/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200224.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, February 24, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 39

                            Headlines

25 JAY STREET: Chavez Sues in E.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
ACE WORLD: Underpays Van Operators, Davis and Justice Claim
ADMIN RECOVERY: Rozario Sues in New Jersey Over FDCPA Violation
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Appeal Over Petrizzo Suit Dismissal Still Pending
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss Versetto Class Action Pending

ADTALEM GLOBAL: Magana Class Suit Ongoing
ADVANCED MICRO: Appeal Briefing in Hauck Class Suit Completed
AERO TEK: Hamam Seeks Penalties for Violations of Wage & Hour Law
AEROGROW INT'L: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Cruz Complains
AFFORDABLE ROOTER: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Wolfe Says

ALEXION PHARMA: Litigation over SOLIRIS Sales Practices Pending
AMTRUST FINC'L: Martinek Motion to be Ruled on Without Conference
ANDERSON COUNTY, TX: Perkins Sues Over Violation of Civil Rights
ANTHEM COMPANIES: Robbins Seeks to Certify FLSA Class of Employees
ARGENT HOTEL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Majdoub Claims

ARSTRAT LLC: Lopez Sues in E.D. New York Alleging FDCPA Violation
ATLAS LOGISTICS: Jackson FCRA Suit Moved From Indiana to Georgia
AVIDIA BANK: Juliano Sues over Improper Overdraft Fees
AVX CORP: Capacitor Price-Fixing Related Class Suit Ongoing
BANK OF AMERICA: Alfaro Suit Seek to Certify FX Fee Classes

BAUSCH HEALTH: Sued by SEIU for Restraining Market for Glumetza
BITCOIN.COM: Federal Court Tosses Cryptocurrency Antitrust Suit
CANADA: Opt-Out Deadline on Sexual Misconduct Suit Set for Feb. 24
CARDENAS MARKETING: Illegally Sends Marketing Texts, Roofian Says
CASTLE OAKS GOLF: Faces Kwist Employment Suit in California

CHAIRISH INC: Court Requires Info on Morgan Settlement Deal
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Appeal in Ong Class Action Still Pending
CITY BEVERAGE: Westfield Don't Want to Indemnify Re: McGraw Suit
CLARIFAI: Illegally Collects Biometric Identifiers, Stein Alleges
COLOURPOP COSMETICS: Faces Jairam Suit in Arizona District Court

COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH: Salazar FLSA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
COSMATI STONE: Faces NSI Stone Suit in New York Over Lien Claim
COTY INC: Oral Argument on Bid to Dismiss Suit Set for April 21
CRANE MERCHANDISING: Jaye Consumer Suit Removed to N.D. Texas
CURADEN AG: Court Awards $1,000 in TCPA Damages to Lyngaas

DANIEL J. QUIRK: Underpays Salespersons, Anez Suit Alleges
DECKS WEST: Purintun Suit Over Payment Bonds Moved to C.D. Calif.
DON PABLO: Veleva Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
EASTERN MOUNTAIN: Faces Mahoney ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
ELDERCARE INSURANCE: Faces Degeyter TCPA Suit in W.D. Arkansas

ELM SHOES: Mahoney Sues in E.D. Pennsylvania Over ADA Violations
ERMENEGILDOZEGNA CORP: Faces ADA Desalvo Suit in C.D. Cal.
EVOQUA WATER: Bid to Dismiss New York Securities Suit Pending
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces Lynn FCRA Suit in E.D. New York
FRAGRANCENET.COM INC: Shears-Barnes Sues Over Marketing Texts

FRONTIER CALIFORNIA: JCM Sues Over Claims of Product Liability
GCA EDUCATION: Van Heel Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
GENERAL MOTORS: Economic Loss-Related Suits Still Ongoing
GLOBAL 7 ENVIRONMENTAL: Sullivan Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
GLOBE LIFE: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Guglielmo Claims

GREATLAND HOME: Dennis Suit Certified as Collective Action
HAMILTON-RYKER IT: Pickens Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Class Settlement in Odonnell Suit Gets Final OK
HEARTLAND BEEF: Snider Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. Illinois
HUHTAMAKI INC: Protective Order Issued in Chavez Action Suit

INDIRA CORP: Baker Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
IQVIA INC: Class Certification Bid in Boileve Suit Shelved
J.G. WENTWORTH: Simpson Sues Over Unsolicited Text Advertisements
KING GEORGE: Biag Labor Class Suit Removed to S.D. California
KING'S CREEK: Londo Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls

LAMPE COMPANY: Faces Miholich TCPA Suit Over Invasion of Privacy
LANCER FOOD: Gardner Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
LIBERTY BANKERS: Faces Mey Suit Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
LOS TRES MAGUEYES: Conditional Class Certification Bid Tossed
LOVELACE TAVERN: Perovic Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA

LTF CLUB MANAGEMENT: Marsh Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
LUMENTUM HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Karri Class Action Still Pending
LVNV FUNDING:  Appellate Court Upholds Arbitration Order in Maisano
MAC PIZZA MANAGEMENT: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Hernandez Says
MATTRESS WAREHOUSE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Johnson Alleges

MCKESSON CORP: Faces Reliable Pharmacy Class Action
MCKESSON CORP: Suits Against RelayHealth Unit Consolidated
MEADE & ASSOCIATES: Washington Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio
MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Underpays Warehouse Operators, Russell Says
MERRITT HOSPITALITY: Underpays Housekeepers, Godinez Alleges

MICROCHIP TECH: Bid to Dismiss Jackson Class Action Still Pending
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Frank Cruz Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
MUELLER WATER: Bid to Dismiss Chapman Class Suit Still Pending
NYGARD INC: Faces Class Suit over Sexual Assault Allegations
OLIPHANT FINANCIAL: Faces Lovecchio Suit Over Collection Letter

OPERA LTD: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
OPERA LTD: Kahn Swick Reminds of March 24 Deadline
OPERA LTD: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action Lawsuit
PIONEER NATURAL: Tekell Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
POWER HOME: Hruska Sues in N.D. Illinois Alleging TCPA Violation

PREMIERE CREDIT: Kent Sues over Debt Collection Practices
PRIDE INDUSTRIES: Faces Oyero over Background Check
QUALCOMM INC: Appeal in Consolidated Calif. Suit Pending
QUALCOMM INC: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings Remains Pending
QUALCOMM INC: Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Broadcom Merger Pending

QUALCOMM INC: Canadian Class Suits Ongoing
QUALCOMM INC: Dismissal in 3226701 Canada Class Suit Now Final
REHABILITATION CENTERS: Lamar Seeks Overtime Pay
RHODES TECHNOLOGIES: Rhodes Suit Moved From Tennessee to Ohio
RICHARD D. SOKOLOFF: Bookson Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

S-L DISTRIBUTION: Class Certification Bid in Macedonia Suit Denied
S.COM INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Velasquez Says
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Wilson Insurance Suit Moved to E.D. Arkansas
SAUCEY INC: Levine Sues in N.D. California Over Violation of TCPA
SHANGHAI HEPING: Faces Yang Labor Suit in S.D. New York

SHARP MEXICAN: Pineda Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
SHELTER MUTUAL: Ali Insurance Suit Removed to W.D. Arkansas
SIRIUS XM: Continues to Defend Flo & Eddie Class Action
SIRIUS XM: Settlement in Buchanan Class Suit Wins Final Approval
SKYWORX CONTRACTING: Faces Ortega et al. Suit in New York

SNAP INC: Settlement Reached in IPO Suit
SONY CORP: Court Certifies Godfrey ODD Lawsuit as Class Action
SOUTH CAROLINA: Sinha Sues Governor Over Civil Rights Violations
SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Hundreds More Earthquake Claims Not Resolved
SOUTHERN TRUST: Faces Hummel Insurance Suit in M.D. Tennessee

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Awaits Court's Ruling on Bid to Dismiss
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Continues to Defend Airfare-Related Class Suit
SP PLUS CORP: Pena Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
SPORTS MANIA: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Gardenhire Says
STANFORD GROUP: Most Victims Gives Up Hope of Recovering Money

STARBUCKS CORP: Bellows Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
STATE FARM: Faces Williams Suit Alleging Race Discrimination
SWH MIMI'S: Garcia Sues over Labor Code Violations
TALBOTS INC: Faces Piper Suit in District Court of Massachusetts
TECH DATA: Shareholders to Dismiss Merger Suits

TENNESSEE VALLEY: Class Suit over 2008 Kingston Ash Spill Ongoing
TENNESSEE VALLEY: Roane County et al. Suit Can't Proceed as Class
TIGER EYE: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Lewis Claims
TINDER INC: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Elansari Suit
TOSHIBA CORP: Investor Class Action Gets Green Light

TREASURE ISLAND: Faces Sample Suit in California Superior Court
TYSON FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Indirect Beef Buyers Suit Underway
TYSON FOODS: Class Action Discovery Stayed Until March 31
TYSON FOODS: Direct Beef Purchaser Drops Class Suit
TYSON FOODS: Dismissal of Amended Class Action Sought

TYSON FOODS: Pork Antitrust Class Action Ongoing
XALER: Derval TCPA Class Action Wacked on Numerosity Grounds

                            *********

25 JAY STREET: Chavez Sues in E.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jay Street LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Kenneth T. Chavez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. 25 Jay Street LLC, North Henry
Partners LLC, as assignee of Henry Norman Hotel, Case No.
1:20-cv-00845-AMD-PK (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2020).

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

25 Jay Street is a Building located in the DUMBO neighborhood in
Brooklyn, New York, doing business categorized under Real Estate
Appraisers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell Segal, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL P.C.
          1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 208
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 415-0100
          Fax: (516) 706-6631
          Email: msegal@segallegal.com


ACE WORLD: Underpays Van Operators, Davis and Justice Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG DAVIS and GEOFFERY JUSTICE, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ACE WORLD WIDE MOVING &
STORAGE, INC.; ACE WORLD WIDE OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC; and ATLAS
VAN LINES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 6:20-cv-00248-PGB-DCI (Fla.
9th Cir., Orange Cty., February 13, 2020) is a class action on
behalf of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Florida Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others former and
current van operators, allege that the Defendants failed to
compensate them applicable minimum wage for all hours worked in
each workweek when due, violating FLSA and FMWA requirements.

Ace World Wide Moving & Storage, Inc. is a Wisconsin-based moving
company and agent of Atlas Van Lines, Inc. It conducts business in
the U.S., including Florida.

Ace World Wide of Central Florida, Inc. is a Florida-based moving
company and agent of Atlas Van Lines, Inc.

Atlas Van Lines, Inc. is an American moving company with more than
500 agents operating in the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
          George G. Triantis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN PA
          201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700
          Tampa, FL 33602          
          Telephone: (813) 223-5502
          Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
          E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com

ADMIN RECOVERY: Rozario Sues in New Jersey Over FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Admin Recovery, LLC,
et al. The case is captioned as SHARON R. ROZARIO, individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated v. ADMIN RECOVERY, LLC; FRANK
PARISI; ANGELO NATALE; TIMOTHY CIFFA; and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Case
No. 3:20-cv-00801-FLW-ZNQ (D.N.J., Jan. 23, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Freda L. Wolfson.

The lawsuit alleges violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

Admin Recovery LLC is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Ave., Suite 701
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


ADTALEM GLOBAL: Appeal Over Petrizzo Suit Dismissal Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the appeal
from the order dismissing the consolidated Petrizzo class action
suit is still pending.

On October 14, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Debbie Petrizzo and five other former DeVry University students,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against
the Adtalem Parties in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons
consisting of those who enrolled in and/or attended classes at
DeVry University during and after 2002 and who were unable to find
employment within their chosen field of study within six months of
graduation. Citing the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) lawsuit, the
plaintiffs claimed that defendants made false or misleading
statements regarding DeVry University's graduate employment rate
and asserted claims for unjust enrichment and violations of six
different states' consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, and
consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs seek monetary,
declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified relief.

On October 28, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Jairo Jara and eleven others, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, against the Adtalem Parties in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the
"Jara Case").

