/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200609.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, June 9, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 115

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Eizikowitz Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
94 CORNER CAFE: Varela-Itzmoyotl Seeks Minimum Wage, Withheld Tips
ABC PHONES: Underpays Sales Consultants, Duplechain Claims
ACLARIS THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Nix Fulcher Consolidated Suit Pending
AMBASSADORS LLC: Williams Sues over Failure to Pay Overtime

AMERICAN FINANCE: Bid to Dismiss NY Consolidated Class Suit Pending
AMERICAN FINANCE: Consolidated Securities Suit in Maryland Ongoing
AMERICAN FINANCE: Dismissal of St. Clair-Hibbard Suit Upheld
AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Refuses Tuition Fee Refunds, Rabinowitz Says
AMERISOURCEBERGEN: Suit over Generic Drug Price Fixing Ongoing

AQUA PAZZA: Morales et al. Seek Proper Wage Pay for Cooks
AVONDALE DECOR: Emmons Sues over Failure to Properly Pay Overtime
BANK OF NEW YORK: Investor Suit Over Stanford Ponzi Scheme Ongoing
BARNES & NOBLE: McGee Alleges Price-Fixing of eBooks
BASE BRANDS: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA

BASF METALS: ICBC Appeals Ruling in Antitrust Suit to 2nd Circuit
BBVA USA: Chattopadhyay Class Suit in California Ongoing
BBVA USA: Continues to Defend Ferguson Class Action in Alabama
BBVA USA: St. Lucie Fire Firefighters Pension Trust Suit Underway
BBVA USA: Zamora-Orduna Realty Sues over PPP Loans

BECTON DICKINSON: 1,785 Filter Product Claims Pending
BECTON DICKINSON: 16,815 Hernia Product Claims Pending
BECTON DICKINSON: Defending 580 Women's Health Product Claims
BECTON DICKINSON: Kabak Putative Class Suit Ongoing
BEL BRANDS USA: Shortchanges Workers' Wages, Aguilar Claims

BELLICUM PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Kakkar Class Suit Still Pending
BIODELIVERY SCIENCES: Continues to Defend Drachman Class Suit
BMO HARRIS: Refuses to Pay PPP Loans' Agent Fees, Prinzo Claims
BORREGO SPRINGS: Firefighters Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY: Omoro Seeks Refunds Over COVID-19 Closure

BRISTOL-MYERS: Amended Deal Reached in Thalomid & Revlimid Suit
BRISTOL-MYERS: Bid to Nix Amended CheckMate-026 Class Suit Pending
BRISTOL-MYERS: Continues to Defend Abilify Product Suits
BRISTOL-MYERS: No Trial Date for Pending Claims in Suit v Celgene
BUTTS FOODS: Davis Seeks Overtime Pay for Warehouse Employees

CALIFORNIA: Petition for Habeas Corpus in Troyer Suit Denied
CELEBRITY CRUISES: Kantrow Sues Over Passengers' COVID-19 Exposure
CELESTRON ACQUISITION: Fixed Telescope Prices, Spectrum et al. Say
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Appeal in Suit over Vectren Merger Pending
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS: 632 Metacom Slams Denied Insurance Coverage

CHEMOURS COMPANY: Wojciehowicz Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
CHEVRON USA: Underpays Oilfield Workers, Schnelle Claims
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Bulldog Yoga Slams Denied Insurance Coverage
CITIZEN'S DISABILITY: Gaker Files Consumer Suit in Massachusetts
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Maryland Court Refuses to Dismiss Boger TCPA Suit

CLUBCORP USA: Hong Wants Refund of Fees After COVID-19 Closure
CONOCOPHILLIPS CO: Misclassifies Project Leads, Miller Claims
CORECIVIC INC: Fact Discovery Underway in Grae Class Suit
CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE: $3.2MM Deal in Gonzalez Gets Prelim. OK
CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Rahman Suit Seeks Return of Tuition and Fees

CORSO ITALIA: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
CROTHALL HEALTHCARE: Turner Sues Over Collection of Biometrics
D&G DIRECTIONAL: Fails to Properly Pay OT to Laborers, Verm Claims
DESERT SUN PIZZA: Larson Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
DEVA CONCEPTS: Przybylski Sues Over Hair Products' Side Effects

DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Tokpa Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
DISH NETWORK: Second Appeal Filed in Krakauer Suit
DISH NETWORK: Still Defends Hallandale Police & Firefighters' Suit
DON FILIPPO: Argueta et al. Seek Proper Pay for Delivery Workers
DUFFY'S OF NORTH: Faces Stathis Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages

E T & K FOODS: Underpays Restockers, Postrero Claims
EBAY INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Price Gouging
EQUITABLE HOLDINGS: Brach Family Foundation's Suit Still Ongoing
EQUITABLE HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend O'Donnell Class Action
FACEBOOK INC: 9th Cir. Upholds Approval of Campbell Suit Settlement

FIDELITY NATIONAL: 401(k) Plan-Related Suit v. Reliance Ongoing
FIRST STUDENT: Stewart FLSA Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Drivers
FITBIT INC: California Securities Suit Dismissed
FITBIT INC: Fee Award in Sleep Tracking Device Suit Appealed
GEORGIA: Court Junks Martinez Discrimination Suit

GOOGLE LLC: Illegally Tracks, Collects Browsing Data, Brown Claims
GRACO CHILDREN'S: Carder Sues Over Booster Seats' Deceptive Labels
HALL'S SOUTHERN KITCHENS: Fails to Properly Pay Workers, Noble Says
HANDS OF MERCY: Lindsey Seeks Overtime Pay for Home Health Aides
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Back2Health Seeks Payment for COVID-19 Losses

HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Eye Care Sues Over Denied Insurance Coverage
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Johnson Seeks Payment for COVID-19 Losses
HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Pa.
HERBALIFE NUTRITION: Still Defends Rodgers Class Action
HIGHGATE CLEANERS: Fuentes Seeks Denied Overtime Pay

HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY: Buckley Seeks Refund of School Fees
HUDA BEAUTY: Ramirez Sues Over Deceptive Cosmetic Product Labels
HYATT HOTELS: Still Defends Suits Over Alleged Antitrust Matters
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Automobile Windshield Defective, Ford Alleges
ICHIBAN GROUP: Zhang FLSA Conditional Certification Partly Granted

INDEPENDENT BANK: Unfairly Collects OD Fees, Grice Suit Alleges
INDEPENDENT CASE: Underpays Health Care Workers, Norman Says
INDUSTRIAL SALES: Fails to Pay Overtime, Rosales Claims
INGLEWOOD SPORTSERVICE: Mejia Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
IQVIA INC: Lyngaas Sues Over Illegally-faxed Ads

ISHARES S&P: Petition for Review in Suit v. Blackrock Pending
JP MORGAN: Robert Charles Sues Over Illegal Spoofing Strategy
JUST BRANDS: Rodriguez Sues Over Underfilled Cannabidiol Products
KENTUCKY: Ramsek et al. Sue Governor Over Mass Gathering Ban
LA UNICA CARIDAD: Anzurez Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage, Withheld Tips

LAKEVIEW LOAN: Williams Sues Over Unauthorized Charged Fees
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Garner Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Torre Insurance Class Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio
LIPOCINE INC: Continues to Defend Abady Class Suit
LIVE NATION: Hoptman Seeks Pay for Denied Breaks, Unpaid Wages

LIVE NATION: Still Defends Suits Related to Overpriced Tickets
LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Faces Naiman TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Calls
LVNV FUNDING LLC: Bishop Disputes Collection Call Legality
LYFT INC: Osvatics Sues to Enforce Essential Rights Under ASSLA
MAINE: Halts COVID-19 Unemployment Benefits, Sparks Alleges

MANLO ENTERPRISES: Kelley Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Pay
MAPLEBEAR INC: Moore Sues Over Flawed Criminal History Screening
MARS PETCARE: Misrepresents Nutro Dog Food Products, Michael Says
MATHIS BATTERY: Underpays Battery Specialists, Kirkpatrick Claims
MICHIGAN: McGore's Requests in Ackerman Jewish Prisoners Suit Nixed

MIDLAND CREDIT: Giannini Files FDCPA Class Suit in N.D. Illinois
MINNEAPOLIS, MN: Goyette Sues Over Cops' Riot Control Tactics
MOMENTA PHARMA: Settlement Entered in General Hospital's Suit
MYRIAD GENETICS: Securities Class Action Ongoing in Utah
NATURAL HEALTH: Appeal in Kauffman Class Action Dropped

NELNET INC: Keylon & Gerdes Seek Proper Pay for Call Center Staff
NES GLOBAL: Newman Seeks Overtime Pay for Ironworkers
NES MIDSTREAM: Foster Seeks Overtime Wages for Pipeline Inspectors
NEW ALBERTSONS INC: Piazza Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
NEW SCHOOL: Amable Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund

NOOM INC: Mahood Sues Over Weight Loss Program Enrolment Scheme
NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: Bahrani Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
NRG ENERGY: Suits Against XOOM Ongoing in Maryland & New York
NUTRACEUTICAL INT'L: Sold to HGGC at Low Price, Investors Claim
OMNICOM GROUP: Faces Tepper Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties

ONCTERNAL THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss GTx Merger Suit Pending
OPKO HEALTH: Data Security Breach Suits v. BioReference Dismissed
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Underway in Utah
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Faces Missouri State Court Class Suit
PACKARD CHILDREN'S: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alejo Alleges

PAPA JOHN'S: Danker Class Action Suit Ongoing
PATRICK ENGINEERING: Underpays Welding Inspectors, Stout Claims
PHENOS COLLECTIVE: Faces Rohrer Suit Over Unsolicited Messages
PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY: Crossroads Slams Denied Insurance Coverage
PINDUODUO INC: Consolidated Class Action in SDNY Dismissed

PJD ENTERTAINMENT: Attias Sues Over Tip-sharing Policy
PMAB LLC: Court Dismisses Baptist From Scalabrini FDCPA Suit
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Lutz Sues over Unlawful Debt Collection
POSTMATES INC: Can Compel Arbitration in Feld Suit
PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Certification in Suit v. LogistiCare Appealed

PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Patel Class Suit Underway
PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Hsu Class Action Ongoing
QIAGEN NV: Thompson Securities Suit Balks at Thermo Fisher Sale
QUALITY RESIDENTIAL: Underpays Painters, Gonzales Claims
RADIUS GLOBAL: Faces Munroe FDCPA Suit Over Collection Letter

REALOGY GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Moehrl Class Action Still Pending
REALOGY GROUP: Continues to Defend Tanaskovic Class Suit
REALOGY GROUP: Discovery Ongoing in Sitzer Suit
REALOGY GROUP: Fenley Suit Settled on Individual Basis
REALOGY GROUP: Hearing on Demurrer in Whitlach Suit Deferred

REALREAL INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Marin County
REDFIN CORP: Class Action Claims Dropped in Amended Complaint
ROCHESTER INSTITUTE: Mycek Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
ROGER WILLIAMS: Refuses to Refund Tuition, Simmons-Telep Claims
ROKU INC: Universal Electronics Sues Over Remote Control Patent

RSL FUNDING: Faces Benhayon TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Telemarketing
SAM'S EAST: Herrmann Suit Removed From Cir. Ct. to E.D. Missouri
SAN DIEGO, CA: Bloom's Bid for TRO Denied
SANJAY PALLETS: Fails to Provide OT Pay for Repairers, Gil Claims
SECOR DOMESTICS: Faces Moskowitz Suit Over Unsolicited Robocalls

SENTINEL INSURANCE: Refuses to Pay COVID-19 Claims, Protege Says
SEPHORA USA: Femmer Suit Moved From Circuit Ct. to E.D. Missouri
SIERRA MEADOWS: Senior Facility Understaffed, Huff Claims
SK ENERGY: Conspired to Manipulate Gas Price Market, Long Claims
SK ENERGY: Inflated Gas Prices in California, Carpe Carma Claims

SNAP-ON INC: Lietz Sues Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA and IMWL
SOTHEBY'S INC: Website Not Accessible to Deaf, Winegard Claims
SPIRIT AIRLINES: Manchur Ticket Refund Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
SPOONFOL OF COMFORT: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
STABILIS ENERGY: M&I Electric Industries Faces Barrett Class Suit

STURM RUGER: Primus Group Suit v. Smith and Wesson Ongoing
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Weston Sues Over Sudden Acceleration Defect
SUBURBAN PROPANE: Continues to Defend NY & Pennsylvania Suits
SYNC BROKERAGE: Brodetsky Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
SYNERGY ONE: Shortchanges Workers' Overtime Pay, Diab Claims

TAUBMAN CENTERS: Post Balks at Merger Deal With Simon Property
TC HEARTLAND: "Vanilla Flavor" Label Misleading, Miller Says
TD AMERITRADE: Continues to Defend Ford Class Action
TD AMERITRADE: Faces Six Charles Schwab-Merger Related Suits
TELECOM TECHNOLOGY: Mars Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

TESLA MOTORS: Sells Vehicles With Defective MCUs, Faragalla Says
TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces AcelRx Merger-Related Suits
THAI ON HIGH: Babarsky Suit Seeks Minimum and OT Wages Under FLSA
TIKTOK INC: Accused of Capturing & Retaining Biometrics Illegally
TOP DENTAL: Rios Seeks Overtime Pay for Office Coordinators

TRAVELERS COMPANIES: JG Optical Alleges Insurance Coverage Denial
TREEHOUSE FOODS: $25MM Settlement in Suchanek Suit Approved
TREEHOUSE FOODS: MSPERS Class Suit Ongoing
TREEHOUSE FOODS: Negrete Class Suit v. Ralcorp Holdings Ongoing
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: 3d Cir. Vacates Summary Judgment in Razak Suit

UNITED NATURAL: Carlson Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
UNIVERSITY & STATE: Faces Cortes Suit Over Improper Fee Collection
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: Egleston Seeks Tuition & Fees Refund
UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO: Legge Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
US PREMIUM: NBP Continues to Defend Antitrust & Labelling Suits

US XPRESS: Class Suits over IPO Ongoing
US XPRESS: Continues to Defend Independent Contractor Suit
US XPRESS: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Wage & Hour Class Suit
USCCB: O'Connell Suit Transferred From Rhode Island to D.D.C.
VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Still Defends Wolther Class Suit in California

VERIZON WIRELESS: Faces Kaspers Civil Rights Suit in N.D. Georgia
VISA INC: Old Jericho Sues Over Illinois Antitrust Act Violation
VITOL INC: Hudson et al. Allege Gas Price Manipulation
VITOL INC: Johnston Alleges Gasoline Market Price Manipulation
WASHINGTON 13484: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Rodriguez Suit Says

WELLS FARGO: Misleads PPP Loan Applicants, Marselian Alleges
WESTGATE RESORTS: Kellough et al. Allege Illegal Timeshare Scheme
WESTINGHOUSE AIR: Settlement Reached in W.D. Pa. Litigation
WILLIAM D. BOYCE: Fails to Prevent Dam Failures, Brooks Claims
WINCO HOLDINGS: Faces Castanon Employment Suit in California

WOORI WELLS: Employee Class Certified in Pae Suit
XEROX CORP: Bid to Intervene in Ribee Suit Pending
ZYNGA INC: Continues to Defend Chaudhri Data Breach Suit
ZYNGA INC: Johnson Suit Over September 2019 Data Breach Ongoing
ZYNGA INC: Martinez Suit Over September 2019 Data Breach Ongoing


                            *********

3M COMPANY: Eizikowitz Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN SCOTT EIZIKOWITZ v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-01983-RMG (D.S.C., May 19,
2020), seeks damages for personal injury for the Plaintiff and for
those similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Eizikowitz case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: 205-328-9200
          Facsimile: 205-328-9456

               - and -

          J. Edward Bell, Esq.
          Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 25442
          Telephone: 843-546-2408
          Facsimile: 843-546-9604


94 CORNER CAFE: Varela-Itzmoyotl Seeks Minimum Wage, Withheld Tips
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Mariano Varela-Itzmoyotl, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 94 Corner Cafe Corp., Defendants,
Case No. 20-cv-03896 (S.D. N.Y., May 19, 2020), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages and redress for failure to
provide itemized wage statements pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

94 Corner Cafe is a diner located at 2518 Broadway, New York where
Varela-Itzmoyotl was employed as a delivery worker. He regularly
worked excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum
wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that
he worked partly because 94 Corner Cafe failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of the hours worked. Varela was a delivery worker in
their payroll, but spent a significant amount of time spent
performing non-tipped duties. Varela was paid lower than the
required tip-credit rate but was deducted a tip credit because his
non-tipped duties exceeded 20% of each workday, thus allowing 94
Corner Cafe to pay the tip-credit instead of the minimum wage rate.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ABC PHONES: Underpays Sales Consultants, Duplechain Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
KRISTI DUPLECHAIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABC PHONES OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.
and RICHARD BALOT, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00287-JWD-SDJ (M.D.
La., May 11, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against
Defendant for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Plaintiff and members of the putative class were non-exempt
employees of Defendant worked as Sales Consultants to perform sales
and other related duties, were paid on an hourly basis, and
received a percentage of their sales as a commission. Plaintiff
began working for Defendants on or about April 2019 and is
currently a furloughed employee of the Defendants.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and members of the putative
class were required to work far in excess of 40 hours per workweek.
Plaintiff routinely worked 60 or more hours in a workweek. However,
Defendant failed and/or willfully refused to pay sufficient
overtime wages to them at one and one-half times their regular rate
for all hours they worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Richard Balot is the founder, owner, and executive of the company,
who implemented or assisted in the implementation of ABC Phones'
policy of not paying sufficient overtime to its Sales Consultants.

ABC Phones of North Carolina, Inc. provides two-way radiotelephone
communication services such as cellular telephone services and
operates stores in over 45 of the states within the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Bullman, Esq.
          Brian F. Blackwell, Esq.
          BLACKWELL & BULLMAN, LLC
          8322 One Calais Ave.,
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Tel: 225-769-2462
          Fax: 225-769-2463
          Email: james@blackwell-bullman.com


ACLARIS THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Nix Fulcher Consolidated Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
the consolidated Rosi v. Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc., et al. and
Fulcher v. Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc., et al. suits, is still
pending.

On July 30, 2019, plaintiff Linda Rosi filed a putative class
action complaint captioned Rosi v. Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc., et
al. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company and certain of its executive officers.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by, among other things, failing to disclose an
alleged likelihood that regulators would scrutinize advertising
materials related to ESKATA and find that the materials minimized
the risks or overstated the efficacy of the product.  

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of
Rosi and all other persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company’s securities between May 8, 2018 and June
20, 2019.

On September 5, 2019, an additional plaintiff, Robert Fulcher,
filed a substantially identical putative class action complaint
captioned Fulcher v. Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc., et al. in the same
court against the same defendants.

On November 6, 2019, the court consolidated the Rosi and Fulcher
actions (together, the "Consolidated Securities Action") and
appointed Fulcher "lead plaintiff" for the putative class.

On January 24, 2020, Fulcher filed a consolidated amended complaint
in the Consolidated Securities Action, naming two additional
executive officers as defendants, extending the putative class
period to August 12, 2019, and adding allegations concerning, among
other things, alleged statements and omissions throughout the
putative class period concerning ESKATA's risks, tolerability and
effectiveness.  

The defendants' deadline to answer, move against or otherwise
respond to the consolidated amended complaint was originally
scheduled for March 27, 2020, but was extended until April 17,
2020.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on April 17, 2020.

The Company and the other defendants dispute plaintiffs’ claims
in the Consolidated Securities Action and intend to defend the
matter vigorously.

Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc. operates as a pharmaceutical company.
The Company deals in identifying, developing, and commercialization
of drugs and therapies to meet needs in dermatology, medical, and
immunology sectors. Aclaris Therapeutics serves patients in the
United States. The company is based in Wayne, Pennsylvania.


AMBASSADORS LLC: Williams Sues over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARY WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMBASSADORS, LLC and VICTORIA BRYANT,
Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-01640 (S.D. Tex., May 11, 2020) is a
collective action complaint brought against Defendant for their
alleged willful unlawful compensation practices in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately February
2016 through August 2019 as a certified nurse assistant providing
companionship services to Defendant's clients.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40
hours in a workweek. But, Defendant paid him straight time for all
hours worked, thereby failing to pay Plaintiff an overtime premium
for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid back wages, liquidated
damages equal in amount to the unpaid compensation, attorneys' fees
and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest.

Victoria Bryant is the owner and operator of Ambassadors, actively
involved in managing the operations, and had control over pay
policies and authority over personnel and payroll decisions.

Ambassadors, LLC provides companionship, personal home care,
nutritional care, 24-hour live-in care, transportation, household
assistance, and hospice support services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN FINANCE: Bid to Dismiss NY Consolidated Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
American Finance Trust, Inc.  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the Defendant's motion
to dismiss a stockholder lawsuit remains pending in New York state
court.

On October 26, 2018, Terry Hibbard, a purported stockholder of the
Company, filed a putative class action complaint in New York State
Supreme Court, New York County, against the Company, AR Global, the
Advisor, Nicholas S. Schorsch, William M. Kahane, Edward M. Weil,
Jr., Nicholas Radesca, David Gong, Stanley R. Perla, and Lisa D.
Kabnick.

The complaint alleges that the registration statement pursuant to
which  Retail Centers of America, Inc. (RCA) shareholders acquired
shares of the Company during the Merger contained materially
incomplete and misleading information.  

The complaint asserts violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act against Messrs. Weil, Radesca, Gong, and Perla, and Ms.
Kabnick, violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act
against the Company and Mr. Weil, and control person liability
against the Advisor, AR Global, and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane
under Section 15 of the Securities Act.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and rescission of the
Company's sale of stock pursuant to the registration statement. The
Company believes the complaint is without merit and intends to
defend vigorously.

Due to the early stage of the litigation, no estimate of a probable
loss or any reasonably possible losses are determinable at this
time.

On March 6, 2019, Susan Bracken, Michael P. Miller and Jamie
Beckett, purported stockholders of the Company, filed a putative
class action complaint in New York State Supreme Court, New York
County, on behalf of themselves and others who purchased shares of
common stock through the Pre-Listing DRIP, against the Company, AR
Global, the Advisor, Nicholas S. Schorsch, William M. Kahane,
Edward M. Weil, Jr., Nicholas Radesca, David Gong, Stanley R.
Perla, and Lisa D. Kabnick.

The complaint alleges that the April and December 2016 registration
statements pursuant to which class members purchased shares
contained materially incomplete and misleading information.

The complaint asserts violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act against the Company, Messrs. Weil, Radesca, Gong and Perla, and
Ms. Kabnick, violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act
against the Company and Mr. Weil, and control person liability
against the Advisor, AR Global, and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane
under Section 15 of the Securities Act.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and either rescission of
the Company's sale of stock or rescissory damages.

The Company believes the complaint is without merit and intends to
defend vigorously. Due to the early stage of the litigation, no
estimate of a probable loss or any reasonably possible losses are
determinable at this time.

On April 30, 2019, Lynda Callaway, a purported stockholder of the
Company, filed a putative class action complaint in New York State
Supreme Court, New York County, against the Company, AR Global, the
Advisor, Nicholas S. Schorsch, William M. Kahane, Edward M. Weil,
Jr., Nicholas Radesca, David Gong, Stanley R. Perla, and Lisa D.
Kabnick.

The complaint alleges that the registration statement pursuant to
which plaintiff and other class members acquired shares of the
Company during the Merger contained materially incomplete and
misleading information.

The complaint asserts violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act against the Company, Messrs. Weil, Radesca, Gong, and Perla,
and Ms. Kabnick, violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities
Act against the Company and Mr. Weil, and control person liability
under Section 15 of the Securities Act against the Advisor, AR
Global, and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and rescission of the
Company's sale of stock pursuant to the registration statement.

Due to the early stage of the litigation, no estimate of a probable
loss or any reasonably possible losses are determinable at this
time.

On July 11, 2019, the New York State Supreme Court issued an order
consolidating the three above-mentioned cases: Terry Hibbard,
Bracken, and Callaway (the "Consolidated Cases").

The Court also stayed the Consolidated Cases pending a decision on
the motions to dismiss in the St. Clair-Hibbard litigation pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

Following the federal court's decision on the motions to dismiss in
the St. Clair-Hibbard litigation, on October 31, 2019 plaintiffs
filed an amended consolidated class action complaint in the
Consolidated Cases seeking substantially similar remedies from the
same defendants.

The Company moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint on
December 16, 2019. Briefing on this motion is complete and a
hearing is scheduled for May 17, 2020.

American Finance Trust, Inc. is a publicly traded real estate
investment trust listed on the Nasdaq focused on acquiring and
managing a diversified portfolio of primarily service-oriented and
traditional retail and distribution related commercial real estate
properties in the U.S. The company is based in New York, New York.


AMERICAN FINANCE: Consolidated Securities Suit in Maryland Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
American Finance Trust, Inc.  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit in Maryland.

On January 13, 2017, four affiliated stockholders of American
Realty Capital - Retail Centers of America, Inc. ("RCA") filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland a
putative class action lawsuit against RCA, the Company, Edward M.
Weil, Jr., Leslie D. Michelson, Edward G. Rendell (Weil, Michelson
and Rendell, the "Director Defendants"), and AR Global, alleging
violations of Sections 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
by RCA and the Director Defendants, violations of Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act by AR Global and the Director Defendants, breaches
of fiduciary duty by the Director Defendants, and aiding and
abetting breaches of fiduciary duty by AR Global and the Company in
connection with the negotiation of and proxy solicitation for a
shareholder vote on what was at the time the proposed merger with
American Realty Capital - Retail Centers of America, Inc (the
"Merger") and an amendment to RCA's charter.

On March 11, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court
dismissing the complaint.

On March 25, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing
and Rehearing En Banc, which was subsequently denied on April 9,
2019.

Due to the stage of the litigation, no estimate of a probable loss
or any reasonable possible losses are determinable at this time.

American Finance said, "No provisions for such losses have been
recorded in the accompanying consolidated financial statements for
the three months ended March 31, 2020 or 2019."

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

American Finance Trust, Inc. is a publicly traded real estate
investment trust listed on the Nasdaq focused on acquiring and
managing a diversified portfolio of primarily service-oriented and
traditional retail and distribution related commercial real estate
properties in the U.S. The company is based in New York, New York.


AMERICAN FINANCE: Dismissal of St. Clair-Hibbard Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------
American Finance Trust, Inc.  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the lower
court's dismissal of the complaint initiated by Carolyn St.
Clair-Hibbard.

On February 8, 2018, Carolyn St. Clair-Hibbard, a purported
stockholder of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company, AR Global, the Advisor, Nicholas S.
Schorsch and William M. Kahane.

On February 23, 2018, the complaint was amended to, among other
things, assert some claims on the plaintiff's own behalf and other
claims on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
shareholders of the Company as a class.

On April 26, 2018, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. On May 25, 2018, plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint. The second amended complaint alleges that the proxy
materials used to solicit stockholder approval of the Merger at the
Company's 2017 annual meeting were materially incomplete and
misleading.

The complaint asserts violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange
Act against the Company, as well as control person liability
against the Advisor, AR Global, and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane
under 20(a). It also asserts state law claims for breach of
fiduciary duty against the Advisor, and claims for aiding and
abetting such breaches, of fiduciary duty against the Advisor, AR
Global and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, rescission of the
Company's advisory agreement (or severable portions thereof) which
became effective when the Merger became effective, and a
declaratory judgment that certain provisions of the Company's
advisory agreement are void.

The Company believes the second amended complaint is without merit
and intends to defend vigorously.

On June 22, 2018, defendants moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint. On August 1, 2018, plaintiff filed an opposition to
defendants' motions to dismiss. Defendants filed reply papers on
August 22, 2018, and oral argument was held on September 26, 2018.


On September 23, 2019, the Court granted defendants' motions and
dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiff has appealed
that order. Appellate briefing is complete and oral argument took
place on April 23, 2020.

On May 5, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the complaint.

American Finance Trust, Inc. is a publicly traded real estate
investment trust listed on the Nasdaq focused on acquiring and
managing a diversified portfolio of primarily service-oriented and
traditional retail and distribution related commercial real estate
properties in the U.S. The company is based in New York, New York.


AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Refuses Tuition Fee Refunds, Rabinowitz Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW RABINOWITZ, on behalf of himself and other individuals
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, against AMERICAN UNIVERSITY; and
other affiliated entities and individuals, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-01454 (D.D.C., June 2, 2020) is a class action brought by
the Plaintiff, on behalf of those similarly situated, who paid
tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 semester at American
University and the general public of the District of Columbia and
who did not receive the benefit and services for which they
bargained for when they provided payment for tuition and various
fees as a result of Defendants' response to the Novel Coronavirus
Disease 2019.

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into
a contract where Plaintiffs would provide payment in the form of
tuition and fees and Defendants would provide in-person educational
services, experiences, opportunities, and other related services.

On or around March 11, 2020, American University canceled all
in-person education and transitioned to complete online education,
following Spring Break recess.

Defendants have failed to uphold their end of the contract to
provide in-person educational services and other related collegiate
experiences and services based on these closures.

Despite Defendants' failure to provide the services and experiences
as bargained for, Defendants have not offered any refund of the
tuition and fees that Plaintiff and the Class had paid.

American University is a private university located in Washington,
DC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H Street NE, Suite 302
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 470-3520
          Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
                 jrathod@classlawdc.com

               - and -

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          Adam Gonnelli, Esq.
          Jeremy Francis, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
          85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
          Telephone: (854) 705-9460
          Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550
          Email: jbrownl@leedsbrownlaw.com
                 mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
                 bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com

AMERISOURCEBERGEN: Suit over Generic Drug Price Fixing Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
AmerisourceBergen Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action suit initiated by Reliable
Pharmacy, together with other retail pharmacies and North Sunflower
Medical Center, over alleged price-fixing, market allocation and
bid rigging of generic drugs.

In December 2019, Reliable Pharmacy, together with other retail
pharmacies and North Sunflower Medical Center, filed a civil
antitrust complaint against multiple generic drug manufacturers,
and also included claims against the Company, H.D. Smith, and other
drug distributors and industry participants.

The case is filed as a putative class action and plaintiffs purport
to represent a class of drug purchasers including other retail
pharmacies and healthcare providers.

The case has been consolidated for multidistrict litigation
proceedings before the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

The complaint alleges that the Company and others in the industry
participated in a conspiracy to fix prices, allocate markets and
rig bids regarding generic drugs.

In March 2020, the plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint
which they served on the Company.

AmerisourceBergen said, "The timing of discovery, motions practice,
and other court proceedings has not yet been determined."

AmerisourceBergen Corporation sources and distributes
pharmaceutical products in the United States and internationally.
AmerisourceBergen Corporation was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Chesterbrook, Pennsylvania.


AQUA PAZZA: Morales et al. Seek Proper Wage Pay for Cooks
---------------------------------------------------------
EFRAIN MORALES, MARCO TULIO MORALES, and FREDDY ANTONIO MORALES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, -against- AQUA PAZZA LLC d/b/a FIN RAW BAR & KITCHEN,
FIN OYSTER AND COCKTAIL BAR, ESSEX RESTAURANT GROUP LLC d/b/a THE
CROSBY and d/b/a FIN RAW BAR & KITCHEN, SALUTE BRICK OVEN BISTRO,
PIER VILLAGE STINGRAY, LLC d/b/a FIN OYSTER AND COCKTAIL BAR LONG
BRANCH, GIROLAMO CERRIGONE JR. a/k/a GERRY CERRIGONE, AND ROBERT
GACCIONE, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-06690 (D.N.J., June 1, 2020)
is an action seeking equitable and legal relief for Defendants'
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the New Jersey
Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Act.

Defendants have intentionally, willfully, and repeatedly harmed
Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs by engaging in a
pattern, practice, and/or policy of violating the FLSA. This policy
and pattern or practice includes, inter alia, failing to pay
employees the applicable overtime rates for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per week.

Defendants have also engaged in their unlawful conduct pursuant to
a corporate policy of minimizing labor costs and denying employees
compensation.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as cooks.

Fin Raw, Fin Oyster, Fin Long Branch, Crosby, and Salute operate as
a single restaurant enterprise. They are engaged in the same
activities, share common ownership, and have a common business
purpose.  Defendants maintain a centralized organizational
structure, control, and human resources personnel, and implement
consistent wage and hour policies, procedures, and employment
practices across all restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nicole Grunfeld, Esq.
          KATZ MELINGER PLLC
          280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 460-0047
          Email: ndgrunfeld@katzmelinger.com

AVONDALE DECOR: Emmons Sues over Failure to Properly Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CRISTINA EMMONS, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AVONDALE DECOR LLC f/k/a ALLIED BRASS
MANUFACTURING CO., ROBERT ANDRIS, and JEANETTE ANDRIS, Defendants,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00025-NKM (W.D. Va., May 12, 2020) is a collective
action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay
overtime to its non-exempt employees.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid supervisor
from March 2015 until April 17, 2020.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and Members of the Class
regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. However,
Defendant did not pay them overtime at one and one-half times their
regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 each week, and
adjusted their hourly pay rate such that the hours worked in excess
of 40 hours per week was only paid at normal hourly rate.

Robert Andris and Jeanette Andris are the owners of Avondale.

Avondale Decor LLC operates a design and manufacturing facility for
brass accessories in Central Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Thomas, Esq.
          Amy J. Inge, Esq.
          MICHIEHAMLETT
          310 4th Street NE, 2nd Floor
          PO Box 298
          Charlottesville, VA 22902
          Tel: 434-951-7224
          Fax: 434-951-7244
          Emails: dthomas@michiehamlett.com
                  ainge@michiehamlett.com


BANK OF NEW YORK: Investor Suit Over Stanford Ponzi Scheme Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7,
2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the
company continues to defend suits over Stanford Ponzi Scheme.

In late December 2005, Pershing LLC ("Pershing") became a clearing
firm for Stanford Group Co. ("SGC"), a registered broker-dealer
that was part of a group of entities ultimately controlled by R.
Allen Stanford ("Stanford").

Stanford International Bank ("SIB"), also controlled by Stanford,
issued certificates of deposit ("CDs"). Some investors allegedly
wired funds from their SGC accounts to purchase CDs.

In 2009, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") charged
Stanford with operating a Ponzi scheme in connection with the sale
of CDs, and SGC was placed into receivership. Alleged purchasers of
CDs have filed two putative class action proceedings against
Pershing: one in November 2009 in Texas federal court, and one in
May 2016 in New Jersey federal court.

Thirteen lawsuits have been filed against Pershing in Louisiana,
Florida and New Jersey federal courts in January 2010, January and
February 2015, October 2015, and May 2016.

The purchasers allege that Pershing, as SGC's clearing firm,
assisted Stanford in a fraudulent scheme and assert contractual,
statutory and common law claims. I

On March 2019, a group of investors filed a putative class action
against The Bank of New York Mellon in New Jersey federal court,
making the same allegations as in the prior actions brought against
Pershing.

All of the cases that have been brought in federal court against
Pershing and the case brought against The Bank of New York Mellon
have been consolidated in Texas federal court for discovery
purposes.

On Dec. 19, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
affirmed the dismissal of six individual federal lawsuits brought
under Florida law, which will also apply to four other similarly
situated cases. On March 18, 2020, the plaintiffs in those lawsuits
filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari seeking permission to
appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) arbitration proceedings
also have been initiated by alleged purchasers asserting similar
claims.

The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation provides a range of
financial products and services to institutions, corporations, and
high net worth individuals in the United States and
internationally. The company operates through two segments,
Investment Management and Investment Services. The Bank of New York
Mellon Corporation was founded in 1784 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.


BARNES & NOBLE: McGee Alleges Price-Fixing of eBooks
----------------------------------------------------
DONOVAN MCGEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. BARNES & NOBLE COLLEGE BOOKSELLERS, LLC;
BARNES & NOBLE EDUCATION, INC.; CENGAGE LEARNING, INC.; FOLLETT
HIGHER EDUCATION GROUP; MCGRAWHILLLLC; and PEARSON EDUCATION, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-06783 (D. N.J., June 3, 2020) is an
action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated against the dominant publishers of college and
graduate school textbooks and the dominant retail chains operating
on-campus college bookstores to stop their unlawful conduct in
connection with "Inclusive Access" course material programs and
obtain redress for Plaintiff and other persons injured by
Defendants' conduct.

According to the complaint, the Publisher Defendants and the
Retailer Defendants entered into the "Inclusive Access" conspiracy
for the purpose of monopolizing the market for sales of course
materials in any courses and on any colleges in which the Inclusive
Access policy applies. Inclusive access programs, which go by
various names depending on the educational institution -- for
example, the "Digital Direct and Affordable Course Materials
Initiative" at the University of St. Thomas -- require students to
obtain course materials in an online-only format from their
official on-campus bookstore, and not from another source, thereby
preventing Defendants from facing competition from new print
textbooks, used print textbooks, and other online sources, and from
off-campus and online bookstores and sellers. Defendants'
monopolization of the market for the sale of course materials in
Inclusive Access courses has enabled Defendants to charge higher
prices for those course materials without legitimate justification
and to the detriment of college and graduate students.

Prior to Inclusive Access, college and graduate students had
various options for obtaining textbooks, including from official
on-campus bookstores, off-campus bookstores, mail order, online
bookstores or sellers such as Amazon, Chegg, eBay, and Craigslist.
Students were also able to purchase new print versions, used print
versions, or electronic versions of textbooks. These various
options of both sellers and formats increased competition, reduced
prices, and saved students money. These same factors, however,
resulted in decreased profits for the Defendants.

Defendants entered into the Inclusive Access conspiracy in response
to this decrease to their profits. Students enrolled in an
Inclusive Access course are required to pay for electronic access
to the textbook and/or course materials, at a designated price,
through their own official on-campus bookstore. Students are billed
for Inclusive Access textbooks and/or course materials
automatically.

The Defendants' actions in conspiring to create Inclusive Access
programs, requiring students to purchase Inclusive Access materials
from only their official on-campus bookstores, and refusing to sell
Inclusive Access materials to other sellers, all taken so as to
monopolize the market for textbooks and course materials in
Inclusive Access classes and raise prices as a result, are
actionable violations of federal antitrust laws.

Barnes & Noble Education, Inc. is a Delaware corporation based in
Basking Ridge, New Jersey, that was spun off from Barnes & Noble,
Inc. in 2015, and that is the parent company of Barnes & Noble
College Booksellers, LLC.

Barnes & Noble College Booksellers, LLC is a Delaware LLC based in
Basking Ridge, New Jersey, that operates Barnes & Noble's campus
bookstores nationwide and that sells Inclusive Access materials
through those bookstores.

Follett Higher Education Group is an Illinois corporation based in
Westchester, Illinois, that operates Follett's campus bookstores
nationwide and that sells Inclusive Access materials through those
bookstores.

Cengage Learning, Inc. is a Delaware corporation based in Boston
that publishes college textbooks and course materials, including
through Inclusive Access.

McGraw Hill LLC is a Delaware LLC based in New York that publishes
college textbooks and course materials, including through Inclusive
Access.

Pearson Education, Inc. is a Delaware corporation based in Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey, that publishes college textbooks and
course materials, including through Inclusive Access.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Simon B. Paris, Esq.
          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
          SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, & BENDESKY, P.C.
          1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 191033
          Telephone: (215) 496-8282
          Facsimile: (215) 496-0999
          Email: sparis@smbb.com
                 phoward@smbb.com
                 ckocher@smbb.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          Daniel J. Nordin, Esq.
          Mickey L. Stevens, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                 dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
                 dnordin@gustafsongluek.com
                 mstevens@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Brett Cebulash, Esq.
          Kevin Landau, Esq.
          TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
          80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (646) 873-7654
          Facsimile: (212) 931-0703
          Email: bcebulash@tcllaw.com
                 klandau@tcllaw.com

               - and -

          Dianne M Nast, Esq.
          Daniel N. Gallucci, Esq.
          Joseph N Roda, Esq.
          NASTLAW LLC
          11001 Market Street, Suite 2801
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 923 9300
          Facsimile: (215) 923 9302
          Email: dnast@nastlaw.com
                 dgallucci@nastlaw.com
                 jnroda@nastlaw.com

BASE BRANDS: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Base Brands, LLC. The
case is styled as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Base Brands, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-04155 (S.D.N.Y., May 31, 2020).

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

Base Brands, LLC, create a wide range of durable and functional,
sleek, stylish and environmentally friendly food and beverage
products for every occasion and every consumer need.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BASF METALS: ICBC Appeals Ruling in Antitrust Suit to 2nd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant ICBC Standard Bank PLC filed an appeal from the District
Court Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 29, 2020, and
Judgment dated April 15, 2020, entered in the lawsuit titled Modern
Settings LLC, et al. v. BASF Metals Limited, et al., Case No.
14-cv-9391, 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
arises out of the unlawful conspiracy to manipulate and rig the
global benchmarks for physical platinum and palladium prices, as
well as the prices of platinum- and palladium-based financial
derivative products.

The appellate case is captioned as IN RE PLATINUM AND PALLADIUM
ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 20-1611, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Modern Settings LLC, a New York Limited
Liability Company, et al., are represented by:

          Jay L. Himes, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          Email: jhimes@labaton.com

               - and -

          Merrill G. Davidoff, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Email: mdavidoff@bm.net

Defendant-Appellant ICBC Standard Bank PLC is represented by:

          Robert G. Houck, Esq.
          CLIFFORD CHANCE US LLP
          31 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 878-3224
          Email: robert.houck@cliffordchance.com


BBVA USA: Chattopadhyay Class Suit in California Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action suit entitled, mitahbo
Chattopadhyay v. BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc., et al.

In March 2019, the Company and its subsidiary, Simple Finance
Technology Corp., were named as defendants in a putative class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, Amitahbo Chattopadhyay v. BBVA USA
Bancshares, Inc., et al. Plaintiff claims that Simple and the
Company only permit United States citizens to open Simple accounts
(which are exclusively originated through online channels).

Plaintiff alleges that this constitutes alienage discrimination and
violations of California's Unruh Act.

The Company believes that there are substantial defenses to these
claims and intends to defend them vigorously.

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

BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. (the Parent) is a financial holding
company that conducts its business operations primarily through its
commercial banking subsidiary, BBVA USA, which is an Alabama
banking corporation headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. The
Parent was organized in 2007 as a Texas corporation. In April,
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. (BBVA) announced that it was
moving to unify its brand globally. As part of this re-branding,
the Bank will transition away from the use of the BBVA Compass name
and be re-branded as BBVA. As part of this re-branding, effective
June 10, 2019, the Parent amended its Certificate of Formation to
change its legal name from BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. to BBVA
USA Bancshares, Inc.

The Parent is a wholly owned subsidiary of BBVA. BBVA is a global
financial services group founded in 1857. It has a significant
market position in Spain, owns the largest financial institution in
Mexico, has franchises in South America, has a banking position in
Turkey and operates an extensive global branch network. BBVA
acquired the Company in 2007.


BBVA USA: Continues to Defend Ferguson Class Action in Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------
BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Ferguson v. BBVA USA
Bancshares, Inc.

In July 2019, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama, Ferguson v. BBVA USA Bancshares,
Inc., wherein the plaintiffs allege certain investment options
within the Company’s employee retirement plan violate provisions
of ERISA.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief.

The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these claims
and intends to defend them vigorously.

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

BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. (the Parent) is a financial holding
company that conducts its business operations primarily through its
commercial banking subsidiary, BBVA USA, which is an Alabama
banking corporation headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. The
Parent was organized in 2007 as a Texas corporation. In April,
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. (BBVA) announced that it was
moving to unify its brand globally. As part of this re-branding,
the Bank will transition away from the use of the BBVA Compass name
and be re-branded as BBVA. As part of this re-branding, effective
June 10, 2019, the Parent amended its Certificate of Formation to
change its legal name from BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. to BBVA
USA Bancshares, Inc.

The Parent is a wholly owned subsidiary of BBVA. BBVA is a global
financial services group founded in 1857. It has a significant
market position in Spain, owns the largest financial institution in
Mexico, has franchises in South America, has a banking position in
Turkey and operates an extensive global branch network. BBVA
acquired the Company in 2007.


BBVA USA: St. Lucie Fire Firefighters Pension Trust Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that BBVA Securities Inc.
(BSI) continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled,
St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension Trust,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Southwestern Energy Company, et al.

In October 2016, BBVA Securities Inc. (BSI) was named as a
defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the District
Court of Harris County, Texas, St. Lucie County Fire District
Firefighters' Pension Trust, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Southwestern Energy Company, et al.,
wherein the plaintiffs allege that Southwestern Energy Company, its
officers and directors, and the underwriting defendants (including
BSI) made inaccurate and misleading statements in the registration
statement and prospectus related to a securities offering.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief.

The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these claims
and intends to defend them vigorously.

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

BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. (the Parent) is a financial holding
company that conducts its business operations primarily through its
commercial banking subsidiary, BBVA USA, which is an Alabama
banking corporation headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. The
Parent was organized in 2007 as a Texas corporation. In April,
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. (BBVA) announced that it was
moving to unify its brand globally. As part of this re-branding,
the Bank will transition away from the use of the BBVA Compass name
and be re-branded as BBVA. As part of this re-branding, effective
June 10, 2019, the Parent amended its Certificate of Formation to
change its legal name from BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. to BBVA
USA Bancshares, Inc.

The Parent is a wholly owned subsidiary of BBVA. BBVA is a global
financial services group founded in 1857. It has a significant
market position in Spain, owns the largest financial institution in
Mexico, has franchises in South America, has a banking position in
Turkey and operates an extensive global branch network. BBVA
acquired the Company in 2007.


BBVA USA: Zamora-Orduna Realty Sues over PPP Loans
--------------------------------------------------
BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a putative class action suit entitled,
Zamora-Orduna Realty Group LLC v. BBVA USA.

In April 2020, BBVA USA (the Bank) was named in a putative class
action lawsuit filed in the District Court of Bexar County, Texas
styled Zamora-Orduna Realty Group LLC v. BBVA USA, wherein
plaintiffs allege the Bank tortiously failed to process certain
loan requests submitted in connection with the federal Paycheck
Protection Program.  

The plaintiffs seek an amount not less than $10 million along with
other demands for unspecified monetary relief.

The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these claims
and intends to defend them vigorously.

BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. (the Parent) is a financial holding
company that conducts its business operations primarily through its
commercial banking subsidiary, BBVA USA, which is an Alabama
banking corporation headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. The
Parent was organized in 2007 as a Texas corporation. In April,
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. (BBVA) announced that it was
moving to unify its brand globally. As part of this re-branding,
the Bank will transition away from the use of the BBVA Compass name
and be re-branded as BBVA. As part of this re-branding, effective
June 10, 2019, the Parent amended its Certificate of Formation to
change its legal name from BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. to BBVA
USA Bancshares, Inc.

The Parent is a wholly owned subsidiary of BBVA. BBVA is a global
financial services group founded in 1857. It has a significant
market position in Spain, owns the largest financial institution in
Mexico, has franchises in South America, has a banking position in
Turkey and operates an extensive global branch network. BBVA
acquired the Company in 2007.


BECTON DICKINSON: 1,785 Filter Product Claims Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that as of March 31, 2020,
the Company is defending approximately 1,785 product liability
claims involving the Company's line of inferior vena cava filters
(collectively, the "Filter Product Claims").

The majority of those claims were previously pending in an MDL in
the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, but
those MDL claims either have been, or are in the process of being,
remanded to various federal jurisdictions. Filter Product Claims
are also pending in various state court jurisdictions, including a
coordinated proceeding in Arizona State Court.

In addition, those claims include putative class actions filed in
the United States and Canada. The Filter Product Claims generally
seek damages for personal injury allegedly resulting from use of
the products.

The Company has limited information regarding the nature and
quantity of certain of the Filter Product Claims. The Company
continues to receive claims and lawsuits and may in future periods
learn additional information regarding other unfiled or unknown
claims, or other lawsuits, which could materially impact the
Company's estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits against the
Company.

On May 31, 2019, the MDL Court ceased accepting direct filings or
transfers into the Filter Product Claims MDL and, as noted above,
remands for non-settled cases have begun and are expected to
continue over the next three months. Federal and state court trials
are scheduled throughout 2020.

As of March 31, 2020, the Company entered into settlement
agreements and/or settlement agreements in principle for
approximately 7,300 cases.

On March 30, 2018, a jury in the first MDL trial found the Company
liable for negligent failure to warn and entered a verdict in favor
of plaintiffs.

The jury found the Company was not liable for (a) strict liability
design defect; (b) strict liability failure to warn; and (c)
negligent design. The Company has appealed that verdict.

On June 1, 2018, a jury in the second MDL trial unanimously found
in favor of the Company on all claims. On August 17, 2018, the
Court entered summary judgment in favor of the Company on all
claims in the third MDL trial.

On October 5, 2018, a jury in the fourth MDL trial unanimously
found in favor of the Company on all claims.

The Company expects additional trials of Filter Product Claims may
take place over the next 12 months.

Becton, Dickinson and Company develops, manufactures, and sells
medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment, and diagnostic
products worldwide. Becton, Dickinson and Company was founded in
1897 and is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey.


