 compared to US$252
million at September 30, 2019."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $1.5BB Bendix Liabilities in March
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. recorded US$1,465 million at March 31,
2020, in asbestos-related liabilities associated with predecessor
company Bendix Friction Materials business, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.

The Company states, "Bendix manufactured automotive brake linings
that contained chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form.
Claimants consist largely of individuals who allege exposure to
asbestos from brakes from either performing or being in the
vicinity of individuals who performed brake replacements.

"It is not possible to predict whether resolution values for
Bendix-related asbestos claims will increase, decrease or stabilize
in the future.

"The Company's Consolidated Financial Statements reflect an
estimated liability for resolution of asserted (claims filed as of
the financial statement date) and unasserted Bendix-related
asbestos claims and excludes the Company's legal fees to defend
such asbestos claims which will continue to be expensed by the
Company as they are incurred.  We have valued Bendix asserted and
unasserted claims using average resolution values for the previous
five years.  We update the resolution values used to estimate the
cost of Bendix asserted and unasserted claims during the fourth
quarter each year.

"Honeywell reflects the inclusion of all years of epidemiological
disease projection through 2059 when estimating the liability for
unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims.  Such liability for
unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims is based on historic and
anticipated claims filing experience and dismissal rates, disease
classifications, and resolution values in the tort system for the
previous five years.

"Our insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for
settlement of asserted and unasserted Bendix asbestos claims
reflects coverage which is provided by a large number of insurance
policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the
domestic insurance market and the London excess market.  Based on
our ongoing analysis of the probable insurance recovery, insurance
receivables are recorded in the financial statements simultaneous
with the recording of the estimated liability for the underlying
asbestos claims.  This determination is based on our analysis of
the underlying insurance policies, our historical experience with
our insurers, our ongoing review of the solvency of our insurers,
judicial determinations relevant to our insurance programs, and our
consideration of the impacts of any settlements reached with our
insurers."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/g3OHIb


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $844MM NARCO Liabilities at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. recorded US$844 million at March 31,
2020, in asbestos-related liabilities involving predecessor company
North American Refractories Company (NARCO), according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.

The Company states, "Honeywell's predecessor, Allied Corporation
owned NARCO from 1979 to 1986.  When the NARCO business was sold,
Honeywell's predecessor entered into a cross-indemnity agreement
with NARCO which included an obligation to indemnify the purchaser
for asbestos claims.  Such claims arise primarily from alleged
occupational exposure to asbestos-containing refractory brick and
mortar for high-temperature applications.  NARCO ceased
manufacturing these products in 1980, and the first asbestos claims
were filed in the tort system against NARCO in 1983.  Claims
filings and related costs increased dramatically in the late 1990s
through 2001, which led to NARCO filing for bankruptcy in January
2002.  Once NARCO filed for bankruptcy, all then current and future
NARCO asbestos claims were stayed against both NARCO and Honeywell
pending the reorganization of NARCO.

"Following the bankruptcy filing, in December 2002 Honeywell
recorded a total NARCO asbestos liability of US$3.2 billion, which
was comprised of three components: (i) the estimated liability to
settle pre-bankruptcy petition NARCO claims and certain
post-petition settlements (US$2.2 billion, referred to as
"Pre-bankruptcy NARCO Liability"), (ii) the estimated liability
related to then unasserted NARCO claims for the period 2004 through
2018 (US$950 million, referred to as "NARCO Trust Liability"), and
(iii) other NARCO bankruptcy-related obligations totaling US$73
million.