The individual plaintiffs claimed to have graduated from DeVry
University in 2001 or later and sought to proceed on behalf of a
putative class of persons consisting of those who obtained a degree
from DeVry University and who were unable to find employment within
their chosen field of study within six months of graduation.

Citing the FTC lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that defendants made
false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University's
graduate employment rate and asserted claims for unjust enrichment
and violations of ten different states' consumer fraud, unlawful
trade practices, and consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs
sought monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified
relief.

By order dated November 28, 2016, the district court ordered the
Petrizzo Case and the Jara Case be consolidated under the Petrizzo
caption for all further purposes. On December 5, 2016, plaintiffs
filed an amended consolidated complaint on behalf of 38 individual
plaintiffs and others similarly situated.

The amended consolidated complaint sought to bring claims on behalf
of the named individuals and a putative nationwide class of
individuals for unjust enrichment and alleged violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act and the
Illinois Private Businesses and Vocational Schools Act of 2012.

In addition, it purported to assert causes of action on behalf of
certain of the named individuals and 15 individual state-specific
putative classes for alleged violations of 15 different states'
consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, and consumer protection
laws. Finally, it sought to bring individual claims under Georgia
state law on behalf of certain named plaintiffs. The plaintiffs
sought monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified
relief.

A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed by the Adtalem
Parties and granted by the court, without prejudice, on February
12, 2018.

On April 12, 2018, the Petrizzo plaintiffs refiled their complaint
with a new lead plaintiff, Renee Heather Polly. The plaintiffs'
refiled complaint is nearly identical to the complaint previously
dismissed by the court on February 12, 2018. The Adtalem Parties
moved to dismiss this refiled complaint on May 14, 2018. The court
granted defendants' motion and dismissed the amended complaint with
prejudice on February 13, 2019. On March 15, 2019, plaintiffs filed
a notice of appeal and this matter is currently pending on appeal
before the Seventh Circuit.

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

Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.


ADTALEM GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss Versetto Class Action Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the motion
to dismiss the class action initiated by Nicole Versetto is still
pending.

On April 13, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Nicole Versetto, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, against the Adtalem Parties in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, Chancery Division.

The complaint was filed on behalf of herself and three separate
classes of similarly situated individuals who were citizens of the
State of Illinois and who purchased or paid for a DeVry University
program between January 1, 2008 and April 8, 2016.

The plaintiff claims that defendants made false or misleading
statements regarding DeVry University's graduate employment rate
and asserts causes of action under the Illinois Uniform Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, and Illinois Private Business and Vocational Schools
Act, and claims of breach of contract, fraudulent
misrepresentation, concealment, negligence, breach of fiduciary
duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief as to
violations of state law.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and
statutory penalties and damages, including pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, in addition to restitution, declaratory and
injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.

The Adtalem Parties moved to dismiss this complaint on June 20,
2018. On March 11, 2019, the court granted plaintiff's motion for
leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint that same day, asserting similar claims, with new lead
plaintiff, Dave McCormick.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended
complaint on April 15, 2019 and the court granted Defendants'
motion on July 29, 2019, with leave to amend. The plaintiff has
filed an amended complaint on August 26, 2019.

On October 18, 2019, defendants' moved to dismiss this complaint as
it is substantially similar to the one the court previously
dismissed. No hearing on the motion to dismiss is currently
scheduled.

Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.


ADTALEM GLOBAL: Magana Class Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by
Magana.

On August 13, 2019, a plaintiff, Magana, filed a putative class
action lawsuit against Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc. in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California, alleging damages based on allegedly deceptive
statements made about the benefits of obtaining a DeVry University
degree.

Plaintiffs assert claims under the California Unfair Competition
Law, California False Advertising Law, and claims of fraud/material
misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment/intentional omission of
material facts, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract,
breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and
declaratory relief.

On October 21, 2019, the parties agreed to extend the deadlines to
respond to the complaint.

On October 22, 2019, the court granted the extension to respond to
the complaint.

Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.


ADVANCED MICRO: Appeal Briefing in Hauck Class Suit Completed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2019, that briefing on
the appeal from a ruling in the consolidated class action suit
entitled, Diana Hauck et al. v. AMD, Inc., has been completed.

Since January 19, 2018, three putative class action complaints have
been filed against the company in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California:

     (1) Diana Hauck et al. v. AMD, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-0047,
filed on January 19, 2018;

     (2) Brian Speck et al. v. AMD, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-0744,
filed on February 4, 2018; and

     (3) Nathan Barnes and Jonathan Caskey-Medina, et al. v. AMD,
Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-00883, filed on February 9, 2018.

On April 9, 2018, the court consolidated these cases and ordered
that Diana Hauck et al. v. AMD, Inc. serve as the lead case.

On June 13, 2018, six plaintiffs (from California, Louisiana,
Florida, and Massachusetts) filed a consolidated amended complaint
alleging that the company failed to disclose its processors'
alleged vulnerability to Spectre. Plaintiffs further allege that
the company's processors cannot perform at their advertised
processing speeds without exposing consumers to Spectre, and that
any "patches" to remedy this security vulnerability will result in
degradation of processor performance.

The plaintiffs seek damages under several causes of action on
behalf of a nationwide class and four state subclasses (California,
Florida, Massachusetts, Louisiana) of consumers who purchased our
processors and/or devices containing AMD processors. The plaintiffs
also seek attorneys' fees, equitable relief, and restitution.

Pursuant to the court's order directing the parties to litigate
only eight of the causes of action in the consolidated amended
complaint initially, the company filed a motion to dismiss on July
13, 2018.

On October 29, 2018, after the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed one
of their claims, the court granted the company's motion and
dismissed six causes of action with leave to amend.

The plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated complaint on
December 6, 2018. On January 3, 2019, the company again moved to
dismiss the subset of claims currently at issue. On April 4, 2019,
the court granted the company's motion and dismissed all claims
currently at issue with prejudice.

On May 6, 2019, the court granted the parties' stipulation and
request under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) to enter a partial final
judgment and certify for appeal the court's April 4, 2019 dismissal
order, and on that same date, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice their remaining claims pursuant to an agreement
whereby, subject to certain terms and conditions, the company
agreed to toll the statute of limitations and/or statute of repose.


On May 30, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Briefing has completed
for the appeal.

Advanced Micro said, "Based upon information presently known to
management, we believe that the potential liability, if any, will
not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, cash
flows or results of operations."

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. operates as a semiconductor company
worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Computing and
Graphics; and Enterprise, Embedded and Semi-Custom. Advanced Micro
Devices, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is headquartered in Santa
Clara, California.


AERO TEK: Hamam Seeks Penalties for Violations of Wage & Hour Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MAHA HAMAM, individually and on behalf of other aggrieved employees
v. AERO TEK AVIATION, LLC; NETJET'S AVIATION, INC., a corporation;
and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 20VECV00097 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Jan. 23, 2020), seeks civil penalties for the
Defendants' wage-and-hour violations under the Private Attorneys
General Act, California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have allegedly engaged
in a uniform policy and systematic scheme of wage abuse against the
Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees of the Defendants in
violation of applicable California laws, including failing to
provide meal and rest breaks, and failing to pay minimum and
overtime wages.

As a result of these violations, the Defendants are liable for
civil penalties under PAGA, says the complaint.

Aerotek Aviation is a premier provider of landing gear parts and
hard to find spares for your aircraft. NetJets is the world's
largest private jet company, offering fractional aircraft
ownership, private jet leases, and private jet card programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Caspar Jivalagian, Esq.
          Vache Thomassian, Esq.
          KJT lAW GROUP, LLP
          230 N. Maryland Avenue, Suite 306
          Glendale, CA 91206
          Telephone: 818-507-8525
          Facsimile: 818-507-8588

               - and -

          Christopher A. Adams, Esq.
          ADAMS EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL
          230 N. Maryland Avenue, Suite 306
          Glendale, CA 91206
          Telephone: 818-425-1437


AEROGROW INT'L: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Cruz Complains
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SHAEL CRUZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. AEROGROW INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01252 (S.D.N.Y., February 12, 2020), alleges the
Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain  and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other or visually-impaired people which violated the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The plaintiff seeks permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

Aerogrow International, Inc. is an indoor gardening supplier that
owns and operates the website www.aerogarden.com. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Tel: (929) 575-4175
          Email: Joseph@cml.legal


AFFORDABLE ROOTER: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Wolfe Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Wolfe and Steve Nicholas, Each Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. AFFORDABLE ROOTER SERVICE, LLC,
and BRENT BOGAN, Case No. 4:20-cv-00156-LPR (E.D. Ark., Feb. 14,
2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act as a result of
the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiffs the legal minimum
hourly wage and overtime compensation for all hours that the
Plaintiffs worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

The Defendants did not pay the Plaintiffs any overtime premium for
hours worked in excess of forty per week, according to the
complaint. The Defendants have deprived the Plaintiffs of regular
wages and overtime compensation for all of the hours worked over 40
per week.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as Drain Technicians.

The Defendants operate a drain cleaning business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALEXION PHARMA: Litigation over SOLIRIS Sales Practices Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit related to SOLIRIS sales
practices.

On December 29, 2016, a shareholder filed a putative class action
against the Company and certain former employees in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut, alleging that
defendants made misrepresentations and omissions about SOLIRIS.

On April 12, 2017, the court appointed a lead plaintiff. On July
14, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended putative class action
complaint against the Company and seven current or former
employees.

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on September 12,
2017.

Plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss on
November 13, 2017, and defendants filed a reply brief in further
support of their motion on December 28, 2017.

On March 26, 2019, the court held a telephonic status conference.
During that conference, the court informed counsel that it was
preparing a ruling granting the defendants' pending motion to
dismiss. The court inquired of plaintiffs' counsel whether they
intended to seek leave to amend their complaint, and indicated that
if they wished to file a second amended complaint, they would be
allowed to do so.  

On April 2, 2019, the court granted plaintiffs until May 31, 2019
to file a second amended complaint, thereby rendering moot
defendants' pending motion to dismiss. On May 31, 2019, plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint against the same defendants.  

The complaint alleges that defendants engaged in securities fraud,
including by making misrepresentations and omissions in its public
disclosures concerning the Company's SOLIRIS sales practices,
management changes, and related investigations, between January 30,
2014 and May 26, 2017, and that the Company's stock price dropped
upon the purported disclosure of the alleged fraud.  

The plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified monetary relief,
unspecified equitable and injunctive relief, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.  

Defendants' filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
August 2, 2019; plaintiffs' filed their opposition to that motion
on October 2, 2019; and defendants' filed their reply in further
support of their motion on November 16, 2019.  

Alexion said, "Given the early stage of these proceedings, we
cannot presently predict the likelihood of obtaining dismissal of
the case (or the ultimate outcome of the case if the motion to
dismiss is denied by the court), nor can we estimate the possible
loss or range of loss at this time."

Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company,
develops and commercializes various therapeutic products. The
company was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.



AMTRUST FINC'L: Martinek Motion to be Ruled on Without Conference
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case JAN MARTINEK, Plaintiff, v. AMTRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES,
INC., BARRY D. ZYSKIND, GEORGE KARFUNKEL, and LEAH KARFUNKEL,
Defendants, Case No. 19 Civ. 8030 (KPF), (S.D.N.Y.), the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an
Order stating that it will rule on the Plaintiff's Motion for
Appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel using the
submissions the Court already received.

Jan Martinek filed the class action lawsuit on behalf of certain
stockholders in AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. The complaint
alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (1934 Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 20(a) of
the 1934 Act.

Mr. Martinek, who filed the Complaint in the action, is the only
party who has moved for appointment as lead plaintiff and he seeks
representation by Wolf Popper LLP.  