BECTON DICKINSON: 16,815 Hernia Product Claims Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that as of March 31, 2020,
the Company is defending approximately 16,815 product liability
claims involving the Company' line of hernia repair devices
(collectively, the "Hernia Product Claims").

The majority of those claims are currently pending in a coordinated
proceeding in Rhode Island State Court, but claims are also pending
in other state and/or federal court jurisdictions.

In addition, those claims include multiple putative class actions
in Canada. Generally, the Hernia Product Claims seek damages for
personal injury allegedly resulting from use of the products.

From time to time, the Company engages in resolution discussions
with plaintiffs’ law firms regarding certain of the Hernia
Product Claims, but the Company also intends to vigorously defend
Hernia Product Claims that do not settle, including through
litigation.

Trials are scheduled throughout 2020 in various state and/or
federal courts, with the first trial currently scheduled for June
2020 in Rhode Island.

The Company expects additional trials of Hernia Product Claims to
take place over the next 12 months.

In August 2018, a new hernia multi-district litigation ("MDL") was
ordered to be established in the Southern District of Ohio.

The Company cannot give any assurances that the resolution of the
Hernia Product Claims that have not settled, including asserted and
unasserted claims and the putative class action lawsuits, will not
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results
of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.

Becton, Dickinson and Company develops, manufactures, and sells
medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment, and diagnostic
products worldwide. Becton, Dickinson and Company was founded in
1897 and is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey.


BECTON DICKINSON: Defending 580 Women's Health Product Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that as of March 31, 2020,
the Company is defending approximately 580 product liability claims
involving the Company's line of pelvic mesh devices.

The majority of those claims are currently pending in various
federal court jurisdictions, and a coordinated proceeding in New
Jersey State Court, but claims are also pending in other state
court jurisdictions. In addition, those claims include putative
class actions filed in the United States.

Not included in the figures above are approximately 1,005 filed and
unfiled claims that have been asserted or threatened against the
Company but lack sufficient information to determine whether a
pelvic mesh device of the Company is actually at issue.

The claims identified above also include products manufactured by
both the Company and two subsidiaries of Medtronic plc (as
successor in interest to Covidien plc) ("Medtronic"), each a
supplier of the Company. Medtronic has an obligation to defend and
indemnify the Company with respect to any product defect liability
relating to products its subsidiaries had manufactured.

In July 2015, the Company reached an agreement with Medtronic in
which Medtronic agreed to take responsibility for pursuing
settlement of certain of the Women's Health Product Claims that
relate to products distributed by the Company under supply
agreements with Medtronic.

In June 2017, the Company amended the agreement with Medtronic to
transfer responsibility for settlement of additional Women’s
Health Product Claims to Medtronic on terms similar to the July
2015 agreement, including with respect to the obligation to make
payments to Medtronic towards these potential settlements. As of
March 31, 2020, the Company has paid Medtronic $141 million towards
these potential settlements.

The Company also may, in its sole discretion, transfer
responsibility for settlement of additional Women’s Health
Product Claims to Medtronic on similar terms.

The agreements do not resolve the dispute between the Company and
Medtronic with respect to Women's Health Product Claims that do not
settle, if any. The foregoing lawsuits, unfiled claims, putative
class actions, and other claims, together with claims that have
settled or are the subject of agreements or agreements in principle
to settle, are referred to collectively as the "Women's Health
Product Claims." The Women's Health Product Claims generally seek
damages for personal injury allegedly resulting from use of the
products.

As of March 31, 2020, the Company has reached agreements or
agreements in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to
settle their respective inventories of cases totaling approximately
15,220 of the Women's Health Product Claims.

The Company believes that these Women's Health Product Claims are
not the subject of Medtronic's indemnification obligation. These
settlement agreements and agreements in principle include unfiled
and previously unknown claims held by various plaintiffs' law
firms, which are not included in the approximate number of lawsuits
set forth in the first paragraph of this section.

Each agreement is subject to certain conditions, including
requirements for participation in the proposed settlements by a
certain minimum number of plaintiffs.

The Company continues to engage in discussions with other
plaintiffs' law firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled
Women’s Health Product Claims, which may include additional
inventory settlements.

Becton, Dickinson and Company develops, manufactures, and sells
medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment, and diagnostic
products worldwide. Becton, Dickinson and Company was founded in
1897 and is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey.


BECTON DICKINSON: Kabak Putative Class Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Kabak v. Becton,
Dickinson and Company, et al., Civ. No. 2:20-cv-02155 (SRC) (CLW).


On February 27, 2020, a putative class action captioned Kabak v.
Becton, Dickinson and Company, et al., Civ. No. 2:20-cv-02155 (SRC)
(CLW), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey against the Company and certain of its officers.

The complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf of all
persons (other than defendants) who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Company's common stock from November 5, 2019 through February
5, 2020, asserts claims for purported violations of Sections 10 and
20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and seeks, among other things, damages and
costs.

The complaint alleges that defendants concealed material
information regarding AlarisTM infusion pumps, including that (1)
certain pumps exhibited software errors, (2) the Company was
investing in remediation efforts as opposed to other enhancements
and (3) the Company was thus reasonably likely to recall certain
pumps and/or experience regulatory delays.

These alleged omissions, the complaint asserts, rendered certain
public statements about the Company’s business, operations and
prospects false or misleading, causing investors to purchase stock
at an inflated price.

The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend this action.

Becton, Dickinson and Company develops, manufactures, and sells
medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment, and diagnostic
products worldwide. Becton, Dickinson and Company was founded in
1897 and is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey.


BEL BRANDS USA: Shortchanges Workers' Wages, Aguilar Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Graciela Aguilar, on behalf of themselves and all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Bel Brands USA, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00933 (E.D. Wis., May 20, 2020), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime and other compensation, interest thereon,
liquidated damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees
pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws.

Defendant is an international manufacturer and producer of cheese
with operations in Kentucky, South Dakota and Wisconsin. Aguilar
worked as a cup machine operator at Bel Brands' Wisconsin plant in
Little Chute. Aguilar claims to have frequently worked in excess of
forty hours per workweek without being paid overtime premiums and
claims that discretionary bonuses were not included in the
computation of overtime. She also claims that Bel Brands' time
keeping rounded down employees' actual time rendered. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James A. Walcheske, Esq.
      Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
      WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
      15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
      Brookfield, WI 53005
      Phone: (262) 780-1953
      Fax: (262) 565-6469
      Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
             sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com


BELLICUM PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Kakkar Class Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
the class action suit entitled, Nipun Kakkar v. Bellicum
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Rick Fair and Alan Musso, is still pending.

On February 6, 2018, a purported securities class action complaint
captioned Nipun Kakkar v. Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Rick Fair
and Alan Musso was filed against the company, and certain of its
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division.

A second substantially similar class action was filed on March 14,
2018 by plaintiff Frances Rudy against the same defendants in the
same court. The lawsuits purport to assert class action claims on
behalf of purchasers of the company's securities during the period
from May 8, 2017 through January 30, 2018.

The complaints allege that the defendants violated the Exchange Act
by making materially false and misleading statements concerning our
clinical trials being conducted in the U.S. to assess rivo-cel
(rivogenlecleucel, formerly known as BPX-501) as an adjunct T-cell
therapy administered after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell
transplantation.

The complaints purport to assert claims for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The complaints seek, on behalf of the purported class, an
unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and expenses
of attorneys and experts, and other relief.

On April 9, 2018, the District Court consolidated the two lawsuits
under the Kakkar action. On March 26, 2019, the court appointed
lead plaintiffs to represent the putative class and on May 15,
2019, plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint.

On July 5, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss
on August 26, 2019 and the Company filed its reply to the
opposition on September 22, 2019.

The court has not ruled on the motion.

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

Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a clinical stage biopharmaceutical
company, focuses on discovering and developing novel cellular
immunotherapies for the treatment of hematological cancers, solid
tumors, and orphan inherited blood disorders in the United States
and internationally. Bellicum was founded in 2004 and is
headquartered in Houston, Texas.


BIODELIVERY SCIENCES: Continues to Defend Drachman Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7,
2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Drachman v.
BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
2019-0728-AGB (Del. Ch.).

On September 11, 2019, two purported stockholders of the Company
filed a putative class action against the Company and its directors
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned
Drachman v. BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 2019-0728-AGB (Del. Ch.).

The Complaint alleges that the Amendments did not receive the
requisite vote of stockholders at the 2018 Annual Meeting and
asserts claims for violation of the Delaware General Corporation
Law, breach of fiduciary duties, and declaratory judgment.

The Complaint seeks, inter alia, a declaration that the Amendments
were not validly approved and invalidation of the Amendments,
including altering the one-year terms of all directors duly elected
at the 2018 and 2019 Annual Meetings to three-year terms.

The Complaint also seeks costs and disbursements, including
attorneys' fees.

The Company will respond to the complaint and defend against it
vigorously.

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

BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., a specialty
pharmaceutical company, engages in the development and
commercialization of pharmaceutical products in the United States
and internationally. It was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in
Raleigh, North Carolina.


BMO HARRIS: Refuses to Pay PPP Loans' Agent Fees, Prinzo Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Prinzo & Associates, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A.; BMO
Financial Corp., a Delaware corporation; and Does 1-100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03256 (N.D. Ill., June 2, 2020) is a
class action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants who
refuse to comply with the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security Act that requires it to pay out of the compensation it
received for processing PPP loans, for services Plaintiff and a
large number of other agents rendered on behalf of recipients of
Small Business Administration ("SBA") emergency loans.

On March 25, 2020, in response to the economic damage caused by the
COVID-19 crisis and to overwhelming public pressure, the U.S.
Senate passed the CARES Act. The CARES Act was passed by the House
of Representatives the following day and signed into law by
President Trump on March 27, 2020. Amounting to approximately $2
trillion, the CARES Act was the single-largest economic stimulus
bill in American history.

On March 27, 2020, Congress passed the SBA's Paycheck Protection
Program ("PPP") which initially authorized up to $349 billion in
forgivable loans to small businesses to cover payroll and other
expenses (PPP I). After the initial funds quickly dried up,
Congress added $310 billion to the program (PPP II).

According to the complaint, Defendants reported that they
successfully processed more than 10,000 applications totaling over
$4.4 billion in borrowed funds during the first round of funding
(PPP I). Defendants also participated in the second phase of
funding, PPP II. The average PPP loan approved by Defendants in PPP
I was approximately $440,000.

However, Defendants apparently decided that they do not need to
complete the final step of the process. They have refused to pay
the agents including the Plaintiff who assisted PPP loan recipients
with their applications. Although applicable PPP regulations
require Defendants to pay agents who assist clients with loan
applications, Defendants' practice reflects a deliberate, firm-wide
practice that is not the result of oversight or inadvertence. This
refusal is harming accountants, attorneys, and other agents who
dropped everything (in the midst of tax season) to assist their
customers in filling out these vital loan applications correctly
and in compliance with the PPP, and who were specifically only
allowed to be paid for these services out of the compensation paid
to the lender. The Defendants' failure to pay agents 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."

BMO Harris Bank, N.A., is a chartered national banking association
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.

BMO Harris Financial Corp. is a Delaware entity, and the U.S.
holding company of Defendant BMO Harris Bank.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Derek Y. Brandt, Esq.
          Leigh M. Perica, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
          231 North Main Street, Suite 20
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 307-6116
          Facsimile: (618) 307-6161
          Email: dyb@mccunewright.com
                 lmp@mccunewright.com

               - and -

          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          Michele M. Vercoski, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
          18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 550
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
          Email: rdm@mccunewright.com
                 mmv@mccunewright.com

BORREGO SPRINGS: Firefighters Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Aboumrad, Shant Bartemian, Gregory Berger, Craig Cavanaugh,
Steven Gonzalez, Jonathan Grant, Ryan Hicks, James Higbee, Arthur
Lim, Miguel Manzano, Kevin Milleson, Trey Nelson, Mark Ramos, Nolan
Reidel, Ronald Rommelfanger, Derek Shubin, Thomas Tomko, on behalf
of themselves and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs,
v. Borrego Springs Fire Protection District, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00933 (S.D. Cal., May 19, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime and other compensation, interest thereon, liquidated
damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to
the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs are firefighters employed by Borrego Springs. They are
not entitled to paid idle holidays, yet are required to work their
regularly assigned schedule regardless of holidays and are not
allowed to use this holiday in lieu of compensation as leave.
Borrego Springs excluded Plaintiffs' holiday in lieu of pay from
their respective regular rate used to calculate their overtime.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David E. Mastagni, Esq.
      Isaac S. Stevens, Esq.
      Tashayla D. Billington, Esq.
      Joel M. Weinstein, Esq.
      MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
      1912 "I" Street
      Sacramento, CA 95811
      Telephone: (916) 446-4692
      Facsimile: (916) 447-4614
      Email: davidm@mastagni.com
             istevens@mastagni.com
             tbillington@mastagni.com
             jweinstein@mastagni.com


BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY: Omoro Seeks Refunds Over COVID-19 Closure
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Thomas Omoro, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-11030
(D. Mass., May 29, 2020), seeks refunds of the amount the Plaintiff
and other members of the Classes are owed on a pro-rata basis,
together with other damages, as a result of the Defendant's
decision to close campus, constructively evict students, and
transition all classes to an online/remote format as a result of
the Novel Coronavirus Disease crisis.

While closing campus and transitioning to online classes was the
right thing for the Defendant to do, the Plaintiff contends that
this decision deprived the Plaintiff and the other members of the
Classes from recognizing 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.

The Defendant has either refused to provide reimbursement for the
tuition, fees and other costs for services that the Defendant is no
longer providing, or has provided inadequate and/or arbitrary
reimbursement that does not fully compensate the Plaintiff and
members of the Classes for their loss, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was enrolled as a full-time student in the
Defendant's undergraduate program, studying business during the
Spring 2020 semester.

Brandeis University is an institution of higher learning located in
Waltham, Massachusetts, County of Middlesex.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard E. Levine, Esq.
          STANZLER LEVINE LLC
          65 William Street, Suite 205
          Wellesley, MA 02481
          Phone: (617) 482-3198
          Email: rlevine@stanzlerlevine.com

               - and -

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


BRISTOL-MYERS: Amended Deal Reached in Thalomid & Revlimid Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that Celgene has reached a
revised settlement in the class action suit related to Thalomid &
Revlimid.

Beginning in November 2014, certain putative class action lawsuits
were filed against Celgene in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey alleging that Celgene violated various
antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair competition laws by (a)
allegedly securing an exclusive supply contract for the alleged
purpose of preventing a generic manufacturer from securing its own
supply of thalidomide active pharmaceutical ingredient, (b)
allegedly refusing to sell samples of Thalomid and Revlimid brand
drugs to various generic manufacturers for the alleged purpose of
bioequivalence testing necessary for a New Drug Applications (NDAs)
to be submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for
approval to market generic versions of these products, (c)
allegedly bringing unjustified patent infringement lawsuits in
order to allegedly delay approval for proposed generic versions of
Thalomid and Revlimid, and/or (d) allegedly entering into
settlements of patent infringement lawsuits with certain generic
manufacturers that allegedly have had anticompetitive effects.

The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and putative classes of
third-party payers, are seeking injunctive relief and damages. The
various lawsuits were consolidated into a master action for all
purposes.

In October 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for certification of
two damages classes under the laws of thirteen states and the
District of Columbia and a nationwide injunction class.

Celgene filed an opposition to the plaintiffs' motion and a motion
for judgment on the pleadings dismissing all state law claims where
the plaintiffs no longer seek to represent a class.

In October 2018, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and Celgene's motion for judgment on the pleadings.
In December 2018, the plaintiffs filed a new motion for class
certification, which Celgene opposed.

In July 2019, the parties reached a settlement under which all the
putative class plaintiff claims would be dismissed with prejudice.
In December 2019, after certain third-party payors who were members
of the settlement class refused to release their potential claims
and participate in the settlement, Celgene exercised its right to
terminate the settlement agreement.

In March 2020, Celgene reached a revised settlement with the class
plaintiffs subject to approval by the Court. That settlement does
not resolve the claims of certain entities that opted out of the
first settlement.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells biopharmaceutical
products worldwide. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was founded in
1887 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Bid to Nix Amended CheckMate-026 Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
the amended complaint in the class action suit related to
CheckMate-026 clinical trial in lung cancer is pending.

Since February 2018, two separate putative class action complaints
were filed in the U.S. District for the Northern District of
California and in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against the company (BMS), BMS's Chief Executive
Officer, Giovanni Caforio, BMS's Chief Financial Officer at the
time, Charles A. Bancroft and certain former and current executives
of BMS.

The case in California has been voluntarily dismissed.

The remaining complaint alleges violations of securities laws for
BMS's disclosures related to the CheckMate-026 clinical trial in
lung cancer.

In September 2019, the Court granted BMS's motion to dismiss, but
allowed the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint.

In October 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. BMS has
moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

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

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells biopharmaceutical
products worldwide. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was founded in
1887 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Continues to Defend Abilify Product Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company and Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. continue to defend suits related to
Abilify.

The company (BMS) and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Otsuka) are
co-defendants in product liability litigation related to Abilify.
Plaintiffs allege Abilify caused them to engage in compulsive
gambling and other impulse control disorders.

There have been over 2,500 cases filed in state and federal courts
and additional cases are pending in Canada. The Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the federal court cases for
pretrial purposes in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Florida.

In February 2019, BMS and Otsuka entered into a master settlement
agreement establishing a proposed settlement program to resolve all
Abilify compulsivity claims filed as of January 28, 2019 in the MDL
as well as various state courts, including California and New
Jersey.

To date, approximately 2,700 cases, comprising approximately 3,900
plaintiffs, have been dismissed based on participation in the
settlement program or failure to comply with settlement related
court orders.

In the U.S., approximately 212 cases remain pending on behalf of
218 plaintiffs, who either chose not to participate in the
settlement program or filed their claims after the settlement
cut-off date.

There are nine cases pending in Canada (four class actions, five
individual injury claims). Out of the nine cases, only three are
active (the class actions in Quebec and Ontario and one individual
injury claim).

Both class actions have now been certified and will proceed
separately.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells biopharmaceutical
products worldwide. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was founded in
1887 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


BRISTOL-MYERS: No Trial Date for Pending Claims in Suit v Celgene
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that no trial date has been
set for the claims that survived the Court's order in the
securities class action against its wholly-owned subsidiary,
Celgene.

Beginning in March 2018, two putative class actions were filed
against Celgene and certain of its officers in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Celgene Securities Class
Action").

The complaints allege that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making misstatements and/or omissions concerning
(1) trials of GED-0301, (2) Celgene's 2020 outlook and projected
sales of Otezla, and (3) the new drug application for Zeposia
(ozanimod).

The Court consolidated the two actions and appointed a lead
plaintiff, lead counsel, and co-liaison counsel for the putative
class.

In February 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiff's amended complaint in full. In December 2019, the Court
denied the motion to dismiss in part and granted the motion to
dismiss in part (including all claims arising from alleged
misstatements regarding GED-0301).

Although the Court gave the plaintiff leave to re-plead the
dismissed claims, it elected not to do so, and the dismissed claims
are now dismissed with prejudice.

No trial date has been set for the claims that survived the
Court’s order.

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

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells biopharmaceutical
products worldwide. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was founded in
1887 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


BUTTS FOODS: Davis Seeks Overtime Pay for Warehouse Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------
TRAVIS DAVIS, individually, and on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiffs, v.
BUTTS FOODS, LP, a Tennessee Limited Partnership, RAY BUTTS III,
individually, and R.E. BUTTS, IV, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01103 (W.D. Tenn., May 9, 2020) is an action brought
against Defendants as a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid overtime compensation and
other damages owed to Plaintiff and other similarly situated
current and former employees of Defendants.

According to the complaint, the Defendants misclassified the
Plaintiff and those similarly situated as exempt from the payment
of FLSA overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 within weekly pay
periods when performing warehouse work and failed to compensate
them fully at the applicable FLSA overtime rates of pay for such
overtime work during all times material to this action.

Mr. Davis was employed by Defendants as warehouse employee during
the applicable statute of limitations' period.

Butts Foods, LP is a Jackson, Tennessee-based distributor of
protein food products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
          Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
                 rbryant@jsyc.com
                 rturner@jsyc.com
                 rmorelli@jsyc.com

CALIFORNIA: Petition for Habeas Corpus in Troyer Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Ronald Troyer filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
entered in the lawsuit titled THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent
v. RONALD TROYER, Defendant and Appellant, Case No. SCD229232, in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Diego.

The petition is denied.

The case type is stated as Criminal Case.

According to the docket entry, the petition for writ of habeas
corpus has been read and considered by Presiding Justice McConnell
and Associate Justices Huffman and Dato. Ronald Troyer alleges he
was sentenced to prison in 2011 for 16 years eight months after a
jury found him guilty of driving under the influence of
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) causing injury, reckless driving causing
injury, and hit-and-run driving, and found true attached great
bodily injury enhancement allegations. He also alleges the judgment
was affirmed on appeal.

By the present petition, Troyer complains that in a recent order
denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus he filed in the
superior court, the "court did not address ground 1 third and final
issue of eligibilities for resentencing relief: similarly situated
dismissal." He alleges he is "similarly situated re all DUI THC
related conviction dismissals Los Angeles County." Troyer "ask[s]
this court for review of abuse of discretion standard" and "to make
ruling on similarly situated dismissal protection or mandate ruling
from superior court." He has not included with his petition a copy
of the superior court order he is challenging or any other
documents.

Mr. Troyer is not entitled to relief, according to the docket
entry. The Court says: We do not review superior court orders
denying habeas corpus petitions in noncapital cases. Such orders
are not appealable. The correct procedure when a superior court
denies a petition for writ of habeas corpus in a noncapital case is
for the petitioner to file a new petition in the Court of Appeal.

Troyer filed a new petition here, but it does not state a prima
facie case for relief, the Court says. The petition includes
neither allegations setting for the specific facts on which his
claim is based nor documents supporting the claim, both of which
are required to state a prima facie case. Troyer's unelaborated and
unsubstantiated assertions regarding "similarly situated
dismissals" are insufficient to satisfy his pleading burden. "If no
prima facie case for relief is stated, the court will summarily
deny the petition." The petition is denied.

The appellate case is captioned as In re RONALD TROYER on Habeas
Corpus, Case No. D077491, in the California Court of Appeal.[BN]


CELEBRITY CRUISES: Kantrow Sues Over Passengers' COVID-19 Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------------
FRED KANTROW and MARLENE KANTROW, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CELEBRITY CRUISES INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-21997-JAL (S.D. Fla., May 13, 2020) is
a class action against the Defendant for three counts of negligence
and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to reasonably
protect the Plaintiffs and all others similarly-situated passengers
who sailed aboard the Celebrity Eclipse vessel between March 1 and
March 30, 2020 from the COVID-19 outbreak despite acquiring
knowledge on or about March 2 that a person(s) aboard the vessel
displayed symptoms consistent with a positive COVID-19 diagnosis.
The Defendant did not thereafter or at any time during the subject
voyage enact quarantine and/or physical distancing measures amongst
passengers and/or crew members aboard the vessel. As a result of
the Defendant's negligence, thousands of the passengers aboard the
vessel, including the Plaintiffs, were exposed to COVID-19, at
least 45 passengers and crew tested positive for COVID-19, and at
least two passengers died.

Celebrity Cruises Inc. is a cruise company with its principal place
of business in Miami, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:         
         
         Jason R. Margulies, Esq.
         Michael A. Winkleman, Esq.
         Jacqueline Garcell, Esq.
         L. Alex Perez, Esq.
         LIPCON MARGULIES ALSINA & WINKLEMAN PA
         One Biscayne Tower, Suite 1776
         2 South Biscayne Boulevard
         Miami, FL 33131
         Telephone: (305) 373-3016
         Facsimile: (305) 373-6204
         E-mail: jmargulies@lipcon.com
                 mwinkleman@lipcon.com
                 jgarcell@lipcon.com
                 aperez@lipcon.com

CELESTRON ACQUISITION: Fixed Telescope Prices, Spectrum et al. Say
------------------------------------------------------------------
SPECTRUM SCIENTIFICS LLC, RADIO CITY, INC., and those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. CELESTRON ACQUISITION, LLC, SYNTA CANADA
INT'L ENTERPRISES LTD., SKYWATCHER USA, SKY-WATCHER CANADA, SW
TECHNOLOGY CORP., OLIVON MANUFACTURING CO. LTD., OLIVON USA, LLC,
COREY LEE, SYLVIA SHEN, JEAN SHEN, JOSEPH LUPICA, DAVE ANDERSON,
LAURENCE HUEN, and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-03642
(N.D. Cal., June 1, 2020) is an antitrust class action brought by
the Plaintiff against the dominant U.S. telescope distributor
Defendant Celestron Acquisition, LLC and its syndicate of
co-conspirators after it has been found by a jury that Celestron
and its parent company in China, Synta, conspired with their
competitor Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co., Ltd. to fix prices, divide
the market, retaliate against competitors, mislead U.S.
authorities, illegally acquire assets and dominate the U.S. market
so that they could rip off American purchasers.

According to the complaint, the Defendants and their cohorts have
massively and illegally overcharged U.S. telescope distributors for
the last decade. In addition to colluding on pricing, Defendants
and their co-conspirators -- who should have been competing against
one another -- operated their businesses as a conglomerate for the
mutual benefit of one another.

The Defendants' concealment of their conspiracy from consumers
ended no earlier than September 2019, when documents were unsealed
in an antitrust proceeding brought by Optronic Technologies, Inc.
d/b/a Orion Telescopes & Binoculars(R), where a jury awarded over
$52,000,000 in damages against Defendants' co-conspirators.

Plaintiffs and their fellow class members seek compensatory damages
to be trebled in accordance with the antitrust laws, injunctive
relief, and attorneys' fees to remedy Defendants' conspiracy and
injury to the U.S. telescope market.

Synta Technology Corp. is a company headquartered in Taiwan.
Together with its subsidiaries and affiliates, it has sold
telescopes into the U.S., Canada, and the European Union.

Celestron Acquisition, LLC is the largest importer and seller of
telescopes in the U.S. and abroad. It is headquartered in Torrance,
California.

SW Technology Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of Synta
Technology.

Synta Canada Int'l Enterprises Ltd. is a Canadian company. It is
listed as a 20% owner of Suzhou Synta.

Olivon Manufacturing Co. Ltd. is a company registered in British
Columbia, Canada and headquartered in Richmond, British Columbia.

Sky-Watcher USA is a telescope distributor headquartered in
Southern California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Noah Hagey, Esq.
          Matthew Borden, Esq.
          Ronald J. Fisher, Esq.
          Gunnar Martz, Esq.
          Athul K. Acharya, Esq.
          BRAUNHAGEY & BORDEN LLP
          351 California Street, 10th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 599-0210
          Facsimile: (415) 276-1808
          Email: hagey@braunhagey.com
                 borden@braunhagey.com
                 fisher@braunhagey.com
                 martz@braunhagey.com
                 acharya@braunhagey.com

CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Appeal in Suit over Vectren Merger Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that plaintiffs'
appeal from a ruling in the consolidated class action suit related
to the Company's merger deal with Vectren Corp. is still pending.

On February 1, 2019, pursuant to the Merger Agreement, CenterPoint
Energy consummated the previously announced Merger and acquired
Vectren for approximately $6 billion in cash. On the Merger Date,
Vectren became a wholly-owned subsidiary of CenterPoint Energy.

With respect to the Merger, in July 2018, seven separate lawsuits
were filed against Vectren and the individual directors of
Vectren's Board of Directors in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana.

These lawsuits alleged violations of Sections 14(a) of the Exchange
Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 on the grounds that the Vectren Proxy
Statement filed on June 18, 2018 was materially incomplete because
it omitted material information concerning the Merger.

In August 2018, the seven lawsuits were consolidated, and the Court
denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction.

In October 2018, the plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint. In December 2018, two plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed their lawsuits.

In September 2019, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss and dismissed the remaining plaintiffs' claims with
prejudice, which the plaintiffs appealed in October 2019.

The defendants believe that the allegations asserted are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend themselves against the claims
raised.

CenterPoint Energy does not expect the ultimate outcome of this
matter to have a material adverse effect on its financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.

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

CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. wholesales natural gas and
energy products. The Company gathers, processes, and treats natural
gas and electricity, as well as provides administrative support.
CenterPoint Energy Resources operates in the United States. The
company is based in Houston, Texas.


CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS: 632 Metacom Slams Denied Insurance Coverage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
632 Metacom, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's,
London Subscribing to Policy No. XSZ146282, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-03905 (S.D. N.Y., May 19, 2020), seeks injunctive relief,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate,
attorney's fees and costs and such other relief from breach of
contract.

632 Metacom is a small business that owns and operates Hometown
Tavern, a restaurant and bar featuring live entertainment in
Warren, Rhode Island. It purchased an all-risk commercial property
insurance policy from Lloyd's London under Policy No. XSZ146282 to
protect it in the event of property loss and business interruption.
But during the COVID-19 pandemic, Lloyd's denied coverage despite
that fact that the policy does not contain an exclusion for
pandemic and/or virus-related losses. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Darren T. Kaplan, Esq.
      KAPLAN GORE LLP
      1359 Broadway, Suite 2001
      New York, NY 10018
      Tel: (212) 999-7370
      Fax: (404) 537-3320
      Email: dkaplan@kaplangore.com

             - and -

      John J. Schirger, Esq.
      Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
      Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq.
      MILLER SCHIRGER, LLC
      4520 Main Street, Suite 1570
      Kansas City, MO 64111
      Telephone: (816) 561-6500
      Facsimile: (816) 561-6501
      Email: jschirger@millerschirger.com
             mlytle@millerschirger.com
             jfeierabend@millerschirger.com

             - and -

      Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
      Bradley T. Wilders D. Kan #78301
      Curtis Shank, Esq.
      STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
      460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
      Kansas City, MO 64112
      Telephone: (816) 714-7100
      Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
      Email: stueve@stuevesiegel.com
             wilders@stuevesiegel.com
             shank@stuevesiegel.com

             - and -

      J. Kent Emison, Esq.
      LANGDON & EMISON LLC
      911 Main Street
      PO Box 220
      Lexington, MO 64067
      Phone: (660) 259-6175
      Fax: (660) 259-4571
      Email: kent@lelaw.com

             - and -

      Richard F. Lombardo, Esq.
      Dawn M. Parsons, Esq.
      SHAFFER LOMBARDO SHURIN, P.C.
      2001 Wyandotte Street
      Kansas City, MO 64108
      Tel: (816) 931-0500
      Fax: (816) 931-5775
      Email: rlombardo@sls-law.com
             dparsons@sls-law.com


CHEMOURS COMPANY: Wojciehowicz Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID WOJCIEHOWICZ, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-00355 (S.D.W. Va., May 21, 2020), seeks to recover overtime
pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and those similarly situated were required to travel
back to the locker room at the Defendant's facility; remove their
contaminated work uniform and protective gear; deposit these items
into an assigned container; and then shower before leaving the
Defendant's facility. However, the Plaintiff and those similarly
situated were not paid overtime wages--or any wages at all--for
this time they worked before and after their scheduled shifts, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff began his employment as a mechanic at the production
facility/chemical plant located in Belle, West Virginia, that was
formerly operated by Dupont, and continued his employment at this
facility upon Defendant assuming ownership in or around 2015. He
remained employed in this position until November 2019.

Chemours Company operates chemical manufacturing plants and
production sites throughout the country, with its central corporate
headquarters located at 1007 Market Street, in Wilmington,
Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean W. Cook, Esq.
          WARNER LAW OFFICES, PLLC
          227 Capitol Street
          Post Office Box 3327
          Charleston, WV 25333
          Telephone: (304) 345-6789
          Facsimile: (304) 344-4508


CHEVRON USA: Underpays Oilfield Workers, Schnelle Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
KELLY SCHNELLE, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CHEVRON USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-00112
(W.D. Tex., May 7, 2020) is a class and collective action complaint
brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from June 2013 until April 2019
as a Turnaround Coordinator providing inspection oversight in
Defendant's natural gas plants in Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and the Putative Class
Members normally worked 12 or more hours a day and regularly work 6
to 7 days a week. However, they were paid a day-rate or a flat sum
for each day worked regardless of the number of hours that they
worked that day and throughout their employment with Defendant.
Allegedly, Defendant failed to pay them overtime pay for hours they
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek

Chevron USA, Inc. is a global energy company and one of the largest
energy providers in the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: (713) 352-1100
          Fax: (713) 352-3300
          Emails: mjospehson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  rschreiber@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


CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Bulldog Yoga Slams Denied Insurance Coverage
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bulldog Yoga Holdings LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cincinnati Insurance Company,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-02358 (E.D. Pa., May 20, 2020), seeks
injunctive relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the
maximum rate, attorney's fees and costs and such other relief for
breach of contract.

Bulldog Yoga Holdings operates three yoga studios located in
Malvern and Villanova, PA and in Boulder, CO. It purchased an
all-risk commercial property insurance policy from at Cincinnati
Insurance under Policy No. ETD0526177, effective November 1, 2019
to November 1, 2020 to protect it in the event of property loss and
business interruption. But during the COVID-19 pandemic, Cincinnati
Insurance denied coverage despite that fact that the policy does
not contain an exclusion for pandemic and/or virus-related losses.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
      Melissa Mazur, Esq.
      KAUFMAN COREN & RESS P.C.
      2001 Market Street, Ste. 3900
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 735-8700
      Fax: (215) 735-5170
      Email: dgross@kcr-law.com

             - and -

      Keith M. Fleischman, Esq.
      Joshua D. Glatter, Esq.
      FLEISCHMAN BONNER & ROCCO LLP
      81 Main Street, Suite 515
      White Plains, NY 10601
      Tel: (914) 278-5100
      Fax: (917) 591-5245
      Email: kfleischman@fbrllp.com
             jglatter@fbrllp.com


CITIZEN'S DISABILITY: Gaker Files Consumer Suit in Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Citizen's Disability,
LLC. The case is styled as Heather Gaker, an individual; on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Citizen's
Disability, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-11031 (D. Mass., May 29, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.

Citizens Disability is a social security disability advocacy group.
The business services include assisting clients in obtaining
disability benefits through Social Security, including completing
applications, representing them at hearings and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig Thor Kimmel, Esq.
          KIMMEL & SILVERMAN
          30 East Butler Avenue
          Ambler, PA 19002
          Phone: (215) 540-8888
          Email: kimmel@creditlaw.com


CITRIX SYSTEMS: Maryland Court Refuses to Dismiss Boger TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAN L. BOGER, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant,
Civil Action No. 8:19-cv-01234-PX (D. Md.), Judge Paula Xinis of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted in
part and denied in part Citrix's combined motion to dismiss and
motion to strike.

Citrix is a software company that sells products aimed at
increasing workplace productivity.  It uses telemarketing to
generate sales.

Plaintiff Dan Boger received automated telemarketing calls from
Citrix on three separate occasions during September and December
2015.  On each call, a Citrix employee spoke with Boger and
promoted Citrix products and services.

Boger received two more automated telemarketing calls from Citrix
during May 2016.  On the May 3, 2016 call, Boger told the Citrix
caller specifically to add him to Citrix's "Do Not Call" list.  He
then asked to speak with a manager and was connected to Citrix
employee, Trevor Jones.  Boger asked why he continued to receive
calls from Citrix despite his previous requests for Citrix to stop
calling him.  Jones responded that Boger may have previously talked
with someone from a different Citrix team.

On May 25, 2016, Boger received another call from Citrix.  Again,
he told the Citrix caller that he had repeatedly requested for
Citrix to stop calling him and asked to speak with a manager.  This
time, Boger spoke with sales team manager, Sam Schlunz, who told
Boger that Citrix has multiple Do Not Call lists and that Boger
would be added to the list.

On June 16, 2016, Boger sent correspondence to Citrix, reaffirming
that he did not wish to be contacted by the company.  In the
correspondence, Boger listed the calls he had received from Citrix,
and requested that if Citrix believed Boger had agreed to be
contacted, Citrix provide him proof of such assent.  Brian Benfer,
Senior Manager at Citrix, responded to Boger via email, confirming
not only that Citrix had called Boger on the listed dates, but also
that Citrix knew Boger had requested twice, prior to his May 25,
2016 request, to be added to Citrix's Do Not Call list.  The
correspondence further confirmed that Citrix had still not added
Boger's number to Citrix's Do Not Call list.

Boger describes that for each call, before a human representative
came on the line, he heard a distinct pause.  He believes the pause
is evidence that Citrix used an automatic telephone dialing system
("ATDS").  Boger shared this belief with Citrix in the June 26
correspondence.  In response, Benfer noted that the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") prohibits the use of ATDS, that
Citrix did not intend to call cellular phones, and that "it's not
clear right now how a cell phone got through."

On April 26, 2019, Boger filed suit on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, alleging that Citrix violated the TCPA's
provisions prohibiting autodialer calls to cell phones (Count I);
the TCPA's Do Not Call provisions (Count II); and the Maryland
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("MTCPA") (Count III).   In
response, Citrix moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and
lack of personal jurisdiction and to strike Boger's nationwide
class definitions.

Judge Xinis recognizes that some predictive dialers do not, in the
end, qualify as an ATDS.  However, information regarding the
specific features of Citrix's dialer system remains within the
exclusive province of the Defendant and are thus best left for
exploration in discovery.  Because the Complaint avers facts that
permit the Court to infer more than the mere possibility of
conduct, the claim will proceed.  The motion to dismiss is denied
as to count one.

Citrix argues that count two fails because section 64.1200(d) only
regulates "calls for telemarketing purposes" and Boger does not
allege the purpose of the last two calls.  The Judge cannot take
this argument seriously.  The Complaint makes clear that Citrix
used telemarking to generate sales; that Boger was the target of
such telemarketing; and that each call arose from Citrix'
telemarketing efforts.  Viewing the Complaint allegations as true
and most favorably to Boger, count two survives dismissal.

Citrix next argues that Boger's MTCPA claim falls outside the
statute's three-year limitation period.  The Complaint in the case
was filed on April 26, 2019.  To the extent Boger intends to pursue
claims for calls placed before April 26, 2016, the MTCA count fails
as to those calls.

The Judge next turns to Citrix's challenges as applied to the
class-wide claims.  Citrix moves to strike the Complaint's
nationwide class definitions, or in the alternative, to dismiss the
claims to the extent they are brought on behalf of any non-Maryland
residents.  As grounds for support, Citrix argues that the Court
lacks personal jurisdiction over the claims of non-Maryland class
members.  The Judge disagrees that dismissal is warranted.

Citrix argues that the due process concerns underlying the Supreme
Court's decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb exist for both named and
unnamed class members.  The Bristol-Myers Squibb Court did indeed
ground its decision in due process considerations.  In particular,
the Court emphasized that of "primary concern" was the burden
placed on the Defendant.  However, Citrix, and the cases it cites,
fail to acknowledge that the federal class action procedural
framework supplies defendants due process protections -- namely,
the Rule 23 requirements -- not applicable in mass actions.  The
Judge joins the majority of other Courts declining to extend
Bristol-Myers Squibb to federal class actions.  The Judge declines
to extend Bristol-Myers Squibb to the case.  Citrix's motions to
strike and to dismiss class allegations are denied.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Xinis granted in part and denied
in part Citrix's motion to dismiss and to strike.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 3, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/HjAtvE from Leagle.com.

Dan Boger, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Stephen Howard Ring -- shr@ringlaw.us --
Stephen H Ring PC.

Citrix Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Barmak --
DBarmak@mintz.com -- Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC,
Esteban Morales Fabila -- emorales@mintz.com -- Mintz Levin Cohn
Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC, pro hac vice & Joshua Briones --
JBriones@mintz.com -- Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC,
pro hac vice.


CLUBCORP USA: Hong Wants Refund of Fees After COVID-19 Closure
--------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA HONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CLUBCORP USA, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-01310-M (N.D.
Tex., May 19, 2020), is brought on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals, who paid membership fees for access to the Defendant's
private golf, country, city, sports, and stadium clubs, and who,
because of the Defendant's response to the Novel Coronavirus
Disease 2019 pandemic, lost the benefit of the membership for which
they paid, and/or the services for which their fees were paid,
without having their membership fees refunded to them.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant continually charges
monthly membership dues while the Defendant's private clubs remain
closed. The Defendant is unlawfully taking advantage of its
customers in the midst of the greatest public health and economic
crisis in living memory, she adds.

On November 2019, Ms. Hong entered into a month-to-month membership
agreement with the Defendant for access to the Defendant's private
clubs.

The Defendant owns and operates more than 200 private clubs
nationwide, including private clubs located in California alone and
39 in Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Michael K. Oldham, Esq.
          Brandon T. Allen, Esq.
          REYNOLDS FRIZZELL LLP
          1100 Louisiana, Suite 3500
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 485-7200
          Facsimile: (713) 485-7250
          E-mail: oldham@reynoldsfrizzell.com
                  allen@reynoldsfrizzell.com


CONOCOPHILLIPS CO: Misclassifies Project Leads, Miller Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, LARRY MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 4:20-cv-01634 (S.D. Tex., May 8, 2020) arises from
Defendant's alleged willful failure to pay overtime compensation to
employees in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately February
2019 through December 2019 as a Project Lead to conduct maintenance
work on location, monitor system pressures at the well site, and
observe contractors' work product.

According to the complaint, Defendant employed dozens of
individuals as Project Leads, Project Managers, Specialists, and
Supervisors in several states, including Plaintiff, to complete its
business objectives, misclassified them as independent contractors,
and were paid on a daily rate basis.

Moreover, Plaintiff and other personnel were prohibited by
Defendant from working other jobs for other companies while working
on jobs for Defendant, regularly on call and expected to drop
everything and work whenever needed, and work well in excess of 40
hours each week. However, they were denied overtime pay at a rate
of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for hours worked
in excess of 40 in a workweek.

Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid back wages, an equal amount of
liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

ConocoPhillips Company is an oil and natural gas exploration and
production company operating worldwide and throughout the U.S.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77005
          Tel: 713-352-1100
          Fax: 713-352-3300
          Emails: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@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


CORECIVIC INC: Fact Discovery Underway in Grae Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
CoreCivic, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that fact discovery is
ongoing in the class action suit entitled, Grae v. Corrections
Corporation of America et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-02267.  

In a memorandum to the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") dated
August 18, 2016, the Department of Justice ("DOJ") directed that,
as each contract with privately operated prisons reaches the end of
its term, the BOP should either decline to renew that contract or
substantially reduce its scope in a manner consistent with law and
the overall decline of the BOP's inmate population.  

In addition to the decline in the BOP's inmate population, the DOJ
memorandum cites purported operational, programming, and cost
efficiency factors as reasons for the DOJ directive.  

On February 21, 2017, the newly appointed U.S. Attorney General
issued a memorandum rescinding the DOJ's prior directive stating
the memorandum changed long-standing policy and practice and
impaired the BOP's ability to meet the future needs of the federal
correctional system.

Following the release of the August 18, 2016 DOJ memorandum, a
purported securities class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee,
or the District Court, captioned Grae v. Corrections Corporation of
America et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-02267.  

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders who purchased or acquired the Company's securities
between February 27, 2012 and August 17, 2016.  

In general, the lawsuit alleges that, during this timeframe, the
Company's public statements were false and/or misleading regarding
the purported operational, programming, and cost efficiency factors
cited in the DOJ memorandum and, as a result, the Company's stock
price was artificially inflated.  

The lawsuit alleges that the publication of the DOJ memorandum on
August 18, 2016 revealed the alleged fraud, causing the per share
price of the Company's stock to decline, thereby causing harm to
the putative class of shareholders.  

On December 18, 2017, the District Court denied the Company's
motion to dismiss.  On March 26, 2019, the District Court certified
the class proposed by the plaintiff.  The United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied the Company's appeal of the
class certification order on August 23, 2019.  

The case is currently in the fact discovery phase of litigation.

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

CoreCivic, Inc. is a diversified government solutions company with
the scale and experience needed to solve tough government
challenges in flexible, cost-effective ways. The company is based
in Nashville, Tennessee.


CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE: $3.2MM Deal in Gonzalez Gets Prelim. OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dale Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California has granted preliminary approval of the
proposed  class action settlement in the case, JOSE GONZALEZ,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated people,
Plaintiff, v. CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE, LLC and CORECIVIC, INC.,
Defendants. THOMAS RICHARDS, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated people, Plaintiff, v. CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE,
LLC, Defendant, Lead Case No. 1:16-cv-01891-DAD-JLT, Member Case
No. 1:17-cv-01094-DAD-JLT, (E.D. Ca.).

Defendants CoreCivic, Inc. and CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC
(collectively, the "defendants") operate correctional facilities in
California where plaintiffs Jose Gonzalez and Thomas Richards
(collectively, the "plaintiffs") were employed as correctional
officers.  Plaintiffs allege various wage-and-hour claims brought
on behalf of correctional officers and other workers at defendants'
private correctional facilities.

Gonzales previously moved for preliminary approval of settlement in
June 2018.  The Court denied approval in September 2018 and advised
the parties that significant changes would be necessary for the
settlement to get approved.

After making several revisions, Gonzalez moved a second time for
preliminary approval of settlement in July 2019.  

At a August 6, 2019 hearing on the pending motion, the Court
identified several issues with the settlement and directed the
parties to make the following changes to facilitate its approval:
(1) consolidate the Richards case with this action; (2) dismiss the
Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") claim in the Richards case;
(3) have plaintiff Richards join the pending motion; and (4) amend
the proposed Class Notice to accurately reflect the undersigned's
name.

The Court also identified several additional issues regarding the
settlement and, on March 3, 2020, directed the parties to file
briefing in response to its inquiries.  A full-text copy of the
Court's March 3, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/RzH1y3
from Leagle.com.

Upon review, the Court finds that the settlement is fair,
reasonable and adequate.  Accordingly, the Court granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement.

For settlement purposes, the parties agree to certification of the
following subclasses:

Subclass 1 - Non-compliant Meal and Rest Break Claims Class: All
non-exempt employees of Defendant in California during the Class  

Period.

Subclass 2 - On Duty Meal Period Agreement Class: All nonexempt
employees of Defendant in California during the Class Period who
worked at the California City Correctional Facility in the
position of Detention Officer, Senior Detention Officer or
Assistant Shift Supervisor who executed an On-Duty Meal Period
Agreement.

Subclass 3 - Off-the-Clock Security Measures Claims Class: All
non-exempt employees of Defendant in California during the Class
Period who worked at the California City Correctional Facility,
San Diego Detention Center and/or the Otay Mesa Detention Center.
(collectively, the "Class Members")

Subclass 1, being "all non-exempt employees of defendants in
California," is the overarching class; Subclasses 2 and 3 are
subsets of Subclass 1.

Under the proposed settlement, defendants agree to fund a
non-reversionary settlement of $3,200,000 (the "Gross Settlement
Fund").  The Gross Settlement Fund is allocated as follows:

Subclass 1 - Non-compliant Meal and Rest Break Claims Class: A
gross settlement amount of $1,950,000 for all non-exempt
employees of Defendant in California during the Class Period
(approximately 1070 total members). Based upon the proportional
relationship between this settlement fund and the gross
settlement, this class will be allocated 60.9375% of the Net
Settlement Fund.

Subclass 2 - On Duty Meal Period Agreement Class: A gross
settlement amount of $300,000 for all non-exempt employees of
Defendant in California during the Class Period who worked at the

California City Correctional Facility in the position of
Detention Officer, Senior Detention Officer or Assistant Shift
Supervisor who executed an On Duty Meal Period Agreement
(approximately 201 total members). Based upon the proportional
relationship between this settlement fund and the gross
settlement, this class will be allocated 9.375% of the Net
Settlement Fund.

Subclass 3 - Off-the-Clock Security Measures Claims Class: All
non-exempt employees of Defendant in California during the Class
Period who worked at the California City Correctional Facility,
San Diego Detention Center and/or the Otay Mesa Detention Center.

A gross settlement amount of $950,000 for approximately 686 total

members. This class will be allocated about 30% of the Net
Settlement Fund.

The following will be deducted from the Gross Settlement Fund: (1)
settlement administration costs not to exceed $15,500; (2)
attorneys' fees of one-third of the Gross Settlement Fund, or
$1,066,667; (3) attorneys' costs not to exceed $40,000; and (4)
incentive awards of $15,000 to plaintiff Jose Gonzalez and $10,000
to Thomas Richards.  Assuming those allocations are made in full,
the remaining amount (the "Net Settlement Fund"), worth $2,052,833,
will be available for distribution to the Settlement Class Members
on a non-claims and non-reversionary basis.

Individual Settlement Payments of class members will be calculated
and apportioned from the Net Settlement Fund based on the Gross
Earnings of each Participating Settlement Class Member during the
Settlement Class Period.

The Court further ruled that Plaintiffs' counsel, Peter R.
Dion-Kindem, Lonnie C. Blanchard, III, and Adrian R. Bacon, are
appointed as class counsel.