"As of March 31, 2020, the Company's total NARCO asbestos liability
of US$844 million reflects Pre-bankruptcy NARCO Liability of US$148
million and NARCO Trust Liability of US$696 million (the US$743
million accrual for the 2006 NARCO Trust Liability Estimate was
reduced by US$47 million of payments by Honeywell to the NARCO
Trust for Annual Contribution Claims since HWI cash dividend
funding had been fully exhausted in the fourth quarter of 2019 and
there have been no further dividends from HWI).  Through March 31,
2020, Pre-bankruptcy NARCO Liability has been reduced by
approximately US$2 billion since first established in 2002, largely
related to settlement payments.  The remaining Pre-bankruptcy NARCO
Liability principally represents estimated amounts owed pursuant to
settlement agreements reached during the pendency of the NARCO
bankruptcy proceedings that provide for the right to submit claims
to the NARCO Trust subject to qualification under the terms of the
settlement agreements and Trust Distribution Procedures.  The other
NARCO bankruptcy related obligations were paid in 2013 and no
further liability is recorded.

"Honeywell continues to evaluate the appropriateness of the 2006
NARCO Trust Liability Estimate.  Despite becoming effective in
2013, the NARCO Trust has experienced delays in becoming fully
operational.  Violations of the Trust Distribution Procedures and
the resulting disputes and challenges, a standstill pending dispute
resolution, and limited claims payments, have all contributed to
the lack of sufficient normalized data based on actual claims
processing experience in the Trust since it became operational.  As
a result, we have not been able to further update the NARCO Trust
Liability aside from deducting Honeywell payments to the NARCO
Trust for Annual Contribution Claims.  The 2006 NARCO Trust
Liability Estimate continues to be appropriate because of the
unresolved pending claims in the Trust, some portion of which will
result in payouts in the future, and because new claims continue to
be filed with the NARCO Trust.  When sufficiently reliable claims
data exists, we will update our estimate of the NARCO Trust
Liability and it is possible that a material change may need to be
recognized.

"Our insurance receivable of US$275 million as of March 31, 2020,
corresponding to the estimated liability for asserted and
unasserted NARCO asbestos claims, reflects coverage which
reimburses Honeywell for portions of NARCO-related indemnity and
defense costs and is provided by a large number of insurance
policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the
domestic insurance market and the London excess market.  We conduct
analyses to estimate the probable amount of insurance that is
recoverable for asbestos claims.  While the substantial majority of
our insurance carriers are solvent, some of our individual carriers
are insolvent, which has been considered in our analysis of
probable recoveries.  We made judgments concerning insurance
coverage that we believe are reasonable and consistent with our
historical dealings and our knowledge of any pertinent solvency
issues surrounding insurers."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/g3OHIb


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Seeks to Nix Suit on Asbestos Accounting
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. has requested the Court's ruling to
dismiss the Kanefsky litigation related to accounting for Bendix
asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020.

The Company states, "On October 31, 2018, David Kanefsky, a
Honeywell shareholder, filed a putative class action complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
related to the prior accounting for Bendix asbestos claims.  An
Amended Complaint was filed on December 30, 2019, and on February
7, 2020, we filed a Motion to Dismiss.  We believe the claims have
no merit."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/g3OHIb


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Units Had 24,000 Claims Pending at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Inc.'s subsidiaries had 24,000 pending asbestos-related claims
at March 31, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020.

The Company states, "Subsidiaries of ITT, including ITT LLC and
Goulds Pumps LLC, have been sued, along with many other companies
in product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to
asbestos exposure.  These claims generally allege that certain
products sold by our subsidiaries prior to 1985 contained a part
manufactured by a third party (e.g., a gasket) which contained
asbestos.  To the extent these third-party parts may have contained
asbestos, it was encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material and
was non-friable.  As of March 31, 2020, there were approximately 24
thousand pending claims against ITT subsidiaries, including Goulds
Pumps LLC, filed in various state and federal courts alleging
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.

"Frequently, plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT LLC or
Goulds Pumps LLC products as a source of asbestos exposure.  Our
experience to date is that a majority of resolved claims are
dismissed without any payment from ITT subsidiaries.  Management
believes that a large majority of the pending claims have little or
no value.  In addition, because claims are sometimes dismissed in
large groups, the average cost per resolved claim can fluctuate
significantly from period to period.  ITT expects more
asbestos-related suits will be filed in the future, and ITT will
continue to aggressively defend or seek a reasonable resolution, as
appropriate.