The Court corresponded with the parties by email and has confirmed
that they see no need to appear before the Court for a conference
given that there is only one unopposed motion. The Court will rule
on the motion using the submissions that the Court has already
received.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 14, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ugxouqo  from Leagle.com

Jan Martinek, Plaintiff, represented by Carl Lester Stine -
cstine@wolfpopper.com - Wolf Popper LLP, Adam Joseph Blander -
cwaldman@wolfpopper.com - Wolf Popper LLP & Patricia I. Avery
-pavery@wolfpopper.com - Wolf Popper LLP.

AmTrust Financial Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Guyon
H. Knight - guyonknight@quinnemanuel.com - Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan, Kevin Samuel Reed - kevinreed@quinnemanuel.com - Quinn
Emanuel & Michael Barry Carlinsky -
michaelcarlinsky@quinnemanuel.com - Quinn Emanuel.


ANDERSON COUNTY, TX: Perkins Sues Over Violation of Civil Rights
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Leroy Perkins, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Anderson County, Texas, Case No.
6:20-cv-00076-JCB (E.D. Tex., Feb. 14, 2020), is brought against
the Defendant for alleged violations of the Plaintiff's civil
rights under color of law as guaranteed by the Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States of America to not be deprived of
property without due process of law.

The case involves the establishment of the Anderson County Bond
Office by Defendant Anderson County on February 13, 2012, and its
continued use up to and including the date of the filing of this
complaint. The stated purpose of the Bond Office is to track
individuals charged with a crime, who have been placed on
conditions of bond. After being released by posting a surety, cash
or personal bond, some individuals are placed on conditions of
bond.

On March 23, 2019, the Plaintiff was arrested in Anderson County,
Texas, and jailed in the Anderson County Jail on that same date. On
May 11, 2019, the Plaintiff was released from Anderson County Jail
by posting a surety bond. The Plaintiff was also placed on
conditions of bond by an Anderson County Judge that included, inter
alia, the monthly payment in the amount of $50.00 to the Defendant
as a "bond supervision fee." To this date, the Plaintiff has paid
bond supervision fees in the amount of $150.00. The Plaintiff says
that to this date, he has not been convicted of the crime for which
he is accused and supervision has been ordered.

The Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, are victims of this
pattern of illegal collection of fees and have sustained damages as
a direct and proximate cause of the collection of said fees, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff, Edward Leroy Perkins, is an adult male and is a resident
of Texas.

Anderson County is a Texas county.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald J. Larkin, Esq.
          CHARLES W. NICHOLS LAW OFFICE
          617 E. Lacy St.
          Palestine, TX 75801
          Phone: (903) 729-5104
          Fax: (903) 729-0347
          Email: donald@charleswnicholslaw.com


ANTHEM COMPANIES: Robbins Seeks to Certify FLSA Class of Employees
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Lynn Garner, Twylia Robbins,
and Alisha Recktenwald, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. The Anthem Companies, Inc., Case No.
3:19-cv-900-CHB (W.D. Ky.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify
a class consisting of:

   "all persons who are, have been, or will be employed in
   Defendant's Commercial business segment in Kentucky as Medical
   Management I or Medical Management II Nurses at any time from
   five years prior to the filing of the Complaint through the
   resolution of this action."

This putative class action is brought on behalf of a group of at
least 40 Anthem employees in Kentucky who were required to work
overtime routinely without pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Anthem, Inc. is a provider of health insurance in the United
States. It is the largest for-profit managed health care company in
the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clark C. Johnson, Esq.
          Michael C. Merrick, Esq.
          Michael T. Leigh, Esq.
          KAPLAN JOHNSON ABATE & BIRD LLP
          710 West Main Street, Fourth Floor
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 416-1630
          Facsimile: (502) 540-8282
          E-mail: cjohnson@kaplanjohnsonlaw.com
                  mmerrick@kaplanjohnsonlaw.com
                  mleigh@kaplanjohnsonlaw.com

ARGENT HOTEL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Majdoub Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
KHAWLA MAJDOUB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARGENT HOTEL MANAGEMENT, LLC; HIGHGATE
HOTELS, L.P.; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No.
CGC-20-582921 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., February 13, 2020)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the
California Labor Code, the Industrial Welfare Commission's Wage
Orders, and the California Business and Professions Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in unfair
business and employment practices, including failure to pay minimum
and straight time wages, failure to pay overtime compensation, and
failure to provide meal periods to the Plaintiff and all other
similarly situated employees.

Argent Hotel Management, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company with its principal place of business in San Francisco,
California.

Highgate Hotels, L.P. is a real estate investment and hospitality
management company with its principal place of business in San
Francisco, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          Allen Feghali, Esq.
          MOON & YANG APC
          1055 W. 7th Street, Suite 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 232-3128          
          Facsimile: (213) 232-3125

ARSTRAT LLC: Lopez Sues in E.D. New York Alleging FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARStrat, LLC. The
case is styled as Jason Lopez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ARStrat, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00789
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2020).

The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

ARstrat, LLC is a third-party collection agency based in Texas that
specializes in collecting delinquent healthcare bills.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Barshay, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 203-7600
          Fax: (516) 706-5055
          Email: dbarshay@barshaysanders.com


ATLAS LOGISTICS: Jackson FCRA Suit Moved From Indiana to Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Joseph Devon Jackson, on behalf of himself
and All Others Similarly Situated v. ATLAS LOGISTICS, INC. an
Indiana Corporation, ATLAS LOGISTICS GROUP RETAIL SERVICES, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company, Americold Logistics LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 3:19-cv-00240, was
transferred the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia on Feb. 14, 2020.

The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-00693-CAP-CCB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Atlas Logistics Inc. is a full-service logistics company that
provides experience and personalized service.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Anderson Dooley, Esq.
          O'TOOLE MCLAUGHLIN DOOLEY & PECORA CO. LPA
          5455 Detroit Road
          Sheffield Village, OH 44054
          Phone: (440) 930-4001
          Email: mdooley@omdplaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Chad Joseph Kaldor, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C-OH
          21 East State Street, 16th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: (614) 463-4420
          Fax: (614) 221-3301
          Email: ckaldor@littler.com


AVIDIA BANK: Juliano Sues over Improper Overdraft Fees
------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER JULIANO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AVIDIA BANK, Defendant, Case No.
20-275 (Mass. Super., Middlesex Cty., Jan. 29, 2020) is an action
against the Defendant for improper assessment and collection of
overdraft fees, including fees on accounts that were never actually
overdrawn, practices that are in breach of Avida's contracts and
its duty of good faith and fair dealings.

According to the complaint, Avida charges accountholders $30 per
overdraft fee on accounts that were never actually drawn. On
December 21, 2017, Avida charged the Plaintiff a $30 overdraft fee
on Check No. 153, and a $30 overdraft fee on Check No. 152.
However, the Plaintiff's account balance, never went negative after
either check. In fact, the Plaintiff had thousands of dollars in
her account at the time. Yet, Avida charges overdraft fees.

Avidia Bank Hawthorn Bank operates as a full-service bank. The Bank
personal and commercial banking, home loans, private banking, and
investment services, as well as offers deposits, debit and credit
cards, makes loans, and other related services. Avidia Bank
operates in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael S. Appel, Esq.
          SUGARMAN ROGERS BARSHAK & COHEN, P.C.
          101 Merrimac Street, 9th Floor
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (617) 227-3030
          E-mail: appel@sugarmanrogers.com

               - and -

          Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481
          Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
          E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com

               - and –

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

               - and -

          Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
          JOHNSON FIRM
          610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300
          Little Rock, AK 72201
          Telephone: (501) 372-1300
          Facsimile: (888) 505-0909
          E-mail: chris@yourattorney.com


AVX CORP: Capacitor Price-Fixing Related Class Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
AVX Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that a class action is
currently scheduled for trial in the Spring or Summer of 2020.

During calendar year 2014, AVX was named as a co-defendant in a
series of cases filed in the United States and in the Canadian
provinces of Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and
Manitoba alleging violations of United States, state and Canadian
antitrust laws asserting that AVX and numerous other companies were
participants in alleged price-fixing in the capacitor market.

The cases in the United States were consolidated into the Northern
District of California on October 2, 2014.

Some plaintiffs have broken off from the United States class action
and filed actions on their own, although AVX is not named in all of
these independent actions.

The cases in Canada have not been consolidated. These cases are
still in progress.

AVX believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously
defend the cases.

The class action case is currently scheduled for trial in the
Spring or Summer of 2020.

AVX Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, manufactures,
supplies, and resells various electronic components, interconnect
devices, sensing and control devices, and related products
worldwide. The company operates through Electronic Components; and
Interconnect, Sensing and Control Devices segments. The company was
founded in 1972 and is headquartered in Fountain Inn, South
Carolina. AVX Corporation is a subsidiary of Kyocera Corporation.

BANK OF AMERICA: Alfaro Suit Seek to Certify FX Fee Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CARLOS ALFARO; and HENRIETTA
EGBUNIKE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; and BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, Case No.
1:19-cv-22762-MGC (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an
order:

   1. certifying these classes:

      Undisclosed FX Fee Class:

      all individuals in the United States who, at any time
      between July 3, 2014 and May 7, 2015, held a personal
      checking account with Bank of America that was assessed (and

      was not refunded by Bank of America) an "international
      transaction fee" attributable to a debit card transaction";
      and

      Unnotified FX Fee Class:

      "all individuals in the United States who, at any time
      between May 8, 2015 and the present, held a personal
      checking account with Bank of America that was opened prior
      to May 8, 2015 and was assessed (and was not refunded by
      Bank of America) an "international transaction fee"
      attributable to a debit card transaction;

   2. appointing Plaintiffs as class representatives; and

   3. appointing Hedin Hall LLP and Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C. as
      class counsel .

Prior to May 8, 2015, the Defendants imposed upon all of its
personal deposit account holders nationwide a standardized set of
two contractual documents: the "Deposit Agreement and Disclosures"
(the "Deposit Agreement" or "DA") and the "Personal Schedule of
Fees" (the "Schedule of Fees" or "SF") (DASF).

The proposed Classes consist of Bank of America accountholders who
were improperly assessed 3% "international transaction fees" in
breach of the standardized, uniformly imposed DASF, as well as
subjected to other uniformly-imposed policies and procedures giving
rise to the same claims for breach of the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, unconscionability, and unjust enrichment against
Bank of America.

The Plaintiffs contend that Bank of America's assessment of 3%
"international transaction fees" prior to May 8, 2015 (as well as
on and after May 8, 2015 for account holders who opened accounts
prior to May 8, 2015) constituted a clear breach of the DASF (as
well as a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
procedurally and substantively unconscionable conduct, and unjust
enrichment.

The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational
investment bank and financial services company headquartered in
Charlotte, North Carolina, with central hubs in New York City,
London, Hong Kong, Minneapolis, and Toronto.[CC]

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes are:

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          David W. Hall, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          1395 Brickell Ave, Suite 1140
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 357-2107
          Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
          E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com
                  dhall@hedinhall.com

               - and -

          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Henry Kelston, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  hkelston@ahdootwolfson.com

BAUSCH HEALTH: Sued by SEIU for Restraining Market for Glumetza
---------------------------------------------------------------
Service Employees International Union Local No. 1 Health Fund,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
BAUSCH HEALTH COMPANIES INC., SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD., SALIX
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., SANTARUS, INC., ASSERTIO THERAPEUTICS, INC.,
LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and LUPIN LTD., Case No. 3:20-cv-01196
(N.D. Cal., Feb. 18, 2020), arises from the Defendants'
anticompetitive scheme to restrain competition in the market for
the pharmaceutical Glumetza and its AB-rated generic equivalents
sold in the United States.

Glumetza is a drug used to treat patients with Type 2 diabetes.

The Plaintiff seeks damages and other relief arising from
Defendants' anticompetitive pay-for-delay agreement, which
eliminated generic competition in the United States for branded and
generic versions of Glumetza (extended release metformin).

Prescription metformin has been available as a generic drug since
2002. Defendant Assertio developed an extended-release version of
metformin that can alleviate some of the drug's common side
effects, particularly gastrointestinal intolerance. Assertio
obtained several patents on the extended-release technology and
began selling extended-release metformin, marketed under the brand
name Glumetza, in 2005. Extended-release mechanisms are very
common, however, and Assertio's patents were weak and narrow and
could not prevent competition from generic versions of the drug.