The named plaintiffs, Jose Gonzalez and Thomas Richards, are
appointed as class representatives.

The proposed notice and claim form are approved in accordance with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

Simpluris is approved as the settlement claims administrator.

The hearing for final approval of the proposed settlement is set
for September 28, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. before the Court, with the
motion for final approval of class action settlement to be filed at
least 28 days in advance of the final approval hearing, in
accordance with Local Rule 230(b).

The Court also approved the settlement implementation schedule
proposed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 26, 2020 Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3dNiCOC from Leagle.com.


CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Rahman Suit Seeks Return of Tuition and Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ahnaf Rahman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00592-DNH-ML
(N.D.N.Y., May 29, 2020), seeks the University's disgorgement and
return of the pro-rated portion of its tuition and mandatory fees,
proportionate to the amount of time that remained in the Spring
Semester 2020 when the University closed and switched to online
distance learning or, in the case of housing and dining, for any
members of the Class that moved out of University housing after
March 29, 2020, a prorated portion of the housing and dining fee
for the days left in the semester after they moved out.

On March 13, 2020, the University also stopped providing any of the
services or facilities the Mandatory Fees were intended to cover
because of the University's response to the Coronavirus Disease
2019 ("COVID-19") pandemic. The University's failure to provide the
services for which tuition and the Mandatory Fees were intended to
cover since March 13, 2020, is a breach of the contracts between
the University and the Plaintiff and the members of the Class and
is unjust, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff asserts that
the University only provided prorated refunds to students for
housing and dining, who vacated their campus housing on or before
March 29, 2020. Those students, who did not move out of University
housing until after March 29 should also be entitled to a prorated
refund.

In short, Plaintiff and the members of the Class have paid for
tuition for a first-rate education and an on-campus, in-person
educational experience, with all the appurtenant benefits offered
by a first-rate university, and were provided a materially
deficient and insufficient alternative, which alternative
constitutes a breach of the contracts entered into by the Plaintiff
and the Class with the University, the Plaintiff contends.

As to Mandatory Fees, the Plaintiff and the Class have paid fees
for services and facilities which are simply not being provided;
this failure also constitutes a breach of the contracts entered
into by the Plaintiff and the Class with the University, says the
complaint. For its Summer 2020 session, which is being conducted
online, the University will not charge any Health Fee.

The Plaintiff paid to attend the Spring 2020 semester at the
University as a full-time biomedical engineering student.

Cornell University is a private Ivy League research university in
Ithaca, New York, that was founded in 1865.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 322-9243
          Fax: (412) 231-0246
          Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                 eciolko@carlsonlynch.com
                 kiverson@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          John C. Cherundolo, Esq.
          CHERUNDOLO LAW FIRM, PLLC
          AXA Tower I, 15th Floor
          100 Madison Street
          Syracuse, NY 13202
          Phone: (315) 449-9500
          Fax: (315) 449-9804
          Email: jcherundolo@cheurndololawfirm.com


CORSO ITALIA: Williams Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Corso Italia Inc. The
case is styled as Pamela Williams, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Corso Italia Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-04158 (S.D.N.Y., May 31, 2020).

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

CORSO ITALIA produzioni artigianali develops and produces high
quality, commercially successful foods that offer freshness,
variety, convenience and ease of Spreparation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CROTHALL HEALTHCARE: Turner Sues Over Collection of Biometrics
--------------------------------------------------------------
DEPAUL TURNER, individually and on behalf of himself all others
similarly situated v. CROTHALL HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-03026 (N.D. Ill., May 21, 2020), alleges that the Defendant
illegally collected, stored and used the fingerprints and
associated personally identifying information of hundreds of its
current and former employees, who are being required to clock in
with their fingerprints.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant collected, stored and used
the data without first providing notice, obtaining informed written
consent or publishing data retention policies, in violation of the
Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Plaintiff contends that he
was require to "clock in" using his fingerprints during his tenure
of employment with the Defendant.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages and other legal and
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendant in direct violation of the BIPA.

Crothall provides diversified commercial services. The Company
offers housekeeping programs, laundry and linen, patient
transportation, facilities management, and clinical equipment
repairs, and environmental services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregg M. Barbakoff, Esq.
          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          Gregg M. Barbakoff, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726-1092
          Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
          E-mail: keith@keoghlaw.com
                  gbarbakoff@keoghlaw.com


D&G DIRECTIONAL: Fails to Properly Pay OT to Laborers, Verm Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
TROY VERM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. D&G DIRECTIONAL DRILLING, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 6:20-cv-00249 (E.D. Tex., May 11, 2020) is a collective
action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged willful
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a labor hand from
approximately January 6, 2020 through March 13, 2020.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff regularly worked over 40
hours per week. But, Defendant did not properly pay him overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 at 1.5 times his regular
rates of pay.

Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, declaratory judgment, attorneys' fees, costs and other
compensation pursuant to 29 U.S. Code Section 201.

D&G Directional Drilling, Inc. provides oil and gas companies such
as Kinder Morgan, Sempra Energy, and Price Gregory with non-exempt
laborers to assist in drilling and pipeline construction needs
throughout the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and –

          Joseph A. Fittapelli, Esq.
          Armando A. Ortiz, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Tel: (212) 300-0375
          Website: https://www.fslawfirm.com/legal-team


DESERT SUN PIZZA: Larson Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Larson, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. Desert Sun Pizza, LLC, NSFM Pizza, Inc. and NSFM Pizza
Utah, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-08127-MTL (D. Ariz., May 29, 2020), is
brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arizona
Employment Practices and Working Conditions law to recover unpaid
minimum wages owed to the Plaintiff.

The Defendants employ delivery drivers, who use their own
automobiles, to deliver pizzas and other food items to their
customers. Instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the
reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their
automobiles, the Defendants use a flawed method to determine
reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate
beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur
that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall
below the federal and Arizona minimum wages during some or all
workweeks, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Michael Larson has been employed by the Defendants since
May 2012 as a delivery driver at their Domino's store in Bullhead
City, Arizona.

The Defendants are commonly owned and operated entities, which
together operate a total of 28 Domino's franchise stores in
Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Nevada and California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Fischbach, Esq.
          Amy D. Sells, Esq.
          TIFFANY & BOSCO, P.A.
          2525 East Camelback Road
          Phoenix, AZ 85016-9240
          Phone: (602) 255-6036
          Fax: (602) 255-0103
          Email: wmf@tblaw.com
                 ads@tblaw.com

               - and -

          Jack D. McInnes, Esq.
          MCINNES LAW LLC
          1900 West 75th Street, Suite 220
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Phone: (913) 220-2488
          Fax: (913) 273-1671
          Email: jack@mcinnes-law.com


DEVA CONCEPTS: Przybylski Sues Over Hair Products' Side Effects
---------------------------------------------------------------
DENISE PRZYBYLSKI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEVA CONCEPTS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-03630-UA (S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act,
and Illinois's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, breach of
express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability,
unjust enrichment, and negligence.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated consumers who purchased DevaCurl hair care
products, alleges that the Defendant is engaged in false and
deceptive advertising and marketing of its DevaCurl products by
claiming that the products are made with nourishing, hydrating
ingredients and that every product undergoes rigorous testing to
ensure safety and compliance. However, in contrast to its claims
and representations, thousands of consumers, including the
Plaintiff and Class members, complained that they suffer scalp
irritation, hair shedding, hair thinning and breakage, and
significant hair loss to the point of balding when using the
products in accordance with the directions provided by the
Defendant.

Moreover, despite having actual or constructive knowledge of the
fact that the Defendant's products have injured consumers, the
Defendant has consistently and uniformly failed to provide any
warning to consumers regarding the aforementioned severe side
effects that can result and have resulted from use of its products.
Instead, the Defendant continues to assert online and elsewhere
that its products are purportedly gentle and beneficial to
curly-haired consumers.

Deva Concepts, LLC, doing business as DevaCurl, is a manufacturer
of hair care products located at 560 Broadway Suite 206 New York,
New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Alex R. Straus, Esq.
         GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
         16748 McCormick Street
         Los Angeles, CA 91436
         Telephone: (310) 459-9689
         E-mail: alex@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and –
         
         Rachel Soffin, 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: rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com
                 jonathan@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and –
         
         Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
         Carolina R. Taylor, Esq.
         Harper Todd Segui, Esq.
         WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
         900 W. Morgan Street
         Raleigh, NC 27603
         Telephone: (919) 600-5000
         Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
         E-mail: dan@whitfieldbryson.com
                 caroline@whitfieldbryson.com
                 harper@whitfieldbryson.com

DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Tokpa Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
TORPIN TOKPA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DISCOVER FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, case No. 4:20-cv-00144-RP-SBJ (S.D. Iowa, May 7, 2020)
is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its
alleged willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff received calls from
Defendant's telephone number (614) 758-2344 using an automatic
telephone dialing system, including two calls on March 20, 2020.
Plaintiff did not provide prior express written consent to
Defendant to make such unlawful calls, which is allegedly part of
Defendant's pattern of practice of calling consumers on their
cellular telephones using an autodialer and prerecorded
solicitation calls.

The complaint asserts that Defendant did not only invade the
personal privacy of Plaintiff, but also intentionally and
repeatedly violated the TCPA.

Plaintiff seeks treble damages, statutory damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive relief prohibiting such
violations of the TCPA by Defendant in the future.

Discover Financial Services, Inc.  is an American financial
services company that owns and operates Discover Bank, which offers
checking and savings accounts, personal loans, home equity loans,
student loans and credit cards. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Larew, Esq.
          LAREW LAW OFFICE
          504 E. Bloomington St.
          Iowa City, IA 52245
          Tel: (319) 337-7079
          Fax: (319) 337-7082
          Email: james.larew@larewlawoffice.com

                - and -

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


DISH NETWORK: Second Appeal Filed in Krakauer Suit
--------------------------------------------------
DISH Network Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that DISH Network L.L.C. has
filed a second notice of appeal in the the "Krakauer Action",
relating to the district court's orders on the claims
administration process to identify, and disburse funds to,
individual class members.

A portion of the alleged telemarketing violations by an independent
third-party retailer at issue in the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
Action are also the subject of a certified class action filed
against DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of North Carolina (the "Krakauer Action").  

Following a five-day trial, on January 19, 2017, a jury in that
case found that the independent third-party retailer was acting as
DISH Network L.L.C.'s agent when it made the 51,119 calls at issue
in that case, and that class members are eligible to recover $400
in damages for each call made in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).  

On May 22, 2017, the Court ruled that the violations were willful
and knowing, and trebled the damages award to $1,200 for each call
made in violation of TCPA.  

On April 5, 2018, the Court entered a $61 million judgment in favor
of the class.  DISH Network L.L.C. appealed and on May 30, 2019,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed.


On October 15, 2019, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a petition for writ
of certiorari, requesting that the United States Supreme Court
agree to hear a further appeal but it denied the petition on
December 16, 2019.  

On January 21, 2020, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a second notice of
appeal relating to the district court’s orders on the claims
administration process to identify, and disburse funds to,
individual class members.  

The company's total accrual related to the Krakauer Action at
December 31, 2018 was $61 million, which was recorded in prior
periods and was included in "Other accrued expenses" on the
company's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. During the third
quarter 2019, the judgment was paid to the court.  

DISH Network said, "We intend to vigorously defend these cases.  We
cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these
suits.

DISH Network Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides
pay-TV services in the United States. The company operates in two
segments, Pay-TV and Wireless. DISH Network Corporation was founded
in 1980 and is headquartered in Englewood, Colorado.


DISH NETWORK: Still Defends Hallandale Police & Firefighters' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
DISH Network Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, City of Hallandale Beach
Police Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Trust v.
Ergen, et al., Case No. A-19-797799-B.

On July 2, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a
purported EchoStar stockholder in the District Court of Clark
County, Nevada under the caption City of Hallandale Beach Police
Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Trust v. Ergen, et
al., Case No. A-19-797799-B.  

The lawsuit named as defendants Mr. Ergen, the other members of the
EchoStar Board, as well as EchoStar, certain of its officers, DISH
Network and certain of DISH Network's and EchoStar's affiliates.  

Plaintiff alleges, among other things, breach of fiduciary duties
in approving the transactions contemplated under the Master
Transaction Agreement for inadequate consideration and pursuant to
an unfair and conflicted process, and that EchoStar, DISH Network
and certain other defendants aided and abetted such breaches.  

In the operative First Amended Complaint, filed on October 11,
2019, the plaintiff dropped as defendants the EchoStar board
members other than Mr. Ergen.  

Plaintiff seeks equitable relief, including the issuance of
additional DISH Network Class A Common Stock, monetary relief and
other costs and disbursements, including attorneys' fees.

DISH Network said, "We intend to vigorously defend this case, but
cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of this
suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or
damages."

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

DISH Network Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides
pay-TV services in the United States. The company operates in two
segments, Pay-TV and Wireless. DISH Network Corporation was founded
in 1980 and is headquartered in Englewood, Colorado.


DON FILIPPO: Argueta et al. Seek Proper Pay for Delivery Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN CARLOS RAMIREZ ARGUETA and SANTOS CASTELLANOS VELAZQUEZ,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, -against- DON FILIPPO RESTAURANT CORP. (D/B/A DON
FILIPPO PIZZERIA & RESTAURANT), PHILIP ARCARA, SALVATORE DOE , and
CARLOS DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04216 (S.D.N.Y., June 2,
2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of
themselves, and other similarly situated individuals, for unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law and the "spread of
hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of
Labor including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and costs.

Plaintiffs were employed as delivery workers at Defendants'
restaurant in New York.

Don Filippo Restaurant Corp., d/b/a Don Filippo Pizzeria &
Restaurant, owns, operates, or controls an Italian Pizza
Restaurant, located in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

DUFFY'S OF NORTH: Faces Stathis Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Stathis, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. DUFFY'S OF NORTH MIAMI BEACH, INC., d/b/a DUFFY'S
SPORTS GRILL, a Florida Profit Corporation, Case No.
1:20-cv-22247-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 29, 2020), is brought for unpaid
minimum wages, liquidated damages, and other relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff typically worked 35 to 45
hours per week. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff according to what
is commonly referred to as the "tip credit." Throughout the
Plaintiff's employment the Defendant failed to properly notify the
Plaintiff of the provisions of FLSA. The Defendant required the
Plaintiff to share her tips with other workers (through a "tip
pool"). Specifically, the Defendant required the Plaintiff to tip
out another "back of house," non-tipped employee who was a
dedicated silverware roller.

Servers should not share tips with back of the house employees, the
Plaintiff contends. As a result, the Defendants were not entitled
to utilize the FLSA's tip credit provision to credit the
Plaintiff's tips towards a portion of the minimum wage obligations,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a server from May 2017
through May 2019.

The Defendant owns and operates a restaurant known as Duffy's
Sports Grill.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlos Leach, Esq.
          Bruce A. Mount, Esq.
          THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
          1950 Lee Rd., Suite 213
          Winter Park, FL 32789
          Phone: (407) 574-4999
          Facsimile: (833) 423-5864
          Email: cleach@theleachfirm.com
                 bmount@theleachfirm.com
                 yhernandez@theleachfirm.com


E T & K FOODS: Underpays Restockers, Postrero Claims
----------------------------------------------------
The case, FELIPE POSTRERO, individually and in behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. E T & K FOODS INC. and
THOMAS KILER, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-02141 (E.D.N.Y., May 12, 2020) arises from Defendants'
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Minimum Wage Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants approximately from 2008 until
January 2018 as a restocker.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated
former and current employees of Defendant worked more than forty
hours each workweek and a spread of hours more than ten each day.
However, Defendant willfully failed to pay them the applicable
minimum wage and overtime compensation of one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay, and spread-of-hours compensation.

The complaint asserts that Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff
and the party plaintiffs with a statement of wage payment, and to
post or keep posted notices explaining the minimum wage rights of
employees under the FLSA and the NY Labor Law.

Tomas Kiler is the owner, shareholder, officer, and manager of E T
& K Foods.

E T & K Foods is a supermarket. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EBAY INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Price Gouging
-------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that e-commerce giant
eBay Inc. is the latest retailer to face allegations of price
gouging high-demand products during the COVID-19 pandemic.

On May 4, a class action alleged that eBay, despite vowing to curb
price gouging on its site, continues to encourage the practice by
charging a "final value fee" based on the price of the product
sold. Jeanette Mercado, a California driver for Lyft and Uber who
bought a two-pack of N95 masks on eBay for $23.98, with the same
product selling at other national retailers for no more than $8.99,
filed the suit in federal court in the Northern District of
California.

"While eBay publicly states that it is trying to stem the use of
eBay's platform by sellers who have charged, and continue to
charge, gouging rates to consumers across the country, eBay's very
business model not only allows but encourages such price gouging,
to eBay's financial benefit," says the complaint.

Her attorney, Adam Moskowitz, of The Moskowitz Law Firm in Coral
Gables, Florida, filed the case along with AK Law in Orange,
California; Sonn Law Group in Aventura, Florida; and Bonnett,
Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint in Phoenix.

"We know eBay is now trying to catch up and prevent these thousands
of daily horrible instances of price gouging, but they set up this
pricing structure which encouraging the worst in our society to
take advantage of people, so they need to do more or accept the
responsibilities and penalties that our laws have established as
consequence," Moskowitz said in an email.

An eBay representative did not respond to a request for comment.

State and federal prosecutors across the country have cracked down
on price gougers, including a New York resident in April who was
the first charged by federal prosecutors for violating the Defense
Production Act.

The eBay suit cites the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and
California's Unfair Competition Law, which includes violations of
California's anti-price gouging statute. That statute prohibits
raising prices of goods and services more than 10% in the 30 days
following a governmental declared emergency.

On Feb. 3, California's Santa Clara County, where eBay has
headquarters in San Jose, California, declared a state of emergency
due to COVID-19. California Gov. Gavin Newsom declared a statewide
emergency March 4, which he extended to Sept. 4. The suit seeks a
nationwide class of consumers who purchased products on eBay at 10%
markups since Feb. 4.

On March 5, eBay claimed that it had banned from its site any N95
and other surgical masks, hand sanitizers, disinfecting wipes,
toilet paper, baby formula, baby wipes, tampons and diapers, the
suit says. But the complaint has recent images from eBay's website
of a pack of three N95 masks for $585, a lot of five Lysol spray
cans for $227.50 and a 12-mega roll of Cottonelle toilet paper for
$49.90.

"EBay's purported crack-down on unlawful sales on its platform is
deliberately pretextual, undertaken with 'a wink and a nod' to the
continued daily sales of tens of thousands essential products at
price-gouging prices," the suit says. [GN]


EQUITABLE HOLDINGS: Brach Family Foundation's Suit Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Equitable Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Brach Family Foundation,
Inc. v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company.

In February 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York entitled Brach Family
Foundation, Inc. v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. This
lawsuit is a putative class action brought on behalf of all owners
of universal life (UL) policies subject to Equitable Life's COI
rate increase.

In early 2016, Equitable Life raised COI rates for certain UL
policies issued between 2004 and 2007, which had both issue ages 70
and above and a current face value amount of $1 million and above.


A second putative class action was filed in Arizona in 2017 and
consolidated with the Brach matter.

The current consolidated amended class action complaint alleges the
following claims: breach of contract; misrepresentations by
Equitable Life in violation of Section 4226 of the New York
Insurance Law; violations of New York General Business Law Section
349; and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, and
the California Elder Abuse Statute.

Plaintiffs seek: (a) compensatory damages, costs, and, pre- and
post-judgment interest; (b) with respect to their claim concerning
Section 4226, a penalty in the amount of premiums paid by the
plaintiffs and the putative class; and (c) injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees in connection with their statutory claims.

Five other federal actions challenging the COI rate increase are
also pending against Equitable Life and have been coordinated with
the Brach action for the purposes of pre-trial activities.

They contain allegations similar to those in the Brach action as
well as additional allegations for violations of various states'
consumer protection statutes and common law fraud. Three actions
are also pending against Equitable Life in New York state court.

Equitable Life is vigorously defending each of these matters.

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

Equitable Holdings, Inc. operates as a diversified financial
services company worldwide. It operates through four segments:
Individual Retirement, Group Retirement, Investment Management and
Research, and Protection Solutions. The company was founded in 1859
and is based in New York, New York. AXA Equitable Holdings, Inc. is
a subsidiary of AXA S.A.

On January 14, 2020, the company announced its plans to rebrand as
"Equitable" and to discontinue the use of the "AXA" brand. In
connection with this rebranding, the company removed "AXA" from its
legal entity name, which is now Equitable Holdings, Inc.


EQUITABLE HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend O'Donnell Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Equitable Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that  the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Richard T. O'Donnell, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AXA
Equitable Life Insurance Company.

In August 2015, a lawsuit was filed in Connecticut Superior Court,
Judicial Division of New Haven entitled Richard T. O'Donnell, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AXA
Equitable Life Insurance Company.

This lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of all persons
who purchased variable annuities from Equitable Life, which were
subsequently subjected to the volatility management strategy and
who suffered injury as a result thereof.

Plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of contract alleging that
Equitable Life implemented the volatility management strategy in
violation of applicable law. Plaintiff seeks an award of damages
individually and on a classwide basis, and costs and disbursements,
including attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs.

In November 2015, the Connecticut Federal District Court
transferred this action to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

In March 2017, the Southern District of New York granted Equitable
Life's motion to dismiss the complaint. In April 2017, the
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.

In April 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit reversed the trial court's decision with instructions to
remand the case to Connecticut state court.

In September 2018, the Second Circuit issued its mandate, following
Equitable Life's notification to the court that it would not file a
petition for writ of certiorari.

The case was transferred in December 2018 and is pending in
Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford.

Equitable Holdings said, "We are vigorously defending this
matter."

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

Equitable Holdings, Inc. operates as a diversified financial
services company worldwide. It operates through four segments:
Individual Retirement, Group Retirement, Investment Management and
Research, and Protection Solutions. The company was founded in 1859
and is based in New York, New York. AXA Equitable Holdings, Inc. is
a subsidiary of AXA S.A.

On January 14, 2020, the company announced its plans to rebrand as
"Equitable" and to discontinue the use of the "AXA" brand. In
connection with this rebranding, the company removed "AXA" from its
legal entity name, which is now Equitable Holdings, Inc.


FACEBOOK INC: 9th Cir. Upholds Approval of Campbell Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MATTHEW CAMPBELL; MICHAEL HURLEY, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v. FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant-Appellee, v. ANNA W. ST. JOHN,
Objector-Appellant, Case No. 17-16873 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's
approval of the settlement.

Objecting class member Anna St. John ("Objector") appeals from the
district court's approval of a settlement between Facebook and a
nationwide class of its users who alleged that Facebook routinely
captured, read, and used for several purposes the website links
included in users' private messages without their consent, and that
these practices violated federal and California privacy laws.  

After years of litigation that included lengthy discovery, four
mediation sessions, and Facebook's failed attempts to convince the
district court to dismiss the case or deny class certification, the
parties reached a settlement.  Facebook acknowledged in the
settlement agreement that it had already made several changes to
the practices challenged in the action, and it agreed to add a
disclosure to a Help Center page on its website for a year.  The
settlement agreement also provided that the class counsel could
apply for court approval of up to $3.89 million in attorney's fees
and costs, and that Facebook would not take any position on that
application.  The district court, over the Objector's challenge,
found the settlement to be fair and approved it.  The district
court also granted in full the class counsel's request for $3.89
million in fees and costs.

Facebook operates one of the largest social media platforms in the
world, with over one billion active users.  About seven in 10
adults in the United States use Facebook.  Facebook has a messaging
function on its platform that allows users to send electronic
messages to one or more other users.  It explains on its website
that these messages are "private" because their contents and
history are viewable only by the sender and his or her chosen
recipients.

In December 2013, Campbell and Hurley filed a putative class action
against Facebook.  The Plaintiffs alleged that Facebook scanned
their private messages looking for links to web pages, also known
as URLs, contained in those messages.  They alleged that if a
message contained a URL, Facebook would collect that information
and use it in a variety of ways without the user's consent.

The main allegations concerned how Facebook integrated these
private message URL shares into a feature that enabled third
parties to show on their own websites a count of how many Facebook
users had "Liked" the pages on their sites—a proxy for those
pages' popularity. Plaintiffs alleged that Facebook would increase
a page's "Like" counter not only when a Facebook user affirmatively
pressed a "Like" button, but also when the user sent a private
message containing a URL corresponding to the page, regardless of
what the message said about the URL.  They also alleged that
Facebook used the private message URL data that it was collecting
to help build profiles of individual users that could facilitate,
among other things, targeted advertising on Facebook.

The Plaintiffs contended that Facebook's handling of their messages
amounted to interception and use of electronic communications in
violation of Title I of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
and the California Invasion of Privacy Act.  They also alleged that
it amounted to an unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practice
under the California Unfair Competition Law.  The Plaintiffs sought
damages as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.

The district court granted certification of an injunctive and
declaratory relief class.  The certified class encompassed: All
natural-person Facebook users aside from those excluded through
standard carveout provisions located within the United States who
have sent, or received from a Facebook user, private messages that
included URLs in their content (and from which Facebook generated a
URL attachment), from December 2011 up through the date of the
certification of the class.

The parties expended significant effort to try to settle the case.
In December 2016 -- almost two years into the parties' extensive
discovery -- the parties reached an agreement in principle during
their fourth mediation session.  A few months later, the parties
executed a written settlement agreement, which they then submitted
to the district court for approval.

Facebook agreed as part of the settlement to display for one year a
new twenty-two-word disclosure in the Help Center portion of its
site.  The agreement did not provide for monetary compensation to
the class members other than the two named Plaintiffs, each of whom
was permitted to apply to the court for an award not to exceed
$5,000.  In exchange, the class members were required to release
their declaratory and injunctive relief claims.  The agreement
provided that the class counsel could request that the court award
attorney's fees and costs of up to $3.89 million.  The district
court granted preliminary approval of the settlement.  

Objector Anna St. John, who is a member of the class and an
attorney at the Center for Class Action Fairness, filed an
objection to the settlement.  Following a final fairness hearing,
the district court approved the settlement after evaluating the
settlement using the factors outlined in Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.
The Court also granted the full $3.89 million in attorney's fees
and costs for which class counsel had applied.  

In addition to deeming the amount "reasonable" in light of the
results obtained for the class and the counsel's substantial
investment of time and resources on a contingency basis, the court
determined, based on an assessment of the factors listed in In re
Bluetooth Headset Products Liability Litigation, that that portion
of the settlement agreement did not indicate collusion among the
negotiating parties at the expense of the absent class members.

Objector timely appealed the district court's approval of the
settlement.  Addressing the Objector's appeal from the district
court's approval of the settlement, the Ninth Circuit first
considers whether the Plaintiffs had standing to bring the action
and whether it later became moot.  The Ninth Circuit concludes that
the district court had jurisdiction, and, accordingly, that the
Ninth Court has jurisdiction to evaluate the fairness of the
settlement.  Second, the Ninth Circuit rejects on the merits the
Objector's contentions that the district court abused its
discretion by approving the settlement.  

Among other things, the Ninth Circuit finds that the combination of
continuing harm plus likelihood of future harm was sufficient for
the Plaintiffs to have standing to seek injunctive relief.  To be
sure, Facebook apparently did stop using data from private messages
in its Recommendations Feed after the case was filed, and did not
resume either that use of URL data or the already-stopped uses of
"Like" counting and third-party sharing at any time between the
action's filing and its settlement.  But the question whether
Facebook's conduct since the Plaintiffs filed the action made it
unlikely that the Plaintiffs would again be injured by the
challenged practices presents a separate issue: whether their
challenges had become moot.

There are important differences between standing and mootness,
motivated in part by the wastefulness of abandoning cases as moot
that have been brought and litigated, often (as in the case) for
years.  Among the differences between standing and mootness is
that, to show that the Plaintiffs' claims had become moot, Facebook
would have needed to satisfy the formidable burden of showing that
it is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not
reasonably be expected to recur.  Neither Facebook nor Objector has
suggested that Facebook could have carried that heavy burden, nor
does the record demonstrate that it could have.

The Ninth Circuit also finds that the Objector's contentions focus
instead on only a subset of the considerations that were relevant
to the district court's holistic assessment of the settlement's
fairness.  First, relying primarily on the Appellate Court's
decision in Koby v. ARS National Services, Inc., the Objector
argues that the settlement should not have been approved because it
provides the absent class members with "worthless injunctive
relief."   Second, relying primarily on the Appellate Court's
decision in Bluetooth, Objector argues that the settlement contains
several "warning signs" that indicate that class counsel have
allowed pursuit of their own self-interests to infect the
negotiations.

The Ninth Circuit rejects each of these arguments.  First, given
how little the class could have expected to obtain if it had
pursued claims further based on the facts alleged, (and,
correspondingly, how little it gave up in the release), it was not
unreasonable that the settlement gave the class something of modest
value.  Second, the evidence is insufficient to prove that the
class would have gotten meaningfully more injunctive or declaratory
relief if Facebook had merely been permitted to oppose the class
counsel's fee application, which Facebook already knew would be
requesting substantially less than what the class counsel
represented would fully compensate them.

For the foregoing reasons, the Ninth Circuit upheld the district
court's approval of the settlement.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's March 3, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/lrQKIe from Leagle.com.

Matthew Campbell, Plaintiff, represented by David Taylor Rudolph --

drudolph@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein, LLP.

Matthew Campbell, Plaintiff, represented by David F. Slade --
dslade@cbplaw.com -- Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, James Allen
Carney -- acarney@cbplaw.com -- Carney Bates Pulliam, PLLC, Jeremy
A. Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz Grossman
Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP, Joseph Henry Bates, III --
jhbates@cbplaw.com -- Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, Lesley F.
Portney -- lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Pomerantz, LLP, Melissa Ann
Gardner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Nicholas Diamand,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, Rachel Geman, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & Michael W. Sobol, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

Michael Hurley, Plaintiff, represented by David Taylor Rudolph,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein, LLP, David F. Slade, Carney
Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, James Allen Carney, Carney Bates Pulliam,
PLLC, Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom &
Gross LLP, Joseph Henry Bates, III, Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC,
Lesley F. Portney, Pomerantz, LLP, Melissa Ann Gardner, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Nicholas Diamand, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann and Bernstein LLP, Rachel Geman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP & Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP.

David Shadpour, Plaintiff, represented by Jon A. Tostrud -- --
jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com -- Tostrud Law Group, P.C., Lionel Z.
Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
David Taylor Rudolph, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein, LLP,
David F. Slade, Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, James Allen Carney,
Carney Bates Pulliam, PLLC, Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz
Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP, Joseph Henry Bates, III,
Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, Lesley F. Portney, Pomerantz, LLP,
Melissa Ann Gardner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP,
Nicholas Diamand, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, Rachel
Geman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & Michael W. Sobol,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

Facebook Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher Chorba --
cchorba@gibsondunn.com -- Crutcher LLP, Joshua Aaron Jessen --
jjessen@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Ashley Marie
Rogers -- arogers@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP &
Priyanka Rajagopalan.

Anna St. John, Objector, represented by William Isaac Chamberlain
-- will.chamberlain@cei.org -- Competitive Enterprise Institute.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: 401(k) Plan-Related Suit v. Reliance Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7,
2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that a
non-jury trial has just been conducted in the class action suit
against Reliance Trust Company related to its 401(k) Plan and a
decision in the case is expected in the second half of 2020.

Reliance Trust Company ("Reliance"), the Company's subsidiary, is
named as a defendant in a class action arising out of its provision
of services as the discretionary trustee for a 401(k) Plan (the
"Plan") for one of its customers.

On behalf of the Plan participants, plaintiffs in the action, which
was filed in 2015, seek damages and attorneys' fees, as well as
equitable relief, against Reliance and the Plan's sponsor and
record-keeper for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Reliance is vigorously defending the action and believes it has
meritorious defenses.

Reliance contends that no breaches of fiduciary duty or prohibited
transactions occurred and that Plan participants suffered no
damages.

A non-jury trial of the case was conducted in March 2020. At trial,
Plaintiffs sought damages of approximately $127 million against all
defendants. A decision in the case is expected in the second half
of 2020.

Fidelity National said, "While we are unable at this time to
estimate more precisely the potential loss or range of loss because
of unresolved questions of fact and law, we believe that the
ultimate resolution of the matter will not have a material impact
on our financial condition. Because we do not believe a liability
for this action is probable, we have not recorded a liability for
it."

Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. operates as a
financial services technology company in the United States and
internationally. It operates through Integrated Financial Solutions
and Global Financial Solutions segments. The company was founded in
1968 and is headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida.


FIRST STUDENT: Stewart FLSA Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Stewart, Rebecca Howard and Philip McCall, for themselves
and all others similarly situated v. FIRST STUDENT, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-02556 (E.D. Pa., May 31, 2020), is brought for violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act of 1968, the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law,
the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act,
the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage Payment
Law.

The lawsuit challenges common work assignment, timekeeping and
compensation policies and practices that cause the Defendants'
drivers to be denied both regular and overtime wage payments due
for work they performed with the Defendant's knowledge and for the
Defendant's benefit.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs all observed that the
hours reflected on their paychecks did not match up with the number
of hours they were working. From time to time over the term of
their employment, the Plaintiffs all continued to raise issues
about how First Student tracked their time and paid for less than
their actual time worked with various supervisors. The Plaintiffs
have all spoken to many other First Student Drivers about being
paid for less than all of their work time. The Plaintiffs believe
that the Company's failure to pay wages for all hours worked is the
"number-one problem" First Student Drivers complain about and that
many Drivers have left the Company because they were not being paid
for all of their work.

The Plaintiffs worked as a full-time, hourly First Student Bus and
Charter Driver for the Defendant.

The Defendant's business includes providing CDL-licensed Drivers to
perform both school bus and charter transportation services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David J. Cohen, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          604 Spruce Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Phone: (215) 873-4836
          Email: dcohen@stephanzouras.com

               - and -

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 233-1550
          Email: jzouras@stephanzouras.com


FITBIT INC: California Securities Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------
Fitbit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended April 4, 2020, that a trial court has entered judgment after
plaintiffs in the consolidated class action suit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California indicated
that they did not intend to file an amended complaint.

On November 1, 2018, a putative securities class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended arising out of alleged
materially false and misleading statements about the Company's
guidance for the fourth quarter of 2016 and full fiscal year 2016
that was provided during the third and fourth quarters of 2016.

On November 15, 2018, a second putative securities class action was
filed in the same court alleging similar claims against the same
defendants.

On April 25, 2019, the two actions were consolidated, and a
consolidated amended class action complaint was filed on June 24,
2019. The consolidated complaint also alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act against the Company and
certain officers relating to the Company's 2016 guidance, on behalf
of a putative class of stockholders who purchased Fitbit stock from
August 2, 2016 through January 30, 2017.

Plaintiffs seek class certification, unspecified compensatory
damages, and reasonable costs and expenses including attorneys'
fees.

On August 23, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. On March
23, 2020, the court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to
amend.

On April 28, 2020, the Court entered judgment after plaintiffs
indicated that they did not intend to file an amended complaint.

Fitbit, Inc., incorporated on March 26, 2007, is a provider of
health and fitness devices. The Company's platform combines
connected health and fitness devices with software and services,
including an online dashboard and mobile applications, data
analytics, motivational and social tools, personalized insights and
virtual coaching through customized fitness plans and interactive
workouts. Its platform includes family of wearable connected health
and fitness trackers. The company is based in San Francisco,
California.


FITBIT INC: Fee Award in Sleep Tracking Device Suit Appealed
------------------------------------------------------------
Fitbit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended April 4, 2020, that the company has taken an appeal from a
court order awarding $6.9 million in attorneys' fees and $0.2
million in costs in the Sleep Tracking Device-related suit.

On May 8, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging that the sleep tracking function available in
certain trackers does not perform as advertised.

Plaintiffs sought class certification, restitution, unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, and reasonable costs and
expenses including attorneys' fees.

On January 31, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
granted on November 20, 2017. On April 20, 2017, the Company filed
a motion for summary judgment, which the court denied on December
8, 2017.

The parties subsequently agreed to a settlement, and on August 1,
2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
class action settlement.

At the hearing on September 13, 2018, the court denied preliminary
settlement approval without prejudice and ordered revised
settlement papers be filed. On November 29, 2018, the court granted
preliminary settlement approval and the final approval hearing was
scheduled for August 1, 2019.

On May 10, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a request for attorneys' fees
and expenses. The Company opposed that request. At the hearing on
August 1, 2019, the court asked the parties to submit a re-notice
plan in order to achieve a higher claims rate. On the fee request,
the court offered the plaintiffs alternative conditions, and on
August 18, 2019, the plaintiffs filed their fee election, opting
for a 90% reduction of challenged fees and expenses.

The re-notice plan was approved on October 16, 2019, and the
re-notice resulted in approximately 80,000 more claims, for a total
of approximately 141,000 claims. The court granted final approval
of the settlement on February 6, 2020, in an amount that is not
material to the Company.

On March 20, 2020, the Court ruled on plaintiffs' request for
attorneys' fees and costs and awarded $6.9 million in attorneys'
fees and $0.2 million in costs. On April 20, 2020, the Company
filed a notice of appeal.

Fitbit, Inc., incorporated on March 26, 2007, is a provider of
health and fitness devices. The Company's platform combines
connected health and fitness devices with software and services,
including an online dashboard and mobile applications, data
analytics, motivational and social tools, personalized insights and
virtual coaching through customized fitness plans and interactive
workouts. Its platform includes family of wearable connected health
and fitness trackers. The company is based in San Francisco,
California.


GEORGIA: Court Junks Martinez Discrimination Suit
-------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Waycross
Division, issued an Order granting Defendants' Motions for Summary
Judgment in the case captioned HARLEM MARTINEZ, Plaintiff, v.
WARDEN HILTON HALL; GREG DOZIER; ASST. WARDEN RICK STONE; LINDA
WALKER; and TIMOTHY WARD, Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:17-cv-119,
(S.D. Ga.).

Plaintiff has been a state prisoner at Coffee Correctional Facility
(CCF) in Georgia since March 2015.  In his Amended Complaint,
Plaintiff asserted claims for violations of his rights to equal
protection and access to the courts and for conspiracy.  Plaintiff
also sought to bring the claims on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals.  Plaintiff asserts a claim under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983, alleging Defendants violated his equal protection
rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.  Plaintiff, who only speaks
and reads Spanish, alleges a discriminatory prison policy has
denied him access to Spanish-language legal materials.  The CCF law
library contains only one bilingual law book: West's Spanish to
English Law Dictionary.  

CCF is operated by CoreCivic, Inc., a private prison facility.
Regarding the prison library, CoreCivic prisons in Georgia follow
CoreCivic policies rather than Georgia Department of Corrections'
policies.

In their Summary Judgment Motion, Defendants collectively raise
seven arguments: (1) Plaintiff's alleged discrimination was not on
account of his membership in a suspect class, thus, CCF's policy
merits only rational basis review, and under such standard,
Plaintiff's claim fails; (2) Plaintiff cannot prove Defendants
intentionally discriminated against him; (3) Plaintiff, as a
non-English speaker, cannot prove he has been treated differently
than similarly situated inmates; (4) Plaintiff fails to assert a
causal relationship between Defendants' actions and any violation
of Plaintiff's equal protection rights; (5) Plaintiff cannot
demonstrate any injury due to the absence of Spanish-language
materials; (6) Plaintiff is precluded from monetary relief under
the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and; (7) Defendant Dozier
is entitled to qualified immunity.  

Plaintiff claims the CCF law library policy that the library
contain exclusively English-language materials, save one
Spanish-language legal book, constitutes discrimination on the
basis of his race.  However, even viewing the facts of the case in
the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Plaintiff cannot show that
Defendants have violated the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment, the Court opines.

The Court notes that the policy Plaintiff challenges concerns only
the language of the materials maintained in the CCF library; it
does not make any distinction based on race or national origin.

Plaintiff does not dispute there is a rational basis for CCF's
policy; he argues only that strict scrutiny applies.  That may be
because Defendants can easily demonstrate a rational basis for
CCF's library policy.  As Defendants assert in a sworn affidavit,
Lexis/Nexis, Westlaw, and the Jailhouse Lawyer's Handbook are only
available in English, not Spanish.  Because no comparable,
bilingual legal research alternatives exist, Defendants articulate
a rational basis to believe CCF's alleged library policy exists to
serve the most prisoners within the reality of a limited library
budget.

Thus, CCF's policy survives rational basis review, and Plaintiff's
equal protection claim fails, the Court opines.

Finally, Plaintiff's equal protection fails because he has not
established that he was treated differently from similarly situated
prisoners on account of some form of invidious discrimination tied
to a constitutionally protected interest, the Court notes.   

First, the Lexis/Nexis legal research program offered at CCF, and
many other prisons, is unavailable in Spanish, as is a translation
application for existing English materials.  Second, popular legal
research alternatives are similarly unavailable in Spanish,
including Westlaw and the Jailhouse Lawyer's Handbook. Third,
Plaintiff admits he has been permitted to work on his case with
other inmates, who have translated legal materials for him.

Finally, Plaintiff admits CoreCivic made translation services
available to him by introducing into evidence a memorandum from the
Warden announcing: English to Spanish translation assistance is now
available for the Law Library.  The facts show the lack of
Spanish-language legal materials at CCF is a result of
circumstances largely beyond Defendants' control and that Plaintiff
has been provided opportunities to address the lack of such
materials.

Plaintiff has failed to establish Defendants intended to
discriminate against him, the Court finds.

Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendants' Motions for Summary
Judgment and dismisses Plaintiff's Complaint.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 5, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/rtk3gla from Leagle.com.

Harlem Martinez, Plaintiff, pro se.

Warden Hilton Hall, Assistant Warden Rick Stone & Linda Walker,
Defendants, represented by Joshua K. Brooks, Georgia Attorney
General's Office & Stephen E. Curry, Curry Law Firm, 3506
Professional Cir. Augusta, GA 30907.

Greg Dozier, in his individual capacity & Timothy Ward, In his
capacity as Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Corrections,
Defendants, represented by Joshua K. Brooks, Georgia Attorney
General's Office.


GOOGLE LLC: Illegally Tracks, Collects Browsing Data, Brown Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CHASOM BROWN, MARIA NGUYEN, and WILLIAM BYATT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v.
GOOGLE LLC and ALPHABET INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-03664
(N.D. Cal., June 2, 2020), arises from the Defendants' violations
of federal wiretapping laws and Invasion of Privacy Act.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly-situated Google subscribers whose internet use was
tracked by Google between June 1, 2016 and the present, allege that
the Defendants are engaged in unlawful and intentional interception
and collection of individuals' confidential communications without
their consent. The Plaintiffs claim that Google deceives consumers
by telling them that launching a browser in private browsing mode
will prevent Google from tracking their personal information and
browsing history. However, in reality, Google can still track,
collect, and identify their browsing data in real time even when
they browse the web privately.

Google LLC is a technology company with a principal place of
business located at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View,
California.

Alphabet Inc. is the parent holding company of Google LLC with
principal place of business located at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway,
Mountain View, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
          
         Mark C. Mao, Esq.
         Sean P. Rodriguez, Esq.
         Alexander J. Konik, Esq.
         BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
         44 Montgomery St., 41st Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Telephone: (415) 293-6800
         Facsimile: (415) 293-6899
         E-mail: mmao@bsfllp.com
                 srodriguez@bsfllp.com
                 akonik@bsfllp.com

                 - and –
         
         James Lee, Esq.
         Rossana Baeza, Esq.
         BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
         100 SE 2nd St., 28th Floor
         Miami, FL 33131
         Telephone: (305) 539-8400
         Facsimile: (303) 539-1307
         E-mail: jlee@bsfllp.com
                 rbaeza@bsfllp.com

GRACO CHILDREN'S: Carder Sues Over Booster Seats' Deceptive Labels
------------------------------------------------------------------
KELLIE CARDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GRACO CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS, INC. and NEWELL
BRANDS DTC, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00137-RWS (N.D. Ga.,
June 2, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
fraudulent concealment, breach of express warranties, breach of
implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Georgia
Fair Business Practices Act.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated consumers, alleges that the Defendants are
engaged in deceptive marketing and advertising of the TurboBooster
and Affix booster seats. Graco labels and markets the Booster Seats
in the United States as safe for children as light as 30 pounds and
as young as three years old. Graco also claims that the booster
seats are tested to provide protection to children from side-impact
accidents. However, 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, does not publish or share internal crash
test results, and omit material safety information to consumers.

Graco Children's Products, Inc. is a designer, manufacturer, and
seller of booster seats with principal place of business located at
6655 Peachtree Dunwoody Road, Atlanta, Georgia. It is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Newell Brands DTC, Inc.

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

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

                 - and –
         
         Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
         Martha A. Geer, Esq.
         Patrick M. Wallace, Esq.
         Harper Segui, 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
                 harper@whitfieldbryson.com

HALL'S SOUTHERN KITCHENS: Fails to Properly Pay Workers, Noble Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN NOBLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HALL'S SOUTHERN KITCHENS, LLC d/b/a HALL'S
CHOP HOUSE, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01792-RMG (D. S.C, May 7,
2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant
for its alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee of Defendant from January 2016
until November 15, 2019, was initially hired as a server assistant,
and was promoted to server in April 2016.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated
male employees were improperly compensated by Defendant. They were
subjected to improper deduction each pay period for the costs of
professional laundering of their work uniforms, thereby failing to
pay them the federally-mandated minimum wage for all hours worked.

Moreover, Plaintiff and the members of the Plaintiff class worked
over 40 hours in a workweek without receiving proper overtime
compensation at the rate of at least one and one half times the
federally-mandated minimum wage.

Hall's Southern Kitchens, LLC d/b/a Hall's Chop House is
American-Fine Dining restaurant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce E. Miller, Esq.
          BRUCE E. MILLER, P.A.
          147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603
          Charleston, SC 29412
          Tel: (843)579-7373
          Fax: (843)614-6417
          Email: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com

                - and –

          Amy L. Gaffney, Esq.
          Christina Summer, Esq.
          GAFFNEY LEWIS, LLC
          3700 Forest Drive, Suite 400
          Columbia, SC 29204
          Tel: (803)790-8838
          Fax: (803)790-8841
          Email: agaffney@gaffneylewis.com


HANDS OF MERCY: Lindsey Seeks Overtime Pay for Home Health Aides
----------------------------------------------------------------
VICKY LINDSEY, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. HANDS OF MERCY FAMILY CARE, LLC, c/o Victor A.
Mezacapa III 6652 Silvermound Drive Mentor, OH 44060 Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01221 (N.D. Ohio, June 3, 2020) alleges that
Defendants to pay employees overtime wages seeking all available
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum
Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

Defendant violated the FLSA with respect to Named Plaintiff and the
FLSA Collective by, inter alia, failing to compensate them at
time-and-one-half times their regular rates for hours worked over
40 hours in a workweek.

Plaintiff was a home health aide providing in-home care,
assistance, and companionship for Defendant's clients.

Hands of Mercy Family Care, LLC is an Ohio-based home health care
company that specializes in senior and geriatric care, including,
providing medical, personal, and home care services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
         Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
         COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
         1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
         Columbus, OH 43220
         Telephone: (614) 949-1181
         Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
         Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
               agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com

HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Back2Health Seeks Payment for COVID-19 Losses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BACK2HEALTH CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, LLC, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL
SERVICES GROUP, INC.; and SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-06717-JMV-MF (D.N.J., June 1, 2020)
alleges that the Defendants unlawfully denied the Plaintiff's
insurance claim.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff sought to protect itself
-- and reasonably believed that it had protected itself -- in the
event that its operations were suspended or significantly reduced
for reasons outside of its control beyond just damage to the
physical premises (such as fire), by purchasing an "all-risk"
property Spectrum Business Owner's Policy through the Defendants.

Notwithstanding that the Plaintiff has paid for coverage, when the
Plaintiff suffered an actual loss of Business Income as a result of
a covered cause of loss and needed its Business Income coverage,
the Defendants wrongfully -- and in contravention of the policy --
denied the Plaintiff's insurance claim.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have systematically
refused to pay all the insureds under their Business Income and
Civil Authority coverages for losses suffered due to COVID-19 (and
related civil authority orders), regardless of whether the
implicated insurance policy has an applicable pandemic exclusion or
not, and regardless of whether the policy had applicable "Limited
Fungi, Bacteria Or Virus Coverage."

The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. provides a range of
insurance products. The Company's products include property and
casualty insurance, group benefits, and mutual funds. Hartford
Financial Services Group operates in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob M. Polakoff, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: JPOLAKOFF@BM.NET


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Eye Care Sues Over Denied Insurance Coverage
----------------------------------------------------------------
THE EYE CARE CENTER OF NEW JERSEY, PA, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL
SERVICES GROUP and TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 2:20-cv-05743 (D. N.J., May 8, 2020) arises from the
denial of the Defendants the obligation to pay Plaintiff and others
similarly situated for business income losses and other covered
expenses incurred by policyholders for the physical loss and damage
to the insured property from measures put in place by the civil
authorities to stop the spread of COVID-19 among the population.

