/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200619.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, June 19, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 123

                            Headlines

11343 PENROSE: Rosario Suit Seeks Minimum and OT Pay Under FLSA
ALBERTSON'S: Faces Class Action Over Toilet Paper Price Hike
ALTAMONTE CARE: Faces $20MM Class Action Over COVID-19
ALTRIA GROUP: B&C Calls JUUL Labs Investment "Anticompetitive"
AMERICAN ADVISORS: Aug. 4 Deadline Set for Settlement Opt-Out

AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE: Refuses COVID-19 Losses Coverage, MTDB Says
AMERICAN HONDA: Booker Sues over Defective Fuel Pump
AMERICAN RECLAMATION: Carroll Suit Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
ANTHEM INC: Fortier Sues Over Wrongful Denial of Claims
ATAIN SPECIALTY: Declined Salon's Business Interruption Claims

AUSTRALIA: Appeal Likely in Class Action Ruling on 2011 Cattle Ban
AUSTRALIA: Cattle Producers Get Favorable Ruling in 2011 Ban Suit
AUSTRALIA: Judge Okays $212MM Deal in PFAS Class Action
BAYLOR UNIVERSITY: Fails to Refund Tuition Fees, Camarena Claims
BIMBO BAKERIES: Misclassifies Distributors, Helms Claims

BIMBO BAKERIES: Misclassifies Distributors, Roberts Claims
BIRCHES LLC: Sproch Balks at Biometric Data Collection
C3/CUSTOMERCONTACTCHANNELS: Black, Smith Allege Unlawful Wage Pay
CANADA: '60s Scoop Settlement Claims to Receive Interim Payments
CANTEEN 82 INC: Underpays Chefs, Chen Suit Alleges

CAPITAL ONE: Fourth Cir. Appeal Filed in Colbert Data Breach Suit
CAPPO MANAGEMENT: Underpays Employees, Perez Claims
CBL & ASSOCIATES: Continues to Defend Tennessee Securities Action
CENTRAL PAYMENT: Eighth Circuit Appeal Filed in Custom Hair Suit
CLAIRE'S STORES: Blind Can't Use Store App, Lucius Claims

CLEAN HARBORS: McMurtry Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to D.N.J.
CLOUDERA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Calif.
CLOUDERA INC: Hortonworks Merger-Related Suit Ongoing
COLONY CAPITAL: Levi & Korsinky Files Class Action Complaint
COLUMBIA COLLEGE: Buschauer Seeks Refund of School Fees

COMERICA INC: Fahmia Seeks Payment of PPP Loan Agent Fees
CONVERSE INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Madeira Labor Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Agreement Reached in Jadan Class Action
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Bid to Nix Washington Securities Suit Pending
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Canela Suit Still Stayed Pending 9th Cir. Review

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Martinez Class Action
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Rough Class Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Decision to Remand Nevarez Suit Appealed
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Opioid Claims in NJ and Oklahoma Dismissed
DELL TECH: Bid to Dismiss Class V Suit Underway

DELTA PACKING: Barbosa Sues Over Wages, Rest & Meal Breaks
DENVER, CO: Faces Class Action Over Police Use of Excessive Force
DENVER, CO: TRO Issued Limiting DPD's Use of Less-Lethal Force
DREXEL UNIVERSITY: Class Action Seeks Refund of Tuition, Fees
DTE ENERGY: Underpays Staff, Aguilar Suit Alleges

DUN & BRADSTREET: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
DUNCAN TRUCKING: Underpays Employees, Hart Claims
ERIE INSURANCE: Faces Business Interruption Class Action
EURO DESIGN & STONE: Underpays Construction Workers, Mariano Says
FAIR ISAAC: Suit Alleges Monopoly in Credit Score Market

FCA US: Faces Class Action Over Defective Tigershark Engines
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Indirect Customers' Suit Ongoing in Missouri
FIRST LINE: Underpays Construction Workers, Maldonado et al. Say
FIRST SOLAR: Agreement in Principle Entered in Maverick Fund Suit
FLOWERS BAKING: Shepard Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to E.D. Calif.

FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Funds Sue over Botched Merger Deal
FROEDTERT HEALTH: Mismanaged 401(k) Plan, Bangalore Alleges
FRUTAROM INDUSTRIES: Class Action in the U.S. Pending
G4S SECURE: Clark and Duffy Sue Over Unlawful Wages
GENERAL MOTORS LLC: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Ignition Switch MDL

GOOGLE INC: Faces Privacy Class Action Over Incognito Mode
GOOGLE LLC: Grand Atlas et al. Allege Digital Ad Markets Monopoly
GREAT AMERICAN: Fails to Notify Close of Policy, Tavakolian Says
GREAT CONSTRUCTION: Cruz Seeks Overtime Pay for Workers
GREIF INC: Suit Over Noxious Odor at Wisconsin Plant Still Ongoing

HEALTHEQUITY INC: Purchasers' Class Suit v. WageWorks Ongoing
HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Cynes Sues over 18% Drop in Share Price
HIGH TECH LANDSCAPES: Underpays Landscapers, Arias Alleges
HILL'S PET: Ambassador TCPA Suit Moved From Cir. Ct. to N.D. Ill.
HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY: Latvala Seeks Tuition Fee Refund

HP INC: Consolidated Gensin Class Suit in Israel Ongoing
HP INC: Parziale Plaintiffs May Amend Complaint
HP INC: Suit by Electrical Workers Pension Fund Ongoing
INFINITE BLOOM: Duboise Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts
INTEL CORP: Sells Defective CPUs, Blue Peak Hosting et al. Allege

JMTJ: Valeriano Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Pay for Delivery Workers
KANDI TECH: Time to Appeal Nixed N.Y. Securities Suit Expires
KIRKLAND'S INC: Discovery Underway in Miles Class Suit
KIRKLAND'S INC: Gennock Suit Over Credit Card Info Underway
KODIAK CONCEPTS: Keller Seeks Minimum and OT Wages Under FLSA

LIBERTY MUTUAL: Caterer's in the Park Seeks Pay for COVID-19 Loss
LODI MEMORIAL: Mireles Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under Labor Code
LOTO-QUEBEC: Elisabetta Bertucci Files Class Action Over Poker
LOTO-QUEBEC: Glitchy Poker Platform Faces Class-Action
LOUISIANA: Flood Victims Obtain Favorable Class Action Ruling

LOYOLA UNIVERSITY: Class Action Seeks Tuition and Fees Refunds
MACY'S INC: Underpays Managers, Ptiman Suit Alleges
MADERA KITCHEN: Fails to Pay Wages Under Labor Code, Garcia Says
MAJESTIC DUDE: Fails to Properly Pay Chefs, House Claims
MARKU CONTRACTING: Alvarez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime

MARTIN RESOURCE: Linder Seeks Overtime Pay for Dispatchers
MDL 2938: Anderson v. Evenflo Co. Over Booster Seats Consolidated
MDL 2951: Transfer of Six Actions to Illinois or Wisconsin Sought
MERLIN ENTERTAINMENTS: Case Seeks Refund for Cancelled Attractions
MINNEAPOLIS, MN: ACLU of Minnesota Files Class Action

MOLEKULE INC: Poznansky Balks at Deceptive Claims on Air Purifiers
MONEYGRAM PAYMENT: Sends Spam Messages to Consumers, Babare Says
MULAN THREE: Flores et al. Seek Unpaid Wages, OT for Laundry Staff
MYLAN INC: Dakota Drug Alleges Epinephrine Monopoly
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Morales et al. Sue Over Denied Tuition Refund

NEW YORK: Second Cir. Appeal v. Fiorentino Filed in Gulino Suit
NIELSEN CITRUS: Mislabeled Lemon Juice Products, Freeze Claims
NORDSON CORP: Mediation This Month in Ortiz Class Action
NORTH SHORE: Harrison Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA and WWPCL
NORTHWOOD: Law Firm Proposes COVID-19 Class-Action Lawsuit

NUTANIX INC: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Cal. Suit Set for Aug. 12
OG COLLECTIVE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Bartel Suit Claims
OVATIONS FOOD: Harper et al Seek Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY: Pinzon Seeks Refunds Due to COVID Closure
PERRY'S RESTAURANTS: Underpays Servers, Helgason et al. Allege

POPULAR INC: Employee Misconduct Suits v. Bank Still Pending
PORTLAND, OR: Protesters File Class Action Over Tear Gas Use
POTTS LAW: Gore Appeals Ruling in Malpractice Suit to 3rd Circuit
PROGENICS PHARMA: Agreement Reached to Settle Lantheus Merger Suit
PSCU INC: Underpays Customer Service Assistants, Brown Says

QUORUM HEALTH: Zwick Partners Case Still Pending in Tennessee Court
RED ROCK AUTO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Barton Suit Claims
RTI SURGICAL: Continues to Defend Lowry Class Suit
SB ONE BANCORP: Parshall Sues Over Misleading Proxy Statement
SCHAEFFLER GROUP: July 23 Hearing Set for Proposed Class Settlement

SCWORX CORP: Rosen Law Reminds of June 29 Motion Deadline
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Fails to Pay for Overtime, Johnson Claims
SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Judge Tosses Jackson Residents' Class Action
SIENNA SENIOR: Class Action Over COVID-19 Outbreak Pending
SIENNA SENIOR: To Carry Out Policy Review Amid Class Action

SIGUE CORPORATION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Babare Claims
SITEL OPERATING: Wright Suit Alleges FCRA Violation
SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholder Class Suits in Calif. Ongoing
SOCIETY INSURANCE: Refuses to Cover COVID Losses, Cardelli Says
SORL AUTO: Suits Over Ruli International Merger Ongoing

SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Calvo Sues over COVID-19 Drug Announcement
STATE FARM: Elegant Massage Seeks Claims for COVID-19 Losses
SUN HEALTH: Faces Hoyos TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Text
SUTTELL & HAMMER: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Bjornsdotter Suit
THARALDSON HOSPITALITY: Turnquist Suit Removed to C.D. California

TIKTOK: Class Action Over User Data Harvesting Pending in Calif.
TOWNE PARK: Ramirez Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to S.D. Calif.
TOYOTA MOTOR: Chalal Suit Moved From Pennsylvania to New York
TRINITY PROPERTY: Calonia Balks at Collection of Biometric Data
UNITED AIRLINES: Miller Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to C.D. Calif.

UNITED JACKLEAN: Stirling Sues Over Unpaid OT and Minimum Wages
UNITED STATES: Detainees Class Action in Florida v. ICE  Okayed
UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Faces Suit Over Disclosure of Patients' Data
USA JAN: Underpays IHOP Servers, Harding Claims
VERB TECHNOLOGY: Hartmann Class Action in California Ongoing

VILLAGE OF SUGAR: Michalek et al Sue Over Unlawful Termination
VIVINT SOLAR: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in Dekker Suit
WALGREEN CO: Underpays Call Center Agents, Olazagasti Alleges
WE COMPANY: False Financial Reports Lured Investors, Kockum Says
WELLS FARGO: Faces Perry Suit Over Misleading SEC Statements

WILLIS TOWERS: Faces Class Action Over Proposed Aon Merger
WORK AND INCOME: Class Action Likely Over Redundancy Payments
X FINANCIAL: Defending Chen Class Suit in New York
X FINANCIAL: Still Defends Securities Suit in NY State Court
ZOOM TELEPHONICS: Continues to Defend Schulze Suit Over Old Modems

ZOOM VIDEO: Continues to Defend Suits Over Alleged Data Sharing
ZOOM VIDEO: Suits Over Data Privacy & Security Measures Ongoing
ZOOM: Major Security Flaws Exposed Amid Shareholder Class Action
ZUMIEZ INC: Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied
ZUORA INC: Facing IPO Class Suits in California

ZUORA INC: Must Defend Against Consolidated Class Action
ZURICH AMERICAN: Denied Insurance Coverage, Crescent Plaza Claims
[*] Bill 161 to Hurt Plaintiffs Pursuing Care Home Class Actions
[*] COVID-Related Lawsuits May Tie Up Canadian Courts for Years
[*] Gross Law Informs of Shareholder Class Actions

[*] Pace of ERISA Class Action Filings at All-Time High

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Units Still Face Claims at March 29
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Still Defends Exposure Claims at April 30


                            *********

11343 PENROSE: Rosario Suit Seeks Minimum and OT Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIELA ROSARIO, an individual v. 11343 PENROSE INC. dba LA VIDA
GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, a California Corporation; CINDY CHAVIRA, an
individual; DOE MANAGERS 1-3; and DOES 4-10, inclusive, Case No.
2:20-cv-04715 (C.D. Cal., May 27, 2020), is brought on behalf of
the Plaintiff and others similarly situated against the Defendants
for damages due to the Defendants evading mandatory minimum wage
and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and
illegally absconding with the Plaintiff's tips.

The Plaintiff began working as a dancer for the Defendants in the
prior three years to the filing of this complaint.

The Defendants operate an adult-oriented entertainment facility
located at 11343 Penrose Avenue, in Sun Valley, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John P. Kristensen, Esq.
          Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq.
          Jacob J. Ventura, Esq.
          KRISTENSEN LLP
          12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
          Los Angeles, CA 90066
          Telephone: 310-507-7924
          Facsimile: 310-507-7906
          E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
                  jesenia@kristensenlaw.com
                  jacob@kristensenlaw.com


ALBERTSON'S: Faces Class Action Over Toilet Paper Price Hike
------------------------------------------------------------
Evie Fordham, writing for FOXBusiness, reports that a San Francisco
woman is suing Safeway's parent company in a California district
court alleging price gouging on items including toilet paper in the
middle of the coronavirus pandemic.

Eleisha Redmond's suit, dated June 3, is a proposed class action
against Albertson's, an Idaho-based company that operates
supermarkets including Safeway, Randalls and Vons.

WHAT IS PRICE GOUGING?

"[O]n or about April 13, 2020, Plaintiff paid $18.99 for Angel Soft
toilet paper normally priced at $10-11 at that same Safeway
location," the suit reads. "Plaintiff brings this action to hold
Defendant liable for its unlawful price increases during the
COVID-19 pandemic."

FOX Business' inquiry to Albertson's was not returned at the time
of publication.

Redmond's suit, dated June 3, claims Albertson's violates
California law that "rightly prohibits profiteering from a public
health crisis."

"Defendant's price increases were not directly attributable to
additional costs imposed on Defendant by the suppliers of the such
goods, and Defendant increased prices on many such goods in excess
of 10% even when accounting for any additional costs and the markup
Defendant customarily applies to the Protected Products," the suit
alleges.

Worries of price gouging have abounded since shoppers began panic
buying in February and March because of the coronavirus pandemic.
In fact, Amazon called for federal lawmakers to pass an
anti-price-gouging law in May since the e-commerce has worked to
block the practice on its platform. [GN]


ALTAMONTE CARE: Faces $20MM Class Action Over COVID-19
------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that members of the Canadian Armed
Forces working inside long-term care homes could find themselves
testifying about the state of those facilities in relation to
lawsuits against the institutions.

The unusual scenario follows the deployment of hundreds of service
members in April and May to more than two-dozen nursing homes in
Ontario and Quebec hit hard by COVID-19.

Damning military reports later said the troops found cases of abuse
and negligence in the homes, including bug infestations, aggressive
feeding of residents that caused choking, bleeding infections and
residents left crying for help for hours.

Stephen Birman and Lucy Jackson of Toronto law firm Thomson Rogers
are leading a proposed $20-million class-action lawsuit brought
against the Altamonte Care Community on behalf of the Toronto
home's residents and their families.

The lawsuit against Altamonte and its parent company, Sienna Senior
Living Inc., alleges negligence and breach of duty over a lack of
proper protocols and training as well as severe understaffing and a
lack of proper equipment before and during the pandemic.

It is one of several court actions brought against long-term care
facilities since COVID-19 first hit in earnest in March, ravaging
many homes across the country. Nursing home residents and staff
account for the vast majority of COVID-19 deaths in Canada.

Birman and Jackson say the troops' firsthand observations could be
critical in proving their clients' claims against the home,
particularly as lockdowns imposed since March have made it
difficult to impossible for residents' families to get into the
facility.

"The military is in a position to provide very helpful evidence,"
Birman told The Canadian Press.

"They came in as a third party, as an objective observer, and they
saw and identified a horrendous and shocking situation that may
never have come to the forefront to the extent that it has if not
for their involvement."

The military report on Altamonte includes allegations most
residents did not get receive their medication or proper meals and
many had been left in bed for long periods without being moved or
washed. There were also concerns about staff shortages and
training.

Similar observations were made about the other four Ontario
facilities, including bug infestations, aggressive feeding of
residents and residents being left crying for hours The Quebec
report was less critical, but did raise concerns about staff
shortages.

None of the allegations in the reports or the proposed lawsuit,
which was filed on June 1, have been proven in court.

Birman and Jackson are now collecting information to bolster their
case for getting the lawsuit certified as a class action, which
involves talking to as many residents, family members, staff as
well as military personnel as possible.

Military spokeswoman Lt. Stephany Lura said military personnel had
the same obligation to report to their commanders whatever
observations they had while working in the long-term care
facilities, as they would with any other mission.

"Like any other Canadian, CAF members may be called upon as
witnesses," she added. "This situation is no different. Our members
will receive all necessary support from the Department of National
Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces should it be needed."

While inviting service members to reach out to them, Birman and
Jackson suggested service members could also be compelled to
provide eyewitness accounts and other information through
affidavits and other procedures.

"I would think everybody who's involved in this important matter
would want to hear from the military when this matter makes its way
to the courts," Birman said. "We will do everything we can to
gather their evidence so it forms part of the record in this
case."

The military had more than 1,000 service members in 15 long-term
care facilities in Quebec and almost 500 in five homes in Ontario.

While officials confirmed on June 7 that operations at one of those
Ontario homes, Orchard Villa in Pickering, had ended, the military
appeared poised to deploy into another home in the city of Vaughan,
north of Toronto.

"We can confirm that CAF is onsite at Woodbridge Vista to do an
onsite assessment," said Gillian Sloggett, spokeswoman for Ontario
Minister of Long-term Care Merrilee Fullerton.

"We are grateful for CAF's continued support and we will have more
news to share about next steps in the coming days."

Talks around the continued provision of service members to
long-term care facilities in Quebec until September are underway
between Ottawa and the provincial government. [GN]


ALTRIA GROUP: B&C Calls JUUL Labs Investment "Anticompetitive"
--------------------------------------------------------------
B&C RETAIL, INC., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA
ENTERPRISES LLC; and JUUL LABS, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-03868 (N.D. Cal., June 11, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act,
the Sherman Antitrust Act, California Antitrust Statutes,
California Consumer Protection Statutes, and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly-situated business entities in the U.S. which indirectly
purchased JUUL e-cigarettes for resale, alleges that the Defendants
engaged in anticompetitive agreements wherein Altria agreed to exit
the e-cigarette market entirely and instead become a minority
shareholder in JUUL Labs. Under the provisions of the Defendants'
relationship agreements, Altria is prohibited from competing, or
otherwise acquiring an interest in an entity competing, in the
e-vapor business for a period of at least six years from closing of
the transaction, extendable thereafter unless terminated by Altria.
Such agreements illegally restrained market competition in
violation of federal and state antitrust laws. As a direct and
proximate result of the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, the
Plaintiff and Class members were overcharged on their purchases of
JUUL's closed-system e-cigarettes and sustained injury to their
business and property.

B&C Retail, Inc. is a retail business headquartered in Ventura,
California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a tobacco company headquartered at 6601 West
Broad Street, Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Enterprises LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of tobacco
company Altria Group, Inc. and is located at 6601 West Broad
Street, Richmond, Virginia.

JUUL Labs, Inc. is a manufacturer of closed-system e-cigarettes
with principal place of business located at 560 20th Street, San
Francisco, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:  
         
         Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
         Pamela A. Markert, Esq.
         CERA LLP
         595 Market Street, Suite 1350
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Telephone: (415) 777-2230
         Facsimile: (415) 777-5189
         E-mail: scera@cerallp.com
                 pmarkert@cerallp.com

AMERICAN ADVISORS: Aug. 4 Deadline Set for Settlement Opt-Out
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paronich Law, P.C. on June 8 disclosed that a Settlement has been
reached with American Advisors Group ("AAG") in a class action
lawsuit about whether AAG made unsolicited automated telephone
calls, including to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry.
AAG denies wrongdoing and liability, and both sides disagree on how
much, if anything, the class could have recovered after trial, or
if a class action could have been maintained. The Court has not
decided which side is right.

You are included in the Settlement as a "Settlement Class Member"
if you are a regular user or subscriber to a telephone number a
call was made or attempted by AAG, either directly or by one of
their vendors for the benefit of AAG that implicates the
protections of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C.
Sec. 227, from January 1, 2017 to May 1, 2020.

The Settlement provides $3,500,000 to pay claims of eligible
Settlement Class Members, Fees, Costs, and Expenses to Settlement
Class Counsel, a Service Payment to Plaintiff, and costs of
Settlement administration. Settlement Class Members who timely and
validly file a claim may receive between $20 and $40. To receive a
Settlement award, you must have a telephone number that is on the
list provided by AAG of numbers it called and timely submit a valid
Claim Form by August 4, 2020. A Claim Form is available at
www.tcpasettlementaag.com.

If you don't want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must
exclude yourself by August 4, 2020, or you won't be able to sue AAG
or others involved with the calls at issue about the legal claims
in the Action ever again. If you stay in the Settlement but object
to its terms, you must lodge your objection by August 4, 2020.

For complete information about the Settlement and to learn more
about how to exercise your various options visit
www.tcpasettlementaag.com or call 1-855-786-0906. [GN]


AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE: Refuses COVID-19 Losses Coverage, MTDB Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MTDB CORP. d/b/a STRIKER LANES, v. AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY, D/B/A FIREMAN'S FUND/ALLIANZ, Case No. 1:20-cv-03127 (N.D.
Ill., May 27, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and
similarly situated insureds, who suffered damages that have been
denied their contractual rights under common policy forms due to
the Defendant's decision not to provide coverage for losses
stemming from SARS-CoV-2 virus and or COVID-19.

The Plaintiff made premium payments expecting in its time of need,
Fireman's Fund would make good on its contractual obligations under
the policy it wrote and issued, according to the complaint. Then
last month, the Plaintiff was forced to shut down its business due
to the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, effective March 16, 2020,
during the term of the policy issued by Fireman's Fund to
Plaintiff, Illinois Governor Jay Robert Pritzker issued an order
closing all restaurants and bars to the public in an effort to
address the pandemic.

According to the complaint, the Defendant refuses to pay claims
under the common policy form(s) issued to Plaintiff and the
putative class member. The Plaintiff and the putative class members
seek declaratory judgment establishing they are entitled to receive
the benefit of the insurance coverage it purchased and for
indemnification of the business losses it has sustained.

Fireman's is an insurance company engaged in the business of
selling insurance contracts to commercial entities, such as the
Plaintiff in Illinois and elsewhere.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Antonio M. Romanucci, Esq.
          Gina A. Deboni, Esq.
          David A. Neiman, Esq.
          ROMANUCCI & BLANDIN, LLC
          321 N. Clark St., Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 458-1000
          Facsimile: (312) 458-1004
          E-mail: aromanucci@rblaw.net
                  gad@rblaw.net
                  dneiman@rblaw.net

               - and -

          Nicholas A. DiCello, Esq.
          Dennis R. Lansdowne, Esq.
          Stuart Scott, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Tor, Esq.
          SPANGENBERG, SHIBLEY & LIBER, LLP
          1001 Lakeside Ave., Suite 1700
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          E-mail: ndicello@spanglaw.com
                  dlansdowne@spanglaw.com
                  jtor@spanglaw.com

               - and -

          Robert P. Rutter, Esq.
          RUTTER & RUSSIN, LLC
          One Summit Office Park, Suite 650
          4700 Rockside Road
          Cleveland, IL 44131
          Telephone: (216) 642-1425
          E-mail: brutter@IllinoisInsuranceLawyer.com


AMERICAN HONDA: Booker Sues over Defective Fuel Pump
----------------------------------------------------
NATHANIEL BOOKER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.,
Defendant, Case 2:20-cv-05166 (C.D. Cal., June 10, 2020) is an
action against the Defendant for selling and marketing motor
vehicles with defective low-pressure fuel pumps that cause
unpredictable acceleration and engine stalls, and render the motor
vehicles unsafe to operate.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant knew that
the low-pressure fuel pumps in its motor vehicles identified as
"Affected Vehicles" below contained a defect that causes systemic
fuel system failures. Yet, the Defendant refuses to repair or
replace such defective systems and continues to sell—and require
its customers to drive—its vehicles with the defective fuel
delivery system, which could result in injuries or even deaths that
could otherwise be avoided.

Affected Vehicles include all Honda and Acura models that use the
Denso low-pressure fuel pumps and fuel pump assemblies that begin
with part number prefix 17045. The Defendant has instituted at
least two safety recalls in the U.S. concerning the defective
low-pressure fuel pumps, including one on January 29, 2019, when it
submitted a recall report to NHTSA voluntarily recalling nearly
over 430,000 Honda and Acura vehicles.

However, the Defendant did not replace the faulty Denso pump as
part of the 2019 recall. Instead, it updated the software on the
2019 Recalled Vehicles, which was cheaper than replacing the pump.
This "fix" was plainly insufficient, as the Defendant has now
acknowledged: on May 28, 2020, the Defendant submitted a Safety
Recall Report to NHSTA, covering the very same pump at issue in the
2019 recall (with the 17045 prefix).  Even as the Defendant
recognizes the safety hazard caused by the Denso pump, it has
refused to recall and fix the 2019 Recalled Vehicles.

The Fuel Pump Defect endangers drivers, passengers, and other
persons and property in the vicinity of an Affected Vehicle at any
time that it is in motion. The Fuel Pump Defect thus renders the
Affected Vehicles less safe and less valuable than consumers would
reasonably expect and it makes them less safe and less valuable
than the Affected Vehicles would be if the Defendant did not design
and sell the Affected Vehicles with the Fuel Pump Defect.

American Honda Motor Co., Inc. develops and manufactures
automobiles. The Company offers passenger cars, trucks,
motorcycles, ATVs, generators, marine engines, lawn and garden
equipment, parts, and accessories. American Honda Motor serves
customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 203
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (213) 330-7150
          Facsimile: (213) 330-7152
          E-mail: christopherp@hbsslaw.com


AMERICAN RECLAMATION: Carroll Suit Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW CARROLL, individually and on behalf all other aggrieved
employees of the Defendants in the State of California v. AMERICAN
RECLAMATION, INC. a California Corporation; JOHN R. GASPARIAN, an
individual; DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV20699
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 2, 2020), challenges the
Defendants' systemic illegal employment practices resulting in
violations of the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' systematic pattern of
wage and hour and IWC Wage Order violations toward the Plaintiff
and other Aggrieved Employees include failure to provide compliant
meal and rest periods; failure to pay all minimum, regular, and
overtime wages; failure to reimburse for all business expenses;
failure to maintain true and accurate records; failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements; and failure to timely pay wages
due during and upon separation of employment.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee in the position of laborer from October 8, 2019, to
November 27, 2019 and paid on an hourly basis. The Plaintiff worked
at various locations, including the Defendants' yard located in Los
Angeles, California, and trash routes in and around the Los Angeles
area.

American Reclamation is a solid waste collection and recycling
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arin Norijanian, Esq.
          James H. Demerjian, Esq.
          ARIN JAMES LLP
          100 North Brand Blvd., Suite 620
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 476-0133
          Facsimile: (818) 230-5243
          E-mail: arin@arinjames.com
                  james@arinjames.com


ANTHEM INC: Fortier Sues Over Wrongful Denial of Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
MARIE FORTIER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ANTHEM, INC.; ANTHEM UM SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-04952 (C.D. Cal., June 4, 2020) is an
action brought by the Plaintiff to address Anthem's practice of
improperly denying claims for percutaneous neuromodulation therapy
devices made by members under Anthem plans.

According to the complaint, Anthem Inc. acts as a fully integrated
company that is in the business of insuring and/or administering
group health plans within the meaning of 29 Code of Federal
Regulations, most of which are employer-sponsored and governed by
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Those
ERISA-governed group health plans are hereinafter referred to as
"Anthem plans."

Plaintiff was at all relevant times covered under an
employer-sponsored benefit plan regulated by ERISA and pursuant to
which Plaintiff is entitled to health care benefits.

Plaintiff's Anthem plan excludes from coverage treatment for
services that are investigational. Plaintiff has a history of right
knee osteoarthritis and has undergone surgeries for this problem
starting with a knee replacement and reconstruction in 2014, a
revision in 2015, then another in 2016.

The physicians at the USC Chronic Pain Center recommended that
Plaintiff undergo a seven-day trial of the FDA-approved Stimwave
PNT device to address her chronic right knee pain. Plaintiff
underwent the seven-day trial with the device and experienced
relief that allowed her to discontinue the use of opioids during
that time. A request was then made of Anthem to approve the use of
the Stimwave device for Plaintiff on a permanent basis.

On January 22, 2020, Anthem UM sent a letter to Plaintiff's
physician denying coverage for the Stimwave device on the basis it
was "investigational" pursuant to Anthem's coverage guideline,
DME.00011.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff and the class members seek the
payment of medical expenses, interest thereon, a clarification of
rights, and attorney fees.

Anthem, Inc. and Anthem UM Services, Inc. are corporations with
their principal place of business in Indianapolis, Indiana. They
administer and make benefit determinations related to ERISA group
health care plans around the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Gianelli
          Joshua S. Davis, Esq.
          Adrian J. Barrio, Esq.
          GIANELLI & MORRIS, A Law Corporation
          550 South Hope Street, Suite 1645
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 489-1600
          Facsimile: (213) 489-1611
          E-mail: rob.gianelli@gmlawyers.com
                  joshua.davis@gmlawyers.com
                  adrian.barrio@gmlawyers.com

ATAIN SPECIALTY: Declined Salon's Business Interruption Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
SUNSATIONS TANNING SALON, LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATAIN SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-02510 (E.D. Pa., May 28, 2020)
is a class action against the Defendant for breach of its
contractual obligation.

According to the complaint, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff's
claim for coverage for business loss and business interruption and
other claims, contending, that the Plaintiff did not suffer
physical damage to its property directly and therefore it is not
entitled to coverage for the losses and damages. The Defendant also
claimed the policy does not cover losses due to the virus exclusion
clause.

The Plaintiff and Class members allege that they are entitled
because the insurance policy is extended to apply to the actual
loss of business income sustained and the actual, necessary and
reasonable extra expenses incurred when access to the insured
property is specifically prohibited by order of civil authority.
The Plaintiff was forced to shut down its business as mandated by
local government orders in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The
Plaintiff suffered business losses as a result and should be
entitled for claims under business interruption and civil authority
coverage.

Sunsations Tanning Salon, LLC is an owner and operator of a tanning
salon with principal place of business located at 1605 Lehigh
Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania

Atain Specialty Insurance Company is an insurance carrier with
principal place of business located at 220 Kaufman Financial
Center, 30833 Northwestern Highway, Farmington Hills, Michigan.
[BN]

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

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

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

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

AUSTRALIA: Appeal Likely in Class Action Ruling on 2011 Cattle Ban
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shan Goodwin, writing for Farm Weekly, reports that whether or not
the Commonwealth will appeal the court ruling that paves the way
for live cattle export suppliers to be compensated to the tune of
hundreds of millions is still up in the air.

However, legal experts say it was likely there would be an appeal.

The Federal Court finding that then agriculture minister Joe Ludwig
overstepped his authority in ordering the 2011 live-cattle export
ban surprised many in the legal business.

Rural-based Queensland lawyer Dan Creevey, who has worked on
agriculture class actions, said the tort of misfeasance - misuse of
public office - was extremely rare, even more so where it involved
a high level of public office.

"It was a fairly courageous decision and one which involves
subjectivity," Mr Creevey said.

"When a judge has to assess the issue of the level of whether the
ban went further than it should have, it is not a black and white
decision.

"There is a sense of assessing what in fact was in someone's
mind."

Mr. Creevey explained there were four elements of the tort that had
to be proven.  They were being a holder of public office,
exercising power incident of that office, exercising power that was
invalid, and an element of bad faith.

"It's the final one which is the X factor. It is always a big
hurdle for a plaintiff to prove and has been a stumbling block
historically," Mr. Creevey said.

"The test that has been applied as to bad faith is far from clear
and Australian decisions from court to court have varied as to what
constitutes it."

Mr. Creevey said the ruling set a precedent in that it showed
courts were prepared to find misfeasance.

He felt it did, however, raise concerns about whether courts
overstep their role in taking a view on a decision made by a
minister.

"I'm not arguing either way if that is the case, but I imagine that
would be something aired in an appeal," he said.

The fact that then Senator Ludwig did not give evidence during the
drawn-out legal process may well have influenced the ruling to his
detriment, Mr Creevey said.

"There is a general principle in law that says if a witness who can
give evidence does not, the court is entitled to draw an adverse
conclusion as to the fact that evidence would have been against
their interests," he said.

Hand forced?

The defence's decision not to put Mr. Ludwig in the box has raised
questions among the cattle industry about the wider Gillard
government's role in the decision.

Some have interpreted the ruling as painting a picture of a
minister headed down the path of an alternative solution until the
final cabinet meeting after which the announcement of a total ban
was made.

In a press conference after the handing down of the ruling,
facilitator of the class action Tracey Hayes said: "We heard that
something happened (in the cabinet meeting) and the minister's hand
was forced."

Meanwhile, current agriculture minister David Littleproud is
expected to make an announcement on an appeal any minute now.

At a rural press gathering in Victoria in early June, he described
the decision made by Mr. Ludwig as abhorrent and having
ramifications for the whole beef industry.

He said his government was working through the implications of the
judgement and would engage with the plaintiffs.

Mr. Littleproud said he did not intend for the process to be
protracted.

"As a Federal Government we understand the hurt that has been
inflicted by that decision," he said.

"But it is a complex judgment -- the implications around executive
government and what that would look like in the future is something
we would have to make sure we appreciate while also understanding
the needs of the plaintiffs." [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Cattle Producers Get Favorable Ruling in 2011 Ban Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aidan Smith, writing for Farm Weekly, reports that the decision
handed down by the Federal Court in early June 2020 in favour of
cattle producers hit by the Australian government's 2011 live
export ban to Indonesia has put governments and ministers on
notice, according to Liberal Member for O'Connor Rick Wilson.

The ruling follows a class action, which started in 2014, seeking
$600 million in compensation for lost income as a result of the
ban, which came after an ABC Four Corners investigation based on
footage from Animals Australia showed shocking mistreatment of
Australian cattle in Indonesian abattoirs.

Mr. Wilson said there were "huge ramifications for government" in
the decision, that "buckling to activists is not OK, when it is
plainly unjust as it was in this case".

"The government has been put on notice that it is responsible for
the decisions of bureaucracy and the government and ministers,
can't hide behind bureaucracy when they are acting unjustly or
incorrectly," Mr Wilson said.

He said while former agriculture minister Joe Ludwig made the
decision while in government, the current Federal government would
bare the cost of the ruling with tax payers ultimately footing the
bill.

"It is not OK to cave into activists when the decision is plainly
unjust and wrong," Mr Wilson said.

"Businesses and livelihoods were thrown into chaos as a result of
the shutdown."

He said activists, such as Animals Australia -- which provided the
footage of animal cruelty that led to the ban -- had been sending
thousands of emails to ministers to persuade them to act against
the live export trade, but it was up to ministers to look at all
the facts and evidence, as well as the possible consequences of any
action before rushing to judgement.

The Pastoralists and Graziers Association said it was "time for
governments to consult rather than react".

"This ruling over the 2011 ban, described by Justice Rares as
'capricious' and 'unreasonable', clearly illustrates the continual
practice of knee jerk policy decisions made by government
bureaucrats in Canberra when dealing with the live export
industry," said PGA president Tony Seabrook.

"One only has to look at the 2018 suspension of sheep exports out
of WA to show that there is a serious and continual practice of
government policy being based on responses to current affairs
programs such as 60 Minutes and Four Corners, which constantly show
the live export industry in the most negative light possible,
rather than showcasing the positives about the industry, and the
tremendous job exporters do in ensuring the health and welfare of
the animals on these voyages.

"Our government bureaucrats are basing their decisions to suspend
or ban live exports to a particular country, or during a particular
season, on a small sector of the public's reaction after watching a
heavily edited television program, with no consideration given to
the impact it will have on producers, exporters, as well as our
overseas customers.

"It is high time that our elected MPs and ministers learned this
lesson and put an end to this practice within their department,
which has now been ruled by the Federal Court as unlawful."

Hedland Export Depot manager Paul Brown said it was "a good day" as
he had been part of the class action from the beginning.

He said the decision of the government in 2011 affected not just
the northern cattle trade but the whole industry as cattle from the
north had to be sold into the southern market which "collapsed the
prices" locally.

"It was no fault of Australian cattle producers or the wider
industry," Mr. Brown said.

He said it was a bad decision because "you can't blame the
behaviour of Indonesian abattoirs" -- who up to that time were
operating within their laws -- "on Australian cattle producers".

"This was not about live export or animal welfare," Mr. Brown
said.

"The minister made an unlawful decision without taking into
consideration the impact that would have.

"This has an impact across all ministers, federally and at the
State level.

"It sets a much higher bar in terms of making decisions.

"This is a monumental decision and is good for everybody.

"It sets a new standard."

Mr. Brown said governments will no longer be able to make deals in
parliament for political gain which affected industries unjustly.

He said the industry had moved on and the decision would allow just
compensation but the government still had 28 days to appeal and
there were also hearings scheduled to work out the details of how
the compensation would be administered.

Kimberley Pilbara Cattlemen's Association chief executive officer
Emma White said pastoralists were "happy with the result" and felt
"vindicated by it".

"This is significant for the industry," Ms. White said.

"It highlights the importance of good decision making and not
making knee jerk reactions."

The KPCA was still going through the details of the decision and
also the administration process.

"It's not the end of it yet," Ms. White said.

"Hopefully the government." [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Judge Okays $212MM Deal in PFAS Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Fellner, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports that a
federal court judge has approved the $212 million settlement of
three class action lawsuits over firefighting contamination caused
by the Department of Defence.

In a judgment delivered late on June 5, Justice Michael Lee also
directed additional money towards a family who suffered
"remarkable" abuse, including being spat on by other community
members, after taking a leading role in the class action.

The action was launched by residents near military bases at
Williamtown, near Newcastle, Oakey in Queensland and Katherine in
the Northern Territory whose properties were polluted with toxic
per- and poly-fluoroalkyl chemicals [PFAS].

Justice Lee acknowledged the disillusionment of some residents who
feared the compensation offered would not be adequate.

However Justice Lee concluded the settlement was not only fair and
reasonable, but could be "described as excellent" when compared to
the total possible sum that could have been recovered at trial.

Williamtown residents settled the case for 97 per cent of the
maximum amount they could have won at trial, while for Oakey the
figure was 103 per cent and Katherine 109 per cent.

A trial would have carried a significant degree of risk as complex
questions of causation and liability were debated, Justice Lee
said.

He noted some of the angst related to deductions from the
settlement that will leave victims with $126 million of their $212
million payout.

The litigation funder that bankrolled the case, Omni Bridgeway,
will take $53.1 million in profits and $940,000 for out of pocket
costs.

Lawyers from Dentons and Shine law firms will receive $30.1 million
to cover their costs.

Around $2 million will be used to distribute the funds and more
than $100,000 will go to the community members who took a leading
role in the case.