"Asbestos litigation is a unique form of litigation.  Frequently,
the plaintiff sues a large number of defendants and does not state
a specific claim amount.  After filing a complaint, the plaintiff
engages defendants in settlement negotiations to establish a
settlement value based on certain criteria, including the number of
defendants in the case.  Rarely do the plaintiffs seek to collect
all damages from one defendant.  Rather, they seek to spread the
liability, and thus the payments, among many defendants.  As a
result of this and other factors, the Company is unable to estimate
the maximum potential exposure to pending claims and claims
estimated to be filed over the next 10 years."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/do1wFa


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson & Johnson Still Defends 4 Derivative Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 29, 2020, that four shareholder derivative lawsuits remain
pending against the Company, its current directors and certain
officers in New Jersey alleging a breach of fiduciary duties
related to the alleged asbestos contamination in body powders
containing talc.

The Company states, "In October 2018, a shareholder derivative
lawsuit was filed against Johnson & Johnson as the nominal
defendant and its current directors as defendants in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging a
breach of fiduciary duties related to the alleged asbestos
contamination in body powders containing talc, primarily
JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder, and that Johnson & Johnson has suffered
damages as a result of those alleged breaches.

"In June 2019, the shareholder filed an additional complaint
initiating a summary proceeding in New Jersey state court for a
books and records inspection.

"In August 2019, Johnson & Johnson responded to the books and
records complaint and filed a cross motion to dismiss.

"In September 2019, Plaintiff replied and the Court heard oral
argument.  The Court has not yet ruled in the books and records
action.

"In September 2019, the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey granted defendants' motion to dismiss the
shareholder derivative lawsuit, and dismissed the complaint without
prejudice.

"In October 2019, the shareholder filed a notice of appeal with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

"In January 2020, the shareholder voluntarily dismissed his appeal,
with prejudice.  Four additional shareholder derivative lawsuits
have been filed in New Jersey making similar allegations against
the Company and its current directors and certain officers.

"In February 2020, these four cases were consolidated into a single
action under the caption In re Johnson & Johnson Talc Stockholder
Derivative Litigation, and the shareholders have until May 2020 to
file a consolidated complaint or identify a previously filed
complaint as the operative complaint."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/JS9zPH


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Mexico Files Consumer Case on J&J Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson is facing a consumer protection case filed by the
State of New Mexico over alleged misrepresentations about the
safety of the Company's talcum powder products and the presence of
carcinogens, including asbestos, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 29, 2020.

The Company states, "In January 2020, the State of New Mexico filed
a consumer protection case alleging that the Company deceptively
marketed and sold its talcum powder products by making
misrepresentations about the safety of the products and the
presence of carcinogens, including asbestos.  The State of New
Mexico filed an Amended Complaint in March 2020."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/JS9zPH


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 574 Claims Pending at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation had 574 outstanding claims related to asbestos
matters as of March 31, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.

The Company states, "For the three months ended March 31, 2020, 34
claims were dismissed and 4 claims were settled.  Settlements
totaled approximately US$1.6 million for the three months ended
March 31, 2020.

"We, like many other industrial companies, have been named as a
defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in courts across the
country by persons alleging personal injury from exposure to
products containing asbestos.  We have never mined, milled,
manufactured or marketed asbestos; rather, we made and provided to
industrial users a limited number of products that contained
encapsulated asbestos, but we stopped manufacturing these products
in the late 1980s.  Most of the claims filed against us involve
numerous defendants, sometimes as many as several hundred."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/4Rw2ur


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had 1,585 Fibro Cases at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 1,585 cases were outstanding at March 31, 2020, for
which Standard Motor Products, Inc. may be responsible for any
related liabilities in connection to its former brake business,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020.

The Company states, "In 1986, we acquired a brake business, which
we subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a
discontinued operation in the accompanying statement of operations.
When we originally acquired this brake business, we assumed future
liabilities relating to any alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
products manufactured by the seller of the acquired brake business.
In accordance with the related purchase agreement, we agreed to
assume the liabilities for all new claims filed on or after
September 2001.  Our ultimate exposure will depend upon the number
of claims filed against us on or after September 2001, and the
amounts paid for settlements, awards of asbestos-related damages,
and defense of such claims.