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

The action also brings a claim against Defendants for their breach
of their contractual obligation under common all-risk commercial
property insurance policies to indemnify Plaintiff and others
similarly situated for business losses and extra expenses, and
related losses resulting from actions taken by civil authorities to
stop the human to human and surface to human spread of the COVID-19
outbreak.

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed class of
policyholders who paid premiums in exchange for business insurance
policies that included lost business income and extra expense
coverage.

The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in Hartford,
Connecticut. It owns subsidiaries, directly and indirectly, that
issue, among other things, property insurance.

Twin City Fire Insurance Company is a Connecticut corporation with
its principal place of business in Hartford, Connecticut. Twin City
is a subsidiary of Hartford and is duly qualified and licensed to
issue insurance in the State of New Jersey and other States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700

                   - and -

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS
          77 Water Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700

                   - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY  11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100

                   - and -

          Paul J. Geller
          Stuart A. Davidson
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, Florida 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000

HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Johnson Seeks Payment for COVID-19 Losses
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROY H. JOHNSON, DDS, and WINDY HILL DENTISTRY, LLC, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. THE
HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.; HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY; TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY; HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND
INDEMNITY COMPANY; HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; HARTFORD
INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE SOUTHEAST; HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE
COMPANY; HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST; HARTFORD
INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS; SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.;
PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD; and JOHN DOE
CORPORATIONS 1 – 100, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02000-SDG
(N.D. Ga., May 8, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants
due to breach of contract for business insurance policy coverage
including Business Income, Civil Authority, and Extra Expense.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly-situated individuals who purchased a Spectrum Business
Owner's Policy from the Defendants, with a policy period from June
27, 2019 to June 27, 2020, which included Business Income and Extra
Expense Coverage, Action of Civil Authority, and Extended Business
Income, allege that the Defendants denied their insurance claims
and refused to pay insureds under the Hartford's Business Income,
Civil Authority, and Extra Expense coverages for losses suffered
due to the spread of COVID-19. The Plaintiffs were forced to
indefinitely suspend or reduce the dentistry practice at Windy Hill
Dentistry in Cobb County, Georgia as a result of the proliferation
and spread of COVID-19, and due to the resultant declarations of
emergency, executive orders and local mandates requiring the public
to exercise strict social distancing practices, non-emergent,
routine, and elective medical procedures.

Moreover, the Plaintiffs claim that the policy is an all-risk
policy which covers all risks of loss except for those expressly
and specifically excluded. Here, the Hartford's Special Property
Coverage Form provides the Hartford will pay for direct physical
loss of or physical damage to Covered Property at the premises
described in the declarations caused by or resulting from a covered
cause of loss. The Hartford also did not exclude or limit coverage
for losses from viruses for communicable diseases.

Windy Hill Dentistry, LLC, is a dental service provider with its
principal place of business in Cobb County, Georgia.

The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. is a for-profit
insurance company with its principal place of business located at
One Hartford Plaza, Hartford, Connecticut.

Hartford Fire Insurance Company is a for-profit insurance company
with its principal place of business located at One Hartford Plaza,
Hartford, Connecticut.

Twin City Fire Insurance Company is an Indiana for-profit insurance
company with its principal place of business located at One
Hartford Plaza, Hartford, Connecticut.

Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company is a for-profit insurance
company with its principal place of business located at One
Hartford Plaza, Hartford, Connecticut.

Hartford Casualty Insurance Company is an Indiana for-profit
insurance company with its principal place of business located at
One Hartford Plaza, Hartford, Connecticut.

Hartford Insurance Company of the Southeast is a Connecticut
for-profit insurance company with its principal place of business
located at One Hartford Plaza, Hartford, Connecticut.

Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company is a Connecticut for-profit
insurance company with its principal place of business located at
One Hartford Plaza, Hartford, Connecticut.

Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest is a Connecticut
for-profit insurance company with its principal place of business
located at One Hartford Plaza, Hartford, Connecticut.

Hartford Insurance Company of Illinois is a for-profit insurance
company with its principal place of business located at 4245
Meridian Parkway, Aurora, Illinois.

Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd. is a for-profit insurance company
with its principal place of business located at One Hartford Plaza,
Hartford, Connecticut.

Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford is a for-profit
insurance company with its principal place of business located at
One Hartford Plaza, Hartford, Connecticut. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
          
          Roy E. Barnes, Esq.
          John R. Bevis, Esq.
          Mark D. Meliski, Esq.
          BARNES LAW GROUP LLC
          31 Atlanta Street
          Marietta, GA 30060
          Telephone: (770) 227-6375
          Facsimile: (770) 227-6373
          E-mail: roy@barneslawgroup.com
                  bevis@barneslawgroup.com
                  meliski@barneslawgroup.com

HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Healthcare Services Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative securities  shareholder class action
suit in he U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

On March 22, 2019, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The initial complaint, which was filed by a plaintiff purportedly
on behalf of all purchasers of the company's securities between
April 11, 2017 and March 4, 2019, alleges violations of the federal
securities laws in connection with the matters related to the
company's earnings per share (EPS) calculation practices.

On September 17, 2019, the complaint was amended to, among other
things, extend the Class Period to cover the period between April
8, 2014 and March 4, 2019, and to name additional individuals
affiliated with the Company as defendants.

The lead plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other
relief on behalf of the plaintiff class.

Healthcare said, "While the Company is vigorously defending against
all litigation claims asserted, this litigation—along with the
ongoing SEC investigation—could result in substantial costs to
the Company and a diversion of the Company's management's attention
and resources, which could harm its business. In addition, the
uncertainty of the pending lawsuit or potential filing of
additional lawsuits could lead to more volatility and a reduction
in the Company's stock price. At this time the Company is unable to
reasonably estimate possible losses or form a judgment that an
unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote."

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

Healthcare Services Group, Inc., incorporated on November 22, 1976,
provides management, administrative and operating services to the
housekeeping, laundry, linen, facility maintenance and dietary
service departments of the healthcare industry, including nursing
homes, retirement complexes, rehabilitation centers and hospitals
located throughout the United States. The Company operates through
two segments: housekeeping, laundry, linen and other services
(Housekeeping), and dietary department services (Dietary). The
company is based in Bensalem, Pennsylvania.


HERBALIFE NUTRITION: Still Defends Rodgers Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Herbalife Nutrition Ltd.  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Rodgers, et al. v
Herbalife Ltd., et al.

On September 18, 2017, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries
and Members were named as defendants in a purported class action
lawsuit, titled Rodgers, et al. v Herbalife Ltd., et al. and filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
which alleges violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices statute and federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations statutes, unjust enrichment, and negligent
misrepresentation.

On August 23, 2018, the Court issued an order transferring the
action to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California as to four of the putative class plaintiffs and ordering
the remaining four plaintiffs to arbitration, thereby terminating
the Company defendants from the Florida action.

The plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount.

The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and will
vigorously defend itself against the claims in the lawsuit.

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

Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. develops and sells nutrition solutions in
North America, Mexico, South and Central America, Europe, the
Middle East, Africa, and the Asia Pacific. The company was formerly
known as Herbalife Ltd. and changed its name to Herbalife Nutrition
Ltd. in April 2018. Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. was founded in 1980
and is headquartered in Los Angeles, California.


HIGHGATE CLEANERS: Fuentes Seeks Denied Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Delman Amarildo Fuentes, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Highgate Cleaners Inc., Suk Sang
Yoon and Eun Ju Yoon, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-03925 (S.D. N.Y.,
May 20, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages
and redress for failure to provide itemized wage statements
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor
Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a dry cleaner, located at 190
East 95th Street, New York under the name "Highgate Cleaners" where
Fuentes was employed as a counter worker. He regularly worked
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime
compensation for the hours that he worked in excess of 40 per
workweek, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY: Buckley Seeks Refund of School Fees
-------------------------------------------------------
HANNAH BUCKLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-02424 (E.D.N.Y., June 1, 2020) alleges that the Defendant
refuses to refund tuition, fees, and room and board to the
Plaintiff and the Class.

According to the complaint, despite sending students home and
closing its campuses, the Defendant continues to charge for
tuition, fees, and room and board as if nothing has changed,
continuing to reap the financial benefit of millions of dollars
from students. The Defendant does so despite students' complete
inability to continue school as normal, occupy campus buildings and
dormitories, or avail themselves of school programs and events. So
while students enrolled and paid the Defendant for a comprehensive
academic experience, the Defendant instead offers the Plaintiff and
the Class Members something far less: a limited online experience
presented by Google or Zoom, void of face-to-face faculty and peer
interaction, separated from program resources, and barred from
facilities vital to study.

While some colleges and universities have promised appropriate and
proportional refunds, the Defendant excludes itself from such other
institutions treating students fairly, equitably, and as required
by the law. And for some students and families, the Defendant does
so based on outdated financial aid equations and collections,
without taking into account disruptions to family income, a
particular concern now where layoffs and furloughs are at record
levels.

Hofstra University offers degrees in both undergraduate and
graduate level curriculum. The University offers programs including
undergraduate degree programs in nursing and business as well as
Graduate degree programs in accounting and biology. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathaniel A. Tarnor, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 752-5455
          E-mail: nathant@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Eq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
          Whitney K. Siehl, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr., Suite 2410
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (708) 628-4949
          E-mail: dank@hbsslaw.com
                  whitneys@hbsslaw.com


HUDA BEAUTY: Ramirez Sues Over Deceptive Cosmetic Product Labels
----------------------------------------------------------------
CRISTIE RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HB USA HOLDINGS, INC., D/B/A HUDA BEAUTY,
Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-01016 (C.D. Cal., May 12, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendant for breach of implied warranty,
unjust enrichment, violation of the California False Advertising
Law, violation of the California Legal Remedies Act, violation of
the California Unfair Competition Law, negligent failure to test,
negligent failure to warn, and strict liability.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated consumers who bought the Defendant's Neon
Obsession Products, alleges that Defendant is engaged in false and
deceptive advertising, labeling and marketing of its Neon Obsession
products, which led the Plaintiff and Class members to believe that
the products can be used safely as eyeshadow. Contrary to
representations made by the Defendant in marketing materials,
advertisements, social media and instructional videos on its
website, Neon Obsession is not safe for use around the eyes. The
Plaintiff and Class members who applied the product around their
eyes, as instructed and encouraged by the Defendant, suffered
physical injuries including, but not limited to, rashes, painful
eye irritation, and skin inflammations and discolorations.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's concealment of
the defect and its failure to sufficiently warn consumers about it
or its harmful consequences prior to their purchase, the Plaintiff
and Class members purchased and used the product on their eye areas
to their detriment.

HB USA Holdings, Inc., doing business as Huda Beauty, is a
cosmetics company with its principal place of business in Los
Angeles, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Alex R. Straus, Esq.
         WHITFIELD BRYSON LPP
         16748 McCormick Street
         Los Angeles, CA 91436
         Telephone: (917) 471-1894
         E-mail: alex@whitfieldbryson.com

               - and –
         
         William A. Ladnier, 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: will@gregcolemanlaw.com
                 jonathan@gregcolemanlaw.com

HYATT HOTELS: Still Defends Suits Over Alleged Antitrust Matters
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hyatt Hotels Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend itself against class action suits alleging violation of
antitrust laws.

In March 2018, a putative class action was filed against the
Company and several other hotel companies in federal district court
in Illinois, Case No. 1:18-cv-01959, seeking an unspecified amount
of damages and equitable relief for an alleged violation of the
federal antitrust laws.

In December 2018, a second lawsuit was filed against the Company by
TravelPass Group, LLC, Partner Fusion, Inc., and Reservation
Counter, LLC in federal district court in Texas, Case No.
5:18-cv-00153, for an alleged violation of federal antitrust laws
arising from similar conduct alleged in the Illinois case and
seeking an unspecified amount of monetary damages.

The Company disputes the allegations in these lawsuits and will
defend its interests vigorously.

We currently do not believe the ultimate outcome of this litigation
will have a material effect on our consolidated financial position,
results of operation, or liquidity.

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

Hyatt Hotels Corporation, a hospitality company, develops, owns,
operates, manages, franchises, licenses, or provides services to
hotels, resorts, residential, and other properties. It operates
through four segments: Owned and Leased Hotels, Americas Management
and Franchising, ASPACManagement and Franchising, and EAME/SW Asia
Management and Franchising. The company was formerly known as
Global Hyatt Corporation and changed its name to Hyatt Hotels
Corporation in June 2009. Hyatt Hotels Corporation was founded in
1957 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Automobile Windshield Defective, Ford Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
LORENZO FORD and TINA FOREHAND, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA and
HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-00890-JVS-ADS
(C.D. Cal., May 12, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants
for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
common law fraud, unjust enrichment, violations of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act, and violations
of the Washington Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated individuals who bought or leased the 2020
Hyundai Palisade vehicle, allege that the Defendants manufactured,
marketed, distributed, and sold the vehicle without disclosing to
purchasers and lessees that the vehicle has a windshield defect,
which starts with a small chip in the windshield glass, sometimes
in response to contact with a small object such as a pebble or bug
but often with no impact. The chip quickly expands into a major
crack or spiderweb of cracks. Alternatively, cracks can appear
suddenly and without warning in the windshield glass.

The defect poses a serious safety hazard to drivers, passengers,
and pedestrians because a spontaneously cracking or severely
cracked windshield can impair the driver's view and distract the
driver while driving on the road. As a result of the Defendants'
failure to properly notify the Plaintiffs and Class members about
the defect, they are forced to pay up to $1,600 each time they have
to replace a windshield. In addition to the windshield replacement
cost, vehicle owners and lessees almost always incur other expenses
for the recalibration and realignment of components that are
subsidiary to the windshield, such as the rear-view camera and
Heads Up Display technologies.

Hyundai Motor America is the sales and marketing division of
Hyundai Motor Company, with its principal place of business at
10550 Talbert Avenue, Fountain Valley, California.

Hyundai Motor Company is a South Korean corporation that designs,
manufactures, markets, distributes and sells automobiles. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:         
         
         William A. Baird, Esq.
         BAIRD LAW FIRM
         2625 Townsgate Road, 330
         Westlake Village, CA 91361
         Telephone: (805) 267-1209
         E-mail: w.baird.law@gmail.com

               - and –
         
         Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
         Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
         MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
         412 H Street NE, Suite 302
         Washington, D.C. 20002
         Telephone: (202) 470-3520
         E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
                 jrathod@classlawdc.com

               - and –
         
         Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
         Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
         Nicholas J. Elia, Esq.
         LEVIN SEDRAN BERMAN LLP
         510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
         Philadelphia, PA 19106
         Telephone: (215) 592-1500
         Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
         E-mail: dlevin@lfsblaw.com
                 cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
                 nelia@lfsblaw.com

ICHIBAN GROUP: Zhang FLSA Conditional Certification Partly Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ZHANG, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ICHIBAN GRP., LLC, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-CV-148 (MAD/TWD) (N.D. N.Y.), Judge
Mae A. D'Agostino of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify a Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") collective action.

Plaintiffs Xue Hui Zhang, Yue Hua Chen, and Gui Yong Zhang, on
behalf of themselves and other employees similarly situated, filed
an amended complaint on April 2, 2019, alleging numerous claims,
including violations of the FLSA and New York Labor Law ("NYLL").
The Defendants filed an answer and counterclaims on April 18, 2019.


In the amended complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that they were
employed at a restaurant owned by the Defendants.  Plaintiff X.
Zhang worked as a cook at a restaurant allegedly owned by the
Defendants.  From Nov. 20, 2008 until Dec. 7, 2015, Plaintiff X.
Zhang alleges that he worked approximately 70 hours per week.  He
alleges that he received a salary once a month, which ranged from
approximately $2,600 to $3,000.  He further alleges that he was
given only 15 minutes or less to eat meals, was not paid minimum
wage, was not informed of any tip credits taken towards minimum
wage, and was never provided with any overtime compensation.

Plaintiff Y. Chen worked as a waitress at a restaurant allegedly
owned by the Defendants.  From Nov. 1, 2009 until Dec. 31, 2015,
Plaintiff Y. Chen alleges that she worked approximately 70 hours
per week.  She alleges that she received a salary once a month,
which ranged from approximately $300 to $500.  She further alleges
that she was given only 15 minutes or less to eat meals, was not
paid minimum wage, was not informed of any tip credits taken
towards minimum wage, and was never provided with any overtime
compensation.

Plaintiff G. Zhang worked as a "fry wok" at a restaurant allegedly
owned by the Defendants.  From March 1, 2013 to June 30, 2013, and
again from Sept. 1, 2014 to Dec. 31, 2014, Plaintiff G. Zhang
claims that he worked approximately 70 hours per week.  He claims
that he made a flat salary every month, which ranged from
approximately $2,700 to $2,900, regardless of hours worked.  He
further alleges that he was given only 15 minutes or less to eat
meals, was not paid minimum wage, was not informed of any tip
credits taken towards minimum wage, and was never provided with any
overtime compensation.

The Plaintiffs allege that the conditions of their employment
violated the FLSA and the NYLL.  Plaintiffs X. Zhang and Y. Chen
("FLSA Plaintiffs") commenced their claims individually and
pursuant to the FLSA's collective action mechanism.

The FLSA Plaintiffs allege that all tipped and non-tipped employees
for the Defendants work similarly long hours without a commensurate
payment of overtime at the one and half rate for each hour worked
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.  The Plaintiff's experience
was not unique.  Rather, it was part of a common policy or
employment practice by the Defendants regardless of their
employees' title or role at the restaurant.

On July 15, 2019, Magistrate Judge Therese Wiley Dancks ordered
that the deadline for filing a class collective certification
motion was extended to Sept. 30, 2019.  Currently before the Court
is a motion by the Plaintiffs for conditional collective
certification under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), Court-authorized
notice to similarly situated individuals, and the disclosure of
contact information for the purposes of notification.  The
Defendants oppose the motion.  

Judge D'Agostino finds that (i) there is sufficient specificity in
the affidavits to consider them for conditional certification at
this stage; (ii) the Plaintiffs' affidavits are sufficient for the
purposes of the motion; (iii) the Defendants' argument that where
defenses are likely to be highly individualized, requiring
examination into the hours worked and compensation of each
employee, as in the case, conditional certification is
inappropriate, fails as it is not the Court's role at the first
stage of conditional certification; (iv) it is proper to certify a
collective action for all employees who were cooks, kitchen
workers, waiters, fry woks, packers, and deliverymen at this time
because the Plaintiffs made the required modest showing that they
are similarly situated to potential opt-in Plaintiffs.  However,
the Judge will not extend the conditionally certified collective to
include all non-managerial employees of the Defendants.

As she has conditionally certified a collective consisting of
cooks, kitchen workers, waiters, fry woks, packers, and
deliverymen, the Judge next turns to the specifics of how notice of
the collective action will be disseminated to those employees to
allow them to consider opting into the litigation.  First, the
notice period will extend back to Feb. 9, 2014, three years prior
to the filing of Plaintiff X. Zhang's initial complaint on Feb. 9,
2017.  Second, the Plaintiffs' application for a categorical ruling
tolling the statute of limitations for all opt-in Plaintiffs is
denied without prejudice as the Plaintiffs provide no facts or even
arguments regarding the existing or the potential opt-in Plaintiffs
that reflect that these employees have been pursuing their rights
diligently.  Third, because the Defendants have not opposed the
Plaintiffs' proposed 90-day period to allow the potential opt-in
Plaintiffs to join the litigation following dispersal of the
notice, the Judge will grant the request.  

Judge D'Agostino will authorize the Plaintiffs to disseminate the
approved notice and consent forms, with appropriate translations.
Additionally, the Defendants are directed to post the approved
notice as per the instructions below on or before the date the
approved notice will be distributed by the Plaintiffs' counsel.

The Defendants do not specifically oppose the Plaintiffs' request
to send notice to potential members of the collective via mail,
email, and text message.  Such methods of distribution are
ordinarily approved, especially where the nature of the employer's
business facilitates a high turnover rate among employees.

Finally, Judge D'Agostino orders that the Defendants provide the
Plaintiffs with a computer-readable list of the names, mailing
addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, social media
usernames, work location, employment dates, and employment position
of all cooks, kitchen workers, waiters, fry woks, packers, and
deliverymen employed by the Defendants from Feb. 9, 2014, to the
present within 15 days of the entry of the order, consistent with
the temporal scope and limited job categories that the Court orders
for conditional collective certification.

After carefully reviewing the entire record in the matter, the
parties' submissions and the applicable law, and for the stated
reasons, Judge D'Agostino granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify an FLSA collective
action.  The issuance of notice to the collective is authorized,
limited to cooks, kitchen workers, waiters, fry woks, packers, and
deliverymen employed by the Defendants in the three years preceding
the filing of the Plaintiffs' complaint, as set forth in the
accompanying Order.  

Judge D'Agostino denied with prejudice the Plaintiffs' request for
equitable tolling of the statute of limitations.  The Defendants
will produce in electronic format the contact information,
consistent with the foregoing decision, for all cooks, kitchen
workers, waiters, fry woks, packers, and deliverymen employed by
Defendants from Feb. 9, 2014 to present.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 3, 2020
Memorandum-Decision & Order is available at https://is.gd/0JPsQz
from Leagle.com.

Xue Hui Zhang, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Yue Hua Chen & Gui Yong Zhang, Plaintiffs, represented by John Troy
-- TroyLaw@TroyPllc.com -- Troy Law, PLLC & Aaron B. Schweitzer,
Troy Law, PLLC.

Ichiban Group, LLC, doing business as Ichiban Japenese & Chinese
Restaurant, Takara, Ichiban Food Services, Inc., doing business as
Ichiban Japanese & Chinese Restaurant, Takara, Chen & Ju, Inc.,
doing business as Ichiban Japanese & Chinese Restaurant, Takara,
David L Ip, Liping Ju & Tyng Quh Ju, Defendants, represented by
Matthew J. Mann -- info@mannlawpc.com -- Mann Law Firm, PC &
Stephan R. Weiss, Mann Law Firm, PC.

Chen & Ju, Inc., doing business as Ichiban Japanese & Chinese
Restaurant, Takara, Tyng Quh Ju, Liping Ju, Ichiban Food Services,
Inc., Ichiban Group, LLC, David L Ip, Chwon Tzu Ju, Shin Shii Ju &
Chen & Ju, Inc., Counter Claimants, represented by Matthew J. Mann,
Mann Law Firm, PC & Stephan R. Weiss, Mann Law Firm, PC.

Yue Hua Chen, Gui Yong Zhang & Xue Hui Zhang, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, Counter Defendants, represented by
Aaron B. Schweitzer, Troy Law, PLLC & John Troy, Troy Law, PLLC.


INDEPENDENT BANK: Unfairly Collects OD Fees, Grice Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jamila Grice, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Independent Bank, Case No. 7:20-cv-01948-TMC (D.S.C.,
May 19, 2020), seeks monetary damages, restitution and declaratory
relief from Independent Bank arising from the alleged unfair and
unconscionable assessment and collection of "overdraft fees" on
accounts that were never actually overdrawn.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant routinely charges more
than one OD Fees or non-sufficient funds fees on a single
transaction; and unfairly and unconscionably assesses two
out-of-network ATM fees on out-of-network ATM withdrawals preceded
by a balance inquiry. She adds that these practices breach
contractual promises made in Independent's adhesion contracts and
constitute deceptive practices.

Independent Bank issues debit cards to its checking account
customers, including Plaintiff, which allows its customers to have
electronic access to their checking accounts for purchases,
payments, withdrawals and other electronic debit transactions.

Independent Bank has nearly $4 billion in assets and maintains its
headquarters in Grand Rapids, Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
          THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
          11 N. Market Street
          Asheville, NC 28801
          Telephone: (828) 258-2991
          Facsimile: (828) 257-2767
          E-mail: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia Gold, Esq.
          KALIEL PLLC
          1875 Connecticut Ave., NW, 10th Floor
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
                  sgold@kalielpllc.com


INDEPENDENT CASE: Underpays Health Care Workers, Norman Says
------------------------------------------------------------
BONNIE NORMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INDEPENDENT CASE MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-00492-DPM (E.D. Ark., May 11, 2020) is
a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from 2017 until September 2019
as a home health care worker assisting their clients with personal
care, bathing, grooming, administering medication, and preparing
meals.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees received their wages from Defendant through Independent
Choices program. But, although Defendant monitored the number of
hours they worked by requiring them to send timecards directly to
Defendant, Defendant failed to pay them for all the hours they
worked.

Plaintiff and similarly situated employees contend that Defendant
did not pay them minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime
rate at one and one-half times their regular wages for all hours
worked over 40 each week.

Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and a reasonable
attorney's fee and costs.

Independent Case Management, Inc. facilitates self-directed home
care within the State of Arkansas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve Rauls, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Tel: (501) 221-0088
          Fax: (888) 787-2040
          Emails: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


INDUSTRIAL SALES: Fails to Pay Overtime, Rosales Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
ROSENDO JOSEPH ROSALES, iii, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INDUSTRIAL SALES &
SERVICES, LLC and BERNARD GOCHIS, Defendants, Case No.
6:20-cv-00030 (S.D. Tex., May 12, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against Defendant for their alleged violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a welder/laborer/machine
operator during the last three years.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of
forty hours per week. But, Defendant failed to pay him overtime for
all of the hours he worked in excess of forty per week. Also,
Defendant failed to maintain accurate time and pay records for
Plaintiff and other similarly situated nonexempt employees.

Industrial Sales & Services, LLC fabricates engineered screwpiles
for commercial construction projects, including power stations, oil
and gas refineries and natural gas plants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Centre
          440 Louisiana St., Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002
          Tel: (713) 222-6775
          Fax: (713) 222-6739
          Website: https://www.mooreandassociates.net/


INGLEWOOD SPORTSERVICE: Mejia Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TIFFANY MEJIA, on behalf of herself and all other aggrieved current
and former California-based hourly, non-exempt employees v.
INGLEWOOD SPORTSERVICE, INC.; DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES,
INCORPORATED; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. 20STCV19450
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 21, 2020), seeks civil
penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004,
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to pay minimum
wages for all hours worked, failed to pay overtime wages for
overtime hours worked, and failed to authorize or permit meal
periods and rest periods.

The Plaintiff and other aggrieved individuals are current and
former California-based hourly, non-exempt employees of the
Defendants.

Inglewood Sportservice provides food and beverage concessions.
Delaware North is a global food service and hospitality company
headquartered in Buffalo, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
          Anwar D. Burton, Esq.
          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          0600 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 00211
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001


IQVIA INC: Lyngaas Sues Over Illegally-faxed Ads
------------------------------------------------
Brian J. Lyngaas, DDS, PLLC, a Pennsylvania corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. IQVIA Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-02370, (E.D. Pa., May 20, 2020), seeks statutory and
treble damages, injunctive relief, compensation and attorney fees
for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Lyngaas operates a private medical practice in Livonia, Michigan.
He allegedly received faxed advertisements from IQVIA without his
prior consent and the fax does not have an opt-out notice on its
first page.

IQVIA is engaged in data mining for the healthcare industry. It
collects human health data for its customers to add to its
proprietary, commercially-available database. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard Shenkan, Esq.
      SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC
      P.O. Box 7255
      New Castle, PA 16107
      Tel: (800) 601-0808
      Email: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com

             - and -

      Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
      Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
      BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
      134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 658-5500
      Fax: (312) 658-5555
      Email: service@classlawyers.com


ISHARES S&P: Petition for Review in Suit v. Blackrock Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
iShares S&P GSC(TM) Commodity-Indexed Trust said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7,
2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that
plaintiffs in the class action suit involving BlackRock Fund
Advisors (Advisor) and certain principals of the Advisor and the
iShares Delaware Trust Sponsor LLC (Sponsor) have filed a petition
for review by the California Supreme Court.

On June 16, 2016, the BlackRock Fund Advisors (Advisor) and certain
principals of the Advisor and the iShares Delaware Trust Sponsor
LLC (Sponsor) were named as defendants in a purported class action
lawsuit filed in California state court.

The lawsuit was filed by investors in certain iShares ETFs, and
alleges the defendants violated the federal securities laws by
failing to adequately disclose in prospectuses issued by the ETFs
the risks to the ETFs' shareholders in the event of a "flash
crash."

Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary and rescission damages.

The plaintiffs' complaint was dismissed in December 2016 and on
January 6, 2017, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On April
27, 2017, the court partially granted the defendants' motion for
judgment on the pleadings, dismissing certain of the plaintiffs'
claims.

On September 18, 2017, the court issued a decision dismissing the
remainder of the lawsuit after a one-day bench trial. On October
11, 2017, the court entered final judgment dismissing all of
Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice.

In an opinion dated January 23, 2020, the California Court of
Appeal affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims.

On March 3, 2020, plaintiffs filed a petition for review by the
California Supreme Court.

The iShares S&P GSC(TM) Commodity-Indexed Trust (the "Trust") is a
Delaware statutory trust that issues units of beneficial interest
("Shares") representing fractional undivided beneficial interests
in its net assets. The Trust holds long positions in
exchange-traded index futures contracts of various expirations, or
"Index Futures" on the S&P GSCI(TM) Excess Return Index (the :S&P
GSCI-ER"), together with cash, U.S. Treasury securities or other
short-term securities and similar securities that are eligible as
margin deposits for the Trust's Index Futures positions, referred
to as "Collateral Assets." The Index Futures held by the Trust are
listed on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (the "CME"). The Trust
seeks to track the results of a fully collateralized investment in
futures contracts on an index composed of a diversified group of
commodities futures. The Trust seeks to track the investment
returns of the S&P GSCI(TM) Total Return Index (the "Index") before
payment of the Trust's expenses and liabilities.


JP MORGAN: Robert Charles Sues Over Illegal Spoofing Strategy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Charles Class A, L.P., on Behalf of Itself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., J.P. MORGAN CLEARING
CORP., J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, J.P. MORGAN FUTURES, INC. (now
known as J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC), and JOHN DOES 1-50, Case No.
1:20-cv-03206 (N.D. Ill., May 29, 2020), seeks actual damages and
other relief under the Commodity Exchange Act due to the
Defendants' alleged manipulation of U.S. Treasury futures markets
through a deceptive and illegal trading strategy called
"spoofing."

Spoofing is a manipulative trading strategy whereby a market
participant places large orders with no intention of ever filling
the order. Seeing these orders on their trading screens and not
knowing they are false, other traders in the market will adjust
their pricing and/or order size to fit the perceived shift in
supply and demand. Once the market moves in the spoofing trader's
favor, the order is removed, as was always intended. These orders
are referred to herein as "Deceptive Orders."

According to the complaint, J.P. Morgan's Deceptive Orders created
an artificial appearance of market demand and artificial prices
that in turn induced other market participants to act. But once the
market moved in the direction of J.P. Morgan's Deceptive Orders,
J.P. Morgan cancelled the Deceptive Orders. J.P. Morgan then took
advantage of the movement that the artificial prices of its
Deceptive Orders had caused by cancelling the Deceptive Orders and
turning around to purchase or sell those instruments at the now
artificially low or high prices and quantities, all to the
detriment of those traders, who acted based on the (false) belief
that the Deceptive Orders were legitimate and intended to be
executed.

J.P. Morgan deployed this fraudulent and deceptive spoofing scheme
across the full range of Treasury futures, according to the
complaint. This strategy was repeated tens of thousands of times
during numerous trading days from 2009 to the present. Every time
it did so, J.P. Morgan was able to manipulate the Treasury futures
markets to the detriment of The Plaintiff and other market
participants.

Plaintiff RCA transacted in Treasury futures contracts and options
on those contracts during the Class Period and was injured and
suffered losses from trading at artificial prices proximately
caused by the Defendants' unlawful manipulation, says the
complaint.

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. is a multinational banking and financial
services corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George A. Zelcs, Esq.
          Robert E. Litan, Esq.
          Randall P. Ewing, Jr., Esq.
          Chad E. Bell, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
          205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1950
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: 312-641-9750
          Facsimile: 312-641-9751

               - and -

          Peter A. Barile III, Esq.
          Thomas K. Boardman, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Phone: 212-223-6444
          Facsimile: 212-223-6334
          Email: pbarile@scott-scott.com
                 tboardman@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-233-4565
          Facsimile: 619-233-0508
          Email: cburke@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Louis F. Burke, Esq.
          LOUIS F. BURKE PC
          460 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 682-1700
          Email: lburke@lfblaw.com


JUST BRANDS: Rodriguez Sues Over Underfilled Cannabidiol Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. JUST BRANDS USA, INC., JUST BRANDS FL, LLC, JUST
BRANDS, INC., JUST CBD, LLC, and SSGI FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,
Case No. 2:20-cv-04829 (C.D. Cal., May 29, 2020), is brought on
behalf of purchasers of JustCBD-branded products against the
Defendants for manufacturing, distributing, and selling underfilled
cannabidiol products.

CBD is commonly used to treat anxiety, insomnia, depression,
diabetes, PTSD, and chronic pain.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' labeling and packaging
repeatedly overstate the quantity of CBD contained in their
Products. The labeling and packaging of the CBD Products are
replete with representations and warranties; namely, that the
Products purportedly contain specific amounts of CBD. However, the
CBD Products contain only a fraction of the CBD advertised on the
Defendants' website and on the Products' labeling and packaging. In
fact, some of the Defendants' Products contain no CBD whatsoever.

Pursuant to independent lab testing commissioned by the Plaintiff's
counsel, the "JustCBD Honey Liquid Tincture," which purports to
contain "100mg CBD" in the bottle, actually contains just 48.92mg
CBD per bottle, according to the complaint. This represents an
underfill of approximately 51%. As another example, the "JustCBD
Apple Rings Gummies," which purportedly contains "250mg CBD," in
fact contains a non-detectable quantity of CBD. This represents an
underfill of 100%. By misrepresenting the true quantity of CBD in
their CBD Products, the Defendants are able to charge a substantial
price premium on account of these fictitious CBD quantity claims.
The Defendants' multiple and prominent systematic mislabeling of
the Products form a pattern of unlawful and unfair business
practices that harms the public.

Because of the Defendants' misrepresentations regarding the
quantity of CBD in its products, the Plaintiff asserts claims on
behalf of purchasers of Defendants' products, for: breach of
express warranty; unjust enrichment; fraud; violation of
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act; violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law; violation of California's
False Advertising Law; and (violation of the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Plaintiff Rodriguez purchased "JustCBD Signature CBD Cartridges" in
the Pineapple Express and Northern Lights flavors.

Just Brands USA manufactures, sells, and/or globally distributes
JustCBD-branded products, and is responsible for the advertising,
marketing, and packaging of CBD infused edibles, oils, tinctures,
creams, and vapes, including the CBD Products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
          Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
          Brittany S. Scott, 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


KENTUCKY: Ramsek et al. Sue Governor Over Mass Gathering Ban
------------------------------------------------------------
TONY RAMSEK, FRANK HARRIS, THEODORE JOSEPH ROBERTS, and TONY
WHEATLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. HON. ANDREW BESHEAR, ERIC FRIEDLANDER, and
DR. STEVEN STACK, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00036-GFVT (E.D.
Ky., May 10, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
alleged deprivations of the Plaintiffs' Constitutional Rights,
including the First Amendment Right to Free Speech and the First
Amendment Right to Assemble and Petition, based on their COVID-19
pandemic responses.

According to the complaint, the Defendants abused the authority of
their respective offices by issuing and enforcing the mass
gathering orders of Governor Beshear without providing a process by
which the individual Kentuckian will be notified if they are
charged or accused of a violation of the orders, without any
mechanism to challenge or appeal any such determinations, and
without any process at all to challenge the facts and circumstances
of such orders. The Plaintiffs claim that the Governor's mass
gathering ban as applied to political protests is not content
neutral as it permits mass gatherings in contexts other than
protests, including airports, bus and train stations, medical
facilities, libraries, shopping malls and centers, or other spaces
where persons may be in transit. It also permits such gatherings in
typical office environments, factories, or retail or grocery stores
where large numbers of people are present, but maintain appropriate
social distancing. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Christopher Wiest, Esq.
         CHRIS WIEST, ATTY AT LAW, PLLC
         25 Town Center Blvd, Suite 104
         Crestview Hills, KY 41017
         Telephone: (859) 486-6850
                    (513) 257-1895
         Facsimile: (859) 495-0803
         E-mail: chris@cwiestlaw.com

               - and –
         
         Thomas Bruns, Esq.
         4750 Ashwood Drive, Suite 200
         Cincinnati, OH 45241
         Telephone: (513) 312-9890
         E-mail: tbruns@bcvalaw.com

               - and –
         
         Robert A. Winter, Jr., Esq.
         Fort Mitchell, KY 41017-5883
         Telephone: (859) 250-3337
         E-mail: robertawinterjr@gmail.com

LA UNICA CARIDAD: Anzurez Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage, Withheld Tips
------------------------------------------------------------------
Agustin Camano Anzurez, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. La Unica Caridad Inc., Miguel Yip,
Gary Doe and Sam Lee, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-03828 (S.D. N.Y.,
May 18, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages
and redress for failure to provide itemized wage statements
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor
Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a Cuban-Chinese restaurant,
located at 2199 Broadway New York under the name "La Caridad 78
Restaurant" where Anzurez was ostensibly employed as a delivery
worker. He regularly worked excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours
compensation for the hours that he worked partly because La Caridad
failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked.
Anzurez was a delivery worker in their payroll, but spent a
significant amount of time spent performing non-tipped duties. He
was paid lower than the required tip-credit rate but was deducted a
tip credit because his non-tipped duties exceeded 20% of each
workday, thus allowing La Caridad to pay the tip-credit instead of
the minimum wage rate, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LAKEVIEW LOAN: Williams Sues Over Unauthorized Charged Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ursula Nichole Williams, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, and LOANCARE,
LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-01900 (S.D. Tex., May 29, 2020), is brought
to seeks injunctive, declaratory, and compensatory relief against
the Defendants for their violations of the Texas Debt Collection
Act and breaches of contract by charging fees not authorized by the
law.

The Defendants routinely and systematically violate provisions of
the Texas Debt Collection Act ("TDCA") and breach uniform covenants
in mortgages guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration
("FHA") by collecting from borrowers fees that are not authorized
by their mortgage agreements, the FHA rules, or permitted by law,
according to the complaint. The Defendants abuse their position as
mortgage servicers by charging fees to borrowers who make their
mortgage payments online or over the phone ("Pay-to-Pay fees"),
despite those fees not being expressly authorized in the terms of
standard mortgage agreements. Because the fees are not expressly
agreed to or otherwise legally chargeable, Defendants violate the
TDCA by collecting or attempting to collect Pay-to-Pay fees.

As servicers of mortgages insured by the FHA, and as assignees of
the servicing rights to FHA mortgages, the Defendants are bound by
the rules and regulations of the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development ("HUD") applicable to the servicing of FHA mortgages.
HUD's mandatory servicing rules prohibit FHA-approved servicers,
such as Defendants, from charging fees not authorized by HUD. In
fact, HUD has never authorized any Pay-to-Pay fee.

Even if Pay-to-Pay fees were authorized, which they are not, the
mandatory HUD servicing rules incorporated into Plaintiff's deed of
trust provide that any fee charged to the borrower must be "based
on actual cost of the work performed or actual out-of-pocket
expenses" of the service provided to the borrower, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff has an FHA-insured deed of trust that is serviced
Lakeview and subserviced by LoanCare.

Lakeview is the fourth largest mortgage-loan servicer in the
country.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
          Hank Bates, Esq.
          E. Lee Lowther III, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          519 W. 7th St.
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Phone: (501) 312-8500
          Fax: (501) 312-8505
          Email: hbates@cbplaw.com
                 rpulliam@cbplaw.com
                 llowther@cbplaw.com


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Garner Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------
WILSHANDA GARNER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., a
Massachusetts company, and JOHN DOE d/b/a Your Grant Advisor,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00836 (D. Nev., May 8, 2020) is a
class action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The complaint arises from Defendant Your Grant Advisor's
unsolicited text messages to Plaintiff from short code 32494 on
April 11, 2020 in an attempt to promote Defendant Liberty Mutual
Insurance's products. Plaintiff affirms that she has never provided
her consent to either Defendant to send her text messages to her
cellular phone number using an automatic telephone dialing system.

Plaintiff claims that Defendant's unsolicited text caused her
nuisance and aggravation, wasted her time, invaded her privacy, and
diminished the value of the cellular services she paid for.

Plaintiff seeks actual and/or statutory damages and costs, and
injunction requiring Defendants to stop all unsolicited text
messaging activity.

Your Grant Advisor is an affiliate of Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.


Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. is an insurance company that provides
Your Grant Advisor with unique links to its website for consumers
to use to sign up for Liberty Mutual Insurance. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Friedberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG B. FRIEDBERG, ESQ.
          4760 South Pecos Rd., Ste. 103
          Las Vegas, NV 89121
          Tel: (702) 435-7968
          Email: attcbf@cox.net


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Torre Insurance Class Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Torre Rossa, LLC,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Liberty Mutual Insurance, Case No. CV-20-931885, was removed from
the Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on May
19, 2020.

The Northern District of Ohio Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-01095-SO to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr.

The lawsuit demands $25,000 in damages alleging violation of
insurance-related laws.

Liberty Mutual is an American diversified global insurer and the
third-largest property and casualty insurer in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas J. Connick, Esq.
          CONNICK LAW
          25550 Chagrin Blvd., Ste. 101
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Telephone: (216) 364-0512
          Facsimile: (216) 609-3446
          E-mail: tconnick@connicklawllc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael K. Farrell, Esq.
          Rodger L. Eckelberry, Esq.
          Daniel M. Kavouras, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER-CLEVELAND
          127 Public Square, Ste. 2000
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 621-0200
          Facsimile: (216) 696-0740
          E-mail: mfarrell@bakerlaw.com
                 reckelberry@bakerlaw.com
                 dkavouras@bakerlaw.com


LIPOCINE INC: Continues to Defend Abady Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Lipocine inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a purported shareholder class action lawsuit entitled,
Solomon Abady v. Lipocine Inc. et al., 2:19-cv-00906-PMW .

On November 14, 2019, the Company and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in a purported shareholder class action
lawsuit, Solomon Abady v. Lipocine Inc. et al., 2:19-cv-00906-PMW,
filed in the United District Court for the District of Utah.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that the company's
filing of the New Drug Application (NDA) for TLANDO to the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) contained deficiencies and as a result
the defendants' statements about the company's business and
operations were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis in violation of federal securities laws.

The lawsuit seeks certification as a class action (for a purported
class of purchasers of the Company's securities from March 27, 2019
through November 8, 2019), compensatory damages in an unspecified
amount, and unspecified equitable or injunctive relief.

Lipocine said, "The Company has insurance that covers claims of
this nature. The retention amount payable by the Company under our
policy is $1.25 million. The Company intends to vigorously defend
itself and its current and former officers and directors against
these allegations and has not recorded a liability related to this
shareholder class action lawsuit as the outcome is not probable nor
can an estimate be made of loss, if any."

Lipocine inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on
applying oral drug delivery technology for the development of
pharmaceutical products in the area of men's and women's health.
The company is based in Salt Lake City, Utah.


LIVE NATION: Hoptman Seeks Pay for Denied Breaks, Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
David M. Hoptman, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 20STCV18776 (Cal. Super., May 18, 2020), seeks
redress for Defendant's failure to provide meal periods, rest
periods, minimum wages, overtime, complete and accurate wage/leave
statements and resulting from unfair business practices. The
lawsuit also seeks waiting time penalties for unpaid wages due upon
termination and for violation of the California Labor Code,
California Business and Professions Code, including declaratory
relief, damages, penalties, equitable relief, costs and attorneys'
fees.

Hoptman worked for Live Nation Worldwide as a non-exempt
hourly-paid employee. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Darren M. Cohen, Esq.
      KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
      16133 Ventura Blvd, Suite 1200
      Encino, CA 91436
      Tel: (818) 990-8300
      Fax: (818) 990-2903
      Email: dcohen@kingsleykingsley.com


LIVE NATION: Still Defends Suits Related to Overpriced Tickets
--------------------------------------------------------------
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend several class action suits related to the resale of
tickets on secondary ticket exchanges at elevated prices.

These putative class action lawsuits were filed against Live Nation
and/or Ticketmaster in the United States and Canada:

Vaccaro v. Ticketmaster LLC (Northern District of Illinois, filed
September 2018); Ameri v. Ticketmaster LLC (Northern District of
California, filed September 2018); Lee v. Ticketmaster LLC, et al.
(Northern District of California, filed September 2018);
Thompson-Marcial v. Ticketmaster Canada Holdings ULC (Ontario
Superior Court of Justice, filed September 2018); McPhee v. Live
Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al. (Superior Court of Quebec,
District of Montreal, filed September 2018); Crystal Watch v. Live
Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al. (Court of Queen's Bench for
Saskatchewan, by amendments filed September 2018); Gaetano v. Live
Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al. (Northern District of New York,
filed October 2018); Dickey v. Ticketmaster LLC, et al. (Central
District of California, filed October 2018); Gomel v. Live Nation
Entertainment, Inc., et al. (Supreme Court of British Columbia,
Vancouver Registry, filed October 2018); Smith v. Live Nation
Entertainment, Inc., et al. (Ontario Superior Court of Justice,
filed October 2018); Messing v. Ticketmaster LLC, et al. (Central
District of California, filed November 2018); and Niedbalski v.
Ticketmaster LLC, et al. (Central District of California, filed
December 2018).

In March 2019, the court granted the defendants' motion to compel
arbitration of the Dickey lawsuit and stayed the matter. The
parties reached a settlement and the case was dismissed with
prejudice in November 2019.

In April 2019, the court granted the defendants' motion to compel
arbitration of the Lee lawsuit and dismissed the case. Lee
subsequently appealed the District Court's ruling to the Ninth
Circuit.

The Gaetano lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by the
plaintiff in April 2019.

The Ameri lawsuit was dismissed in May 2019 in light of the
parties' agreement to arbitrate the matter, and the Vaccaro lawsuit
was settled and dismissed in June 2019.

The Messing and Niedbalski lawsuits are stayed pending the outcome
of the appeal in the Lee matter.

The remaining lawsuits make similar factual allegations that Live
Nation and/or Ticketmaster LLC engage in conduct that is intended
to encourage the resale of tickets on secondary ticket exchanges at
elevated prices.

Based on these allegations, each plaintiff asserts violations of
different state/provincial and federal laws. Each plaintiff also
seeks to represent a class of individuals who purchased tickets on
a secondary ticket exchange, as defined in each plaintiff's
complaint.

The complaints seek a variety of remedies, including unspecified
compensatory damages, punitive damages, restitution, injunctive
relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

Live Nation said, "Based on information presently known to
management, we do not believe that a loss is probable of occurring
at this time, and believe that the potential liability, if any,
will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
cash flows or results of operations. Further, we do not currently
believe that the claims asserted in these lawsuits have merit, and
considerable uncertainty exists regarding any monetary damages that
will be asserted against us. We intend to vigorously defend these
actions."

Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. operates as a live entertainment
company. It operates through Concerts, Sponsorship & Advertising,
and Ticketing segments. The Company was incorporated in 2005 and is
headquartered in Beverly Hills, California.


LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Faces Naiman TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
SIDNEY NAIMAN, DEBORAH SCHICK, and PATRICIA RUNSVOLD, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LOANDEPOT.COM,
LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 8:20-cv-00938 (C.D.
Cal., May 21, 2020), alleges that the Defendants promote and market
their merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited telephone calls
text to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiffs seek to stop the Defendants' practice of making
phone calls to cellular telephones using an automated telephone
dialing system and/or a prerecorded message or artificial voice, as
well as calls to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry in
violation of the TCPA.

Loandepot.com provides loans services. The Company offers debt
consolidation, home improvement, small business, consumer, and
mortgage loans.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John R. Habashy, Esq.
          Tiffany N. Buda, Esq.
          LEXICON LAW, PC
          633 W. 5th Street, 28th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 223-5900
          Facsimile: (888) 373-2107
          E-mail: john@lexiconlaw.com
                  tiffany@lexiconlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          Heather Kolbus, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603-1824
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  hkolbus@edcombs.com


LVNV FUNDING LLC: Bishop Disputes Collection Call Legality
----------------------------------------------------------
Aleah Bishop, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. LVNV Funding, LLC and Resurgent Capital
Services, LP, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-06116 (D. N.J., May 20,
2020), seeks damages and declaratory relief under the Rosenthal
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

LVNV Funding are debt collectors who were assigned to collect an
obligation owed by Bishop to Credit One Bank that defaulted. Bishop
claims that LVNV called him up to collect said debt but failed to
inform him during the call that they were debt collectors, the
purpose of the call was to collect said debt and its amount. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
      STEIN SAKS, PLLC
      285 Passaic Street
      Hackensack, NJ 07601
      Phone: (201) 282-6500
      Fax: (201) 282-6501
      Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


LYFT INC: Osvatics Sues to Enforce Essential Rights Under ASSLA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cassandra Osvatics, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. LYFT, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01426 (D.D.C., May 29,
2020), is brought against the Defendant to enforce the essential
rights provided under the D.C. Accrued Safe and Sick Leave Act.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all drivers, who work or worked
for Lyft in the District of Columbia for at least 90 days between
when Lyft began operating in the District of Columbia and the date
of final judgment in this matter.