Justice Lee noted the legal fees might seem "staggering" and
"extraordinarily large" to the uninitiated.

However, Omni Bridgeway had taken $35 million less than what it was
contractually entitled to.

Chief executive Andrew Saker told the Herald this was a "proactive
measure to improve the returns to group members" and the step was
taken before the announcement of a parliamentary inquiry into
litigation funding.

"Objections represented approximately three percent of group
members," he noted.

An independent expert appointed by the court had found the costs
incurred by Shine and Dentons lawyers to be reasonable.

Justice Lee noted legal costs could have been reduced if the case
had been run as one class action covering all three towns.

Mr. Saker stressed this was a choice made by clients rather than
Omni, and efforts were made to reduce duplication of costs.

Justice Lee noted the live debate about litigation funders and said
they often misused the phrase "access to justice" to justify what
at its heart was "a commercial endeavour to make money".

However, without the litigation funder, it was unlikely victims of
PFAS contamination would have been able to battle for compensation
in court, Justice Lee said.

Rather they would have been left to request compensation "in
circumstances where they would have been the subject of a
significant inequality of arms".

Williamtown resident Lindsay Clout labelled the approval
"momentous" but argued that "communities should not need to take
the very people charged with protecting them … to court".

Justice Lee drew particular attention to the plight of Oakey man
Bradley Hudson and his family, who had been the subject of
"sustained verbal abuse by disgruntled community members" after
taking a lead role in the case.

The Hudsons had been targeted at their cafe by residents who
believed drawing attention to the contamination would stigmatise
the town and devalue properties.

"Mr Hudson in particular has suffered great distress and vexation,"
Justice Lee said.

"Which includes -- as remarkable as it may seem -- being spat upon
or spat at while on the main street of Oakey."

He ordered additional funds from the settlement be directed to Mr
Hudson. An independent party will also be appointed to review the
individual distribution of the funds. [GN]


BAYLOR UNIVERSITY: Fails to Refund Tuition Fees, Camarena Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
NABOR CAMARENA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BAYLOR UNIVERSITY; and BOARD OF REGENTS OF
BAYLOR UNIVERSITY, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01436 (N.D. Tex.,
June 5, 2020) is a class action brought on brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals who have paid
tuition and fees for on-campus courses at Baylor University and who
have not been refunded a prorated portion thereof after Baylor
abruptly closed its doors to students and shifted to substandard
online instruction due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019
("COVID-19").

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class members are
students, families, and student guarantors who paid millions of
dollars in tuition and fees at Baylor University and who, as a
result of the Defendants' wrongful acts, (i) have not received
refunds or reimbursements for the unused services for which they
paid; and/or (ii) have not received any refund or reimbursement for
the decreased value of the education that Defendants began
providing when classes transitioned from in-person instruction to
an entirely untested online and less valuable format.

The Plaintiff and other Class members have lost the benefits of the
education, services, extra-curricular opportunities, and other
experiences that the Defendants promised them. Despite failing to
fulfill their obligations, the Defendants are currently unlawfully
retaining and refusing to fully or partially refund the Plaintiff's
tuition and mandatory fees, despite the dramatically lower quality
and less valuable education and services the Defendants provided
for the second half of the Spring 2020
semester.

Baylor University is located in the County of McLennan in the City
of Waco in the State of Texas. The University offers degrees in
undergraduate and graduate level degree curriculum. The University
provides degrees in arts, science, education, engineering, computer
science, business, music, nursing, and social work. Baylor serves
domestic and international students. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3811 Turtle Creek, Suite 1450
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 744-3000
          E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com

               - and -

          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          43 Southeast Main Street, Suite 505
          Minneapolis, MN 55414
          Telephone: (612) 594-5999
          E-mail: emdrake@bm.net

               - and -

          Glen L. Abramson, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: gabramson@bm.net


BIMBO BAKERIES: Misclassifies Distributors, Helms Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
The case, CHAD HELMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC. and BIMBO FOODS
BAKERIES DISTRIBUTION, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00207-LEW
(D. Maine, June 15, 2020) challenges Defendants' alleged unlawful
misclassification of employees and wage deduction in violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, Maine's wage payment and deduction
statute, and Maine's overtime statute.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants from approximately June 2013 to May
2020 as a Distributor or IBP to deliver breads and baked goods on
behalf of Defendants in Maine.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other IBPs generally
worked approximately 45 to 50 hours per week. But, because
Defendants misclassified them as non-exempt independent
contractors, Defendant failed to pay them overtime premium at one
and one-half times their regular rate for their hours worked over
40.

Moreover, Defendants failed to reimburse Plaintiff and the members
of the class for their work-related expenses. Instead, Defendants
benefited from Plaintiff and the members of the class by requiring
them to incur certain wage deductions and expenses.

Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. and Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC
deliver and distribute breads and baked goods to grocery stores and
other outlets across the U.S. under the brand names Sara Lee,
nature's Harvest, and others. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin I. Grant, Esq.
          KAPLAN & GRANT
          136 Commercial St., Suite 302
          Portland, ME 04101
          Tel: (207) 780-6700
          Email: bgrant@kaplanandgrant.com

               - and –

          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          Matthew W. Thomson, Esq.
          Zachary L. Rubin, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston St. Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Tel: (617) 994-5800
          Fax: (617) 994-5801
          Emails: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                  mthomson@llrlaw.com
                  zrubin@llrlaw.com


BIMBO BAKERIES: Misclassifies Distributors, Roberts Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, ANDRE ROBERTS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC. and BIMBO
FOODS BAKERIES DISTRIBUTION, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
4:20-cv-40065 (D. Mass., June 4, 2020) challenges Defendants'
alleged unlawful misclassification of their employees in violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Massachusetts Wage Act.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant from approximately March 2012
through 2019 as a distributor to deliver and distribute breads and
baked goods within specific geographic regions in Massachusetts.

Plaintiff claims that he worked approximately 60 hours per week
during his tenure working for Defendants. But, Defendants do not
provide any overtime premium for those hours worked over 40 each
week.

The complaint asserts that Defendants:

     -- misclassified Plaintiff and other similarly situated
distributors as independent contractors rather than employees;

     -- unlawfully deprived them of the wage treatment and benefits
accorded employees; and

     -- failed to reimburse them for work-related expenses they
incurred.

Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. and Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC
deliver breads and baked goods to grocery stores and other outlets
across the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          Matthew W. Thomson, Esq.
          Zachary L. Rubin, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Tel: (617) 994-5800
          Fax: (617) 994-5801
          Emails: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                  mthomson@llrlaw.com
                  zrubin@llrlaw.com


BIRCHES LLC: Sproch Balks at Biometric Data Collection
------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY M. SPROCH individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE BIRCHES, LLC. Defendant, Case
No. 2020L000615 (Ill. Cir., 18th Judicial, Dupage Cty., June 12,
2020) is a class action complaint brought by the Plaintiff against
Defendant to put a stop to its unlawful collection, use, and
storage of Plaintiff's and the putative Class members' sensitive
biometric data in violation of the Biometric Information Privacy
Act.

The complaint asserts that when employees first begin their jobs at
Birches, they are required to scan their fingerprint in its
biometric time tracking system as a means of authentication,
instead of using only key fobs or other identification cards.
Birches disregarded its employees' statutorily protected privacy
rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses their biometric
data in violation of the BIPA.

Specifically, Birches has violated (and continues to violate) the
BIPA because it did not: a) Properly inform Plaintiff and the Class
members in writing of the specific purpose and length of time for
which their fingerprints were being collected, stored, and used, as
required by the BIPA; b) Provide a publicly available retention
schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying Plaintiff's and
the Class' fingerprints, as required by the BIPA; nor c) Receive a
written release from Plaintiff or the members of the Class to
collect, capture, or otherwise obtain fingerprints, as required by
the BIPA.

The complaint seeks an order: (i) declaring that Defendant's
conduct violates the BIPA; (ii) requiring Defendant to cease the
unlawful activities discussed herein; and (iii) awarding liquidated
damages to Plaintiff and the proposed Class.

The Birches, LLC is an Assisted Living Facility located in
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Fish, Esq.
          Mara Baltabols, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: (630) 355-7590
          Facsimile: (630) 778-0400
          E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
                  mara@fishlawfirm.com

C3/CUSTOMERCONTACTCHANNELS: Black, Smith Allege Unlawful Wage Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMBER BLACK and TABITHA SMITH, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v.
C3/CUSTOMERCONTACTCHANNELS, INC. and C3/CUSTOMERCONTACT CHANNELS
HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00528 (W.D. Tex., May
15, 2020) is a collective and class action brought by the
Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons employed by Defendants, arising from Defendant's willful
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Arizona
Wage Act ("AWA").

According to the complaint, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs
and all similarly situated persons their full compensation over the
past three years, failed to pay their employees for the preliminary
work completed before their shift, failed to provide their
employees paid rest periods, forced employees to work during their
unpaid meal periods, and systematically denied their employees
overtime compensation.

Both Plaintiffs were employed as a customer service representatives
by Defendants from 2015 to 2017 and, again, 2018 to 2019.

C3/CustomerContactChannels, Inc. is a Texas based
customer-relationship management company which provides call center
support for various companies across the U.S.

C3/CustomerContact Channels Holdings, Inc. is a Texas based
customer-relationship management company which provides call center
support for various companies across the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Derek Hilley, Esq.
          Carlos Solis, Esq.
          HILLEY & SOLIS LAW, PLLC
          6243 IH-10 W, Suite 503
          San Antonio, TX 78201
          Telephone: (210) 446-5000
          Facsimile: (210) 446-5000
          Email: dhilley@hilley-solis.com
                 dhilley@hilley-solis.com

                   - and -
          
          Thomas Joseph McHugh, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS J. MCHUGH, PLLC
          6243 IH-10 W, Suite 503
          San Antonio, TX 78201
          Telephone: (210) 227-4662
          Facsimile: (210) 227-1501
          Email: thomasjmchughlaw@gmail.com

                   - and -

          Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          402 West Broadway, Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 762-2125
          Email: tkashima@sommerspc.com

                   - and -

           Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
           SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
           One Towne Square, Suite 1700
           Southfield, MI 48076
           Telephone: (248) 355-0300
           Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com

CANADA: '60s Scoop Settlement Claims to Receive Interim Payments
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Short, writing for Saskatoon Star Phonenix, reports that
after a series of delays including those caused by the COVID-19
pandemic, approved claimants of the '60s Scoop settlement will
receive interim payments in the coming weeks.

On June 1, a Federal Court Justice approved interim payments of
$21,000 to the 12,500 survivors whose applications have been
approved, with newly approved applicants to be paid on an ongoing
basis.

All parties are expected to return to court at a later date to
discuss the remainder of the compensation.

The administrator of the fund, Collectiva, was waiting on the
Ontario Superior Court to approve a similar motion. The matter was
before both courts because the original class action lawsuit was
filed in Ontario before expanding nationally.

With that taking place June 2, Collectiva can start issuing the
payments.

Katherine Legrange, Director of the '60s Scoop Legacy of Canada,
said she's hesitant to say whether there will be any more delays
but is happy to see progress being made.

"Survivors were counting on this money before the pandemic hit and
the delay was just triggering for some folks and retraumatizing,"
she said. "This whole process has been retraumatization for some
people, and pretty frustrating.

"So I am incredibly grateful that the court heard us."

The settlement, signed November 2017, includes up to $750 million
to be dispersed to survivors, with the amount of compensation each
receives dependent on the number of class members deemed eligible.

Amid concerns around processing delays caused by COVID-19, on March
27 Justice Michael L. Phelan agreed with a motion made by "60s
Scoop Legacy of Canada to begin payments even though not all claims
had been processed.

That motion would have seen payments of $25,000 distributed to
approved members once over 4,767 applications had been fully
rejected, but the process of denying them was put on hold as a
result of the pandemic.

A few days after the April 23 update from Collectiva that the
payments were on hold, '60s Scoop Legacy provincial partners The
Sixties Scoop Indigenous Societies of Alberta and Saskatchewan
drafted a letter to the court proposing the $21,000 payment and
asking for greater oversight from Collectiva and regular progress
updates.

Legrange said more transparency and communication could have gone a
long way in alleviating their concerns. The organization has called
for greater oversight of the administrator and regular updates.

A PR firm that has been appointed to provide thorough updates is a
step in the right direction, she said.

"It'll allay some anxieties that people are feeling," she said.
"Instead of feeling like they're not getting any information at
all."

As of March 16, 34,767 claims have been submitted, with about 36
per cent (12,551) approved. [GN]


CANTEEN 82 INC: Underpays Chefs, Chen Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------
SHI MING CHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CANTEEN 82 INC. d/b/a Canteen 82; STEAM
NOODLE HOUSE INC. d/b/a Steam; STEAMER DUMPLING HOUSE INC. d/b/a
Steamer Restaurant; ALLEN LI; YEH P. CHING; and SONG ZHENG,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04324 (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2020) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Chen was employed by the Defendants as chef.

Canteen 82 Inc. d/b/a Canteen 82 is a Connecticut corporation
engaged in the restaurant business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 103
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324


CAPITAL ONE: Fourth Cir. Appeal Filed in Colbert Data Breach Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Capital One, N.A., filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Sabrina Colbert v. Capital One N.A., Case No.
1:20-cv-00165-SAG, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland at Baltimore.

The lawsuit arises from a consumer data breach.

The appellate case is captioned as Sabrina Colbert v. Capital One
N.A., Case No. 20-1381, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee SABRINA CAPRI COLBERT, on behalf of herselt and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jeffrey C. Toppe, Esq.
          David M. Trojanowski, Esq.
          Cory L. Zajdel, Esq.
          Z LAW, LLC
          2345 York Road
          Timonium, MD 21093
          Telephone: (443) 213-1977
          E-mail: jct@zlawmaryland.com
                  dmt@zlawmaryland.com
                  clz@zlawmaryland.com

Defendant-Appellant CAPITAL ONE N.A., d/b/a Capital One Auto
Finance, is represented by:

          Brooke Kelley Conkle, Esq.
          Jonathan S. Hubbard, Esq.
          Syed Mohsin Reza, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP
          1001 Haxall Point
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 697-1873
          E-mail: brooke.conkle@troutman.com
                  jon.hubbard@troutman.com


CAPPO MANAGEMENT: Underpays Employees, Perez Claims
---------------------------------------------------
DAVID PEREZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAPPO MANAGEMENT LI, LLC, a Florida limited
company, d/b/a OCEAN HONDA OF NORTH HOLLYWOOD, VICTORY AUTOMOTIVE
GROUP, INC., a Michigan corporation, and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20BBCV00373 (Cal. Sup. Ct., June
11, 2020) brings this complaint against Defendants pursuant to the
California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).

Plaintiff worked for Defendants from approximately June 2018 to
approximately September 21, 2019 at Defendants' Ocean Honda
dealership located in North Hollywood, California.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees
worked in excess of 40 hours per work week. However, Defendant did
not compensate them proper overtime equal to one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay for all overtime hours they worked.

The complaint asserts that Defendants failed to:

     -- include the Incentive Pay when calculating Plaintiff and
other aggrieved employees regular rate of pay for overtime
purposes;

     -- provide them with all legally-compliant meal and rest
periods and compensate them for each work day they stayed on the
work premises during meal and rest periods as required by
Defendants;

     -- provide complete and accurate itemized wage statements;
and

     -- maintain accurate records of employees.

Moreover, Plaintiff sent a notice to Defendants via certified mail
and the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA)
via its website on April 6, 2020 concerning Defendants' violations
of the California Labor Code. But, there was no response from both
parties.

Cappo Management Li, LLC and Victory Automotive Group, Inc. operate
motor vehicle dealership. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
          Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq.
          Milan Moore, Esq.
          Romina Tamiry, Esq.
          LIDMAN LAW, APC
          2155 Campus Drive, Suite 150
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Tel: (424) 322-4772
          Fax: (424) 322-4775
          Emails: slidman@lidmanlaw.com
                  enguyen@lidmanlaw.com
                  mmoore@lidmanlaw.com
                  rtamiry@lidmanlaw.com

                - and –

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Tel: (424) 292-2350
          Fax: (424) 292-2355
          Email: phaines@haineslawgroup.com


CBL & ASSOCIATES: Continues to Defend Tennessee Securities Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, In re CBL &
Associates Properties, Inc. Securities Litigation,
1:19-cv-00149-JRG-CHS.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors were named as
defendants in three putative securities class action lawsuits
(collectively, the "Securities Class Action Litigation"), each
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Tennessee, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's securities during a specified period of
time.

Those cases were consolidated on July 17, 2019, under the caption
In re CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. Securities Litigation,
1:19-cv-00149-JRG-CHS.

The complaints filed in the Securities Class Action Litigation
allege violations of the securities laws, including, among other
things, that the defendants made certain materially false and
misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's
contingent liabilities, business, operations, and prospects during
the periods of time specified above.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs, among other relief, but have not specified the amount of
damages sought.

The outcome of these legal proceedings cannot be predicted with
certainty.

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

CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. is a self managed and self
administered real estate investment trust. The Company owns
regional shopping malls and community shopping centers in the
United States. The company is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee.


CENTRAL PAYMENT: Eighth Circuit Appeal Filed in Custom Hair Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Central Payment Co., LLC, filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit styled Custom Hair Designs by Sandy, et al.
v. Central Payment Co., Case No. 8:17-cv-00310-JFB, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska, Omaha.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Joseph
F. Bataillon of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nebraska (i) granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification; (ii) denied the Defendant's motion to file a
sur-reply brief and/or strike evidence; (iii) denied the
Defendant's motion to strike the testimony of Karl J. Borden; and
(iv) denied the Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs are merchants that processed credit and debit
transactions through Defendant Central Payment Co., LLC ("CPAY").
CPAY processes over 65,000 businesses and over $10 billion in
credit sales annually. The Plaintiffs contracted with CPAY from
November 2015 through February 2017 for payment processing
services.

The Plaintiffs allege that CPAY charged fees for its payment
processing services that do not coincide with the terms of their
merchant agreements and Terms and Conditions. They plead the case
as a putative nationwide class action and argue that CPAY is a
multi-year, interstate, multi-million-dollar scheme to defraud
unsophisticated merchants.

The appellate case is captioned as Custom Hair Designs by Sandy, et
al v. Central Payment Co., Case No. 20-1677, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Custom Hair Designs by Sandy, LLC, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, and Skip's
Precision Welding, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Eric David Barton, I, Esq.
          Melody R. Dickson, Esq.
          Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
          Sarah Steen Ruane, Esq.
          WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL
          Suite 300, 4740 Grand Avenue
          Kansas City, MO 64112-0000
          Telephone: (816) 701-1100
          E-mail: ebarton@wcllp.com
                  mdickson@wcllp.com
                  thudson@wcllp.com
                  sruane@wcllp.com

Defendant-Appellant Central Payment Co., LLC, is represented by:

          David L. Balser, Esq.
          Jonathan R. Chally, Esq.
          Brandon R. Keel, Esq.
          Allison H. White, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING
          1180 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 1600
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
          Telephone: (404) 572-4600
          E-mail: dbalser@kslaw.com
                  jchally@kslaw.com
                  bkeel@kslaw.com
                  awhite@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Kenneth W. Hartman, Esq.
          BAIRD & HOLM
          1500 Woodmen Tower
          1700 Farnam Street
          Omaha, NE 68102-0000
          Telephone: (402) 344-0500
          E-mail: khartman@bairdholm.com


CLAIRE'S STORES: Blind Can't Use Store App, Lucius Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, WINDY LUCIUS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated v. CLAIRE'S STORES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-22381 (S.D. Fla., June 9, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant designed and programmed a
mobile phone app to sell a variety of products ranging from
earrings, beauty products, and hair clips to fashion accessories.
However, the Plaintiff alleges that the app has digital barriers
which limit the ability of blind and visually impaired consumers,
including her, to access it, even with the use of Apple's assistive
technology. The Plaintiff and other blind and visually impaired
consumers use the assistive technology on the iPhone mobile devices
to access the Defendant's app content but it does not properly
interact with the assistive technology in a manner that will allow
them to enjoy the app like any other general consumers. By
continuing to operate its app with discriminatory conditions, the
Defendant contributes to the Plaintiff's sense of isolation and
segregation and deprives the Plaintiff the full and equal enjoyment
of the goods, services, facilities, privileges and/or
accommodations available to the general public.

Claire's Stores, Inc. is an owner and operator of multiple stores
called CLAIRE'S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.
         J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC
         8950 SW 74TH Court, Suite 2201
         Miami, FL 33156
         Telephone: (305) 351-2014
         Facsimile: cc@cunninghampllc.com

CLEAN HARBORS: McMurtry Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to D.N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM T. MCMURTRY; JOHNNIE
STANLEY; and AYIZAN DEREONCOURT, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. CLEAN HARBORS, INC.; CLEAN HARBORS
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.; CLEAN HARBORS INDUSTRIAL SERVICES,
INC.; CLEAN HARBORS INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC.; and ABC CORPORATIONS
1-10 (Filed April 21, 2020), was removed from the New Jersey
Superior Court, Middlesex County, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey on June 2, 2020.

The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-06774 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs allege that they provided prevailing wage labor at
PSEG facilities in New Jersey under the Energy Strong Program, and
that the Defendants failed to pay prevailing wages, in violation of
New Jersey Statutes Annotated.

Clean Harbors is a provider of environmental, energy and industrial
services, including hazardous waste disposal for companies,
including Fortune 500 companies, small waste generators and
federal, state, provincial and local governments.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Zatuchini, Esq.
          ZATUCHINI & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          287 South Mani St. (Route 29)
          Lambertville, NJ 08530

               - and -

          Bruce Clarke, Esq.
          Christopher J. Michie, Esq.
          CLARK MICHIE, LLP
          220 Alexander St.
          Princeton, NJ 08540

The Defendants are represented by:

          Caroline R. Robb, Esq.
          James N. Boudreau, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          1717 Arch St., Suite 400
          Philadelphia, PA 19148
          Telephone: 215 988 7833
          Facsimile: 215 988 7801
          E-mail: boudreauj@gtlaw.com
                  robbc@gtlaw.com


CLOUDERA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cloudera, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a securities class action suit entitled, In re Cloudera,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:19-cv-3221-LHK.

On June 7, 2019, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, entitled Christie v. Cloudera, Inc., et al., Case No.
5:19-cv-3221-LHK.

The complaint named as defendants Cloudera, its former Chief
Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer and a former officer
and director, asserting alleged class claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and
SEC Rule 10b-5.

Two substantially similar class action complaints, entitled
Zarantonello v. Cloudera, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-4007-LHK,
and Dvornic v. Cloudera, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-4310-LHK,
were subsequently filed against the same defendants in the same
court on July 12, 2019 and July 26, 2019, respectively.

The suits have been consolidated under the name, In re Cloudera,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:19-cv-3221-LHK.

The court subsequently appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel,
and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on February 14,
2020. The consolidated amended complaint asserts claims against the
Company and three individual defendants under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, based on allegedly false
and misleading statements between April 28, 2017 and June 5, 2019.


It also adds as defendants ten current or former directors or
officers of the Company and Intel Corporation and asserts claims
under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
on behalf of all persons who acquired Cloudera stock pursuant or
traceable to the S-4 registration statement filed in connection
with Cloudera's January 2019 merger with Hortonworks, and alleging
that the registration statement contained untrue statements of
material fact and omitted material facts.

The complaint seeks, among other things, an award of damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 18, 2020, the court vacated its prior order appointing
lead plaintiffs and lead counsel and reopened the lead plaintiff
process.

Cloudera believes that the allegations in the action are without
merit.

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

Cloudera, Inc. provides platform for machine learning and analytics
in the United States, Europe, and Asia. The company operates
through two segments, Subscription and Services. Cloudera, Inc. was
founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California.


CLOUDERA INC: Hortonworks Merger-Related Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Cloudera, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, In re Cloudera, Inc.
Securities Litigation, related to the company's merger agreement
with  Hortonworks, Inc.

In January 2019, the company completed its merger with Hortonworks,
Inc., a publicly-held company headquartered in Santa Clara,
California, and a provider of enterprise-grade, global data
management platforms, services and solutions.

On June 7, 2019, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, entitled
Lazard v. Cloudera, Inc., et al., Case No. 19CV348674.

The complaint named as defendants Cloudera, thirteen individuals
who are current or former directors or officers of the Company, and
Intel Corporation. The complaint alleged that the registration
statement contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted
material facts.

Two substantially similar suits, entitled Franchi v. Cloudera,
Inc., et al., Case No. 19CV348790, and Cannizzo v. Cloudera, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 19CV348974, were subsequently filed in the same
court on June 11, 2019 and June 14, 2019, respectively.

The suits have been consolidated under the name In re Cloudera,
Inc. Securities Litigation, and the consolidated amended complaint
purports to assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all persons who acquired
Cloudera stock pursuant or traceable to the S-4 registration
statement filed in connection with Cloudera's January 2019 merger
with Hortonworks, and alleges that the registration statement
contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted material
facts.

Plaintiffs seek, among other things, an award of damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Cloudera believes that the allegations in the lawsuits are without
merit.

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

Cloudera, Inc. provides platform for machine learning and analytics
in the United States, Europe, and Asia. The company operates
through two segments, Subscription and Services. Cloudera, Inc. was
founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California.


COLONY CAPITAL: Levi & Korsinky Files Class Action Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on June 8 disclosed that class action lawsuit
have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Colony Capital Inc.

Colony Capital, Inc. (CLNY)

CLNY Lawsuit:  On behalf of investors who purchased August 9, 2019
to May 7, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 27, 2020

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/colony-capital-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7194&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Colony
Capital, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Colony's sale of its industrial
real estate portfolio and the bifurcation of Colony Credit Real
Estate's portfolio were foreseeably likely to negatively impact
Colony's financial and operating results; (ii) certain of Colony's
remaining portfolio companies carried unsustainable levels of debt
secured by hotels and healthcare-related properties and were thus
at a significant risk of default; and (iii) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

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

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

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]


COLUMBIA COLLEGE: Buschauer Seeks Refund of School Fees
-------------------------------------------------------
DAVID BUSCHAUER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COLUMBIA COLLEGE CHICAGO; and the BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE CHICAGO, Defendants, Case:
1:20-cv-03394 (N.D. Ill., June 9, 2020) alleges that the Defendant
refuses to refund Spring 2020 tuition or fees to the Plaintiff and
the Class.

According to the complaint, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic,
Columbia suspended in-person classroom instruction from March 12,
2020 through April 6, 2020. There were no classes at all for three
full weeks. Columbia unilaterally decided to change the remaining
weeks of the Spring 2020 semester (April 6, 2020 through May 15,
2020) from in-classroom instruction to an online-only format,
despite the Plaintiff and the Class contracting and paying Columbia
tuition and fees for the full Spring 2020 semester for in-person
instruction and full use of on-campus facilities, services, events,
technologies, and supplies.

The Plaintiff requested a prorated refund of his tuition and fees
for March 12 through May 15, 2020 of the Spring 2020 semester, but
Columbia rejected that request, and instead, directed the Plaintiff
on how to take out a loan during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Columbia College Chicago offers degrees in both undergraduate and
graduate level curriculum. The College offers part time and full
time programs in art history, creative writing, dance, fashion
design, journalism, graphic design, marketing communication, music,
and photography. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew T. Peterson, Esq.
          Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
          VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
          1101 E. Cumberland Ave., Ste. 201H, #105
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (352) 753-8600
          Facsimile: (352) 504-3301
          E-mail: mpeterson@varnellandwarwick.com
                  jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com

               - and -

          Gregory P. Smith, Esq.
          OLDHAM & SMITH, PL.
          P.O. Box 1012
          Tavares, FL 32778
          Telephone: (352) 343-4090
          Facsimile: 352-742-4900
          E-mail: greg@oldhamsmith.com


COMERICA INC: Fahmia Seeks Payment of PPP Loan Agent Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
FAHMIA, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COMERICA INC.; COMERICA BANK; COMERICABANK &
TRUST, N.A.; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-01536-B (N.D. Tex., June 11, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for breach of contract, violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law, unjust enrichment, and
conversion.

According to the complaint, the Defendants refused to pay the
Plaintiff and all others similarly-situated agents who assisted
Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan recipients with their
applications. Under the Small Business Administration's PPP passed
by the U.S. Congress on March 27, 2020, the lenders will be
compensated by the federal government in the form of a generous
origination fee and they would be responsible for paying the fee
owed to the loan applicants' agents. The Defendants did not set up
a structure or ask any questions to determine whether PPP borrowers
utilized an agent in completing their applications. The Plaintiff
and Class members have been harmed by the Defendants' practice of
refusing to pay agents who assist in the preparation and submission
of PPP loan application materials because they have no other
recourse for collecting such fees as the responsibility for paying
agents is solely delegated to the lenders as per SBA PPP
regulations.

Fahmia, Inc. is a Certified Public Accounting (CPA) firm
incorporated in California, with its principal place of business
located in Torrance, California.

Comerica Inc. is a financial services company headquartered in
Dallas, Texas.

Comerica Bank is a banking association headquartered in Dallas,
Texas.

Comerica Bank & Trust, N.A. is a financial services firm chartered
under the federal National Bank Act and headquartered in Ann Arbor,
Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:  
         
         Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
         L. Kirstine Rogers, Esq.
         Paul Stickney, Esq.
         STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN PLLC
         12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045
         Dallas, TX 75230
         Telephone: (972) 387-4040
         Facsimile: (972) 387-4041
         E-mail: bruce@stecklerlaw.com
                 krogers@sgc.law
                 judgestick@gmail.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
         E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
                 mmv@mccunewright.com

                  - and –

         Elaine S. Kusel, Esq.
         MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
         One Gateway Center, Suite 2600
         Newark, NY 07102
         Telephone: (973) 737-9981
         E-mail: esk@mccunewright.com

CONVERSE INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Madeira Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Bryan Madeira filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Bryan Madeira v. Converse, Inc., Case No.
5:19-cv-00154-CJC-SP, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Riverside.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge
Cormac J. Carney entered an order:

   1. denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification; and

   2. remanding the action to San Bernardino Superior Court.

In November 2018, the Plaintiff Bryan filed this putative wage and
hour class action against Defendant Converse, Inc., et al., in San
Bernardino Superior Court, asserting claims on behalf of current
and former hourly Converse employees in California. On January 25,
2019, Converse removed the lawsuit to the District Court pursuant
to the Class Action Fairness Act.

The Plaintiff worked as an Equipment Operator at the Converse
Distribution Center from December 7, 2015, through July 18, 2018.

The appellate case is captioned as Bryan Madeira v. Converse, Inc.,
Case No. 20-80063, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner BRYAN MADEIRA, an individual, and on behalf of
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Mikael H. Stahle, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  MStahle@maternlawgroup.com

Defendant-Respondent CONVERSE, INC., a Delaware corporation, is
represented by:

          Michael Afar, Esq.
          Jon D. Meer, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 207-9301
          E-mail: mafar@seyfarth.com
                  jmeer@seyfarth.com


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Agreement Reached in Jadan Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended May 10, 2020, that the parties in the
case, Jadan v. Costco Wholesale Corp., (Case No. 19-CV-340438;
Santa Clara Superior Court; filed Jan. 3, 2019) have reached an
agreement to settle the dispute.

In January 2019, a former seasonal employee filed a class action,
alleging failure to provide California seasonal employees meal and
rest breaks, proper wage statements, and appropriate wages.

The complaint seeks relief under the California Labor Code,
including civil penalties and attorneys' fees.

In October 2019, the parties reached an agreement on a class
settlement, which is subject to court approval.

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

Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label
products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was
formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale
Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah,
Washington.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Bid to Nix Washington Securities Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended May 10, 2020, that the company's motion
to dismiss the consolidated putative class action suit in
Washington remains pending.

The Company and its CEO and CFO are defendants in putative class
actions brought on behalf of shareholders who acquired Company
stock between June 6 and October 25, 2018.

Johnson v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al. (W.D. Wash. filed Nov. 5,
2018); Chen v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al. (W.D. Wash. filed
Dec. 11, 2018).

The complaints allege violations of the federal securities laws
stemming from the Company's disclosures concerning internal control
over financial reporting.

They seek unspecified damages, equitable relief, interest, and
costs and attorneys' fees.

On January 30, 2019, an order was entered consolidating the
actions, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on April
16, 2019.

On November 26, 2019, the court entered an order dismissing the
consolidated amended complaint and granting the plaintiffs leave to
file a further amended complaint.

A further amended complaint was filed on March 9, which the Company
moved to dismiss on April 23.

Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label
products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was
formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale
Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah,
Washington.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Canela Suit Still Stayed Pending 9th Cir. Review
------------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended May 10, 2020, that the class action suit
entitled, Canela v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al. (Case No.
5:13-CV-03598; N.D. Cal.; filed July 1, 2013) is still stayed
pending review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Company is a defendant in a class action alleging violation of
California Wage Order 7-2001 for failing to provide seating to
member service assistants who act as greeters in the Company's
California warehouses.

The complaint seeks relief under the California Labor Code,
including civil penalties and attorneys' fees.

The Company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the
complaint.

The action has been stayed pending review by the Ninth Circuit.

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

Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label
products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was
formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale
Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah,
Washington.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Martinez Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended May 10, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Martinez v. Costco
Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 3:19-cv-05624; N.D. Cal.; filed June 11,
2019).

In June 2019, an employee filed a class action against the Company
alleging claims under California law for failure to pay overtime,
to provide meal and rest periods, itemized wage statements, to
timely pay wages due to terminating employees, to pay minimum
wages, and for unfair business practices.

The Company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the
complaint.

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

Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label
products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was
formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale
Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah,
Washington.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Rough Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended May 10, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Rough v. Costco Wholesale
Corp. (Case No. 2:19-cv-01340; E.D. Cal.; filed May 28, 2019).

In May 2019, an employee filed a class action against the Company
alleging claims under California law for failure to pay overtime,
to provide itemized wage statements, to timely pay wages due to
terminating employees, to pay minimum wages, and for unfair
business practices.

Relief is sought under the California Labor Code, including civil
penalties and attorneys' fees.

In August 2019, Rough filed a companion case in state court seeking
penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General
Act. Rough v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. FCS053454, Sonoma
County Superior Court, filed August 23, 2019).

Relief is sought under the California Labor Code, including civil
penalties and attorneys' fees.

The state court action has been stayed pending resolution of the
federal action.

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

Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label
products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was
formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale
Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah,
Washington.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Decision to Remand Nevarez Suit Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended May 10, 2020, that the decision to
remand the Nevarez v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No.
2:19-cv-03454; C.D. Cal.; filed Mar. 25, 2019) class action suit
has been appealed.

In March 2019, employees filed a class action against the Company
alleging claims under California law for failure to pay overtime,
to provide meal and rest periods and itemized wage statements, to
timely pay wages due to terminating employees, to pay minimum
wages, and for unfair business practices. Relief is sought under
the California Labor Code, including civil penalties and attorneys'
fees.

The Company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the
complaint.

In December 2019, the court issued an order denying class
certification. In January 2020, the Plaintiffs dismissed their
Labor Code claims without prejudice and the court remanded the
action to state court.

The remand is being appealed.

Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label
products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was
formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale
Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah,
Washington.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Opioid Claims in NJ and Oklahoma Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended May 10, 2020, that claims against the
company in the opioid related class suits before state courts in
New Jersey and Oklahoma have been dismissed.

In December 2017, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation consolidated numerous cases filed against various
defendants by counties, cities, hospitals, Native American tribes,
third-party payors, and others concerning the impacts of opioid
abuse.

In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804) (N.D.
Ohio).

Included are federal cases that name the Company, including actions
filed by counties and cities in Michigan, New Jersey, Oregon,
Virginia and South Carolina, a third-party payor in Ohio, and class
actions filed on behalf of infants born with opioid-related medical
conditions in 40 states, and class actions and individual actions
filed on behalf of individuals seeking to recover alleged increased
insurance costs associated with opioid abuse in 43 states and
American Samoa.

In 2019, similar actions were commenced against the Company in
state court in Utah. Claims against the Company in state courts in
New Jersey, Oklahoma, and Arizona have been dismissed.

The Company is defending all of these matters.

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

Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label
products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was
formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale
Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah,
Washington.


DELL TECH: Bid to Dismiss Class V Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------
Dell Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended May 1, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the
complaint in the case, In Re Dell Class V Litigation (Consol. C.A.
No. 2018-0816-JTL), is under consideration.

Four purported stockholders brought putative class action
complaints arising out of the Class V transaction described in Note
1of the Notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

The actions were captioned Hallandale Beach Police and Fire
Retirement Plan v. Michael Dell et al. (Civil Action No.
2018-0816-JTL), Howard Karp v. Michael Dell et al. (Civil Action
No. 2019-0032-JTL), Miramar Police Officers’ Retirement Plan v.
Michael Dell et al. (Civil Action No. 2019-0049-JTL), and
Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan v. Michael Dell et al. (Civil
Action No. 2019-0115-JTL).

The four actions were consolidated in the Delaware Chancery Court
into In Re Dell Class V Litigation (Consol. C.A. No.
2018-0816-JTL), which names as defendants the Company's board of
directors and certain stockholders of the Company, including
Michael S. Dell.

The plaintiffs generally allege that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the former holders of Class V Common Stock in
connection with the Class V transaction by allegedly causing the
Company to enter into a transaction that favored the interests of
the controlling stockholders at the expense of such former
stockholders.

The plaintiffs seek, among other remedies, a judicial declaration
that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and an award of
damages, fees, and costs.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in August 2019 making
substantially similar allegations to those described above. The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action in September 2019.
The plaintiffs replied to the motion to dismiss in November 2019,
and the defendants filed a reply in December 2019.

A hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on March 13, 2020. The
Court has taken this motion under consideration.

Dell Technologies Inc. provides computer products. The Company
offers laptops, desktops, tablets, workstations, servers, monitors,
printers, gateways, software, storage, and net working products.
Dell Technologies serves customers worldwide. Dell Technologies
Inc. was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Round Rock,
Texas.


DELTA PACKING: Barbosa Sues Over Wages, Rest & Meal Breaks
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, IRMA BARBOSA and CECILIA MATA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly-situated v. DELTA PACKING COMPANY OF LODI,
INC., AKA DELTA FRESH; SALINAS FARM LABOR CONTRACTOR, INC.; ERNIE
COSTAMAGNA; ANNAMARIE COSTAMAGNA; and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case
No. 2:20-at-00525 (E.D. Cal., May 29, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
provisions of California labor laws by failing to pay the
Plaintiffs and all others similarly-situated non-exempt employees
all overtime wages and minimum wages owed, failing to provide
timely meal and rest periods, and/or provide appropriate
compensation in lieu thereof, and failing to comply with itemized
employee wage statement provisions.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as non-exempt
employees to work within the Intradistrict Venue of the Sacramento
Division of the Eastern District in California, performing produce
handling, sorting, and packing.

Delta Packing Company of Lodi, Inc. is a grower, packer, and
shipper of cherries, wine grapes and grape juice, with its
principal place of business located at 6021 E. Kettleman Lane,
Lodi, California.

Salinas Farm Labor Contractor, Inc. is a licensed and bonded
freight shipping and trucking company that conducts business in and
around San Joaquin County, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
          
         Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
         Hector R. Martinez, Esq.
         Leanna Marie Sac, Esq.
         MALLISON & MARTINEZ
         1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
         Oakland, CA 94612-3547
         Telephone: (510) 832-9999
         Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
         E-mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com
                 HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com
                 LMSac@TheMMLawFirm.com

DENVER, CO: Faces Class Action Over Police Use of Excessive Force
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CBS4 reports that Denver Police Chief Paul Pazen announced changes
to the department's use of force policy. He sent the memorandum of
changes to the Use of Force Committee on June 7 afternoon, the 11th
day of protests.