"At March 31, 2020, approximately 1,585 cases were outstanding for
which we may be responsible for any related liabilities.  Since
inception in September 2001 through March 31, 2020, the amounts
paid for settled claims are approximately US$31.9 million.  We do
not have insurance coverage for the indemnity and defense costs
associated with the claims we face."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/6DQxZh


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor's Appeal in Calif. Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020, that it is still "pursuing all rights
of appeal" in an asbestos liability case in California wherein the
Company was found liable for US$7.6 million in compensatory
damages.

The Company states, "As related to our potential asbestos-related
liability, we were found liable for US$7.6 million in compensatory
damages as a defendant in a 2018 asbestos liability case in
California.  We are pursuing all rights of appeal of this case.
Total operating cash outflows related to discontinued operations,
which include settlements and legal costs, were US$1.6 million and
US$1.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2020 and 2019,
respectively.

"In accordance with our policy to perform an annual actuarial
evaluation in the third quarter of each year, an updated actuarial
study was performed as of August 31, 2019.  The results of the
August 31, 2019 study included an estimate of our undiscounted
liability for settlement payments and awards of asbestos-related
damages, excluding legal costs and any potential recovery from
insurance carriers, ranging from US$52 million to US$90.6 million
for the period through 2064.  The change from the revised prior
year study, which was performed in the fourth quarter of 2018, was
a US$5.3 million increase for the low end of the range and a US$6.7
million increase for the high end of the range.  The increase in
the estimated undiscounted liability from the revised prior year
study at both the low end and high end of the range reflects our
actual experience, our historical data and certain assumptions with
respect to events that may occur in the future.  Based upon the
results of the August 31, 2019 actuarial study, in September 2019,
we increased our asbestos liability to US$52 million, the low end
of the range, and recorded an incremental pre-tax provision of
US$9.7 million in earnings (loss) from discontinued operations in
the accompanying statement of operations.  Future legal costs,
which are expensed as incurred and reported in earnings (loss) from
discontinued operations in the accompanying statement of
operations, are estimated, according to the updated study, to range
from US$50.6 million to US$85.2 million for the period through
2064.  

"We plan to perform an annual actuarial evaluation during the third
quarter of each year for the foreseeable future and whenever events
or changes in circumstances indicate that additional provisions may
be necessary.  Given the uncertainties associated with projecting
such matters into the future and other factors outside our control,
we can give no assurance that additional provisions will not be
required.  We will continue to monitor events and changes in
circumstances surrounding these potential liabilities in
determining whether to perform additional actuarial evaluations and
whether additional provisions may be necessary.  At the present
time, however, we do not believe that any additional provisions
would be reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our
liquidity or consolidated financial position."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/6DQxZh


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Tech. Has $532.6MM Liabilities at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trane Technologies plc has total asbestos-related liabilities of
US$532.6 million as of March 31, 2020, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.

The Company also disclosed that it has total asset for probable
asbestos-related insurance recoveries of US$277.7 million as of
March 31, 2020.

Trane Technologies states, "The Company's asbestos insurance
receivable related to Trane Technologies Company LLC and Trane were
US$166.6 million and US$111.1 million, respectively, at March 31,
2020, and US$188.7 million and US$115.3 million, respectively, at
December 31, 2019.  These receivables attributable to Trane
Technologies Company LLC and Trane for probable insurance
recoveries as of March 31, 2020 are entirely supported by
settlement agreements between Trane Technologies Company LLC and
Trane and their respective insurance carriers.  Most of these
settlement agreements constitute "coverage-in-place" arrangements,
in which the insurer signatories agree to reimburse Trane
Technologies Company LLC or Trane, as applicable, for specified
portions of their respective costs for asbestos bodily injury
claims and Trane Technologies Company LLC or Trane, as applicable,
agrees to certain claims-handling protocols and grants to the
insurer signatories certain releases and indemnifications.