Experts have found that providing paid sick leave is a significant
way to reduce the spread of illness, according to the complaint. In
the District of Columbia, employers--like the Defendant--that are
covered by the ASSLA, are required to provide paid sick leave.
Given the current COVID-19 pandemic, which some experts predict
could last for years the need for paid sick leave is vitally
important. Without it, Lyft forces its drivers into a Hobbesian
choice: risk their lives (and the lives of their passengers) or
risk their livelihoods. The D.C. Council enacted the ASSLA so that
workers would not have to make such a choice.

Lyft in particular has a history of failing to comply with the
ASSLA, to the detriment of its drivers and the public, the
Plaintiff contends. Though it has claimed to provide paid sick
leave to its drivers during the pandemic, the policy has been
criticized as "illusory" and a "bait and switch," the Plaintiff
asserts. Lyft's vague and limited paid sick leave does not comply
with the ASSLA because it only covers "drivers diagnosed with
COVID-19 or put under individual quarantine by a public health
agency--for an amount determined by the driver's previous activity
on the Lyft platform," says the complaint.

Plaintiff Osvatics has a driver's license issued by the State of
Maryland.

Lyft is an App-based transportation provider that has been based in
San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq.
          Mikael A. Rojas, Esq.
          Pooja Shethji, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          601 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Ste 200W
          Washington, DC 20001
          Phone: (202) 847-4400
          Facsimile: (646) 509-2097
          Email: sabrahamson@outtengolden.com
                 mrojas@outtengolden.com
                 pshethji@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Christopher M. McNerney, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 245-1000
          Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
          Email: cmcnerney@outtengolden.com


MAINE: Halts COVID-19 Unemployment Benefits, Sparks Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARC SPARKS, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
Plaintiffs V. JANET MILLS, in her official capacity as the Governor
of the State of Maine; RANDALL LIBERTY, in his official capacity as
the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections; LAURA FORTMAN,
in her official capacity as the Commissioner of the Department of
Labor, Case No. 2:20-cv-00190-LEW (D. Me., June 2, 2020) is a class
action brought by the Plaintiff to vindicate his right to
procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution after Commissioner Laura Fortman and the
Department of Labor have halted the distribution of further
unemployment benefits to the Work Release Program participants
including the Plaintiff amid COVID-19, pursuant to Governor Janet
Mills's directive.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff was, until recently, employed
as a grill cook at the Applebee's restaurant in Thomaston, Maine.
COVID-19 pandemic brought Mr. Sparks's employment, along with the
employment of thousands of individuals in the state of Maine and
across the country, to a halt.

Mr. Sparks's employment at Applebee's was facilitated by Bolduc
Correctional Facility's Work Release Program. The Work Release
Program allows incarcerated individuals classified as "community
custody" -- the lowest security classification -- to work at and
receive wages from employers in the local community.

Within a week of the Work Release Program ending, prison officials
at BCF encouraged Mr. Sparks and other individuals who found
themselves out of work due to the indefinite suspension of the Work
Release Program to apply for unemployment benefits provided by the
government of Maine in response to the COVID-19 crisis and its
devastating impact on the economy.

Mr. Sparks, like many of the Work Release Program participants,
received the minimum unemployment benefit amount available to Maine
residents: $172 per week from the state plus the $600 PUA payment,
for a total of $772 per week.

On April 29, 2020, the Maine Office of the Attorney General
prepared a memorandum directed to Maine Department of Labor
Commissioner Laura Fortman explaining why the individuals who had
previously performed work under the Work Release Program were
eligible for unemployment benefits. Pursuant to Governor Mills's
directive, Commissioner Fortman and the Department of Labor have
halted the distribution of further unemployment benefits to the
Work Release Program participants-despite the Attorney General's
legal determination that the participants are entitled to those
benefits. Additionally, Commissioner Liberty and the Department of
Corrections have seized funds from the bank and phone accounts of
Work Release Program participants in an effort to recoup the
unemployment benefits those individuals received.

Mr. Sparks seeks (1) a declaration that Governor Mills's directives
to the Department of Corrections to place all unemployment benefits
received by the Plaintiffs into a trust account and to the
Department of Labor to cease further distribution of unemployment
benefits violated the constitutional guarantee to procedural due
process; (2) an injunction mandating Commissioner Liberty and the
Department of Corrections to return the unemployment benefits
currently held in a designated trust account to the accounts of the
appropriate individuals; and (3) an injunction enjoining
Commissioner Fortman and the Department of Labor from denying
unemployment benefits to individuals who are entitled to those
benefits under Maine law.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher K. MacLean, Esq.
          CAMDEN LAW, LLP
          20 Mechanic Street
          Camden, ME 04843
          Telephone: {207) 236-8836
          Email: chris@camdenlaw.com

MANLO ENTERPRISES: Kelley Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sancharae Kelley, Kimberly Mosquea, Dania Severino, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MANLO
ENTERPRISES, INC. dba MARIO'S SHOWPLACE II, a Massachusetts
corporation; FRANK A. CHIELLO JR., an individual; DOE MANAGERS 1-3;
and DOES 4-10, inclusive, Case No. 4:20-cv-40061 (D. Mass., May 29,
2020), is brought for damages due to the Defendants evading the
mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, illegally absconding with the Plaintiffs' tips and
demanding illegal kickbacks, including in the form of "House
Fees."

During their time being employed by the Defendants, the Plaintiffs
were denied minimum wage payments and denied overtime as part of
the Defendants' scheme to classify the Plaintiffs and other
dancers/entertainers as "independent contractors," according to the
complaint. The Defendants' conduct violates the FLSA, which
requires non-exempt employees to be compensated for their overtime
work at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay.
The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs minimum wages and
overtime wages for all hours worked in violation of the FLSA.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as exotic
dancers/entertainers.

The Defendants operate an adult-oriented entertainment facility
located in Webster, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jacob J. Ventura, Esq.
          John P. Kristensen, Esq.
          KRISTENSEN, LLP
          12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
          Los Angeles, CA 90066
          Phone: (310) 507-7924
          Facsimile: 310-507-7906
          Email: jacob@kristensenlaw.com
                 john@kristensenlaw.com


MAPLEBEAR INC: Moore Sues Over Flawed Criminal History Screening
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sariah Moore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MAPLEBEAR INC., Case No. 508554/2020 (N.Y. Sup., Kings
Cty., May 29, 2020), alleges that, under the New York City
Administrative Code, the Defendant enacted a discriminatory and
flawed criminal history screening policy that was used to deny
employment opportunities to otherwise qualified job applicants.

The Plaintiff sought employment with the Defendant to operate
within the city limits of the City of New York and, therefore,
subject to the requirements of the NYCHRL. On April 17, 2020, the
Plaintiff was provided a conditional offer of employment by the
Defendant pending a criminal background check ("CBC"). On May 8,
2020, the conditional offer was subsequently rescinded based upon
the Plaintiff's criminal history information revealed on the CBC.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant did not provide her with
an Article 23-A of the New York State Correction Law analysis as
required by NYCHRL, and further did not hold her position open for
a "reasonable time" of "no less than 3 business days" to allow her
an opportunity to respond to the determination that her conditional
offer of employment would be rescinded.

The Defendant's willful failure to provide her with an Article 23-A
analysis after a determination was made to rescind her conditional
offer of employment left her no basis on which to challenge the
decision made by the Defendant, the Plaintiff contends. She adds
that the Defendant's denial of employment, failure to provide the
Article 23-A analysis, and failure to hold the position open for a
"reasonable time" of no less than 3 business days, are per se
violations of the NYCHRL.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Kings County, New York, and has a
criminal history.

MAPLEBEAR INC., is a foreign business corporation, organized and
existing under the laws of the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence Spasojevich, Esq.
          Imran Ansari, Esq.
          AIDALA, BERTUNA & KAMINS, P.C.
          546 5th Avenue
          Phone New York, NY 10036
          Phone: (212) 486-0011


MARS PETCARE: Misrepresents Nutro Dog Food Products, Michael Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alain Michael, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MARS PETCARE US, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-04845 (C.D.
Cal., May 29, 2020), is brought for damages and equitable relief
against the Defendant for misrepresentations regarding the
ingredients in the Nutro Limited Ingredient Diets dog food.

The Plaintiff says he relied on the Defendant's factual
representations about the ingredients in the Nutro Limited
Ingredient Diets dog food, including those representations on the
product label. The representations all indicate that the Nutro
Limited Ingredient Diets is a limited ingredient diet that does not
contain wheat, soy, or chicken. When the Plaintiff learned that the
Nutro Limited Ingredient Diets mislabeled its products, he stopped
purchasing the Nutro Limited Ingredient Diets products.

The Plaintiff did not receive the benefit of his bargain when he
purchased the Nutro Limited Ingredient Diets products that included
ingredients that did not conform to the packaging representations
and warranties made by the Defendant. Had he been aware of the
misrepresentations, he would have either not purchased the Nutro
Limited Ingredient Diets or would have paid less for it.

If Defendant would conform the Nutro Limited Ingredient Diet to its
packaging and ingredient warranties and promises, the Plaintiff
Michael would be willing and likely to purchase the Nutro Limited
Ingredient Diets in the future, according to the complaint.
Accordingly, the Defendant's misrepresentations regarding the
ingredients in the Nutro Limited Ingredient Diets are material to
consumers who purchase this product, passing over products that
cost less but do not claim to be made from select, premium
ingredients.

The Plaintiff purchased Nutro Limited Ingredient Diets monthly from
December 2016 to July 2019 to feed to his own pug, Bingo.

Mars Petcare US, Inc., is a for-profit corporation, who designs,
manufactures, markets, and sells the Nutro Limited Ingredient Diets
online and through third-party retailers throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex R. Straus, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          16748 McCormick Street
          Los Angeles, CA 91436
          Phone: (917) 471-1894
          Email: alex@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and –

          Lisa A. White, Esq.
          Arthur Stock, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Phone: 865-247-0080
          Fax: 865-522-0049
          Email: lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com
                 arthur@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Nick Suciu III, Esq.
          BARBAT, MANSOUR, SUCIU & TOMINA PLLC
          6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
          Phone: 313-303-3472
          Email: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com

               - and –

          J. Hunter Bryson, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          641 S St. NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Phone: 919-539-2708
          Email: hunter@whitfieldbryson.com


MATHIS BATTERY: Underpays Battery Specialists, Kirkpatrick Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IAN KIRKPATRICK, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. MATHIS BATTERY COMPANY, INC. d/b/a PADUCAH
BATTERY SUPPLY, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-00089-TBR (W.D. Ky.,
June 3, 2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff against
the Defendant for failure to pay its employees for all hours
worked, for unpaid overtime compensation, and for related penalties
and damages in direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Kirkpatrick also brings individual claims in this action for
retaliation and for violation of the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act
of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act.

Defendant employed Mr. Kirkpatrick as a Battery Specialist from
2014 until his termination in April 2020.

Mathis Battery Company, Inc. is a Tennessee-based house brand
battery products provider doing business as Paducah Battery
Supply.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Wes Sullenger, Esq.
          SULLENGER LAW OFFICE, PLLC
          629 Washington Street
          Paducah, KY  42003
          Telephone: (270) 443-9401  
          Email: wes@sullengerfirm.com

MICHIGAN: McGore's Requests in Ackerman Jewish Prisoners Suit Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GERALD ACKERMAN and MARK SHAYKIN, Plaintiffs, v. HEIDI
WASHINGTON, Defendant, Civil Case No. 13-14137 (E.D. Mich.), Judge
Linda V. Parker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan, Southern Division, denied Darryl McGore's four motions
seeking to expand the case to address concerns of Muslim
prisoners.

The Plaintiffs filed the class action lawsuit on behalf of Jewish
prisoners, asserting that the vegan diet they receive as Michigan
Department of Corrections ("MDOC") prisoners approved for a
religious (kosher) diet violates their First Amendment rights and
their rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act.  The Court has ruled on the Plaintiffs' claims and
entered a Judgment.  MDOC prisoner Darryl McGore recently filed
multiple (four) motions in the case, all of which are illegible.
The Court has stricken some of his motions, but he continues to
file more.

From what the Court can glean from Mr. McGore's motions, he is
seeking to expand the lawsuit to address concerns of Muslim
prisoners or is challenging the Court's decisions because it does
not accommodate the interests of Muslim prisoners.  The instant
litigation was not filed on behalf of Muslim prisoners, however.
The class and sub-class certified involve only Jewish prisoners who
adhere to a kosher diet.  It does not appear that Mr. McGore is a
member of either class.  It is far too late to now amend the
Plaintiffs' complaint to include the claims of Muslim prisoners, if
the claims were even properly included in the action.

Accordingly, Mr. McGore's motions are denied, the Court ruled.  He
may file no additional motions in the matter.  Any further motions
filed by Mr. McGore will be automatically stricken.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 3, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/98aJ6u from Leagle.com.

Gerald Ackerman & Mark Shaykin, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel
E. Manville -- daniel.manville@law.msu.edu -- Civil Rights Clinic &
Daniel S. Korobkin, American Civil Liberties Union Fund of
Michigan.

Heidi Washington, Defendant, represented by Scott A. Mertens, MI
Dept of Attorney General & Allan J. Soros, Michigan Department of
Attorney General.

L.T. Tucker, Movant, pro se.

Darryl McGore, Movant, pro se.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Giannini Files FDCPA Class Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Nicole Giannini,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons
v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-03208 (N.D.
Ill., May 30, 2020).

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

Midland Credit Management, Inc., is a licensed debt collector
founded in 1953. The Company's line of business includes extending
credit to business enterprises for relatively short period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 575-8181
          Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com


MINNEAPOLIS, MN: Goyette Sues Over Cops' Riot Control Tactics
-------------------------------------------------------------
JARED GOYETTE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS; MINNEAPOLIS
CHIEF OF POLICE MEDARIA ARRADONDO; MINNEAPOLIS POLICE LIEUTENANT
ROBERT KROLL; MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSIONER
JOHN HARRINGTON; MINNESOTA STATE PATROL COLONEL MATTHEW LANGER; AND
JOHN DOES 1-2, Defendants, Case No. 0:20-cv-01302-WMW-DTS (D.
Minn., June 2, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
alleged violations of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments
of the U.S. Constitution.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated journalists and news media members, alleges that
the Defendants used riot control tactics against clearly
identifiable members of the news media providing on-the-scene
coverage of the public unrest and demonstrations following the
death of George Floyd after Minneapolis Police Department (MPD)
officer Derek Chauvin knelt on his upper back and neck and other
officers held him down on May 25, 2020. The events of Floyd's
arrest and murder were captured on video by multiple bystanders and
widely and rapidly disseminated around the world via social media
and news media platforms. Over the next five days and nights,
thousands of people gathered across Minneapolis to protest and
mourn Mr. Floyd's murder. Some of the protests grew in intensity,
and isolated bad actors used the protests to engage in the looting
and burning of hundreds of buildings in Minneapolis and Saint Paul.
Many confrontations occurred during this period between the MPD and
State Patrol, and groups of demonstrators in which law enforcement,
without any forewarning, deployed less-lethal ballistics and
chemical irritants against the demonstrators. Numerous journalists
reported injuries sustained as a result of law enforcement's
unforewarned, indiscriminate use of riot control tactics against
demonstrators, including journalists. Despite Governor Tim Walz's
assurances that the role of the media would be fostered and
respected, the MPD, State Patrol, and other law enforcement
authorities continued to target and intimidate members of the news
media, violating their constitutional rights.

City of Minneapolis is a municipality incorporated in the State of
Minnesota. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Kevin C. Riach, Esq.
         Dulce J. Foster, Esq.
         Pari I. McGarraugh, Esq.
         Jacob P. Harris, Esq.
         FREDRIKSON & BYRON P.A.
         200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-1425
         Telephone: (612) 492-7000
         E-mail: kriach@fredlaw.com
                 dfoster@fredlaw.com
                 pmcgarraugh@fredlaw.com
                 jharris@fredlaw.com

                 - and –
         
         Adam W. Hansen, Esq.
         APOLLO LAW LLC
         333 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300
         Minneapolis, MN 55401
         Telephone: (612) 927-2969
         E-mail: adam@apollo-law.com

                 - and –
         
         Teresa Nelson, Esq.
         AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MINNESOTA
         Minneapolis, MN 55414
         Telephone: (651) 529-1692
         E-mail: tnelson@aclu-mn.org

MOMENTA PHARMA: Settlement Entered in General Hospital's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the Company has entered
into a settlement agreement with The Hospital Authority of
Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County,
Tennessee, d/b/a Nashville General Hospital, or NGH.

On October 14, 2015, The Hospital Authority of Metropolitan
Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, d/b/a
Nashville General Hospital, or NGH, filed a class action suit
against the Company and Sandoz in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of certain
purchasers of LOVENOX or generic Enoxaparin Sodium Injection
alleging that the Company and Sandoz sought to prevent Amphastar
from selling generic Enoxaparin Sodium Injection and thereby
exclude competition for generic Enoxaparin Sodium Injection in
violation of federal anti-trust laws.

On December 10, 2019, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement with NGH in which the Company agreed to pay an aggregate
of $35.0 million as its portion of the consideration for the
release of all alleged claims.

The settlement agreement remains subject to a fairness hearing and
final court approval pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and the Class Action Fairness Act.

Momenta said, "If the settlement is not approved by the court or is
otherwise not completed, the Company will continue to vigorously
defend against the suit. The Company recorded a $35.0 million
liability in connection with the settlement in its consolidated
balance sheets at December 31, 2019, of which $0.2 million was paid
during the three months ended March 31, 2020."

Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biotechnology company, focuses on
the discovery and development of novel biologic therapies for the
treatment of rare immune-mediated diseases in the United States.
The company was formerly known as Mimeon, Inc. and changed its name
to Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in September 2002. Momenta
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in
Cambridge, Massachusetts.


MYRIAD GENETICS: Securities Class Action Ongoing in Utah
--------------------------------------------------------
Myriad Genetics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, In re Myriad Genetics, Inc.
Securities Litigation (No. 2:19-cv-00707-DBB).

On September 27, 2019, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Utah,
against the Company, its former President and Chief Executive
Officer, Mark C. Capone, and its Interim President and Chief
Executive Officer, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer, R. Bryan Riggsbee.

On February 21, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended class action
complaint, which added the Company's Executive Vice President of
Clinical Development, Bryan M. Dechairo, as an additional
Defendant.

This action, captioned In re Myriad Genetics, Inc. Securities
Litigation (No. 2:19-cv-00707-DBB), is premised upon allegations
that the Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding
our business, operations, and acquisitions.  

The lead plaintiff seeks the payment of damages allegedly sustained
by it and the purported class by reason of the allegations set
forth in the amended complaint, plus interest, and legal and other
costs and fees.  

The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action.

Myriad said, "Due to the nature of this matter and inherent
uncertainties, it is not possible to provide an evaluation of the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or an estimate of the amount
or range of potential loss, if any."

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

Myriad Genetics, Inc., a molecular diagnostic company, focuses on
developing and marketing novel predictive medicine, personalized
medicine, and prognostic medicine tests worldwide. Myriad Genetics,
Inc. was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City,
Utah.


NATURAL HEALTH: Appeal in Kauffman Class Action Dropped
-------------------------------------------------------
Natural Health Trends Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that plaintiff in Kauffman
v. Natural Health Trends Corp., Case No. 2:19-cv-00163, has filed a
stipulated motion for voluntary dismissal of her appeal, concluding
this matter.

On January 8, 2019, the Company and its two executive officers were
named in a putative securities class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
captioned Kauffman v. Natural Health Trends Corp., Case No.
2:19-cv-00163.

On May 3, 2019, the court issued an order appointing Xia Yang as
lead plaintiff and appointing The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as lead
counsel.

On June 3, 2019, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On
January 17, 2020, after briefing and oral argument on the Company's
motion to dismiss, the court issued an order dismissing the entire
action with prejudice and ordering that judgment be entered for
defendants.

On February 14, 2020, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On April 9, 2020, plaintiff filed a stipulated motion for voluntary
dismissal of her appeal, concluding this matter.

Natural Health Trends Corp., a direct-selling and e-commerce
company, provides personal care, wellness, and lifestyle products
under the NHT Global brand. Natural Health Trends Corp. was founded
in 1988 and is headquartered in Kowloon, Hong Kong.


NELNET INC: Keylon & Gerdes Seek Proper Pay for Call Center Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE KEYLON and ALEXUS GERDES, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. NELNET,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-03059 (D. Neb., June 1, 2020) is
a collective and class action brought by Plaintiffs, individually
and on behalf of all similarly situated persons employed by,
arising from Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and for common law breach of contract and unjust
enrichment.

Defendant employed Plaintiffs as customer service advisors at
brick-and-mortar call centers during the past three years at its
brick-and-mortar call center in Lincoln, Nebraska.

Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated hourly CSAs who worked for Defendant at any call
center in the United States, to obtain declaratory relief and
recover unpaid wages and overtime, liquidated damages, penalties,
fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and any other
remedies to which they may be entitled.

Nelnet, Inc. is a United States-based conglomerate that deals in
the administration and repayment of student loans and education
financial services, among other things.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kelly Brandon, Esq.
          Aimee Bataillion, Esq.
          FIEDLER LAW FIRM, PLC
          20615 Hwy 370
          Gretna, NE 68028
          Telephone: (402) 316-3060
          Email: kelly@employmentlawnebraska.com
                 aimee@employmentlawnebraska.com

               - and -

          Jason Thompson, Esq.
          Charles R. Ash, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          Email: jthompson@sommerspc.com
                 crash@sommerspc.com

NES GLOBAL: Newman Seeks Overtime Pay for Ironworkers
-----------------------------------------------------
DAVID NEWMAN, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. NES GLOBAL LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-01636
(S.D. Tex., May 8, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought
against Defendant for its alleged willful violation of the fair
Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately January 2019
until April 2019 as an Ironworker Forman assisting with the
construction of warehouses, observing the quality of construction
on site, and operating machinery, at Defendant's customer's site in
Asheville, North Carolina.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and the Putative Class
Members worked from 50 to 70 hours in a typical workweek or 10 to
12 hours shifts for up to 7 days a week for weeks at a time. Though
they regularly reported the hours they worked, Defendant did not
properly compensate them at one-and-one-half times their regular
rate for all overtime worked in excess of 40 hours in a single
workweek by not including shift differential in their regular rate
of pay, thereby denying them of overtime compensation at the legal
overtime rate required by the FLSA.

NES Global LLC is a staffing company that provides recruitment
services to the oil and gas industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77005
          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


NES MIDSTREAM: Foster Seeks Overtime Wages for Pipeline Inspectors
------------------------------------------------------------------
DICKIE FOSTER, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. NES MIDSTREAM, LLC d/b/a NAVIGATOR ENERGY SERVICES,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-01153-S (N.D. Tex., May 7, 2020)
is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its
alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by
failing to properly pay overtime to their workers.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Pipeline Inspector from
approximately August 2019 until November 2019.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and the class of similarly
situated inspectors or putative class members regularly worked for
Defendant in excess of 40 hours each week. But, Defendant paid them
a flat daily rate for each day worked regardless of the total hours
worked in a workweek; thereby denying them of overtime pay at one
and one-half times their regular rates for hours worked in excess
of 40 in a workweek.

NES Midstream, LLC d/b/a Navigator Energy Services, Inc. is a
midstream oil and gas company that provides services to assist with
the gathering, transmission, treating, processing, compression, and
storage of natural gas and crude oil. [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


NEW ALBERTSONS INC: Piazza Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Piazza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NEW ALBERTSONS, INC.; JEWEL FOOD STORES, INC.; and
AMERICAN DRUG STORES, LLC d/b/a JEWEL-OSCO, Case No. 1:20-cv-03187
(N.D. Ill., May 29, 2020), is brought against the Defendants to
recover unpaid overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

The Defendants violated the FLSA and IMWL by failing to pay its
"Assistant Store Directors" (ASDs) overtime compensation for the
hours they worked over 40 in one or more workweeks because the
Defendants classify them as exempt from overtime, according to the
complaint. The Plaintiff was required to work more than 40 hours
per week while employed by Defendants in order to complete their
job duties. However, in accordance with the Defendants' policy,
pattern, and/or practice, they were misclassified as exempt from
overtime compensation and were not paid at the mandated rate of
time-and-one-half for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) in a
workweek.

The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants as an ASD since
February 2019.

"Jewel-Osco" is a chain of approximately 188 retail supermarkets
and 30 gas stations that are located in Illinois, Iowa, and
Indiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 West Washington, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 419-1008
          Facsimile: 312-419-1025
          Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                 msalas@flsalaw.com
                 sarendt@flsalaw.com

               - and -

          Jason Conway, Esq.
          CONWAY LEGAL, LLC
          1700 Market Street, Suite 1005
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 278-4782
          Facsimile: (215) 278-4807
          Email: jconway@conwaylegalpa.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Elia, Esq.
          LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
          510 Walnut Street, Ste. 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Phone: (215) 592-1000
          Fax: (215) 592-4663
          Email: dlevin@lfsblaw.com
                 nelia@lfsblaw.com


NEW SCHOOL: Amable Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Amable, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. The New School, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-03811 (S.D. N.Y., May 15, 2020), seeks disgorgement of all
amounts wrongfully obtained for tuition, fees, on-campus housing,
and meals; injunctive relief including enjoining The New School
from retaining the pro-rated, unused monies paid for tuition, fees,
on-campus housing and meals; 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.

The New School is a private university system consisting of five
divisions, offering 81 different degree/diploma programs and
majors. Amable is a parent of an undergraduate student pursuing a
Bachelor of Fine Arts Degree in Communication Design. The New
School decided to close campus, constructively evict students, and
transition all classes to an online/remote format as a result of
the Novel Coronavirus Disease. Amable's daughter 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. The New
School refused to provide reimbursement for the tuition, fees and
other costs, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
      Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      888 Seventh Avenue
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 989-9113
      Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
      E-Mail: 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


NOOM INC: Mahood Sues Over Weight Loss Program Enrolment Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
GERALDINE MAHOOD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NOOM, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-03677 (S.D.N.Y., May 12, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the New York General Business Law,
the California Automatic Renewal Law, the California Unfair
Competition Law, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
common law fraud, and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated individuals, alleges that the Defendant
initiated a deceptive and illegal automatic renewal scheme which
lures customers to enroll to its weight-loss programs online with
deceptive promises of low cost or zero cost trial periods. However,
it turns out that as soon as the trial period ends, the Defendant
activates its auto-renewal program and begins assessing
non-refundable membership fees. The Plaintiff and Class members
experienced difficulty in cancelling the program enrollment, which
caused them to be trapped in costly auto-recurring plans they never
had any intention of enrolling into. Moreover, the Defendant
imposes lump-sum charges for its entire program, extracting up to
six months of non-refundable advance payments on the very first day
of a customer's enrollment.

The Plaintiff and Class members sustained damages as a result of
the Defendant's failure to accurately disclose the true
characteristics of its trial period, its automatic enrollment
policy, and the actual steps customers need to follow in attempting
to cancel a 14-day trial and avoid automatic enrollment.

Noom, Inc. is a diet and weight loss company located at 229 West
28th Street, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
         
         Steven L. Wittels, Esq.
         J. Burkett McInturff, Esq.
         Tiasha Palikovic, Esq.
         WITTELS MCINTURFF PALIKOVIC
         18 Half Mile Road
         Armonk, NY 10504
         Telephone: (914) 319-9945
         Facsimile: (914) 273-2563
         E-mail: slw@wittelslaw.com
                 jbm@wittelslaw.com
                 tpalikovic@wittelslaw.com

NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: Bahrani Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
--------------------------------------------------------------
Manisha Bahrani, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Northeastern University, Defendant, Case
No. 20-cv-10946 (D. Mass., May 18, 2020), seeks disgorgement of all
amounts wrongfully obtained for tuition, fees, on-campus housing,
and meals; injunctive relief including enjoining Northeastern
College from retaining the pro-rated, unused monies paid for
tuition, fees, on-campus housing and meals; 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; plus refunds of all tuition fees paid on a
pro-rata basis, together with other damages resulting from breach
of contract and unjust enrichment.

Northeastern is a private university system consisting of six
campuses, with the primary campus in Boston where Bahrani is a
graduate student pursuing a Master of Science in Information
Systems. Northeastern decided to close campus, constructively evict
students, and transition all classes to an online/remote format as
a result of the Novel Coronavirus Disease. Bahrani 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.
Northeastern refused to provide reimbursement for the tuition, fees
and other costs. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Frederick J. Klorczyk, III, Esq.
      1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
      Walnut Creek, CA 94596
      Telephone: (925) 300-4455
      Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
      E-Mail: fklorczyk@bursor.com

              - and -

      Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
      Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      888 Seventh Avenue
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 989-9113
      Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
      E-Mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
              aleslie@bursor.com


NRG ENERGY: Suits Against XOOM Ongoing in Maryland & New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 7, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2020, that XOOM Energy, LLC (XOOM) continues to defend class action
suits pending in Maryland and New York.

On June 1, 2018, the Company completed the acquisition of XOOM
Energy, LLC (XOOM), an electricity and natural gas retailer
operating in 19 states, Washington, D.C. and Canada, for
approximately $213 million, including working capital and other
adjustments of $48 million. The acquisition increased NRG's retail
portfolio by approximately 395,000 RCEs or 300,000 customers.

XOOM is a defendant in two purported class action lawsuits pending
in Maryland and New York. The plaintiffs generally claim that they
did not receive the savings they were promised in their natural gas
and electricity bills.

The parties in the Maryland lawsuit are briefing summary judgment
and class certification.

In the New York case, XOOM filed a motion to dismiss, which the
court granted on September 21, 2018, later entering judgment in
XOOM's favor on September 24, 2018.

The plaintiffs in the New York case appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit. On July 26, 2019, the Second
Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded to
the district court with instructions that plaintiffs be permitted
to proceed on their proposed amended complaint.

NRG Energy said, "This matter was known and accrued for at the time
of the acquisition."

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

NRG Energy, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
integrated power company in the United States. The company is
involved in the generation of electricity using fossil fuel and
nuclear sources. The company was founded in 1989 and is
headquartered in Princeton, New Jersey.


NUTRACEUTICAL INT'L: Sold to HGGC at Low Price, Investors Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL ERIC WEISS, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly-situated former stockholders of NUTRACEUTICAL
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff v. MICHAEL D. BURKE; J. KIMO
ESPLIN; FRANK W. GAY II; JEFFREY A. HINRICHS; JAMES D. STICE; HGGC
FUND III, L.P.; and HGGC, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2020-0364 (Del.
Ch., May 13, 2020) is a class action against Individual Defendants
for breaches of fiduciary duties and HGGC Defendants for aiding and
abetting breaches of fiduciary duty.

The Plaintiff and Class members allege that Individual Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties owed to stockholders of
Nutraceutical International Corporation through HGGC's 2017
acquisition of Nutraceutical for $41.80 per share in cash. The HGGC
Defendants actively and knowingly induced and encouraged those
breaches to enrich Nutraceutical insiders and HGGC to the detriment
of the Nutraceutical's common stockholders. The HGGC Defendants
knew, through HGGC's communications and longstanding relationships
with Nutraceutical directors, including Gregory M. Benson's 13-year
tenure on Nutraceutical's Board, and HGGC's years-long pursuit of
the company, what the market did not: (1) Board Chairman Frank W.
Gay was on the brink of retiring; and (2) the Individual Defendants
wanted Leslie Brown, managing director of HGGC, to succeed Gay. The
HGGC Defendants used this nonpublic information to make an
opportunistically timed, lowball bid to acquire Nutraceutical,
which HGGC knew was not otherwise for sale. The HGGC Defendants
leveraged these relationships and exploited the Board's conflict of
interests to acquire the Nutraceutical for a low price. HGGC
therefore aided and abetted the Individual Defendants' breaches of
fiduciary duties.

HGGC Fund III, L.P. is an investment fund owned by Palo Alto,
California-based private equity firm HGGC, LLC.

HGGC, LLC is a Palo Alto, California-based private equity firm that
focuses on middle market acquisitions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
         BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
         500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Telephone: (302) 364-3601

               - and –
         
         Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
         Christopher J. Orrico, Esq.
         Jacqueline Y. Ma, Esq.
         BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
         1251 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10020

               - and –
         
         Lee D. Rudy, Esq.
         Justin O. Reliford, Esq.
         Stacey A. Greenspan, Esq.
         Daniel Baker, Esq.
         KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Telephone: (610) 667-7706

OMNICOM GROUP: Faces Tepper Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Tepper, Surfina Adams, Michael Mensack and Daniel Dise,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
OMNICOM GROUP, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF OMNICOM GROUP, INC.,
OMNICOM GROUP INC. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-30,
Case No. 1:20-cv-04141 (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2020), is brought
pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,
against the Plan's fiduciaries for breaches of their fiduciary
duties.

To safeguard Plan participants and beneficiaries, ERISA imposes
strict fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence upon employers and
other plan fiduciaries. The Plan has at all times, during the Class
Period maintained over 2.4 billion dollars in assets (including
having 2.7 billion dollars in assets in 2018), qualifying it as a
large plan in the defined contribution plan marketplace, and among
the largest plans in the United States. These assets are entrusted
to the care of the Plan's fiduciaries. As a large plan, the Plan
had substantial bargaining power regarding the fees and expenses
that were charged against participants' investments. The
Defendants, however, did not try to reduce the Plan's expenses or
exercise appropriate judgment to scrutinize each investment option
that was offered in the Plan to ensure it was prudent, the
Plaintiff alleges.

The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period (May
29, 2014, through the date of judgment) the Defendants, as
"fiduciaries" of the Plan as that term is defined under ERISA,
breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to the Plaintiffs, and
to the other participants of the Plan by, inter alia, (1) failing
to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment
portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was
prudent, in terms of cost; and (2) maintaining certain funds in the
Plan despite the availability of identical or materially similar
investment options with lower costs and/or better performance
histories.

To make matters worse, the Defendants failed to consider lower cost
collective trusts that were available to the Plan as alternatives
to certain mutual funds in the Plan, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs participated in the Plan, investing in the options
offered by the Plan.

Omnicom Group, Inc., is the Plan sponsor, who describes itself as
"an inter-connected global network of leading marketing
communications companies."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          312 Old Lancaster Road
          Merion Station, PA 19066
          Phone: (610) 890-0200
          Fax (717) 233-4103
          Email: markg@capozziadler.com

               - and -

          Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          2933 North Front Street
          Harrisburg, PA 17110
          Phone: (717) 233-4101
          Fax (717) 233-4103
          Email: donr@capozziadler.com


ONCTERNAL THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss GTx Merger Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oncternal Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the defendants' motion
to dismiss the New York actions related to the company's merger
with GTx, Inc. is pending.

On March 6, 2019, the Company, then operating as GTx, Inc. ("GTx"),
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, as
amended (the "Merger Agreement"), with privately-held Oncternal
Therapeutics, Inc. ("Private Oncternal") and Grizzly Merger Sub,
Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company ("Merger Sub").
Under the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub merged with and into Private
Oncternal, with Private Oncternal surviving as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company (the "Merger"). On June 7, 2019, the
Merger was completed.  GTx changed its name to Oncternal
Therapeutics, Inc., and Private Oncternal, which remains as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, changed its name to
Oncternal Oncology, Inc.

Between April 10 and May 1, 2019, three putative class action
lawsuits and one individual lawsuit were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware (the "Delaware Actions").

In 2019, the Delaware Actions were voluntarily dismissed with
prejudice.

On April 11 and 23, 2019, two putative class actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the
"New York Actions"). The New York Actions name as defendants the
company and its former board of directors.  

The New York Actions allege that defendants violated Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder, in connection with our filing of the Registration
Statement in connection with the Merger.

On September 16, 2019, plaintiffs in the New York Actions filed an
amended complaint, alleging violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act related to the value GTx's stockholders
received in the Merger. The amended complaint seeks damages and
other unspecified relief.

On January 10, 2020, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss
the amended complaint, on January 31, 2020, the plaintiffs filed
their opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss, and on February
14, 2020, the defendants filed a reply in support of their motion
to dismiss. The defendants' motion to dismiss the New York Actions
is pending.

Oncternal said, "The Company believes that the New York Actions are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend these actions. The
Company cannot predict the outcome of or estimate the possible loss
or range of loss from any of these matters."

Oncternal Therapeutics, Inc., a clinical-stage biotechnology
company, develops various product candidates for the treatment of
cancer. The Company is headquartered in San Diego, California.


OPKO HEALTH: Data Security Breach Suits v. BioReference Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OPKO Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the lawsuit over a data
security breach last year against BioReference Laboratories, Inc.,
have been dismissed.

On June 3, 2019, BioReference Laboratories, Inc. (BioReference)
reported that Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. d/b/a
American Medical Collection Agency ("AMCA"), had notified
BioReference about a data security incident involving AMCA (the
"AMCA Incident").

AMCA informed BioReference that an unauthorized user had access to
AMCA's system between August 1, 2018 and March 30, 2019. AMCA
advised that AMCA's affected system may have included patient name,
date of birth, address, phone, date of service, provider, and
balance information, as well as credit card information, bank
account information (but no passwords or security questions) and
email addresses that were provided by the consumer to AMCA.

AMCA has advised BioReference that no Social Security Numbers were
compromised, and BioReference provided no laboratory results or
diagnostic information to AMCA.

BioReference has notified patients and provided notice to the
Office of Civil Rights of the AMCA Incident. BioReference has been
named in at least two class action lawsuits against AMCA and other
defendants in connection with the AMCA Incident.

In April 2020, the class action lawsuits against BioReference were
dismissed without prejudice.

The Office of Inspector General and Office for Civil Rights ("OCR")
of the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as the
attorney generals' offices from certain states have contacted
BioReference to request additional information relating to the AMCA
Incident.

OPKO said, "It is not possible at this time to estimate the amount
of loss or range of loss, if any, that might result from adverse
judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, or other resolution of
these proceedings and investigations based on the stage of these
proceedings and investigations, the absence of specific allegations
as to alleged damages, the uncertainty as to whether the class
action lawsuits or other lawsuits will be filed or refiled, and/or
the lack of resolution of significant factual and legal issues."

OPKO Health, Inc., a healthcare company, engages in the diagnostics
and pharmaceuticals business in the United States, Ireland, Chile,
Spain, Israel, Mexico, and internationally. OPKO Health, Inc. was
incorporated in 1991 and is headquartered in Miami, Florida.


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Underway in Utah
----------------------------------------------------------------
Overstock.com, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit in Utah.

On September 27, 2019, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed against the company and its former chief executive
officer and former chief financial officer in the United States
District Court in the Central District of Utah, alleging violations
under Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, Section 20(a), Section 20(A) of
the Exchange Act.

On October 8, 2019, October 17, 2019, October 31, 2019, and
November 20, 2019, four similar lawsuits were filed in the same
court also naming the Company and the above referenced former
executives as defendants, bringing similar claims under the
Exchange Act, and seeking similar relief.

These cases were consolidated into a single lawsuit in December
2019.

The Court appointed The Mangrove Partners Master Fund Ltd. as lead
plaintiff in January 2020.

In March 2020, an amended consolidated complaint was filed against
the company, its president of retail, its former chief executive
officer, and its former chief financial officer.

Overstock.com said, "No estimates of the possible losses or range
of losses can be made at this time. We intend to vigorously defend
this consolidated action.

Overstock.com, Inc. operates as an online retailer in the United
States and internationally. The Company was formerly known as
D2-Discounts Direct and changed its name to Overstock.com, Inc. in
October 1999. Overstock.com, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Midvale, Utah."


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Faces Missouri State Court Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Overstock.com, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in
the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis, State of Missouri.

On April 23, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the company in the Circuit Court of the County of St.
Louis, State of Missouri, alleging that the company over-collected
taxes on products sold into the state of Missouri.

No estimate of the possible loss or range of loss can be made at
this time.

Overstock.com said, "We intend to vigorously defend this action."

Overstock.com, Inc. operates as an online retailer in the United
States and internationally. The Company was formerly known as
D2-Discounts Direct and changed its name to Overstock.com, Inc. in
October 1999. Overstock.com, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Midvale, Utah.


PACKARD CHILDREN'S: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alejo Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
JAZMIN ALEJO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PACKARD CHILDREN'S HEALTH ALLIANCE; and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. ZOCV366750 (Cal.
Super., Santa Clara Cty., June 1, 2020) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff Alejo was employed by the Defendants as hourly paid,
non exempt employee.

Packard Children's Health Alliance was founded in 2012. The
company's line of business includes the practice of general or
specialized medicine and surgery for various licensed
practitioners. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Isandra Fernandez, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387-6676


PAPA JOHN'S: Danker Class Action Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------
Papa John's International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the plaintiffs in the
case, Danker v. Papa John's International, Inc. et al., have filed
a second amended complaint.

On August 30, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York on behalf of a
class of investors who purchased or acquired stock in Papa John's
through a period up to and including July 19, 2018.

The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The District Court
appointed the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System to lead
the case.  

An amended complaint was filed on February 13, 2019, which the
Company moved to dismiss. On March 16, 2020, the Court granted the
Company’s motion to dismiss, on the ground that the complaint
failed to state any viable cause of action.

The Plaintiffs subsequently filed a second amended complaint on
April 30, 2020.  

The Company believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses to
the second amended complaint and intends to vigorously defend
against the case.  

The Company has not recorded any liability related to this lawsuit
as of March 29, 2020 as it does not believe a loss is probable or
reasonably estimable.

Papa John's International, Inc. operates and franchises pizza
delivery and carryout restaurants under the Papa John's trademark
in the United States and internationally. It operates through four
segments: Domestic Company-Owned Restaurants, North America
Commissaries, North America Franchising, and International
Operations. The company was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in
Louisville, Kentucky.


PATRICK ENGINEERING: Underpays Welding Inspectors, Stout Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY STOUT, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. PATRICK ENGINEERING, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-02808 (N.D. Ill., May 8, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from April 2017 until April
2018 as a non-exempt Welding Inspector.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and the Putative Class
Members regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week. Although
Defendant kept accurate records of the hours its inspectors work
and knew its inspectors worked more than 40 hours in a workweek,
Defendant did not pay them overtime for all hours worked in excess
of 40 hours and failed to include the per diem allowance in its
inspectors' regular rate in calculating their overtime
compensation.

Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages and/or penalty damages, attorneys' fees, costs,
and expenses, and pre- and post-judgment interest.

Patrick Engineering, Inc. is a national engineering and design,
construction, management services, and technology firm, and employs
inspector personnel to perform engineering and construction
throughout Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Tel: (312)419-1008
          Fax: (312)419-1025
          Emails: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                  msalas@flsalaw.com

                - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          William R. Liles, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77005
          Tel: 713-352-1100
          Fax: 713-352-3300
          Emails: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@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


PHENOS COLLECTIVE: Faces Rohrer Suit Over Unsolicited Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Rohrer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PHENOS COLLECTIVE, INC., d/b/a PHENOS CANNABIS
DISPENSARY, Case No. 1:20-at-00392 (E.D. Cal., May 29, 2020),
arises from the Defendant's illegal actions in negligently
contacting the Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading the
Plaintiff's privacy.

Through the unsolicited messages, the Defendant contacted the
Plaintiff on the Plaintiff's cellular telephone regarding an
unsolicited service via an "automatic telephone dialing system"
("ATDS"), as defined and prohibited by the TCPA, according to the
complaint. The Defendant is and was aware that it is transmitting
unsolicited telemarketing text messages to the Plaintiff and other
consumers without their prior express consent. The Plaintiff was
damaged by the Defendant's messages.

The Plaintiff's domicile is in Riverbank, California.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY: Crossroads Slams Denied Insurance Coverage
------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossroads Investments, LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Philadelphia Indemnity
Insurance Company, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02329 (E.D. Pa., May
18, 2020), seeks injunctive relief, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest at the maximum rate, attorney's fees and costs and such
other relief for breach of contract.

Crossroads Investments operates Central Bucks Children's Academy, a
daycare center, out of its location at 832 Easton Road, Warrington
PA. It purchased an all-risk commercial property insurance policy
from Philadelphia Indemnity to protect it in the event of property
loss and business interruption. But during the COVID-19 pandemic,
Philadelphia Indemnity denied coverage despite that policy does not
contain an exclusion for pandemic and/or virus-related losses, says
the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
      Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
      1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Tel: (412) 322-9243
      Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
             kiverson@carlsonlynch.com


PINDUODUO INC: Consolidated Class Action in SDNY Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Pinduoduo Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a trial court has granted
the company's motion to dismiss the claims in the consolidated
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

Between August and December 2018, several putative shareholder
class action lawsuits were filed against the company and certain of
its officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York ("SDNY") and the Superior Court of
the State of California.

In March 2020, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss
the claims in the consolidated action in the SDNY.

The California action remains in its preliminary stages, for which,
the company cannot reliably estimate the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome or any estimate of the amounts or range of any
potential loss.

Pinduoduo said, "As of December 31, 2019, the company did not
consider an unfavorable outcome in any material respects in the
outstanding legal proceedings and litigations to be probable."

Pinduoduo Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates an e-commerce
platform in the People's Republic of China. It operates Pinduoduo,
a mobile platform that offers a range of products, including
apparel, shoes, bags, mother and childcare products, food and
beverage, fresh produce, electronic appliances, furniture and
household goods, cosmetics and other personal care items, sports
and fitness items, and auto accessories. The company was formerly
known as Walnut Street Group Holding Limited and changed its name
to Pinduoduo Inc. in July 2018. Pinduoduo Inc. was founded in 2015
and is based in Shanghai, the People's Republic of China.


PJD ENTERTAINMENT: Attias Sues Over Tip-sharing Policy
------------------------------------------------------
Arielle Attias, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PJD Entertainment of Worcester, Inc. and
Richard McCabe, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-10942, (D. Mass., May 15,
2020), seeks damages, back-pay, restitution, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, reasonable attorney's fees and costs and all
other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Massachusetts
Minimum Wage Law and the Massachusetts Tips Law.

Defendants operate as "Centerfold's," an adult-oriented
entertainment facility located at 229 South West Cutoff Worcester,
Massachusetts where Attias worked as an exotic dancer. She was
compensated exclusively through tips from customers and did not
receive payment for any hours worked at their establishment.
However, she was required to share her tips with other non-service
employees who do not customarily receive tips, notes the complaint.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
      ZIPIN, AMSTER, & GREENBERG, LLC
      8757 Georgia Ave., Suite 400
      Silver Spring, MD 20910
      Office: (301) 587–9373
      Fax: (240) 839-9142
      Email: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com

             - and -

      Michael D. Pushee, Esq.
      FORMISANO & CO., P.C.
      100 Midway Place, Suite 1
      Cranston, RI 02920-5707
      Tel: (401) 944-9691
      E-mail: mpushee@formisanoandcompany.com


PMAB LLC: Court Dismisses Baptist From Scalabrini FDCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GINO J. SCALABRINI, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PMAB, LLC; BAPTIST
HOSPITAL, INC.; and GULF COAST COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv-11152 (NSR) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Nelson S. Roman of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (i)
granted in part and denied in part Baptist Hospital, Inc.'s motion
to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), or in the alternative, to transfer the case to
the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Sections 1404(a) and 1406(a); and (ii) denied PMAB and
Gulf Coast Collection Bureau, Inc.'s motion to transfer the case to
Florida.

Plaintiff Scalabrini initiated the putative class action against
Defendants PMAB, Baptist, and Gulf Coast, alleging violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), and New York law.
The Plaintiff, a resident of Brewster, New York, received medical
treatment at Gulf Breeze Hospital, also known as Baptist Gulf
Breeze Hospital ("GBH"), in Santa Rosa County, Florida, on an
unspecified date.  GBH is a fictitious entity owned and operated by
Baptist.  The Plaintiff states that the treatment performed at GBH
included the provision of unauthorized, illegal medical procedures,
done without his consent and directly contrary to his
instructions.

On July 3, 2017, the Plaintiff received a collection notice for
some of the cost of the unauthorized medical procedures.  The
Notice was sent by PMAB, and "caused to be sent" by Baptist.  On
Aug. 1, 2017, the Plaintiff sent a dispute notice to PMAB,
informing PMAB and Baptist that he would not pay for surgery he did
not authorize, including the required postoperative day 1 visit of
Dec. 16, 2016. On Aug. 14, 2017, Baptist provided a patient
statement of account to PMAB, directing the Plaintiff to make
payments to GBH.  On Aug. 17, 2017, PMAB sent the Plaintiff a
second collection notice.

On Oct. 25, 2017, and Dec. 4, 2017, Baptist sent the Plaintiff two
separate GBH Billing Notices directing him to make payment for more
of the cost of the unauthorized medical procedures to GBH.
Approximately eight times between Nov. 18, 2017, and Dec. 20, 2017,
Baptist called the Plaintiff and left pre-recorded messages on
behalf of GBH, again seeking more of the cost of the unauthorized
medical procedures.  The messages directed the Plaintiff to call
about amounts owed to GBH.