Changes included an immediate ban on all chokeholds, saying the
policy is now consistent with a recommendation from the Center for
Policing Equity.

Furthermore, a Use of Force report will be filed when an officer
points a firearm at someone, and body cameras will be required for
SWAT officers during tactical operations.

A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order restricting
police use of tear gas, rubber bullets and other non-lethal weapons
against protesters. The order came after four people who filed a
class-action lawsuit against the city accusing police of using the
weapons to assert dominance and suppress their right to protest had
made a strong case the police had used excessive force.

The judge, Brooke Jackson, said while police officers often have a
thankless job, they have failed to police themselves at the recent
protests.

Part of the order was modified on June 6 at the department's
request to say lieutenants could also approve the use of the
weapons, saying there were not enough captains to comply with the
original order. [GN]


DENVER, CO: TRO Issued Limiting DPD's Use of Less-Lethal Force
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wilson Beese, writing for 9News, reports that protests sparked by
the in-custody death of George Floyd were taking place in Denver
for the 11th straight day.

Denver Public Schools (DPS) students were leading Black Live Matter
march at 10 a.m. from Civic Center to the Martin Luther King Jr.
statue in City Park.

At 10:30 a.m., the crowd left Civic Center and began marching down
Colfax Avenue.

The march comes two days after Denver Board of Education members
formally proposed ending the district's contract with the Denver
Police Department (DPD).

If the proposal is approved, it would remove all DPD officers
currently assigned to DPS schools.

"We want to make sure all students in all of our schools,
especially our students of color, feel safe and protected," said
school board member Tay Anderson, who is spearheading the
proposal.

Anderson and Jennifer Bacon, DPS school board vice president,
introduced a resolution on the morning of June 5 on the steps of
West High School to end the district's contract with the DPD. If
the board approves, it would remove DPD officers from schools in
Colorado's largest school district. It would be a change to a
system of policing that many feel targets students of color.

Broncos lead large demonstration on 10th day of protests

Members of the Broncos organization led one of many demonstrations
in Denver and the rest of the state on June 6.

About 50 players, all 24 coaches, and team executives led a rally
at Civic Center that drew thousands.

Many Broncos address the crowd including outside linebacker
Jeremiah Attaochu, who came to the United States from Nigeria when
he was 8 years old. He spoke about the school systems in this
country and the need for policy changes.

"You can't keep putting a Band-Aid on an old wound," Attaochu said
to the crowd. "Overt police brutality, hate, racism, that is all
built by the system and the younger generation is tired of it. We
want some real healing. We need to heal as a country."

Justin Simmons, Davontae Harris, Alexander Johnson, De'Vante Bausby
and Von Miller were the other Broncos players who spoke to the
large gathering before leading a march through downtown Denver.

Judge modifies temporary restraining order limiting DPD's use of
less-lethal force

June 6 marked the first full day that a temporary restraining order
issued by a federal judge in Colorado limiting DPD's use of
less-lethal force on protesters.

The order came after a class-action complaint filed June 4 in
Denver District Court that claims DPD cannot be trusted with the
use of less-lethal weapons against protesters and that its officers
use them without regard to the constitutional rights of protesters
and bystanders.

The plaintiffs asked for a temporary restraining order barring DPD
officers from the use of tear gas, rubber bullets, pepper balls,
pepper spray and flashbangs.

The order, which was handed down on June 5, puts restrictions on
officers in using any kind of chemical weapons or projectiles
against protesters unless an on-scene supervisor at the rank of
captain or above "specifically authorizes such use of force in
response to specific acts of violence or destruction of property
that the command officer has personally witnessed."

The City and County of Denver filed motion late on June 5 says that
it's not feasible to require a supervisor with the rank of captain
or above to authorize such use of force because DPD has only four
officers of high enough rank in the downtown area. The motion
requests that lieutenants also be allowed to make that call.
Jackson granted that request on June 6.

The city's motion also asks for the elimination of the requirement
that all officers deployed to demonstrations have their body-worn
cameras recording at all times. Jackson wrote "The Court denies the
motion to the extent it requests modification of the body camera
language. However, as a matter of common sense, the Court is not
requiring that body cameras be activated and draining batteries
when nothing is in the officer's vicinity. The cameras should be
activated and filming any and all acts of confrontation between
police officers and others," adding "if that means increasing the
supply of batteries, so be it."

The motion says not all other jurisdictions that have been
assisting DPD with the protests have body-worn cameras and that the
cameras' batteries don't last long enough to keep the camera
recording for the many hours that the protests have been going for.
[GN]


DREXEL UNIVERSITY: Class Action Seeks Refund of Tuition, Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elaine S. Povich, writing for Stateline.org, reports that the
coronavirus left Grainger Rickenbaker, a 21-year-old Drexel
University student and hockey goalie, without in-person lectures,
seminars or labs as the school switched to remote learning. So he
sued.

Rickenbaker is suing the Philadelphia university for the pro-rated
price of his tuition, saying he didn't get what he paid for. His
lawsuit is one of at least 100 closure-related suits filed against
colleges and universities in federal and state courts.

In total, more than 2,000 pandemic-related lawsuits against a
variety of businesses, groups and officials had been filed by the
end of May, according to the law firm Hunton Andrews Kurth, which
has been tracking the cases. Many involve plaintiffs seeking
compensation for what the pandemic has taken, as well as taking aim
at governments and politicians for their restrictive orders.

Some legal experts say cases such as Rickenbaker's will be tough to
win.

Experienced lawyers and professors say signing up for college may
or may not constitute a legal contract. Education has been ongoing,
albeit in a new format. The cost to the college of providing that
education remotely may be more, or less, depending on how it's
calculated.

The atmosphere of the college or university campus, while a selling
point, may or may not be an integral part of the education that the
institution provides.

Sam Hodge Jr., a legal studies professor at Temple University's Fox
School of Business also in Philadelphia, said the schools have
three defenses against such lawsuits. They can argue that the
pandemic has made it impossible to fulfill the contract; they can
say they mitigated the damage by providing online instruction; and
they can point out that they have had to continue to pay salaries
and other expenses.

Moreover, he said, a contract can be superseded by an unforeseen
occurrence of nature -- most contracts have a "force majeure," or
"act of God" clause -- and COVID-19 appears to qualify.

"Most students got most of the semester in the same way they got
the rest of their education; now they are all getting the credits
they were promised toward their degree," said Nashville attorney
Audrey Anderson, a former in-house counsel for Vanderbilt
University who is now in private practice. She suggested since the
students are getting their credits and education, they have not
been deprived.

"Think of it like going to a restaurant and you are used to the
ambiance being a certain way. And there's a fire next door that
interrupts your meal before dessert. Are you going to ask for your
money back? They would say, ‘We've got to close the restaurant
now, but here's your dessert to go.'"

Rickenbaker, the Drexel hockey player, said in a Facebook message
to Stateline that he wasn't able to talk about the case to
reporters. But Roy Willey, a class-action attorney with the
Anastopoulo Law Firm who represents Rickenbaker and many other
students in a class action, said the cases are about basic
fairness.

"Colleges and universities are not unlike any other business in
America, and they too have to tighten their belts during this
unprecedented time," he said in an email. "They are not any more
entitled to keep money for services they are not delivering than
the mom and pop bakery on Main Street."

Drexel refunded room and board for the spring semester, which began
in April (the school is on the quarter system), but not tuition.
The suit estimates that Drexel's tuition reimbursement could be $5
million, plus the $2,405 in fees that Rickenbaker and others paid,
plus damages.

In an emailed statement, Drexel's Niki Gianakaris, director of
media relations, said the university's "top priority is the health
and safety of all members of its community during this
unprecedented time."

"Despite the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, students
continue to have access to Drexel's broad spectrum of academic
offerings and support, building on the University's long-standing
tradition of innovation and creativity in the classroom and remote
environments," she said. "The university is aware of the court
filing and has no further comment on the pending litigation."

Many other colleges and universities have returned pro-rated room
and board payments to students no longer using university housing
and meal plans. But tuition has become a sticking point, since most
schools are continuing to educate students through distance
learning.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs argue there is more to on-campus
learning than what can be transmitted over a video. They cite lab
experiments for science majors and on-stage performances for
theater and dance majors, among others.

Some attorneys and students have speculated that universities with
billions in endowment are in a better position to forgive tuition
payments than other schools that rely on tuition to fund the
day-to-day education they provide. But high-endowment schools argue
that those monies are tightly regulated by agreements with donors
and legal restraints and can be used only for certain purposes.

Public universities may find additional protection in laws that
make it harder to sue states. The California Tort Claims Act, for
example, limits the types of accidents and injuries for which the
state can be liable.

Many suits also are being filed against governors and states
themselves over the COVID-19 crisis, including businesses that
allege they are being hurt by orders to stay closed. In one recent
action, a state Court of Claims judge in Michigan ruled Gov.
Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, was within her constitutional rights
to issue executive orders in response to the pandemic, including
closing businesses.

In some of the college cases, plaintiffs have focused on their loss
of the "city as a classroom" experience, touted by many schools
that see their cities as extensions of their campuses.

One of the highest-profile cases is the suit against New York
University, partially because the school showcases its presence in
the large, vibrant city as an asset, and partially because New York
has been among the areas most affected by the virus.

Christina Rynasko of Palm Beach, Fla., whose daughter Emily studies
musical theater at NYU, sued the school for a partial refund of
tuition, fees, and room and board. "(O)nline classes are
particularly ineffective and inadequate for musical theater majors,
who cannot participate in required performances, receive in-person
feedback/critique, or partake in the facilities necessary to
perform," the suit said.

In an email to Stateline, NYU spokesman John Beckman said the suit
is "unwarranted and ill-advised. The reality is that in the face of
an unprecedented, world-altering pandemic … faculty continue to
teach, and continue to be fully paid; students continue to have
class with their faculty; student work is evaluated; academic
credit is appropriately awarded; and students will graduate."

But whistleblower and class-action expert attorney Brian Mahaney
said there are grounds for these suits, especially when they
involve programs that require hands-on learning like cooking
classes, physical education or physical therapy, to name a few.

"You can't say you are going to learn to play the piano by watching
a video," he said. "It's not the same quality of education."

While his firm has not yet filed any suits, Mahaney has heard from
parents of a handful of students who want to take action, including
parents whose children have gone to the same schools that they
attended.

"They say, ‘I paid for my son to get the same education I got,
and now we are paying and he's sleeping till 4 in the afternoon and
taking a couple of classes (online) and that's not the same.' The
quality of the education is not the same," Mahaney said. "I feel
badly for the kids who are taking on debt to finance this."

Mahaney is best known for bringing a whistleblower claim against
Bank of America for fraudulent housing loans ahead of the Great
Recession. It resulted in a $17 billion settlement, one of the
largest in U.S. history.

Lynn Pasquerella, president of the Association of American Colleges
and Universities, which advocates for liberal education, said the
lawsuits could have a lasting impact, especially as the schools
look toward a safe reopening.

"College and university leaders are doing the best they can to
ensure safety of students, faculty and staff as we plan to reopen,"
she said in a phone interview. "Leaders are facing enormous
uncertainty about COVID-19 standards of care. Even though they have
engaged in reasonable decision-making, it's that uncertainty that
will have an impact."

She called on Congress to protect higher education institutions
"against the economic threat of lawsuits at this moment of maximum
economic vulnerability."

Atlanta attorney Derin Dickerson, an expert in class action and
higher education law at the Alston & Bird firm, said it is
unfortunate that plaintiffs firms are "using these claims against
colleges and universities that are doing the best they can to
ensure the health and safety of students."

He said plaintiffs are going to have a tough time showing that
paying tuition constitutes an actual contract with the school. "You
have to show there's a contract, that it was breached, and you
suffered damages," he said.

And he says arguments that online education is cheaper may not hold
in this instance because colleges had to ramp up technology
quickly, and they are still paying their tenured professors to
teach, rather than hiring professors for lower pay to helm online
courses.

A study by Boston Consulting Group and Arizona State University
found online classes saved colleges between $12 and $66 a credit
hour, but mostly because the classes were taught by adjuncts and
teaching assistants who are paid less than tenured professors.

"In reality, class actions are primarily driven by law firms," he
said. "These class-action law firms walk away with a lot of money."
[GN]


DTE ENERGY: Underpays Staff, Aguilar Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER AGUILAR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. DTE ENERGY COMPANY; DTE PIPELINE COMPANY;
DTE GAS COMPANY; DTE MIDSTREAM, LLC, ENBRIDGE (U.S.) INC.; and
ENBRIDGE INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-11451-SJM-DRG (E.D.
Mich., June 4, 2020) is an action against the Defendants' failure
to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Aguilar was employed by the Defendants as hourly
paid, non exempt employee.

DTE Energy Company, a diversified energy company, develops and
manages energy-related businesses and services nationwide. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, generates, purchases, transmits,
distributes, and sells electric energy in southeastern Michigan.
DTE is also involved in gas pipelines and storage, unconventional
gas exploration, development, and production. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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


DUN & BRADSTREET: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Sacramento Labor Law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik
De Blouw LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Dun & Bradstreet,
Inc., alleging that the company violated labor laws by failing to
provide accurate wages and not providing required rest periods to
their California employees. The class action lawsuit against Dun &
Bradstreet, Inc., is currently pending in the Sacramento Superior
Court, Case No. 34-2020-00277776.

The lawsuit filed against Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., alleges the
company (a) failed to pay minimum wages, (b) failed to pay overtime
wages, (c) failed to provide required meal periods, (d) failed to
provide required rest periods, (e) failed to provide accurate
itemized statements, and (f) failed to provide wages when due.To
the extent that the time worked off the clock did not qualify for
overtime premium payment, DEFENDANT allegedly failed to pay minimum
wages for the time worked off-the-clock in violation of Cal. Lab.
Code §§ 1194, 1197, and 1197.1.

Additionally, from time to time, DEFENDANT also failed to provide
PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS with
complete and accurate wage statements which failed to show, among
other things, the correct gross and net wages earned. Cal. Lab.
Code Sec. 226 provides that every employer shall furnish each of
his or her employees with an accurate itemized wage statement in
writing showing, among other things, gross wages earned and all
applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the
corresponding amount of time worked at each hourly rate.

For more information about the class action lawsuit against Dun &
Bradstreet, Inc., call (800) 568-8020 to speak to Attorney Nicholas
De Blouw.

Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, is a labor law firm
with law offices located in San Diego County, Riverside County, Los
Angeles County, Orange County, Sacramento County, and San Francisco
County. The firm has a statewide practice of representing employees
on a contingency basis for violations involving unpaid
wages,overtime pay, discrimination, harassment, wrongful
termination and other types of illegal workplace conduct. [GN]


DUNCAN TRUCKING: Underpays Employees, Hart Claims
-------------------------------------------------
MARGARET HART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DUNCAN TRUCKING, LTD., an Arizona company,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01186-SPL (D. Ariz., June 15, 2020) is
a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its
alleged unlawful failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt gate attendant
and data entry clerk from in or around November 2018 until on or
around May 12, 2020.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and the Collective Members
routinely worked over 40 hours in a given workweek, but they only
received straight time pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in
a given workweek. Allegedly, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and
the Collective Members overtime at one and one-half times their
regular rate.

Duncan Trucking, Ltd. is a transportation/trucking/railroad
company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Michael Zoldan, Esq.
         Jason Barrat, Esq.
         ZOLDAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
         14500 N. Northsight Blvd., Suite 133
         Scottsdale, AZ 85260
         Tel: 480-442-3410
         Emails: mzoldan@zoldangroup.com
                 jbarrat@zoldangroup.com


ERIE INSURANCE: Faces Business Interruption Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Phil Fairbanks, writing for Buffalo News, reports that in the event
of a blizzard, flood or fire, Mark Hutchinson could always look to
his insurers for help in keeping his string of restaurants afloat.

But what about a global pandemic?

The owner of Hutch's says the answer from his insurer is no, the
Covid-19 outbreak is not an insurable event.

"Business owners pay premiums for years to ensure they're
protected, not to be abandoned at times of crisis," said
Christopher Berloth, one of the lawyers representing Hutchinson's
company.

In a new lawsuit, Hutch & Associates, which also owns the Remington
Tavern in North Tonawanda, point to the "business interruption"
coverage in its commercial insurance policy and says Erie Insurance
was wrong to deny its claim.

Hutch's and the Remington Tavern, both well-known dining spots,
have been closed since March 16, although the Remington Tavern
continued to serve takeout and has since opened its patio.

The suit seeks to become a class action on behalf of other
policyholders and is part of a larger trend unfolding across the
country, the latest consequence of a virus that shuttered
businesses and hit the restaurant industry particularly hard.

Those same restaurants are now learning their insurers don't always
cover virus-related losses, often because of pandemic exclusions in
their policies or a lack of physical damage to the business.

"Given the unpredictability and unimaginable potential for
worldwide losses, insurance is simply unable to cover a global
pandemic," Sean Kevelighan, head of the Insurance Information
Institute, a national industry group, said in a statement.

Like Hutch's, Buffalo Xerographix in Tonawanda is challenging its
insurance denials in court and seeking to turn its lawsuit into a
class action. The defendants in the case include Hartford
Insurance, New England Insurance and Pacific Insurance.

Salvatore's Italian Gardens, one of the region's most well-known
dining venues, is also suing its insurer.

After the SARS crisis in 2003, the insurance industry began
addressing the risks of viruses and bacteria and one of the first
steps was writing specific "virus exclusions" into some commercial
policies.

Buffalo Xerographix, which helps other businesses manage documents
and information, says there is no such exclusion in its policy.

"Insurers are denying claims with little or no investigation into
an insured's specific facts," said Berloth.

To hear him talk, the denials are part of a larger plan for
avoiding claims.

The insurers, Berloth said, are required to communicate with
policyholders about Covid-19 coverage and are using those
communications to discourage and preempt claims.

Their message is "don't waste your time filing," he said.

Like Hutchinson, restaurant owners across the country are taking
their insurers to court and the fight is attracting the support of
celebrity chefs such as Thomas Keller, Wolfgang Puck and Cat Cora.

With the help of other big names, they formed the Business
Interruption Group and used the organization to publicly accuse the
insurance industry of "putting tens of millions of people on
unemployment lines."

"I paid business interruption insurance for the last 38 years,"
Puck told the Los Angeles Times. "They make an excuse and say the
virus is not really included in your insurance. Well, the virus
really didn't shut us down. The government shut us down. They
should pay up. And the government should bail out the insurance
companies the same way they do with the airline industry."

The campaign to force insurers to retroactively provide Covid-19
coverage is also gaining ground in state capitals across the
nation, including Ohio, New Jersey and Massachusetts.

A new bill in the New York State Assembly would require coverage
for all insured companies with 100 employees or less.

The industry is fighting back and recently suggested the "world's
richest chefs" are asking for the retroactive rewriting of
policies, which is both unconstitutional and unwise.

Insurers claim it would put their industry at great financial risk
and threaten their ability to pay covered claims by homeowners,
workers and drivers.

"Tragically, millions of businesses across the country have closed
their doors because of government-ordered shutdowns," Matthew
Sturdevant, a spokesman for Hartford, said in a statement.
"Unfortunately, viruses are generally outside the scope of business
interruption coverage due to the absence of any physical damage."

The industry thinks the business losses caused by Covid-19 are
simply too big for private insurance companies to absorb. Their
answer is the federal government and, more specifically, a proposal
for a federally financed program known as the COVID-19 Business and
Employee Continuity and Recovery Fund. Advocates say that fund
would be modeled after the 911 Victims Compensation Fund and help
businesses hit hard by the coronavirus shutdowns. [GN]


EURO DESIGN & STONE: Underpays Construction Workers, Mariano Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CALVIN ADONY MARIANO ESPINOZA, CESAR GUERRERO, EDWIN FABRICIO
CASHABAMBA TUBON, JOSE GALVEZ, JOSE HERNANDEZ, JUAN MAURICIO
GUZMAN, MELVIN JAVIER AGUILAR, MIGUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ, MOISES
MORALES FELIPE, MONICA ALEXANDRA RAMON ROSALES GALVEZ, RONALD
AGUILAR, JIMMY AGUILAR, ARNOL GARCIA, CRISTIAN MENDEZ ROSAS, MARVIN
AMADOR, and PORFIRIO PEREZ ROSARIO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EURO DESIGN AND STONE
LLC (D/B/A EURO DESIGN AND STONE), SALIH OZEN A.K.A. KADIR OZEN,
ALEXANDER RAMOS A.K.A. JUNIOR MORALES, and ROBERT LALA, Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-04381 (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for failure to compensate the Plaintiffs and
all others similarly-situated construction workers appropriate
minimum wage and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week and for failure to maintain accurate recordkeeping
of all their worked hours, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as construction
workers at sites in Manhattan, Rockland County and Brooklyn for the
corporations located at 1000 Pleasantview Terrace, Ridgefield, New
Jersey from approximately 2018 until or in 2019.

Euro Design and Stone LLC, d/b/a Euro Design and Stone, is a
construction company located at 1000 Pleasantview Terrace,
Ridgefield, New Jersey. [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

FAIR ISAAC: Suit Alleges Monopoly in Credit Score Market
---------------------------------------------------------
ALTERNATIVE FINANCE, INC. and BROOKFIELD MANAGEMENT COMPANY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated,
Plaintiffs v. FAIR ISAAC CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-03204 (N.D. Ill., May 29, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of state antitrust laws and state
consumer protection laws in the U.S.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent similarly-situated end-user
business-customers that indirectly purchased the Defendant's FICO
Score in the business market for credit scores for use and not for
resale from January 1, 2006 through the present.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant is engaged in
anticompetitive practices to maintain and expand its monopoly in
the business market for credit scores. The Defendant entered into
anticompetitive contract terms with credit bureaus, Equifax,
Experian, and TransUnion, to restrict their ability to develop or
sell VantageScore Solutions, a credit scoring system, and any other
credit score alternatives, to foreclose competition from
VantageScore through a penalty pricing and bundling scheme, and to
allow Fair Isaac to extract monopoly prices through contract
provisions. As a result, Fair Isaac has maintained a monopoly share
in excess of 90% of that market and forced businesses, including
the Plaintiffs, to pay artificially inflated prices for credit
scoring services.

Alternative Finance, Inc. is a financial services company located
in East Greenwich, Rhode Island.

Brookfield Management Company is a real property management company
located in Farmington Hills, Michigan.

Fair Isaac Corporation is a data analytics company that focuses on
credit scoring services, with its principal place of business
located at 181 Metro Drive, Suite 700, San Jose, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:   
         
         Carol V. Gilden, Esq.
         COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
         190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1705
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Telephone: (312) 357-0370
         E-mail: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com

               - and –
         
         Brent Johnson, Esq.
         Daniel McCuaig, Esq.
         COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
         1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor
         Washington, DC 20005
         Telephone: (202) 408-4600
         E-mail: bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com
                 dmccuaig@cohenmilstein.com

               - and –
         
         Michael Eisenkraft, Esq.
         Christopher Bateman, Esq.
         David O. Fisher, Esq.
         COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
         88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
         New York, NY 10005
         Telephone: (212) 838-7797
         E-mail: meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com
                 cbateman@cohenmilstein.com
                 dfisher@cohenmilstein.com

               - and –
         
         Aubrey H. Tobin, Esq.
         AUBREY H. TOBIN ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C.
         2140 Walnut Lake Road
         West Bloomfield Township, MI 48323
         Telephone: (248) 932-3070
         E-mail: aubrey@tobinpc.com

FCA US: Faces Class Action Over Defective Tigershark Engines
------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
Chrysler oil consumption lawsuit has been filed alleging vehicles
equipped with 2.4L Tigershark MultiAir II engines burn or consume
abnormally high amounts of oil.

The lawsuit alleges vehicle occupants are put in danger because the
oil consumption problems cause the engines to suddenly shut down
while driving.

And while low oil pressures and stalled engines are allegedly bad
enough, the plaintiffs claim the problems could be avoided if the
oil indicator systems alerted drivers to low oil levels in these
vehicles.

* 2015–2016 Chrysler 200
* 2013–2016 Dodge Dart
* 2016–2020 Fiat 500X
* 2014–2020 Jeep Cherokee
* 2017–2020 Jeep Compass
* 2015–2020 Jeep Renegade

The plaintiffs also allege drivers don't know about dangerously low
oil levels until the vehicles suddenly shut down, even though the
oil change indicators allegedly don't yet recommend a change of
oil.

Fiat Chrysler (FCA US) allegedly knows about oil consumption issues
because hundreds of vehicle owners and lessees have complained
about their vehicles shutting down due to low oil levels.

The automaker also allegedly knows about the Tigershark engines
because a technical service bulletin (TSB) allegedly conceals known
defects by telling dealerships the oil consumption problems are
normal.

Classifying the low oil levels as normal allegedly provides FCA a
way to avoid official recalls as owners spend their own money while
trying to diagnose and repair the excessive oil consumption
issues.

According to the class action lawsuit, customers complained about
underpowered vehicles prior to 2013, causing Chrysler to switch to
the larger 2.4L Tigershark MultiAir II engines.

Chrysler allegedly markets the 2.4L Tigershark engines as
technology to increase engine power and torque, reduce emissions
and decrease fuel consumption. But the lawsuit alleges the MultiAir
system won't function properly unless there is strict maintenance
of oil volume.

The plaintiffs complain about the oil change indicator systems that
receive input from various engine operating conditions to determine
when to change the oil, then drivers are warned it's time to change
the oil.

FCA says conditions such as frequent short trips, towing a trailer
and driving in extremely hot or cold ambient temperatures will
influence when the Change Oil or Oil Change Required messages are
displayed to drivers.

In addition, the owner's manuals say operating a vehicle in severe
conditions may cause the oil message to activate as early as 3,500
miles. Owners are told to change the oil within the next 500
miles.

The manuals also explain the oil should be changed "at 4,000 miles
(6,500 km) or 350 hours of engine run time if the vehicle is
operated in a dusty and off road environment or is operated
predominately at idle or only very low engine RPMs."

The lawsuit alleges in other conditions, the oil change intervals
shouldn't exceed "10,000 miles (16,000 km), twelve months or 350
hours of engine run time, whichever comes first. The 350 hours of
engine run or idle time is generally only a concern for fleet
customers."

Low engine oil will prevent the Tigershark engine from proper
cooling and lubrication, allegedly causing premature wear and
failures of the engine. Vehicle owners further complain how
dealerships allegedly swear a vehicle shutting down in the middle
of a highway is a safety feature.

According to the class action, the Tigershark engines allow oil to
escape past the oil control piston rings and into the combustion
areas. This is allegedly caused by oil control piston rings that do
not function properly with the cylinders in which they operate.

"Although piston rings do not require maintenance, and are
purportedly lifetime parts, the rings in Class Vehicles wear down,
whereby the oil control piston ring is worn flush with the piston
wall, allowing engine oil to be consumed during the compression
cycle." - Oil consumption lawsuit

The Chrysler oil consumption lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan: Davis, et al., v. FCA
US LLC.

The plaintiffs are represented by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
the Miller Law Firm, P.C., and Goldenberg Schneider, LPA. [GN]


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Indirect Customers' Suit Ongoing in Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that there are 13 remaining
state law claims brought by a putative class of indirect
customers.

Ferrellgas, L.P. has been named as a defendant, along with a
competitor, in putative class action lawsuits filed in multiple
jurisdictions. The lawsuits, which were consolidated in the Western
District of Missouri on October 16, 2014, allege that Ferrellgas
and a competitor coordinated in 2008 to reduce the fill level in
barbeque cylinders and combined to persuade a common customer to
accept that fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs
to direct customers and end-user customers in violation of federal
and certain state antitrust laws.

The lawsuits seek treble damages, attorneys' fees, injunctive
relief and costs on behalf of the putative class. These lawsuits
have been coordinated for pretrial purposes by the multidistrict
litigation panel.

The Federal Court for the Western District of Missouri initially
dismissed all claims brought by direct and indirect customers other
than state law claims of indirect customers under Wisconsin, Maine
and Vermont law. The direct customer plaintiffs filed an appeal,
which resulted in a reversal of the district court's dismissal.

The company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari which was
denied. An appeal by the indirect customer plaintiffs resulted in
the court of appeals affirming the dismissal of the federal claims
and remanding the case to the district court to decide whether to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law
claims.

Thereafter, in August 2019, Ferrellgas, L.P. reached a settlement
with the direct customers, pursuant to which it agreed to pay a
total of $6.25 million to resolve all claims asserted by the
putative direct purchaser class.  

With respect to the indirect customers, the district court
exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law
claims, but then granted in part Ferrellgas' pleadings-based motion
and dismissed 11 of the 24 remaining state law claims.  

As a result, there are 13 remaining state law claims brought by a
putative class of indirect customers.  

Ferrellgas, L.P. believes it has strong defenses and intends to
vigorously defend itself against these remaining claims.  

Ferrellgas, L.P. does not believe loss is probable or reasonably
estimable at this time related to the putative class action
lawsuit.

Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. distributes and sells propane and related
equipment and supplies. The company transports propane to propane
distribution locations, tanks on customers' premises, or to
portable propane tanks delivered to retailers. Ferrellgas Partners,
L.P. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Overland Park,
Kansas.


FIRST LINE: Underpays Construction Workers, Maldonado et al. Say
----------------------------------------------------------------
FREDIS MALDONADO, IVIS GUEVARA SANCHEZ, JOSE R. JACO, and PABLO
GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. FIRST LINE CONTRACTING GROUP INC. (D/B/A FIRST LINE
CONTRACTING), MIKE MOUROUNAS, PETER DOE, ASPIRO DOE, and MIKE DOE,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02566 (E.D.N.Y., June 9, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendants for failure to compensate the
Plaintiffs and all others similarly-situated construction workers
appropriate overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week and for failure to maintain accurate recordkeeping of all
their worked hours, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as roofers and
mechanics at the construction corporation located at 24-38 47th St.
Astoria, New York between 2017 and 2020.

First Line Contracting Group Inc., d/b/a First Line Contracting, is
a construction company located at 24-38 47th St. Astoria, New York
and at 7-30 130th St. College Point, 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

FIRST SOLAR: Agreement in Principle Entered in Maverick Fund Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
First Solar, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated June 5, 2020, that the
Company and the plaintiffs in the case, Maverick Fund, L.D.C. v.
First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01156-ROS (the Opt-Out
Action), have entered into an agreement in principle to settle the
claims in the Opt-Out Action.

First Solar and certain of its current and former directors and
officers are defendants in a lawsuit titled Maverick Fund, L.D.C.
v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01156-ROS (the
"Opt-Out Action"), which was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Arizona by putative stockholders that
opted out of the purported class action lawsuit titled Smilovits v.
First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No 2:12-cv-00555-DGC (the "Class
Action"), filed in the Court.

On June 3, 2020, the Company and the plaintiffs in the Opt-Out
Action entered into an agreement in principle to settle the claims
in the Opt-Out Action.

Under the terms of the agreement in principle, the Company has
agreed to pay a total of $19 million in exchange for a dismissal
with prejudice of the Opt-Out Action and mutual releases.

The Company had accrued $13 million of estimated losses for the
Opt-Out Action as of March 31, 2020, which represented the
Company's best estimate of the lower bound of the costs to resolve
this case.

The proposed settlement contains no admission of liability,
wrongdoing, or responsibility by any of the defendants, and is
subject to the negotiation and execution of a definitive settlement
agreement among the parties.

The entry into the agreement in principle does not affect the
class-wide settlement filed with the Court in the Class Action on
February 13, 2020.

First Solar, Inc. provides photovoltaic (PV) solar energy solutions
in the United States and internationally. It operates in two
segments, Modules and Systems. The company was formerly known as
First Solar Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to First Solar,
Inc. in 2006. First Solar, Inc. was founded in 1999 and is
headquartered in Tempe, Arizona.


FLOWERS BAKING: Shepard Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to E.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLAS SHEPARD, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. FLOWERS BAKING CO
OF MODESTO, LLC., a California limited liability company, ABM
GENERAL SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. CV-20-002203 (Filed April 28, 2020), was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Stanislaus to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California on June 2, 2020.

The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-at-00396 to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges claims for failure to pay lawful wages owed;
failure to provide lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu
thereof; failure to provide lawful rest periods or compensation in
lieu thereof; failure to timely pay wages; knowing and intentional
failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions;
failure to indemnify employees for expenditures; and violations of
the unfair competition law.

Flowers Baking was founded in 2013. The Company's line of business
includes the manufacturing of fresh or frozen bread and bread-type
rolls, cakes, pies, and other perishable bakery products.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alexander M. Chemers, Esq.
          Jared L. Palmer, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213-239-9800
          Facsimile: 213-239-9045
          E-mail: alexander.chemers@ogletree.com
                  jared.palmer@ogletree.com


FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Funds Sue over Botched Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------
THE ARBITRAGE FUND; WATER ISLAND LEVARB FUND, LP; WATER ISLAND
DIVERSIFIED EVENT-DRIVEN FUND; WATER ISLAND MERGER ARBITRAGE
INSTITUTIONAL COMINGLED MASTER FUND LP; and ALTSHARES MERGER
ARBITRAGE ETF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; MICHAEL
DECESARE; and CHRISTOPHER HARMS, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-03819
(N.D. Cal., June 10, 2020) alleges violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, on May 18, 2020, Forescout
Technologies, Inc. announced that on May 158 it received notice
from its acquisition partner, Advent International Corporation
("Advent"), that Advent "would not be proceeding to consummate the
acquisition of Forescout" pursuant to the parties February 6, 2020
merger agreement. As a result of the disclosure, Forescout's stock
price plummeted 23.5% from $29.52 per share at close on May 15 to
$22.57 per share at close on May 18, wiping out approximately $300
million in market capitalization.

During February 6, 2020 to May 15, 2020, inclusive, Forescout
failed to reveal to investors that: (i) its fourth quarter 2019
revenues were inflated by the abnormal transaction with Merlin
International: (ii) its financial performance was experiencing a
significant and disproportionate decline starting early in the
first quarter of 2020, (iii) Advent repeatedly expressed concerns
regarding Forescout's recent financial performance; (iv) Forescout
was not meeting its obligations under the Merger Agreement; (v)
there was a material risk the Transaction would not close or (vi)
that Advent had informed Forescout it was considering terminating
the Merger Agreement.

ForeScout Technologies, Inc. provides automated security control
solutions. The Company develops proprietary agentless technology
that discovers and classifies IP-based devices in real time as they
connect to the network and monitors their security posture.
ForeScout Technologies serves industries and organizations
worldwide. [BN]

                           *.   *.   *

Michael Novinson, writing for CRN.com, reports Forescout sued
Advent on May 20 after the private equity firm failed to close its
previously announced $1.9 billion buy of the cybersecurity vendor.
Advent said it received an email May 5 from
forescout.whistleblower@protonmail.com alleging that Forescout
involved Merlin in a “channel stuffing scheme” during Q4 2019.
Forescout says the claim is without merit. Advent has subpoenaed
Merlin in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
          Krysta Kauble Pachman, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 789-3100
          Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
          E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
                  kpachman@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
          ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
          401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1170
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 710-5960
          Facsimile: (212) 894-7272
          E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com

               - and -

          Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq.
          Brendan J. Brodeur, Esq.
          Andrew M. Sher, Esq.
          ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
          299 Park Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10171
          Telephone: (212) 894-7200
          Facsimile: (212) 894-7272
          E-mail: vcappucci@entwistle-law.com
                  bbrodeur@entwistle-law.com
                  asher@entwistle-law.com


FROEDTERT HEALTH: Mismanaged 401(k) Plan, Bangalore Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
NITISH S. BANGALORE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. FROEDTERT HEALTH, INC.; THE BOARD
OF DIRECTORS OF FROEDTERT HEALTH, INC.; and FROEDTERT HEALTH, INC.
BENEFIT PLAN COMMITTEE, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00893 (E.D.
Wis., June 12, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
breach of fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence and for failure
to adequately monitor other fiduciaries pursuant to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all participants and
beneficiaries of the Froedtert Health, Inc. 403(b) Plan beginning
six years before the commencement of this action and running
through the date of judgment, alleges that the Defendants failed to
employ a prudent and loyal process by failing to critically or
objectively evaluate the cost and performance of the Plan's
investments and fees in comparison to other investment options. The
Defendants selected and retained for years as Plan investment
options mutual funds with high expenses relative to other
investment options that were readily available to the Plan at all
relevant times. The Defendants also failed to engage in a prudent
process for monitoring the Plan's investments and removing
imprudent ones within a reasonable period. This resulted in the
Plan continuing to offer unreasonably expensive funds and share
classes compared to equivalent and/or comparable low-cost
alternatives that were available to the Plan. In addition, the
Defendants failed to remove members of the Benefits Plan Committee
whose performance was inadequate in that they continued to maintain
imprudent, excessively costly, and poorly performing investments
within the Plan, and caused the Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping
fees, all to the detriment of the Plan and Plan participants'
retirement savings.

Froedtert Health, Inc. is a healthcare services provider with its
principal headquarters located at 400 Woodland Prime, Suite 302,
N74 W12501 Leatherwood Court, Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:  
         
         James A. Walcheske, Esq.
         Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
         Paul M. Secunda, Esq.
         WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
         15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
         Brookfield, WI 53005
         Telephone: (262) 780-1953
         Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
         E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                 sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                 psecunda@walcheskeluzi.com

FRUTAROM INDUSTRIES: Class Action in the U.S. Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Tomer Ganon, writing for CTech, reports that in the early hours of
June 3, following a few weeks' delay due to the coronavirus
(Covid-19) outbreak, the opening shot was fired. The Israeli police
and investigators from the Israel Securities Authority (ISA)
knocked on the doors of five former Frutarom Industries Ltd.
executives to search their homes and hurl them in for questioning.
At the same time, during a raid on Frutarom's offices in central
Israeli town Herzliya, some 15 computers and cellphones were
confiscated by the police.

The executives - the most prominent of whom was Frutarom's former
CEO and president Ori Yehudai who was at the company's helm for 20
years - may have been surprised by the timing of the raid but not
by the allegations that led to it.

In August last year, Frutarom's parent company, NYSE-listed
International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. (IFF), announced it had
uncovered bribes and improper payments made by Frutarom
representatives in Russia and Ukraine in aninternal probe. Since
then, additional suspicions of fraud, breach of trust, false
entries in corporate documents, and various violations of Israeli
securities laws have come to light.

The arrested former executives were released after a Tel Aviv court
ruled they were not to leave the country for 180 days. They were
also required to post high bail: NIS 1 million (approximately
$288,000) for Yehudai; NIS 500,000 (approximately $144,000) for Ari
Rosenthal, formerly Frutarom's general manager for Israel and
emerging markets; NIS 450,000 (approximately $129,700) for Alon
Granot, the company's former chief financial officer and now the
chairman of Israeli cannabis cultivator Canndoc Ltd.; NIS 300,000
(approximately $86,500) for former vice president of finance Guy
Gill; and NIS 50,000 (approximately $14,400) for Igor Alterman,
formerly the company's general manager of Russia and Ukraine.

The official investigation started after IFF released the findings
of the internal probe it conducted about a year after it acquired
Frutarom for over $6.4 billion. According to IFF, it only learned
of any misdoing after the deal was signed.