"The costs associated with the settlement and defense of
asbestos-related claims, insurance settlements on asbestos-related
matters and the revaluation of the Company's liability for
potential future claims and recoveries are included in the income
statement within continuing operations or discontinued operations
depending on the business to which they relate.  Income and
expenses associated with Trane Technologies Company LLC's
asbestos-related matters are recorded within discontinued
operations as they relate to previously divested businesses,
primarily Ingersoll-Dresser Pump, which was sold by the Company in
2000.  Income and expenses associated with Trane's asbestos-related
matters are recorded within continuing operations.  The three
months ended March 31, 2020 includes a US$17.4 million adjustment
to correct an overstatement of a legacy legal liability that
originated in prior years.

"The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related
liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on currently
available information.  The Company's actual liabilities or
insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than
those recorded if assumptions used in the calculations vary
significantly from actual results.  Key assumptions underlying the
estimated asbestos-related liabilities include the number of people
occupationally exposed and likely to develop asbestos-related
diseases such as mesothelioma and lung cancer, the number of people
likely to file an asbestos-related personal injury claim against
the Company, the average settlement and resolution of each claim
and the percentage of claims resolved with no payment.
Furthermore, predictions with respect to estimates of the liability
are subject to greater uncertainty as the projection period
lengthens.  Other factors that may affect the Company's liability
include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms that
may be made by state and federal courts, and the passage of state
or federal tort reform legislation.

"The aggregate amount of the stated limits in insurance policies
available to the Company for asbestos-related claims acquired, over
many years and from many different carriers, is substantial.
However, limitations in that coverage, primarily due to the
considerations, are expected to result in the projected total
liability to claimants substantially exceeding the probable
insurance recovery."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/5fmjlQ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Still Face 9 Claims at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that nine plaintiffs have claims pending in
Louisiana against the Company's subsidiaries at March 31, 2020.

The Company states, "In 2004, several of our subsidiaries were
named, along with numerous other unaffiliated defendants, in
complaints filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi,
and in 2014, a group of similar complaints were filed in Louisiana.
The plaintiffs, former employees of some of the defendants,
generally allege that the defendants used or manufactured asbestos
containing drilling mud additives for use in connection with
drilling operations, claiming negligence, products liability,
strict liability and claims allowed under the Jones Act and general
maritime law.  The plaintiffs generally seek awards of unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, but the court-appointed special
master has ruled that a Jones Act employer defendant, such as us,
cannot be sued for punitive damages.

"At March 31, 2020, nine plaintiffs have claims pending in
Louisiana, in which we have or may have an interest.  We intend to
defend these lawsuits vigorously, although we can provide no
assurance as to the outcome.  We historically have maintained broad
liability insurance, although we are not certain whether insurance
will cover the liabilities, if any, arising out of these claims.
Based on our evaluation of the exposure to date, we do not expect
the liability, if any, resulting from these claims to have a
material adverse effect on our condensed consolidated statement of
financial position, results of operations or cash flows."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Faces 11,144 Claims at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation has 11,144 unresolved asbestos-related
claims at March 31, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.

The Company states, "The Corporation is and has been involved in a
large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state
courts during the past four decades.  These suits principally
allege personal injury resulting from exposure to
asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and
punitive damages.  The alleged claims primarily relate to products
that UCC sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
products located on UCC's premises, and UCC's responsibility for
asbestos suits filed against a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem
Products, Inc. ("Amchem").  In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to
demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a
result of such exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted
from exposure to UCC's products.

"Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue numerous defendants in individual
lawsuits or on behalf of numerous claimants.  As a result, the
damages alleged are not expressly identified as to UCC, Amchem or
any other particular defendant, even when specific damages are
alleged with respect to a specific disease or injury.  In fact,
there are no personal injury cases in which only the Corporation
and/or Amchem are the sole named defendants.  For these reasons and
based upon the Corporation's litigation and settlement experience,
the Corporation does not consider the damages alleged against it
and Amchem to be a meaningful factor in its determination of any
potential asbestos-related liability."

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




                            *********

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 ***