When Defendant Lupin developed a generic version of Glumetza,
Assertio and its co-venturer, Defendant Santarus, sued Lupin for
patent infringement, as provided under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments.
That lawsuit triggered an automatic stay, prohibiting Lupin from
entering the market for 30 months. Just before the 30 months were
over, when Lupin would be able to enter the market with generic
Glumetza, Assertio/Santarus and Lupin settled their lawsuit on
February 22, 2012, with Assertio/Santarus--the plaintiff--paying
Lupin--the defendant--to delay entering the market with its
competing, lower priced generic product.

The Plaintiff contends that the settlement agreement was an
anticompetitive pay-for-delay agreement whereby: (1) Lupin agreed
not to compete in the market for Glumetza with its lower-priced
generic until February 1, 2016, thereby allocating the entire
Glumetza market to Assertio/Santarus' high-priced branded product
until that date; and (2) Assertio/Santarus agreed not to market a
generic Glumetza product from February 1, 2016, to at least August
1, 2016, allocating the entire market for generic versions of
Glumetza to Lupin for at least that six-month period. In short, the
Plaintiff asserts, the unlawful agreement allocated a valuable
monopoly for the branded product to Assertio/Santarus for
approximately four years in exchange for a valuable monopoly for
the generic product to Lupin for at least six months.

The Defendants' anticompetitive scheme has caused end payors of
branded and generic Glumetza, including the Plaintiff, to overpay
for branded and generic Glumetza by hundreds of millions of dollars
per year, the Plaintiff avers. Accordingly, to redress the economic
injury that the Defendants have caused through their unlawful
agreement, the Plaintiff seeks damages and other monetary relief
under state antitrust, state consumer protection, and common laws.

Plaintiff Service Employees International Union Local No. 1 Health
Fund is an employee welfare benefits fund.

Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. is a corporation organized under the
laws of Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Whitney E. Street, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94110
          Phone: (415) 968-1852
          Email: wstreet@blockesq.com

               - and -

          Stephen J. Teti, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: (617) 398-5600
          Email: steti@blockesq.com


BITCOIN.COM: Federal Court Tosses Cryptocurrency Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge in Florida has thrown out a case against
cryptocurrency trailblazer Bitcoin.com along with noted bitcoin
pioneer Roger Ver.  Both defendants and two other individuals are
represented by law firm O'Melveny.

On Feb. 4, following nearly four hours of oral argument the week
before, U.S. Magistrate Judge Chris M. McAliley entered an order
dismissing the eight-count conspiracy complaint against the
defendants for failure to state a claim.

The first-of-its-kind complaint had been brought by cryptocurrency
mining company United American Corp., which alleged an antitrust
conspiracy to "hijack" a cryptocurrency network.  United American
asserted violations of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act, along
with negligence, unjust enrichment and other claims.

Ian Simmons, Co-Chair of O'Melveny's Antitrust and Competition
Practice, argued the dismissal motion for defendants on Jan. 28 in
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  In
addition to Mr. Simmons and antitrust partner Katrina Robson --
krobson@omm.com -- O'Melveny's trial team included Sergei Zaslavsky
-- szaslavsky@omm.com -- and Zhao Liu -- zliu@omm.com -- (both
counsel) and associates Brian Quinn -- bquinn@omm.com -- and
Patrick Jones -- pjones@omm.com

The case is captioned: United American Corp. v. Bitmain, Inc. et
al.  The case number is 1:18-cv-25106-KMW. [GN]


CANADA: Opt-Out Deadline on Sexual Misconduct Suit Set for Feb. 24
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Vanderlinde, writing for Simcoe.com, reports that a
$900-million class action lawsuit partially initiated by a
complaint about sexual misconduct at Base Borden can include all
Canadian military victims unless they opt out by Feb. 24.

The Federal Court ruled last November that the settlement offered
by the Liberal government last year was "fair and reasonable."

Glynis Rogers, a former soldier who was stationed at Base Borden,
was one of seven Armed Forces personnel who initiated the lawsuit.

They argued female service members were subjected to systemic
gender-based discrimination, bullying, sexual harassment and sexual
assault at work.

Suicides at Base Borden prompt call from Simcoe-Grey MP Terry
Dowdall for more mental health services

Rogers took an aerospace engineering course as a second lieutenant
at Base Borden, where she said she was belittled, called
emotionally unstable and subjected to other demeaning comments and
behaviour.

"The overwhelming culture was very misogynistic and not really a
safe environment for women or LGBTQ-plus members. So, it was more
attempting to actually effect change in the military so that nobody
else had to go through what I did," she told the CBC Nov. 28.

Rogers took a medical dismissal in 2016 and now runs her own
photography business in Yarmouth, N.S. Simcoe.com was unable to
reach her for comment.

Past and present members of Canada's military who were victims of
sexual misconduct can be included in the class-action lawsuit by
making a claim before Sept. 25, 2021.

Victims of sexual harassment, sexual assault or gender
discrimination, including those who worked at Base Borden before
Nov. 26, can opt out of the lawsuit by Feb. 24, 2020. Opting out
allows alleged victims to pursue an individual civil lawsuit.

Military and civilian members of the Armed Forces who become part
to the class action will be eligible for payments from $15,000 to
$55,000.

Base Borden was included in a 2015 cross-country tour to talk about
the findings of a report from former Supreme Court justice Marie
Deschamps that addressed a "sexualized culture"in the military.

"There is an undeniable problem of sexual harassment and sexual
assault in the (Canadian Armed Forces), which requires direct and
sustained action," Deschamps wrote in her report.

A number of criminal charges have been laid at Base Borden in
connection with alleged sexual assaults:

   * Master-Corporal Jean Sebastien Grenier Blanchard was charged
     with two counts of sexual assault last year.

   * Lt. Col. Daniel Mainguy, a reserve force member with  
     Canadian Force Recruiting Group based in Borden, was charged
     with sexual assault Sept. 12 following a complaint June 6.

   * Julian Morello was charged in 2016 after allegedly failing
     to report his HIV status to a partner.

   * Aviator Jonathan Gaudet was charged with three counts of
     sexual assault in 2018.

   * Lt. James McInnis faced nine sexual-assault charges in 2009.

Military commanders across Canada received a total of 302
complaints of sexual misconduct during the last fiscal year between
April 2018 and March 2019, according to the military's
sexual-misconduct incident tracking report. This is a decline of 25
per cent from 2017-18 and 33 per cent fewer than 2016-17. [GN]


CARDENAS MARKETING: Illegally Sends Marketing Texts, Roofian Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Roofian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CARDENAS MARKETING NETWORK, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100,
Case No. 2:20-cv-01592 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 18, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' illegal actions in transmitting unsolicited, autodialed
SMS or MMS text messages, en masse, to the cellular devices of the
Plaintiff and numerous other individuals across the country, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, neither the Plaintiff nor any members
of the proposed Class provided their "prior express written
consent" to the Defendants or any affiliate, subsidiary, or agent
of the Defendants to permit the Defendants to transmit text
messages to any of the Class' telephone numbers using an "automatic
telephone dialing system."

Whether or not the Defendants' text messages to the Plaintiff was
sent via an ATDS, the unsolicited text messages were sent pursuant
to a common telemarketing scheme for which the Defendants, or any
agent or intermediary acting on their behalf, did not comply with
and, thus, violated the telephone solicitation restrictions in the
TCPA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Los Angeles,
California.

Cardenas Marketing Network, Inc. maintains its corporate
headquarters in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Parker, Esq.
          Kevin Cole, Esq.
          PARKER COLE, P.C.
          6700 Fallbrook Ave., Suite 207
          West Hills, CA 91307
          Phone: (818) 292-8800
          Facsimile: (818) 292-8337
          Email: michael@parkercolelaw.com
                 kevin@parkercolelaw.com


CASTLE OAKS GOLF: Faces Kwist Employment Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Castle Oaks Golf
Management, LLC. The case is styled as Janine Kwist, on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Castle Oaks Golf Management, LLC,
Billy Casper Golf, LLC, Does 1-10, Case No.
34-2020-00275335-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 13,
2020).

The lawsuit is brought over employment-related disputes.

Castle Oaks Golf Club offers an 18-hole Castle Oaks course at its
facility in Ione, California features 6739 yards of golf from the
longest tees for a par of 71.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W 7th St., Suite 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
          Telephone: (213) 232-3128
          Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
          E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com


CHAIRISH INC: Court Requires Info on Morgan Settlement Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Deborah Batts of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York issued an Order requiring the parties
to inform the Court whether the proposed settlement alters the
legal rights of purported, unnamed class members in the case
captioned JON MORGAN, Plaintiff, v. CHAIRISH, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 19-Civ.-6936., (S.D.N.Y.).

The Court is in receipt of Defendant's letter notifying the Court
that the parties have reached a settlement in this action. The
Court also notes that the action was originally filed as a class
action.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 14, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/rwgxzst from Leagle.com

Jon R. Morgan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Shalom , Shalom Law,
PLLC,105-13 Metropolitan Avenue, Forest Hills, NY, 11375

Chairish, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas T. Schwarz -
douglas.schwarz@morganlewis.com - Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP &
Michael Friel Fleming - michael.fleming@morganlewis.com - Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius LLP.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Appeal in Ong Class Action Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the appeal
in the class action lawsuit initiated by Susie Ong is still
pending.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


CITY BEVERAGE: Westfield Don't Want to Indemnify Re: McGraw Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
WESTFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY v. CITY BEVERAGE-ILLINOIS, LLC, CITY
BEVERAGE-MARKHAM, LLC, CITY BEVERAGE, LLC and CHARLES MCGRAW, on
behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals, Case
No. 2020CH01991 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Feb. 18, 2020), seeks a
declaration that the Plaintiff owes no duty to defend or indemnify
City Beverage under several policies of insurance issued to it.

Defendant filed by Charles McGraw a class action lawsuit alleging
that the City Beverage entities violated the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act, by unlawfully collecting his and other
employees' biometric data, specifically fingerprints. Westfield
seeks a declaration that it owes no duty to defend or indemnify
City Beverage under several policies of insurance issued to it
relating to the class action lawsuit.

Westfield is an insurance company incorporated under the State of
Ohio with its principal place of business located in Westfield
Center, Ohio.

City Beverage-Illinois is an Illinois limited liability
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter G. Syregelas, Esq.
          Todd W. Hunnewell, Esq.
          LINDSAY, PICKETT & POSTEL, LLC
          10 S. LaSalle St., Suite 1301
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-800-6025
          Fax: (312) 629-1404
          Email: psyregelas@lpplawfirm.com
                 thunnewell@mlpplawfirm.com


CLARIFAI: Illegally Collects Biometric Identifiers, Stein Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN STEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CLARIFAI, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2020CH01810 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., February 13, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendant for alleged violations of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant illegally collected
biometric identifiers and/or information from the Plaintiff and
others similarly-situated residents in Illinois for the development
of its facial recognition technology without prior written consent.
The Defendant failed to inform the Plaintiff in writing the
specific purpose and length of term their biometrics were being
captured, collected, stored, and used, which are violations of BIPA
requirements.

Clarifai, Inc. is a New York-based artificial intelligence company
that offers a variety of autonomous image recognition services
including, but not limited to, facial recognition technology. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

COLOURPOP COSMETICS: Faces Jairam Suit in Arizona District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Colourpop Cosmetics
LLC. The case is styled as Anita Jairam, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Colourpop Cosmetics LLC,
Defendant, Stodge Incorporated doing business as: Prostscript,
Movant, Case No. 2:20-mc-00008-SPL (D. Ariz., Feb. 13, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutes: Other Statutory
Actions.