On Dec. 15, 2017, Gulf Coast sent, and Baptist caused to be sent, a
third collection notice to the Plaintiff.  On Jan. 17, 2018, the
Plaintiff sent Gulf Coast a second dispute notice, again stating
that he would not pay for unauthorized surgery or follow-up care.
On June 4, 2018, PMAB sent a fourth collection notice to the
Plaintiff.  In response, the Plaintiff sent a third dispute notice
reiterating the assertions in his first two dispute notices.  On
July 12, 2018, PMAB sent a "settlement offer" to the Plaintiff
seeking half the cost of the medical care provided by Baptist.

The Plaintiff avers that none of the Defendants investigated his
claims that the procedures he was being charged for were
unauthorized, even though he provided such claims in writing on
three separate occasions.  Instead, the Defendants continued their
efforts to collect the alleged debt.  The Defendants also reported
the alleged debt to various credit reporting agencies, thereby
damaging the Plaintiff's credit.

The Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint alleging that the
Defendants violated the FDCPA by (1) leaving eight pre-recorded
debt collection messages; (2) attempting to collect amounts that
were not owed; and (3) disclosing information regarding the
Plaintiff's debt to credit reporting agencies, knowing the
information was false.  He further alleges that the Defendants
violated 23 NYCRR Section 1.2(a) and (b).  He brings the foregoing
claims on behalf of himself and a purported class of debtors.

Baptist now moves to dismiss the Complaint, or in the alternative,
to transfer the case to the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola
Division.  PMAB and Gulf Coast join in the portion of Baptist's
motion seeking to transfer the case to Florida.  

Baptist and the Plaintiff primarily dispute whether the Plaintiff
has sufficiently pleaded that Baptist, the creditor, may be deemed
a debt collector subject to the FDCPA.  Judge Roman finds that the
Plaintiff does not plausibly allege that he was misled into
believing that the calls and notices he received were coming from a
third-party unrelated to the creditor.  Therefore, their FDCPA
claims against Baptist fail, the Court finds.

Baptist argues that the Plaintiff's state law claims pursuant to 23
NYCRR Section 1 should be dismissed because the regulation does not
apply to creditors and does not give rise to a private cause of
action.  The Plaintiff does not oppose dismissal of his state law
claims.  

Remaining Defendants PMAB and Gulf Coast move, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1404(a), for an order transferring the case to the
Northern District of Florida.  They initially argue that the
Plaintiff could have brought the instant action in the Northern
District of Florida.  Since a substantial part, if not the most
substantial part, of the events giving rise to the Plaintiff's
claims took place in the Northern District of Florida, and no party
disputes that the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Florida would have personal jurisdiction over the
Defendants, the Judge proceeds to consider whether transfer is
appropriate in the case.  The Judge finds that the Defendants have
not shown by clear and convincing evidence that transfer is
appropriate.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, Judge Roman granted Baptist's
Motion to Dismiss the Complaint to the extent that the Complaint is
dismissed against Baptist Hospital, Inc. in its entirety.

The portion of Baptist's motion seeking to transfer venue, and the
motion of Defendants PMAB and Gulf Coast, seeking the same, are
denied, the Judge further ruled.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 3, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/PJ2Tju from Leagle.com.

Gino J. Scalabrini, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Chiway Chan --
chiway.chan@gmail.com -- Grant and Longworth LLP.

PMAB, LLC & Gulf Coast Collection Bureau Inc., Defendants,
represented by Richard Jay Perr -- rperr@kdvlaw.com -- Kaufman
Dolowich Voluck.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Lutz Sues over Unlawful Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL LUTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00676-DSC (W.D. Pa., May 7, 2020) is a
class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Fair
Credit Extension Uniformity Act, and the Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law.

Plaintiff owns a credit card account issued by Capital One Bank
which allowed him to purchase goods and services from businesses
that agreed to accept the account as payment for goods and
services.

The complaint arises from Defendant's lawsuit filed against
Plaintiff in August 2019 to collect the Account owed by Plaintiff
from Capital One Bank that was purchased by Defendant.

According to the complaint, Defendant could not lawfully collect
the defaulted Account by filing suit against Plaintiff because
Defendant failed to provide prior notice requirements to Plaintiff
that includes his right to cure his defaulted Account within 21
days of the date of receipt of the notice, and details about the
defaulted account, the amount due, and whom payment must be made.

The complaint asserts that Plaintiff and the members of the
proposed classes suffered injury, including monetary harm for any
attorneys' fees paid to defend against the lawsuits filed by
Defendant without legal authority.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC purchases defaulted consumer
debt with the purpose of collecting debt for profit. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and -

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


POSTMATES INC: Can Compel Arbitration in Feld Suit
--------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMIE FELD, et al., Plaintiff, v. POSTMATES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-3899 (PKC) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge P. Kevin
Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted Postmates' motion to compel arbitration.

Plaintiff Jaime Feld has filed a putative class action against
Postmates, alleging violations of New York General Business Law
Section 349 and unjust enrichment.  Postmates argues that the Court
lacks jurisdiction over the matter and moves to compel arbitration
on the grounds that Feld entered into a binding arbitration
agreement with Postmates when she signed up for and used Postmates'
service.

Postmates is an online marketplace where consumers can place orders
from restaurants or other retailers and independent
contractor-couriers deliver users' orders.  Consumers must create a
Postmates account, either on the website or using the App, in order
to place orders on Postmates' platform.  Then creating a Postmates
account, a consumer signs up using his or her email address and a
password; consumers may also sign up by connecting to their
Facebook accounts.  

On the Postmates website sign-up screen, below the email and
password fields and above the "Sign Up" and "Facebook" buttons is
the following disclaimer: "By clicking the Sign Up or Facebook
button, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy."  A
consumer sees a similar screen while signing up on the App; he or
she may sign up using an email address and password or Facebook
account.  Above the "Sign Up" and "Facebook" buttons on the App
sign-up screen is the following disclaimer: "By tapping the Sign Up
or Facebook button, you agree to our Terms of Service & Privacy
Policy."  A consumer may skip signing up on the App by clicking
"Skip for Now" on the App sign-up screen, but may not place an
order until he or she signs up using a similar interface.

Postmates' Terms of Service ("TOS") include a mandatory arbitration
clause and state that users waive their right to bring class or
representative actions against Postmates.  

Feld signed up for Postmates in 2019, and initiated the putative
class action on May 1, 2019.  Feld alleges that Postmates committed
deceptive acts or practices in violation of New York Business Law
Section 349 and has been unjustly enriched.  She contends that
Postmates' marketing statement that it delivers "Anything. Anytime.
Anywhere." is materially false and misleading because the service
only provides delivery from "a specific set of vendors at specified
times and locations.  Furthermore, Feld states that Postmates'
statement that its service operates with a set delivery fee is
misleading because Postmates also charges a "hidden" service fee.

The proposed class would include all New York persons (i.e.,
consumers and non-consumers) who have used Postmate's services,
during the period extending from Jan. 15, 2012, through and to the
filing date of the Complaint.

On Aug. 26, 2019, Postmates moved to compel arbitration, arguing
that the Plaintiff entered into a binding and enforceable
arbitration agreement with Postmates when she signed up to use the
service.  Feld contends that she never agreed to the TOS when
signing up for and using the service because, inter alia, the TOS
was never actually shown during the sign-up process, Postmates
never required consumers to express affirmative assent to the TOS,
the hyperlinks to the TOS were on a "cluttered screen" that gave
consumers insufficient notice of the TOS and its binding
arbitration clause, and Postmates did not otherwise give the
Plaintiff and the other putative class members notice of Postmates'
terms and policies.  Feld maintains that Postmates obscured and
minimalized the TOS and Privacy Policy hyperlinks because they were
presented in a smaller font and were less visible than the "Sign
Up" button and other site features.  The Plaintiff does not state
whether she signed up for Postmates using the website or the App.

Judge Castel holds that inquiry notice depends on whether the
hyperlinked TOS on the Postmates sign-up screen was reasonably
conspicuous.  The Judge considers the perspectives of a reasonably
prudent smartphone or Internet user, and does not presume that the
user has never before encountered an app or entered into a contract
using a smartphone.  Even though Feld does not explain whether she
used the Postmates website or the App to sign up for the service,
the same conclusion obtains; the Judge has reviewed both
interfaces, and finds that they each provide sufficient inquiry
notice.  

Judge Castel concludes (i) that Postmates' TOS on its website and
the App were reasonably conspicuous, such that a prudent user would
be on inquiry notice of the terms; and (ii) that Postmates' TOS
were reasonably conspicuous to the prudent Internet user such that
Feld was on inquiry notice of the terms, and that Feld manifested
assent by signing up for Postmates' service.  Therefore, an
agreement to arbitrate exists between the parties.

The next question is whether the dispute in the case is governed by
the arbitration provision.  Judge Castel concludes that it is.  The
Judge first determines whether an arbitration clause is broad or
narrow.  At all times relevant to the action, Postmates' TOS
included an arbitration clause.  There are three exceptions to the
arbitration provision, none of which applies in the case.
Therefore, Judge Castel concludes that the disputes raised in
Feld's complaint fall within the scope of the arbitration
provision.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Castel granted the Defendant's
motion to compel arbitration. The proceedings are stayed pending
arbitration.  The parties will update the Court on the status of
the arbitration by June 30, 2020.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 3, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/LDL91y from Leagle.com.

Jamie Feld, as an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Bobrow --
matthew.bobrow@law.nyls.com.

Postmates Inc., a Delaware state corporation, Defendant,
represented by Jeffrey Landis -- jeff@zwillgen.com -- Zwillgen PLLC
& Adya Baker -- adya@zwillgen.com -- ZwillGen PLLC.


PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Certification in Suit v. LogistiCare Appealed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Providence Service Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company has
taken an appeal from the conditional certification order in the
purported class action suit filed against LogistiCare.

On April 1, 2019, a purported class action was filed against
LogistiCare in Texas alleging that the Company's policy with
respect to timekeeping for hourly employees constituted violations
of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), as well as wage
and hour laws in South Carolina and Texas. Plaintiffs filed a
motion for conditional certification on a nationwide basis, which
LogistiCare contested.

The court granted the conditional certification motion on January
22, 2020.

The Company filed an appeal of the conditional certification order.


The Company also plans to vigorously contest the allegations on the
merits as the plaintiffs have mischaracterized the method by which
employees clock in to work.

Providence Service said, "At this early stage in the litigation, it
is impossible to predict with any certainty whether plaintiffs will
prevail on their claims, or what they might recover."

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

The Providence Service Corporation provides healthcare services in
the United States. It operates through Non-Emergency Transportation
Services (NET Services) and Matrix Investment segments. The company
was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.


PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Patel Class Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------
The Providence Service Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Meher Patel.

On March 1, 2019, Meher Patel filed suit against the Company in the
Superior Court of the State of California, Tuolumne County, on
behalf of herself and as a class action on behalf of others
similarly situated, asserting violations under the California Labor
Code relating to the alleged failure by LogistiCare to comply with
certain applicable state wage and related employment requirements,
as well as claims of breach of contract and breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The plaintiff seeks to recover an unspecified amount of damages and
penalties, as well as certification as a class action. On September
6, 2019, Ms. Patel amended her complaint to add Provado Mobile
Health, a Company subsidiary, as a party to the suit.

The Company and Provado Mobile Health have removed the case to the
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California.

The Company and its subsidiary intend to defend the litigation
vigorously.

Providence Service said, "Although the outcome of such matter is
inherently uncertain and may be materially adverse, based on
current information, the Company does not expect the case to have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial
condition or results of operations."

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

The Providence Service Corporation provides healthcare services in
the United States. It operates through Non-Emergency Transportation
Services (NET Services) and Matrix Investment segments. The company
was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.


PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Hsu Class Action Ongoing
--------------------------------------------
Puma Biotechnology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Hsu v. Puma Biotechnology,
Inc.

On June 3, 2015, Hsingching Hsu, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit against the
Company and certain of its executive officers in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California (Case No.
8:15-cv-00865-AG-JCG).

On October 16, 2015, lead plaintiff Norfolk Pension Fund filed a
consolidated complaint on behalf of all persons who purchased the
Company's securities between July 22, 2014 and May 29, 2015.

A trial on the claims relating to four statements alleged to have
been false or misleading was held from January 15, 2019 to January
29, 2019. At trial, the jury found that three of the four
challenged statements were not false or misleading, and thus found
in the defendants' favor on those claims.

The jury found liability as to one statement and awarded a maximum
of $4.50 per share in damages, which represents approximately 5% of
the total claimed damages of $87.20 per share. Trading models
suggest that approximately ten million shares traded during the
class period may be eligible to claim damages.

Based on prior lawsuits, the Company believes that the number of
stockholders who submit proof of claims sufficient to recover
damages is typically in the range of 20% to 40% of the total
eligible shares.

Based on these assumptions, total damages after claims could range
from $9.0 million to $18.0 million. The total amount of aggregate
class-wide damages remains uncertain and will be ascertained only
after an extensive claims process and the exhaustion of any appeals
and it is reasonably possible that the total damages will be higher
than this estimate; however, the amount is not estimable at this
time.

On September 9, 2019, the Court entered an order specifying the
rate of prejudgment interest to be awarded on any valid claims at
the 52-week Treasury Bill rate.

The Court's order also established a claims process, which is
expected to take about 12 months.

A final judgment has not been entered.

Puma said, "Based on the final total damages, the Company may owe a
success-based legal fee to the Company's legal counsel in the
amount of $3.0 million. As the total damages remains uncertain, no
liability has been recorded for the legal fee. The Company
recognizes legal fees in connection with a loss contingency as
incurred."

Puma Biotechnology, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
the development and commercialization of products to enhance cancer
care in the United States. Puma Biotechnology, Inc. was founded in
2010 and is headquartered in Los Angeles, California.


QIAGEN NV: Thompson Securities Suit Balks at Thermo Fisher Sale
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Thompson, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. QIAGEN N.V., HÅKAN BJ.RKLUND, STEPHANE BANCEL, METIN
COLPAN, ROSS L. LEVINE, ELAINE MARDIS, LAWRENCE A. ROSEN, ELIZABETH
E. TALLETT, THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INC., and QUEBEC B.V., Case
No. 1:20-cv-00728 (D. Del., May 29, 2020), stems from a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which QIAGEN N.V. will be acquired by
Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Quebec
B.V.

On March 3, 2020, QIAGEN's Supervisory Board caused the Company to
enter into a Business Combination Agreement with Thermo Fisher.
Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, Merger Sub commenced a
tender offer to purchase all of QIAGEN's outstanding ordinary
shares for EUR39.00 in cash per share. The Tender Offer is set to
expire on July 27, 2020.

On May 18, 2020, the Defendants filed a Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff contends
that the Solicitation Statement omits material information with
respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Solicitation
Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the Solicitation Statement.

According to the complaint, the Solicitation Statement omits
material information regarding the analyses performed by the
Company's financial advisors in connection with the Proposed
Transaction, Barclays Bank PLC and Goldman Sachs International. The
Solicitation Statement omits material information regarding the
Company's financial projections. The Solicitation Statement fails
to disclose whether the Company entered into any non-disclosure
agreements that contained "don't ask, don't waive" provisions that
are or were preventing other potential acquirors from requesting
waivers of standstill provisions to submit offers to acquire the
Company. The Solicitation Statement also fails to disclose the
timing and nature of all communications regarding future employment
and directorship of the Company's officers and directors, including
who participated in all such communications.

The omissions in the Solicitation Statement are material in that a
reasonable shareholder will consider them important in deciding
whether to tender their shares in connection with the Proposed
Transaction, the Plaintiff asserts. Because of the false and
misleading statements in the Solicitation Statement, the Plaintiff
and the Class are threatened with irreparable harm, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is the owner of QIAGEN common stock.

QIAGEN is the global provider of Sample to Insight solutions that
enable customers to gain molecular insights from samples.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


QUALITY RESIDENTIAL: Underpays Painters, Gonzales Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
GILBERT GONZALES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUALITY RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL
PAINTING, INC. and RICHARD ZARAZINSKI, Defendants, Case No.
5:20-cv-00568 (W.D. Tex., May 8, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Painter from March 2003 to
March 2020.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other Painters regularly
worked over 40 hours per week. Because Defendant classified them as
nonexempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA, Defendant
paid them at regular rates for hours worked over 40 in a week,
thereby failing to pay them overtime premium of one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 per
week.

Moreover, Defendant automatically deducted a thirty-minute lunch
each day though Plaintiff and other Painters were regularly
required to work through lunch; and penalized them when they
arrived late at work by punitively deducting from their wages.

Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs.

Richard Zarazinski is an owner, principal, officer and/or director
of QRCP.

Quality Residential and Commercial Painting, Inc. operate a
painting business in Bexar County, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Merideth Q. McEntire, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 S. Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Tel: (501) 221-0088
          Fax: (888) 787-2040
          Emails: merideth@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


RADIUS GLOBAL: Faces Munroe FDCPA Suit Over Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------
TONEVA MUNROE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RADIUS GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-10986-RWZ (D. Mass., May 21, 2020), asserts claims against
Radius for engaging in abusive, deceptive and unfair debt
collection practices prohibited by the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that despite settling her debt and receiving
full payment on the settlement, in January 2020, Radius sent her a
collection letter demanding payment of more than $5,000 for one of
the settled accounts, in violation of the FDCPA, and impermissibly
obtained a copy of her credit report, in violation of the FCRA.

In October 2019, the Plaintiff fully settled her student loan debt
with Navient Solutions. She made an agreement with Navient's
servicer, Radius Global Solutions, LLC, to resolve the balances
owed on her three student loans. Radius acknowledged to Ms. Munroe
in October 2019 that her student loan debts were resolved, and the
balance outstanding was zero, says the complaint.

Radius Global provides debt recovery services and customer contact
solutions. The company offers customers relationship, healthcare
revenue cycle, and delinquency management services, as well as debt
collection and account recovery solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles M. Delbaum, Esq.
          Persis Yu, Esq.
          NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER
          7 Winthrop Square, 4th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 542-8010
          Facsimile: (617) 542-8028
          E-mail: cdelbaum@nclc.org
                  pyu@nclc.org

               - and -

          Elizabeth Ryan, Esq.
          John Roddy, Esq.
          Michael Murphy, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          176 Federal Street, 5th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 439-6730
          Facsimile: (617) 951-3954
          E-mail: eryan@baileyglasser.com
                  jroddy@baileyglasser.com
                  mmurphy@baileyglasser.com


REALOGY GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Moehrl Class Action Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Group LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
filed in Moehrl, Cole, Darnell, Nager, Ramey, Sawbill Strategic,
Inc., Umpa and Ruh v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy
Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC,
The Long & Foster Companies, Inc., RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams
Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois), is still pending.

This amended putative class action complaint (the "amended Moehrl
complaint"), filed on June 14, 2019, (i) consolidates the Moehrl
and Sawbill litigation reported in the company's Form 10-Q for the
period ended March 31, 2019, (ii) adds certain plaintiffs and
defendants, and (iii) serves as a response to the separate motions
to dismiss filed on May 17, 2019 in the prior Moehrl litigation by
each of NAR and the Company (along with the other defendants named
in the prior Moehrl complaint).

In the amended Moehrl complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the
defendants engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or
conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade and commerce in violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act because defendant NAR allegedly
established mandatory anticompetitive policies for the multiple
listing services and its member brokers that require brokers to
make an offer of buyer broker compensation when listing a property.


The plaintiffs further allege that commission sharing, which
provides for the broker representing the seller sharing or paying a
portion of its commission to the broker representing the buyer, is
anticompetitive and violates the Sherman Act, and that the
defendant franchisors conspired with NAR by requiring their
respective franchisees to comply with NAR's policies and Code of
Ethics.

The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants
from requiring home sellers to pay buyer broker commissions or to
otherwise restrict competition among buyer brokers, an award of
damages and/or restitution, attorneys fees and costs of suit.

Plaintiffs' counsel has filed a motion to appoint lead counsel in
the case, which has yet to be decided by the Court. On August 9,
2019, NAR and the Company (together with the other defendants named
in the amended Moehrl complaint) each filed separate motions to
dismiss this litigation. The plaintiffs filed their opposition to
the motions to dismiss on September 13, 2019, and the defendants
filed their replies in support of the motions on October 18, 2019.


Discovery between the parties is stayed pending rulings on the
outstanding motions to dismiss this litigation.

Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the
United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate
Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate
brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21,
Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's
International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The
company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.
Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings
LLC.


REALOGY GROUP: Continues to Defend Tanaskovic Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Group LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Tanaskovic v.
Realogy Holdings Corp., et. al. (U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey).

This is a putative class action complaint filed on July 11, 2019 by
plaintiff Sasa Tanaskovic against the Company and certain of its
current and former executive officers.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule
10b-5 of the Exchange Act in connection with allegedly false and
misleading statements made by the Company about its business,
operations, and prospects.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, compensatory damages for
purchasers of the Company's common stock between February 24, 2017
through May 22, 2019, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

Locals 302 and 612 of the International Union of Operating
Engineers-Employers Construction Industry Retirement Trust (the
"Retirement Trust"), was appointed lead plaintiff on November 7,
2019. Lead plaintiff filed its amended complaint on March 6, 2020
and the Company has until August 3, 2020 to file its response per
the stipulation of the parties entered by the Court on March 25,
2020.

Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the
United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate
Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate
brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21,
Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's
International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The
company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.
Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings
LLC.


REALOGY GROUP: Discovery Ongoing in Sitzer Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Realogy Group LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in
the putative class action suit entitled, Sitzer and Winger v. The
National Association of Realtors (NAR), Realogy Holdings Corp.,
Homeservices of America, Inc., RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., and Keller
Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Missouri).

This is a putative class action complaint filed on April 29, 2019
and amended on June 21, 2019 by plaintiffs Joshua Sitzer and Amy
Winger against NAR, the Company, Homeservices of America, Inc.,
RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., and Keller Williams Realty, Inc.

The complaint contains substantially similar allegations, and seeks
the same relief under the Sherman Act, as the Moehrl litigation.

The Sitzer litigation is limited both in allegations and relief
sought to the State of Missouri and includes an additional cause of
action for alleged violation of the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act, or MMPA.

On August 22, 2019, the Court denied defendants' motions to
transfer the Sitzer matter to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois and on October 16, 2019, denied the
motions to dismiss this litigation filed respectively by NAR and
the Company (together with the other named brokerage/franchisor
defendants).

Discovery between the parties is ongoing.

Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the
United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate
Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate
brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21,
Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's
International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The
company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.
Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings
LLC.


REALOGY GROUP: Fenley Suit Settled on Individual Basis
------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Group LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the putative class
action suit entitled, Fenley v. Realogy Franchise Group LLC,
Sotheby's International Realty, Inc., Wish Properties, Inc. and
DOES 1-100 (Superior Court of California, Kern County), has been
settled on an individual basis.

This is a putative class action complaint filed on April 25, 2019
by plaintiff Elizabeth Fenley against Wish Properties, Inc, a
Sotheby's International Realty independently-owned franchisee doing
business as Wish Sotheby's International Realty ("Wish SIR").

The complaint also names Realogy Franchise Group LLC and Sotheby's
International Realty, Inc., wholly-owned subsidiaries of the
Company, as alleged joint employers of the franchisee's independent
sales agents and seeks to certify a class that could potentially
include all agents in California affiliated with any Realogy
Franchise Group brand.

The plaintiff alleges that all defendants are jointly responsible
for misclassifying Wish SIR's agents as independent contractors and
failed to reimburse for business expenses, provide accurate wage
statements and pay wages timely, all in violation of the California
Labor Code. The complaint also asserts an unfair business practice
claim based on the violations previously described.

The plaintiff seeks reimbursement of allegedly necessary expenses,
liquidated damages, waiting time penalties, civil penalties, pre-
and post-judgment interest, restitution, injunctive relief, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On September 17, 2019, the Court denied the defendants' motions to
compel arbitration. In February 2020, the matter was settled on an
individual basis.

Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the
United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate
Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate
brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21,
Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's
International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The
company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.
Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings
LLC.


REALOGY GROUP: Hearing on Demurrer in Whitlach Suit Deferred
------------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Group LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the hearing on the
demurrer in the putative class action suit entitled, Whitlach v.
Premier Valley, Inc. d/b/a Century 21 M&M and Century 21 Real
Estate LLC (Superior Court of California, Stanislaus County), has
been deferred and will not be heard until the courts reopen in
California and resume addressing non-emergent civil motions.

This was filed as a putative class action complaint on December 20,
2018 by plaintiff James Whitlach against Premier Valley Inc., a
Century 21 Real Estate independently-owned franchisee doing
business as Century 21 M&M ("Century 21 M&M").

The complaint also names Century 21 Real Estate LLC, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company and the franchisor of Century 21 Real
Estate ("Century 21"), as an alleged joint employer of the
franchisee's independent sales agents and seeks to certify a class
that could potentially include all agents of both Century 21 M&M
and Century 21 in California.

The plaintiff alleges that Century 21 M&M misclassified all of its
independent real estate agents, salespeople, sales professionals,
broker associates and other similar positions as independent
contractors, failed to pay minimum wages, failed to provide meal
and rest breaks, failed to pay timely wages, failed to keep proper
records, failed to provide appropriate wage statements, made
unlawful deductions from wages, and failed to reimburse plaintiff
and the putative class for business related expenses, resulting in
violations of the California Labor Code.

The complaint also asserts an unfair business practice claim based
on the alleged violations.

On February 15, 2019, the plaintiff amended his complaint to assert
claims pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA"). The PAGA claims included in the amended complaint are
substantively similar to those asserted in the original complaint.
Under California law, PAGA claims are generally not subject to
arbitration and may result in exposure in the form of additional
penalties.

In April 2019, the defendants filed motions to compel arbitration
of the non-PAGA claims and to stay the PAGA claims pending
resolution of the arbitrable claims. On June 5, 2019, the Court
dismissed the plaintiff's non-PAGA claims without prejudice and
withdrew the defendants' motion to compel arbitration by
stipulation of the parties.

The plaintiff continues to pursue his PAGA claims as a
representative of purported "aggrieved employees" as defined by
PAGA. The plaintiff currently seeks, as the representative of all
purported aggrieved employees, all non-individualized relief
available to the purported aggrieved employees under PAGA, as well
as attorneys' fees. O

n November 15, 2019, Century 21 M&M filed a demurrer to the
complaint, seeking to dismiss the remaining claim in the action, to
which Century 21 filed a joinder, and on February 12, 2020 a brief
in opposition was filed by the plaintiff.

The hearing on the demurrer has been deferred and will not be heard
until the courts reopen in California and resume addressing
non-emergent civil motions.

Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the
United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate
Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate
brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21,
Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's
International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The
company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.
Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings
LLC.


REALREAL INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Marin County
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The RealReal, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit pending before the Marin
County Superior Court.

On September 10, 2019, a purported shareholder class action
complaint was filed against the Company, its officers and directors
and the underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO) in the
Superior Court of the State of California in the County of San
Mateo.

Three additional purported class actions, also alleging claims
arising from the IPO were subsequently filed in Marin County and
San Francisco County Superior Courts.

The San Mateo case was voluntarily dismissed, refiled in Marin
County Superior Court and consolidated with the cases there.  

On January 10, 2020, the Marin County plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint.  Defendants' filed a demurrer and
motion to strike on March 13, 2020.  The plaintiffs in the San
Francisco Superior Court case have filed a request for dismissal.

Separately an additional purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on November 25, 2019. On February 12, 2020, a lead
plaintiff was appointed in the federal action. An Amended
Consolidated Complaint was filed on March 31, 2020 and defendants
are due to file a motion to dismiss on May 15, 2020.

The state and federal complaints each allege claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a purported class of
shareholders who acquired the Company's stock pursuant to or
traceable to the registration statement for the Company's IPO.

The federal complaint also alleges claims under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a purported class of shareholders
who purchased the Company's stock from June 27, 2019 through
November 20, 2019.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by issuing false or misleading
statements in the registration statement regarding certain of the
Company's key financial and operating metrics, and related to the
Company's authentication processes.  

The complaints seek, among other things, damages and interest,
rescission, and attorneys' fees and costs.  

RealReal said, "While the Company intends to vigorously defend
against this litigation, the cases are at a very early stage and
there can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in
its defense. For this same reason, the Company cannot currently
estimate the loss or the range of possible losses it may experience
in connection with this litigation."

The RealReal, Inc. owns and operates a members-only consignment
marketplace for luxury goods. The Company specializes in curating
and authenticating a full range of previously owned luxury products
such as clothing, shoes, accessories, and jewelry that are sold on
consignment. The RealReal markets its products and services
throughout the United States. The company is based in San
Francisco, California.


REDFIN CORP: Class Action Claims Dropped in Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Redfin Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the class action claims
in the putative class action suit initiated by a former call
associate agent of the company have been omitted in her first
amended complaint.

On August 28, 2019, one of the company's former independent
contractor licensed sales associates, which the company calls
associate agents, filed a complaint against the company in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco.

The plaintiff initially pled the complaint as a class action and
alleged that we misclassified her as an independent contractor
instead of an employee. The plaintiff also sought representative
claims under California's Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA").

On December 6, 2019, the company filed a motion to compel
arbitration and asserted that the plaintiff had agreed to arbitrate
her claims and had waived all class claims.

Following that filing, the company and the plaintiff stipulated to
allow the plaintiff to amend her complaint to dismiss the class
action claim and assert only claims under PAGA.

On January 14, 2020, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the
court granted the plaintiff leave to file a first amended
complaint, and she filed her first amended complaint on January 30,
2020.

Following this stipulation, only the plaintiff's claims under PAGA
will proceed.

The plaintiff continues to seek unspecified penalties for alleged
violations of PAGA.

Redfin Corporation is a technology-powered, residential real estate
brokerage. The company represents people buying and selling homes
in over 80 markets throughout the United States. The company is
based in Seattle, Washington.


ROCHESTER INSTITUTE: Mycek Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
--------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Mycek, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Rochester Institute of Technology,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-06324 (W.D. N.Y., May 19, 2020), seeks
disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully obtained for tuition, fees,
on-campus housing, and meals; injunctive relief including enjoining
the Rochester Institute of Technology from retaining the pro-rated,
unused monies paid for tuition, fees, on-campus housing and meals;
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, plus refunds of all
tuition fees paid on a pro-rata basis, together with other damages
resulting from breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) is a private college
located in the town of Henrietta, New York, a suburb of Rochester
where Ms. Mycek is the parent of an undergraduate student pursuing
a degree in Cyber Security. RIT decided to close campus,
constructively evict students, and transition all classes to an
online/remote format as a result of the Novel Coronavirus Disease.
Mycek's child 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. RIT refused to provide reimbursement for the
tuition, fees and other costs. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
      Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      888 Seventh Avenue
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 989-9113
      Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
      E-Mail: 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


ROGER WILLIAMS: Refuses to Refund Tuition, Simmons-Telep Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMY SIMMONS-TELEP, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ROGER WILLIAMS UNIVERSITY, Case No.
1:20-cv-00226-JJM-PAS (D.R.I., May 21, 2020), is brought as a
result of the Defendant's decision to close campus, constructively
evict students, and transition all classes to an online/remote
format as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has either refused to
provide reimbursement for the tuition, fees and other costs that
Defendant is no longer providing, or has provided inadequate and/or
arbitrary reimbursement that does not fully compensate him and
members of the Class for their loss.

While closing campus and transitioning to online classes was the
right thing for the Defendant to do, this decision deprived the
Plaintiff and the other members of the Class from recognizing 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, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is currently enrolled as a full-time student in the
Defendant's undergraduate program. The Plaintiff has paid
substantial tuition for the Spring 2020 semester either out of
pocket or by utilizing student loan financing, or otherwise.

Roger Williams University is an institution of higher learning
located in Bristol, Rhode Island. The University is eligible to
receive federal stimulus under the CARES Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert J. Caron, Esq.
          CARON LAW OFFICE
          478A Broadway
          Providence, RI 02909
          Telephone: (401) 621-8600
          E-mail: rjcaron@robertjcaronlaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          John M. Bradham, Esq.
          Peter B. Katzman, Esq.
          MOREA SCHWARTZ BRADHAM
          FRIEDMAN & BROWN, LLP
          444 Madison Ave., 4th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 695-8050
          E-mail: jbradham@msbllp.com
                  pkatzman@msbllp.com


ROKU INC: Universal Electronics Sues Over Remote Control Patent
---------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Electronics Inc. v. Roku, Inc., Case No. 20-cv-00701
(C.D. Cal., April 9, 2020) is a patent dispute over:

   Patent No     Date Issued   Description
   ---------     -----------   -----------
   7,969,514     06/28/2011    System and method for simplified
                               setup of a universal remote
                               control

   9,641,785     05/02/2017    System and method for configuring
                               controlling device functionality

   10,325,486    06/18/2019    System and method for optimized
                               appliance control

   10,593,196    03/17/2020    System and method for optimized
                               appliance control

   10,600,317    03/24/2020    System and method for simplified
                               setup of a universal remote
                               control

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ryan W. Koppelman, Esq.
     Michael J. Newton, Esq.
     Katherine Grayce Rubschlager, Esq.
     ALSTON AND BIRD LLP
     1950 University Avenue 5th Floor
     East Palo Alto, CA 94303
     Tel: (650) 838-2000
     Fax: (650) 838-2001
     Email: ryan.koppelman@alston.com
            mike.newton@alston.com
            katherine.rubschlager@alston.com

            - and -

     Evan William Woolley, Esq.
     ALSTON AND BIRD LLP
     333 South Hope Street 16th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Tel: (213) 576-1000
     Fax: (213) 576-1100
     Email: evan.woolley@alston.com

            - and -

     Thomas W. Davison, Esq.
     ALSTON AND BIRD LLP
     950 F Street NW
     Washington, DC 20004
     Tel: (202) 239-3300
     Fax: (202) 239-3333
     Email: tom.davison@alston.com


RSL FUNDING: Faces Benhayon TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Telemarketing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LEE BENHAYON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RSL FUNDING, LLC, Case No. CACE-20-008375 (Fla. Cir.,
Broward Cty., May 19, 2020), arises from the Defendant's violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
telemarketing directed towards prospective customers with no regard
for consumers' privacy rights. The Defendant's telemarketing
consists of sending text messages to consumers soliciting them to
purchase goods and/or services.

The Plaintiff contends that 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 the Defendant's
illegal conduct. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on
behalf of herself and proposed Class Members, and any other
available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal
actions of the Defendant.

The Defendant offers consumers the opportunity to sell their
"structured settlement, lottery or annuity payments for the Most
Cash."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Eisenband, Esq.
          EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
          5 15 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com

               - and -

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          40 1 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954 400-4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@biraldolaw.com


SAM'S EAST: Herrmann Suit Removed From Cir. Ct. to E.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Virginia Herrmann, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Sam's East, Inc., d/b/a Sam's Club
#6474, Case No. 20SL-CC02098, was removed from the Missouri Circuit
Court, St. Louis County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri on May 29, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-00706 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as other fraud.

Sam's East Inc. was founded in 2006. The Company's line of business
includes the retail sale of a general line of apparel, dry goods,
hardware, housewares or home furnishings, and groceries.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Darci F. Madden, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LLP
          One Metropolitan Square
          211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Phone: (314) 259-2000
          Fax: (314) 259-2020
          Email: dfmadden@bclplaw.com


SAN DIEGO, CA: Bloom's Bid for TRO Denied
-----------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MICHAEL BLOOM, STEPHEN
CHATZKY, TONY DIAZ, VALERIE GRISCHY, PENNY HELMS, BENJAMIN
HERNANDEZ, DOUG HIGGINS, SUZONNE KEITH, GERALD STARK, ANNA STARK,
and DAVID WILSON, individually and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, Case No.
3:17-cv-02324-AJB-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anthony J.
Battagia has entered an Order Denying Without Prejudice Plaintiffs'
Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order.

Prior to that, Judge Battagia entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file their
Second
      Amended Complaint;

   2. additionally vacating the hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion
      for class certification; and

   3. denying without prejudice as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for

      class certification. The Plaintiffs may renew their motion
      for class certification after an opportunity for discovery
      on the New vehicle habitation ordinance.

The Court does not find any indicia of bad faith, undue delay,
prejudice, or futility that would warrant denying the Plaintiffs'
request. Thus, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for leave
to file their Second Amended Complaint.

The Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint on May 1.  The
City filed its answer on May 22.

The case challenges the City's ticketing and impoundment of
vehicles used by homeless individuals as shelter. At the time of
the filing of the First Amended Complaint, the City had been
issuing citations under two City ordinances: (1) its ordinance
prohibiting RV parking from 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m., and (2) its
ordinance prohibiting vehicle habitation.[CC]

SANJAY PALLETS: Fails to Provide OT Pay for Repairers, Gil Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CESAR GIL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, -against- SANJAY PALLETS INC. and MOHAMED
SALEM SHAHEED, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03633 (S.D.N.Y., May 8,
2020) is an action seeking equitable and legal relief for
Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as
amended and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").

According to the complaint, the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs consist
of no less than 14 similarly situated current and former pallet
repairers employed by Defendants, who have been victims of
Defendants' common policies and practices that have violated their
rights under the FLSA by, inter alia, willfully denying them
overtime compensation.

The Defendants have engaged in their unlawful conduct pursuant to a
corporate policy of minimizing labor costs and denying employees
compensation.

Sanjay Pallets Inc. is a pallet supplier in New York City, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katherine Morales, Esq.
          KATZ MELINGER PLLC
          280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 460-0047
          Facsimile: (212) 428-1871
          Email: kymorales@katzmelinger.com

SECOR DOMESTICS: Faces Moskowitz Suit Over Unsolicited Robocalls
----------------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG MOSKOWITZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SECOR DOMESTICS, LLC AND SECOR AUTO CENTER,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00768 (D. Conn., June 3, 2020)
is an action brought by the Plaintiff to stop Defendants' practice
of making unsolicited robocalls using a pre-recorded voice to the
telephones of consumers nationwide, and to obtain redress for all
persons injured by Defendants' conduct in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

On or about March 20, 2020, Defendants placed a pre-recorded
robocall to Plaintiff's landline telephone without consent.
Plaintiff has been registered with the national do-not-call
registry since January 17, 2010. The unlawful calls placed to
Plaintiff are part of Defendants' pattern or practice of calling
consumers on their landline and cellular telephones using a
pre-recorded voice who have no direct relationship with Defendants
and who are not the proper subjects of the calls.

Defendants conducted (and continue to conduct) a wide-scale
campaign that features the repeated making of unwanted autodialed
phone calls to consumers' cellular telephones without prior express
written consent, all in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

By making these automated and autodialed calls, Defendants caused
Plaintiff and the members of the Classes actual harm and cognizable
legal injury.

Secor Domestics, LLC is an automotive dealership company
headquartered in New London, Connecticut.

Secor Auto Center, Inc. is an automotive dealership company based
in New London, Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq.
          REARDON SCANLON LLP  
          45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 955-9455
          Facsimile: (860) 920-5242
          Email: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com

               - and -  

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

               - and -

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          Aaron M. Ahlzadeh, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (786) 289-9471
          Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
          Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
                 aaron@edelsberglaw.com

SENTINEL INSURANCE: Refuses to Pay COVID-19 Claims, Protege Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
PROTEGE RESTAURANT PARTNERS LLC, on Behalf of Itself and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY,
LIMITED, d/b/a THE HARTFORD, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-03674
(N.D. Cal., June 2, 2020) is a class action for breach of contract
and declaratory and injunctive relief arising from Defendant's
refusal to pay COVID-19-related claims as required by its insurance
policies it sold to Plaintiff and other policyholders.

The Plaintiff owns and operates a Michelin-starred restaurant
located in Palo Alto, California. Plaintiff is an upscale casual
restaurant featuring New American cuisine and a comprehensive wine
and spirits program. In response to California and Santa Clara
County mandates, and COVID-19, its restaurant has been completely
shut down since March 17, 2020, and continues to be closed to this
day. As a result, Plaintiff has suffered substantial losses of
income.  

Plaintiff purchased an all-risk commercial property insurance
policy from Sentinel to indemnify it for business income lost due
to the shutdown of its operations. The current policy is in effect
from January 20, 2020, through January 20, 2021. Plaintiff paid
$16,936 in annual premiums for the policy for $4 million in
coverage under the policy.

Despite Plaintiff's claim for payment under the policy to cover
these losses to its income, Defendant has refused to provide the
protection that Plaintiff purchased, citing policy exclusions and
coverage defenses that do not apply and which that have no merit.
While there is a virus exclusion written into the policy, it
explicitly does not apply to the special coverage that provides
business income protection under which plaintiff seeks coverage.
The reasons given by Sentinel to deny coverage are written in terms
that appear designed to deny coverage to all claims under these
form contracts, even though the policy it drafted does not contain
an applicable exclusion for losses caused by the Closure Orders and
COVID-19.

Defendant has caused substantial harm to Plaintiff and members of
the proposed class by wrongfully refusing coverage under the
Policy.

Sentinel Insurance Co., Ltd., d/b/a The Hartford, is a Connecticut
corporation with its principal place of business in Hartford,
Connecticut. Sentinel is a stock insurance company of The Hartford
Insurance Group.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
          Steven Sklaver, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone:  (310) 789-3100
          Email: mselzer@susmangodfrey.com
                 ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Seth Ard, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY  10019
          Telephone: (212) 336-8330
          Email: sard@susmangodfrey.com

SEPHORA USA: Femmer Suit Moved From Circuit Ct. to E.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as TIFFANY FEMMER and KATHRYN
SCHOTT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. SEPHORA USA, INC., was removed from the Missouri Circuit Court,
St. Louis County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri on May 21, 2020.

The Eastern District of Missouri Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-00676-JMB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs assert claims against the Defendant under the
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. The Plaintiffs allege that
Sephora over-collected taxes from Missouri customers on products
sold through "remote sales channels" including an internet website,
telephone, catalog or other remote communications system and
shipped from an out-of-state facility. Remote sales channels
expressly include Sephora's internet website,
http://www.sephora.com/.The Plaintiffs contend that "clear
Missouri law" requires Sephora to collect Missouri use tax on these
sales but that Sephora charged customers taxes in excess of the
applicable use tax rate.

Sephora USA operates as a cosmetics and beauty stores.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel J. Orlowsky, Esq.
          ORLOWSKY LAW, LLC
          7777 Bonhomme, Suite 1910
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          E-mail: dan@orlowskylaw.com

               - and -

          Adam M. Goffstein, Esq.
          GOFFSTEIN LAW, LLC
          7777 Bonhomme, Suite 1910
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          E-mail: adam@goffsteinlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          A. James Spung, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
          190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
          St. Louis, MO 63105-3433
          Telephone: (314) 480-1500
          Facsimile: (314) 480-1505
          E-mail: james.spung@huschblackwell.com

               - and -

          Robert E. Shapiro, Esq.
          Maile H. Solís, Esq.
          Michael J. B. Pitt, Esq.
          BARACK FERRAZZANO KIRSCHBAUM NAGELBERG LLP
          200 W. Madison St., Suite 3900
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 984-3100
          Facsimile: (312) 984-3150
          E-mail: rob.shapiro@bfkn.com
                  maile.solis@bfkn.com
                  michael.pitt@bfkn.com


SIERRA MEADOWS: Senior Facility Understaffed, Huff Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
ADDIE HUFF, by and through her Successor in Interest Crystal
Stansberry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SIERRA MEADOWS SENIOR LIVING LLC; DONNA
HURLEY; and DOES 1 through 250, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
20CECG01563 (Cal. Super., Fresno Cty., June 1, 2020) alleges that
the representations of the Defendant as to the nature and quality
of their services in their residential care facility for the
elderly are false.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the class suffered
injury, and harm in the representations of the Defendants that they
would be provided with minimum standards of care, yet did not
receive this promised standard of care and suffered pecuniary harm
by being deprived of the value of payments made for the facility
when these services were not actually rendered consistent with the
Defendants' representations.

The representation of the Defendants to ensure their residents'
right to live in an adequately staffed facility were false because,
instead of providing the represented standard of care, the
Defendants resorted to chronic understaffing and under-funding of
the facility. The understaffing prevented the facility from
ensuring their residents' statutory right to live in an adequately
staffed facility that would meet the needs of the residents,
rendering the representations of the Defendants as to the nature
and quality of their services as false.

Sierra Meadows Senior Living LLC operates senior living facilities
in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stephen M. Garcia, Esq.
     GARCIA & ARTIGLIERE
     One World Trade Center, Suite 1950
     Long Beach, CA 90831
     Telephone: (562) 216-5270
     Facsimile: (562) 216-5271
     E-mail: edocs@lawgarcia.com


SK ENERGY: Conspired to Manipulate Gas Price Market, Long Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
VANESSA LONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SK ENERGY AMERICAS, INC.; SK TRADING
INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD; and VITOL INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-04266 (C.D. Cal., May 11, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the
California Cartwright Act, and the California Unfair Competition
Law.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated consumers, alleges that the Defendants entered
into agreements in order to manipulate the spot market price for
refined gasoline and gasoline blending components for delivery in
California. The Defendants took advantage of the market disruption
caused by an explosion at the ExxonMobil refinery in Torrance,
California on February 18, 2015 to artificially inflate the price
of gasoline traded on wholesale spot markets in California through
a complex series of coordinated trading activities including: (1)
engaging in sham transactions to obfuscate the true nature of the
supply and demand dynamic in California's gasoline market; (2)
trading with each other with the purpose and effect of creating
spikes in the spot market price; and (3) entering into prearranged,
unreported buy and sell transactions with each other to share
profits from the scheme.

The Plaintiff and Class members were injured because they paid more
for gasoline within the State of California than they would have
paid in a competitive market.

SK Energy Americas, Inc. is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of
SK Trading International Co. Ltd., with principal place of business
at 11700 Katy Freeway, Suite 900, Houston, Texas.

SK Trading International Co. Ltd. is a South Korean corporation
that exports and imports crude oils and petrochemical products,
with its head office at 26 Jong-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, South Korea.

Vitol Inc. is an energy company with its principal place of
business at 2925 Richmond Avenue, 11th Floor, Houston, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
         Adam J. Zapala, Esq.
         Elizabeth T. Castillo, Esq.
         Reid W. Gaa, Esq.
         COTCHETT PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP
         840 Malcom Road, Suite 200
         Burlingame, CA 94010
         Telephone: (650) 697-6000
         Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
         E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
                 azapala@cpmlegal.com
                 ecastillo@cpmlegal.com
                 rgaa@cpmlegal.com

               - and –
         
         Brian D. Clark, Esq.
         Simeon A. Morbey, Esq.
         LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
         100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
         Minneapolis, MN 55401
         Telephone: (612) 339-6900
         Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
         E-mail: bdclark@locklaw.com
                 samorbey@locklaw.com

               - and –
         
         R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
         Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
         Sarah Van Culin, Esq.
         SAVERI & SAVERI INC.
         706 Sansome Street
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 217-6810
         Facsimile: (415) 217-6813
         E-mail: rick@saveri.com
                 cadio@saveri.com
                 sarah@saveri.com

SK ENERGY: Inflated Gas Prices in California, Carpe Carma Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARPE CARMA, 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. 2:20-cv-04312 (C.D. Cal., May 12, 2020)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Section
1 of the Sherman Act, the California Cartwright Act, the California
Business and Professions Code, and the California Unfair
Competition Law.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly-situated, alleges that the Defendants entered into
conspiracy agreements in order to manipulate the spot market price
for refined gasoline and gasoline blending components for delivery
in California. The Defendants took advantage of the market
disruption caused by an explosion at the ExxonMobil refinery in
Torrance, California on February 18, 2015 and used it as an
opportunity to artificially inflate the price of gasoline traded on
wholesale spot markets in California and to also increase the price
of alkylates, whose prices are tied directly to the wholesale price
of gasoline, without unwanted scrutiny by other market participants
and regulators. As a result of the Defendants' anticompetitive and
unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and Class members were injured
because they paid more for gasoline within the State of California
than they would have paid in a competitive market.

Carpe Carma, LLC, doing business as Pomona Valley Towing, is a
tow-truck company based in Los Angeles County, California.

SK Energy Americas, Inc. is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of
SK Trading International Co. Ltd., with principal place of business
at 11700 Katy Freeway, Suite 900, Houston, Texas.

SK Trading International Co. Ltd. is a South Korean corporation
that exports and imports crude oils and petrochemical products,
with its head office at 26 Jong-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, South Korea.