Now, it has become clear what instigated IFF's probe, to begin
with. In July 2018, an IFF stakeholder, MK Investments LLC, sent a
24-page letter before action to Yehudai and additional former
Frutarom executives. The letter, reviewed by Calcalist, was based
on evidence and testimonies that have reached MK Investments. About
six weeks after the letter was sent, IFF first informed its
shareholders that it had initiated the probe, conducted by
international law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP. The
materials first presented in the letter are now being used as
evidence in the criminal investigation as well as a class-action
lawsuit in the U.S.

In the letter, sent by Israel-based law firm Elbert, Nazaretsky,
Rakov & Co., MK Investments demands to be paid between $454 million
and $611 million in damages, otherwise, it will be forced to take
legal actions. In its letter, MK Investments claimed the bribe
mechanism it has uncovered has affected at least NIS 280 million
(approximately $80 million) in Frutarom's revenue in 2008-2018. MK
Investments claimed that, since these revenues were earned as a
result of bribes paid to officials in eastern Europe, they could
potentially expose IFF, in which it holds a stake to heavy fines,
according to U.S. federal laws.

One term that repeated itself throughout the letter is "otkat," the
Russian equivalent of kickback, meaning the diversion of part of
the funds allocated for a purchase to a person responsible for said
purchase. The letter refers to cash paid unlawfully to key figures
in client companies meant to secure a flow of orders, increase the
deals' size, or hike their prices. According to the letter,
Rosenthal was a key figure in Frutarom's otkat mechanism. MK
Investments also alleged that Yehudai and chairman John Farber were
fully aware of the payments and that they were made with their
approval.

"Frutarom made illicit payments to its clients' key employees," the
letter stated. "These payments were sometimes referred to as
bonuses or commissions but sometimes also openly as otkat," it
continued. In Russia, these bribes sometimes amounted to 2%-15% of
the total deal and, at other times, were calculated at a set price
per kilogram of product sold, the letter said.

In some cases, the letter further alleged, "the payments made by
the client were intentionally inflated in Frutarom's books, with
the bribed employee pocketing the difference in cash. In other
cases, the bribe was used to get key people to agree, on behalf of
their employers, to pay more for Frutarom's product, according to
the letter.

"The bribes were paid in cash from time to time, ranging from tens
of dollars to thousands of dollars, with the sums paid to each of
the customers' employees approved beforehand by Frutarom's
management in Israel," the letter stated. It further alleged that
delivering the bribes was the responsibility of Frutarom's
employees in Russia in accordance with sales made, that the
payments were included in Frutarom's expense budget, and that
monthly, quarterly, and annual reports on them were issued.

According to MK Investments' letter, the bribes were an open secret
at Frutarom's Russia offices, its developing markets department,
and its finance division in Israel and was referred to as regular
expenses. "Coordinating otkat payments regarding specific clients
in accordance with pre-approved sums was done via email
correspondence in Russian between Frutarom employees and their
direct managers," the letter stated. Approval of a new otkat or any
changes to its sums were made via email correspondence in English
between Rosenthal and Frutarom executives, it further alleged.

Routine updates in English, which named the customer, its bribed
employee, their position in the company, and the sums paid were
sent to Gill, while Yehudai and Granot were informed on more
principal issues, the letter stated. "On several occasions, the
bribes were even discussed by the company's internal auditor and
its chairman," it added.

According to the letter, the otkat practice was employed by
Frutarom for at least nine years, between 2009 and 2018, in which
millions of dollars were paid as bribes by the company. In 2010,
for example, Frutarom paid bribes for 31.8% of its sales in Russia,
the letter stated, estimating the average for the entire nine-year
period to be 35% of all deals. MK Investments estimated that
Frutarom's sales for the period in Russia amounted to some $152
million, meaning that at least $53.2 million were derived from
deals procured through bribes.

According to the letter, Frutarom's methods in Ukraine were similar
but, there, bribes were also paid to customs officials to hurry the
release of Frutarom's imports from customs. The payments were
referred to in Frutarom's Ukraine activity as cash expenses or cash
commissions and were calculated either as 3%-10% of the total sales
or using a set sum per kilo.

MK Investments alleged in its letter that after concerns were
raised that using foreign currency to pay bribes in Ukraine was too
risky, Frutarom changed the way it transfers the bribes. Instead of
having employees bring in cash from Israel, Frutarom began to
inflate its employees' salaries in Ukraine and pay them in cash.
The employees then used the excess payments to pay off state
officials, the letter alleges.

Here too, according to MK Investments, regular reports in English
were sent to the finance division for the approval of Gill,
Yehudai, Granot, and Farber. According to the letter, Frutarom paid
thousands of dollars in bribes in Ukraine each month and a total of
millions throughout the period. In 2010, the letter states, 49.3%
of Frutarom's sales in Ukraine were the result of bribes and it is
safe to assume that the average for the entire nine-year period to
be as high as 60% of all deals. According to MK Investments'
estimates, Frutarom's sales revenue in Ukraine throughout the
period amounted to some $46 million, at least $27.6 million of
which were for sales secured through bribes paid to customers'
employees. "Together with the bribes paid to customs officials, it
would appear all of Frutarom's activity in Ukraine was tainted with
bribes," the letter states.

The letter mentioned various documents reviewed by the lawyers
proving the involvement of Frutarom's Israeli management in the
bribe operation in eastern Europe. The letter alleged that the
effectiveness of the bribes paid was often carefully examined by
the company. The letter also claimed that, in January 2009, Gill
specifically instructed employees to only pay bribes for completed
and paid for transactions.

According to the letter, Yehudai and Farber were fully aware of
these practices. Frutarom's management knew that the bribe payment
operation put the company at risk and attempted to minimize the
chances of it being uncovered and that is why it changed the way
the money was handled in Ukraine, the letter claims. "The bribe
operation was also examined by the company's internal auditor, who
discussed it with Yehudai and Farber, but the bribes' overall
positive effect on Frutarom's sales in Russia and Ukraine was so
massive that the management was unwilling to let go of it, despite
the risk," the letter stated.

Navit Negev and Iris Niv-Sabag of Sheinman-Negev-Niv Law Offices,
Moshe Mazor of Goldfarb Seligman, and Nati Simchoni who represent
Yehudai, Granot, Gill, and Rosenthal, respectively, did not respond
to Calcalist's request for comment. IFF and Frutarum's
representation, Pinhas Rubin and Lior Porat of Gornitzky & Co. did
not respond as well. Farber could not be reached for comment.

In response to Calcalist's request for comment, Coby Margolov and
Alon Harel of law firm Katz, Margolov, Harel, who represent
Alterman, stated: "our client filled a number of positions at
Frutarom before being fired in 2014 over a professional
disagreement with the management that is currently under
investigation." [GN]


G4S SECURE: Clark and Duffy Sue Over Unlawful Wages
----------------------------------------------------
JULIE CLARK and TIMOTHY DUFFY, on behalf of themselves and all
persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS
(USA) INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
STK-CV-VOE-2020-4301 (Calif. Super., San Joaquin Cty., May 27,
2020) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum wages and overtime compensation, maintain time records,
offer paid rest and meal breaks, and provide itemized wage
statements in violation of the California Labor Code.

Plaintiffs worked for Defendant as security guards in the state of
California.

G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc. is an American/British-based
security services company situated in California, and a subsidiary
of G4S PLC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by :

          Adam Blair Corren, Esq.
          Spencer D. Sinclair, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CORREN & CORREN
          5345 N. El Dorado, Suite 7
          Stockton, CA 95207
          Telephone: (209) 478-2621
          Facsimile: (209) 478-3038
          Email: acorren@correnlaw.com
                 ssinclair@correlaw.com

GENERAL MOTORS LLC: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Ignition Switch MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Patricia Barker, et al., filed an appeal from court
rulings entered in the multidistrict litigation entitled In re:
General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, Case No. 14-md-2543,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Jesse
Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court's Summary Judgment Ruling in the
General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation.

The litigation arises from alleged defects in the ignition switches
and other features of certain General Motors vehicles. Some of the
claims are brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of putative classes of
GM car owners and lessors whose vehicles were subject to recalls
and who now seek to recover economic losses, on the theory that
they overpaid for their vehicles because a car with a safety defect
is worth less than a car without a safety defect.

In particular, the Court reached three significant conclusions.
First, the Court held that, in all three Bellwether States,
Plaintiffs' benefit-of-the-bargain damages are properly measured as
the lesser of (1) the cost of repair, or (2) the difference in fair
market value between the Plaintiffs' cars as warranted and those
same cars as sold.

Second, the Court explained: That means that evidence of New GM's
post-sale repairs is relevant to the calculation of Plaintiffs'
damages and, indeed, could theoretically eliminate those damages
altogether.

Third, and most significantly, the Court concluded that, whether or
not Plaintiffs' claims for cost-of-repair damages could survive New
GM's motion, Plaintiffs' claims for difference-in-value' damages
could not because Plaintiffs' sole evidence of such damages, the
expert testimony of Stefan Boedeker was insufficient as a matter of
Bellwether State law to establish the existence of damages, an
essential element of any such claim.

The Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of three aspects of the Court's
summary judgment Opinion and Order.

First, Plaintiffs challenge the Court's conclusion that, under
California law, benefit-of-the-bargain damages may be mitigated,
including through post-sale recalls and repairs.

Second, Plaintiffs argue that Texas law does not allow complete
mitigation of benefit-of-the-bargain damages sustained by
plaintiffs whose products manifested defects.

Third, and most significantly, Plaintiffs urge the Court to reverse
its holding that the evidence, in particular, Boedeker's expert
analysis is insufficient as a matter of law to establish
benefit-of-the-bargain damages based on a difference in value.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: General Motors LLC
Ignition Switch Litigation, Case No. 20-1119, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Patricia Barker, individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated; Chimen Basseri; Michael Benton;
Kimberly Brown-Shipley; Kellie Cereceres; Sylvia Benton,
indiviually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Yvonne
James-Bivens; Javier F. Malaga, an individual; and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; Crystal Hardin; Santiago Orosco; David
Padilla; Winifred Mattos; William L. Rukeyser; Michelle Thomas;
Esperanza Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; Deloris Hamilton; Cynthia Hawkins; Brad Akers;
Ronald Robinson; Mario Stefano; Kenneth Robinson; Patrice
Witherspoon; Gareebah Al-ghamdi; Christopher Tinen; Dawn Fuller;
Michael Graciano; Dawn Bacon; Lisa McClellan; Lisa Simmons;
Shenyesa Henry; Malinda Stafford; and Keisha Hunter are represented
by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 2nd Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com

Defendant-Appellee General Motors LLC is represented by:

          Andrew Baker Bloomer, Esq.
          Richard C. Godfrey, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          300 North LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 862-2482
          E-mail: andrew.bloomer@kirkland.com
                  richard.godfrey@kirkland.com


GOOGLE INC: Faces Privacy Class Action Over Incognito Mode
----------------------------------------------------------
The Economic Times reports that search engine behemoth Google found
itself in the middle of a proposed class action lawsuit filed in
California for invading the privacy of users even when they are
browsing the web in what is called the private or incognito mode.

The $5 billion class action suit alleges that the tech giant
collects user's data by tracking his activity on the web even in
the private mode through Google Analytics, Google Ad Manager and
website plug-ins, a Reuters report said.

Users normally login through the incognito mode assuming that it's
safe as their search history isn't being tracked. The petitioners
have alleged that Google collects the private data even as the
users are under the impression that their data is safe and that
amounts to misrepresentation.

Google, in its response, has denied the allegations and says that
it has been upfront in disclosing that websites could collect data
of the user each time they open them in the incognito mode.

"As we clearly state each time you open a new incognito tab,
websites might be able to collect information about your browsing
activity," Jose Castaneda, Google's spokesman, said.

The complainants have alleged that the search engine giant has
violated the federal wiretap law and the California Invasion of
Privacy Act.

The federal wiretap act prohibits the intentional or purposeful
interception, disclosing or using the contents of a wire, oral or
electronic communication. The California Invasion of Privacy Act
prohibits tapping into private communication and thereby
maintaining the privacy of individuals. [GN]


GOOGLE LLC: Grand Atlas et al. Allege Digital Ad Markets Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GRAND ATLAS TOURS, SUREFREIGHT GLOBAL LLC DBA PRANA PETS, and
HANSON LAW FIRM, PC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE LLC and ALPHABET INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-03556 (N.D. Cal., May 27, 2020)
contends that, in violation of the Sherman Act and the Unfair
Competition Law, search-engine giant Google has through unlawful
means acquired and maintained a monopoly in digital advertising
markets.

Over the past several years, Google leveraged its stranglehold on
online search and search advertising to gain an illegal monopoly in
brokering display advertising on other companies' websites. Google
achieved this market dominance in part by acquiring rivals in the
online advertising space, conditioning access to its search-results
data and YouTube video advertising platform upon the purchase of
its separate display advertising services, and ensuring those
systems were not compatible with those of its competitors in online
advertising.

Because of Google's pervasive monopoly conduct, companies,
including the Plaintiffs, who wish to place online advertisements
have little choice but to pay Google for its advertising services.
The result of Google's extraction of monopoly rents has been higher
advertising prices, higher consumer prices, lower payments to
publishers of online advertisements, and reduced competition in the
purchase and placement of online advertisements.

The Plaintiffs dealt directly with Google in its capacity as
digital advertising broker, having placed online advertisements
using Google's services. Plaintiffs, like the other class members,
overpaid or otherwise suffered economic losses due to Google's
monopolization of these markets, and therefore sue for damages and
appropriate injunctive relief.

Google LLC is a California-based technology company that provides
Internet-related services and products, including online
advertising technologies and a search engine.

Alphabet Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware
with its principal place of business in Mountain View, California.
Google LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alphabet.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christina C. Sharp, Esq.
          Jordan Elias, Esq.
          Adam E. Polk, Esq.
          Scott M. Grzenczyk, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          Email: dsharp@girardsharp.com
                 jelias@girardsharp.com
                 apolk@girardsharp.com
                 scottg@girardsharp.com

               - and -

          Scott L. Silver, Esq.
          SILVER LAW GROUP
          11780 W. Sample Road
          Coral Springs, FL 33065
          Telephone: (954) 755-4799
          Email: ssilver@silverlaw.com

GREAT AMERICAN: Fails to Notify Close of Policy, Tavakolian Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
HAMID R. TAVAKOLIAN, Individually, and on Behalf of the Class v.
GREAT AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation, Case
No. 5:20-cv-01133 (C.D. Cal., June 2, 2020), arises from GALIC's
refusal to comply with mandatory provisions of the California
Insurance Code, as well as California common law, regulating the
lapse and termination of life insurance policies.

Since January 1, 2013, GALIC and other related entities have
systematically and purposely failed to provide certain classes of
policy owners, insureds, assignees and others, proper notices of
pending lapse or termination, according to the complaint.

The Plaintiff contends that GALIC has failed to notify thousands of
policy owners of their right to designate someone to receive
critical notices and information regarding life insurance, despite
being required to do so on an annual basis. All of these important
safeguards are required by California Insurance Code. Ultimately,
the Plaintiff alleges, the Defendant has robbed thousands of their
customers and beneficiary of the investment in such policies,
policy benefits as well as the security intended to be provided
from such insurance.

Great American operates as a stock insurance company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
          Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
          NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
          225 Broadway, 19th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 325-0492
          Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
          E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
                  atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org

               - and -

          Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq.
          Georg M. Capielo, Esq.
          Sarah Ball, Esq.
          WINTERS & ASSOCIATES
          8489 La Mesa Boulevard
          La Mesa, CA 91942
          Telephone: (619) 234-9000
          Facsimile: (619) 750-0413
          E-mail: jackbwinters@earthlink.net
                  gcapielo@einsurelaw.com
                  sball@einsurelaw.com


GREAT CONSTRUCTION: Cruz Seeks Overtime Pay for Workers
-------------------------------------------------------
The case, JORGE CRUZ, CARLOS CRUZ, WILLIAM ORDONEZ, AND SEGUNDO
ORDONEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated v. GREAT CONSTRUCTION GROUP CORP., GREAT
CONSTRUCTION PARTNERS CORP., EVERWOOD CONSTRUCTION INC., JIRI
OSICKA, AND KAMIL SVRCEK, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-04380
(S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to
compensate the Plaintiffs and all others similarly-situated current
and former employees overtime premium pay for hours worked beyond
40 hours in a workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Wage Theft Prevention Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as construction
workers in New York at any time since May 20, 2017.

Great Construction Group Corp. is a construction company with a
business address of 111 Manor Road, Patterson, New York.

Great Construction Partners Corp. is a construction company with
actual address of 111 Manor Road, Patterson, New York.

Everwood Construction Inc. is a construction company with a
registered business address of 1036 Route 6, Mahopac, New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
         
         David Stein, Esq.
         SAMUEL & STEIN
         38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
         New York, NY 10001
         Telephone: (212) 563-9884
         E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com

GREIF INC: Suit Over Noxious Odor at Wisconsin Plant Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Greif, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended April 30, 2020, that the company, together with Container
Life Cycle Management (CLCM), continues to defend a putative class
action suit in Wisconsin concerning one of CLCM's Milwaukee
reconditioning facilities.

On November 8, 2017, the Company, Container Life Cycle Management
(CLCM) and other parties were named as defendants in a punitive
class action lawsuit filed in Wisconsin state court concerning one
of CLCM's Milwaukee reconditioning facilities.

The plaintiffs are alleging that odors from this facility have
invaded their property and are interfering with the use and
enjoyment of their property and causing damage to the value of
their property.

Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages, along
with their legal fees.

The Company and CLCM are vigorously defending themselves in this
lawsuit.

The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or
estimate a range of reasonably possible losses.

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

Greif, Inc. produces and sells industrial packaging products and
services worldwide. It operates through four segments: Rigid
Industrial Packaging & Services; Paper Packaging & Services;
Flexible Products & Services; and Land Management.  The company was
formerly known as Greif Bros. Corporation and changed its name
toGreif, Inc. in 2001. Greif, Inc. was founded in 1877 and is
headquartered in Delaware, Ohio.


HEALTHEQUITY INC: Purchasers' Class Suit v. WageWorks Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
HealthEquity, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that WageWorks, Inc.
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit initiated by
its common stock purchasers.

On August 30, 2019, HealthEquity, Inc. closed the acquisition of
WageWorks, Inc. ("WageWorks"), pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), for $51.35 per share in cash, or
approximately $2.0 billion to WageWorks stockholders (the
"Acquisition").

On March 9, 2018, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (the
"Securities Class Action").

On May 16, 2019, a consolidated amended complaint was filed by the
lead plaintiffs asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, against WageWorks,
its former Chief Executive Officer and its former Chief Financial
Officer on behalf of purchasers of WageWorks common stock between
May 6, 2016 and March 1, 2018.

The complaint also alleges claims under the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, arising from WageWorks' June 19, 2017 common stock
offering against those same defendants, as well as the members of
its board of directors at the time of that offering.

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

HealthEquity, Inc. is an American health care company that is
designated as a non-bank health savings trustee by the IRS.[2] This
designation allows HealthEquity to be the custodian of health
savings accounts regardless of which financial institution the
funds are deposited with. The company is based in Draper, Utah.


HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Cynes Sues over 18% Drop in Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL CLYNES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HEBRON TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.; ANYUAN SUN; and
CHANGJUAN LIANG, Defendants, Case 1:20-cv-04420 (S.D.N.Y., June 9,
2020) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Hebron securities between April 24,
2020 and June 3, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), pursuing
claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

According to the complaint, Hebron conducts equipment and
engineering service operations focusing on the research,
development and manufacture of fluid equipment including valves,
pipe fittings and others. Since July 2019, the Company has also
provided financial advisory service operations.

On June 3, 2020, Grizzly Research presented a report alleging that
Hebron is an "insider enrichment scheme without economic basis,"
citing questionable transactions including an undisclosed related
party transaction for nearly $26 million. On this news, the
Company's share price fell $8.26, or nearly 37%, to close at $14.29
per share on June 3, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume. The
stock continued to decline the next trading session by $2.51, or
nearly 18%, to close at $11.78 per share on June 4, 2020, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that many of Hebron's acquisitions, including
Beijing Hengpu and Nami Holding (Cayman) Co., Ltd., involved
undisclosed related parties; (2) that the Company's disclosure
controls regarding related party transactions was ineffective; and
(3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

Hebron Technology Co., Ltd. develops and manufactures valves and
pipe fittings. The Company offers pipeline design, installation,
construction, and ongoing maintenance services, as well as holistic
solution services. Hebron Technology serves the pharmaceuticals,
biology, food, and beverage industries in Shanghai, Wenzhou, and
Taiwan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Ave., Suite 530
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 914-5007


HIGH TECH LANDSCAPES: Underpays Landscapers, Arias Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ARIAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HIGH TECH LANDSCAPES, INC.; and PAUL
CERNUTO, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-07046 (D.N.J.,
June 10, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages
and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Arias was employed by the Defendants as landscaper.

High Tech Landscapes, Inc. operates as a civil construction firm.
The Company offers landscape lighting, landscape planting, site
work, mansory work, excavating, and storm management services. High
Tech Landscapes operates in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          33 State Road, Suite A-1
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
          E-mail: Aglenn@JaffeGlenn.com
                  jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


HILL'S PET: Ambassador TCPA Suit Moved From Cir. Ct. to N.D. Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as AMBASSADOR ANIMAL HOSPITAL,
LTD., Individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., Case No.
2020CH3822 (Filed April 13, 2020), was removed from the Illinois
Circuit Court, Cook County, to the U.S. District Court for Northern
District of Illinois on June 5, 2020.

The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-03326 to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts a federal law claim for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and a state law claim for
conversion.

Ambassador Animal is a full-service animal hospital in Hanover
Park, Illinois.

Hill's Pet Nutrition marketed simply as "Hills," is an American pet
food company that produces dog and cat foods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          E-mail: phil@classlawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Erika A. Dirk, Esq.
          Tammy B. Webb, Esq.
          Rebecca J. Schwartz, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          111 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 4700
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 704-7700
          Facsimile: (312) 558-1195
          E-mail: eadirk@shb.com
                  tbwebb@shb.com
                  rschwartz@shb.com


HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY: Latvala Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
----------------------------------------------------
MIAH LATVALA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-02368 (E.D.N.Y., May 27, 2020) is a class action brought on
behalf of Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals who
paid tuition and/or fees to Defendant Hofstra University for the
academic term encompassing March 2020 and thereafter, and who (i)
did not receive their bargained-for educational and other services
and (ii) have not been refunded a prorated portion of their tuition
and fees after the University ceased providing such services to
students during the Spring 2020 academic semester due to
Coronavirus Disease 2019.

As a result of Defendant's wrongful acts and unfair business
practices alleged herein, Plaintiff and the proposed Class (i) have
not received any refund or reimbursement for the unused services
for which they paid tuition or fees and/or (ii) did not receive any
refund or reimbursement for the decreased value of the education
they received from Hofstra when their classes transitioned from
in-person instruction at the University's campus facilities to an
entirely remote, online learning format.

The Defendant refuses to refund or reimburse Plaintiff and
similarly-situated Hofstra students the fees they paid for the
education and other services they are not being provided, including
fees for libraries and gyms they can no longer access, despite
receiving over $6 million in government funding through the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES) Act,
half of which is federally mandated to go toward students who are
in need of emergency financial assistance.

Hofstra University is a private university in Hempstead, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ellen Noteware, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC     
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA  19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 874-4604
          Email: enoteware@bm.net

               - and -

          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          Joseph C. Hashmall, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC     
          43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
          Minneapolis, MN 55414
          Telephone: (612) 594-5999
          Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
          Email: emdrake@bm.net
                 jhashmall@bm.net

HP INC: Consolidated Gensin Class Suit in Israel Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 5, 2020, for the quarterly period ended
April 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a consolidated
class action suit in Israel entitled, Gensin v. HP Inc.

On October 25, 2017, a purported consumer class action, captioned
Gensin v. HP Inc., was filed in the District Court in Jerusalem
against HP arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in certain
OfficeJet printers.

The petition and motion for certification as a class action
alleges: (1) tortious wrongdoing in violation of the Computers Law,
5755-1995; (2) breach of Contracts Law, 5731-1970; (3) breach of
the Consumer Protection Law, 5741-1981; (4) negligence; and (5)
improper enrichment.

The named petitioner initially sought to represent nationwide
classes comprised of anyone who "owns an HP printer that has been
blocked, disrupted, or interfered with by HP in the use of ink
cartridges not manufactured by HP" or who "purchased ink cartridges
not manufactured by HP for use in the blocked printers."

Plaintiff seeks class relief, injunctive relief, damages, and
attorneys' fees.

On November 16, 2017, a second purported consumer class action was
filed against HP in the Central District Court, captioned Dror v.
HP, Inc., also arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in
certain OfficeJet printers.

The petition and motion allege similar causes of action on behalf
of similar nationwide classes.

After the Dror case was consolidated with the Gensin case in
Jerusalem, the District Court on June 24, 2018 dismissed the Dror
case and designated Gensin as the lead matter.

On March 9, 2020, the petitioner moved to modify the proposed
nationwide class to be comprised of "all persons who have an HP
printer and whose printer was blocked or rendered unusable by HP
with any ink cartridge that is not made by HP" and "all persons who
purchased ink cartridges that are not made by HP, for use in the
Blocked Printers."

HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices,
imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions,
and services in the United States and internationally. The company
operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and
Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as
Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October
2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo
Alto, California.


HP INC: Parziale Plaintiffs May Amend Complaint
-----------------------------------------------
HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 5, 2020, for the quarterly period ended
April 30, 2020, that the court in Parziale v. HP Inc., has granted
plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.

On August 27, 2019, a purported consumer class action was filed
against HP in federal court in the Northern District of California
arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in certain OfficeJet
printers.

The complaint alleges two causes of action under Florida Consumer
Protection statutes: (1) violation of the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act, F.S.A. Sections 501.201 et seq., and
(2) violation of the Florida Misleading Advertisement Law, F.S.A.
Sections 817.41 et seq.

The named plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of "all
United States Citizens who, between the applicable statute of
limitations and the present, had an HP Printer that was modified to
reject third party ink cartridges or refilled HP ink cartridges."

On November 13, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding
three causes of action to the case: (1) violation of the Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1030 et seq., (2) trespass
to chattels, and (3) tortious interference with business relations.


Plaintiff seeks class relief, injunctive relief, damages, including
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.

On December 30, 2019, HP moved to dismiss plaintiff's amended
complaint. On April 24, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied
in part HP's motion to dismiss.

The Court dismissed plaintiff's causes of action under the Florida
Consumer Protection statutes, as well as the tortious interference
with business relations claim and four of the five claims under the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

The Court denied HP's motion to dismiss on the remaining claims and
the request for injunctive relief. The Court has granted plaintiff
leave to file an amended complaint.

HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices,
imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions,
and services in the United States and internationally. The company
operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and
Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as
Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October
2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo
Alto, California.


HP INC: Suit by Electrical Workers Pension Fund Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 5, 2020, for the quarterly period ended
April 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative
class action suit entitled, Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local
103, I.B.E.W. v. HP Inc., et al.  

On February 19, 2020, Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103,
I.B.E.W. filed a putative class action complaint against HP, Dion
Weisler, Catherine Lesjak, and Steven Fieler in U.S. District Court
in the Northern District of California.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that from February 23,
2017 to October 3, 2019, HP and the named officers violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by concealing material
information and making false statements about HP's printing
supplies business, including HP's use of its four-box model to
manage the demand for supplies.  

Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and other relief.

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

HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices,
imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions,
and services in the United States and internationally. The company
operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and
Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as
Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October
2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo
Alto, California.


INFINITE BLOOM: Duboise Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sharyl Duboise, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Infinite Bloom LLC d/b/a Bloom Dispensaries, an Arizona
limited liability company, Case No. 2:20-cv-01073-SRB (D. Ariz.,
June 2, 2020), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to
wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff contends that beginning August 2019, the Defendant
sent telemarketing text messages to her cellular telephone. She
asserts that the Defendant's text messages constitute telemarketing
because they encouraged the future purchase or investment in
property, goods, or services, i.e., selling her medical marijuana.

Bloom provides medical marijuana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: 305-479-2299
          E-mail: 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: 305-975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com


INTEL CORP: Sells Defective CPUs, Blue Peak Hosting et al. Allege
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BLUE PEAK HOSTING, LLC; PAMELA GREEN; TITI RICAFORT; MARGARITE
SIMPSON; and MICHAEL NELSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. INTEL CORPORATION,
Defendant, (D. Or., May 29, 2020) is a class action against the
Defendant on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated consumers who purchased or leased one or more
Intel central processing units (CPUs) or one or more devices
containing an Intel CPU in Wyoming.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant is engaged in false,
misleading and deceptive advertising and selling of its CPUs due to
its failure to disclose that its CPUs contained design defects
which made them vulnerable to unauthorized access and cyber
attacks. Moreover, mitigations to address the defects would result
in significant CPU performance degradation. Had the Plaintiffs
known that Intel's CPUs have significant security vulnerabilities
that gave unauthorized program instructions access to protected
data, they would not have bought the affected devices containing
Intel processors or it would have paid less for them.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's deceptive acts
and practices, the Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered and
will continue to suffer injury, ascertainable losses of money or
property, and monetary and non-monetary damages, including from not
receiving the benefit of their bargain in purchasing the CPUs, and
increased time and expense in dealing with performance and security
issues.

Blue Peak Hosting, LLC is a provider of website hosting and virtual
private server hosting services, with principal place of business
in Utah.

Intel Corporation is a multinational corporation and technology
company with its principal place of business located at 2200
Mission College Blvd., Santa Clara, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:           
         
         Steve D. Larson, Esq.
         Jennifer S. Wagner, Esq.
         STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.
         209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
         Portland, OR 97204
         Telephone: (503) 227-1600
         E-mail: slarson@stollberne.com
                 jwagner@stollberne.com

               - and –
         
         Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
         SEEGER WEISS LLP
         55 Challenger Road
         Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
         Telephone: (212) 584-0700
         E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

               - and –
         
         Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
         LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
         388 Market Street, Suite 1300
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 291-2420
         E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com

               - and –
         
         Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
         CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD LLP
         110 Laurel Street
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 238-1811
         E-mail: gmb@cglaw.com

               - and –
         
         Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
         ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
         120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
         Boca Raton, FL 33432
         Telephone: (561) 750-3000
         E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com

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

               - and –
         
         Richard M. Hagstrom, Esq.
         HELLMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC
         8050 West 78th Street
         Edina, MN 55439
         Telephone: (952) 941-4005
         E-mail: rhagstrom@hjlawfirm.com

               - and –
         
         Jennifer L. Joost, Esq.
         KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP
         One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Telephone: (415) 400-3000
         E-mail: jjoost@ktmc.com

               - and –
         
         Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
         DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC
         Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Telephone: (312) 214-7900
         E-mail: alevitt@dlcfirm.com

JMTJ: Valeriano Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Pay for Delivery Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
AGUSTIN SAUL VALERIANO VILLAREAL and PRIXCO SORIANO REYES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated,
Plaintiffs v. JMTJ CORP. (d/b/a WING BISTRO), CIPOLLA ROSSA ON 61
INC., DOMINGO DOE, JUNIOR DOE, and MICHAEL DOE, Defendants, Case
No. 1:20-cv-04337 (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York Minimum Wage Act by
failing to compensate the Plaintiffs and all others
similarly-situated workers appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and
spread of hours compensation for the hours that they worked beyond
40 hours per week, failing to maintain accurate recordkeeping for
their total hours worked, and for requiring them to perform
non-tipped duties.

Plaintiff Valeriano and Plaintiff Soriano were employed by the
Defendants as delivery workers and dishwashers at the restaurant
located at 1109 1st Avenue, New York, New York from approximately
February 10, 2018 until on or about September 16, 2018 and
approximately January 5, 2018 until on or about December 23, 2019,
respectively.

JMTJ Corp., d/b/a Wing Bistro, is a restaurant owner and operator
with principal place of business located at 1109 1st Avenue, New
York, New York.

Cipolla Rossa On 61 Inc. is an Italian restaurant with principal
place of business located at 1109 1st Avenue, New York, 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

KANDI TECH: Time to Appeal Nixed N.Y. Securities Suit Expires
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the time to appeal
the dismissal of putative shareholder class actions in New York
federal court has run.

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


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

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

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

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


KIRKLAND'S INC: Discovery Underway in Miles Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Kirkland's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended May 2, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in
the putative class action suit entitled, Miles v. Kirkland's
Stores, Inc.

The Company has been named as a defendant in a putative class
action filed in May 2018 in the Superior Court of California, Miles
v. Kirkland's Stores, Inc.

The case has been removed to Federal Court, Central District of
California, and trial is not yet set.

The complaint alleges, on behalf of Miles and all other hourly
Kirkland's employees in California, various wage and hour
violations.

Kirkland's denies the material allegations in the complaint and
believes that its employment policies are generally compliant with
California law.

The parties are currently engaging in discovery, and the Plaintiff
has until November 9, 2020, to file for class certification.

The Company believes the case is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself against the allegations.

Kirkland's, Inc. operates as a specialty retailer of home decor in
the United States.  The company's stores provide various
merchandise, including holiday decor, framed arts, furniture,
ornamental wall decor, fragrance and accessories, mirrors, lamps,
decorative accessories, textiles, housewares, gifts, artificial
floral products, frames, clocks, and outdoor living items.
Kirkland's, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is based in Brentwood,
Tennessee.


KIRKLAND'S INC: Gennock Suit Over Credit Card Info Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kirkland's, Inc. continues to defend against the case, Gennock v.
Kirkland's, Inc., the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended May 2, 2020.

The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action
filed in April 2017 in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania, Gennock v. Kirkland's, Inc.

The complaint alleged that the Company, in violation of federal
law, published more than the last five digits of a credit or debit
card number on customers' receipts.

On October 21, 2019, the District Court dismissed the matter and
ruled that the Plaintiffs did not have standing based on the Third
Circuit's recent decision in Kamal v. J. Crew Group, Inc., 918 F.3d
102 (3d. Cir. 2019).

Following the dismissal in federal court, on October 25, 2019, the
Plaintiffs filed a Praecipe to Transfer the case to Pennsylvania
state court.

The Company continues to believe that the case is without merit and
intends to continue to vigorously defend itself against the
allegations.

Kirkland's said, "The matter is covered by insurance, and the
Company does not believe that the case will have a material adverse
effect on its consolidated financial condition, operating results
or cash flows.

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

Kirkland's, Inc. operates as a specialty retailer of home decor in
the United States. The company's stores provide various
merchandise, including holiday decor, framed arts, furniture,
ornamental wall decor, fragrance and accessories, mirrors, lamps,
decorative accessories, textiles, housewares, gifts, artificial
floral products, frames, clocks, and outdoor living items.
Kirkland's, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is based in Brentwood,
Tennessee.

KODIAK CONCEPTS: Keller Seeks Minimum and OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aarin Keller, an individual v. Kodiak Concepts, LLC, dba Great
Alaskan Bush Company, an Arizona Limited Liability Company; Anthony
Tam, an individual; Doe Managers 1-3 and Does 4-10, inclusive, Case
No. 2:20-cv-01120-MHB (D. Ariz., June 5, 2020), is brought on
behalf of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated for damages
due to the Defendants evading the mandatory minimum wage and
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, charging
illegal kickbacks and illegally absconding with the Plaintiff's
tips.

The Plaintiff began working as a dancer for the Defendants in the
prior three years to the filing of this complaint.

The Defendants operate an adult-oriented entertainment facility
located at 2980 Grand Ave., in Phoenix, Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel R. Randall, Esq.
          RANDALL LAW PLLC
          4742 N. 24th Street, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 328-0262
          E-mail: srandall@randallslaw.com

               - and -

          Leigh Montgomery, Esq.
          HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
          1105 Milford Street
          Houston, TX 77066
          Telephone: (713) 554-2377
          E-mail: leigh@hughesellzey.com

               - and -

          Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq.
          KRISTENSEN LLP
          12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
          Los Angeles, CA 90066
          Telephone: 310-507-7924
          E-mail: jesenia@kristensenlaw.com


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Caterer's in the Park Seeks Pay for COVID-19 Loss
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CATERER'S IN THE PARK LLC t/a NANINA'S IN THE PARK, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE; and OHIO SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-06867-MCA-LDW (D.N.Y., June 4, 2020)
alleges that the Defendants unlawfully denied the Plaintiff's
insurance claim.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff, most businesses insure
against such catastrophic events like the current unforeseen
COVID-19 pandemic through all-risk commercial property insurance
policies. These policies promise to indemnify the policyholder for
actual business losses incurred when business operations are
involuntarily suspended, interrupted, curtailed, when access to the
premises is prohibited because of direct physical loss or damage to
the property, or by a civil authority order that restricts or
prohibits access to the property. This coverage is commonly known
as "business interruption coverage" and is standard in most
all-risk commercial property insurance policies.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, and most insurance
companies who have issued all-risk commercial property insurance
policies with business interruption coverage, 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.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company operates provides insurance
services. The Company offers car, motorcycle, boat, life, property,
landlord, and flood insurance. Liberty Mutual Insurance serves
clients in the United 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
          55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
          Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
          Telephone: (973) 639-9100

               - 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


LODI MEMORIAL: Mireles Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
Janine Mireles, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lodi Memorial Hospital Association, Inc.; Adventist
Health System/West; and Does 1-25, Case No. STK-CV-VOE-2020-4458
(Cal. Super., San Joaquin Cty., June 2, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay all minimum and overtime wages for all
hours worked, in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants failed to provide
off-duty meal and rest periods, to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, and to reimburse business expenses.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated are current and former
employees of the Defendant.

Lodi Memorial Hospital operates as a non-profit health
organization. The Hospital provides medical and surgical hospital
services.

Adventist Health is a faith-based, nonprofit integrated health
system serving more than 80 communities on the West Coast and in
Hawaii.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
          Zachary Gershman, Esq.
          LEBE LAW, APLC
          777 S. Alameda Street, 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90021
          Telephone: (213) 358-7046
          E-mail: jon@lebelaw.com
                  zachary@lebelaw.com

               - and -

          Sam C. Khoury, Esq.
          Michael D. Singer, Esq.
          J. Jason Hill, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          605 C Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA
          Telephone: (619) 595-3001
          Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
          E-mail: ikhoury@ckslaw.com
                  msinger@ckslaw.com
                  Jhili@ckslaw.com


LOTO-QUEBEC: Elisabetta Bertucci Files Class Action Over Poker
--------------------------------------------------------------
Isaac Munga, writing for TUNF, reports that there is a poker player
who claims that the online poker software for Apple-sized
glitcQuebec's provincial gambling monopoly has been hit with a
class-action suit. Elisabetta Bertucci, filed a class-action
lawsuit in Quebec Superior Court on June 1, alleging that "until
the evening of May 18, 2020, Loto-Quebec's Texas Hold'em poker
platform had a serious defect unknown to the vast majority" of
players.

Regardless of whether or not a player chose to expose the hole
cards, the suit claims that players using iPads could see other
players' hole cards after a hand was complete. Therefore, the suit
claims that players using non-iOS devices were inconvenienced since
they could not see these hole cards. On May 13, after playing a
tournament using an iPad for the first time, Bertucci is said to
have revealed the glitch.

Espacejeux support was called by Bertucci, claiming that a
technician confirmed to her that the glitch existed.

However, the glitch had not been patched five days later. As a
result, Bertucci called back and spoke to a supervisor named
'Carlos,' after which the glitch was patched. Bertucci got an email
from a Loto-Quebec rep on May 21, confirming that "the incident
affecting the poker hand history on OK Poker is now resolved." The
agent offered her C$15 in compensation and apologized for any
"inconvenience" Bertucci may have suffered.