ColourPop Cosmetics, also known as ColourPop, is a cosmetics brand
based in Los Angeles, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
          IJH Law
          1200 Brickell Ave., Ste. 1950
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (786) 496-4469
          Email: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com

The Movant is represented by:

          Daniel James Inglese, Esq.
          SNELL & WILMER LLP
          1 Arizona Center
          400 E Van Buren
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202
          Phone: (602) 382-6391
          Fax: (602) 382-6070
          Email: dinglese@swlaw.com


COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH: Salazar FLSA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Elizabeth Salazar and Jean Manuel Perez-Miro,
and other similarly-situated individuals v. COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH
SERVICES, INC. A Foreign Profit Corporation, MORRILLO M. HALL, JR.,
Individually JIM VAN DUSEN, Individually, JUDY C. HALL,
Individually, MEL HALL, Individually, JAMES MONCRIEF, Individually,
GARY G. PALMER, Individually, EDWIN COOPER, III, Individually, TODD
S. HALL, Individually, STUART CLARK, Individually, and NED COOPER,
Individually, Case No. 2019-013295-CA-01, was removed from the
Florida Circuit Court, in and for Miami Dade County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Feb. 18,
2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-20701-XXXX to
the proceeding.

The action involves a claim alleging violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          Max L. Horowitz, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Phone: (305) 416-5000
          Fax: (305) 416-5005
          Email: agp@rgpattorneys.com
                 mhorowitz@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jenna Rinehart Rassif, Esq.
          Edwin Cruz, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          One Biscayne Tower
          2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3500
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 577-7600
          Facsimile: (305) 373-4466
          Email: jenna.rassif@jacksonlewis.com
                 edwin.cruz@jacksonlewis.com


COSMATI STONE: Faces NSI Stone Suit in New York Over Lien Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cosmati Stone LLC.
The case is captioned as NSI STONE TRADING INC., ON BEHALF OF
ITSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED AS TRUST FUND
BENEFICIARIES OF LIEN LAW TRUST v. COSMATI STONE LLC, COSMATI STONE
OF NY LLC, RIVKY KLEIN AND JOHN DOES, Case No. 603438/2019 (N.Y.
Sup., Nassau Cty., Jan. 23, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Leonard Steinman.

The lawsuit alleges violation of lien-related laws.

NSI Stone is a supplier for the natural stone slabs and tiles
industry. Cosmati is in the special trade contractors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          RABINOWITZ & GALINA
          94 Willis Avenue
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 739-8222


COTY INC: Oral Argument on Bid to Dismiss Suit Set for April 21
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coty Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2019, that oral argument on the motions
to dismiss the class action suit entitled, Massachusetts Laborers'
Pension Fund v. Harf et.al., Case No. 2019-0336-AGB, is scheduled
for April 21, 2020.

A purported stockholder class action complaint concerning the
tender offer by Cottage Holdco B.V. and the Schedule 14D-9,
captioned Rumsey v. Coty, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00650-LPS,
was filed by a putative stockholder against the Company and certain
current and former directors of the Company in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware, but has not yet been served.

The plaintiff alleges that the Company's Schedule 14D-9 omits
certain information, including, among other things, certain
financial data and certain analyses underlying the opinion of
Centerview Partners LLC.

The plaintiff asserts claims under the federal securities laws and
seeks, among other things, injunctive and/or monetary relief.

A second consolidated purported stockholder class action and
derivative complaint concerning the Cottage Tender Offer and the
Schedule 14D-9 is pending against certain current and former
directors of the Company, JAB Holding Company, S.a.r.l., JAB
Cosmetics B.V., and Cottage Holdco B.V. in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware. The Company was named as a nominal
defendant.

The case, which was filed on May 6, 2019, was captioned
Massachusetts Laborers' Pension Fund v. Harf et.al., Case No.
2019-0336-AGB. On June 14, 2019, plaintiffs in the consolidated
action filed a Verified Amended Class Action and Derivative
Complaint.

After defendants responded to the Amended Complaint, on October 21,
2019, plaintiffs filed a Verified Second Amended Class Action and
Derivative Complaint, alleging that the directors and JAB Holding
Company, S.a.r.l., JAB Cosmetics B.V., and Cottage Holdco B.V.
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders and
breached the Stockholders Agreement. The Second Amended Complaint
seeks, among other things, monetary relief.

On November 21, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss certain
claims asserted in the Second Amended Complaint, and certain of the
director defendants also answered the complaint. Oral argument on
the motions to dismiss is scheduled for April 21, 2020.

Coty Inc., together with its subsidiaries, manufactures, markets,
distributes, and sells beauty products worldwide. It operates in
three segments: Luxury, Consumer Beauty, and Professional Beauty.
The company was founded in 1904 and is based in New York, New York.
As of April 26, 2019, Coty Inc. operates as a subsidiary of JAB
Cosmetics B.V.


CRANE MERCHANDISING: Jaye Consumer Suit Removed to N.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Francis Jaye and Sean Madelmayer, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CRANE
MERCHANDISING SYSTEMS, INC.; COMPASS GROUP USA, INC., D/B/A CANTEEN
VENDING SERVICES, INC., Case No. DC-19-06786, was removed from the
Texas District Court, Dallas County, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas on Feb. 14, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-00266-RLW to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants charge credit and debit
cards amounts exceeding displayed prices on products purchased at
the Defendants' vending machines. The Plaintiffs seek compensatory
damages for the alleged overcharges charged by the Defendants'
vending machines.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
          THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
          12700 Park Central Drive, Suite 520
          Dallas, TX 75251
          Phone: 972-521-6868
          Facsimile: 281-254-7789
          Email: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Vivek Jayaram, Esq.
          Bret Manchel, Esq.
          JAYARAM LAW, INC.
          125 South Clark Street, 17th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 646-325-9855
          Email: vivek@jayaramlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Clayton L. Falls, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          1717 Main Street, Suite 2800
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: (214) 939-4958
          Facsimile: (214) 939-5849
          Email: clayton.falls@klgates.com

               - and -

          Joseph C. Wylie II, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          70 West Madison Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60602-4207
          Phone: (312) 372-1121
          Facsimile: (312) 827-8000
          Email: joseph.wylie@klgates.com

               - and -

          Paul W. Sweeney Jr, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Eighth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Email: paul.sweeney@klgates.com


CURADEN AG: Court Awards $1,000 in TCPA Damages to Lyngaas
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan awarded $1,000 to Brian Lyngaas in TCPA-related damages in
the case BRIAN LYNGAAS, D.D.S., individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff,
v. CURADEN AG, et al., Defendants. Case No. 17-10910. (E.D.
Mich.).

Under the class action, Plaintiff Brian Lyngaas, D.D.S., on behalf
of himself and similarly situated class members, asserts that on
March 8 and March 28, 2016, he received unsolicited fax
advertisements from Defendants Curaden AG and Curaden USA, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47
U.S.C. Sec. 227.

On March 8 and March 28, 2016, Lyngaas, a dentist whose practice is
located in Livonia, Michigan, received faxes advertising the
Curaprox Ultra-Soft CS 5460 toothbrush. Lyngaas owns and operates a
fax machine for use within his dental practice, and he did not
expressly invite or permit either Defendant to send him any
advertisement by fax.

Curaden AG is a Swiss entity that manufactures toothbrushes,
including the Curaprox Ultra-Soft 5460. Curaden USA is a subsidiary
of Curaden AG.

In the case, the Court conducted a non-jury trial in September
2019. The parties have submitted post-trial briefs and proposed
findings of fact and conclusions of law, as well as responses to
the post-trial briefing. Defendants contend that Lyngaas did not
meet his burden of proving the total number of unsolicited faxes
allegedly sent class-wide. They also contend that Lyngaas did not
establish that Curaden AG was a sender of faxes within the meaning
of the TCPA.

Upon deliberation, the Court opines that Lyngaas has established
that Curaden USA violated the TCPA by sending two unsolicited fax
advertisements to him individually and by broadcasting the
advertisements in two mass fax campaigns.  The Court finds for
Lyngaas on his individual claim for Curaden USA's two violations of
the TCPA and awards damages in the amount of $1,000.00.

With respect to the class claims, the Court requires a claims
administration process to afford potential class members an
opportunity to establish their receipt of Curaden USA's unsolicited
fax advertisements. Lyngaas, however, has failed to establish
liability on the part of Curaden AG, the Court opines.

Both parties filed motions in limine, which are dismissed as they
have been rendered moot by the Court's conclusions of law.
Additionally, at the close of Lyngaas's proofs at trial, Defendants
made an oral motion for judgment on partial findings under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c). This motion is likewise dismissed,
as it has been rendered moot by the present ruling. Finally, the
Court dismisses Lyngaas's Count II conversion claim, which was
voluntarily withdrawn.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 21, 2019 Opinion
and Order available at https://tinyurl.com/uzvr5of from Leagle.com

Brian Lyngaas, D.D.S., Plaintiff, represented by David M. Oppenheim
, Bock, Hatch, Lewis, & Oppenheim, LLC, Jonathan Piper , Bock &
Hatch LLC, 134 N LaSalle St # 1000  Chicago, IL 60602, Richard
Shenkan , Shenkan Injury Lawyers, LLC, P.O. Box 7255 New Castle, PA
16107, Tod A. Lewis , Bock Law Firm, LLC dba Bock, Hatch, Lewis &
Oppenheim, LLC & Phillip A. Bock , Bock Law Firm, LLC dba Bock,
Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC, 134 N LaSalle St # 1000  Chicago, IL
60602

Curaden AG & Curaden USA Inc., Defendants, represented by John T.
Mihelick , Dinsmore & Shohl, Brian S. Sullivan , Dinsmore & Shohl &
Joseph Edward Greiner , Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP, 1200 Liberty Ridge
Drive Suite 310 Wayne, PA 19087


DANIEL J. QUIRK: Underpays Salespersons, Anez Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
ANDRE J. ANEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DANIEL J. QUIRK, INC.; QUIRK CARS, INC.; and
DANIEL J. QUIRK, Defendants, Case No. 20-0121 (Mass. Super.,
Norfolk Cty., Jan. 29, 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 Anez was employed by the Defendants as salesperson.

Daniel J. Quirk, Inc. was founded in 1974. The Company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of motor vehicle
supplies, accessories, tools, and equipment. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward C. Cumbo, Esq.
          Robert Richardson, Esq.
          RICHARDSON & CUMBO, LLP
          225 Franklin Street, 26th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 217-2779
          E-mail: e.cumbo@rc-llp.com
                  r.richardson@rc-llp.com


DECKS WEST: Purintun Suit Over Payment Bonds Moved to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Bradley Purintun, as an Individual, and on
behalf of the general public for all those similarly situated v.
DECKS WEST, LLC, a Washington corporation; TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND
SURETY COMPANY, a Connecticut Corporation and DOES 1 through 200,
inclusive, Case No. 19STCV44119, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Feb.
18, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-01545 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs' Complaint asserts the only claim for relief against
the Defendants: Recovery Under Statutory Payment Bonds.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Francis J. Lanak, Esq.
          Natasha K. Buchanan, Esq.
          LANAK & HANNA, P.C.
          625 The City Drive South, Suite 190
          Orange, CA 92868
          Phone: (714) 620-2350
          Facsimile: (714) 703-1610
          Email: flanak@lanak-hanna.com
                 nkbuchanan@lanak-hanna.com


DON PABLO: Veleva Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Valentina Veleva, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. DON PABLO, INC., PABLO CASTRO, and XIOMARA CASTRO, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01363 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2020), seeks to recover
unpaid wages, unlawful deductions, liquidated damages, interest,
and reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that not all of her worked time was recorded
by the Defendants. She says she was still paid at the tip-credit
minimum wage no matter how much time she spent performing
non-tipped work. The Defendants also took improper deductions from
her wages.

As a result of the Defendants' policies, the Plaintiff was not paid
for all of the time worked (including overtime hours), and is not
paid all of the wages and compensation that were due, including
federal- and state-mandated minimum wages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a food server at the
Libertador restaurant.

The Defendants own and operate two restaurants in the New York City
area under the trade name Libertador.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Phone: 212-465-1188
          Fax: 212-465-1181


EASTERN MOUNTAIN: Faces Mahoney ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EASTERN MOUNTAIN
SPORTS, LLC. The case is styled as John Mahoney, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. EASTERN MOUNTAIN
SPORTS, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00854-AB (E.D. Pa., Feb. 14, 2020).