Vitol Inc. is an energy company with its principal place of
business at 2925 Richmond Avenue, 11th Floor, Houston, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
         Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
         Adam J. Zapala, Esq.
         Elizabeth T. Castillo, Esq.
         Reid W. Gaa, Esq.
         COTCHETT PITRE & McCARTHY LLP
         840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
         Burlingame, CA 94010
         Telephone: (650) 697-6000
         Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
         E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
                 azapala@cpmlegal.com
                 ecastillo@cpmlegal.com
                 rgaa@cpmlegal.com

               - and –
         
         R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
         Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
         Sarah Van Culin, Esq.
         SAVERI & SAVERI INC.
         706 Sansome St., Suite 200
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 217-6810
         Facsimile: (415) 217-6813
         E-mail: rick@saveri.com
                 cadio@saveri.com
                 sarah@saveri.com

               - and –
         
         Randy Renick, Esq.
         Cornelia Dai, Esq.
         HADSELL STORMER RENICK & DAI LLP
         128 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204
         Pasadena, CA 91103-3645
         Telephone: (626) 585-9600
         Facsimile: (626) 577-7079
         E-mail: rrr@hadsellstormer.com
                 cdai@hadsellstormer.com

SNAP-ON INC: Lietz Sues Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA and IMWL
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Lietz, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. SNAP-ON, INCORPORATED, SNAP-ON TOOLS COMPANY, LLC, Case
No. 1:20-cv-03207 (N.D. Ill., May 29, 2020), is brought to redress
the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law by knowingly suffering or permitting
certain full-time, hourly employees to perform approximately 10 to
25 minutes of off-the-clock pre- and post-shift work each day
without paying any wages for this work.

The amount of uncompensated time the Plaintiff spent on unpaid work
activities ranged from 10 to 25 minutes daily. As a result of
working this uncompensated time, the Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees accrued time over 40 hours in the workweek for
which they were not compensated at an overtime rate pursuant to
state and federal law, according to the complaint. The Defendants'
failure to pay proper wages in a timely manner were made without
good faith, willful, and with reckless disregard for the
Plaintiff's rights; and the Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees have been damaged by such failures, says the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff worked as an hourly, non-exempt customer service
representative in one of the Defendants' call centers.

The Defendants are designers, manufacturers, and marketers of
high-end tools and equipment for professional use in the
transportation industry including the automotive, heavy duty,
equipment, marine, aviation, and railroad industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Haley R. Jenkins, 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
                 hjenkins@stephanzouras.com


SOTHEBY'S INC: Website Not Accessible to Deaf, Winegard Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAY WINEGARD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, -against- SOTHEBY’S INC. d/b/a SOTHEBY'S
Defendant(s), Case 1:20-cv-02123 (E.D.N.Y., May 9, 2020) is a class
action brought by the Plaintiff for retribution for Defendant's
actions against deaf and hard of hearing individuals residing in
New York and within the United States.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has denied the Plaintiff,
who is deaf and deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals' access to
goods and services provided to non-disabled individuals through its
Website www.sothebys.com and in conjunction with its physical
location of auction houses, corporate offices, magazine publishing
offices, live events locations, retail operations, advertising
offices along with hosting locations and salesrooms is a violation
of Plaintiff's rights under the American with Disabilities Act
("ADA").

The Defendant excludes the deaf and hard of hearing from the full
and equal participation on its Website and therefore denial of its
products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its
physical locations and is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under
the ADA.

As a result of the Defendant's Website not being accessible to deaf
and hard-of-hearing persons, Defendant violates state and federal
law civil rights laws.

Sotheby's Inc. is a British-founded American multinational
corporation headquartered in New York City. One of the world's
largest brokers of fine and decorative art, jewelry, real estate,
and collectibles, Sotheby's operation is divided into three
segments: auction, finance, and dealer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell Segal, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL, P.C.
          1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 208
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 415-0100
          Facsimile: (516) 706-6631

SPIRIT AIRLINES: Manchur Ticket Refund Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD L. MANCHUR,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SPIRIT
AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-10771 (Filed April 21, 2020), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida (Ft. Lauderdale) on May 21, 2020.

The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
0:20-cv-61003-RAR to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Rodolfo A Ruiz.

Spirit has slashed its flight schedules, resulting in thousands of
flight cancellations for thousands of passengers. In addition to
the difficulties these passengers are already experiencing,
unconscionably, Spirit has added to these difficulties by refusing
to issue monetary refunds to passengers whose flights Spirit has
canceled, the Plaintiff contends.

Spirit Airlines is an American ultra-low-cost carrier headquartered
in Miramar, Florida, in the Miami metropolitan area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Borrelli, Esq.
          806 Fox Run
          Middleboro, MA 02346
          Telephone: (781) 983-7983
          E-mail: lawyer2@earthlink.net


SPOONFOL OF COMFORT: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spoonful of Comfort,
LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Spoonful of
Comfort, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02396 (E.D.N.Y., May 29, 2020).

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

Spoonful of Comfort sends thoughtful gifts as personal as the
handwritten sentiments that go with them.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170
          Phone: (212) 764-7171
          Fax: (212) 444-1030
          Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


STABILIS ENERGY: M&I Electric Industries Faces Barrett Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stabilis Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company's
subsidiary  M&I Electric Industries, Inc. ("M&I") has been named as
a defendant in a class action lawsuit Pelton Ray Barrett, et al. v.
Arkema, Inc., et al..

In January of 2020, the Company received notification that its
Subsidiary, M&I Electric Industries, Inc. ("M&I") has been named as
a defendant in a class action lawsuit "Pelton Ray Barrett, et al.
v. Arkema, Inc., et al." as the result of a fire on August 31,
2017, on a site owned or operated by Arkema, Inc. allegedly
resulting in chemical exposure.

Other defendants in the suit, including M&I are alleged to have
been responsible for the installation, repair, design, and/or
maintenance of the electrical, refrigeration and environmental
systems required to mitigate damages from the release of chemicals.


The Company, through its insurance providers, has engaged outside
legal counsel to defend against these claims.

The Company believes the ultimate resolution of this matter will
not have a material adverse impact of the Company's condensed
consolidated financial position, results of operations, or
liquidity.

Stabilis Energy, Inc provides integrated LNG fueling solutions. The
Company specializes in the production and distribution of liquefied
natural gas (LNG), as well as offers technical support services.
Stabilis Energy operates in North America. The company is based in
Houston, Texas.


STURM RUGER: Primus Group Suit v. Smith and Wesson Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Primus Group LLC
v. Smith and Wesson, et al.

Primus Group LLC v. Smith and Wesson, et al. is a putative class
action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio on August 8, 2019.

Plaintiff alleges that the defendants' lawful sale of modern
sporting rifles violates the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt
Organizations Act and seeks a temporary restraining order ("TRO")
and permanent injunction. On August 20, 2019, the court denied
plaintiff's request for a TRO.

On September 3, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

On September 16, 2019, plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. On
October 9, 2019, the court dismissed plaintiff's Amended Complaint,
with prejudice. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on October 15,
2019 and sought two extensions of time to file its initial brief.

Plaintiff's subsequent motion to hold the appeal in abeyance was
granted, though the court also ordered plaintiff to file periodic
status reports.

Plaintiff filed such a report on April 14, 2020, and claimed that
it expected to be in a position to reactivate or dismiss the appeal
within 60 days.

Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
designs, manufactures, and sells firearms under the Ruger name and
trademark in the United States. It operates in two segments,
Firearms and Castings. Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. was founded in
1949 and is based in Southport, Connecticut.


SUBARU OF AMERICA: Weston Sues Over Sudden Acceleration Defect
--------------------------------------------------------------
DANNY WESTON, SANDRA WESTON, TONI BUCHETTO PERRETTA, MARTIN
GREENWALD, MARGARET GREENWALD, and KATHLEEN SEARS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SUBARU OF
AMERICA, INC. and SUBARU CORPORATION, f/k/a FUJI HEAVY INDUSTRIES,
LTD., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05876 (D.N.J., May 13, 2020) is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the Colorado Consumer Protection Act,
the Connecticut Unlawful Trade Practices Act, the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, and the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive
Acts and Practices Act, and also for breach of express warranty,
breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, fraud by
omission or fraudulent concealment, and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly-situated purchasers and lessees of 2012-2018 Subaru
Forester, 2015-2019 Subaru Legacy vehicles, and 2015-2019 Subaru
Outback vehicles, allege that the Defendants' manufactured,
marketed, distributed, and sold the Class vehicles without
disclosing the existence of one of more defects. The Class vehicles
are defective in at least three primary respects. First, the Class
vehicles have an inadequate fault detection system that is not
robust enough to anticipate foreseeable unwanted outcomes,
including unintended acceleration. Additionally, the Class
vehicles' throttle position sensor, throttle body assembly,
powertrain control module, and/or related components are highly
susceptible to malfunction, including but not limited to faulty
circuit boards. Finally, the Class vehicles' brake override system
malfunctions or otherwise is ineffective to sufficiently override
acceleration that the driver does not initiate and cannot control
or the so called sudden acceleration defect. As a result of the
Defendants' failure to disclose these material facts and safety
concerns, vehicle owners, including the Plaintiffs, are exposed to
risk of physical injury or even death. Had the Plaintiffs and
prospective Class members known about the defects, they would not
have purchased or leased the Class vehicles or would have paid less
for them.

Subaru of America, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Subaru
Corp. responsible for distribution, marketing, sales and service of
Subaru vehicles in the United States, with its principal place of
business and headquarters in Camden, New Jersey.

Subaru Corporation, formerly known as Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd.,
is a Japanese manufacturer, designer, and marketer of vehicles
located at The Subaru Building, 1-7-2 Nishishinjuku, Shinjuku-ku,
Tokyo, 160-8316, Japan. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
         
         Russell D. Paul, Esq.
         Amey J. Park, Esq.
         Abigail J. Gertner, Esq.
         BERGER MONTAGUE PC
         1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 875-3000
         Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
         E-mail: rpaul@bm.net
                 apark@bm.net
                 agertner@bm.net

               - and –
         
         Steven R. Weinmann, Esq.
         Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
         Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
         Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
         CAPSTONE LAW APC
         1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 556-4811
         Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
         E-mail: Steven.Weinmann@capstonelawyers.com
                 Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
                 Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com

SUBURBAN PROPANE: Continues to Defend NY & Pennsylvania Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 7, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 28,
2020, that the company continues to defend itself from two class
lawsuits, one in New York and the other in Pennsylvania.

The Partnership's natural gas and electricity business is currently
a defendant in two putative class action suits in the federal
district courts of New York and Pennsylvania.  

The complaints allege a number of claims under various consumer
statutes and common law in New York and Pennsylvania regarding
pricing offered to electricity customers in those states.  

The complaint in the Pennsylvania action was dismissed in its
entirety by the district court, which dismissal is being appealed
by the plaintiff.  

The complaint in the New York action was dismissed in part by the
district court, but causes of action based on the New York consumer
statute and breach of contract were allowed to proceed.  

Based on the nature of the allegations under these suits, the
Partnership believes that the suits are without merit and is
defending each of these suits vigorously.  

With respect to these pending suits, the Partnership has
determined, based on the allegations and discovery to date, that no
reserve for a loss contingency is required.  

The Partnership is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss
or range of loss, if any, arising from either of these two actions.


Suburban said,"Although any litigation is inherently uncertain,
based on past experience, the information currently available to
the Partnership, and the amount of its accrued insurance
liabilities, the Partnership does not believe that currently
pending or threatened litigation matters, or known claims or known
contingent claims, will have a material adverse effect on its
results of operations, financial condition or cash flow."

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

Suburban Propane Partners, L.P., through its subsidiaries, engages
in the retail marketing and distribution of propane, fuel oil, and
refined fuels. The company operates in four segments: Propane, Fuel
Oil and Refined Fuels, Natural Gas and Electricity, and All Other.
Suburban Energy Services Group LLC serves as a general partner of
Suburban Propane Partners, L.P. The company was founded in 1945 and
is headquartered in Whippany, New Jersey.


SYNC BROKERAGE: Brodetsky Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALLEN BRODETSKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SYNC BROKERAGE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-04297 (C.D. Cal., May 12, 2020) is a class action brought
against Defendant for its alleged negligent and willful violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff received at least 15 text
messages on his cellular telephone ending in 0831 from Defendant's
484-848 beginning in or around August 2019 through approximately
April 2020. Some of the text messages convinced Plaintiff to call
telephone numbers (818)614-4380, (818)239-6270, or (818)770-3660
and at least one was requesting Plaintiff to join Defendant and
advertising Defendant's real estate open houses.

Plaintiff affirms that he did not provide prior express consent to
Defendant to send text messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephone.
Allegedly, Defendant used equipment that automatically dial a
stored list of telephone numbers and can sent text messages en
masse in a short period of time.

The complaint asserts that Plaintiff was harmed by the acts of
Defendant by illegally contacting Plaintiff causing him to incur
certain cellular telephone charges or reduce telephone time for
which he previously paid, and invading his privacy.

Plaintiff seeks only damages and injunctive relief for recovery of
economic injury.

Sync Brokerage, Inc. is a real estate company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Nicholas R. Barthel, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Tel: (800)400-6808
          Fax: (800)520-5523
          Emails: ak@kazlg.com
                  nicholas@kazlg.com

                - and -

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

                - and -

          Joseph M. Hekmat, Esq.
          HEKMAT LAW GROUP
          11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Tel: (424) 888-4529
          Fax: (424) 270-0242
          Website: https://www.hekmatlaw.com/our-team/


SYNERGY ONE: Shortchanges Workers' Overtime Pay, Diab Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Mazen Diab, on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Synergy One Lending, Inc. and Mutual of Omaha Mortgage, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00536 (W.D. Tex., May 18, 2020), seeks
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest and costs, including reasonable attorneys'
fees as a result of failure to pay Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated a proper overtime compensation for all hours
worked pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants own and operate mortgage and loan companies that
employed Diab as an hourly-paid Loan Officer from May of 2018 to
April of 2020. Diab claims to have regularly worked in excess of 40
hours per week and was paid commission based on sending referrals
to real estate agents, funding loans and selling mortgages. Diab
claims that the value of his commissions was not included in the
computation of his overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM
      One Financial Center
      650 S. Shackleford Suite 411
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Tel: (479) 880-0088
      Fax: (888) 787-2040
      Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


TAUBMAN CENTERS: Post Balks at Merger Deal With Simon Property
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH POST, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. TAUBMAN CENTERS, INC., MAYREE C. CLARK, MICHAEL J.
EMBLER, JANICE L. FIELDS, MICHELLE J. GOLDBERG, NANCY KILLEFER, CIA
BUCKLEY MARAKOVITS, ROBERT S. TAUBMAN, RONALD W. TYSOE, MYRON E.
ULLMAN, III, SIMON PROPERTY GROUP, INC., SIMON PROPERTY GROUP,
L.P., SILVER MERGER SUB 1, LLC, SILVER MERGER SUB 2, LLC, and THE
TAUBMAN REALTY GROUP LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Case No.
1:20-cv-00685-UNA (D. Del. May 21, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with a proxy statement filed for a merger deal.

On February 9, 2020, Taubman Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Simon Property
Group, et al. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement,
holders of Taubman common stock will receive $52.50 in cash for
each share of Taubman common stock held.

On April 28, 2020, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with
the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff alleges that the Proxy
Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading.

The Plaintiff contends that the omissions and false and misleading
statements in the Proxy Statement are material in that a reasonable
stockholder will consider them important in deciding how to vote on
the Proposed Transaction. He adds that a reasonable investor will
view a full and accurate disclosure as significantly altering the
total mix of information made available in the Proxy Statement and
in other information reasonably available to stockholders. The
Proxy Statement is an essential link in causing him and the
Company's stockholders to approve the Proposed Transaction, he
alleges.

The Plaintiff is an owner of Taubman common stock.

Taubman is a real estate investment trust that invests in shopping
centers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


TC HEARTLAND: "Vanilla Flavor" Label Misleading, Miller Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Anassa Miller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, against - TC Heartland LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-04182-MKV (S.D.N.Y., June 1, 2020) alleges the
Defendant misrepresented the flavor of the Vanilla Cold Brew Frappe
under the Java House brand as "Vanilla" because it contains less
vanilla than expected relative to its total flavoring and its
vanilla taste is enhanced by non-vanilla flavors, not disclosed to
consumers including the Plaintiff.

The Defendant sold more of the Product and at higher prices than it
would have in the absence of this misconduct, resulting in
additional profits at the expense of consumers like Plaintiff.

According to the complaint, the Product's front label designation
of "vanilla" gives consumers the impression it contains an
exclusively vanilla standardized ingredient since vanilla is
subject to a standard of identity.

As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the Product is
sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $2.49 for
bottles of 10 OZ, excluding tax, compared to other similar products
represented in a non-misleading way.

TC Heartland, LLC is an Indiana-based company that provides
packaged food products, liquid beverage enhancers and sweetener
products for the retail market.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

TD AMERITRADE: Continues to Defend Ford Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Roderick Ford
(replacing Gerald Klein) v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et
al., Case No. 8:14CV396.

In 2014, five putative class action complaints were filed regarding
TD Ameritrade, Inc.'s routing of client orders and one putative
class action was filed regarding Scottrade, Inc.'s routing of
client orders.

Five of the six cases were dismissed and the United States Court of
Appeals, 8th Circuit, affirmed the dismissals in those cases that
were appealed. The one remaining case is Roderick Ford (replacing
Gerald Klein) v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al., Case
No. 8:14CV396 (U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska).

In the remaining case, plaintiff alleges that, when routing client
orders to various market centers, defendants did not seek best
execution, and instead routed clients' orders to market venues that
paid TD Ameritrade, Inc. the most money for order flow. Plaintiff
alleges that defendants made misrepresentations and omissions
regarding the Company's order routing practices.

The complaint asserts claims of violations of Section 10(b) and 20
of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5.

The complaint seeks damages, injunctive relief, and other relief.

Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which defendants
opposed. On July 12, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and
a recommendation that plaintiff's motion for class certification be
denied. Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's
findings and recommendation, which defendants opposed. On September
14, 2018, the District Judge sustained plaintiff's objections,
rejected the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and granted
plaintiff's motion for class certification.

On September 28, 2018, defendants filed a petition requesting that
the U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, grant an immediate appeal
of the District Court's class certification decision. The U.S.
Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, granted defendants' petition on
December 18, 2018. Briefing on the appeal is complete.

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce have filed amicus curiae briefs in support
of the Company's appeal.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit and
is unable to predict the outcome or the timing of the ultimate
resolution of the lawsuit, or the potential loss, if any, that may
result.

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

TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation provides securities brokerage and
related technology-based financial services to retail investors,
traders, and independent registered investment advisors (RIAs) in
the United States. The company is based in Omaha, Nebraska.


TD AMERITRADE: Faces Six Charles Schwab-Merger Related Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company has
been named as a defendant in six suits lawsuits including two
putative class action suits, related to its merger agreement with
The Charles Schwab Corporation and Americano Acquisition Corp., a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Schwab.

On November 24, 2019, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with The Charles Schwab Corporation and Americano
Acquisition Corp. The Merger Agreement was included as Exhibit 2.1
to the Company's Form 8-K filed with the SEC on November 27, 2019.
Upon the terms and subject to the conditions of the Merger
Agreement, Americano Acquisition Corp. will merge with and into the
Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Schwab.

Six complaints have been filed by purported stockholders of the
Company challenging the Merger.

The first, a putative class action complaint, was filed by Michael
Kent in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware and is captioned Kent v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation
et al., case number 1:20-cv-00388.

The second complaint, filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware by Shiva Stein individually, is captioned
Stein v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation et al., case number
1:20-cv-00410.

The third complaint, filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey by Marc Roth individually, is captioned
Roth v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation et al., case number
2:20-cv-03425.

The fourth complaint, filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey by Harold Litwin individually, is
captioned Litwin v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation et al., case
number 2:20-cv-03569.

The fifth, a putative class action complaint, filed in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey by Audrey
Bernstein, is captioned Bernstein v. TD Ameritrade Holding
Corporation et al., case number 2:20-cv-03695.

The sixth complaint, filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York by Glenn Garrison individually,
is captioned Garrison v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation et al.,
case number 1:20-cv-02850.

The complaints generally allege, among other things, that the
defendants named therein authorized the filing of a materially
incomplete and misleading registration statement with the SEC.

Among other remedies, the complaints seek to enjoin the stockholder
vote at the TD Ameritrade special meeting to be held to approve the
Merger and related matters and the closing of the Merger, as well
as costs and attorneys' fees.

The Company believes that the complaints are without merit but is
unable to predict the outcome of the ultimate resolution of the
lawsuits, or the potential loss, if any, that may result.

In addition, a purported stockholder of the Company has made a
demand pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation
Law to inspect certain books and records of the Company relating to
the proposed Merger.

TD Ameritrade said, "There can be no assurances that additional
complaints or demands will not be filed or made with respect to the
Merger."

TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation provides securities brokerage and
related technology-based financial services to retail investors,
traders, and independent registered investment advisors (RIAs) in
the United States. The company is based in Omaha, Nebraska.


TELECOM TECHNOLOGY: Mars Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leo Mars, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. TELECOM TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, INC., Case No.
7:20-cv-04142 (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2020), seeks to represent the
Defendant's current and former employees, who worked more than 40
hours in a week but were not paid overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

The Defendant violated the FLSA by misclassifying the Plaintiff and
Class Members as exempt from overtime, according to the complaint.
Consequently, the Defendant's compensation policy violates the
FLSA's mandate that non-exempt employees, such as the Plaintiff and
Class Members, be compensated at one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for each hour worked over 40 in a week.

Likewise, the Plaintiff says, the Defendant's conduct violates the
laws of New York. The Defendant failed to pay overtime wages,
additional wages for working more than 10 hours in a single day,
failed to provide accurate and timely notice upon hire, failed to
issue wages on a weekly basis as opposed to on a bi-weekly basis,
failed to pay for work related expenses, and provided pay
statements that were inaccurate, in violation of the NYLL, says the
complaint

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Field Technician from
May 2019 to September 2019.

The Defendant is a telecommunication company that specializes in
providing maintenance and equipment upgrade services at cellular
sites.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          HODGES & FOTY, LLP
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          Email: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com


TESLA MOTORS: Sells Vehicles With Defective MCUs, Faragalla Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ENTEWAN FARAGALLA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly-situated v. TESLA INC., d/b/a TESLA MOTORS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-01025 (C.D. Cal., May 13, 2020), arises
from the Defendant's violations of the California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law, California Business and
Professions Code, and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of
express warranty, and breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated purchasers and lessees of the Defendant's model
years 2014-2016 Model S and 2015-2016 Model X vehicles, alleges
that the Defendant is engaged in false advertising and marketing of
the Class vehicles because they are equipped with defective
touchscreen media control units (MCUs). The Plaintiff and Class
members claim that the vehicles' MCUs routinely fail after only a
few years of normal use, which impacts many of the vehicles'
intended, essential functions, including safety features, and, as a
result, places the drivers of the vehicles, including Plaintiff, in
unsafe positions. The Defendant has long known or should have known
of the vehicles' MCU problems from multiple sources including
warranty claims data, consumer complaints made directly to the
Defendant, collected by the National Highway Transportation Safety
Administration, and consumer complaints posted on public online
forums. Yet, the Defendant has failed to warn purchasers and
lessees about the possibility of the vehicles' MCUs malfunctioning
and disabling the vehicles' essential features, including numerous
safety features. The Defendant did not include any such warnings or
instructions in its owner's manuals, or in any of its other
representations about the vehicles. In fact, the Defendant has made
no efforts to make purchasers and lessees aware of any MCU
malfunction issues.

Tesla Inc., doing business as Tesla Motors, Inc., is an American
electric vehicle and clean energy company headquartered in Palo
Alto, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
         Kolin Tang, Esq.
         SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
         1401 Dove Street, Suite 510
         Newport Beach, CA 92660
         Telephone: (323) 510-4060
         Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
         E-mail: ktang@sfmslaw.com

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

               - and –
         
         John F. Edgar, Esq.
         Michael R. Owens, Esq.
         EDGAR LAW FIRM LLC
         2600 Grand Blvd., Ste. 440
         Kansas City, MO 64108
         Telephone: (816) 531-0033
         Facsimile: (816) 531-3322
         E-mail: jfe@edgarlawfirm.com
                 MRO@edgarlawfirm.com

TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces AcelRx Merger-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that as of May 6, 2020, 10
lawsuits have been filed by alleged Tetraphase stockholders against
the company, members of its board of directors, AcelRx
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (AcelRx) and/or Merger Sub, challenging the
Merger.

On March 15, 2020, the Company entered into an agreement and plan
of merger, or Merger Agreement, with AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation, or AcelRx, and Consolidation Merger Sub,
Inc., a Delaware corporation and an indirect wholly owned
subsidiary of AcelRx, or Merger Sub. The Merger Agreement provides
for, among other things, the acquisition of the Company by AcelRx,
with the acquisition to be accomplished through the merger of
Merger Sub with and into the Company, with the Company being the
surviving corporation and becoming an indirect wholly owned
subsidiary of AcelRx. The Company's Board of Directors has
unanimously approved the Merger and the Merger Agreement and
recommended that stockholders adopt the Merger Agreement. The
Company submitted the Merger Agreement to its stockholders for
their consideration at a special meeting of stockholders to be held
on June 8, 2020. The Company expects the merger to be completed in
the second quarter of 2020.

as of May 6, 2020, ten lawsuits have been filed by alleged
Tetraphase stockholders against the company, members of its board
of directors, AcelRx and/or Merger Sub, challenging the Merger.

These lawsuits, which include both putative class action and
individual complaints, have been filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware, the Southern District
of New York, the Eastern District of New York, the District of
Massachusetts, and the Massachusetts State Superior Court.

The complaints allege violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder, and/or that the members of the company's board breached
their fiduciary duties.

The plaintiffs in these actions generally allege that the
registration statement filed with the SEC on April 6, 2020, and/or
the definitive proxy statement filed with the SEC on April 24,
2020, omit material information with respect to the proposed
transaction, which renders such registration statement and/or proxy
statement false and misleading.

In addition, certain plaintiffs allege that the members of our
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty
and good faith, and/or candor and disclosure by allegedly entering
into the Merger through a flawed and unfair process and
disseminating materially incomplete and misleading disclosures in
connection with the Merger, and that the company, AcelRx and/or
Merger Sub aided and abetted in the alleged breach of fiduciary
duties.

The complaints seek preliminary and permanent injunction of the
proposed transaction and, if the Merger is consummated, rescission
or rescissory damages. The complaints also seek the dissemination
of a registration statement and/or proxy statement that disclose
certain information requested by the plaintiffs.

In addition, the complaints seek attorneys' and experts' fees.

Tetraphase said, "We believe we have valid defenses against these
claims and will engage in a vigorous defense of such litigation."

Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company, develops various antibiotics for the
treatment of serious and life-threatening multidrug-resistant
infections. The company was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in
Watertown, Massachusetts.


THAI ON HIGH: Babarsky Suit Seeks Minimum and OT Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CECILIA BABARSKY, On behalf of herself and All Other Similarly
Situated Employees of Thai on High, LLC, dba Nida's Thai on High v.
THAI ON HIGH, LLC, dba Nida's Thai on High; and JOHN DOE, Name and
Address Unknown, Case No. 2:20-cv-02477-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, May 18,
2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorney fees, and costs under
the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff contends that since at least March 2017, the Company
has engaged in a pattern and practice of failing to pay employees
the statutory minimum wage and of failing to pay required overtime
by conduct including failing to properly pay any hourly wages and
running an illegal "tip pool."

The Plaintiff is employed as a server by the Defendants.

Thai on High operates a restaurant located at 976 N High St., in
Columbus, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric B. Hershberger, Esq.
          Fazeel S. Khan, Esq.
          HAYNES KESSLER MYERS
          & POSTALAKIS, INCORPORATED
          300 W. Wilson Bridge Road, Suite 100
          Worthington, OH 43085
          Telephone: (614) 764-0681
          Facsimile: (614) 764-0774
          E-mail: eric@ohiolawyersgroup.com
                  fazeel@ohiolawyersgroup.com


TIKTOK INC: Accused of Capturing & Retaining Biometrics Illegally
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A.S., a minor, by and through his or her legal guardian, A.S.,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Tiktok, Inc., and Bytedance, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00457, (S.D. Ill., May 15, 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 in
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Defendants own and operate the popular video-sharing social media
application "TikTok," an app that allows users to make and share
short videos. Tik-Tok failed to warn users that the app captures,
collects and stores their biometric data and the purpose or length
of time that they retain such data. It also failed to seek consent
to capture and retain their biometric data, asserts the complaint.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tiffany M. Yiatras, Esq.
      CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL, LLC
      8235 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100
      Saint Louis, MO 63105-1643
      Email: tyiatras@gmail.com


TOP DENTAL: Rios Seeks Overtime Pay for Office Coordinators
-----------------------------------------------------------
The complaint, YANET RIOS, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOP DENTAL PLLC, a Florida Limited
liability Company, d/b/a GREENACRES DENTAL SERVICES, ELISEO FIFFE,
individually, and KATIUSKA MCINTOSH, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 9:20-cv-80784-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 12, 2020) arises from
Defendants' alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly Office
Coordinator between approximately September 2019 and February
2020.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated
Defendant's employees have regularly worked in excess of 40 hours
in one or more workweeks between May 2017 and the present. However,
Defendants did not pay them time and one-half wages for the
overtime hours they worked.

Moreover, Defendant failed to maintain accurate records.

Eliseo Fiffe and Katiuska McIntosh owned and managed Top Dental
PLLC d/b/a Greenacres Dental Services, and have regularly exercised
the authority to hire and fire employees, set the rates of pay,
and/or controlled the finances and day-to-day management
operations.

Top Dental PLLC operates a dental practice specializing in
cosmetic, implant, and family dentistry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith M. Stern, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
          80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 2000
          Miami, FL 33130
          Tel: (305) 901-1379
          Fax: (561) 288-9031
          Email: employlaw@keithstern.com


TRAVELERS COMPANIES: JG Optical Alleges Insurance Coverage Denial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
J.G. OPTICAL, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. THE TRAVELERS COMPANIES, INC. and THE
CHARTER OAK FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-05744-ES-MAH (D.N.J., May 8, 2020) alleges that the
Defendants are denying the obligation to pay for business income
losses and other covered expenses incurred by policyholders for the
physical loss and damage to the insured property from measures put
in place by the civil authorities to stop the spread of COVID-19
among the population.

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

According to the complaint, the action brings a claim against
Defendants for their breach of their contractual obligation under
common all-risk commercial property insurance policies to indemnify
Plaintiff and others similarly situated for business losses and
extra expenses, and related losses resulting from actions taken by
civil authorities to stop the human to human and surface to human
spread of the COVID-19 outbreak.

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed class of
policyholders who paid premiums in exchange for business insurance
policies that included lost business income and extra expense
coverage.

The Travelers Companies, Inc. is a Minnesota corporation with its
principal place of business in New York, New York. It owns
subsidiaries, directly and indirectly, that issue, among other
things, property insurance.

The Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company is a Connecticut corporation
with its principal place of business in Hartford, Connecticut.
Charter Oak is a subsidiary of The Travelers Companies, Inc. and is
duly qualified and licensed to issue insurance in the State of New
Jersey and other States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700

                - and -

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS
          77 Water Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700

                - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY  11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100

                - and -

          Paul J. Geller, Esq.
          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000

TREEHOUSE FOODS: $25MM Settlement in Suchanek Suit Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------
TreeHouse Foods, Inc.said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the Company has entered
into a $25.0 million settlement agreement with all related parties
in the case, Suchanek et al v. Sturm Foods, Inc. and TreeHouse
Foods, Inc.

In 2011, the Company's Sturm Foods, Inc. business was sued in an
action captioned Suchanek et al v. Sturm Foods, Inc. and TreeHouse
Foods, Inc., which was followed by several class action proceedings
in eight states that were consolidated into one case pending in
federal court in East St. Louis, Illinois.

The suit's primary allegation relates to certain purported label
misrepresentations as to the nature of its Grove Square coffee
products.

Without admitting liability or fault, the Company entered into a
settlement agreement with all related parties and matters in the
amount of $25.0 million which was approved by the court on April
21, 2020.

TreeHouse Foods, Inc. operates as a food and beverage manufacturer
in the United States, Canada, and Italy. The company operates
through Baked Goods, Beverages, Condiments, Meals, and Snacks
segments. TreeHouse Foods, Inc. was founded in 1862 and is based in
Oak Brook, Illinois.


TREEHOUSE FOODS: MSPERS Class Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------
TreeHouse Foods, Inc.said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Public Employees'
Retirement Systems of Mississippi v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc., et al.

On November 16, 2016, a purported TreeHouse shareholder filed a
class action captioned Tarara v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-10632, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against TreeHouse and certain of its
officers.

The complaint, amended on March 24, 2017, is purportedly brought on
behalf of all purchasers of TreeHouse common stock from January 20,
2016 through and including November 2, 2016.

It asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
seeks, among other things, damages and costs and expenses.

On December 22, 2016, another purported TreeHouse shareholder filed
an action captioned Wells v. Reed, et al., Case No. 2016-CH-16359,
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, against TreeHouse
and certain of its officers.

This complaint, purportedly brought derivatively on behalf of
TreeHouse, asserts state law claims against certain officers for
breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and corporate waste.

On February 7, 2017, another purported TreeHouse shareholder filed
an action captioned Lavin v. Reed, et al., Case No. 17-cv-01014, in
the Northern District of Illinois, against TreeHouse and certain of
its officers.  

This complaint is also purportedly brought derivatively on behalf
of TreeHouse, and it asserts state law claims against certain
officers for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of
control, gross mismanagement, and corporate waste.

On February 8, 2019, another purported TreeHouse shareholder filed
an action captioned Bartelt v. Reed, et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00835, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

This complaint is purportedly brought derivatively on behalf of
TreeHouse and asserts state law claims against certain officers for
breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control,
gross mismanagement, and corporate waste, in addition to asserting
violations of Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Finally, on June 3, 2019, another purported TreeHouse shareholder
filed an action captioned City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement
System v. Reed, et al., Case No. 2019-CH-06753, in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, against TreeHouse and certain of
its officers.

Like Wells, Lavin, and Bartelt, this complaint is purportedly
brought derivatively on behalf of TreeHouse and asserts claims for
contribution and indemnification, breach of fiduciary duty, and
aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty.

All five complaints make substantially similar allegations (though
the amended complaint in Tarara now contains additional detail).

Essentially, the complaints allege that TreeHouse, under the
authority and control of the individual defendants: (i) made
certain false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and future prospects; and (ii) failed to
disclose that (a) the Company's private label business was
underperforming; (b) the Company's Flagstone business was
underperforming; (c) the Company's acquisition strategy was
underperforming; (d) the Company had overstated its full-year 2016
guidance; and (e) TreeHouse's statements lacked reasonable basis.

The complaints allege that these actions artificially inflated the
market price of TreeHouse common stock during the class period,
thus purportedly harming investors.

The Bartelt action also includes substantially similar allegations
concerning events in 2017, and the Ann Arbor complaint also seeks
contribution from the individual defendants for losses incurred by
the company in these litigations.

The company believes that these claims are without merit and intend
to defend against them vigorously.

Since its initial docketing, the Tarara matter has been
re-captioned as Public Employees' Retirement Systems of Mississippi
v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc., et al., in accordance with the Court's
order appointing Public Employees' Retirement Systems of
Mississippi as the lead plaintiff.

On May 26, 2017, the Public Employees' defendants filed a motion to
dismiss, which the court denied on February 12, 2018. On April 12,
2018, the Public Employees' defendants filed their answer to the
amended complaint.  

On April 23, 2018, the parties filed a joint status report with the
Court, which set forth a proposed discovery and briefing schedule
for the Court's consideration. On July 13, 2018, lead plaintiff
filed a motion to certify the class, and defendants filed their
response in opposition to the motion to certify the class on
October 8, 2018. On November 12, 2018, the parties filed an agreed
motion to stay proceedings to allow them to explore mediation. The
motion was granted on November 19. The parties thereafter engaged
in mediation but failed to resolve the dispute.

On March 29, 2019, the parties resumed litigation by filing an
agreed motion for extension of time, which was granted on April 9.
Under that schedule, lead plaintiff filed its reply class
certification brief on May 17, 2019.

On February 26, 2020, the court granted lead plaintiff's motion for
class certification. Defendants then filed a petition for
permissive appeal of the class certification order in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on March 11, 2020.
That court ordered plaintiff to respond to the petition, and
plaintiff did so on April 1, 2020.

The court has not yet ruled on the petition.

On December 16, 2019, the parties agreed to extend the case
schedule 90 days. This agreed motion was granted on December 25,
2019. At a status conference on March 10, 2020, the parties
informed the court that they intended to engage in a second
mediation and the court extended then-upcoming deadlines under the
case schedule, pending a further status report from the parties
regarding the extent of the stay needed to facilitate mediation.

The court subsequently issued multiple general orders as a result
of the COVID-19 outbreak, which together postponed all case
deadlines for a total of 49 days. As a result of the court's orders
and COVID-19-related delays, the parties' status report in Public
Employees' is now due on May 12, 2020.

By agreement, certain limited document discovery remains ongoing.

Due to the similarity of the complaints, the parties in Wells and
Lavin entered stipulations deferring the litigation until the
earlier of (i) the court in Public Employees' entering an order
resolving defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss therein or (ii)
plaintiffs' counsel receiving notification of a settlement of
Public Employees' or until otherwise agreed to by the parties.  

On September 27, 2018, the parties in Wells and Lavin filed joint
motions for entry of agreed orders further deferring the matters in
light of the Public Employees' Court's denial of the motion to
dismiss in February 2018.  

The Wells and Lavin Courts entered the agreed orders further
deferring the matters on September 27, 2018 and October 10, 2018,
respectively. On June 25, 2019, the parties jointly moved to
consolidate the Bartelt matter with Lavin, so that it would be
subject to the Lavin deferral order. This motion was granted on
June 27, 2019, and Bartelt is now consolidated with Lavin and
deferred.

There is no set status date in Lavin at this time.

Similarly, Ann Arbor was consolidated with Wells on August 13,
2019, and is now deferred. In Wells, the next status conference was
set for March 6, 2020, but due to court-ordered delays caused by
the COVID-19 pandemic, this status conference will take place on
June 5, 2020.

TreeHouse Foods, Inc. operates as a food and beverage manufacturer
in the United States, Canada, and Italy. The company operates
through Baked Goods, Beverages, Condiments, Meals, and Snacks
segments. TreeHouse Foods, Inc. was founded in 1862 and is based in
Oak Brook, Illinois.


TREEHOUSE FOODS: Negrete Class Suit v. Ralcorp Holdings Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
TreeHouse Foods, Inc.said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit against TreeHouse Private Brands,
Inc. (formerly Ralcorp Holdings, Inc.), a subsidiary of the
company, entitled, Negrete v. Ralcorp Holdings, Inc., et al.

The Company is also party to matters challenging its wage and hour
practices.

These matters include a number of class actions consolidated under
the caption Negrete v. Ralcorp Holdings, Inc., et al, pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, in
which the plaintiffs allege a pattern of violations of California
and/or federal law at several current and former Company
manufacturing facilities across the State of California.

While the Company cannot predict with certainty the results of this
or any other legal proceeding, it does not expect this matter to
have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results
of operations, or business.

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

TreeHouse Foods, Inc. operates as a food and beverage manufacturer
in the United States, Canada, and Italy. The company operates
through Baked Goods, Beverages, Condiments, Meals, and Snacks
segments. TreeHouse Foods, Inc. was founded in 1862 and is based in
Oak Brook, Illinois.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: 3d Cir. Vacates Summary Judgment in Razak Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALI RAZAK; KENAN SABANI; KHALDOUN CHERDOUD,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Appellants, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; GEGEN, LLC, Case No.
18-1944 (3d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment and remand
for further proceedings.

The case is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment on the
question of whether drivers for UberBLACK are employees or
independent contractors within the meaning of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and similar Pennsylvania state laws.

Plaintiffs Razak, Sabani, and Cherdoud are Pennsylvania drivers who
utilize Defendant Uber' ride-sharing mobile phone application.  The
Plaintiffs bring the action on behalf of a putative class of all
persons who provide limousine services, now known as UberBLACK,
through the Defendant's Driver App in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
They bring individual and representative claims against Uber and
its wholly-owned subsidiary, Gegen, for violations of the federal
minimum wage and overtime requirements under the FLSA, the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment
and Collection Law.

The Plaintiffs each own and operate independent transportation
companies ("ITCs") Luxe Limousine Services, Inc., Freemo Limo, LLC,
and Milano Limo, Inc., respectively.  In order for drivers to
contract to drive for UberBLACK, they must form ITCs.  Each ITC, in
turn, enters into a Technology Services Agreement with Uber. The
Technology Services Agreement includes a Software License and
Online Services Agreement that allows UberBLACK drivers to utilize
the technology service Uber provides to generate leads, as well as
outlines the relationship between ITCs and Uber riders, ITCs and
Uber, and ITCs and their drivers.  Additionally, it describes
driver requirements, vehicle requirements, financial terms, and
contains an arbitration clause for dispute resolution between ITCs
and Uber.

Uber also requires that drivers sign a Driver Addendum, which is a
legal agreement between the ITC and the for-hire driver, before a
driver can utilize the Driver App.  The Driver Addendum allows a
driver to receive lead generation and related services through
Uber's Driver App.  The Addendum also outlines driver requirements
(such as maintaining a valid driver's license), insurance
requirements, dispute resolution, and the "Driver's Relationship
with Uber," in which Uber uses clear language to attempt to
establish the parameters of the Driver's working relationship with
Uber.

For UberBLACK, Uber holds a certificate of public convenience from,
and is licensed by, the Philadelphia Parking Authority ("PPA") to
operate a limousine company.  Transportation companies and
individual transportation providers who provide Black car services
in Philadelphia are required to hold a PPA certificate of public
convenience or associate with an entity that holds such a
certificate.  Additionally, approximately 75% of UberBLACK drivers
use Uber's automobile insurance.

The Plaintiffs claim that they are employees, and sue Uber for
violations of minimum wage and overtime requirements under federal
and state laws.  Under the FLSA, employers must pay employees the
applicable minimum wage for each hour worked, and, if an employee
works more than 40 hours in a given week, the employer must pay one
and a half times the regular rate for each hour subsequently
worked.  They contend that time spent online on the Uber Driver App
qualifies as compensable time under the FLSA.  Principal among the
Plaintiffs' arguments is that Uber controls the access and use of
the Driver App.

On appeal, Uber reasserts that the Plaintiffs are not employees as
a matter of law, and therefore, their putative class action should
be subject to summary judgment.  To support this contention, Uber
portrays UberBLACK drivers as entrepreneurs who utilize Uber as a
software platform to acquire trip requests.  Uber asserts that
Plaintiffs are not restricted from working for other companies, pay
their own expenses, and on some occasions, engage workers for their
own ITCs.  They can use UberBLACK as little or as much as they want
or choose not to work for UberBLACK and instead work for
competitors such as Blacklane and Lyft.  

Uber asserts that it places no restrictions on drivers' ability to
engage in personal activities while online.  The Plaintiffs in the
matter engaged in a range of personal activities, including
accepting rides from private clients, accepting rides from other
rideshare programs, sleeping, running personal errands, smoking
cigarettes, taking personal phone calls, rejecting UberBLACK trips
because they were tired, and conducting personal business.

Alternatively, the Plaintiffs claim that they are "employees" under
the FLSA because they are controlled by Uber when they are online
and perform an integral role for Uber's business.  The District
Court agreed with Uber's position, and granted Uber's Motion for
Summary Judgment on the question of whether the Plaintiffs qualify
as "employees" of Uber under the FLSA and PMWA.  The Plaintiffs now
appeal from the summary judgment order.

In reviewing the District Court decision de novo, the Third Circuit
determined that summary judgment was inappropriate because genuine
disputes of material facts remained.  The Third Circuit does not
opine on whether the disputed facts should be resolved by a jury or
the District Court through a Rule 52 proceeding, as was the case in
Donovan v. DialAmerica Marketing, Inc.  However, these material
factual disputes must be resolved.

The Third Circuit determined that summary judgment was a
mischaracterization, but the proper outcome, as all the factual
disputes were resolved prior to adjudication on the merits.
DialAmerica teaches that where there are questions of fact that
need resolution, these questions must go to a fact-finder.  The
case presents such genuine disputes of material facts.  Uber
submitted a Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to which the
Plaintiffs responded with almost a hundred pages of disputes.  For
example, disputed facts include whether Plaintiffs are operating
within Uber's system and under Uber's rules, and whether the
Plaintiffs or their corporations contracted directly with Uber.
Although the District Court states that its decision derived from
undisputed facts, the disputes presented by the parties go to the
core of the DialAmerica factors and present a genuine dispute of
material facts.

For the foregoing reasons, the Third Circuit the matter for further
proceedings as summary judgment was inappropriate.

A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's March 3, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/QHddG1 from Leagle.com.

ALI RAZAK, KENAN SABANI & KHALDOUN CHERDOUD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, represented
by JEREMY E. ABAY -- jabay@sackslaw.com -- Sacks Weston Diamond,
LLC & JOHN K. WESTON -- jweston@sackslaw.com -- SACKS WESTON
DIAMOND LLC.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, represented by NILOY RAY --
nray@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON PC, ANDREW SPURCHISE --
aspurchise@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON PC, JOSHUA C. VAUGHN
-- jvaughn@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., PAUL C. LANTIS
-- plantis@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., ROBERT WILLIAM
PRITCHARD -- rpritchard@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.,
SOPHIA BEHNIA -- sbehnia@littler.com -- LITTLE MENDELSON PC &
WENDY SUE BUCKINGHAM -- wbuckingham@littler.com -- LITTLER
MENDELSON PC.

GEGEN LLC, Defendant, represented by NILOY RAY, LITTLER MENDELSON
PC, ROBERT WILLIAM PRITCHARD, LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., SOPHIA
BEHNIA, LITTLE MENDELSON PC, JOSHUA C. VAUGHN, LITTLER MENDELSON,
P.C. & PAUL C. LANTIS, Littler Mendelson, P.C.

LUXE LIMOUSINE SERVICES, INC., FREEMO LIMO, LLC & MILANO LIMO,
INC., Movants, represented by JEREMY E. ABAY, Sacks Weston
Diamond, LLC.


UNITED NATURAL: Carlson Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD CARLSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UNITED NATURAL FOODS, INC. & SUPERVALU, INC., Case No.
3:20-cv-05476 (W.D. Wash., May 21, 2020), seeks payment of back
wages, including overtime compensation, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the Washington state law.

The Plaintiff alleges that he and other similarly situated
employees were knowingly and improperly classified as exempt
employees, and, as a result, did not receive overtime pay for hours
worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants since September
2010.

SuperValu is a food wholesaler and retailer that supplies its own
grocery store brands as well as those of other food retailers,
including by importing food from outside the United States. UNFI is
a wholesale food and meat distributor of bulk foods and products
for the grocery stores within its chain.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103‐8869
          Telephone: (206) 816‐6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319‐5450
          E-mail: tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com

               - and -

          Sarah R. Schalman‐Bergen, Esq.
          Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
          Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875‐3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875‐4604
          E-mail: sschalman‐bergen@bm.net
                  crodriguez@bm.net
                  apiazza@bm.net


UNIVERSITY & STATE: Faces Cortes Suit Over Improper Fee Collection
------------------------------------------------------------------
CESAR E. CORTES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY & STATE EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION
and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No.
37-2020-00018182-CU-BC-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., June 2,
2020) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of
account agreement, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, unjust enrichment/restitution, and violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants unlawfully assessed and
collected overdraft fees and non-sufficient funds (NSFs) fees from
the Plaintiff's and Class members' checking accounts without
warning and authorization through misrepresentation and omission of
material information about the credit union's NSF and overdraft fee
policies by falsely stating that overdrafts were assessed only when
there was not enough money to cover the transaction when instead
the Defendants used the bookkeeping artificial available balance to
assess overdraft fees. As a result of Defendants' violations of the
Unfair Competition Law, the Plaintiff and Class members have paid
improper NSF and overdraft fees and thereby have suffered actual
loss of money.

University & State Employees Credit Union is a state-chartered
credit union with its headquarters located in San Diego,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:         
         
         Richard D. McCune, Esq.
         David C. Wright, Esq.
         MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
         3281 E. Guasti Road, Suite 100
         Ontario, CA 91761
         Telephone: (909) 557-1250
         Facsimile: (909) 557 1275
         E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
                 dcw@mccunewright.com

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: Egleston Seeks Tuition & Fees Refund
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, DYLAN EGLESTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA BOARD OF
TRUSTEES, AS THE PUBLIC BODY CORPORATE OF UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00106-AW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., May 11, 2020)
arises from Defendant's alleged breach of contract and unjust
enrichment.

Plaintiff was enrolled as a full-time student for the Spring 2020
academic semester at Defendant's institution.

Plaintiff and the Putative class members claim that they have been
deprived by Defendant of fully utilizing services for which they
have already paid since Defendant has suspended or restricted
in-person on-campus activities, and thus they demand refund any
portion of their tuition and fees.

However, Defendant failed and continues to fail to adequately and
properly refund Plaintiff and the putative Class members' fees for
on-campus services which Defendant is no longer providing as
promised through the admission agreement.