The suit alleges Loto-Quebec failed to change all players' user
names to prevent their hand histories from being analyzed in this
fashion, and it does not notify players of this iOS glitch. The
suit also claims that Loto-Quebec deceived its poker players by
failing to provide "a secure platform that respects the integrity
and rules" of the game. Bertucci's suit notes that GVC Holdings'
PartyPoker site recently suffered an integrity breach, and the site
responded by changing the usernames of all players in order "to
level the playing field."

All individuals who paid any money until May 18 to play Texas
Hold'em on Espace-Jeux or OK Poker are invited by Bertucci's
lawyers at LPC Avocat to add their names to the suit. The suit
seeks reimbursement of disciplinary damages of C$300 per player and
an order forcing the platforms to allow users to change their
screen-names together with of all money paid to play on the poker
site. [GN]


LOTO-QUEBEC: Glitchy Poker Platform Faces Class-Action
------------------------------------------------------
Paul Brooks, writing for Casino Reports (Canada), reports that
Loto-Quebec faces serious charges because of an ongoing glitch of
its gaming platform that has led to some unfair advantage for some
poker players. A class-action lawsuit was recently filed, as an
application was filed at the beginning of this month. It claims
that Texas Hold'em poker action comes with a flawed platform that
benefits some players.

The alleged flaw in the way the system works has allegedly allowed
some poker players to have an advantage while gaming online.
Elisabetta Bertucci was the individual who decided to fight for her
rights when it comes to fair gambling in the online space. June 1
saw the introduction of the class-action lawsuit to the Quebec
Superior Court.

Joey Zukran is the lawyer from LPC Avocats representing Ms.
Bertucci and the people possibly affected by the online poker flaw
of the Loto-Quebec platform. The lawsuit claims that information
about the poker rivals was available to some poker players
participating in Texas Hold'em gaming action.

Ms. Bertucci herself claims that she had lost about CA$18,000 as a
result of the platform glitch. It should also be noted that upon
encountering her complaint, the Crown corporation offered her CA$15
as an online gaming bonus she could use across espacejeux.com. The
glitch occurred up until May 18, 2020, and it benefitted
individuals using an iOS device to play online.

As it is specified, iPad users had the option to reveal pocket or
hole cards of their rivals on the table. Two hole cards at the end
of each hand could be revealed and the player was unable to stop
this process. The lawsuit also makes a point that the glitch might
have also been benefitting all iOS devices users. As a result of
this flaw, some players had access to their rivals' cards and an
unfair advantage over them.

This also revealed their strategy and made it easier for the iOS
users, in turn, to adjust their own strategy and plan their next
move. The class-action lawsuit involves a wider group of
individuals all affected by the same conditions and allegedly
unfair treatment.

LPC Avocats now offer individuals the chance to register and become
part of the group of people directly affected by this flaw. All
poker enthusiasts that have participated in online poker at
espacejeux.com or OK POKER up until May 18, 2020, have the right to
register and become part of the class-action lawsuit seeking to
protect their violated rights.

According to the lawsuit, Loto-Quebec should return the money poker
individuals have poured in online gaming on that platform up until
May 18. Moreover, each individual entering the lawsuit would then
claim CA$300 covering the damages caused by the platform glitch.
The lawsuit claims that the Crown corporation has failed to provide
online gaming fans with a reliable platform while it also violated
the very rules of traditional Texas Hold'em Poker action.  [GN]


LOUISIANA: Flood Victims Obtain Favorable Class Action Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
McHugh David, writing for Livingston Parish News, reports that a
big step in the right direction came for the City of Walker, and
all those entities involved in the Class Action lawsuit against the
State of Louisiana, DOTD, and the contractors that worked on the
Geaux Wider project.

19th District Judicial Judge Chip Moore, on June 3, ruled on seven
motions and exceptions that had been pending in the litigation
regarding the 2016 flooding in and around the City of Walker
against the design-build contractors hired by DOTD and private
contractors.

Judge Moore's rulings were all in favor of those affected by the
flood.

The lawsuit states that the 19-mile-long concrete median barrier on
Interstate 12 from East Baton Rouge to Livingston Parish, which was
built as part of the Geaux Wider construction project, acted as a
man-made flood wall, or dam, that interrupted the natural flow of
surface waters, causing widespread destruction that would not have
occurred if the wall had been properly built with access for water
to pass through.

"The Court's ruling speaks for itself. We have argued from the
start of this litigation that the defendants were negligent in the
design and construction of this median barrier wall, and based on
these rulings, the Court has listened. These victories get us a
step closer to obtaining justice for the people of this region,"
said Joshua M. Palmintier of deGravelles and Palmintier, one of the
attorneys representing the Class Members.

Walker Mayor Jimmy Watson said that he and city attorney Robert
'Bobby' King would be sitting down later on June 4 to discuss the
results and possible next steps.

The defendants will have chance to bring the case to appellate
court.

"This is a big step for us, a big win," Mayor Watson said, "I'm
just glad it went that way.

"We already have a storm in the Gulf," Watson added, referencing
Tropical Depression Cristobal, "so we're just hoping no storms come
through and causes a problem before we can get (this barrier
situation) fixed."

The following are statements from the Ruling on Motions and
Exceptions:

"It is clear that the placement of a solid concrete median barrier
prevented the natural flow of flood water and artificially raised
the level of the flood." Ruling on Motions and Exceptions, p. 9.

"The [Defendants] should have known that the barrier wall it
designed and constructed . . .would obstruct and impede the natural
drain of flood waters. Had [Defendants] followed the Hydraulic
Manual used by the DOTD, as it was required, a design respecting
the natural drain would have been implemented." Ruling on Motions
and Exceptions, p. 5.

"The design and placement of the barrier by Defendants which,
through negligence, failed to contemplate or consider past flooding
events or how a solid barrier would affect future flooding events,
was not a "necessary consequence" of the public project." Ruling on
Motions and Exceptions, p. 9. [GN]


LOYOLA UNIVERSITY: Class Action Seeks Tuition and Fees Refunds
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kayleigh Padar, writing for Loyola Phoenix, reports that Loyola
Universiry joined the list of universities grappling with lawsuits
in the wake of wide-spread campus closures due to the ongoing
coronavirus pandemic.

A Loyola undergraduate student's mother, Andreea Gociman, filed a
class action complaint against Loyola University Chicago May 26
asking the federal courts to require Loyola to provide partial
refunds after students lost access to on-campus resources when
in-person classes quickly transitioned online in March.

Gociman declined to comment and her attorney didn't respond to
requests for comment. Loyola officials didn't comment on the issue.


Loyola's campuses closed March 19, a week after students were first
told to leave residence halls and professors were told to move
classes online, The Phoenix reported. Most campus buildings closed
March 20, The Phoenix reported.

Since then, Loyola offered students partial refunds of room and
board fees and student development fees -- which pay for certain
on-campus services -- in April but it hasn't refunded any tuition
money or other fees, according to the university's website.

Gociman's federal class action complaint was filed in the North
District of Illinois on behalf of "all similarly situated
individuals" described as other Loyola students and their families.
About 17,000 students attended Loyola during the 19-20 academic
year, according to its website.

In class action lawsuits, the judge's decision applies to the
entire group of affected people defined as the "class" in the
lawsuit. However, a complaint isn't certified as a class action
until later in the process at which point those included in the
"class" will be notified and can choose to opt-out.

The complaint filed by Gociman argues the university should refund
"a significant part" of students' tuition in addition to the
already refunded room and board payments and fees because students
didn't have access to the resources they were promised at the time
of enrollment and paid for in tuition. These resources include
campus buildings and facilities, equipment, technology and
in-person internships and classes.

"Defendant is thus profiting from COVID-19, asking students and
their families -- many of whom have been laid off, become ill, lost
loved ones, or are otherwise suffering significantly -- to bear the
financial brunt of the pandemic," the lawsuit stated.

Undergraduate tuition cost $22,065 per semester for the 19-20
school year excluding fees and undergraduate room and board
payments can cost anywhere from about $7,400 to $14,680 depending
on the building, according to Loyola's website.

Loyola's website includes phrases specifically promoting the
on-campus experience which students weren't able to receive during
the last four months of the 19-20 spring semester, the lawsuit
notes.

In addition to losing access to an on-campus experience and
resources, the complaint argues Loyola provided a "dramatically
lower quality and less valuable education" as the university
quickly transitioned online in March.

"In addition to being denied tangible benefits, Loyola students
were forced into online 'classes' that were nowhere close in
quality to the on-campus courses in which they had enrolled for the
Spring 2020 semester," the complaint said. "Rather, these classes
were watered-down, overpriced substitutes that were shoehorned at
the last minute into an online format."

The complaint includes three counts. The first count -- breach of
contract -- alleges the university broke its contract by not
providing students the education they initially promised to
provide.

The second and third counts -- restitution based on quasi-contract
and conversion -- argue Loyola has an unspoken contract to provide
the services and resources the student or family paid for
regardless of what the written words of the contracts signed at
enrollment say.

In order for the case to move forward, at least one of these counts
has to be determined to have merit by a judge. A count has merit if
what's accused is against the law.

Other public and private schools across the country are facing
similar lawsuits. Nearby at DePaul University two students filed a
complaint also requesting partial tuition refunds.

Decisions made by other judges in similar court cases in Illinois
-- such as dismissing a similar case or deciding a similar count
has merit -- can impact the legal decisions in the complaint
against Loyola.  Other cases playing out across the country might
not impact the case in a legal way but other universities'
experiences could still have an effect on the way Loyola responds.


A spokeswoman from DePaul University told The DePaulia -- the
university's student newspaper -- the lawsuit "attempts to take
advantage of the difficult decisions DePaul University made to save
lives." She also said the university has taken "unprecedented
measures" to help students during the pandemic, although these
didn't include tuition refunds.

Like Loyola, DePaul University refunded housing and meal plan
charges for students in residence halls. Unlike Loyola, DePaul
University also canceled next year's planned tuition increase and
gave students the option to drop their spring quarter classes with
a full refund, according to The DePaulia. [GN]


MACY'S INC: Underpays Managers, Ptiman Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------
BRIAN PTIMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MACY'S WEST STORES, INC.; MACY'S INC.; and
DOES I through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20CECG01623
(Cal. Super., Fresno Cty., June 4, 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 Ptiman was employed by the Defendants as manager.

Macy's West Stores, Inc. operates department stores. The Company
offers clothing, footwear, bedding, furniture, jewelry, beauty
products, and house wares. Macy's West Stores serves customers
throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard E. Quintilone II, Esq.
          Laurel N. Holmes, Esq.
          Alejandro Quinones, Esq.
          QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES
          22974 El Toro Road, Suite 100
          Lake Forest, CA 92630
          Telephone: (949) 458-9675
          Facsimile: (949) 458-9679


MADERA KITCHEN: Fails to Pay Wages Under Labor Code, Garcia Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
BLAS GARCIA, an individual v. MADERA KITCHEN, a business entity
form unknown; MILTON SZNAIDER, an individual; and DOES 1 through
50, Inclusive, Case No. 20STCV20832 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
June 2, 2020), is brought under the California Labor Code on behalf
of the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees alleging that the
Defendants failed to pay all wages due.

The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants failed to pay
overtime wages due, and failed to provide all meal periods and/or
premium pay for missed meal periods. The Plaintiff contends that
the he and other aggrieved employees, were paid for approx.
20-hours of work in a given pay period, through a regular itemized
wage statement, and the remainder of their hours were paid as
regular wages in a separate personal check.

Blas Garcia was hired by Madera and Mr. Sznaider in May 2016 as a
general laborer and cook, performing exclusively non-exempt duties
at Madera's restaurant.

Madera Kitchen is a farm to table seasonal restaurant in Hollywood,
which serves new American cuisine.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Pouya B. Chami, Esq.
          CHAMI LAW, PC
          11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 484-5001
          Facsimile: (310) 484-5002
          E-mail: pchami@chamilaw.com


MAJESTIC DUDE: Fails to Properly Pay Chefs, House Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
CORY HOUSE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. MAJESTIC DUDE RANCH, LLC, a Colorado Limited
Liability Company, and ROBERT A. BUCKSBAUM, Individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01505 (D. Colo., May 27, 2020) is an
action brought by the Plaintiff as a result of Defendants' practice
and policy of not paying its employees, including Plaintiff, for
all hours worked and appropriate wages for hours worked overtime,
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Colorado Wage
Claim Act.

Plaintiff was hired as Sous Chef for Defendants in May 2018.
Plaintiff’s first day of work was May 27, 2018.

Majestic Dude Ranch, LLC is in the hospitality business and
operates a guest dude ranch in Mancos, Colorado.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph F. Albrechta, Esq.
          John A. Coble, Esq.
          ALBRECHTA & COBLE, LTD.
          2228 Hayes Avenue, Suite A
          Fremont, OH 43420
          Telephone: (419) 332-9999
          Email: jalbrechta@lawyer-ac.com
                 jcoble@lawyer-ac.com

               - and -

          David T. Albrechta, Esq.
          Eleni K. Albrechta, Esq.
          ALBRECHTA & ALBRECHTA, LLC
          530 Main Avenue, Suite D03
          Durango, CO 81301
          Telephone: (970) 422-3288
          Email: david@albrechtalaw.com
                  eleni@albrechtalaw.com

               - and -

          Tod J. Thompson, Esq.
          810 Sycamore Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 322-4348
          Email: tod@thompsonlaw.com

MARKU CONTRACTING: Alvarez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, LUIS ALVAREZ, on behalf of Plaintiff and similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. MARKU CONTRACTING CORP. and
ISMAIL MERKU, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02602 (E.D.N.Y., June
11, 2020) arises from Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from June 2017 through the end
of June 2018 as a construction worker.

Plaintiff claims that, instead of paying him the full over-time for
all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, Defendants paid him at
straight time regardless of 60 or more hours a week he worked.

Moreover, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff for the last 4
weeks of work in June 2018 and failed to track hours worked by
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals.

Ismail Merku is an owner, officer, director and/or managing agent
of Marku Contracting Corp.

Marku Contracting Corp. offers general contracting services for
single-family houses in Brooklyn, NY. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence Spasojevich, Esq.
          Imran Ansari, Esq.
          AIDALA, BERTUNA & KAMINS, P.C.
          546 5th Avenue
          New York, NY 10036
          Tel: (212) 486-0011
          Email: ls@aidalalaw.com


MARTIN RESOURCE: Linder Seeks Overtime Pay for Dispatchers
----------------------------------------------------------
EVAN LINDER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. MARTIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION AND MARTIN TRANSPORT, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-00186-JRG (E.D. Tex., June 9, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for their failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and all others similarly-situated former and current
workers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants
unlawfully classified them as exempt from laws, although they
actually were and are non-exempt and entitled to overtime pay.

The Plaintiff worked as a dispatcher for the Defendants from
September 2013 through June 2017.

Martin Resource Management Corporation is an independent provider
of transportation, terminalling, marketing and logistics management
services for hydrocarbon products and by-products, chemical and
other bulk liquids, with its principal place of business located in
Kilgore, Texas.

Martin Transport, Inc. is a provider of transportation services
with its principal place of business located in Kilgore, Texas.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
         
         J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
         Travis Gasper, Esq.
         BRAZIEL DIXON, LLP
         1910 Pacific Avenue, Suite 12000
         Dallas, TX 75201
         Telephone: (214) 749-1400
         Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
         E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com
                 gasper@l-b-law.com

MDL 2938: Anderson v. Evenflo Co. Over Booster Seats Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as GRETA ANDERSON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EVENFLO COMPANY,
INC., Case No. 0:20-cv-00569 (Filed Feb. 20, 2020), was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston) on
June 5, 2020.

The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-11070-DJC to the proceeding. The lawsuit demands $5 million
in damages.

The Anderson case is being consolidated with MDL 2938, In Re:
EVENFLO COMPANY, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on June 2, 2020.
These actions share common factual questions, and that
centralization in the District of Massachusetts will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of this litigation.

In its June 2, 2020 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in
this MDL involve discovery regarding the design, testing, and
marketing of the booster seat, as well as Evenflo's decision to
represent the booster seat as safe for children under 40 pounds.
Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other
issues, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel,
and the judiciary. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Denise J.
Casper. The lead case is Case No. 1:20-md-02938-DJC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Rusch, Esq.
          Jennell K. Shannon, Esq.
          Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          Saint Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (612) 436-1800
          E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
                  jshannon@johnsonbecker.com
                  tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Amanda M. Cialkowski, Esq.
          Cortney G. Sylvester, Esq.
          NILAN JOHNSON LEWIS PA
          250 Marquette Avenue South, Ste. 800
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 305-7500
          Facsimile: (612) 305-7501
          E-mail: ACialkowski@nilanjohnson.com
                  CSylvester@nilanjohnson.com


MDL 2951: Transfer of Six Actions to Illinois or Wisconsin Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In MDL No. 2951, In re: Secondary Ticket Market Refund Litigation,
the Movants ask the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
for an order transferring six actions, as well as any tag-along
cases, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

Alternatively, the Movants ask the Panel for an order transferring
the Actions to the Western District of Wisconsin. The Movants are
Matthew McMillan, Dustin Snyder, Lindsey Anderson, Timothy Nellis,
Janel Dranes, and Lucy Suza.

The actions are largely overlapping putative class actions pending
in four different District Courts, alleging that the major players
in the secondary event ticketing market have uniformly refused to
offer required refunds for events disrupted by the Covid-19
pandemic. The Movants are the Plaintiffs in three of the Actions.
Each of the Defendants--StubHub, Vivid Seats, and SeatGeek--offered
a functionally identical money-back guarantee to buyers for tickets
to cancelled events.

The 6 actions are:

-- Alcaraz v. StubHub, Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-02595
    (N.D. Cal.);

-- Kopfmann v. StubHub, Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-03025
    (N.D. Cal.);

-- Nellis et al v. Vivid Seats, LLC, et al.,
    Case No. 1:20-cv-02486 (N.D. Ill.);

-- Trader v. SeatGeek, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-03248 (S.D.N.Y.);

-- Reynolds v. StubHub, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03508
    (S.D.N.Y.); and

-- McMillan, Matthew v. Stubhub Inc., et al.,
    Case No. 3:20-cv-00319 (W.D. Wis.).

The Movants are represented by:

          Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
          Steven D. Liddle, Esq.
          LIDDLE & DUBIN, P.C.
          975 E. Jefferson Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48207
          Telephone: 313-392-0015
          Facsimile: 313-392-0025
          E-mail: sliddle@ldclassaction.com
                  ncoulson@ldclassaction.com


MERLIN ENTERTAINMENTS: Case Seeks Refund for Cancelled Attractions
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOYCE CASE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. MERLIN ENTERTAINMENTS GROUP U.S.
HOLDINGS INC.; LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA, LLC; MERLIN ENTERTAINMENTS
SHORT BREAKS LLC; MADAME TUSSAUDS HOLLYWOOD LLC; MADAME TUSSAUDS
SAN FRANCISCO LLC; and SAN FRANCISCO DUNGEON LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 3:20-cv-01049-BEN-MSB (S.D. Cal., June 8, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law, false
advertising, breach of contract, negligence, fraud, conversion, and
unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent similarly-situated customers who
bought tickets, memberships, and vacation packages for the
Defendants' attractions and entertainment events like the Legoland
California.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants breached
their uniform standardized agreements with their customers by
failing to honor and perform their duties and obligations to accept
customer cancellations and refund all money paid by the customers
following the closure of the Defendants' attractions and other
entertainment venues to prevent the spread of the COVID-19
pandemic. Under the terms and conditions of their agreements, if
the Defendants cancel or are unable to perform their obligations,
they must refund all money paid for tickets, memberships, and
vacation packages to their customers. As a result of the
Defendants' unlawful practices and the retention of the Plaintiff
and the Class members payments, they have suffered concrete harm
and injury, including, but not limited to, monetary loss.

Merlin Entertainments Group U.S. Holdings Inc. is an attraction
operator in California owned by British entertainment company
Merlin Entertainments Ltd.

LEGOLAND California, LLC is a theme park, miniature park, and
aquarium operator located in Carlsbad, California.

Merlin Entertainments Short Breaks LLC is an attraction operator in
California owned by British entertainment company Merlin
Entertainments Ltd.

Madame Tussauds Hollywood, LLC is a wax museum and tourist
attraction operator located on Hollywood Boulevard in Hollywood,
California.

Madame Tussauds San Francisco LLC is a wax museum and tourist
attraction operator located in Fisherman's Wharf, San Francisco,
California.

San Francisco Dungeon LLC is a tourist attraction operator located
in San Francisco, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
         
         Robert Teel, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. TEEL
         1425 Broadway, Mail Code: 20-6690
         Seattle, WA 98122
         Telephone: (866) 833-5529
         Facsimile: (855) 609-6911
         E-mail: lawoffice@rlteel.com

                 - and –
         
         Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
         Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC
         651 Arroyo Drive
         San Diego, CA 92103
         Telephone: (619) 696-9006
         Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
         E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                 mike@consumersadvocates.com

MINNEAPOLIS, MN: ACLU of Minnesota Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
The Davis Vanguard reports that on June 2, the ACLU of Minnesota
filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of journalists who have been
tear-gassed, pepper-sprayed, shot in the face with rubber bullets,
threatened and arrested by law enforcement without cause, while
covering protests over the police murder of George Floyd.

On May 25, 2020, George Floyd, a Minneapolis citizen, was murdered
by an officer of the Minneapolis Police Department, Derek Chauvin.
Floyd was pinned down on the street, becoming unresponsive while
Chauvin knelt on Mr. Floyd's upper back and neck. Two officers
aided in holding him down, and another stood by. All four officers
have been fired by the City and Chauvin has been charged with
second-degree murder and manslaughter. Due to the videos of this
incident spreading across social media thousands of people gathered
across the country to protest and mourn Mr. Floyd's murder. These
protests have led to the escalation of unlawful force deliberately
targeting reporters and protesters. The lawsuit holds that the
actions brought on by law enforcement are in violation of the
First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The lawsuit demands a
temporary restraining order, an injunction to stop law enforcement
from attacking and targeting journalists, and damages compensation
for the plaintiff.

The Minnesota ACLU, Fredrikson & Byron P.A. and Apollo Law LLC are
suing the City of Minneapolis, Minneapolis Chief of Police Medaria
Arradondo, Lieutenant of Minneapolis Police Department Robert
Kroll, Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety John Harrington,
Minnesota State Patrol Colonel Matthew Langer, and John Does,
unidentified individuals who committed the acts specified in the
brief. Jared Goyette et al. v. City of Minneapolis et al. was filed
in the U.S. District Court in the Minnesota District.

The Plaintiff Jared Goyette, a freelance journalist, brought this
action on behalf of other similarly situated people, members of the
news media, who will in the future watch and record protest
activity and the conduct of law enforcement officers on duty. The
Plaintiff Class is defined as, "All members of the news media who
intend to engage in newsgathering or reporting activities in
Minnesota related to the protest activities that followed the death
of George Floyd and the law enforcement response to those
protests."

Count 1 of the lawsuit argues there has been a violation of the
First Amendment which protects freedom of speech, freedom of
religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, and right to
petition. They allege the defendants retaliated against journalists
for participating in a constitutionally protected activity. They
noted the defendant's retaliation is "part of a pattern or practice
of unconstitutional conduct that is certain to continue absent any
relief." The lawsuit notes that the Plaintiff Class reasonably
fears retaliation in the form of chemical agents, unlawful seizure,
and excessive force and that there is a need for more police
training.

Count 2 of the lawsuit alleges there has been a violation of the
Fourth Amendment which protects people from unlawful searches and
seizures. They claimed that the Plaintiff Class were seized by
defendants when the officers terminated their freedom of movement
and when they arrested and detained them. As a result of these acts
the lawsuit states, "Defendants' acts were objectively unreasonable
and constituted unlawful seizure and excessive force." Further,
they note that they did not commit any crime since members of the
media are exempt from curfew orders and permitted to cover protests
outside of restriction times, nor did they pose a threat to
anyone.

Count 3 of the lawsuit alleges a violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment, stating that the due process rights were violated when
Defendants arrested members of the Plaintiff Class without probable
cause and deployed chemical agents without warning. The Due Process
clause declares that states may not deny any person "life, liberty
or property, without due process of law." They further noted that
the Plaintiff Class fear further violation in the future if they
continue to do their jobs.

The lawsuit's lead plaintiff, Jared Goyette, was documenting
protesters' efforts to help an injured young Black man when police
fired a projectile at his face.

The lawsuit argues, "Plaintiff Goyette's Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights were violated when he was deliberately targeted
and shot with a rubber bullet during the course of his reporting
activities."

The lawsuit also demands a temporary restraining order, and a
preliminary injunction, excluding the Defendants from engaging in
unconstitutional conduct toward journalists. They further seek a
declaration that the defendant's conduct violated the First,
Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Lastly,
they ask for damages compensation for Plaintiff Goyette for his
injuries, an award of attorney fees, and "an award of such other
and further relief as the Court deems equitable and just."

As the protests unfolded many confrontations occurred involving
MPD, State Patrol, and groups of demonstrators to whom law
enforcement, without any warning, deployed less-lethal ballistics
and chemical irritants against the demonstrators. There have been
numerous instances of the Defendants aggressively confronting
members of the news media and many have reported injuries sustained
as a result of law enforcement's use of riot control tactics
against clearly identifiable members of the news media.

The lawsuit refers to numerous instances of arrests, injuries, and
physical threats that journalists have received while in the field.
One account was Lucas Jackson who was pepper sprayed in the face
and shot in the back by a less-lethal projectile. Jackson stated,
"It's not that we were being shot because we were between cops and
protesters. It's that we were shot at if we were anywhere in line
of sight. I've been hit because I was in the wrong place before.
I've never been aimed at so deliberately so many times when I was
avoiding it."

The lawsuit also recalls the incident where Linda Tirado, a
freelance journalist, was shot in her left eye with a less-lethal
projectile and is now permanently blind in that eye.

"Law enforcement is using violence and threats to deter the media
from vigorously reporting on demonstrations and the conduct of
police in public places," stated ACLU-MN Legal Director Teresa
Nelson.

"The press protects us all by keeping us informed about the
activities of our government. When the government violently
represses journalists in violation of the Constitution, we have a
duty to speak out and protect the press in return," stated Attorney
Kevin Riach with Fredrikson & Byron.

The lawsuit further claims that Minneapolis police have a history
of unconstitutional actions stating, "The State and Municipal
Defendants have a history of unconstitutional actions against
journalists." They refer to several instances through previous
years. In mentioning the Minneapolis Police Policy and Procedure
Manual section 6-200, they state that it provides no instruction or
guidance on how to identify the media or ensure their First
Amendment rights are respected. Further it does not discuss how to
safeguard press freedoms at protests.

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all media personnel and
asks the Court to restrain the Defendants from committing further
violence and unconstitutional conduct. The lawsuit states, "The
press is under assault in our City." [GN]


MOLEKULE INC: Poznansky Balks at Deceptive Claims on Air Purifiers
------------------------------------------------------------------
RON POZNANSKY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. MOLEKULE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:20-cv-03860 (N.D. Cal., June 11, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for deceit and fraudulent concealment,
violation of California's False Advertising Law, violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law, and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly-situated consumers, alleges that the Defendant is engaged
in a deceptive and misleading marketing campaign to sell its air
purification devices called the Molekule Air, Air Mini, and Air
Mini+. The Defendant made a number of claims regarding the
performance, abilities, and benefits of the Air Purifiers,
including that the Air Purifiers: (1) use Photo Electrochemical
Oxidation (PECO) filter technology that outperforms high-efficiency
particulate air (HEPA) filters in every category of pollutant; (2)
eradicate the full spectrum of indoor air pollutants; (3) are
capable of achieving quantified pollution-removal benchmarks; (4)
were subject to independent testing that served as the basis for
Molekule's claims; (5) are rated to function in rooms of certain
sizes; and (6) provide allergy and asthma symptom relief.
Additionally, the Defendant has tailored its advertising to
capitalize on current events, claiming, for example, that the Air
Purifiers would neutralize pollution caused by the wildfires and
destroy coronavirus. The Plaintiff and Class members who purchased
and used the Air Purifiers found out that the product is defective
as it fails to deliver as represented by the Defendant. The Air
Purifier's PECO filter does not remove any pollution from the air
and also it performs worse than traditional HEPA air purifiers. As
a result of Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions, the
Plaintiff and the Class suffered real financial damages.

Molekule, Inc. is a manufacturer of air pollution control equipment
with its headquarters in San Francisco, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Esfand Y. Nafisi, Esq.
         MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
         388 Market Street, Suite 1300
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 489-7004

                - and –
         
         Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
         Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
         MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
         412 H Street N.E., Ste. 302
         Washington, DC 20002
         Telephone: (202) 470-3520

MONEYGRAM PAYMENT: Sends Spam Messages to Consumers, Babare Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL BABARE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONEYGRAM PAYMENT SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:20-cv-05545 (W.D. Wash., June 9, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in unlawful
practice of promoting its services through sending text messages to
the cellular telephones of the Plaintiff and all others
similarly-situated consumers in Washington using automatic
telephone dialing system without their prior express written
consent.

As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class
members were harmed including invasion of their privacy,
aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and
conversion.

MoneyGram Payment Systems, Inc. is a Dallas, Texas-based provider
of cross-border peer-to-peer (P2P) payments and money transfers
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                 
         
         Manuel Hiraldo, Esq.
         HIRALDO P.A.
         401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
         Telephone: (954) 400-4713
         E-mail: MHiraldo@Hiraldolaw.com

                - and –
         
         Michael Eisenband, Esq.
         EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
         515 E Las Olas Blvd, Suite 120
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
         Telephone: (954) 533-4092
         E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com

                - and –
         
         Kira M. Rubel, Esq.
         THE HARBOR LAW GROUP
         3615 Harborview Drive, NW, Suite C.
         Gig Harbor, WA 98332-2129
         Telephone: (253) 251-2955
         E-mail: Kira@theharborlawgorup.com

MULAN THREE: Flores et al. Seek Unpaid Wages, OT for Laundry Staff
------------------------------------------------------------------
REYNA FLORES MORENO, TERESA MAGDALENO, and LETICIA ANSELMO LOPEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. MULAN THREE INC. (D/B/A LAUNDROMAT), NEWASH INC.
(D/B/A CARLTON LAUNDROMAT), MUBASHAR FAROOQ, MOBY DOE, and
OLUWAYEMISI FAMOJURO AKA GENESIS, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-04331 (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendants for requiring the Plaintiffs and all others
similarly-situated laundry attendants to work in excess of 40 hours
per week without providing them the appropriate minimum wage and
overtime compensation and for failing to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of the hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as laundry
attendants at the laundry services located at 1394 Ogden Avenue,
Bronx, New York and at 179 E. 105th St., New York, New York between
June 2015 and October 2019.

Mulan Three Inc., d/b/a Laundromat, is a laundry service operator
located at 1394 Ogden Avenue, Bronx, New York.

Newash Inc., d/b/a Carlton Laundromat, is a laundry service
operator located at 179 E. 105th St., New York, 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

MYLAN INC: Dakota Drug Alleges Epinephrine Monopoly
---------------------------------------------------
DAKOTA DRUG, INC., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MYLAN INC.; MYLAN SPECIALTY L.P.;
CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; CAREMARKPCS HEALTH LLC; CAREMARK LLC;
CAREMARK RX LLC; EXPRESS SCRIPTS HOLDING COMPANY; EXPRESS SCRIPTS
INC.; MEDCO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; UNITED HEALTH GROUP
INCORPORATED; UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES INC.; OPTUM INC.; OPTUMRX
HOLDINGS, LLC, and OPTUMRX INC., Defendants, Case No.
0:20-cv-01334-PJS-ECW (D. Minn., June 9, 2020) is an action on
behalf of a proposed class of direct purchasers of EpiPen, EpiPen
Jr., EpiPen 2-Pak, and EpiPen Jr. 2-Pak, and generic versions of
those products from Mylan to recover overcharges due to the
Defendants' illegal conduct which led to the artificial inflation
of the list prices for EpiPen (and Mylan-sold generic EpiPen) in
the U.S.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants engaged
in a scheme to maintain and increase the volume and dollar amount
of its EpiPen sales by paying bribes and kickbacks to pharmacy
benefit managers (PBMs) -- namely defendants Express Scripts, CVS
Caremark, and OptumRx (and other, unnamed PBMs) -- in exchange for:
(a) favorable placement of Mylan's EpiPens on the PBMs' formularies
(and the exclusion or restriction of competing epinephrine
auto-injectors (EAI) on the PBM's formularies); and (b) the
elimination of price constraints that enabled Mylan to dramatically
raise its prices without fear of PBM penalties.

Mylan's and the Defendant PBMs' scheme (which began by 2012, if not
earlier) had the purpose and effect of eliminating a check on
Mylan's ability to aggressively increase its list prices for
EpiPens. Consequently, both to: (a) generate the bribe and kickback
money it paid to the Defendant PBMs, and (b) profit from the
decreased competition and improperly-obtained pricing power, Mylan
aggressively increased its EpiPen list prices far beyond what it
would have (and could have) done absent the scheme. EpiPen list
prices were below $240 at the end of 2012 and increased over the
next four years to $609 in May 2016.

Because Mylan's bribes and kickbacks (and accompanying fraud in
concealing that its list price increases were part and parcel of
the bribes and kickbacks) enabled and caused tremendous EpiPen list
price increases that would not have happened absent the misconduct
alleged herein, Mylan's illegal conduct allowed it to improperly
maintain and extend its monopoly pricing power in the Epinephrine
auto-injectors (EAI) market.

Mylan Inc. is a global generic and specialty pharmaceuticals
company. The Company operates an active pharmaceutical ingredient
manufacturer and runs a specialty business focused on respiratory,
allergy, and psychiatric therapies. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
          Minneapolis, MN 55414
          Telephone: (612) 594-5933
          E-mail: emdrake@bm.net

               - and -

          Peter Kohn, Esq.
          Joseph T. Lukens, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          One Penn Center, Suite 1550
          1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 277-5770
          E-mail: pkohn@faruqilaw.com
                  jlukens@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq.
          Noah Silverman, Esq.
          GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP
          88 Pine Street, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 398-0055
          E-mail: bgerstein@garwingerstein.com
                  nsilverman@garwingerstein.com

               - and -

          David F. Sorensen, Esq.
          Andrew C. Curley, Esq.
          Nicholas Urban, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net
                  acurley@bm.net
                  nurban@bm.net

               - and -

          Stuart E. Des Roches, Esq.
          ODOM & DES ROCHES, LLC
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 2020
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 522-0077
          E-mail: stuart@odrlaw.com

               - and -

          David Golub, Esq.
          Steven Bloch, Esq.
          SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
          184 Atlantic Street
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (203) 325-4491
          E-mail: dgolub@sgtlaw.com
                  sbloch@sgtlaw.com

               - and -

          Susan Segura, Esq.
          David C. Raphael, Jr., Esq.
          SMITH SEGURA RAPHAEL & LEGER, LLP
          221 Ansley Blvd.
          Alexandria, LA 71303
          Telephone: (318) 445-4480
          E-mail: ssegura@ssrllp.com
                  draphael@ssrllp.com

               - and -

          Russ Chorush, Esq.
          HEIM PAYNE & CHORUSH, LLP
          1111 Bagby, Suite 2100
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 221-2000
          E-mail: rchorush@hpcllp.com


NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Morales et al. Sue Over Denied Tuition Refund
------------------------------------------------------------------
SERINA MORALES and ADRIANA GUIDRY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-04418-UA (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendant for breach of contract,
conversion, and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly-situated students who are enrolled for the Spring 2020
academic term at New York University, allege that the Defendant
refused to refund tuition and other fees paid by students despite
the fact that they did not receive the full-value of the services
paid such as the benefits of in-person instruction due to the
closure of the campus in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The
Defendant continues to charge for tuition and certain fees despite
students' complete inability to continue school as normal, occupy
campus buildings and dormitories, or avail themselves of school
programs and events. As a result, the Defendant's actions have
financially damaged the Plaintiffs and the Class members.

New York University is an institution of higher learning primarily
located at 70 Washington Square South, New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are 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, Esq.
         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

NEW YORK: Second Cir. Appeal v. Fiorentino Filed in Gulino Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment
dated February 24, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled Gulino, et
al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the
New York City public school system, filed the action in 1996. The
Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant, the Board of Education of
the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et
seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain racially
discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to
teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance Baker
Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified the
plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(2).

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

The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board of
Education of the City School District, Case No. 20-1031, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Georgina Fiorentino is represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com

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

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


NIELSEN CITRUS: Mislabeled Lemon Juice Products, Freeze Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALICIA FREEZE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NIELSEN CITRUS PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC., dba
SunTree; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
37-2020-00018733-CU-NP-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., June 4,
2020) seeks to recover damages and restitution for the Defendants'
unlawful and deceptive labeling of their lemon juice products.

According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures the lemon
juices under the brand name SunTree. SunTree is known for its
shelf-stable lemon and lime juices, including the SunTree
"California Wedge" lemon juices products. Lemon Juice Products are
sold in a number of sizes, including in four and seven ounce
containers. The Defendant markets its Lemon Juice Products as "made
purely from the juice of the fruit" without additives.

On the front of each of the Lemon Juice Products, the Defendant
describes the product as "100% Lemon Juice From Concentrate."
However, this is simply not true. The Defendant's Lemon Juice
Products contain chemical preservatives, including sodium benzoate
and sodium bisulfite. Accordingly, the Lemon Juice Products are
demonstrably not "100% Lemon Juice From Concentrate."

Nielsen Citrus Products Company Inc. bottles and packages citrus
juices, concentrates, and purees. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          402 West Broadway, Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 762-2126
          Facsimile: (248) 746-2123
          E-mail: tkashima@sommerspc.com


NORDSON CORP: Mediation This Month in Ortiz Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Nordson Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that mediation is ongoing in
the purported class action suit initiated by a former employee.

On February 22, 2019, a former employee, Mr. Ortiz, filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior
Court, California, against Nordson Asymtek, Inc. and Nordson
Corporation, alleging various violations of the California Labor
Code.  

Plaintiff seeks, among other things, an unspecified amount for
unpaid wages, actual, consequential and incidental losses,
penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs.  

Mediation is currently scheduled for June 2020.

Nordson said, "Management believes, based on currently available
information, that the ultimate outcome of the proceeding described
above will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial condition or results of operations."

Nordson Corporation engineers, manufactures, and markets products
and systems to dispense, apply, and control adhesives, coatings,
polymers, sealants, biomaterials, and other fluids worldwide.
Nordson Corporation was founded in 1935 and is headquartered in
Westlake, Ohio.


NORTH SHORE: Harrison Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA and WWPCL
---------------------------------------------------------------
TINA HARRISON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. NORTH SHORE HEALTHCARE LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00850-WCG
(E.D. Wis., June 5, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection
Laws.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant operated (and continues
to operate) an unlawful compensation system that deprived her and
all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees of their wages earned
for all compensable work performed each workweek, including at an
overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek.

The Defendant is a privately-owned assisted living,
skilled-nursing, and rehabilitation entity headquartered in
Glendale, Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          15850 W. Bluemound Road, Suite 304
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780-1953
          Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
          E-mail: sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com


NORTHWOOD: Law Firm Proposes COVID-19 Class-Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Young, writing for Atlantic.CTVNews.ca, reports that
breaking a three-day streak of zero new cases, Nova Scotia on June
7 reported one new case of COVID-19.