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

Eastern Mountain Sports is an outdoor clothing and equipment
retailer in the U.S. Northeast. The Company is headquartered in
Meriden, Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
          GLANZBERG TOBIA & ASSOCIATES PC
          123 S. Broad Street, Suite 1640
          Philadelphia, PA 19109
          Phone: (215) 981-5400
          Email: dglanzberg@aol.com


ELDERCARE INSURANCE: Faces Degeyter TCPA Suit in W.D. Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eldercare Insurance
Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Cindi Degeyter,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Eldercare Insurance Services, Inc., Integrity Marketing Group, LLC,
Case No. 6:20-cv-06015-RTD (W.D. Ark., Feb. 14, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Eldercare Insurance Services, Inc. operates as an insurance
company. The Company offers casualty, health, and life insurance
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN LLC
          201 S Biscayne Blvd., 28th Fl.
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (877) 333-9427
          Fax: (888) 498-8946
          Email: law@stefancoleman.com


ELM SHOES: Mahoney Sues in E.D. Pennsylvania Over ADA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against E.L.M. SHOES, INC.
The case is styled as John Mahoney, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. E.L.M. SHOES, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-00855-BMS (E.D. Pa., Feb. 14, 2020).

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

ELM Shoes is a full service shoe store located in Greencastle,
Pennsylvania. ELM Shoes specializes in comfort footwear for men and
women for work, casual, and dress.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
          GLANZBERG TOBIA & ASSOCIATES PC
          123 S. Broad Street, Suite 1640
          Philadelphia, PA 19109
          Phone: (215) 981-5400
          Email: dglanzberg@aol.com


ERMENEGILDOZEGNA CORP: Faces ADA Desalvo Suit in C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
BRETT DESALVO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, ERMENEGILDOZEGNA CORPORATION; and DOES 1 TO 10,
INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00917-JFW-E (C.D. Cal.,
Jan. 29, 2020) alleges violation of the Americans With Disabilities
Act. The case is assigned to Judge John F. Walter and referred to
Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick.

Ermenegildo Zegna Corporation distributes apparel products. The
Company offers blazers, knitwear, pants, t-shirts,suits, swimwear,
bags, belts, gloves, scraves, sunglasses, and other related
prroducts. Ermenegildo Zegna operates worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Babak Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          Wilshire Law Firm
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com


EVOQUA WATER: Bid to Dismiss New York Securities Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the
defendants' motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled, In re
Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. Securities Litigation, Master File
No. 1:18-CV-10320, is pending.

On or around November 6, 2018, a purported shareholder of the
Company filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, captioned McWilliams v. Evoqua
Water Technologies Corp., et al., Case No. 1:18-CV-10320, alleging
that the Company and senior management violated federal securities
laws.  

On January 31, 2019, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel in connection with the action and captioned the action "In
re Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. Securities Litigation," Master
File No. 1:18-CV-10320. On March 28, 2019, lead plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint, which asserts claims pursuant to the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933 against the
Company, members of the Company's Board of Directors, senior
management, other executives and/or employees, AEA Investors LP and
a number of its affiliated entities, and the underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering and secondary public offering.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing false, misleading, and/or omissive
disclosures concerning the Company's integration of acquired
companies, the Company's reduction-in-force, and the Company's
accounting practices.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount to
be proved at trial, an award of reasonable costs and expenses to
the plaintiff and class counsel, and such other relief as the court
may deem just and proper.  

On June 26, 2019, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint. Briefing in connection with the motions to
dismiss was completed on October 4, 2019.

Evoqua said, "The Company believes that this lawsuit is without
merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the
allegations."

Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. provides a range of water and
wastewater treatment systems and technologies, and mobile and
emergency water supply solutions and services. It operates in three
segments: Industrial, Municipal, and Products. The company has
operations in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the
Netherlands, Germany, Australia, China, and Singapore. Evoqua Water
Technologies Corp. was incorporated in 2013 and is headquartered in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces Lynn FCRA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. The case is styled John W. Lynn, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Experian
Information Solutions, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00830 (E.D.N.Y., Feb.
14, 2020).

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Experian is a global information services company that provides
information, analytical tools, and marketing services to help
clients manage their commercial and financial decisions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FRAGRANCENET.COM INC: Shears-Barnes Sues Over Marketing Texts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Shears-Barnes and Stacey Marner, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. FRAGRANCENET.COM, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-00846 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2020),
alleges that the Defendant negligently placed unsolicited automated
text messages to the Plaintiffs' cellular phones, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant has violated the TCPA by using an automatic telephone
dialing system to bombard consumers' mobile phones with
non-emergency advertising and marketing text messages without prior
express written consent, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are individuals, who resided in Cabot, Arkansas, and
Cochranton, Pennsylvania.

FragranceNet is an online retailer of 17,000 brand name products,
namely fragrances, skincare, and makeup, at discounted prices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron Deitsch, Esq.
          ROMANO LAW PLLC
          55 Broad St, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 865-9848
          Email: Aaron@romanolaw.com

              - and -

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


FRONTIER CALIFORNIA: JCM Sues Over Claims of Product Liability
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frontier California,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as JCM Farming, Inc., a California
corporation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Frontier California, Inc., a California corporation,
Frontier Communications of America, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Frontier Communications Corporation, a Delaware corporation, 1
through 10, Inclusive, Case No. 5:20-cv-00298 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 13,
2020).

The nature of suit is stated as contract product liability.

Frontier California, Inc. is a Frontier Communications-owned
operating company providing telephone service in former Verizon
regions.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]


GCA EDUCATION: Van Heel Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned George Van Heel, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. GCA EDUCATION SERVICES, INC.; GCA
SERVICES GROUP, INC.; GCA SERVICES GROUP OF CALIFORNIA, INC.; and
DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV44969, was removed
from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on Feb. 14, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 20-1505 to the
proceeding.

In the Complaint, the Plaintiff sets forth the following eight
causes of action: (1) Failure to Pay Earned Wages; (2) Failure to
Pay Minimum Wage; (3) Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; (4)
Failure to Provide Meal Breaks; (5) Failure to Provide Rest Breaks;
(6) Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements; (7) Failure to
Timely Pay Final Wages; and (8) Unfair Competition.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Adam Y. Siegel, Esq.
          Eric J. Gitig, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
          Phone: (213) 689-0404
          Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
          Email: Adam.Siegel@jacksonlewis.com
                 Eric.Gitig@jacksonlewis.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Economic Loss-Related Suits Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend itself from several economic-loss-related class action
suits.

The company is aware of over 100 putative class actions pending
against GM in U.S. and Canadian courts alleging that consumers who
purchased or leased vehicles manufactured by GM or Motors
Liquidation Company (MLC), formerly known as General Motors
Corporation, had been economically harmed by one or more of the
2014 recalls and/or the underlying vehicle conditions associated
with those recalls (economic-loss cases).

In general, these economic-loss cases seek recovery for purported
compensatory damages, such as alleged benefit-of-the-bargain
damages or damages related to alleged diminution in value of the
vehicles, as well as punitive damages, injunctive relief and other
relief.

Many of the pending U.S. economic-loss claims have been transferred
to, and consolidated in, a single federal court, the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (Southern District).
These plaintiffs have asserted economic-loss claims under federal
and state laws, including claims relating to recalled vehicles
manufactured by GM and claims asserting successor liability
relating to certain recalled vehicles manufactured by MLC.

In August 2017, the Southern District granted the company's motion
to dismiss the successor liability claims of plaintiffs in seven of
the sixteen states at issue on the motion and called for additional
briefing to decide whether plaintiffs' claims can proceed in the
other nine states.

In December 2017, the Southern District granted GM's motion and
dismissed the plaintiffs' successor liability claims in an
additional state, but found that there are genuine issues of
material fact that prevent summary judgment for GM in eight other
states.

In January 2018, GM moved for reconsideration of certain portions
of the Southern District's December 2017 summary judgment ruling.
That motion was granted in April 2018, dismissing plaintiffs'
successor liability claims in any state where New York law
applies.

In September 2018, the Southern District granted the company's
motion to dismiss claims for lost personal time (in 41 out of 47
jurisdictions) and certain unjust enrichment claims, but denied its
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' economic loss claims in 27
jurisdictions under the "manifest defect" rule. Significant summary
judgment, class certification, and expert evidentiary motions
remain at issue.

In August 2019, the Southern District granted the company's motion
for summary judgment on plaintiffs' economic loss "benefit of the
bargain" damage claims (the August 2019 Opinion). The Southern
District held that plaintiffs' conjoint analysis-based damages
model failed to establish that plaintiffs suffered
difference-in-value damages and without such evidence, plaintiffs'
difference-in-value damage claims fail under the laws of all three
bellwether states: California, Missouri and Texas.

Later in August 2019, the bellwether plaintiffs filed a motion
requesting that the Southern District reconsider its summary
judgment decision or allow an interlocutory appeal if
reconsideration is denied. In December 2019, the Southern District
denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the August 2019
Opinion, but granted the plaintiffs' motion for certification of an
interlocutory appeal. Plaintiffs filed their petition requesting
interlocutory review with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and
GM filed its opposition in January 2020.

In September 2019, GM filed an updated motion for summary judgment
on plaintiffs' remaining economic loss claims that were not
addressed in the Southern District's August 2019 Opinion and
renewed its evidentiary motion seeking to strike the opinions of
plaintiff's expert on plaintiffs' alleged "lost time" damages
associated with having the recall repairs performed.

General Motors Company designs, builds, and sells cars, trucks,
crossovers, and automobile parts worldwide. The company operates
through GM North America, GM International, GM Cruise, and GM
Financial. General Motors Company was founded in 1908 and is
headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.


GLOBAL 7 ENVIRONMENTAL: Sullivan Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Sullivan, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Global 7 Environmental, Health & Safety
Corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-00129-JD (W.D. Okla., Feb. 14, 2020),
is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act over alleged unpaid
overtime wages.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant required him to work more
than forty hours in a workweek without overtime compensation, and
that the Defendant misclassified him as exempt from overtime under
the FLSA.

The Defendant's conduct violates the FLSA, which requires
non-exempt employees to be compensated for all hours in excess of
forty in a workweek at one and one-half times their regular rates
of pay, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a safety representative
from November 2018 to January 2020.

Global 7 Environmental, Health & Safety Corporation provides safety
and environmental monitoring services to its customers in the
energy and manufacturing sectors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
          John Neuman, Esq.
          SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
          5612 Chaucer Drive
          Houston, TX 77005
          Phone: (281) 885-8844
          Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
          Email: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com
                 JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com


GLOBE LIFE: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Guglielmo Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH GUGLIELMO, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons v. GLOBE LIFE INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-00607-GBD (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 23, 2020),  alleges that the
Defendant is denying blind and visually-impaired persons throughout
the United States with equal access to the goods and services
offered by its Web site, http://www.globelifeinsurance.com/.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Web site,
and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the
Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff adds that by failing to make the
Web site accessible to blind persons, the Defendant are violating
basic equal access requirements under both state and federal law.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using a
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people, who meet this definition have limited vision;
others have no vision.

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York, the
lawsuit says.

Globe Life is a financial services holding company listed on the
New York Stock Exchange, which operates through its wholly owned
subsidiaries providing life insurance, annuity, and supplemental
health insurance products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David P. Force, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


GREATLAND HOME: Dennis Suit Certified as Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Jennifer Dennis v. Greatland
Home Health Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19−cv−05427
(N.D. Ill.,), the Hon. Judge Elaine E. Bucklo entered an order
partly granting Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification as
a collective action.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on Feb. 7, 2020,
the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification as a
collective action and issuance of notice under 29 U.S.C. section
216(b) is granted in part. Status hearing is set for March 20, 2020
at 9:45 a.m.