University of Florida Board of Trustee, as the Public Body
Corporate of University of Florida is a public land-grant,
sea-grant, and space-grant research university in Gainsville,
Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan DeMaggio, Esq.
          Wm. J. Sheppard, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, WHITE, KACHERGUS,
            & DEMAGGIO, P.A.
          215 Washington Street
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Tel: (904)356-9661
          Fax: (904)356-9667
          Email: shepllaw@sheppardwhite.com

                - and –

          Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
          Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
          GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
          501 Fifth Avenue, 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Tel: (212)983-1300
          Fax: (212)983-0383
          Emails: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
                  gegleston@gme-law.com


UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO: Legge Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
----------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Legge, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. University of San Francisco, Defendant, Case
No. 20-cv-03406 (N.D. Cal., May 19, 2020), seeks disgorgement of
all amounts wrongfully obtained for tuition, fees, on-campus
housing, and meals; injunctive relief including enjoining the
University of San Francisco from retaining the pro-rated, unused
monies paid for tuition, fees, on-campus housing and meals;
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, plus refunds of all
tuition fees paid on a pro-rata basis, together with other damages
resulting from breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

The University of San Francisco (USF) is a private Jesuit
university. Legge is the parent of an undergraduate student at USF
pursuing a degree in Finance. USF decided to close campus,
constructively evict students, and transition all classes to an
online/remote format as a result of the Novel Coronavirus Disease.
Legge's son 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. USF refused to provide reimbursement for the
tuition, fees and other costs. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


US PREMIUM: NBP Continues to Defend Antitrust & Labelling Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Premium Beef, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2020, that National Beef Packing
Company, LLC (NBP) continues to defend against "Antitrust" and
"Labelling" class suits.

National Beef Packing Company, LLC (NBP) is a defendant in two
class action lawsuits in the United States District Court,
Minnesota District alleging that it violated the Sherman Antitrust
Act, the Packers and Stockyards Act, the Commodity Exchange Act,
and various state laws (the "Antitrust Cases").

The Antitrust Cases are entitled In re Cattle Antitrust Litigation,
which was filed originally on April 23, 2019, and Peterson et al.
v. JBS USA Food Company Holdings, et al., which was filed
originally on April 26, 2019.

The plaintiffs in the Antitrust Cases seek treble damages and other
relief under the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Packers & Stockyards
Act, the Commodities Exchange Act and attorneys' fees.

NBP is also a defendant in two class action lawsuits filed on
January 7, 2020, alleging that it misrepresented the origin of its
products in violation of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act (the
"Labelling Cases").

The Labelling Cases are entitled Thornton v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et
al., filed in the New Mexico Second Judicial District Court,
Bernalillo County, and Lucero v. Tyson Foods, et al., filed in the
New Mexico Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Sandoval County. The
Labelling Cases were subsequently removed to the United States
District Court, New Mexico District.

The plaintiffs in the Labelling Cases seek treble damages and other
relief and attorneys' fees.

NBP believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims in the
Antitrust Cases and the Labelling Cases and intends to defend these
cases vigorously.

U.S. Premium Beef said, "There can be no assurances, however, as to
the outcome of these matters or the impact on NBP's consolidated
financial position, results of operations and cash flows."

U.S. Premium Beef, LLC, together with its subsidiaries, operates an
integrated cattle processing and beef marketing enterprise in the
United States. The company, through its interests in National Beef
Packing Company, LLC, processes and markets fresh and chilled boxed
beef, ground beef, beef by products, and consumer ready beef and
pork, and wet blue leather for domestic and international markets.
U.S. Premium Beef, LLC was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in
Kansas City, Missouri.


US XPRESS: Class Suits over IPO Ongoing
---------------------------------------
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend several class action suits related to its initial public
offering ("IPO").

Between November 2018 and April 2019, eight substantially similar
putative securities class action complaints were filed against the
company and certain other defendants: five in the Circuit Court of
Hamilton County, Tennessee ("Tennessee State Court Cases"), two in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
("Federal Court Cases"), and one in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York ("New York State Court Case").

Two of the Tennessee State Court Cases and one of the Federal Court
Cases have been voluntarily dismissed. All of these matters are in
preliminary stages of litigation, and discovery has not yet begun.
The company is currently not able to predict the probable outcome
or to reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any.

On November 21, 2018, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee against the
company, five of its officers or directors, and the seven
underwriters who participated in the company's June 2018 initial
public offering ("IPO"), alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act").

The class action lawsuit is based on allegations that the Company
made false and/or misleading statements in the registration
statement and prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") in connection with the IPO. The lawsuit is
purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's Class A
common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO, and seeks, among
other things, compensatory damages, costs and expenses (including
attorneys' fees) on behalf of the putative class.

On January 23, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County,
Tennessee, by a different plaintiff alleging claims under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same defendants as in
the action commenced on November 21, 2018. On March 7, 2019, this
case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.

On January 30, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County,
Tennessee, by a different plaintiff alleging claims under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same defendants as in
the action commenced on November 21, 2018, and also alleging a
claim under Section 12 of the Securities Act.

On February 5, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County,
Tennessee, by a different plaintiff alleging claims under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same defendants as in
the action commenced on November 21, 2018, and also alleging a
claim under Section 12 of the Securities Act.

On February 6, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County,
Tennessee, by different plaintiffs alleging claims under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same defendants as in
the action commenced on November 21, 2018. On March 19, 2019, this
case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.

On March 8, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee by a different plaintiff alleging claims
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same
defendants as in the action commenced on November 21, 2018. On May
9, 2019, this case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.

On March 14, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York, by a different plaintiff alleging claims under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same
defendants as in the action commenced on November 21, 2018. The
parties have stipulated to extend the time for defendants to
respond to the complaint in this matter pending resolution of the
motions to dismiss filed (or to be filed) in the remaining of the
Tennessee State Court Cases and the Federal Court Cases.

On April 2, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, by a different plaintiff alleging claims
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the company
and the same five of its officers and directors as in the action
commenced on November 21, 2018. Unlike the previously filed
complaints, this complaint did not name as defendants any of the
seven underwriters who participated in the company's IPO; however,
an amended complaint was filed on October 8, 2019 ("Amended Federal
Complaint") which added all underwriters who participated in the
IPO as defendants.

The three remaining Tennessee State Court Cases have been
consolidated, and discovery is currently stayed pending a decision
on a motion to dismiss filed by the Company and the other
defendants.

On June 28, 2019, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Tennessee State Court Cases for failure to allege facts sufficient
to support a violation of either Section 11, 12 or 15 of the
Securities Act. On July 18, 2019, the court presiding over the
remaining of the Federal Court Cases issued an order appointing
lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Pursuant to a stipulation entered
in that matter, the appointed lead plaintiff filed the Amended
Federal Complaint on October 8, 2019.

The Amended Federal Complaint is made on behalf of a putative class
that consists of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Class A common stock of USX between June 14, 2018 and November
1, 2018 and who were allegedly damaged thereby.

In addition, the Amended Federal Complaint alleges additional
violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 against the Company, its Chief Executive Office and its
Chief Financial Officer.

On December 23, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Federal Complaint in its entirety for failure to allege
facts sufficient to state a claim under either the Securities Act
or the Exchange Act.

Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to that Motion on March 9, 2020,
and the Company filed its Reply brief on April 23, 2020.

There has been no ruling on that Motion, to date.

The complaints in all the actions listed above allege that the
Company made false and/or misleading statements in the registration
statement and prospectus filed with the SEC in connection with the
IPO, and that, as a result of such alleged statements, the
plaintiffs and the members of the putative classes suffered
damages.

The Amended Federal Complaint additionally alleges that the
Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial
Officer made false and/or misleading statements and/or material
omissions in press releases, earnings calls, investor conferences,
television interviews, and filings made with the SEC subsequent to
the IPO.

U.S. Xpress said, "We believe the allegations made in the
complaints are without merit and intend to defend ourselves
vigorously in these matters.

U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. operates as an asset-based truckload
carrier providing services primarily in the United States. The
Company was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Chattanooga,
Tennessee."


US XPRESS: Continues to Defend Independent Contractor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company and its
subsidiaries U.S. Xpress, Inc. and U.S. Xpress Leasing, Inc.,
continue to defend a putative independent contractor class action
suit.

On March 26, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
against the company and its subsidiaries U.S. Xpress, Inc. and U.S.
Xpress Leasing, Inc.

The putative class includes all individuals who performed work for
U.S. Xpress, Inc. or U.S. Xpress Leasing, Inc. as lease drivers
from March 26, 2016 to present.

The complaint alleges that independent contractors are improperly
designated as such and should be designated as employees and thus
subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The complaint
further alleges that U.S. Xpress, Inc.'s pay practices with regard
to the putative class members violated the minimum wage provisions
of the FLSA for the period from March 26, 2016 to present. The
complaint further alleges that the company violated the
requirements of the Truth in Leasing Act with regard to the
independent contractor agreements and lease purchase agreements the
company entered into with the putative class members. The complaint
further alleges that the company failed to comply with the terms of
the independent contractor agreements and lease purchase agreements
entered into with the putative class members, that the company
violated the provisions of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act in
advertising, describing and marketing the lease purchase program to
the putative class members, and that we were unjustly enriched as a
result of the foregoing allegations.

The defendants filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration on October 18,
2019. On January 17, 2020, the court granted defendants' motion, in
part, compelling arbitration on all of plaintiff’s claims and
denying plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a
collective action. The court further stayed the matter pending
arbitration, rather than dismissing it entirely.

On March 6, 2020, Plaintiff petitioned the court to certify the
decision for an interlocutory appeal.  

The Company filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motion on March 20,
2020, and Plaintiff filed her reply on April 3, 2020, purportedly
relying, in part, on a recent case from Massachusetts. In response
to that newly cited case, the Company was granted leave to file a
surreply, which it filed on April 13, 2020.  

U.S. Xpress said, "There has been no discovery in this matter, and
we are currently not able to predict the probable outcome or to
reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any. We believe
the allegations made in the complaint are without merit and intend
to defend ourselves vigorously against the complaints relating to
such actions."

U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. operates as an asset-based truckload
carrier providing services primarily in the United States. The
Company was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Chattanooga,
Tennessee.


US XPRESS: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Wage & Hour Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the discovery is
ongoing in a wage-and-hour class action in California.

On December 23, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company and its subsidiary U.S. Xpress, Inc. in the Superior Court
of California, County of San Bernardino.

The case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California. The Plaintiff's initial proposed class
certification (any employee driver who has driven in California at
any time since December 12, 2011) was denied by the District Court
under Rule 26 due to lack of commonality amongst the claimants.  

However, the Court granted the Plaintiff's revised Motion for Class
Certification. The certified class now consists of all employee
drivers who resided in California and who have driven in the State
of California on behalf of U.S. Xpress at any time since December
12, 2011.

The case alleges that class members were not paid for off-the-clock
work, were not provided duty free meal or break times, and were not
paid premium pay in their absence, were not paid minimum wage for
all hours worked, were not provided accurate and complete time and
pay records and were not paid all accrued wages at the end of their
employment, all in violation of California law.

The class seeks a judgment for compensatory damages and penalties,
injunctive relief, attorney fees and costs and pre- and
post-judgment interest.

On May 2, 2019, the court dismissed on grounds of preemption the
claims alleging failure to provide duty free meal and rest breaks
or to pay premium pay for failure to provide such breaks under
California law.

The parties have also filed cross-motions for summary judgment on
the remaining claims, and the Company has filed a motion to
decertify the class. The parties have completed supplemental
briefing on those motions, and the court has scheduled oral
argument on the motions.

The matter is currently in discovery, and a jury trial is set to
begin on September 1, 2020.

U.S. Xpress said, "We are currently not able to predict the
probable outcome or to reasonably estimate a range of potential
losses, if any. We intend to vigorously defend the merits of these
claims."

U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. operates as an asset-based truckload
carrier providing services primarily in the United States. The
Company was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Chattanooga,
Tennessee.


USCCB: O'Connell Suit Transferred From Rhode Island to D.D.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as David O'Connell, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops, Case No. 1:20-cv-00031 (Filed Jan.
22, 2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Rhode Island to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.) on May 21, 2020.

The District of Columbia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-01365-KBJ to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The lawsuit demands $5 million in damages alleging violation of
fraud-related laws.

For years, USCCB has solicited and collected hundreds of millions
of dollars in donations from parishioners of Catholic churches
throughout Rhode Island and the United States as part of its
"Peter's Pence" collection, according to the complaint. USCCB
consistently promotes this specific collection as necessary for
helping those suffering the effects of war, oppression, natural
disaster, or disease throughout the world, and who are, thus, in
need of immediate relief.

The Plaintiff contends that only a very small portion of this
money--as little as 10%--has found its way to the needy for whom it
was given. The Plaintiff adds that the rest of the money--hundreds
of millions of dollars over the last several years--has been
diverted into various suspicious investment funds, which in turn
have funneled the money into such diverse ventures as luxury
condominium developments and Hollywood movies while paying fund
managers hefty, multi-million dollar commissions.

USCCB is the episcopal conference of the Catholic Church in the
United States. USCCB is composed of all active and retired members
of the Catholic hierarchy in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK
          1307 Chalkstone Avenue
          Providence, RI 02908
          Telephone: 401.831.7730
          Facsimile: 401.861.6064
          E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Marc R. Stanley, Esq.
          Martin Woodward, Esq.
          STANLEY LAW GROUP
          6116 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1500
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: 214 443 4300
          Facsimile: 214 443 0358
          E-mail: marcstanley@mac.com
                  mwoodward@stanleylawgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Eugene G. Bernardo, II, Esq.
          40 Westminster Street, Suite 1100
          Providence, RI 02903


VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Still Defends Wolther Class Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 7, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit
entitled, Wolther v. Maheshwari et al.

On June 8, 2018, an Ultratech shareholder who received Veeco stock
as part of the consideration for the Ultratech acquisition filed a
purported class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Santa Clara, captioned Wolther v.
Maheshwari et al., Case No. 18CV329690, on behalf of himself and
others who purchased or acquired shares of Veeco pursuant to the
registration statement and prospectus which Veeco filed with the
SEC in connection with the Ultratech acquisition (the "Wolther
Action").

On August 2 and August 8, 2018, two purported class action
complaints substantially similar to the Wolther Action were filed
on behalf of different plaintiffs in the same court as the Wolther
Action.

These cases have been consolidated with the Wolther Action, and a
consolidated complaint was filed on December 11, 2018.

The consolidated complaint seeks to recover damages and fees under
Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 for, among
other things, alleged false/misleading statements in the
registration statement and prospectus relating to the Ultratech
acquisition, relating primarily to the alleged failure to disclose
delays in the advanced packaging business, increased MOCVD
competition in China, and an intellectual property dispute.

Veeco is defending this matter vigorously.

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

Veeco Instruments Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, sells, and supports semiconductor and thin film
process equipment primarily to make electronic devices worldwide.
Veeco Instruments Inc. was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in
Plainview, New York.


VERIZON WIRELESS: Faces Kaspers Civil Rights Suit in N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wireless Services,
LLC. The case is captioned as Bill Kaspers, on behalf of himself
and all other similarly- situated citizens, owners or co-owners of
residences, and residents of the Derby Hills residential
subdivision in Sandy Springs, Fulton County, Georgia v. Verizon
Wireless Services, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02142-LMM (N.D. Ga., May
19, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Leigh Martin May.

The lawsuit alleges violation of civil rights-related laws.

Verizon is a telecommunications company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William F. Kaspers, Esq.
          KASPERS & ASSOCIATES
          75 14th Street, Suite 2130
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 888-3740
          E-mail: bill@kasperslaw.com


VISA INC: Old Jericho Sues Over Illinois Antitrust Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Old Jericho Enterprise, Inc., OKY LLC, W.L.F. Automotive, Inc.,
Buck's, Inc., Pointe Service Center LLC, Koehnen's Standard
Service, Inc., Mox LLC and Wesco, Inc., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. VISA, INC. and MASTERCARD, INC.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-02394 (E.D.N.Y., May 29, 2020), is brought against
the Defendants for their violations of the Illinois Antitrust Act
on behalf of gasoline retailers, who obtain their credit-card
acceptance service via suppliers.

According to the complaint, gasoline retailers operate on
notoriously thin margins. Meanwhile, on every Visa and MasterCard
credit-card transaction, these merchants pay swipe fees that
average roughly two percent of all sales made at the pump. Thus,
when retail gasoline customers pay with Visa or MasterCard credit
cards, the profit margins for gas station owners all but
disappear.

The main component of the swipe fee is the so called "interchange
fee"--a non-negotiable fee that the merchant is obligated to pay to
the card-issuing bank on each credit-card transaction under Visa
and MasterCard rules. The obligation to pay the interchange fee is
the product of horizontal price-fixing agreements among the card
issuing banks that comprise the Visa and MasterCard networks. The
interchange fee is purely a toll that the credit-card issuing
banks, in a collective exercise of monopoly power, decided to levy
on each credit-card transaction.

To maintain their elevated interchange fee levels, the banks also
enacted rules to ensure that Visa and MasterCard would never have
to compete against other networks, or one another, in setting
interchange fees. Indeed, Visa and MasterCard fully insulated
themselves from price competition by mandating that merchants may
not use the mechanism of price to induce consumers to use
particular card brands or products. Among these vertical restraints
is the "No-Surcharge Rule," which flatly prevents merchants from
imposing a charge (or "surcharge") for credit card transactions on
the Visa or MasterCard network, substantially foreclosing
inter-brand price competition.

In the absence of the No-Surcharge Rule, merchants could induce
consumers to use payment products that impose lower costs upon the
merchant than do Visa-branded or MasterCard-branded credit cards.
If merchants had been free during the relevant period to use
credit-card surcharging to steer consumers to less costly payment
options, such as debit cards, then the defendants would have faced
the prospect of losing consumers and would therefore have been
pressured to reduce their merchant pricing. The No-Surcharge Rules,
however, have at all times insulated the Defendants from such
competition, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are retail gasoline businesses that purchase the
Defendants' card acceptance services "indirectly," either via a
franchisor, the assignee of a franchisor, or a supplier or jobber,
rather than dealing directly with a financial institution
affiliated with Visa and MasterCard.

Visa, Inc., owns and operates the Visa payment card network.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael B. Eisenkraft, Esq.
          Sharon K. Robertson, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: (212) 838-7797
          Email: meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com
                 srobertson@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Benjamin D. Brown, Esq.
          Richard A. Koffman, Esq.
          Matthew S. Wild, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W., 5th Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 408-4600
          Fax: (202) 408-4699
          Email: bbrown@cohenmilstein.com
                 rkoffman@cohenmilstein.com
                 mwild@cohenmilstein.com

               - and –

          Manuel J. Dominguezn, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Phone: (561) 515-2604
          Fax: (561) 515-1401
          Email: jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com

               - and –

          Robert W. Cohen, Esq.
          Mariko Taenaka, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT W. COHEN, P.C.
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 282-7586
          Fax: (310) 282-7589
          Email: rwc@robertwcohenlaw.com

               - and –

          Edward S. Zusman, Esq.
          Kevin K. Eng, Esq.
          MARKUN ZUSMAN FRENIERE COMPTON LLP
          465 California Street, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: (415) 438-4515
          Fax: (415) 434-4505
          Email: ezusman@mzclaw.com

               - and –

          David Song, Esq.
          Tracey Kitzman, Esq.
          SONG P.C.
          26 Broadway, Fl. 8
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-599-0700


VITOL INC: Hudson et al. Allege Gas Price Manipulation
------------------------------------------------------
MARY HUDSON and ELIZABETH GENDRON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. VITOL INC.; SK ENERGY
AMERICAS, INC.; and SK TRADING INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD., Defendants,
Case No. 3:20-cv-03217 (N.D. Cal., May 11, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act, the California Cartwright Act, and the California Unfair
Competition Law.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated consumers, allege that between February 18, 2015
and December 31, 2016, the Defendants entered into agreements in
order to manipulate the spot market price for refined gasoline and
gasoline blending components for delivery in California. The
Defendants' illegal scheme commenced as a result of a disruption in
certain refining capacity that occurred at the ExxonMobil refinery
in Torrance, California on February 18, 2015. The Defendants used
the Torrance refinery explosion as an opportunity to artificially
inflate the price of gasoline traded on wholesale spot markets in
California and to also increase the price of alkylates, whose
prices are tied directly to the wholesale price of gasoline,
without unwanted scrutiny by other market participants and
regulators. The Plaintiffs and Class members were injured because
they paid more for gasoline within the State of California than
they would have paid in a retail gasoline market untainted by the
Defendants' anticompetitive and unlawful conduct.

Vitol Inc. is an energy company with its principal place of
business at 2925 Richmond Avenue, 11th Floor, Houston, Texas.

SK Energy Americas, Inc. is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of
SK Trading International Co. Ltd., with principal place of business
at 11700 Katy Freeway, Suite 900, Houston, Texas.

SK Trading International Co. Ltd. is a South Korean corporation
that exports and imports crude oils and petrochemical products,
with its head office at 26 Jong-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, South Korea.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
          
         Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
         Rachele R. Byrd, Esq.
         Marisa C. Livesay, Esq.
         Brittany N. Dejong, Esq.
         WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
         750 B Street, Suite 1820
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 239-4599
         Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
         E-mail: manifold@whafh.com
                  byrd@whafh.com
                  livesay@whafh.com
                  dejong@whafh.com

               - and –
         
         Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
         WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
         270 Madison Avenue
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 545-4600
         Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
         E-mail: burt@whafh.com

VITOL INC: Johnston Alleges Gasoline Market Price Manipulation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CASLER JOHNSTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated v. VITOL INC.; SK ENERGY AMERICAS, INC.; and SK
TRADING INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-03238
(N.D. Cal., May 12, 2020), arises from the Defendants' violations
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the California Cartwright Act, the
California Business and Professions Code, and the California Unfair
Competition Law.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly-situated, alleges that between February 18, 2015 and
December 31, 2016, the Defendants engaged in an illegal scheme to
restrain competition in the spot market for delivery of refined
gasoline and gasoline blending components to refineries located in
the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles in California. The
Defendants took advantage of the market disruption caused by an
explosion at the ExxonMobil refinery in Torrance, California on
February 18, 2015 and used it as an opportunity to artificially
inflate the price of gasoline traded on wholesale spot markets in
California and to also increase the price of alkylates, whose
prices are tied directly to the wholesale price of gasoline,
without unwanted scrutiny by other market participants and
regulators. As a result of the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct,
the Plaintiff and Class members suffered losses because they paid
more for gasoline within the State of California than they would
have paid in a competitive market.

Vitol Inc. is an energy company with its principal place of
business at 2925 Richmond Avenue, 11th Floor, Houston, Texas.

SK Energy Americas, Inc. is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of
SK Trading International Co. Ltd., with principal place of business
at 11700 Katy Freeway, Suite 900, Houston, Texas.

SK Trading International Co. Ltd. is a South Korean corporation
that exports and imports crude oils and petrochemical products,
with its head office at 26 Jong-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, South Korea.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
         Allan Steyer, Esq.
         D. Scott Macrae, Esq.
         Jill Manning, Esq.
         Suneel Jain, Esq.
         STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP
         235 Pine Street, 15th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Telephone: (415) 421-3400
         Facsimile: (415) 421-2234

WASHINGTON 13484: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Rodriguez Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rodriguez, an individual, on behalf of herself, and all
others similarly situated v. WASHINGTON 13484, LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company, Carl Tiederman, an individual, and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV20472 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., May 29, 2020), is brought pursuant to the Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code, against the
Defendants, who failed to pay the Plaintiff minimum wage for all
hours worked.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay overtime
wages of one and one half of the Plaintiff's hourly wage for all
hours worked over 8 hours in a day or 40 hours in a week. The
Defendant also failed to provide the Plaintiff with accurate wage
statements indicating all hours worked and the applicable hourly
rate. As the Plaintiff is no longer employed by the Defendant, the
Defendant has continuously failed to pay the Plaintiff all wages
owed and due.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee in Los Angeles County, California.

Defendant Washington 13484, LLC, is a limited liability company
organized and formed under the laws of the state of
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. Kearney, Esq.
          Prescott W. Littlefield, Esq.
          Richard D. Lambert, Esq.
          KEARNEY LITTLEFIELD, LLP
          3436 N. Verdugo Rd., Ste. 230
          Glendale, CA 91208
          Phone (213) 473-1900
          Facsimile (213) 473-1919
          Email: pwl@kearneylittlefield.com

               - and –

          Brandon T. Littlefield, Esq.
          LITTLEFIELD LAW
          450 N. Brand Blvd., Ste. 600
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Email: brandon@littlefieldlawpractice.com


WELLS FARGO: Misleads PPP Loan Applicants, Marselian Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
SETO MARSELIAN, d/b/a BISTRO PAZZO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated small businesses in the U.S.,
Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; and
DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-03166 (N.D. Cal., May 8,
2020) is a class action against the Defendants for unjust
enrichment and violations of California Civil Code Sec. 1710, the
California Unfair Competition Law, and the California False
Advertising Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants engaged in wrongful
conduct through the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan program,
which is designed to help small businesses in the U.S. during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Wells Fargo should not be able to participate to
the PPP program due to the company's fraudulent conduct of opening
fake accounts. However, due to overwhelming demand from small
businesses for the PPP loans, the federal government agreed to lift
the restrictions on Wells Fargo's ability to lend in April 2020 so
that Wells Fargo could process and disburse more loans under the
PPP to small businesses. However, the company did not abide to the
terms of PPP and instead it limited applications to those
businesses that had a pre-existing lending relationship with the
company and/or prioritized loan applications from larger companies
seeking higher loan amounts because processing those applications
first generated larger loan origination fees for the banks. The
Plaintiff claims that as a result of Wells Fargo's conduct, small
and minority-owned businesses, those who were supposed to be helped
by the PPP program, were shut out of the program and big businesses
were favored instead.

Wells Fargo & Company is a holding company that provides banking
and financial services to businesses and consumers, headquartered
at 420 Montgomery Street in San Francisco, California.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a bank and the main subsidiary of Wells
Fargo & Company, with principal place of business located at 420
Montgomery Street in San Francisco, 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

WESTGATE RESORTS: Kellough et al. Allege Illegal Timeshare Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY KELLOUGH, EMILY KELLOUGH, WENDELL BOWSHER, BARBARA BOWSHER,
BRIAN HEARN, KATHLEEN HEARN, SHIRLEY ACREE, JAMES ACREE, RITA
BAKER, CASSANDRA BUTLER, ULYSEE TAYLOR, LEMORIA TAYLOR, DANA
COFFMAN, JAMES MITCHELL, MARIETH MITCHELL, DONALD KOLANDER, KENNER
NADERMANN, DORISONA NADERMANN,  CHARLES RICHARDSON  IRVING
CUMMINGS, GRACE CUMMINGS, BONNIE JERNIGAN, CHARLES ORR, REBA ORR,
JOHN WRIGHT, CLIFFORD KOLESKI, DONNA KOLESKI, PAIGE SMITH, WALTER
WASHINGTON, VERONICA MAUCK, WILLIAM MAUCK, JOHN THOMAS  THOMAS
HAYNES, JAQUIE HAYNES, JEFFREY GAY, KAREN GAY, RAYMOND DAGE,
STANLEY COMER, PATRICIA COMER, TROY THOMPSON, MARTHA THOMPSON, MAC
WILLIAMS, COLLEEN WILLIAMS, RODNEY MEYER, KATHARINE MEYER, ALVIN
CAPRIETTA, CHERYL JONES, LARRY SOUTH, JEANNE SOUTH-SHAWHAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. WESTGATE RESORTS, LTD., L.P. a/k/a WESTGATE RESORTS,
LTD., CENTRAL FLORIDA INVESTMENTS, INC., WESTGATE RESORTS, INC.,
WESTGATE GV SALES & MARKETING, LLC, WESTGATE VACATION VILLAS, LLC,
and  CFI RESORTS MANAGEMENT, INC., Serve all Defendants at:
Corporation Service Company 221 Bolivar Street, Jefferson City, MO
65101 Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00711 (E.D. Mo., June 1, 2020)
alleges that Defendants use a high-pressure scheme that involves
convincing prospective purchasers to buy into its vacation
timeshare program while failing to adequately disclose material and
legally required information to buyers.

According to the complaint, Defendants (a) fail to adequately
provide legally required disclosures and (b) fail to provide
purchasers with adequate access to their timeshares. As a result of
the common scheme, Westgate owners are left paying thousands of
dollars in purchase price, upgrade costs, and annual maintenance
fees, all on timeshare units they are frequently unable to use as
advertised, and rarely, if ever, are able to use as reasonably
expected.  

Defendants uniformly fail to adequately disclose material facts to
buyers and, as a result, fail to deliver what buyers reasonably
expect, all in violation of Missouri, Florida, Nevada, and
Tennessee common law and statutory law.

Defendants also knew, or should have known, that they were omitting
and failing to make certain required disclosures.  The omissions
described herein were material in nature and were made to induce
the Plaintiffs to enter a contract and purchase a time-share
interest. Plaintiffs reasonably and justifiably relied upon
Defendants' representations that omitted material facts in deciding
to purchase the time-share interests. Defendants knew of the
falsity of the representations, or had utter disregard for their
truth, when they were made. Defendants intended to induce reliance
upon the representations. Plaintiffs were entitled to rely upon the
representations, since the representations concerned complex
matters of Westgate programs and real estate law. Plaintiffs'
reliance was reasonable under the circumstances.

Plaintiffs and proposed class members have sustained damages as a
result of Defendants' breach of the contract, including but not
limited to the funds lost as described herein, and the lack of use
and enjoyment of the timeshare properties purchased by Plaintiffs.

Westgate Resorts, Ltd., L.P. is an active limited partnership
formed and operating in Florida under the name Westgate Resorts,
Ltd. based in Orlando, Florida.

Westgate GV Sales & Marketing, LLC, is a Florida limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Orlando.

Central Florida Investments, Inc. is a Florida-based company that
operates as a chain of resorts and vacation villas.

CFI Resorts Management, Inc. is a Florida corporation serving as
managing entity that manages the Westgate Resorts.

Westgate Vacation Villas, LLC is a Florida limited liability
company that serves as the general manager of Westgate Resorts,
Ltd.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Sokolik, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW PROTECTION LAWYERS
          8600 Daniel Dunklin Blvd.
          Pevely, MO 63070
          Telephone: (314) 686-4630
          Email: michaels@consumerlawprotection.com

WESTINGHOUSE AIR: Settlement Reached in W.D. Pa. Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that
the Company has entered into a settlement agreement with plaintiffs
to settle all claims in a consolidated class action suit pending
before the Western District of Pennsylvania

On April 3, 2018, the Company and Knorr-Bremse AG entered into a
consent decree with the United States Department of Justice
resolving allegations that the Company and Knorr-Bremse AG had
maintained unlawful agreements not to compete for each other's
employees.  

The allegations also related to Faiveley Transport before it was
acquired by the Company in November 2016. No monetary fines or
penalties were imposed on the Company.  

The Company elected to settle this matter with the Department of
Justice to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation.

Putative class action lawsuits thereafter were filed in several
different federal district courts naming the Company and Knorr as
defendants in connection with the allegations contained in the
consent decree.  

A federal Multi-District Litigation (MDL) Panel consolidated the
cases in the Western District of Pennsylvania, and on October 12,
2018, a consolidated class action complaint was filed in the
Western District of PA with five named plaintiffs.

On August 13, 2019, the Company was notified that co-defendant
Knorr-Bremse settled with plaintiffs.

On January 21, 2020, following Court-sponsored early mediation, the
Company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with plaintiffs,
agreeing to settle all claims in the case.

On February 24, 2020, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement with plaintiffs agreeing to settle all claims in the
case.

Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation, doing business as
Wabtec Corp., provides technology-based equipment and services for
the rail industry worldwide. The company operates in two segments,
Freight Group and Transit Group. Westinghouse Air Brake
Technologies was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in
Wilmerding, Pennsylvania.


WILLIAM D. BOYCE: Fails to Prevent Dam Failures, Brooks Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH L. BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. WILLIAM D. BOYCE TRUST 2350 u/a/d
10/1908, WILLIAM D. BOYCE TESTAMENTARY TRUST 3649 u/a/d 6/1929,
WILLIAM D. BOYCE TESTAMENTARY TRUST 3650 u/a/d 6/1929, LEE W.
MUELLER, MICHAEL W. d'AVENAS, STEPHEN B. HULTBERG, JP MORGAN CHASE
& CO., BOYCE TRUST HYDRO PROPERTY 2350 LLC, BOYCE TRUST HYDRO
PROPERTY 3649 LLC, BOYCE TRUST HYDRO PROPERTY 3650 LLC, BOYCE HYDRO
POWER LLC, BOYCE HYDRO LLC, BOYCE MICHIGAN LLC, EDENVILLE HYDRO
PROPERTY LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-11433-TLL-PTM (E.D.
Mich., June 2, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, strict liability, continuing private and public
nuisance, and willful and wanton conduct.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated residents who live near Sanford Lake and the
Tittabawassee River in Gladwin, Midland, and Saginaw Counties in
Michigan, alleges that the Defendants have failed to implement
appropriate measures to prevent the failures of the Edenville and
Sanford Dams, which they jointly own and operate. On May 19, 2020,
foreseeably heavy spring rains caused the Edenville Dam to fail,
unleashing a deluge of floodwaters downriver through the Sanford
Lake and Tittabawassee Rivers. This torrent overtopped the Sanford
Dam downstream, and further endangering the Plaintiff and the
proposed Class Members. The incident forced more than 11,000
residents to flee, abandoning their homes and property to the
inundation. The Defendants indisputably knew for years that these
dams were inadequate, decrepit, unstable, unsafe, and would fail
under predictable conditions as repeatedly warned by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) since their acquisition of the
dams in or about 2006. However, they failed to engage competent
professionals to conduct regular, timely and adequate inspections
of the dams and failed to develop, document, implement, enforce and
revise an adequate Safety Program. As a result of the Defendants'
negligence and omissions, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered
damages and hardships especially that the incident happened in the
midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a financial services provider with its
principal place of business in New York.

Boyce Trust Hydro Property 2350 LLC is a Michigan limited liability
company with its primary place of business in Gladwin County. It is
a participant of a joint venture to own and operate the Edenville
and Sanford Dams.

Boyce Trust Hydro Property 3649 LLC is a Michigan limited liability
company with its primary place of business in Gladwin County. It is
a participant of a joint venture to own and operate the Edenville
and Sanford Dams.

Boyce Trust Hydro Property 3650 LLC is a Michigan limited liability
company with its primary place of business in Gladwin County. It is
a participant of a joint venture to own and operate the Edenville
and Sanford Dams.

Boyce Hydro Power LLC is a Michigan limited liability company with
its primary place of business in Gladwin County. It is a
participant of a joint venture to own and operate the Edenville and
Sanford Dams.

Boyce Hydro LLC is a Michigan limited liability company with its
primary place of business in Gladwin County. It is a participant of
a joint venture to own and operate the Edenville and Sanford Dams.

Boyce Michigan LLC is a Michigan limited liability company with its
primary place of business in Gladwin County. It is a participant of
a joint venture to own and operate the Edenville and Sanford Dams.

Edenville Hydro Property LLC is a Michigan limited liability
company with its primary place of business in Gladwin County. It is
a participant of a joint venture to own and operate the Edenville
and Sanford Dams. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
         Elaina S. Bailey, Esq.
         SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
         One Towne Square, 17th Floor
         Southfield, MI 48076
         Telephone: (248) 355-0300
         E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
                 ebailey@sommerspc.com

                 - and –
         
         Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
         Kara A. Elgersma, Esq.
         WEXLER WALLACE, LLP
         55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3300
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Telephone: (312) 346-2222
         E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
                 kae@wexlerwallace.com

WINCO HOLDINGS: Faces Castanon Employment Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Winco Holdings Inc.
The case is captioned as Esmeralda Castanon and John Duron, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Winco
Holdings Inc., an Idaho Corporation and Does 1-10, Case No.
34-2020-00278994-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., May 19,
2020).

The lawsuit alleges violation of employment-related laws.

Winco Holdings operates as a holding company. The Company, through
its subsidiaries, retails bulk food, meat, deli, seafood, and
bakery products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Dr., Ste. 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
          E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com


WOORI WELLS: Employee Class Certified in Pae Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as YOON PAE, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. WOORI WELLS CORP., d/b/a
Maru Sushi, Kanpai 2, and Kanpai Izakaya, et al. Case No.
2:20-cv-00325-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge Lynn Adelman entered
an order:

   1. conditionally certifying collective class of:

      "all employees who worked for Defendants as a sushi chef
      since May 1, 2017";

   2. directing the Defendants within 10 business days of the
      Court's order granting this Stipulation, to identify and
      produce to the Plaintiff's Counsel the first name, last
      name, last known street address, city, state, zip code,
      phone number (to the extent the employer has this
      information), email address (to the extent the employer
      has this information), and dates of employment, of all
      persons who meet the collective class definition. The
      collective class list will be produced to Plaintiff's
      Counsel as an excel spreadsheet with each field of
      information identified above as a separate column.; and

   3. permitting the Plaintiff's Counsel to send the agreed-upon
      Notice of Right to Join Lawsuit via regular mail, to all
      individuals within the conditionally certified collective
      class. Consent forms postmarked or filed with the Court
      within 45 days after the first mailing of the Notice will
      be considered timely.

The Plaintiff seeks to prosecute this action on behalf of himself
and other similarly situated employees that worked as sushi chefs
at the Defendants' restaurants and who were not paid one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over
40 hours in a week and who, the Plaintiff alleges, were each
similarly subject to common policies and practices which allegedly
denied them overtime compensation for each hour worked over 40 in
violation of the FLSA.

The Defendants operate Japanese restaurants featuring sushi rolls,
sharing plates & cocktails.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
          Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
          Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
          Hawks Quindel, S.C.
          222 E Erie Street, Suite 210
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 271-8650
          Facsimile: (414) 271-8442
          E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
                  smurshid@hq-law.com
                  tmaynard@hq-law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew Helminiak, Esq.
          JUDGE, LANG, & KATERS, LLC
          8112 W. Bluemound Road, Suite 101
          Wauwatosa, WI 53213
          Telephone: (414) 777-0778
          Facsimile: (414) 777-0776
          E-mail: Ahelminiak@jlk-law.com

XEROX CORP: Bid to Intervene in Ribee Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Xerox Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the plaintiff in Miami
Firefighters' Relief & Pension Fund v. Icahn, et al., has renewed
its motion to intervene in the class action suit entitled, Ribbe v.
Jacobson, et al.

On April 11, 2019, Carmen Ribbe filed a putative derivative and
class action stockholder complaint in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York for New York County, naming as defendants Xerox,
current Board members Gregory Q. Brown, Joseph J. Echevarria,
Cheryl Gordon Krongard, Sara Martinez Tucker, Keith Cozza, Giovanni
G. Visentin, Jonathan Christodoro, Nicholas Graziano, and A. Scott
Letier, and former Board members Jeffrey Jacobson, William Curt
Hunter, Robert J. Keegan, Charles Prince, Ann N. Reese, and Stephen
H. Rusckowski.

Plaintiff previously filed a putative shareholder derivative
lawsuit on May 24, 2018 against certain of these defendants, as
well as others, in the same court; that lawsuit was dismissed
without prejudice on December 6, 2018.

The new complaint included putative derivative claims on behalf of
Xerox for breach of fiduciary duty against the members of the Xerox
Board who approved Xerox's entry into agreements to settle the
Deason and In re Xerox Corporation Consolidated Shareholder
Litigation ("XCCSL") actions.

Plaintiff alleges that the settlements ceded control of the Board
and the Company to Darwin Deason and Carl C. Icahn without a vote
by, or compensation to, other Xerox stockholders; improperly
provided certain benefits and releases to the resigning and
continuing directors; and subjected Xerox to potential breach of
contract damages in an action by Fuji relating to Xerox's
termination of the proposed Fuji Transaction.

Plaintiff also alleges that the current Board members breached
their fiduciary duties by allegedly rejecting plaintiff's January
14, 2019 shareholder demand on the Board to remedy harms arising
from entry into the Deason and XCCSL settlements.

The new complaint further included direct claims for breach of
fiduciary duty on behalf of a putative class of current Xerox
stockholders other than Mr. Deason, Mr. Icahn, and their affiliated
entities (the "Ribbe Class") against the defendants for causing
Xerox to enter into the Deason and XCCSL settlements, which
plaintiff alleges perpetuated control of Xerox by Mr. Icahn and Mr.
Deason and denied the voting franchise of Xerox shareholders.

Among other things, plaintiff seeks damages in an unspecified
amount for the alleged fiduciary breaches in favor of Xerox against
defendants jointly and severally; rescission or reformation of the
Deason and XCCSL settlements; restitution of funds paid to the
resigning directors under the Deason settlement; an injunction
against defendants' engaging in the alleged wrongful practices and
equitable relief affording the putative Ribbe Class the ability to
determine the composition of the Board; costs and attorneys' fees;
and other further relief as the Court may deem proper.

Defendants accepted service of the complaint as of May 16, 2019.  

On June 4, 2019, the Court entered an order setting a briefing
schedule for defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint.  On July
12, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to preclude defendants from
referencing in their motions to dismiss the formation of, or work
by, the committee of the Board established to investigate
plaintiff's shareholder demand. On July 18, 2019, the Court denied
plaintiff's motion and adjourned sine die the deadline by which
defendants must file any motions to dismiss the complaint.

On January 6, 2020, plaintiff filed his first amended complaint
("FAC"). The FAC includes many of plaintiff's original allegations
regarding the 2018 shareholder litigation and settlements, as well
as additional allegations, including, among others, that the
members of the Special Committee of the Board that investigated
plaintiff's demand lacked independence and wrongfully refused to
pursue the claims in the demand; allegations that an agreement
announced in November 2019 for, among other things, the sale by
Xerox of its interest in Fuji Xerox to Fujifilm and dismissal of
Fujifilm's breach of contract lawsuit against Xerox (the "FX Sale
Transaction"), was unfavorable to Xerox; and allegations about a
potential acquisition by Xerox of HP similar to those in the Miami
Firefighters derivative action.

In addition to the claims in the April 11, 2019 complaint, the FAC
adds as defendants Carl C. Icahn, Icahn Capital LP, and High River
Limited Partnership (the "Icahn defendants") and asserts claims
against those defendants and the Board similar to those in Miami
Firefighters relating to the Icahn defendants' purchases of HP
stock allegedly with knowledge of material nonpublic information
concerning Xerox's potential acquisition of HP. In addition to the
relief sought in Ribbe's prior complaint, the FAC seeks relief
similar to that sought in Miami Firefighters relating to the Icahn
defendants’ alleged purchases of HP stock.

On January 21, 2020, plaintiff in the Miami Firefighters action
filed a motion seeking to intervene in Ribbe and to have stayed, or
alternatively, severed and consolidated with the Miami Firefighters
action, any claims first filed in Miami Firefighters and later
asserted by Ribbe.

At a conference held on February 25, 2020, the Court denied the
motion to intervene without prejudice.

On March 6, 2020, plaintiff in the Miami Firefighters action
renewed its motion. Briefing has not yet concluded.

Xerox will vigorously defend against this matter. At this time, it
is premature to make any conclusion regarding the probability of
incurring material losses in this litigation. Should developments
cause a change in our determination as to an unfavorable outcome,
or result in a final adverse judgment or settlement, there could be
a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows
and financial position in the period in which such change in
determination, judgment, or settlement occurs.
Xerox Corporation designs, develops, and sells document management
systems and solutions worldwide. It offers intelligent workplace
services, including managed print services; digitization services;
and digital solutions, such as workflow automation, personalization
and communication software, and content management. Xerox
Corporation was founded in 1906 and is headquartered in Norwalk,
Connecticut.


ZYNGA INC: Continues to Defend Chaudhri Data Breach Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Zynga Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class
action complaint initiated by minor "I.C." (acting through his
parent Nasim Chaudhri) and Amy Gitre, the "Chaudhri" complaint).

On September 12, 2019, the company announced that an incident had
occurred that may have involved player data (the "Data Incident").
Upon its discovery of the Data Incident, an investigation
immediately commenced and advisors and third-party forensics firms
were retained to assist. The company's current belief is that,
during the third quarter of 2019, outside hackers illegally
accessed certain player account information and other Zynga
information, and that no financial information was accessed. The
company had provided notifications to players, investors,
regulators and other third parties, where the company believes
notice was required or appropriate.

On March 3, 2020, two plaintiffs – minor "I.C." (acting through
his parent Nasim Chaudhri) and Amy Gitre filed a class action
complaint in federal court for the Northern District of California,
arising out of the Data Incident (the "Chaudhri" complaint),
generally alleging that Zynga failed to reasonably safeguard
certain player information, including names, addresses, email
addresses, passwords and more; failed to provide them with timely
notification of the breach; and made unlawful representations over
the safety and security of plaintiffs' personal information.  

Plaintiffs allege claims against Zynga under several state law
theories, including negligence, and unjust enrichment.  

The Chaudhri plaintiffs seek monetary relief and damages.  Zynga's
response to the complaint is due May 8, 2020.  

The Company intends to defend itself vigorously against the claims
asserted.  

Zynga Inc. is an American social game developer running social
video game services and founded in April 2007 with headquarters in
San Francisco, California, United States. The company primarily
focuses on mobile and social networking platforms. Zynga states its
mission as "connecting the world through games.


ZYNGA INC: Johnson Suit Over September 2019 Data Breach Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zynga Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class
action suit initiated by Carol Johnson and Lisa Thomas.

On September 12, 2019, the company announced that an incident had
occurred that may have involved player data (the "Data Incident").
Upon its discovery of the Data Incident, an investigation
immediately commenced and advisors and third-party forensics firms
were retained to assist. The company's current belief is that,
during the third quarter of 2019, outside hackers illegally
accessed certain player account information and other Zynga
information, and that no financial information was accessed. The
company had provided notifications to players, investors,
regulators and other third parties, where the company believes
notice was required or appropriate.

On March 23, 2020, plaintiffs Carol Johnson and Lisa Thomas  (the
"Johnson" complaint) filed a class action complaint in the Northern
District of California federal court.  Similar to the Chaudhri
complaint, the Johnson plaintiffs, residents of Missouri and
Wisconsin—assert Zynga failed to adequately protect their
personally identifiable player information ("PII"), including
names, email addresses, passwords, password reset tokens, and phone
numbers (among other items).  

Plaintiffs contend that, despite Zynga's representations in its
privacy policy that sensitive player information would be
adequately protected, plaintiffs' PII was improperly stored in
plain text formatting, and inadequate encryption methods were used
to store sensitive password information.  

Plaintiffs allege that the lack of adequate security measures
caused them harm as a result of the Data Incident, and they assert
numerous state law claims against Zynga, including claims for
negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and declaratory
relief.  

The Johnson plaintiffs additionally assert claims for breach of
confidence, breach of contract and implied contract, violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL", CGL 17200, et seq.),
and state-specific violations of Missouri's Merchandising Practices
Act and Wisconsin’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act.  

Plaintiffs seek damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive
relief.  Zynga's response to the Johnson complaint is due May 26,
2020.  

The Company intends to defend itself vigorously against all
claims.

Zynga Inc. is an American social game developer running social
video game services and founded in April 2007 with headquarters in
San Francisco, California, United States. The company primarily
focuses on mobile and social networking platforms. Zynga states its
mission as "connecting the world through games.


ZYNGA INC: Martinez Suit Over September 2019 Data Breach Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zynga Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class
action suit initiated by Joseph Martinez IV and Daniel Petro.

On September 12, 2019, the company announced that an incident had
occurred that may have involved player data (the "Data Incident").
Upon its discovery of the Data Incident, an investigation
immediately commenced and advisors and third-party forensics firms
were retained to assist. The company's current belief is that,
during the third quarter of 2019, outside hackers illegally
accessed certain player account information and other Zynga
information, and that no financial information was accessed. The
company had provided notifications to players, investors,
regulators and other third parties, where the company believes
notice was required or appropriate.

On April 15, 2020, plaintiffs Joseph Martinez IV and Daniel Petro,
residents of Colorado and Iowa, filed a class action complaint in
the Northern District of California (the "Martinez" complaint).  

Plaintiffs allege they are longtime Zynga players who were affected
by the Data Incident.  

The Martinez plaintiffs generally allege that Zynga failed to
adequately store and protect or otherwise secure their PII,
including names, email addresses, passwords, and more; that Zynga
failed to protect their PII by using outdated and unlawful password
encryption methods; that Zynga failed to adequately provide notice
of the Data Incident; and that they have been harmed as a result of
the Data Incident.  

The Martinez plaintiffs assert claims for negligence, negligence
per se, and unjust enrichment, as well as contractual claims, and
claims for relief under multiple state consumer protection
statutes.  

Additionally, the Martinez plaintiffs also assert misrepresentation
and omission claims under California's false advertising law and
the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  

Plaintiffs seek injunctive and monetary relief on behalf of a
nationwide class.  Zynga's response to the Martinez complaint is
due June 19, 2020.  

The Company intends to defend itself vigorously against all claims
asserted.  

Zynga Inc. is an American social game developer running social
video game services and founded in April 2007 with headquarters in
San Francisco, California, United States. The company primarily
focuses on mobile and social networking platforms. Zynga states its
mission as "connecting the world through games.



                            *********

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 ***