The total number of confirmed cases is now at 1,059.

The QEII Health Sciences Centre's microbiology lab completed 637
for Nova Scotia tests on June 6.

To date, Nova Scotia has 45,466 negative test results.

COVID-19 Death Outlook

The province did not report any additional deaths on June 7.
Sixty-one Nova Scotians have died from COVID-19.

The latest death was reported on June 4. It involved a man in his
70s who had underlying health conditions. He lived in the central
zone and was not a resident of a long-term care home.

Fifty-three of the province's 61 deaths have involved residents at
Halifax's Northwood long-term care home, which has seen the most
significant outbreak in the province.

Additionally, a Halifax-based law firm is proposing a class-action
lawsuit against the facility, claiming normal standards of care
weren't met to protect against infection from COVID-19.

Active Cases At Negative One? Inconsistencies Explained

The province says 999 COVID-19 patients have recovered. Their cases
are considered resolved.

According to the provincial numbers, 1,059 positive cases minus 61
deaths and 999 recoveries would leave active cases in Nova Scotia
at a total of negative one. This has caused much confusion.

Despite those numbers, Northwood is reporting two active cases,
involving one resident and one staff member. This means two
residents have recovered from the virus since June 4, when four
active cases were reported in three residents and one staff
member.

During the pandemic, there has been confusion over the number of
recovered and active cases reported by the province, which don't
always match up with the numbers reported at Northwood.

Dr. Robert Strang, Nova Scotia's chief medical officer of health,
has explained that the data from long-term care homes comes from a
different data source than the one used by public health and is on
a different timeline. As a result, the data isn't always
congruent.

"As we have said many times, data is from a number of sources and
reporting periods differ. It cannot be combined," said Strang on
June 5.

On June 7, Strang said that while restrictions are eased, he wants
residents to take things slow and steady.

"We still need to be cautious. That is why we are taking things
slowly and monitoring how it goes," said Strang. "If everyone
follows the public health rules, uses common sense, and acts with
kindness, we will be in the best possible position to prevent
further spread of COVID-19."

Case Breakdown

There are still three people in hospital as a result of
complications due to COVID-19. Two patients are in intensive care
units.

The province's confirmed cases range in age from under 10 to over
90.

Sixty-two per cent of cases are female and 38 per cent are male.

The latest case was confirmed in the Nova Scotia Health Authority's
central zone, which contains the Halifax Regional Municipality, and
has seen the most significant number of cases.

Western zone: 54 cases
Central zone: 908 cases
Northern zone: 45 cases
Eastern zone: 52 cases

Anyone who travels outside of Nova Scotia must also self-isolate
for two weeks.

The provincial state of emergency, which was first declared on
March 22, has been extended to June 14.

Reopening Weekend Continues For Many Businesses

Most businesses that were forced to close at the start of the
COVID-19 pandemic in March were allowed to reopen on June 5 After
the tough financial toll the virus took on the local economy,
Premier Stephen McNeil congratulated businesses on working to
provide safer experiences for customers.

"As Nova Scotians enjoy the reopening of many businesses closed by
COVID-19, I want to congratulate operators for working hard to
welcome patrons back to a safe environment," said McNeil. "The
virus is still among us. We must remain vigilant and continue to
follow public health measures."

Businesses allowed to reopen include hair salons, barber shops,
spas and gyms.

Bars and restaurants can also offer dine-in service.

Most businesses are required to operate at 50 per cent capacity to
allow for physical distancing.

Some health services are also reopening, including dentists,
optometrists, chiropractors and physiotherapists.

Not all businesses may choose to reopen at this time, however.

On June 5, Strang noted that businesses that weren't forced to
close still must have a reopening plan, but it doesn't need to be
submitted for approval.

COVID-19 Symptoms

Last month, the province expanded the list of symptoms for which it
is screening.

Anyone who experiences one of the following symptoms is encouraged
to take an online test to determine if they should call 811 for
further assessment:

   -- fever (i.e. chills, sweats)
   -- cough or worsening of a previous cough
   -- sore throat
   -- headache
   -- shortness of breath
   -- muscle aches
   -- sneezing
   -- nasal congestion/runny nose
   -- hoarse voice
   -- diarrhea
   -- unusual fatigue
   -- loss of sense of smell or taste [GN]


NUTANIX INC: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Cal. Suit Set for Aug. 12
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nutanix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that the hearing on the
company's motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit
pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California has been scheduled for August 12, 2020.

Beginning on March 29, 2019, several purported securities class
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the company and two of its
officers.

The initial complaints generally alleged that the defendants made
false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5.

In July 2019, the court consolidated the actions into a single
action, and appointed a lead plaintiff, who then filed a
consolidated amended complaint (the "Original Complaint").

The action was brought on behalf of those who purchased or
otherwise acquired the company's stock between November 30, 2017
and May 30, 2019, inclusive.

The defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the Original
Complaint, and the court granted that motion on March 9, 2020,
while providing the lead plaintiff leave to amend.

On April 17, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint (the "Current Complaint"), again naming the company and
two of its officers as defendants. The Current Complaint alleges
the same class period, includes many of the same factual
allegations as the Original Complaint, and again alleges that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
as well as SEC Rule 10b-5.

The Current Complaint seeks monetary damages in an unspecified
amount. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Current
Complaint on May 22, 2020, and a hearing before the court has been
scheduled for August 12, 2020, during which the parties will argue
their positions on the motion.

Nutanix said, "This case is in the very early stages and we are not
able to determine what, if any, liabilities will attach to the
Current Complaint."

Nutanix, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops and
provides an enterprise cloud platform in North America, Europe, the
Asia Pacific, the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa. The
company was founded in 2009 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California.


OG COLLECTIVE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Bartel Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOANNE BARTEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OG COLLECTIVE, LLC, Defendant, Case
5:20-cv-01184 (C.D. Cal., June 10, 2020) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

OG Collective, LLC, is an Oregon limited liability company,
offering cannabis for medical purpose. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OVATIONS FOOD: Harper et al Seek Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
LATASIA M. HARPER and LAMAR A. HOWARD, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. OVATIONS FOOD SERVICES, L.P., a Foreign
Limited Partnership, d/b/a Spectra Food Services & Hospitality,
Defendant, Case No. 8:20-cv-01355 (M.D. Fla., June 11, 2020) is a
collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its
alleged unlawful employment practices in violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as non-exempt and hourly
paid warehouse clerk/event workers.

Plaintiffs claim that Defendant failed to pay them overtime at one
and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 during each seven-day workweek.

Allegedly, Defendant defrauded its hourly employees by stealing
employees' time to reduce its labor costs with the help of its
General Manager, who surreptitiously accessed employee's time
records and manipulated their time records.

Ovations Food Services, L.P. d/b/a Spectra Food Services &
Hospitality

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert S. Norell, Esq.
          James A. Peterson, Esq.
          ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
          300 NW 70th Ave, Suite 305
          Plantation, FL 33317
          Tel: (954) 617-6017
          Fax: (954) 617-6018
          Emails: rob@floridawagelaw.com
                  james@floridawagelaw.com


PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY: Pinzon Seeks Refunds Due to COVID Closure
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH PINZON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:20-cv-04928-DMG-KS
(C.D. Cal., June 3, 2020), alleges that despite sending students
home and closing its campus, the Defendant continues to charge for
tuition, fees, and/or room and board as if nothing has changed,
continuing to reap the financial benefit of millions of dollars
from students.

The Plaintiff contends that 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. He adds that while some colleges and universities have
promised appropriate and/or alleges that the 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. As a result, the
Defendant's actions have financially damaged the Plaintiff and the
Class Members, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff brings this action because he and the Class Members
did not receive the full value of the services paid, and did not
receive the benefits of in-person instruction. The Plaintiff
contends that he and the class have lost the benefit of their
bargain and/or suffered out-of-pocket loss, and are entitled to
recover compensatory damages, trebling where permitted, and
attorney's fees and costs.

Plaintiff Joseph Pinzon is a citizen and resident of the State of
Texas. The Plaintiff is the parent of a current Pepperdine graduate
student and paid his son's tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 and
Summer 2020 academic term at the Defendant.

Pepperdine is an institution of higher learning located in Malibu,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq.
          Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
          Whitney K. Siehl, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  christopherp@hbsslaw.com
                  dank@hbsslaw.com
                  whitneys@hbsslaw.com


PERRY'S RESTAURANTS: Underpays Servers, Helgason et al. Allege
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rian Helgason and Caroline Crawford, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) Plaintiffs,
v. Perry's Restaurants LTD; Perry's LLC; PBS Holdings, Inc.; and
Leasing Enterprises, LTD, collectively d/b/a Perry's Steakhouse and
Grille; and Christopher V. Perry, individually, Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-01573-E (N.D. Tex., June 12, 2020) is a collective action
brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act who worked
for Defendants as servers and who were paid a direct cash wage of
less than $7.25 per hour.

According to the complaint, Defendants have a policy and practice
of paying all their employee servers, including Plaintiffs,
subminimum hourly wages under the tip credit provisions of the
FLSA. However, Defendants failed to follow federal law and violated
Section 203(m) in that Defendants unlawfully (1) failed to inform
Plaintiff and Class Members of the tip credit pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Sec. 203(m); (2) did not allow Plaintiffs and Collective Members to
retain all of their tips; (3) required Plaintiffs and Collective
Members to contribute a portion of their tips to an illegal tip
pool; (4) required Plaintiffs and Collective Members to incur
business expenses; (5) required Plaintiffs and Collective Members
to perform non-tipped work unrelated to Plaintiffs and Collective
Members' tipped occupation (i.e., "dual jobs"); and (6) required
Plaintiffs and Collective Members to perform non-tipped work that,
although related to Plaintiffs and Collective Members' tipped
occupation, exceeded 20% of their time worked during each
workweek.

Defendants' illegal practices in violation of the FLSA have
resulted in a forfeiture of the "tip credit." Consequently,
Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs and Collective Members for the
full minimum wage for every hour worked during the statutory time
period plus all other statutory damages provided for under the
FLSA.

Perry's Restaurant, Ltd., Perry's LLC, PBS Holdings, Inc. and
Leasing Enterprises, Ltd. operate restaurant chains commonly known
as Perry's Steakhouse and Grille with locations in Texas, Alabama,
Colorado, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, and Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
          Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
          HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
          801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 479-9229
          Facsimile: (817) 887-1878
          E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com
                  pamela@herrmannlaw.com

POPULAR INC: Employee Misconduct Suits v. Bank Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss employee-related putative class complaints
against Popular Bank and certain of its current employees are
pending, according to Popular, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020.

In July 2019, Popular Bank ("PB") was served in a putative class
complaint in which it was named as a defendant along with five
current PB employees (collectively, the "AB Defendants"), captioned
Aileen Betances, et al. v. Popular Bank, et al., filed before the
Supreme Court of the State of New York (the "AB Action").

The complaint, filed by five current and former PB employees, seeks
to recover damages for the AB Defendants' alleged violation of
local and state sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation
laws.

Additionally, in July 2019, PB was served in a putative class
complaint in which it was named as a defendant along with six
current PB employees (collectively, the "DR Defendants"), captioned
Damian Reyes, et al. v. Popular Bank, et al., filed before the
Supreme Court of the State of New York (the "DR Action").  The DR
Action, filed by three  current and former PB employees, seeks to
recover damages for the DR Defendants' alleged violation of local
and state discrimination and retaliation laws.

Plaintiffs in both complaints are represented by the same legal
counsel, and five of the six named individual defendants in the DR
Action are the same named individual defendants in the AB Action.
Both complaints are related, among other things, to allegations of
purported sexual harassment and/or misconduct by a former PB
employee as well as PB's actions in connection thereto and seek no
less than US$100 million in damages each.

On October 21, 2019, PB and the other defendants filed several
Motions to Dismiss.  Plaintiffs opposed the motions in December
2019 and PB and the other defendants replied on January 22, 2020.

The Company said, "Although the Court set a hearing on the Motions
to Dismiss in both cases for March 16, 2020, that hearing was
cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic and has not been
rescheduled.  The Motions to Dismiss are still pending
resolution."

Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular,
Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico.


PORTLAND, OR: Protesters File Class Action Over Tear Gas Use
------------------------------------------------------------
Maxine Bernstein, writing for The Oregonian, reports that Mayor Ted
Wheeler has directed Portland Police not to use sonic warning tones
to control crowds after officers activated it at the tail end of an
all-night protest and signaled he's in favor of a 30-day ban on
tear gas, just as Seattle has done.

The developments on June 5 came as the mayor faced renewed pressure
to address police tactics during protests against police brutality
and racial injustice that have brought thousands to downtown.

He tweeted out the ban on the warning sounds without fanfare --
then a short time later, facing pointed questions from a protest
crowd in the city's downtown, switched gears on tear gas after
saying at an earlier news conference that he wasn't ready to outlaw
tear gas at demonstrations without more discussion.

The flurry of announcements followed a confrontation at 1:30 a.m.
on June 5 when police blasted a piercing sound from a supervisor's
SUV in a rare activation of the loud warning tone from the police
department's Long Range Acoustic Device, known as LRAD. The
powerful portable speaker was developed for the U.S. military but
has been increasingly used by law enforcement agencies to break up
crowds.

Officers used the warning sound to try to deter a disruptive group
without harming peaceful demonstrators, Deputy Police Chief Chris
Davis said.

It marked only the second time police here have blared the warning
tone and drew criticism after days of condemnation over the use of
tear gas on demonstrators protesting the death of George Floyd, who
was pinned to the ground by a Minneapolis police officer with a
knee to his neck.

Protesters have filed a class-action lawsuit against the city for
what they're calling "indiscriminate use" of tear gas during
nightly protests. The suit is filed on behalf of two protesters,
Nicholas Roberts and Michelle "Misha" Belden, and the advocacy
group Don't Shoot Portland. Wheeler's office declined to comment.
[GN]


POTTS LAW: Gore Appeals Ruling in Malpractice Suit to 3rd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Debbie Gore and Doris Lance Smith filed an appeal from a
court ruling in their lawsuit styled Debbie Gore, et al. v. Bruce
Nagel, et al., Case No. 2-19-cv-14287, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was removed from the New Jersey Superior Court, Bergen County, to
the U.S. District Court District of New Jersey (Newark) on June 26,
2019. The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-14287-MCA-LDW to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Madeline Cox Arleo.

According to a report by Mesh Medical Device News Desk, the case
alleges legal malpractice by six firms involved in pelvic mesh
litigation in New Jersey. Women, who had their cases settled in the
New Jersey court have "paid improper and excessive attorney's fees
and expenses from their settlements," and in doing so their lawyers
have breached their fiduciary duty while enriching themselves. If
successful, it could mean the return of conservatively $15 million
to about 1,450 plaintiffs filed in New Jersey, who were represented
by the named firms.

The appellate case is captioned as Debbie Gore, et al. v. Bruce
Nagel, et al., Case No. 20-1710, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants DEBBIE GORE, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated, and DORIS LANCE SMITH are represented
by:

          David M. Freeman, Esq.
          Adam M. Slater, Esq.
          David A. Mazie, Esq.
          MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN
          103 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 207
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 228-9898
          E-mail: dfreeman@mskf.net
                  aslater@mskf.net
                  dmazie@mskf.net

Defendants-Appellees BRUCE H. NAGEL, ANDREW L. O'CONNOR, ROBERT H.
SOLOMON, NAGEL RICE, DEREK POTTS, POTTS LAW FIRM, BAILEY PEAVEY
BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC, BAILEY PEAVEY BAILEY, MESH LITIGATION
CENTER, ANNIE MCADAMS, STEELMAN MCADAMS, JUNELL & ASSOCIATES PLLC,
K. CAMP BAILEY PC, and BURNETT LAW FIRM are represented by:

          Joanna P. Piorek, Esq.
          Thomas F. Quinn, Esq.
          WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER
          200 Campus Drive, 4th Floor
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 735-5767
          E-mail: joanna.piorek@wilsonelser.com
                  thomas.quinn@wilsonelser.com   

               - and -

          Michael R. Darbee, Esq.
          Stephen M. Orlofsky, Esq.
          Adrienne C. Rogove, Esq.
          BLANK ROME
          300 Carnegie Center, Suite 220
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 750-2649
          E-mail: mdarbee@blankrome.com
                  orlofsky@blankrome.com
                  rogove@blankrome.com

               - and -

          Mark M. Tallmadge, Esq.
          BRESSLER AMERY & ROSS
          325 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 301
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 514-1200
          E-mail: mtallmadge@bressler.com


PROGENICS PHARMA: Agreement Reached to Settle Lantheus Merger Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on June 8, 2020,
that the parties in the consolidated class action suit related to
the company's merger with Lantheus Holdings, Inc. have reached an
agreement to settle the dispute.

On February 20, 2020, Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Progenics")
entered into an Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger
with Lantheus Holdings, Inc. ("Lantheus Holdings") and Plato Merger
Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Lantheus Holdings ("Merger
Sub"), pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into
Progenics, with Progenics surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of
Lantheus Holdings (the "Merger").

In connection with the Merger, Progenics filed a definitive proxy
statement, dated March 19, 2020, and a supplement to the definitive
proxy statement, dated May 14, 2020 (as supplemented, the "Proxy
Statement"), with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"SEC"), relating to the special meeting of its stockholders to be
held on June 16, 2020 to vote on matters related to the Merger.

The company faces ten securities lawsuits, six putative class
actions and four individual actions—have been filed against it
and the board of directors (the "Progenics Board") alleging
inadequate disclosure by Progenics relating to the Merger, three of
which also name Lantheus Holdings and Merger Sub as defendants.
Five of ten lawsuits were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice
by plaintiffs, with no settlements from, or other agreed
obligations by, the respective defendants thereunder.

On November 22, 2019, a purported stockholder filed a putative
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware, captioned Johnson v. Progenics
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-02183 (the
"Johnson Action"), against Progenics and members of the Progenics
Board. On March 5, 2020, the Johnson Action was voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice.

On November 25, 2019, a second purported stockholder filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware, captioned Thompson v. Progenics
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-02194,
against Progenics, certain members of the Progenics Board, Lantheus
Holdings, and Merger Sub. On March 10, 2020, the Thompson Action
was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

On November 26, 2019, a third purported stockholder filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned Wang v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-10936 (the "Wang Action"),
against Progenics and members of the Progenics Board. On June 1,
2020, the Wang Action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.


On December 9, 2019, a fourth purported stockholder filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey, captioned Michael A. Bernstein IRA
v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Civil Action No.
2:19-cv-21200 (the "Bernstein IRA Action"), against Progenics,
members of the Progenics Board, Lantheus Holdings, and Merger Sub.
On April 21, 2020, an amended complaint was filed in the Bernstein
IRA Action, and on May 6, 2020, the Bernstein IRA Action was
transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-03521.

On December 12, 2019, a fifth purported stockholder filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware, captioned Pill v. Progenics
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-02268,
against Progenics and members of the Progenics Board. The purported
stockholder voluntarily dismissed this action without prejudice and
the court closed the case on March 10, 2020.

On December 20, 2019, a sixth purported stockholder filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned Hess v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-11683 (the "Hess Action"),
against Progenics, Progenics' Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer, and members of the Progenics Board. On April 8,
2020, an amended complaint was filed in the Hess Action. On June 4,
2020, the Hess Action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.


On April 2, 2020, a seventh purported stockholder filed a putative
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned Goldstone v. Progenics
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-02750 (the
"Goldstone Action"), against Progenics, members of the Progenics
Board, Lantheus Holdings, and Merger Sub.

On April 6, 2020, the purported stockholder in the Johnson Action
filed a new putative class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned
Johnson v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals, et al., Civil Action No.
1:20-cv-02847 (the "Johnson S.D.N.Y. Action"), against Progenics
and members of the Progenics Board.

On April 8, 2020, an eighth purported stockholder filed a complaint
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, captioned Krueger v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals Inc., et
al., Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-02913 (the "Krueger Action"), against
Progenics and members of the Progenics Board. On June 3, 2020, a
ninth purported stockholder filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned
Sigrist v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals, et al., Civil Action No.
1:20-cv-04238 (the "Sigrist Action"), against Progenics and members
of the Progenics Board.

The complaints in the Bernstein IRA, Goldstone, Johnson S.D.N.Y.,
Krueger and Sigrist Actions (collectively, the "Merger Litigation")
allege, among other things, that Progenics and the members of the
Progenics Board violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and 17
C.F.R. Section 244.100 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated under the
Exchange Act, by misstating or omitting certain allegedly material
information in the registration statement filed with the SEC on
November 12, 2019, the amended registration statement filed with
the SEC on March 16, 2020 and/or the Schedule 14A proxy statement
filed with the SEC on March 19, 2020 related to the Merger. The
Bernstein IRA Action also alleges that Lantheus Holdings and Merger
Sub violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The Goldstone Action further alleges that the members of the
Progenics Board breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty,
and good faith to the stockholders of Progenics related to the
Merger, that Progenics, Lantheus Holdings and Merger Sub aided and
abetted such breaches of fiduciary duty and that Lantheus Holdings
and Merger Sub violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. The
complaints seek, among other things, injunctive relief preventing
the consummation of the Merger, damages in the event of
consummation of the Merger, declaratory relief related to
disclosures in the registration statement, and certain fees and
expenses.

The parties to the Merger Litigation subsequently engaged in
arm's-length negotiations to attempt to resolve the claims asserted
in the Merger Litigation, and reached an agreement whereby the
Company would file on this Current Report on Form 8-K certain
supplemental disclosures regarding the Merger.

Progenics believes that the Merger Litigation is without merit and
that no supplemental disclosure is required under applicable law.
However, in order to avoid the risk of such actions delaying or
adversely affecting the Merger and to minimize the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, Progenics has determined to voluntarily
supplement certain disclosures in the Proxy Statement with the
supplemental disclosures set forth below (the "Supplemental
Disclosures").

Progenics specifically denies all allegations in the complaints
that any additional disclosure was or is required or material.

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://bit.ly/3fiuuse.

Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc., develops innovative medicines for
targeting and treating cancer, with a pipeline that includes
several product candidates in later-stage clinical development.
These products in development include therapeutic agents designed
to precisely target cancer (AZEDRA(R) and 1095), and imaging agents
(1404 and PyLTM) intended to enable clinicians and patients to
accurately visualize and manage their disease.


PSCU INC: Underpays Customer Service Assistants, Brown Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
CONNIE BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PSCU, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-11510-DPH-DRG (E.D. Mich., June 10, 2020) is an action
against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The Plaintiff Brown was employed by the Defendant as customer
service assistant.

PSCU Inc. provides online financial services. The Company offers
services such as ATM, prepaid card, bill payment, and mobile
banking to credit unions. PSCU serves customers throughout the
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com


QUORUM HEALTH: Zwick Partners Case Still Pending in Tennessee Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ZWICK PARTNERS, LP and APARNA RAO,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. QUORUM HEALTH CORPORATION, COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS,
INC., WAYNE T. SMITH, W. LARRY CASH, THOMAS D. MILLER, and MICHAEL
J. CULOTTA, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-02475, (M.D. Tenn.), a
summary notice of the pendency of the class action has been entered
on June 8, 2020.

The Summary Notice is addressed to ALL PURCHASERS AND ACQUIRERS OF
QUORUM HEALTH CORPORATION COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM MAY
2, 2016 THROUGH AND INCLUDING AUGUST 10, 2016 (THE "CLASS
PERIOD").

Excluded from the Class are the defendants, officers and directors
of Quorum Health Corporation, Community Health Systems, Inc., and
members of their immediate families and their legal representative,
heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which Defendants
have or had a controlling interest.

The District Court has entered an order on March 19, 2019,
certifying the case as a Class Action.  The Action has not been
settled and continues to be litigated.  Accordingly, no claim form
need be filed at this time.

If you are a member of the Class, your rights are affected by this
action and you may have the right to participate in any recovery.
You also have the right to exclude yourself from the Class in
accordance with the directions set forth in a more detailed Notice
of Pendency of Class Action, which is available on the case
website, www.QuorumHealthSecuritiesLitigation.com.  That Notice of
Pendency of Class Action describes the Class Action and your rights
with respect thereto.

If you have not received a Postcard Notice by mail, please contact
us in writing:

  Quorum Health Corporation Securities Litigation
  PO Box 3230
  Portland, OR 97208-3230
  info@QuorumHealthSecuritiesLitigation.com
  www.QuorumHealthSecuritiesLitigation.com
  Telephone: 866-977-0746

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Class
Counsel:

  Michael J. Wernke
  POMERANTZ LLP
  600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
  New York, New York 10016
  Telephone: 212-661-1100
  Facsimile: 212-661-8665

Inquiries should not be directed to the Court, the Clerk's Office,
the Defendants, or Defendants' counsel. [GN]


RED ROCK AUTO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Barton Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
JASON BARTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RED ROCK AUTO GROUP, INC. d/b/a RED ROCK
NISSAN, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01627 (D. Colo., June 5, 2020)
seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited
calls.

Rock Auto Group, Inc., d/b/a Red Rock Nissan, is an automotive
dealership that sells vehicles and vehicle service to businesses
and individuals. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


RTI SURGICAL: Continues to Defend Lowry Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
RTI Surgical Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit initiated by Patricia Lowry.

On March 16, 2020, the Audit Committee of the Board of RTI, with
the assistance of independent legal and forensic accounting
advisors, conducted an internal investigation of matters relating
to the Company's revenue recognition practices for certain
contractual arrangements, primarily with original equipment
manufacturer ("OEM") customers, including the accounting treatment,
financial reporting and internal controls related to such
arrangements (the "Investigation").

The Investigative procedures also examined transactions to
understand the practices related to manual journal entries for
accrual and reserve accounts. The Investigation was precipitated by
an investigation by the SEC initially related to the periods 2014
through 2016. The SEC investigation is ongoing, and the Company is
cooperating with the SEC in its investigation.

On April 7, 2020, the Audit Committee of the Board concluded that
the Company will restate its previously issued audited financial
statements for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016,
and selected financial data for the years ended December 31, 2015
and 2014, and the unaudited financial statements for the quarterly
periods within these years commencing with the first quarter of
2016.

Based on the results of the Investigation, the Company has
concluded that revenue for certain invoices should have been
recognized at a later date than when originally recognized. In
response to binding purchase orders from certain OEM customers,
goods were shipped and received by the customers before requested
delivery dates and agreed-upon delivery windows.

In many instances the OEM customers requested or approved the early
shipments, but the Company has determined that on other occasions
the goods were delivered early without obtaining the customers'
affirmative approval.

Some of those unapproved shipments were shipped by employees in
order to generate additional revenue and resulted in shipments
being pulled from a future quarter into an earlier quarter. In
addition, the Company has concluded that in July 2017 an adjustment
was improperly made to a product return provision in the Direct
Division.

The revenue for those shipments is being restated, as well as for
other orders that shipped earlier than the purchase order due date
in the system for which the Company could not locate evidence that
the OEM customers had requested or approved the shipments.

In addition, the Company has concluded that in the periods from
2015 through the fourth quarter of 2018, certain adjustments were
incorrectly or erroneously made via manual journal entries to
accrual/reserve accounts, including a July 2017 adjustment to a
product return provision in the Direct Division, among others.
Accordingly, the Company has restated its financial statements to
correct these adjustments.

There is currently ongoing stockholder litigation related to the
Investigation. A class action complaint was filed by Patricia Lowry
against the Company, and certain current and former officers of the
Company, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on March 23, 2020 demanding a jury trial.

A shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed by David Summers on
behalf of the Company against certain current and former directors
and officers of the Company in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois on June 5, 2020 demanding a jury
trial.

In the future, the company may become subject to additional
litigation or governmental proceedings or investigations that could
result in additional unanticipated legal costs regardless of the
outcome of the litigation.

RTI said, "If we are not successful in any such litigation, we may
be required to pay substantial damages or settlement costs. Based
on the current information available to the Company, the impact
that current or any future stockholder litigation may have on the
Company cannot be reasonably estimated."

RTI Surgical Holdings, Inc. is a leading global surgical implant
company providing surgeons with safe biologic, metal and synthetic
implants. Committed to delivering a higher standard, RTI's implants
are used in sports medicine, general surgery, spine, orthopedic and
trauma procedures and are distributed in nearly 50 countries. The
company is based in Deerfield, Illinois.


SB ONE BANCORP: Parshall Sues Over Misleading Proxy Statement
-------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL PARSHALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SB ONE BANCORP, EDWARD J. LEPPERT, ANTHONY
LABOZZETTA, RICHARD BRANCA, SALVATORE A. DAVINO, GAIL GORDON, MARK
J. HONTZ, WALTER E. LOEFFLER, MICHAEL F. LOMBARDI, MICHAEL X.
MCBRIDGE, ROBERT MCNERNEY, and PETER MICHELOTTI, Defendants, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00809-UNA (D. Del., June 15, 2020) brings this
complaint against Defendants for their alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiff owns SB One common stock.

According to the complaint, the Individual Defendants caused the
Company to enter into the Merger Agreement with Provident Financial
on March 11, 2020 in which shareholders will receive 1.357 shares
of Provident Financial common stock for each share of SB One they
own.

However, the Proxy Statement filed with the SEC in connection with
the proposed transaction omits material information, such as SB
One's and Provident Financial's financial projections, the
financial analyses performed by the financial advisor KBW, and
KBW's engagement, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading.

Additionally, the omitted material information is important to
stockholders in deciding how to vote on the Proposed Transaction.

Thus, Plaintiff and the Class are threatened with irreparable harm
because of the false and misleading statements in the Proxy
Statement.

Edward J. Leppert is Chairman of the Board of the Company.

Anthony Labozzetta is Chief Executive Officer, President, and a
Director of the Company.

Mark J. Hontz is Vice Chairman of the Board of the Company.

Richard Branca, Salvatore A. Davino, Gail Gordon, Walter E.
Loeffler, Michael F. Lombardi, Michael X. McBridge, and Robert
McNerney are directors of the Company.

Peter Michelotti is Chief Operating Officer, Senior Executive Vice
President, and a director of the Company.

SB One Bancorp operates as a bank holding company for SB One Bank
that provides commercial banking and related financial services to
individual, business, and government customers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Ave., Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Tel: (302) 295-5310
          Fax: (302) 654-7530
          Emails: 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
          Tel: (484) 324-6800
          Fax: (484) 631-1305
          Email: rm@maniskas.com


SCHAEFFLER GROUP: July 23 Hearing Set for Proposed Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC; Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.; Preti,
Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios, LLP; Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C.;
Cera LLP; and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC ("Settlement Class
Counsel") on June 8 disclosed that the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division ("Court")
has approved the following announcement concerning a class action
settlement with the Schaeffler Defendants in a lawsuit alleging
that Defendants conspired to raise, fix, maintain, and stabilize
prices, rig bids, and allocate markets and customers for Bearings
sold in the United States in violation of federal antitrust laws.

The settlement affects those who purchased Bearings in the United
States from January 1, 2000 through March 21, 2017 directly from
any of the following entities: Schaeffler Group USA Inc.;
Schaeffler Technologies GmbH & Co. KG (now Schaeffler Technologies
AG & Co. KG); FAG Kugelfischer GmbH; JTEKT Corporation; Koyo
Corporation of U.S.A.; Koyo France SA.; Koyo Deutschland GmbH;
Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp.; Nachi America Inc.; Nachi Technology, Inc.;
Nachi Europe GmbH; NSK Ltd.; NSK Americas, Inc.; NSK Europe Ltd.;
NSK Corporation; AB SKF; SKF GmbH; SKF USA Inc.; NTN Corporation;
NTN USA Corporation; NTN Walzlager GmbH; and NTN-SNR Roulements
SA.

A hearing will be held on July 23, 2020, at 11:00 a.m., before the
Honorable Marianne O. Battani, United States District Judge, at the
Theodore Levin United States Courthouse, 231 West Lafayette
Boulevard, Detroit, MI 48226, Courtroom 250 (or such other
courtroom as may be assigned for the hearing), to consider whether
the Court should approve the proposed plan of distribution of the
Schaeffler Settlement Fund and Settlement Class Counsel's requests
for reimbursement of litigation expenses and service awards to the
Class Representatives.

A Notice of Hearing and Claim Form (the "Notice") was mailed to
potential Schaeffler Settlement Class members on or about May 26,
2020. The Notice describes the options available to settlement
class members with respect to the Schaeffler settlement in more
detail. The Notice also explains what steps a Class Member must
take to: (1) file a Claim Form to share in the settlement proceeds;
or (2) object to the proposed plan of distribution of the
Settlement Fund or Settlement Class Counsel's requests for
reimbursement of litigation expenses, or service awards to the
Class Representatives.  The Notice and other important documents
related to the settlements can be accessed at
www.AutoPartsAntitrustLitigation.com/Bearings, or by calling
1-888-737-9578 or writing to Bearings Direct Purchaser Antitrust
Litigation, P.O. Box 4230, Portland, OR 97208-4230. Those who
believe they may be a member of the Schaeffler settlement class,
are urged to obtain a copy of the Notice if they have not received
one in the mail.

URL: www.AutoPartsAntitrustLitigation.com/Bearings [GN]


SCWORX CORP: Rosen Law Reminds of June 29 Motion Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of SCWorx Corp. (NASDAQ: WORX) between
April 13, 2020 and April 17, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
of the important June 29, 2020 deadline in the securities class
action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for SCWorx investors
under the federal securities laws.

To join the SCWorx class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1848.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) SCWorx's supplier for COVID-19 tests had previously
misrepresented its operations; (2) SCWorx's buyer was a small
company that was unlikely to adequately support the purported
volume of orders for COVID-19 tests; (3) as a result, the Company's
purchase order for COVID-19 tests had been overstated or entirely
fabricated; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 29,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1848.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Contact Information:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY  10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]


SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Fails to Pay for Overtime, Johnson Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01305-PAB (N.D. Ohio, June 15,
2020) arises from Defendant's alleged failure to pay proper
overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid Assistant
Manager from July 2008 until May 2020.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other hourly-paid
employees regularly worked in excess of 40 hours. But, Defendant
failed to pay them proper overtime rate because Defendant did not
include nondiscretionary bonuses in their regular rate of pay to
compute their overtime.

The Sherwin-Williams Company is an American Fortune 500 company in
the general building materials industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tess Bradford, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Tel: (501) 221-0088
          Fax: (888) 787-2040
          Emails: tess@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Judge Tosses Jackson Residents' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Vicory, writing for Mississippi Clarion Ledger, reports that
a class-action lawsuit from Jackson residents against Siemens
Industry Inc. for water bill overcharges has been dismissed.  

U.S. District Judge Tom S. Lee dismissed with prejudice on June 2
the lawsuit that sought more than $5 million in damages from the
company hired to fix Jackson's water and billing systems.

The plaintiffs in the case, a Jackson nonprofit and three
residents, sued to recoup what they say are "inaccurate" and
"inflated" water bills due to the city of Jackson's nearly $90
million contract with the company.

The complaint was first filed in the U.S. Southern District of
Mississippi last summer by the nonprofit Poindexter After-School
Club Inc., and Jackson residents William Kellum, Charles Jordan and
Belinda Chase.

They sued "individually and on behalf of all persons" who have
received water services and been billed by the city of Jackson
during its contract with the multinational company that was signed
in 2012.

Siemens, according to court records, said the plaintiffs could have
sought relief through the state Public Service Commission or the
city of Jackson through its recently implemented "Water and Sewer
Billing Customer Bill of Rights."

The bill of rights gives residents the opportunity to appeal water
bills.

The court rejected that argument but ultimately ruled the company
was not contractually obligated to Jackson ratepayers.

The court cited language in the contract between the city and
Siemens that precludes "rights or benefits" to any other parties.

"Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to give any rights or
benefits to anyone other than the (city) and Siemens without
express written consent of both parties."

In a similar case, several Jackson residents in 2018 filed a
lawsuit against the city of Jackson to prevent their water from
being cut off, citing more than $80,000 in "grossly inaccurate"
account balances.

The complaint, filed in Hinds County Chancery Court, claimed
plaintiffs' water accounts should not be shut off given the city's
admission of widespread billing issues in its own lawsuit against
Siemens.

The case was dismissed with prejudice in February.

No right to cut off water: Jackson residents, business cite Siemens
in suit against city

The city went on to sue Siemens itself and eventually settled for
the full cost of the original contract. [GN]


SIENNA SENIOR: Class Action Over COVID-19 Outbreak Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Kim Zarzour, writing for Vaughan Citizen, reports that Canadian
Armed Forces (CAF) was onsite on June 7 at another COVID-plagued
long-term care home -- Woodbridge Vista in Vaughan.

The home is operated by Sienna Senior Living, a private company
currently beset with lawsuits, COVID-19 outbreaks at several
nursing homes and the controversial departure of one of its top
executives.

It's the second Sienna home to see armed forces step in, after the
province redeployed troops to support Scarborough's Altamont Care
Community in April.

The move follows news, from the Ministry of Long-term Care June 4,
that the William Osler Health System would take over as interim
manager of the facility.

"Despite receiving hospital support, Woodbridge Vista Care
Community has been unable to contain the spread of COVID-19," a
ministry statement said.

Sienna's head office referred enquiries to the provincial
government. Ministry spokesperson Gillian Sloggett said long-term
care homes that receive armed forces deployment are "those with the
most acute staffing challenges leading to poor resident outcomes."

CAD is conducting an onsite assessment at Vista and news about next
steps will be available in coming days, she said.

As of June 6, the 224-bed home has recorded 142 cases of COVID-19
-- 102 residents and 40 staff -- with 22 deaths attributed to the
virus. Eighteen acutely ill residents were rushed to hospital.

Families marched outside of the home on June 4, expressing anger
over the care of their loved ones and the allegedly demeaning
remarks by company vice-president Joanne Dykeman.

Anthony Manieri, whose sister has disabilities and COVID-19, lives
in the home at Steeles Avenue and Martin Grove Road, said Dykeman
hosted a Zoom meeting on June 3. After the meeting, not realizing
her microphone was still on, she ridiculed families' questions and
referred to "bloodsucking class action lawsuits," he said.

Later that evening, Sienna announced that Dykeman had been let go.

In her email sent to families dated June 6, Lois Cormack, president
and CEO, said the company was advised the armed forces would be
deployed to support care at the home.

"This is good news for us, and will provide our organization with
much-needed capacity during the time ahead.

"Our sole focus is on ensuring residents' and our health care
teams' safety and well-being during this unprecedented time," she
added.

Families say the action is long overdue.

"These problems are just coming to light now but they've been going
on for years," said Luigi Marra, whose father, a resident in the
home, recently died. "Covid-19 just brought it to the forefront."

"Family members have been advocating for weeks and weeks," said
Miriana Perticarini. "Sienna failed miserably in protecting our
most precious elders, loved ones. They are responsible for our
loved ones and did not protect them. They completely screwed up, to
say it mildly . . . It was obvious before COVID, this just brought
it into the limelight . . . and it cannot be swept underneath the
carpet."

Sienna, which owns and operates 37 long-term care homes in Ontario
and eight in British Columbia, is the focus of a $20-million
class-action lawsuit. [GN]


SIENNA SENIOR: To Carry Out Policy Review Amid Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stefan Labbe, writing for Castanet, reports that the parent company
of a Port Coquitlam long-term care home at the centre of an ongoing
COVID-19 outbreak has launched what it calls a "sweeping set of
initiatives" aimed at protecting residents.