Greatland Home is a hospital and health care company located in
Bolingbrook, Illinois.[CC]

HAMILTON-RYKER IT: Pickens Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lynwood Pickens, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated v.
HAMILTON-RYKER IT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00141 (M.D.
Tenn., Feb. 18, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and other workers like
him, overtime as required by the FLSA, says the complaint. Instead,
the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the same hourly rate for all hours
worked, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek.

Plaintiff Pickens worked for Hamilton-Ryker as a Quality
Assurance/Quality Control Inspector.

Hamilton-Ryker provides staffing solutions to projects ranging from
information technology, customer service, oil and gas, and health
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq.
          YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC
          2021 Richard Jones Road, Suite 310-A
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Email: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 adunlap@mybackwages.com
                 rschreiber@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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


HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Class Settlement in Odonnell Suit Gets Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lee Rosenthal of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division, granted final approval to the
class settlement in the case MARANDA LYNN ODONNELL, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
H-16-1414, (S.D. Tex.).

In May 2016, Maranda Lynn ODonnell filed the class action complaint
against Harris County, the Harris County Sheriff, and five Harris
County Hearing Officers. Seeking injunctive and declaratory relief
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, ODonnell alleged that Harris County's
post-arrest incarceration policies and practices imposed a
"wealth-based detention system" of keeping misdemeanor defendants
in jail only because they could not pay secured money bail, while
those who could pay were promptly released, in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses.

In July 2019, the parties reported that they have reached a
resolution and had submitted a proposed consent decree and
settlement agreement to the Harris County Commissioners Court for
approval.  On Sept. 5, 2019, the district court preliminarily
approved the proposed settlement agreement, consent decree, and
class notice.

In the instant matter, the parties seek final approval of the class
settlement, consent decree and class notice.

* The Consent Decree

The proposed consent decree requires Harris County to carry out a
broad range of bail reforms.  Harris County must implement, comply
with, enforce, and train certain officials on Amended Local Rule 9,
which provides that "[a]ll misdemeanor arrestees must be released
on a personal bond or on non-financial conditions as soon as
practicable after arrest, except" individuals arrested with certain
conditions.

A misdemeanor "arrestee who is not promptly released on a personal
bond . . . must receive a bail hearing . . . [within] 48 hours
after arrest."

Consistent with Amended Local Rule 9, Harris County must "provide
the funding and staffing necessary" for the Public Defender's
Office to adequately represent all misdemeanor arrestees at bail
hearings.

Harris County must generate, and publish online, a report every 60
days on the proposed consent decree's implementation.  An
independent monitor the parties jointly select will oversee Harris
County's compliance with the consent decree for seven years.
Finally, Harris County must hold at least two public meetings each
year to "report on [the] implementation of the Consent Decree," and
to give community members an opportunity to comment and ask
questions about Harris County's criminal justice system.

* The Settlement Agreement

The proposed settlement agreement states that the parties "agree to
file a joint motion seeking approval of the Consent Decree to
resolve all of [the] Plaintiffs' claims."  The agreement also
addresses fees and costs.  Harris County agrees to pay the
following attorneys' fees and costs:

  -- $3,725,231.00 in fees and $114,832.54 in costs to Civil
     Rights Corps (though Civil Rights Corps, after exercising
     billing discretion after the settlement agreement was signed,
     requests only $3,716,531.00

  -- $2,161,262.00 in fees (to be forgone) and $30,214.86 in
     costs to Susman Godfrey L.L.P.,

  -- $632,453.00 in fees to Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
     Dorr LLP and

  -- $182,715.90 in fees and $5,378.00 in costs to the Texas Fair
     Defense Project.

On review, the Court finds that the Class Representatives and
counsel have adequately represented the class, and the proposed
class settlement was negotiated at arm's length.

The Court further notes that by reaching a favorable settlement
before additional summary judgment motions and the permanent
injunction trial, the plaintiffs "avoid[ed] expense and delay and
ensur[ed] recovery for the [c]lass."

The proposed consent decree provides the critical relief the
plaintiffs have long sought, requiring Harris County to release
many indigent misdemeanor arrestees on a personal bond as soon as
practicable, again subject to carefully framed exceptions,
exclusions, and limits.  The  proposed consent decree also provides
other relief, including training, data collection and analysis, and
monitoring, that the amended preliminary injunction did not impose.
In short, the proposed consent decree supports and implements the
critical aspects of the relief the class would likely recover were
this case to proceed to trial and appeal.  The settlement is likely
to benefit the class members and Harris County as a whole, the
Court holds.

The Court also notes that the proposal treats class members
equitably in relation to each other.

The Court further opines that the requested counsel fees and
expenses are reasonable.

In sum, the Court granted the parties' joint motion for final
approval of the consent decree and settlement agreement.

The Court states that the objectors' and amici's briefs and
letters, and the nonparties' statements at the final fairness
hearing, demonstrate that third parties have had notice and ample
opportunities to be heard about the proposed settlement and consent
decree. The Court does not question the amici and objectors' good
faith. The public safety and public resource concerns they raise
are important. The proposed consent decree and settlement agreement
are approved because these concerns are fully recognized and
addressed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 21, 2019
Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/uq3q38m
from Leagle.com

Maranda Lynn ODonnell, Plaintiff, represented by Alec George
Karakatsanis , Civil Rights Corps, 910 17th St Nw Ste 200,
Washington, DC 20006-2603, Krisina Janaye Zuniga –
kzuniga@susmangodfrey.com - Susman Godfrey LLP, Lexie Giselle White
awhite @susmangodfrey.com -Susman Godfrey LLP, Neal S. Manne –
nmanne@susmangodfrey.com - Susman Godfrey LLP, Alejandra C. Salinas
– asalinas@susmangodfrey.com -Susman Godfrey LLP, Charles Lewis
Gerstein , Civil Rights Corps, Elizabeth Anne Rossi , Civil Rights
Corps, 910 17th St Nw Ste 200, Washington, DC 20006-2603,  pro hac
vice & Michael Gervais , Susman Godfrey L.L.P.

Loetha Shanta McGruder & Robert Ryan Ford, Consol Plaintiffs,
represented by Krisina Janaye Zuniga , Susman Godfrey LLP, Neal S.
Manne , Susman Godfrey LLP, Alec George Karakatsanis , Civil Rights
Corps, Alejandra C. Salinas , Susman Godfrey LLP, Charles Lewis
Gerstein , Civil Rights Corps, Elizabeth Anne Rossi , Civil Rights
Corps, pro hac vice & Lexie Giselle White , Susman Godfrey LLP.

Harris County, Texas, Defendant, represented by James G. Munisteri
- jmunisteri@foley.com - Foley Gardere, Melissa Lynn Spinks ,
Harris County Attorney's Office & Celena Cavazos Vinson , The
Office of Vince Ryan County Attorney.

Ronald Nicholas, Defendant, represented by Katharine Davenport
David - kate.david@huschblackwell.com - Husch Blackwell LLP,
Michael A. Stafford - mike.stafford@huschblackwell.com - Husch
Blackwell LLP & Philip James Morgan -
phil.morgan@huschblackwell.com - Husch Blackwell, LLP.


HEARTLAND BEEF: Snider Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Tiffanie Snider, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. HEARTLAND BEEF, INC., an Indiana
corporation, Case No. 1:19-cv-07386, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to U.S.
District Court for the Central District of Illinois on Feb. 13,
2020.

The Central District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-04026-SLD-JEH to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as other statutory actions.

Heartland Beef, Inc. was founded in 1999. The Company's line of
business includes the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks for
on-premise consumption.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron M Zigler, Esq.
          Ashley C. Keller, Esq.
          Travis D. Lenkner, Esq.
          KELLER LENKNER LLC
          150 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 312.741.5220
          Email: amz@kellerlenkner.com
                 ack@kellerlenkner.com
                 tdl@kellerlenkner.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gary M. Miller, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          111 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4700
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 704-7700
          Email: docket@shb.com

               - and -

          Brian S. Jones, Esq.
          BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS LLP
          111 Monument Circle, Suite 2700
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Phone: (317) 684-5000
          Email: b.jones@boselaw.com


HUHTAMAKI INC: Protective Order Issued in Chavez Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California issued a Protective Order in the case captioned JUAN J.
CHAVEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. HUHTAMAKI, INC. a Kansas corporation; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-05930-ODW-JEM, (C.D. Cal.).

The Protective Order was stipulated by the parties to govern the
process of discovery in the case. The Protective Order extends only
to the limited information or items that are entitled to
confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles.

The parties agree that the Protective Order is justified to
expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt
resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials,
to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep
confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable
necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the
conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the
litigation, and serve the ends of justice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 14, 2019 Opinion
is available at  https://tinyurl.com/rb6wm5f  Leagle.com

Juan J. Chavez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Kane Moon -
kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com - Moon and Yang APC, Howard Scott Leviant
- scott.leviant@moonyanglaw.com - Moon and Yang APC & Lilit
Ter-Astvatsatryan - lilit@moonyanglaw.com - Moon and Yang APC.

Huhtamaki, Inc., a Kansas corporation, Defendant, represented by
Sarah Elana Ross - sross@littler.com - Littler Mendelson PC &
Alexandria Marie Witte  - awitte@littler.com - Littler Mendelson
PC.


INDIRA CORP: Baker Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
JOHN BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INDIRA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No:
1:20-cv-10284 (D. Mass., February 12, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Defendant made multiple unsolicited
telephone calls to Plaintiff and the other members of the Do Not
Call Registry Class within a 12-month period without their prior
express consent to receive such calls.

The plaintiff demands the Defendant to stop its practice of placing
calls, including pre-recorded calls, to consumers who are
registered on the National Do Not Call Registry. Also, the
plaintiff seeks an award of statutory damages to the members of the
Class, plus court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.

Indira Corporation is an energy company offering electricity and
natural gas plans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Steven Foley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF J. STEVEN FOLEY
          100 Pleasant Street #100
          Worcester, MS 01609
          Tel: 508-754-1042
          Fax: 508-739-4051
          Email: jsteven@attorneyfoley.com

                - and -

          Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
          Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
          Stephen A. Klein, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, CL 80210
          Tel: (720)213-0675
          Fax: (303)927-0809
          Email: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
                 ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
                 sklein@woodrowpeluso.com


IQVIA INC: Class Certification Bid in Boileve Suit Shelved
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Carlos M. Boileve v. IQVIA
Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00758 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Mary M.
Rowland entered an order taking a motion for class certification
under advisement.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on Feb. 7, 2020,
the motion for class certification is taken under advisement.
Parties are no longer required to appear on March 3, 2020.  An
initial status hearing is set for April 2, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. No
later than five business days before the status hearing, the
parties are directed to file a joint initial status report.

IQVIA, formerly Quintiles and IMS Health, Inc., is an American
multinational company serving the combined industries of health
information technology and clinical research.[CC]


J.G. WENTWORTH: Simpson Sues Over Unsolicited Text Advertisements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cory Simpson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE J.G. WENTWORTH COMPANY, Case No. 21:20-cv-00827
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 14, 2020), arises from the Defendant's sending of
automated text messages advertisements to the cellular telephones
of the Plaintiff and numerous other individuals across the country,
in clear violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, all of the subject text messages
received by the Plaintiff were transmitted by or on behalf of the
Defendant without the requisite prior "express written consent" of
the Plaintiff. Because the Plaintiff's cellular phone alerts him
whenever he receives a text message, each unsolicited text message
transmitted by or on behalf of the Defendant to the Plaintiff's
Number invaded his privacy and intruded upon his seclusion upon
receipt, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Far Rockaway, New York.