Sienna Senior Living, which owns Nicola Lodge, says it has hired
Ontario's former Deputy Attorney General to carry out "an
immediate, company-wide review into the policies, practices and
culture" at its care facilities.

Of the 37 long-term care and retirement homes the company runs in
Ontario and British Columbia, 16 have documented COVID-19
outbreaks.

The investigation follows allegations of neglect, incompetence and
abuse from both the Canadian Armed Forces and several
whistleblowers. In a damning report which includes one of its
Scarborough facilities, Canadian forces personnel detail "horrific"
allegations of insect infestations, aggressive resident feeding
that caused choking, bleeding infections and residents crying for
help for hours. The home -- site of 53 COVID-19 deaths -- is now
subject to a $20 million class action lawsuit filed on behalf of
family members.

And while some allegations of neglect at its Ontario facilities,
like how residents are not receiving three meals a day and how the
military brought in its own food to feed residents, echo the
allegations at Nicola Lodge, others, like bed sores worn through to
the bone and dangerous errors in administering medication, go much
further.

"As part of the investigation led by Mr. Boniferro, any residences
that raise red flags will be identified and addressed," wrote a
spokesperson for Sienna Senior Living in a press release. [GN]


SIGUE CORPORATION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Babare Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL BABARE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SIGUE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-05544 (W.D. Wash., June 9, 2020) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

Sigue Corporation provides payment processing services. The Company
offers money transfer, bill payment, and other services. Sigue
serves customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 400-4713
          E-mail: MHiraldo@Hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Eisenband, Esq.
          EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
          515 E Las Olas Blvd, Suite 120
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 533-4092
          E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com

               - and -

          Kira M. Rubel, Esq.
          THE HARBOR LAW GROUP
          3615 Harborview Drive, NW, Suite C.
          Gig Harbor, WA 98332-2129
          Telephone: (253) 251-2955
          E-mail: Kira@theharborlawgorup.com


SITEL OPERATING: Wright Suit Alleges FCRA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
ALLISON WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SITEL OPERATING CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 108599160 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., June 9, 2020) alleges
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Sitel Operating Corporation provides business process outsourcing
services. The Company offers back office, collection, customer
care, technical support, and acquisition and sales services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  aheystek@wfclaw.com
                  gnichols@wfclaw.com

               - and -

          Scott M. Weaver, Esq.
          THE WEAVER LAW FIRM, P.A.
          801 West Bay Dr., Suite 426
          Largo, FL 33770
          Telephone: (727) 316-5330
          Facsimile: (727) 499-7322
          E-mail: scott@theweaverlawfirm.com


SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholder Class Suits in Calif. Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Slack Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that the the company
continues to defend shareholder class action suits in California.

Beginning in September 2019, seven purported class action lawsuits
were filed against the Company, its directors, certain of its
officers, and certain investment funds associated with certain of
its directors, each alleging violations of securities laws in
connection with the Company's registration statement on Form S-1
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Six of these lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of
California for the County of San Mateo and one of these lawsuits
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "Federal Action"). In the Federal Action, captioned
Dennee v. Slack Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:19-CV-05857-SI, a
lead plaintiff has been appointed and the operative complaint was
filed in January 2020.

In January 2020, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint. In April 2020, the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and
denied in part the motion to dismiss.

On May 5, 2020, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion
to certify the court's order for interlocutory appeal. A hearing
for the motion is scheduled for June 12, 2020.

The six state court actions were consolidated in November 2019, and
the consolidated action is captioned In re Slack Technologies, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 19CIV05370 (the "State Court
Action").

The operative complaint was filed in the State Court Action in
December 2019. The Company and the other defendants filed demurrers
to the complaint on February 20, 2020.

The state court will schedule a hearing on the demurrers once
certain restrictions on court proceedings related to the COVID-19
pandemic are lifted.

The Federal Action and the State Court Action seek unspecified
monetary damages and other relief on behalf of investors who
purchased the Company's Class A common stock issued pursuant and/or
traceable to the Registration Statement.

Slack Technologies, Inc. is the leading channels-based messaging
platform, used by millions to align their teams, unify their
systems, and drive their businesses forward. Slack offers a secure,
enterprise-grade environment that can scale with the largest
organizations in the world. The company is based in San Francisco,
California.


SOCIETY INSURANCE: Refuses to Cover COVID Losses, Cardelli Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
CARDELLI ENTERPRISE, L.L.C., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. SOCIETY INSURANCE, a mutual company, Case No.
1:20-cv-03263 (N.D. Ill., June 2, 2020), seeks declaratory judgment
establishing that the Plaintiff and others are entitled to receive
the benefit of the insurance coverage they purchased.

On March 16, 2020, during the term of the policy issued by Society
Insurance to the Plaintiff, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker issued
Executive Order 2020-07 mandating that all restaurants and bars
suspend all on-premises consumption of food and beverages due to
the "ongoing spread of COVID-19 and the danger the virus poses to
the public's health and wellness." Thereafter, Governor Pritzker
issued additional COVID-19 Executive Orders that extended these
restrictions into the future, with the current Executive Order
2020-33 extending this suspension through May 29, 2020.

The Plaintiff is the owner and operator of Enzo & Lucia Italian
restaurant and bar in historic downtown Long Grove, Illinois, which
was forced, by recent orders issued by the Governor of the State of
Illinois, to suspend all on-premises dining and beverage
consumption operations--through no fault of its own--as part of the
State's efforts to slow the spread of the global COVID-19 pandemic.
The closures mandated by these government orders pose an
existential threat to its business, which employs many Illinois
residents, the Plaintiff asserts.

The Plaintiff contends that Society Insurance has uniformly refused
to provide Business Income, Extra Expense, Civil Authority,
Contamination, or any other coverage to many, if not all, Illinois
businesses that have submitted claims under the Businessowners Form
as a result of COVID-19 and the Civil Action Orders.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant breached its contract
obligations in the insurance policy to indemnify and pay for loss
of business income and extra expenses incurred. The Plaintiff also
asserts bad faith claims handling under Illinois law.

Society Insurance is a business insurance carrier headquartered in
Fond du Lac, Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Antonio DeBlasio, Esq.
          David M. Gower, Esq.
          DE BLASIO & GOWER LLC
          2001 Midwest Road, Suite 100
          Oak Brook, IL 60523
          Telephone: (630) 560-1123
          Facsimile: (630) 364-4206
          E-mail: deblasio@DGLLC.net
                  gower@DGLLC.net

               - and -

          Peter S. Lubin, Esq.
          Patrick D. Austermuehle, Esq.
          LUBIN AUSTERMUEHLE, P.C.
          360 W Butterfield Rd., No. 325
          Elmhurst, IL 60126
          Telephone: (630) 333-0333
          E-mail: peter@l-a.law
                  patrick@l-a.law


SORL AUTO: Suits Over Ruli International Merger Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
SORL Auto Parts, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company is a
defendant in class action suits related to its merger with Ruili
International Inc.

On April 26, 2019, the Company announced its receipt of a
preliminary non-binding proposal letter (the "Proposal"), dated
April 25, 2019, from Mr. Xiaoping Zhang, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, Ms. Shuping Chi and Mr. Xiaofeng
Zhang, directors of the Company and Ruili Group Co., Ltd.
(together, the "Consortium"), to acquire all of the outstanding
shares of common stock of the Company not already owned by the
Consortium (the "Going Private" transaction).

On May 21, 2019, the Board of Directors of the Company formed a
special committee (the "Special Committee") of independent
directors consisting of Mr. Xiao Lin and Mr. Binghua Feng, with Mr.
Lin as the Chairman of the Special Committee, to evaluate the
Proposal.

On November 29, 2019, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), with Ruili International
Inc. ("Parent"), a Delaware corporation, and Ruili International
Merger Sub Inc. ("Merger Sub"), a Delaware corporation and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent. Parent was formed by Mr.
Xiaoping Zhang solely for the purpose of entering into the Merger
Agreement and consummating the Going Private transaction
contemplated thereby.

Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, subject to the terms and
conditions thereof, at the effective time , Merger Sub will be
merged with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company
being the surviving corporation, and each share of common stock of
the Company issued and outstanding immediately prior to the
effective time of the Merger will be automatically cancelled and
converted into the right to receive $4.72 in cash (the "Merger
Consideration") without interest, except for (i) shares of common
stock beneficially owned by members of the Consortium, Parent,
Merger Sub or their respective affiliates, which will be
automatically cancelled for no consideration at the effective time
of the Merger, and (ii) shares of common stock held by stockholders
who have not voted in favor of the Merger and who have properly and
validly perfected and not effectively withdrawn or lost their
statutory rights of appraisal in accordance with Section 262 of the
General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware ("Section 262"),
which will be automatically cancelled at the effective time of the
Merger and will cease to have any rights with respect thereto,
except the right to receive payment of the appraised value of such
shares to be determined in accordance with the provisions of
Section 262.

The following putative stockholder class action complaints have
been filed against the Company and certain officers and directors
thereof in connection with the Going Private transaction.

The first, Richard Scarantino v. SORL Auto Parts, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00216, was filed on February 13, 2020, in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the
"Delaware Action").

The second, Jose Carlos SanJuan Paz v. SORL Auto Parts, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01318, was filed on February 14, 2020, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.


The third, Ongarov v. SORL Auto Parts, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-1815, was filed on March 2, 2020 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The fourth, Mark Patenaude v. SORL Auto Parts, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:20-cv-01929, was filed on March 4, 2020 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The fifth, Sherri Gough v. SORL Auto Parts, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-02182, was filed on March 11, 2020 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The sixth, Bruce LeBeau v. SORL Auto Parts, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-02266, was filed on March 13, 2020 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaints allege that the preliminary proxy statement omitted
material information with respect to the Going Private transaction
that renders the preliminary proxy statement false and misleading.


In March 2020, the five actions filed in the Southern District of
New York -- the Paz, Ongarov, Patenaude, Gough, and LeBeau matters
-- were consolidated with the Paz action designated as the lead
case (the "Consolidated Action").

On April 16, 2020, plaintiff in the Delaware Action voluntarily
dismissed his claims without prejudice.

Between April 17, 2020, and April 29, 2020, plaintiffs in the
Consolidated Action also voluntarily dismissed their claims without
prejudice.

The seventh, on May 7, 2020, Jose Carlos Sanjuan Paz and Samuel
Levin, filed a Section 220 lawsuit in the Delaware Court of
Chancery seeking to compel the Company to allow them to inspect
certain documents identified in the complaint.

The complaint seeks to enjoin defendants from consummating the
Going Private transaction.

The Company believes the allegations in the complaint are without
merit, but cannot predict with certainty the results of the
litigation.  

Incorporated on March 24, 1982, SORL Auto Parts, Inc. is a Delaware
corporation. Through its 90% ownership of the Ruili Group Ruian
Auto Parts Co., Ltd., a Sino-Foreign joint venture, SORL Auto
Parts, Inc. (together with its subsidiaries) develops, manufactures
and distributes automotive brake systems and other key safety
related auto parts to automotive original equipment manufacturers,
or OEMs, and the related aftermarket both in China and abroad. The
Company's products are used in different types of commercial
vehicles, such as trucks and buses. Automotive brake systems and
other key safety related auto parts are critical components that
ensure driving safety.


SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Calvo Sues over COVID-19 Drug Announcement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JEANNETTE CALVO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated v. SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS, INC., HENRY JI, and
MARK R. BRUNSWICK, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01066-JAH-WVG (S.D.
Cal., June 11, 2020), arises from the Defendants' violations of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired
Sorrento securities between May 15, 2020, and May 22, 2020, alleges
that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Sorrento's business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, the announcement of Sorrento's discovery of
the STI-1499 antibody on May 15, 2020 and the company's
overstatements about the prospects of the STI-1499 antibody for
completely inhibiting COVID-19, which led to the increase of
Sorrento's stock price at $4.14 per share, or 158.02%, to close at
$6.76 per share on May 15 and up to $10.00 per share on May 18.
After few days, several publications have emerged expressing
skepticism and doubt about Sorrento's antibody announcement which
resulted to the continuous decline of the company's stock price. As
a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. is a San Diego, California-based
clinical stage biopharmaceutical company that engages in the
development of therapies for the treatment of cancer, autoimmune,
inflammatory, and neurodegenerative diseases. [BN]

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

                  - and –

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

                  - and –

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

                  - and –

         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
         60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
         New York, NY 10165
         Telephone: (212) 697-6484
         Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
         E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com

STATE FARM: Elegant Massage Seeks Claims for COVID-19 Losses
------------------------------------------------------------
ELEGANT MASSAGE, LLC d/b/a LIGHT STREAM SPA, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY and STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY
COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00265 (E.D. Va., May 27,
2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff against the
Defendants, individually and on behalf of all persons or entities
in the United States who purchased State Farm-branded "all risk"
commercial property insurance policies that included Loss of Income
and Extra Expense Coverage and were denied claims for lost business
income and extra expenses as a result of social distancing guidance
and closure/stay-at-home orders issued in connection with the
COVID-19 global pandemic.

In light of the federal guidance and the subsequent orders issued
by the Governor of Virginia, Plaintiff ceased its operations
entirely, which has resulted in a significant loss of revenue.

According to the complaint, a state of emergency was declared in
Virginia in early March 2020, followed by a series of social
distancing restrictions and closures aimed to stop the spread of
the virus. Notably, on March 17, the Governor of Virginia issued an
order limiting the number of patrons permitted in certain
businesses. On March 23, the Governor issued an order closing all
recreational and entertainment businesses. On March 30, 2020, the
Governor ordered all individuals to remain at their place of
residence except when engaging in certain necessary activities.

Given this complete disruption of its business, Plaintiff tendered
a claim to Defendants seeking reimbursement for its lost income and
extra expenses under their policy's Loss of Income and Extra
Expense Coverage. Defendants, however, wrongfully denied
Plaintiff's claim, refusing to provide any reimbursement and
claiming that Plaintiff's loss was excluded from coverage.

Plaintiff owns and operates Light Stream Spa, which provides
therapeutic massages to the Virginia Beach area.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company operates as an
insurance company headquartered in Bloomington, Illinois.

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company is a Bloomington,
Illinois-based company that provides property insurance for State
Farm customers in the United States and the product lines that it
writes include homeowners, boat owners and commercial lines.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William H. Monroe, Jr., Esq.
          Marc C. Greco, Esq.
          Kip A. Harbison, Esq.
          Michael A. Glasser, Esq.
          GLASSER AND GLASSER, P.L.C.
          580 East Main Street, Suite 600
          Norfolk, VA 23510
          Telephone: (757) 625-6787
          Facsimile: (757) 625-5959
          Email: bill@glasserlaw.com
                 marcg@glasserlaw.com
                 kip@glasserlaw.com
                 michael@glasserlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          Naumon Amjed, Esq.
          Melissa L. Troutner, Esq.
          Ethan Barlieb, Esq.
          Jordan Jacobson, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          Email: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
                 namjed@ktmc.com
                 mtroutner@ktmc.com
                 ebarlieb@ktmc.com
                 jjacobson@ktmc.com

               - and -

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN,
            BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973)-994-1700
          Facsimile: (973)-994-1744
          Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                 ltaylor@carellabyrne.com

SUN HEALTH: Faces Hoyos TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Text
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL HOYOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SUN HEALTH & DENTAL LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, Case No. 108072255 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., May 28,
2020), alleges that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to
wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

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

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

The Defendant is a medical plan provider.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: 305-479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                  gberg@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

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


SUTTELL & HAMMER: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Bjornsdotter Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Anna Bjornsdotter filed an appeal from a court ruling
issued in her lawsuit styled Anna Bjornsdotter v. Suttell & Hammer,
P.S., et al., Case No. 6:18-cv-02079-MC, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Oregon, Eugene.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges Fair Debt Collection Act violation.

The appellate case is captioned as Anna Bjornsdotter v. Suttell &
Hammer, P.S., et al., Case No. 20-35298, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant Anna M. Bjornsdotter's opening brief is due on
      July 9, 2020;

   -- Appellees Patrick J. Layman and Suttell & Hammer, P.S.'s
      answering brief is due on August 10, 2020; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant ANNA M. BJORNSDOTTER, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Mark Passannante, Esq.
          BROER & PASSANNANTE, P.S.
          1050 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1220
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 294-0910
          E-mail: markpassannante@msn.com

Defendants-Appellees SUTTELL & HAMMER, P.S., FKA Suttell, Hammer &
White, P.S., and PATRICK J. LAYMAN are represented by:

          Kevin Hisashi Kono, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP
          1300 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400
          Portland, OR 97201-5610
          Telephone: (503) 241-2300
          E-mail: kevinkono@dwt.com


THARALDSON HOSPITALITY: Turnquist Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as KELSEY TURNQUIST, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated v. THARALDSON HOSPITALITY
STAFFING, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; INTERCONTINENTAL
HOTELS GROUP PLC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. RIC2001027
(Filed March 5, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court in the
State of California for the County of Riverside to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on June 5,
2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:20-cv-01159 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay wages for
all time worked at minimum wage, and failed to pay proper overtime
wages for daily overtime worked, and all hours worked in violation
of the California Labor Code.

Tharaldson Hospitality provides hospitality management services.
The Company offers management services on a contract and fee
basis.[BN]

Defendant Tharaldson Hospitality is represented by:

          William J. Goines, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          1900 University Avenue, 5th Floor
          East Palo Alto, CA 94303
          Telephone: 650 328.8500
          Facsimile: 650 328.8508
          E-mail: goinesw@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Lindsay E. Hutner, Esq.
          Alexa R. Hankard, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 3000
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: 415.655.1300
          Facsimile: 415.707.2010
          E-mail: hutnerl@gtlaw.com
                  hankarda@gtlaw.com


TIKTOK: Class Action Over User Data Harvesting Pending in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Waters, writing for IPWatchdog, reports that notwithstanding
its negative effects on the world at large, COVID-19 quarantine has
been a boon to a growing group of entertainment-based apps and
services. Netflix, Amazon, Zoom, and Instagram are a few of the
best-known apps that many have used to break the monotony of
pandemic-induced isolation. TikTok is also on the list of apps
experiencing a growth surge, though chances are that your kids are
more likely to have participated in a viral TikTok dance challenge
than you. Unfortunately for the Chinese-owned company, this
popularity among the tween-and-under set is the source of its
ongoing struggles with privacy advocates and regulators. Most
recently, prominent consumer and privacy advocacy groups filed an
FTC complaint accusing TikTok of particularly egregious privacy
lapses relating to children. Democrats on Capitol Hill have piled
on with a May 28th letter supporting the advocates' complaint,
expressing concern that user data is being funneled to the Chinese
government and stating that TikTok's "blatant disregard" for
privacy regulations affects all Americans' online privacy.

TikTok's Background

The company touts itself as the destination for short-form videos,
with a mission to capture the world's creativity, knowledge, and
precious life moments. Its social media app, which launched in its
current iteration in August 2018, reached the milestone of 2
billion downloads during the pandemic and its growing popularity is
astonishing. Forbes reports that TikTok has 800 million average
daily users, and its parent company ByteDance collected $17 billion
in revenue in 2019.  TikTok, which began as the simple lip synching
app musical.ly, was acquired by ByteDance for $800 million in 2017.
According to Bloomberg, the app is now valued at more than $100
billion.  TikTok's 18-month growth trajectory is almost
unprecedented, but its repeated privacy lapses and foreign
ownership have left critics with a lot to complain about.

TikTok's Previous Privacy Troubles

In February 2019, the FTC filed a complaint in United States
District Court alleging various privacy lapses at Musical.ly, which
by then was operating under the control of ByteDance with the name
TikTok. The FTC's complaint details numerous issues with the app's
privacy controls and focuses on its treatment of users under the
age of 13. Specifically, the FTC alleged that the app received
thousands of emails from parents requesting the closure of their
child's account, a function not available from within the app.
TikTok closed those accounts upon request, but did not delete the
data associated with the child users. Additionally, the complaint
highlighted that TikTok had discovered 46 of its most popular users
were under the age of 13. Upon this discovery, TikTok instructed
those users to edit their bios to indicate that an adult manager or
parent was operating their account. TikTok, however, never verified
that an adult was actually managing or monitoring those accounts.
Most disturbingly, the app's settings defaulted to public profiles
and offered a functionality providing a list of other users within
a 50-mile radius, which resulted in children being messaged and
solicited by adult users. It is not difficult to see why these
privacy lapses were alarming to parents—the allegations in the
complaint amounted to serious violations of the Children's Online
Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). Without admitting guilt, TikTok
agreed to settle these privacy charges for $5.7 million and entered
into a consent order with the FTC. This amount is dwarfed by both
TikTok's current revenue and the FTC's $5 billion settlement with
Facebook, but it was a record settlement for COPPA enforcement.

Public advocates and government are not the only ones taking aim at
the app—private litigants have also filed suits alleging TikTok's
privacy problems. TikTok settled for $1.1 million, subject to court
approval, in a class action in Illinois which alleged violations of
COPPA similar to the FTC's. A putative California class action
filed in December 2019, Misty Hong v. TikTok, Inc. et al., alleges
that TikTok was secretly harvesting user data, even unpublished
draft videos.  TikTok also faces lawsuits brought by parents on
behalf of unnamed minors in both California and Illinois for
violations of Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA").
Each of these complaints reiterates variations of the same
allegations that TikTok is not asking for user permission, or
parental permission in the case of child users, before using their
data in various ways. These allegations are not consistent with
what would be required by its consent order with the FTC.

TikTok's Latest Privacy Troubles

It is not surprising then, that little more than a year after its
FTC settlement, TikTok is back in the headlines with advocates and
regulators alleging its blatant disregard of the consent order.  On
May 14, 2020, 20 consumer and privacy advocacy groups led by the
Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood joined together to file a
56-page complaint with the FTC detailing TikTok's continuing
privacy abuses. Among other alleged abuses, TikTok's has allegedly
continued to fail to both obtain parental consent before collecting
childrens' data and delete children's data upon request. TikTok
shouldn't be surprised by the complaint, as these allegations are
virtually the same as those leveled in the FTC's 2019 complaint.
Central to both complaints is the ease with which users under 13
are able to circumvent the app's age controls.  The 2020 complaint
also includes fairly extreme examples of child users, whose data
arguably should have been deleted pursuant to the 2019 consent
order, still appearing in the app. For example, the complaint
highlights a 7-year-old with over 44,000 TikTok followers and a
10-year-old with 1.2 million followers. Showing their support of
the group's complaint, U.S. Representatives Annie Kuster and Jan
Schakowsky, along with 12 other Democratic members of the Energy
and Commerce Committee, sent a letter to the FTC encouraging it to
investigate TikTok and stating, ". . . as long TikTok is out of
compliance with COPPA and the consent decree, young children are at
heightened risk."

TikTok's use of data has also come under particular scrutiny
because of its ties to the Chinese government. Under Chinese law,
companies can be compelled to share their data with the Chinese
government. There are many nefarious ways an international actor
might use data on a large and growing portion of Americans,
particularly children. Experts have alleged that TikTok may be
currently censoring content and could use its vast data stores as
an aid to future propaganda campaigns.

Practical Takeaways

Issues of Chinese propaganda and national security may seem far
afield for U.S. companies building privacy programs. However, the
privacy abuses leveled against TikTok serve as a guide for how
those abuses arise and how they may be mitigated by any company
building and growing a privacy compliance program.

* Know your audience. Privacy protocols are necessary for any app
that is collecting user data, but where childrens' privacy is
concerned you can expect an understandably heightened standard of
care. An interesting tidbit from the advocates' complaint to the
FTC is Appendix No.1, which details particularly egregious user
accounts. The youngest user identified in the exhibit was just 4
years old.  Despite this evidence of infant-adjacent users, one of
TikTok's most-touted defenses is that it is targeted at an older
audience. The takeaway: Don't bury your head in the sand when it
comes to knowing your audience. If a large portion of your users
are children, even if your app is not targeted at kids, your
privacy compliance program should be developed with them in mind.

* Assess your age controls. Both FTC complaints are instructive on
exactly how to avoid the ire of advocacy groups and regulators with
regard to implementing functional age controls on an app or
website. For example, the advocates' complaint points out that once
an underage user realizes that age restrictions have been imposed
on their account, they can simply create a new account from the
same device, using a fake birthdate. TikTok could have avoided this
problem by using device IDs to require additional parental consent
verification—by providing a credit card, for example—on those
devices where an underage account was previously created.

* Know and follow the law. It is fundamental to a privacy
compliance program that you must understand and follow applicable
federal and state law. Complying with applicable law may seem to be
an obvious point, but in TikTok's case, where it allegedly failed
to comply with data deletion requests under COPPA, it bears
repeating. If you serve children, your privacy program must comply
with COPPA. Further, complying with applicable privacy laws means
the often-burdensome effort of keeping up with a rapidly evolving
body of law. You may also be subject to various state laws, such as
the recently enacted California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), state
data breach notification laws, and recently proposed privacy
legislation in various states, including Washington.  Federal
legislators have also proposed privacy bills, which may come into
effect in coming years.

* Monitor compliance. Finally, privacy compliance programs are not
"set it and forget it" endeavors.  A compliance program should have
a built-in monitoring and QA protocol so you can be sure that your
privacy controls are functioning properly. [GN]


TOWNE PARK: Ramirez Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to S.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ALAN RAMIREZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TOWNE PARK, LLC,
a Maryland limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 37-2020-700003942-CU-OE-CTL (Filed Jan. 23,
2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California on June 5, 2020.

The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-01032-H-KSC to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts claims for failure to pay all wages, failure
to pay overtime wages, meal period violations, rest
period violations, wage statement violations, waiting time
penalties, and failure to reimburse business records pursuant to
the Private Attorney's General Act, California Labor Code.

Towne Park provides hospitality and parking solutions.[BN]

Defendant Towne Park, LLC, is represented by:

          Evan R. Moses, Esq.
          Julia A. Luster, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213 239-9800
          Facsimile: 213 239-9045
          E-mail: evan.moses@ogletree.com
                  julia.luster@ogletree.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Chalal Suit Moved From Pennsylvania to New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER CHALAL, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TOYOTA MOTOR
CORPORATION, TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., TOYOTA MOTOR SALES,
USA, INC., and TOYOTA MOTOR ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING NORTH
AMERICA, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01867 (Filed April 10, 2020), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York (Brooklyn) on June 3, 2020.

The Eastern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-02450-RPK-SJB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Rachel P. Kovner.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
The lawsuit is a civil class action brought by the Plaintiff on
behalf of consumers, who purchased Toyota and Lexus vehicles
equipped with certain defective low-pressure fuel pumps.

On January 13, 2020, Toyota submitted a safety recall report to
NHTSA voluntarily recalling nearly 700,000 Toyota and Lexus
vehicles manufactured between August 1, 2018, through January 31,
2019, with defective low-pressure Denso fuel pumps. In the Recall
Report, Toyota identified a dangerous defect in the low-pressure
fuel pump which can fail and cause the Recalled Vehicles to
unexpectedly stall and cause engine shut down.

Toyota Motor is a Japanese multinational automotive manufacturer
headquartered in Toyota, Aichi, Japan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John A. Macoretta, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
          2001 Market Street, Ste. 3420
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
          E-mail: jmacoretta@srkattorneys.com


TRINITY PROPERTY: Calonia Balks at Collection of Biometric Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
ISIDRO BUTCH CALONIA JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TRINITY PROPERTY CONSULTANTS,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2020L000609 (Ill. Cir., 18th Judicial,
Dupage Cty., June 12, 2020) is a class action complaint brought by
the Plaintiff against Defendant to put a stop to its unlawful
collection, use, and storage of Plaintiff's and the putative Class
members' sensitive biometric data in violation of the Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, when employees first begin their jobs
at Trinity, they are required to scan their fingerprint in its
biometric time tracking system as a means of authentication,
instead of using only key fobs or other identification cards.
Trinity disregarded its employees' statutorily protected privacy
rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses their biometric
data in violation of the BIPA.

Specifically, Trinity has violated (and continues to violate) the
BIPA because it did not: 1) Properly inform Plaintiff and the Class
members in writing of the specific purpose and length of time for
which their fingerprints were being collected, stored, and used, as
required by the BIPA; 2) Provide a publicly available retention
schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying Plaintiff's and
the Class's fingerprints, as required by the BIPA; nor 3) Receive a
written release from Plaintiff or the members of the Class to
collect, capture, or otherwise obtain fingerprints, as required by
the BIPA.

Trinity Property Consultants, LLC is a multi-housing management
company located in Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Fish, Esq.
          Mara Baltabols, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: (630) 355-7590
          Facsimile: (630) 778-0400
          E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
                  mara@fishlawfirm.com

UNITED AIRLINES: Miller Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JON MILLER, an individual, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. UNITED
AIRLINES, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, DALE BORDELEON an
individual; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No. 20STCV10551
(Filed March 16, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on June 2,
2020.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-04910 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff's complaint alleges claims for hostile work
environment-race, gender/sex; discrimination based on sex/gender,
race and disability; failure to reasonably accommodate; failure to
engage in interactive process, and sexual battery and battery;
assault; retaliation; and failure to take all reasons steps to
prevent discrimination, in violation of  the California Family
Rights Act and Labor Code.

United Airlines is a major American airline headquartered at Willis
Tower in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]

The Defendant United Airlines, Inc., is represented by:

          Michele Haydel Gehrke, Esq.
          Mona A. Razani, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          101 Second Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94105-3659
          Telephone: 415 543 8700
          Facsimile: 415 391 8269
          E-mail: mgehrke@reedsmith.com
                  mrazani@reedsmith.com


UNITED JACKLEAN: Stirling Sues Over Unpaid OT and Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABAGAIL STIRLING, ILENE MAYNARD, CHRIS STIRLING, TIFFANIE HAWKINS
v. UNITED JACKLEAN, INC., a California corporation; MINORU KOGURE,
an individual aka MICHAEL KOGURE and dba US JACKLEAN; KINUKO
KOGURE, an individual and dba US JACKLEAN; and DOES 1 through 100,
all inclusive, Case No. 20STCV21365 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
June 5, 2020), is brought on behalf of  the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated employees asserting claims for unpaid base-rate
compensation, unpaid overtime compensation, minimum wage
violations, and failure to provide opportunity for meal and rest
breaks pursuant to the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiffs are employees of the Defendants.

U.S. Jacklean is a specialty manufacturer of products that foster
personal health and well-being.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kenneth W. Ralidis, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W. RALIDIS, A.P.L.C.
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., 27th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 251-5480
          Facsimile: (323) 953-1171


UNITED STATES: Detainees Class Action in Florida v. ICE  Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Ovalle, writing for The Miami Herald, reports that to help
curb the spread of the novel coronavirus, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement must give soap, cleaning supplies and masks to
detainees at three South Florida detention centers, and also limit
transfers to other facilities, a federal judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke, in an order issued just before
midnight on June 6, also allowed detainees at the centers to pursue
legal claims in one class-action lawsuit, rather than piecemeal
litigation.

The judge stopped short of ordering that detainees be released, but
the ruling -- which was critical of the government's treatment of
people in ICE custody -- was still a victory for the detainees who
filed the lawsuit back in April. Cooke noted that social distancing
at the three South Florida ICE detention center "is still
impossible," detainees aren't properly educated on the use of
masks, and continued transfers of detainees to other facilities
"substantially increases the risk of spread of the contagion."

"In sum, in this moment of worldwide peril from a highly contagious
pathogen, the Court is not satisfied that ICE's commitment to
detention has meaningfully shifted since the start of the
pandemic," Cooke wrote in a 40-page order.

Cooke's order expands on an earlier order mandating the thinning of
the population at three Florida detention centers because of the
spread of COVID-19, the illness caused by the novel coronavirus.

The ruling came June 5 as part of an ongoing federal lawsuit
seeking the release of detainees at three South Florida detention
centers: Krome in Miami-Dade, the Broward Transitional Center in
Pompano Beach and the Glades County detention center in Moore
Haven.

For detention facilities of all types across the United States, the
spread of the highly contagious coronavirus has been particularly
troubling because of the close quarters and difficulty of social
distancing.

The Miami-Dade jail system, which houses over 3,000 people awaiting
criminal trials and serving short sentences, has had close to 500
inmates stricken by COVID-19. One inmate, Charles Hobbs, has died.

A group of community organizers filed a lawsuit against Miami-Dade
County seeking the release of "medically vulnerable" inmates. A
federal judge ordered the jails to issue soap, masks and
disinfectants to inmates, although an appeals court halted the
ruling as litigation continues.

In the immigration-detention system, organizers filed a similar
lawsuit in April.

Citing "cruel and unusual punishment" behind bars, Judge Cooke
later in April issued an order telling ICE to shrink its detainee
populations at the centers to 75% of capacity to allow for social
distancing. The order has been extended several times.

The judge has also closely monitored how ICE is handling its
detention centers throughout the pandemic, hearing directly from
detainees, questioning how the system transfers people in custody
and even ordering the agency to release information on civilian
contractors who have contracted COVID-19.

ICE says it has drastically cut the population at its detention
centers in accordance with the judge's orders. ICE said in a court
filing on June 5, it had removed 105 people from the three
facilities, some for deportation, some for other centers to prepare
for imminent deportation.

But Cooke was alarmed at how the transfers were taking place. She
noted that one inmate, who testified during an earlier hearing, was
escorted by a guard "who was not donning a mask, despite being
seated a mere two feet away from Mr. Borges."

The judge ruled that ICE must limit the transfer of "detainees to
only instances regarding immediately necessary medical appointments
and release from custody," according to the order. "Social
distancing requirements should be strictly enforced in buses, vans,
and planes," she wrote.

The judge also ordered ICE to not quarantine suspected positive
detainees together until tests have confirmed that someone has the
virus. The practice is known as "cohorting."

The judge's order, no longer temporary, will remain in place until
a trial can be held. [GN]


UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Faces Suit Over Disclosure of Patients' Data
------------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.,
Defendant, (Ohio Comm. Pleas, Cuyahoga Cty., June 12, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendant for disclosure of non-public
medical information, breach of confidence, and invasion of
privacy.

The Plaintiff, individually and all others similarly-situated
patients at University Hospitals Health System, Inc., alleges that
the Defendant discloses its patients' personally identifiable,
non-public medical information, and the contents of their
communication to third parties, including Facebook, Google,
Microsoft (Bing), Invoca.net, Liveperson.net, LPSNMedia.net, and
Typekit.net, through the Defendant's website www.uhhospitals.org
and within the MyUHCare patient portal for marketing purposes
without providing notice and obtaining any authorization from
patients, including the Plaintiff. The Defendant's conduct violates
its promises of confidentiality to patients and also breaches its
two separate privacy statements, Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act (HIPAA) Notice of Privacy Practices and Privacy
Policy.

University Hospitals Health System, Inc. is a non-profit
corporation that provides healthcare services, with its
headquarters at 3605 Warrensville Center Road, Shaker Heights,
Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                 
         
         Stuart E. Scott, Esq.
         Kevin C. Hulick, Esq.
         SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP
         1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700
         Cleveland, OH 44114
         Telephone: (216) 696-3232
         Facsimile: (216) 696-3924
         E-mail: sscott@spanglaw.com
                 khulick@spanglaw.com

USA JAN: Underpays IHOP Servers, Harding Claims
-----------------------------------------------
The case ANGELINA HARDING on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. USA JAN, INC.,
an Illinois corporation, d/b/a IHOP, NEW ZAKS USA, INC., an
Illinois corporation, d/b/a IHOP 1209, FLIP 3132, INC., an Illinois
corporation, d/b/a IHOP, FLIPMEASTACK, INC., an Illinois
corporation, d/b/a IHOP, SALAUDDIN JANMOHAMMED, an individual,
VICTORIA JANMOHAMMED, an individual Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-03468 (N.D. Ill., June 14, 2020) arises under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and
the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act for Defendants'
failure to pay Plaintiff, and other similarly situated employees,
minimum wages, overtime wages, and earned wages.

Plaintiff was employed as server by Defendants within the last
three years before the filing of this lawsuit. Plaintiff Harding
and other servers customarily and regularly received more than
$30.00 per month in tips. Defendants elected to claim a tip credit
by compensating servers based upon the lower statutory minimum wage
rates for tipped employees and using tips to make up the difference
between the lower minimum wage rates for tipped employees and the
standard minimum wage rates that would otherwise be owed.

Instead of instituting a schedule that ensures that their employees
will not work more than 40 hours in a single workweek, Defendants
force employees to work more than 40 hours in a single workweek,
and then use various schemes to make it appear that these employees
worked 40 hours or less in a single workweek.

USA Jan Inc., New Zaks USA Inc., and Flip 3132, Inc. are Illinois
corporations doing business within the state. They own and operate
IHOP franchise restaurants in the Chicagoland area.

Flipmeastack provides restaurant management services to USA Jan,
New Zaks, and Flip 3132, as well as the approximately 20 other IHOP
franchise restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
          8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
          Skokie, IL 60076
          Telephone: (847) 986-5889
          Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
          E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com

               - and -

          James L. Simon, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
          5000 Rockside Road Liberty Plaza – Suite 520
          Independence, OH 44131
          Telephone: (216) 525-8890
          E-mail: james@bswages.com

               - and -

          Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
          Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
          BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
          P.O. Box 97066
          Phoenix, AZ 85060
          Telephone AZ: (480) 382-5176
          Telephone OH: (216) 395-4226
          E-mail: cliff@bswages.com

VERB TECHNOLOGY: Hartmann Class Action in California Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Verb Technology Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a purported class action suit entitled, SCOTT
C. HARTMANN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. VERB TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC., and RORY J.
CUTAIA, Defendant, Case Number 2:19-CV-05896.

On July 9, 2019, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court, Central District of California,
styled SCOTT C. HARTMANN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. VERB TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC.,
and RORY J. CUTAIA, Defendant, Case Number 2:19-CV-05896.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a class of
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's common stock between January 3, 2018 and May 2, 2018, and
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of the January 3, 2018,
announcement by us of our agreement with Oracle America, Inc.

The complaint seeks unspecified costs and damages.

Verb Technology said, "We believe the complaint is without merit
and we intend to vigorously defend the action."

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

Verb Technology Company, Inc. provides cloud-based business
software products under the Tagg brand name. The company was
formerly known as nFusz, Inc. and changed its name to Verb
Technology Company, Inc. in February 2019. Verb Technology Company,
Inc. was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Los Angeles,
California.


VILLAGE OF SUGAR: Michalek et al Sue Over Unlawful Termination
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CONNOR MICHALEK, JOSH POLOWY, individually and on behalf
of other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. VILLAGE OF
SUGAR GROVE, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03434 (N.D. Ill., June 11,
2020) arises from Defendant's alleged unlawful employment practices
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law, the Illinois Whistleblower Act, and the Illinois Common
Law Retaliatory Discharge.

Plaintiffs worked for Defendant and were required to be "on-call"
during certain periods.

Plaintiffs assert that they were called very frequently by
Defendant while they were on-call but were not paid at one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay.

Moreover, Plaintiffs were being terminated by Defendant when they
started complaining through verbal and written.

Village of Sugar Grove is an organized village in Kane County,
Illinois run by its own government. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan Lubin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN LUBIN
          8800 Bronx Ave., Suite 100H
          Skokie, IL 60077
          Tel: 773-954-2608
          Email: jonathan@lubinlegal.com

                - and –

          Mitchell Goldberg, Esq.
          Timothy Edmier, Esq.
          Lawrence Kamin, Esq.
          LAWRENCE KAMIN LAW FIRM
          300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 500
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Tel: 312-372-1947
          Website: https://www.lawrencekaminlaw.com/


VIVINT SOLAR: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in Dekker Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Vivint Solar, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Gerrie Dekker, et al. v. Vivint
Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-07918-WHA, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
arises from certain misrepresented termination fees imposed by the
Defendants.

The Plaintiffs contend that these termination fees constitute
unlawful penalties that are void and unenforceable under California
Civil Code; unlawful and unfair under California's Unfair
Competition Law; and unconscionable under California's Consumers
Legal Remedies Act.

According to the complaint, at consumers' front doors and around
their kitchen tables, Vivint Solar sales representatives falsely
promise consumers they will only pay for the energy they use.
Touting the simplicity of a single, lower energy bill, sales
representatives boast about the ease of transferring the Solar
System if a consumer sells her home, which is also false. Further,
claiming the Solar System will actually increase property value,
and they assure consumers installation and customer service is
their forte. It most certainly is not, the Plaintiffs assert.

The appellate case is captioned as Gerrie Dekker, et al. v. Vivint
Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-15572, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellants Vivint Solar Developer, LLC, Vivint Solar
      Holdings, Inc., Vivint Solar Provider, LLC and Vivint
      Solar, Inc.'s opening brief is due on July 9, 2020;

   -- Appellees Karen Barajas, Juan Bautista, Jae Chong, Gerrie
      Dekker, Gennie Hilliard, Marci Hulsey, Cindy Piini, Marlene
      Rogers, Phyllis Runyon and Daniel Thompson's answering
      brief is due on August 10, 2020; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellees GERRIE DEKKER; KAREN BARAJAS, as executor of
the Estate of Thompson Bryson; MARLENE ROGERS; DANIEL THOMPSON; JAE
CHONG; MARCI HULSEY; CINDY PIINI; PHYLLIS RUNYON; GENNIE HILLIARD;
and JUAN BAUTISTA, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, are represented by:

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

Defendants-Appellants VIVINT SOLAR, INC., VIVINT SOLAR HOLDINGS,
INC., VIVINT SOLAR DEVELOPER, LLC, and VIVINT SOLAR PROVIDER, LLC,
are represented by:

          Wyatt Honse, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          2475 Hanover Street
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 251-5168
          Facsimile: (650) 251-5002
          E-mail wyatt.honse@stblaw.com

               - and -

          Chet Alan Kronenberg, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 407-7557
          Facsimile: (310) 407-7502
          E-mail: ckronenberg@stblaw.com


WALGREEN CO: Underpays Call Center Agents, Olazagasti Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
LEYLA MARIE CORTES OLAZAGASTI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALGREEN CO., Defendant,
Case: 1:20-cv-03338 (N.D. Ill., June 5, 2020) is an action against
the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Olazagasti was employed by the Defendant as call
center agent.

Walgreen Company provides online medical products. The Company
sells prescription refills, health info, contact lenses, and other
products. Walgreen serves customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq.
          Megan E. Shannon, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 f
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  cmitchell@stephanzouras.com
                  mshannon@stephanzouras.com

               - and -

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin Anderson, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com


WE COMPANY: False Financial Reports Lured Investors, Kockum Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
HENRIETTE KOCKUM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. THE WE COMPANY, ADAM NEUMANN,
ARTHUR MINSON, MICHAEL GROSS, LEWIS FRANKFORT, BRUCE DUNLEVIE, M.
STEVEN LANGMAN, JOHN ZHAO, MARK SCHWARTZ, RONALD D. FISHER and
SOFTBANK GROUP CORP., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-03894-DMR (N.D.
Cal., June 12, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the California Corporations Code.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly-situated purchasers of WeWork securities between May 15,
2017 and September 30, 2019, alleges that the Defendants made false
or misleading statements regarding The We Company's financial
results and controlled expansion plans and growth investment
strategy in order to attract investors and sell its securities at
artificially inflated prices during the Class period. The company's
use of fanciful accounting metrics to obscure its true financial
condition and its focus on market expansion strategy to induce
additional investments were exposed following the rejection of its
use of community-adjusted EBITDA metric by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission and revelations by investigative journalists
and industry analysts about the company's inner workings. In the
face of these revelations, from August 2019 onward, the value of
WeWork securities plummeted. By November 2019, WeWork was valued at
less than $5 billion, a stunning 90% decline in less than a year
that devastated the company's investors. The Plaintiff and Class
members have suffered significant losses as a result of the
Defendants' unlawful conduct and omissions.

The We Company, d/b/a WeWork, is a private commercial real estate
company that specializes in the provision of shared workspace for
technology startups and other enterprises. The company maintained
dual headquarters in San Francisco, California and New York City.

Softbank Group Corp. is a multinational conglomerate holding
company headquartered in Tokyo, Japan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
         ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
         Post Montgomery Center
         One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Telephone: (415) 288-4545
         Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
         E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

                - and –
         
         Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
         Travis E. Downs III, Esq.
         Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
         ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101-3301
         Telephone: (619) 231-1058
         Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
         E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
                 travisd@rgdlaw.com
                 bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

WELLS FARGO: Faces Perry Suit Over Misleading SEC Statements
------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM PERRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, CHARLES W. SCHARF,
TIMOTHY J. SLOAN, and JOHN R. SHREWSBERRY, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-04494 (S.D.N.Y., June 11, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly-situated individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired
common shares of Wells Fargo stock between February 2, 2018 and
March 10, 2020, claims that the Defendants released false and
misleading statements about Wells Fargo's corporate reforms in its
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings and press releases
in order to convince the investing public that the company complied
with the consent orders from the Federal Reserve System and the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Wells Fargo's public
statements led to the artificial inflation of the market price of
the company's shares during the Class period. The Plaintiff and
Class members relied on the statements made by Wells Fargo and the
Individual Defendants and/or the integrity of the market price of
Wells Fargo shares in their purchasing decision. The Defendants'
misconduct and omissions harmed the Plaintiff and Class members
because in reality, Wells Fargo was far from complying with the
regulators' directive, including repeatedly submitting
insufficiently developed and inadequate remediation plans,
struggling to meet deadlines, and failing to implement meaningful
reforms. The Plaintiff and Class members would not have purchased
the company's shares at artificially inflated prices, or purchased
them at any price, had they known about the truth.

Wells Fargo & Company is a San Francisco, California-based
financial services company that provides range of products and
services, including banking, consumer finance, credit cards,
investments, leasing, and mortgages. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                 
         
         Christian Levis, Esq.
         Frank Strangeman, Esq.
         Andrea Farah, Esq.
         LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
         44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
         White Plains, NY 10601
         Telephone: (914) 997-0500
         E-mail: clevis@lowey.com
                 fstrangeman@lowey.com
                 afarah@lowey.com

WILLIS TOWERS: Faces Class Action Over Proposed Aon Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Terry Gangcuangco, writing for Insurance Business America, reports
that London-headquartered and Irish-domiciled Willis Towers Watson
has quite a lot on its plate, with multiple shareholder class
action lawsuits filed against the broking giant in connection with
its proposed mega merger with fellow goliath Aon Plc.      

The latest to announce the filing of a lawsuit is New York-based
investor rights law firm Halper Sadeh LLP, whose camp is seeking
damages and/or equitable relief on behalf of Willis Towers Watson
shareholders under federal securities laws.

Willis Towers Watson is being accused of having issued a misleading
proxy statement to recommend that its shareholders vote in favor of
the Aon deal. The complaint alleges that the proxy statement
contains materially incomplete and misleading information
concerning financial projections and analyses performed by Willis
Towers Watson's financial advisor.

Halper Sadeh LLP's move comes hot on the heels of Rigrodsky & Long,
P.A.'s own filing last week in the US District Court for the
District of Delaware. Similarly, the complaint points to alleged
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

"Among other things," noted Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., "the complaint
alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder support for the
proposed transaction, defendants issued materially incomplete
disclosures in a proxy statement filed with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission."

Last month, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in
the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. Also
in May, Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. reminded Willis Towers Watson
investors of the US stockholder rights law firm's ongoing probe
concerning the sale agreement with Aon. [GN]


WORK AND INCOME: Class Action Likely Over Redundancy Payments
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jihee Junn, writing for The Spinoff, reports that for years, Work
and Income has been telling New Zealanders they couldn't get the
benefit until their redundancy payments ran out. Turns out, it was
wrong.

What's all this then?

Work and Income has long told New Zealanders receiving redundancy
payments that they weren't eligible for the benefit until their
redundancy money ran out. However, it was revealed last month that
Work and Income was wrong, and that for decades, the organisation
has been in breach of its own rules.

The revelation came after RNZ reported the story of a cleaner at an
Auckland hotel who'd been made redundant at the start of the
Covid-19 lockdown. She applied for the job seeker's benefit but was
told she wouldn't be eligible until her redundancy payment ran out
in September, which Work and Income insisted was correct. But a few
days later, Work and Income admitted it had made a mistake after
RNZ pointed out that the Social Security Act said redundancy
shouldn't be a factor when calculating an entitlement to a
benefit.

That doesn't sound good. So is this an isolated case or a
widespread issue?

All evidence seems to point at this being a widespread issue that's
been going on as far back as the 1990s. Many stories from those
claiming to have also been wrongly denied benefits have since
emerged with some experiencing bankruptcy and debt while others
report losing their savings and homes.

Work and Income, however, has said these were "isolated practice
issues" and that its policy guidance, training and IT system
contained no errors. Furthermore, a review by the Ministry of
Social Development (MSD) said it found there were "no systemic
issues".

Do we know how many people have been affected?

According to the MSD review, it found that close to 9% of
applicants had been wrongly denied the benefit based on redundancy
payments. However, that number comes from a sample of just 185
cases where redundancy was mentioned on applications from February
7 to May 15 this year which means its prevalence over time is still
unknown. Legal experts suggest the practice has been unlawful since
1991 which means thousands of people could have been affected.

It's also important to note that a number of people have since said
they decided not to apply for the benefit in the first place after
reading on the Work and Income website that their redundancy
payment would make them ineligible, which makes calculating the
true cost of Work and Income's error extremely difficult.  

MINISTER FOR SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT CARMEL SEPULONI (PHOTO: GETTY
IMAGES)

So has Work and Income done anything about this?

Late last month, Work and Income reported that 244 people had been
in touch with concerns over how their redundancy payments had been
handled. Several of these people have since had their cases
successfully reviewed and have started receiving back payments.
Those with older cases that date back many years, however, are set
to take much longer to assess.

What's been the response from the government?

When the news first broke in May, social development minister
Carmel Sepuloni said she'd not been aware of the issue and
subsequently ordered MSD to investigate, which led to its review
that found there was room for improvement but "no systemic issues".
Sepuloni has since reprimanded MSD while saying that mistakes had
been made but also that she remained confident in her ministry's
approach.

Can those affected take legal action?

Potentially. One lawyer told RNZ that "on the information presented
to date, there is a high prospect of a class action being formed
provided people are sufficiently interested". But others point out
that with little case law relating to the issue of redundancy and
benefit payments, it's unclear exactly how a legal proceeding would
pan out.

And lastly, what can I do if I'm one of those affected?

Work and Income has recommended people call 0800 559 009 if they
have concerns over how their benefit start date was calculated, or
fill out an enquiry form on its website.

The Spinoff's money section is made possible thanks to the support
of Kiwi Wealth.  They're helping Kiwis like you with info to help
you ride out the market storm. [GN]


X FINANCIAL: Defending Chen Class Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------
X Financial said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend
a putative class action suit entitled, Xiangdong Chen v. X
Financial, et al., No. 1:19-cv-06908-KAM-SJB (E.D.N.Y.).

On December 9, 2019 a putative class action complaint captioned
Xiangdong Chen v. X Financial, et al., No. 1:19-cv-06908-KAM-SJB,
was filed in the Eastern District of New York against the Company
and certain of its officers and directors, asserting violations of
the Securities Act of 1933 based on the company's September 2018
initial public offering.

The Company has been served and intends to vigorously defend the
action.

X Financial provides financial services. The Company offers
personal finance, loans, and other related services. X Financial
serves customers in China.



X FINANCIAL: Still Defends Securities Suit in NY State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
X Financial said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2020, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend
a consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In re X
Financial Securities Litigation," No. 657033/2019.

On November 26, 2019, a putative class action complaint captioned
Shivakumar Ningappa v. X Financial, et al., No. 657033/2019, was
filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York
County  against the Company, certain of its officers and directors,
and the underwriters of its initial public offering, asserting
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 based on our September
2018 initial public offering.

Two additional lawsuits were subsequently filed in the same court,
containing substantially identical allegations.

On February 5, 2020, all three lawsuits were consolidated under the
caption "In re X Financial Securities Litigation," No. 657033/2019,
and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on February 14,
2020.

X Financial provides financial services. The Company offers
personal finance, loans, and other related services. X Financial
serves customers in China.


ZOOM TELEPHONICS: Continues to Defend Schulze Suit Over Old Modems
------------------------------------------------------------------
Zoom Telephonics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action initiated by William Schulze.

On January 23, 2020, William Schulze filed a complaint, and
subsequently filed an amended complaint on April 3, 2020
(collectively the "Schulze Complaint") as lead plaintiff on behalf
of purchasers of Zoom modems in a putative class action lawsuit
against Zoom in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

The Schulze Complaint alleges that Zoom modems were sold as new
despite containing refurbished parts.

The Company is preparing to file its answer to the Schulze
Complaint and intends to vigorously defend itself against these
claims.

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

Headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts, Zoom Telephonics, Inc.,
derives its net sales primarily from sales of Internet-related
communication products, principally dial-up modems, fixed and
mobile broadband products, WiFi(R) compatible and Bluetooth(R)
wireless products, and other communication-related products.


ZOOM VIDEO: Continues to Defend Suits Over Alleged Data Sharing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zoom Video Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend multiple putative class action suits related to
its alleged data sharing with third parties.

Beginning on March 30, 2020, multiple putative class actions were
filed against the company in various U.S. federal district courts
and in one state court relating to the company's alleged privacy
and security practices, including alleged data sharing with third
parties (the "U.S. Privacy Class Actions").

The plaintiffs claim violations of a variety of state consumer
protection and privacy laws, and also assert state constitutional
and common law claims, such as negligence and unjust enrichment.

They seek to certify both nationwide and state-specific classes of
individuals using the company's services in certain time periods.
The plaintiffs seek various forms of injunctive and monetary
relief, including restitution, statutory and actual damages, and
attorneys' fees.

The federal cases have been transferred to the Northern District of
California and have nearly completed the process of being related
there for consolidated litigation, with the company's consent.

Zoom Video Communications, Inc. provides a video-first
communications platform that delivers happiness and fundamentally
changes how people interact. The company connects people through
frictionless and secure video, voice, chat, and content sharing and
enable face-to-face video experiences for thousands of people in a
single meeting across disparate devices and locations. The company
is based in San Jose, California.


ZOOM VIDEO: Suits Over Data Privacy & Security Measures Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zoom Video Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended April 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend securities class action suits related to the
company's data privacy and security measures.

On April 7, 2020 and April 8, 2020, securities class action
complaints were filed against the company and two of its officers
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. The plaintiffs are purported stockholders of the
company.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the company
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading statements and
omissions of material fact about the company's data privacy and
security measures.

The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, fees, and
costs.

Zoom Video Communications, Inc. provides a video-first
communications platform that delivers happiness and fundamentally
changes how people interact. The company connects people through
frictionless and secure video, voice, chat, and content sharing and
enable face-to-face video experiences for thousands of people in a
single meeting across disparate devices and locations. The company
is based in San Jose, California.


ZOOM: Major Security Flaws Exposed Amid Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shane McGlaun, writing for Hot Hardware, reports that during the
coronavirus pandemic, many people who have been working and
learning from home have turned to video chat service Zoom. However,
the service has had more than its fair share of issues with
security and privacy over the last few months. Two new
vulnerabilities have surfaced in the video chat platform that could
allow malicious users to execute code on targeted computers.

Both the vulnerabilities were discovered by Cisco Talos, which is a
cyber threat intelligence team that provides network security
solutions against emerging threats. Cisco Talos adhered to its
coordinated disclosure policy, working with Zoom to ensure that
both issues were addressed. One of the issues, TALOS-2020-1056, was
patched in May. The other is TALOS-2020-1055, and while Zoom issued
a server-side update, Cisco Talos believes that this particular
issue requires a patch on the client-side to eliminate the security
risk.

TALOS-2020-1055 is described as a "Zoom client application chat
Giphy arbitrary file write exploit." The security researchers say
that a specially-crafted chat message can cause an arbitrary file
write, which could be further exploited to achieve code execution
on the target machine. To exploit the vulnerability, the attacker
would send a message to a user, or group of users. While only Giphy
servers were supposed to be used for the feature, the content from
an arbitrary server could be loaded. It could then be leveraged to
further leak information or exploit additional vulnerabilities.

Vulnerability TALOS-2020-1056 is described as a "Zoom client
application chat code snippet remote code execution vulnerability."
Talos says an exploitable partial path traversal vulnerability
exists in the way Zoom Client version 4.6.10 processes messages,
including shared code snippets. To exploit the vulnerability,
attackers would craft chat messages that could allow arbitrary code
execution. That specially-crafted message could then be sent to an
individual user or group to exploit the vulnerability. The target
user would have to interact with the message for the most severe
impact from the flaw.

As previously mentioned, Zoom has had other security issues tied to
increased usage during the coronavirus pandemic. Zoom has been hit
with a class-action shareholder lawsuit over some security lapses
that impacted its stock price. In April, it was discovered that
half a million Zoom accounts compromised by hackers were up for
sale on the dark web. [GN]


ZUMIEZ INC: Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied
-------------------------------------------------
Zumiez Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended May 2, 2020, that the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit has denied the company's petition for rehearing en
banc.

A putative class action, Alexia Herrera, on behalf of herself and
all other similarly situated, v. Zumiez Inc., was filed against the
company in the Eastern District Count of California, Sacramento
Division under case number 2:16-cv-01802-SB in August 2016.
Alexandra Bernal filed the initial complaint and then in October
2016 added Alexia Herrera as a named plaintiff and Alexandra Bernal
left the case.  

The putative class action lawsuit against the company alleges,
among other things, various violations of California's wage and
hour laws, including alleged violations of failure to pay reporting
time.  

In May 2017 the company moved for judgment on the pleadings in that
plaintiff's cause of action for reporting-time pay should fail as a
matter of law as the plaintiff and the other putative class members
did not "report for work" with respect to certain shifts on which
the plaintiff's claims are based. In August 2017, the court denied
the motion.

However, in October 2017 the district court certified the order
denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings for immediate
interlocutory review by the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.  

The company then filed a petition for permission to appeal the
order denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which
petition was then granted in January 2018. The company's opening
appellate brief was filed on June 6, 2018 and the plaintiff's
answering appellate brief was filed August 6, 2018.  The company's
reply brief to the Plaintiff's answering appellate brief was filed
on September 26, 2018 and oral arguments were completed on February
4, 2019.  

On May 20, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit granted the company's motion for leave to file a
supplemental brief addressing new authority. On June 10, 2019, the
plaintiff's supplemental answering brief was filed with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  

The company then filed its supplemental reply brief to the
plaintiff's supplemental answering brief with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June 24, 2019. On March
19, 2020 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
published its opinion (i) affirming the District Court's denial of
judgment on the pleadings on plaintiff's reporting time pay and
minimum wage claims, (ii) reversing the District Court's denial of
judgment on the pleadings on plaintiff's expense reimbursement
claim and (iii) refusing to certify the reporting time pay question
to the California Supreme Court.  

On April 2, 2020 the company filed a petition for rehearing en banc
to certify the reporting time pay question to the California
Supreme Court and on April 27, 2020 plaintiff filed a response to
the company's petition for rehearing en banc. The company in turn
filed a reply in support of its petition for rehearing en banc on
May 1, 2020.

On May 14, 2020, the Ninth Circuit denied the company's petition
for rehearing en banc.

Zumiez said, "Given the current status of this case, we are unable
to express a view regarding the ultimate outcome or, if the outcome
is adverse, to estimate an amount, or range, of reasonably possible
loss. We have defended this case vigorously and will continue to do
so."

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

Zumiez Inc., founded in 1978, is a mall-based specialty retailer
providing sports-related apparel, footwear, equipment, and
accessories. It also sells miscellaneous novelties and dvds aimed
at young men and women between the ages of 12 and 24 and
private-label apparel. In addition, it sells merchandise on its Web
site, zumiez.com. The company is based in Everett, Washington.



ZUORA INC: Facing IPO Class Suits in California
-----------------------------------------------
Zuora, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended April 30, 2020, that the company is a defendant in two
putative securities class action lawsuits pending before the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo,
related to its initial public offering (IPO).

In April and May 2020, two putative securities class action
lawsuits were filed in the San Mateo Superior Court naming as
defendants the Company and certain of its current and former
officers, its directors and the underwriters of the IPO.

The complaints purport to bring suit on behalf of stockholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities pursuant
or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with the Company's IPO and allege claims under Sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The suits seek unspecified damages and other relief.

Zuora, Inc. is a leading cloud-based subscription management
platform. The company provides software that enables companies
across multiple industries and geographies to launch, manage or
transform to a subscription business model. Architected
specifically for dynamic, recurring subscription business models,
the company's cloud-based software functions as an intelligent
subscription management hub that automates and orchestrates the
entire subscription order-to-revenue process, including billing and
revenue recognition. The company is based in San Mateo,
California.


ZUORA INC: Must Defend Against Consolidated Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Zuora, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended April 30, 2020, that the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California has denied the company's motion to dismiss a
consolidated securities class action.

In June 2019, a securities class action lawsuit 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 purports to bring suit on behalf of stockholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between
April 12, 2018 and May 30, 2019. The complaint alleges that
defendants made false and misleading statements about the Company's
business, operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(Exchange Act), and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, fees
and costs.

In November 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint asserting the same claims.

In April 2020, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss.

Zuora, Inc. is a leading cloud-based subscription management
platform. The company provides software that enables companies
across multiple industries and geographies to launch, manage or
transform to a subscription business model. Architected
specifically for dynamic, recurring subscription business models,
the company's cloud-based software functions as an intelligent
subscription management hub that automates and orchestrates the
entire subscription order-to-revenue process, including billing and
revenue recognition. The company is based in San Mateo,
California.


ZURICH AMERICAN: Denied Insurance Coverage, Crescent Plaza Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CRESCENT PLAZA HOTEL OWNER, L.P., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly-situated v. ZURICH AMERICAN
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03463 (N.D. Ill.,
June 12, 2020), arises from the Defendant's breach of its
contractual obligation associated to its insurance policy.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated business owners who purchased property insurance
policy from the Defendant for the period April 1, 2020 to April 1,
2021, alleges that the Defendant refused to pay claims for business
losses and costs due to COVID-19 and the resultant Closure Orders
covered by the Zurich policy's Property Damage and Time Element
coverages. The Plaintiff suffered a physical loss of property due
to COVID-19 and was forced to suspend or reduce business in
compliance with the government's Closure Orders to prevent the
spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiff and Class members
argue that the Defendant is obligated to pay them because Time
Element Coverage Extensions, Protection and Preservation of
Property losses incurred in connection with the Closure Orders and
the necessary interruption of their businesses stemming from the
COVID-19 pandemic are insured losses under the policy. The
Plaintiff and Class members have complied with all applicable
provisions of the policy and/or those provisions have been waived
by Zurich or Zurich is stopped from asserting them, and yet Zurich
has abrogated its insurance coverage obligations pursuant to the
policy's terms.

Crescent Plaza Hotel Owner, L.P. is the owner a five-star hotel
named The Ritz-Carlton, Dallas, located at McKinney Avenue in
Dallas, Texas.

Zurich American Insurance Company is an insurance provider with its
principal place of business located in Schaumburg, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
         Amy E. Keller, Esq.
         Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
         Mark Hamill, Esq.
         Laura E. Reasons, Esq.
         DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
         Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Telephone: (312) 214-7900
         E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
                 akeller@dicellolevitt.com
                 dferri@dicellolevitt.com
                 mhamill@dicellolevitt.com
                 lreasons@dicellolevitt.com

                  - and –

         Douglas Daniels, Esq.
         DANIELS & TREDENNICK
         6363 Woodway, Suite 700
         Houston, TX 77057
         Telephone: (713) 917-0024
         E-mail: douglas.daniels@dtlawyers.com

                  - and –

         Timothy W. Burns, Esq.
         Jeff J. Bowen, Esq.
         Jesse J. Bair, Esq.
         Freya K. Bowen, Esq.
         BURNS BOWEN BAIR LLP
         One South Pinckney Street, Suite 930
         Madison, WI 53703
         Telephone: (608) 286-2302
         E-mail: tburns@bbblawllp.com
                 jbowen@bbblawllp.com
                 jbair@bbblawllp.com
                 fbowen@bbblawllp.com

                  - and –

         Mark Lanier, Esq.
         Alex Brown, Esq.
         Skip McBride, Esq.
         THE LANIER LAW FIRM PC
         10940 West Sam Houston Parkway North, Suite 100
         Houston, TX 77064
         Telephone: (713) 659-5200
         E-mail: WML@lanierlawfirm.com
                 alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com
                 skip.mcbride@lanierlawfirm.com

[*] Bill 161 to Hurt Plaintiffs Pursuing Care Home Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marissa Lennox, writing for Toronto Sun, reports some abhorrent
observations made by the Canadian military over the past month in
Ontario long-term care facilities include -- aggressiveness when
changing incontinence pads; not slowing or stopping when resident
complained of pain; forceful feeding by staff causing audible
choking/aspiration; patients observed crying for help with staff
not responding (for 20 minutes to two hours); cockroaches and flies
present; rotten food smell; patients being left in soiled diapers
rather than being ambulated to toilets.

Their unbiased findings have laid bare a system that is failing
some of the most vulnerable members of society: Our elderly.

The findings have exposed the shameful treatment that thousands of
seniors have suffered -- and continue to suffer -- in long-term
care homes across the province.

In the wake of this report, and of thousands of deaths in long-term
care facilities due to COVID-19, seniors and their loved ones are
launching class-action lawsuits in pursuit of justice.

Among these is a $40-million lawsuit against Southbridge Care and
its Orchard Villa home, where of 308 residents, 225 contracted
COVID-19, and 77 died.

Families are seeking compensation for the loss and suffering
inflicted on them.

They want change.

They want justice.

But these grieving families may never get their day in court.

Bill 161, the Smarter and Stronger Justice Act, 2020, is an omnibus
justice reform bill that, among many other things, proposes major
reforms to Ontario's Class Proceedings Act.

These changes fundamentally alter the test for the certification of
class proceedings in favour of defendants — such as long-term
care providers like Southbridge Care.

They would make it much harder for plaintiffs to certify a class
action.

As a result, plaintiffs would have to sue individually - an
extremely costly and difficult proposition, which most would not be
able to undertake.

What are the changes that would hurt plaintiffs pursuing
class-action suits?

The first is a new "predominance" requirement; a concept imported
from American law.

This requirement would demand that the issues a group of plaintiffs
have in common "predominate" over the individual issues that would
remain after the conclusion of the class proceedings.

In the case of suits against long-term care homes, this could mean
that plaintiffs who died of COVID-19, but due to different causes
(e.g. lack of staffing, lack of containment, lack of PPE) might not
be able to be certified as a class, because the fact that they died
of the same illness is not enough of a "predominating" factor.

It could mean that residents suffering different forms of abuse
-- being force-fed to the point of choking, developing bedsores as
a result of neglect, not receiving baths or personal care -- might
be denied the ability to form a class, despite the fact that their
injuries stem from the same cause: rampant neglect of our elderly.

The second change of concern proposed in Bill 161 is the
"superiority" requirement, which requires that a class proceeding
be superior to all reasonably available means of determining class
members' entitlement to relief.

Again, this is designed to make it harder for plaintiffs to sue. It
puts the burden on plaintiffs to establish that the most effective
means of seeking compensation is through a class-action lawsuit; an
additional hurdle which could result in their action not being
certified.

These amendments will unfairly compromise seniors' access to
justice by making it much more difficult for certain types of
actions to be litigated in class action, including class actions
against long-term care homes.

Many previous class actions, such as medical and pharmaceutical
class actions, including actions involving issues with hip
implants, heart devices such as defibrillators and heart lead
products, as well as the Walkerton tainted water case, and the
General Motors retiree benefits class action, might never have been
litigated at all had these proposed rules been in place at the
time.

Who benefits from these changes to class-action certification?

Not ordinary Ontarians.

Not victims of wrongdoing.

The only beneficiaries are powerful corporations, including banks
and insurance companies, who could use these changes to argue
against certification of class actions, to avoid paying out for
claims against the businesses they insure -- including now,
long-term care homes.

For a government, and a premier, that pride themselves on standing
up for the people, this bill is a radical departure. CARP is
therefore calling on the Ontario government to protect the
interests of Ontario seniors and their families by withdrawing
these proposed changes under Bill 161 to limit access to class
actions. [GN]


[*] COVID-Related Lawsuits May Tie Up Canadian Courts for Years
---------------------------------------------------------------
EverythingGP reports that lawsuits involving seniors homes,
airlines, universities and ticket providers affected by COVID-19
could tie up Canadian courts for years, says a litigation lawyer.

Michael Smith, a partner at the Bennett Jones law firm in Toronto,
says it has been tracking all proposed class-action claims related
to the pandemic.

From the end of March to June 1, the firm recorded 19 such lawsuits
across Canada, including eight against long-term care facilities.

"What you find with COVID is the breadth of the sectors it
touches," Smith said in an interview.

"You're seeing many industry sectors affected simultaneously. We
will have COVID-related cases in the courts for many years."

Residents at care homes have been particularly infected with the
novel coronavirus.

The Canadian Armed Forces released a report last month detailing
awful conditions at many care homes in Ontario and Quebec where the
military has been deployed. Allegations include residents being
left in filth and staff failing to isolate those who had tested
positive for the virus.

Multiple lawsuits have been filed alleging negligence in dealing
with COVID-19 in long-term care.

"We're going to see more and more claims like that mature as the
COVID crisis continues," says Smith. "It really does have such a
human element and the issue can be humanized so easily in our
minds."

Calgary lawyer Clint Docken has filed a lawsuit against Calgary's
McKenzie Towne Long Term Care centre, where 19 residents have so
far died from COVID-19.

He says a class action has been filed against all Ontario homes
owned by Revera, the company that also runs McKenzie Towne, but he
is focusing on just the Calgary location.

"The reason we've shied away from that is we're not sure it was a
common experience."

Docken is also in the early stages of a lawsuit involving the
Cargill meat-packing plant at High River, Alta., the site of one of
Canada's worst COVID-19 outbreaks. More than 900 employees tested
positive for the virus and two workers died.

Docken was previously involved in class actions against Maple Leaf
for a deadly listeriosis outbreak in 2008 and against XL Foods
after an E. coli outbreak in 2012 lead to the largest food recall
in Canadian history.

"It's the conditions in the plants. In Maple Leaf it was the
sanitary condition in the plant and in XL Foods it was the sanitary
condition in the plant," he said..

"In a sense, (Cargill) is another sanitary condition in a plant
lawsuit. These plants are cesspools."

Michael Hughes, a spokesman for the United Food and Commercial
Workers Local 401, which represents workers at Cargill, says
leaders have been speaking with lawyers in and outside Alberta
about a lawsuit "to try and make whole our members at Cargill who
suffered as a result of the outbreak."

Other COVID-19 lawsuits involve airline travellers refused fare
refunds, businesses looking for compensation against insurance
companies not paying interruption insurance, and university
students who want partial tuition refunds due to a shortened school
year.

There's also a class action against Ticketmaster for its refusal to
issue refunds for events that have been postponed or rescheduled
due to the pandemic.

The health crisis is and will continue to affect many industries,
said Smith.

"I don't know that we will ever see this again, just because of the
pervasiveness of the problem. It really infects everything."

This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 7, 2020
[GN]


[*] Gross Law Informs of Shareholder Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm on June 8
issued the following notice on behalf of shareholders in the
following publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased
shares in the following companies during the dates listed are
encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff
appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to
partake in any recovery.

Zoom Video Communications, Inc. (ZM)

Investors Affected: April 18, 2019 - April 6, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Zoom Video Communications, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Zoom had inadequate data
privacy and security measures; (ii) contrary to Zoom's assertions,
the Company's video communications service was not end-to-end
encrypted; (iii) as a result of all the foregoing, users of Zoom's
communications services were at an increased risk of having their
personal information accessed by unauthorized parties, including
Facebook; (iv) usage of the Company's video communications services
was foreseeably likely to decline when the foregoing facts came to
light; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/zoom-video-communications-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=7195&from=1

Phoenix Tree Holdings Limited (DNK)

Investors affected purchased American Depositary Shares ("ADS") of
Phoenix pursuant and/or traceable to prospectuses and registration
statements issued in connection with the Company's January 2020
initial public offering

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Phoenix Tree Holdings Limited. According to the filed complaint,
the documents Phoenix Tree issued in connection with its initial
public offering ("IPO") omitted or otherwise misrepresented the
nature and level of renter complaints the Company had received
before and as of the IPO, as well as the demand in the Chinese
residential rental market and the Company's exposure to significant
adverse developments resulting from the onset of the coronavirus in
China - particularly in Wuhan - at the time of the IPO. After the
IPO, reports emerged indicating that Phoenix was experiencing
ongoing problems due to the coronavirus, which was causing
financial and other harm to tenants.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/phoenix-tree-holdings-limited-loss-submission-form/?id=7195&from=1

Conn's, Inc. (CONN)

Investors Affected: September 3, 2019 - December 9, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Conn's, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Conn's was experiencing an increase in first
payment defaults and 60-plus day delinquencies; (2) as a result,
Conn's was reasonably likely to record an increase to its provision
for bad debts; (3) the Company made certain underwriting
adjustments, including tightening its standards for new customers
and online applicants; (4) as a result, the Company's same-store
sales would be adversely impacted; and (5) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/conns-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=7195&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:

The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]


[*] Pace of ERISA Class Action Filings at All-Time High
-------------------------------------------------------
Ted Godbout, writing for American Society of Pension Professionals
& Actuaries, reports that nearly every employer that sponsors a
retirement plan should be concerned about potential liability for
excessive fee claims, but it appears there are some plan
characteristics that may make a plan more susceptible to being
sued, according to a new white paper.   

Co-authored by Chubb and the Groom Law Group, "The War on
Retirement Fees: Is Anyone Safe?" examines the recent history and
trends relating to excessive fee claims, as well as plan features
that may make it a target of litigation. The paper also discusses
steps that fiduciaries can take to reduce exposure to excessive fee
lawsuits.

"Due to the presence of new plaintiffs' firms in the mix and to
constantly evolving theories of legal liability, it is difficult to
predict which plans might attract unwanted attention," according to
the authors of the paper: Alison Martin, Senior Vice President and
Fiduciary Product Manager for Chubb's North America Financial Lines
division, and Lars Golumbic, Principal at Groom Law Group and Chair
of the firm's litigation practice.

One possible reason behind an apparent increase may be that
plaintiffs' law firms that were not previously known in the ERISA
litigation space have started filing excessive fee claims. "Using
plan information obtained from public filings, these new entrants
are able to easily model their complaints in ‘cookie cutter'
fashion after those filed by more experienced firms that have honed
their pleadings through years of experience in much bigger cases,"
Martin and Golumbic write.

And it doesn't matter the type or size of the plan. Excessive fee
claims are taking aim at all types, including 403(b) plans,
multiple employer plans, defined benefit pension plans and even
ERISA-exempt plans, they note. What's more, the suits are targeting
publicly traded companies, privately held companies, universities,
not-for-profit organizations, financial institutions and health
care systems. There also has been an uptick in suits involving
plans with fewer than 1,000 participants and less than $100 million
in assets, the authors note.

"Excessive fee claims have historically been filed against only the
largest organizations, specifically those large, publicly traded
companies with multi-billion-dollar 401(k) retirement plans," says
Martin. "However, over the last several years, there has been a
significant surge in litigation targeting a broader range of plans,
despite evidence that average plan fees have been steadily
declining."

Target Range

While not meant to imply that plans with the following
characteristics are paying excessive fees or engaging in imprudent
conduct, the authors offer as an example the areas that have been
targeted in the past and may be targeted in the future:

* accepting quoted recordkeeping rates without attempting to
bargain up-front for lower fees and/or failing to revalidate those
fees;

* paying recordkeeping fees as a percentage of AUM rather than at a
fixed per participant rate and/or not switching to a fixed rate as
plan assets grow;

* failing to use the least expensive mutual fund share class
available (e.g., institutional shares);

* failing to use separate accounts or CITs rather than mutual funds
as investment options (the authors note that some complaints make
the exact opposite allegation);  

* offering too few or too many investment options, or options that
are too risky or too conservative;

* failing to offer more index funds;

* offering investment options that are affiliated with the plan's
recordkeeper; and  

* offering investment options that underperform net of expense
relative to an index or benchmark.

One caveat they note is that these cases continue to evolve as the
plaintiffs' bar tests out new theories of liability, such as claims
concerning the alleged misuse of plan participant data by
recordkeepers.

Reducing Exposure

"The pace of ERISA class action filings is at an all-time high, and
these cases are not only expensive to defend, but are also
expensive to settle. Some of the largest settlements cost tens of
millions of dollars," notes Golumbic, who adds that, "It's
therefore critical for plan sponsor fiduciaries to understand their
risks and take steps to potentially reduce their exposure."

Among the steps the white paper suggests are:  

* establishing, following and documenting a "robust and prudent
process" for retaining recordkeepers and determining their fees, as
well as for selecting and regularly reviewing plan investments and
investment expenses;

* retaining qualified, independent experts to assist with fiduciary
decisions; and  

* documenting the process and rationale behind any fiduciary
decision, being "particularly meticulous" when deciding to use more
expensive products or services, or when going against expert
advice. [GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Units Still Face Claims at March 29
-----------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 29, 2020, that subsidiaries Spence Engineering Company,
Inc. and CIRCOR Instrumentation Technologies, Inc. continue to face
asbestos-related product liability claims.

The Company states, "Asbestos-related product liability claims
continue to be filed against two of our subsidiaries: Spence
Engineering Company, Inc. ("Spence"), the stock of which we
acquired in 1984; and CIRCOR Instrumentation Technologies, Inc.
(f/k/a Hoke, Inc.) ("Hoke"), the stock of which we acquired in
1998.  The Hoke subsidiary was divested in January 2020 through our
sale of I&S.  However, the Company has indemnified the buyer for
asbestos-related claims that are made against Hoke.  Due to the
nature of the products supplied by these entities, the markets they
serve and our historical experience in resolving these claims, we
do not expect that these asbestos-related claims will have a
material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of
operations or liquidity of the Company."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/77RP2S


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Still Defends Exposure Claims at April 30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation continues to face asbestos
claims related to its facilities and older vehicle models,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 30, 2020.

The Company states, "Along with other vehicle manufacturers, we
have been subject to a number of asbestos-related claims.  In
general, these claims relate to illnesses alleged to have resulted
from asbestos exposure from component parts found in older
vehicles, although some cases relate to the alleged presence of
asbestos in our facilities.  In these claims, we are generally not
the sole defendant, and the claims name as defendants numerous
manufacturers and suppliers of a wide variety of products allegedly
containing asbestos.  We have strongly disputed these claims, and
it has been our policy to defend against them vigorously.
Historically, the actual damages paid out to claimants have not
been material in any year to our financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows.  It is possible that the number of these
asbestos-related claims, and the costs for resolving them, could
become significant in the future."

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



                            *********

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 ***