The J.G. Wentworth Company is a financial services company that
provides structured settlement payment purchasing, annuity payment
purchasing, lottery and casino payment purchasing, and debt relief
services to consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: + 1 (415) 766-3534
          Facsimile: + 1 (415) 402-0058
          Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com

               - and -

          Eugene Turin, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 893-7002
          Email: eturin@mcgpc.com


KING GEORGE: Biag Labor Class Suit Removed to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Arturo S. Biag, in a Representative capacity
only, and on behalf of other members of the public similarly
situated v. KING GEORGE-J&J WORLDWIDE SERVICES, LLC, a California
corporation and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
37-2019-00008239-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California in and for the County of San Diego to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on Feb.
18, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-00307-BAS-LL to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts claims under the California Labor Code for
failure to pay wages and overtime wages, failure to pay wages at
time of termination, and failure to provide proper wage statements,
and under the California Business & Professions Code for unfair
business practices, as they all arise from the Plaintiff's alleged
employment with the Defendant and are all transactionally
related.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Guillermo A. Escobedo, Esq.
          Christine M. Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Emilia A. Arutunian, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          225 Broadway, Suite 2000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 573-4900
          Facsimile: (619) 573-4901
          Email: Guillermo.escobedo@jacksonlewis.com
                 Christine.fitzgerald@jacksonlewis.com
                 Emilia.arutunian@jacksonlewis.com


KING'S CREEK: Londo Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Londo, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
KING'S CREEK PLANTATION, L.L.C., Case No. 1:20-cv-10312 (D. Mass.,
Feb. 15, 2020), arises from the Defendant's campaign to market its
services through the use of automated telemarketing calls in plain
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant sent multiple calls to residential telephone numbers
that are registered on the National Do Not Call List, which is a
separate and additional violation of the TCPA, says the complaint.
The recipients of the Defendant's illegal calls, which include the
Plaintiff and the proposed classes, are entitled to damages under
the TCPA, the Plaintiff asserts.

Plaintiff David Londo is an individual citizen of the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts.

King's Creek, LLC, is a Virginia limited liability company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Phone: (508) 221-1510
          Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com

               - and -

          Alex M. Washkowitz, Esq.
          Jeremy Cohen, Esq.
          CW LAW GROUP, P.C.
          188 Oaks Road
          Framingham, MA 01701
          Email: alex@cwlawgrouppc.com


LAMPE COMPANY: Faces Miholich TCPA Suit Over Invasion of Privacy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Miholich, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. THE LAMPE COMPANY, LLC, DOES, Case No.
3:20-cv-00276-BEN-JLB (S.D. Cal., Feb. 14, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants negligently contacted the Plaintiff for marketing
purposes on his cellular telephones in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading his privacy.

At no time did he provide his current cellular telephone number to
the Defendants through any medium, the Plaintiff tells the Court.
He says he had never heard of the Defendants prior to receiving the
texts from them. The texts were placed via an "automatic telephone
dialing system," as prohibited by the TCPA.

The Defendants' texts to his cellular telephone number were
unsolicited and were placed without prior express written consent
or permission, the Plaintiff contends. Through the Defendants'
conduct, the Plaintiff suffered an invasion of a legally protected
interest in privacy, which is specifically addressed and protected
by the TCPA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is citizen and resident of San Diego in the State of
California.

The Lampe Company LLC is a Texas limited liability company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex S. Madar, Esq.
          MADAR LAW CORPORATION
          14410 Via Venezia, #1404
          San Diego, CA 92129-1666
          Phone: (858) 299-5879
          Fax: (619) 354-7281
          Email: alex@madarlaw.net


LANCER FOOD: Gardner Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------
ROBIN GARDNER, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. LANCER FOOD HOLDINGS, LLC (d/b/a LANCER
HOSPITALITY, INC.) and LANCER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 0:20-cv-00493 (D. Minn., February 12, 2020) is
a collective and class action complaint on behalf of all other
similarly situated current and former employees of Defendants,
seeking for damages and other relief relating to violations of the
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and those similarly situated
were not properly compensated for the overtime they have worked in
accordance with the FLSA and MFLSA. Instead, Defendants paid them
"straight time" for their overtime hours worked.

Lancer Food Holdings, LLC (d/b/a Lancer Hospitality, Inc.) is a
hospitality company that provides services such as campus dining,
K-12 lunch programs, corporate dining, restaurant management,
catering, and large-scale food service and retail operations at
public venues across Minnesota. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
          NICHOLAS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Tel: (612)256-3200
          Fax: (612)215-6870
          Email: fisher@nka.com


LIBERTY BANKERS: Faces Mey Suit Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Mey, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and
entities similarly situated v. LIBERTY BANKERS LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 5:20-cv-00033-JPB (N.D.W. Va., Feb. 14, 2020), is
brought to enforce the provisions of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act in the face of the Defendant's illegal telemarketing
activities.

The lawsuit also seeks to enforce the TCPA's strict limits on
telemarketing calls placed though automated telephone dialing
systems and artificial or prerecorded voice messages, as well as
calls placed to numbers listed on the Do Not Call Registry.

The Plaintiff says she never gave the Defendant consent to call her
cellular phone using an autodialer. She contends that the Defendant
violated the TCPA by imitating a telephone call to her cellular
telephone lines using an automatic telephone dialing system.

Plaintiff Diana Mey resides in this District.

Liberty Bankers Life Insurance Company is a Texas corporation that
transacts business throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John W. Barrett, Esq.
          Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
          Sharon F. Iskra, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Phone: (304) 345-6555
          Email: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com
                 jmarshall@baileyglasser.com
                 siskra@baileyglasser.com

               - and –

          Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          FRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C.
          99 High St., Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: (617) 738-7080
          Email: ted@broderick-law.com
                 anthony@broderick-law.com

               - and -

          Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
          1 South Avenue, Suite 3
          Natick, MA 01760
          Phone: (508) 655-1415
          Email: mmccue@massattorneys.net


LOS TRES MAGUEYES: Conditional Class Certification Bid Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as LAURA PONTONES v. LOS TRES
MAGUEYES, INC., AYOTLAN, INC., TEQUILA, INC., ELIBORIO NAVARRO,
IGNACIO NAVARRO, FRANCISCO SANCHEZ, and JORE MEZA, Case
No.5:18-CV-87-H-KS (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Malcolm J. Howard
entered an order on Feb. 7, 2020 dismissing motions for conditional
class certification, without prejudice.

The Court said, "By order filed Feb. 6, 2020, this court allowed
the amendment of Plaintiff's complaint which includes the joinder
of additional defendants. In light of this joinder, certification
of a Rule 23 class or Fair Labor Standards Act collective action is
premature. The standard for certifying a Rule 23 class is more
stringent than that involved in conditionally certifying a FLSA
collective action. However, even under the FLSA's "fairly lenient"
standard for conditional certification, there must be a threshold
showing that members of the proposed class are "similarly situated"
-- they "raise a similar legal issue as to coverage, exemption, or
nonpayment of minimum wages or overtime arising from at least a
manageably similar factual setting with respect to their job
requirements and pay provisions."

The Defendant operates a Mexican restaurant.[CC]

LOVELACE TAVERN: Perovic Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aleksandra Perovic, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. LOVELACE TAVERN, LLC d/b/a PORTERHOUSE BREW CO. BAR
d/b/a THE LOVELACE, BROADWATER & PEARL ASSOCIATES LLC d/b/a
FRAUNCES TAVERN, DERVILA BOWLER, EDMUND TRAVERS, and JASON
FRANCISCO, Case No. 1:20-cv-01340 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 14, 2020), is
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law seeking from the Defendants: unpaid minimum wage due to
invalid tip credit, unpaid minimum wage and overtime wages due to
time-shaving, unpaid minimum wage and overtime wages for training
time, unpaid spread-of-hours premium, unlawfully retained tips,
statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

On September 4, 2019, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants of her
pregnancy. On September 10, 2019, the Plaintiff requested one day
off for a prenatal care appointment with her doctor. In response,
the Defendants immediately retaliated by taking the Plaintiff off
of the entire schedule for the remainder of the week, knowingly
causing the Plaintiff to lose the wages and tips that she could
earn during such time.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked without any breaks
throughout her employment with the Defendants. She was not also
paid wages for all hours worked each week.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a server at
"Porterhouse Brewing Co. Bar."

The Defendants owned and operated an enterprise comprised of 3
restaurants with trade names: "Porterhouse Brew Co. Bar"; "The
Lovelace"; and "Fraunces Tavern."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clara Lam, Esq.
          275 7th Avenue, Suite 701
          New York, NY 10001
          Phone: (718) 971-0326
          Fax: (718) 795-1642
          Email: clam@bkllawyers.com


LTF CLUB MANAGEMENT: Marsh Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Marsh IV, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. LTF CLUB MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, d/b/a Life Time
Fitness, Case No. 20-461 (Mass. Cmmw., Feb. 18, 2020), is brought
to recover unpaid overtime wages owed to the Plaintiff.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's trainers and
instructors often work overtime--that is, more than 40 hours per
work week--and routinely work Sundays and holidays. Nonetheless,
the Defendant does not pay its trainers and instructors any
separate or additional compensation for their overtime work or for
the work they perform on Sundays and holidays. As a result of this
practice, the Plaintiff contends, the Defendant has violated the
overtime provision of the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wage Law and
the Massachusetts Wage Act.

Plaintiff Marsh provided personal and group training and group
fitness services for LTF at several of its Life Time health clubs
throughout Massachusetts.

LTF owns and operates a chain of health clubs under the brand name
"Life Time."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hillary Schwab, Esq.
          Brant Casavant, Esq.
          FAIR WORK P.C.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Phone: (617) 607-3261
          Fax: (617) 488-2261
          Email: hillary@fairworklaw.com
                 brant@fairworklaw.com


LUMENTUM HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Karri Class Action Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lumentum Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 28, 2019, that the motion to
dismiss filed in the amended complaint in SaiSravan B. Karri v.
Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03435-JD, has been fully briefed
and is currently pending, and defendants intend to defend the Karri
Lawsuit vigorously.

On December 10, 2018, the company completed a merger with Oclaro,
Inc., a provider of optical components and modules for the
long-haul, metro and data center markets. Oclaro's products provide
differentiated solutions for optical networks and high-speed
interconnects driving the next wave of streaming video, cloud
computing, application virtualization and other bandwidth-intensive
and high-speed applications.

In connection with the company's acquisition of Oclaro, seven
lawsuits were filed by purported stockholders of Oclaro challenging
the proposed merger.

Two of the seven suits were putative class actions filed against
Oclaro, its directors, Lumentum, Prota Merger Sub, Inc. and Prota
Merger, LLC: Nicholas Neinast v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No.
3:18-cv-03112-VC, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (filed May 24, 2018); and Adam
Franchi v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-00817-GMS, in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware (filed
June 9, 2018). Both the Neinstat Lawsuit and the Franchi Lawsuit
were voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.

The other five suits, styled as Gerald F. Wordehoff v. Oclaro,
Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03148-NC, Walter Ryan v. Oclaro, Inc., et
al., No. 3:18-cv-03174-VC, Jayme Walker v. Oclaro, Inc., et al.,
No. 5:18-cv-03203-EJD, Kevin Garcia v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No.
5:18-cv-03262-VKD, and SaiSravan B. Karri v. Oclaro, Inc., et al.,
No. 3:18-cv-03435-JD, were filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on May 25, 2018, May
29, 2018, May 30, 2018, May 31, 2018, and June 9, 2018,
respectively.

These five Lawsuits named Oclaro and its directors as defendants
only and did not name Lumentum. The Wordehoff, Ryan, Walker, and
Garcia Lawsuits have been voluntarily dismissed, and the Wordehoff,
Ryan, and Walker dismissals were with prejudice. The Karri Lawsuit
has not yet been dismissed. The Ryan Lawsuit was, and the Karri
Lawsuit is, a putative class action.

The Lawsuits generally alleged, among other things, that Oclaro and
its directors violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder by
disseminating an incomplete and misleading Form S-4, including
proxy statement/prospectus.

The Lawsuits further alleged that Oclaro's directors violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by failing to exercise proper
control over the person(s) who violated Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act.

The remaining Lawsuit (the Karri Lawsuit) currently purports to
seek, among other things, damages to be awarded to the plaintiff
and any class, if a class is certified, and litigation costs,
including attorneys' fees.

A lead plaintiff and counsel has been selected, and an amended
complaint was filed on April 15, 2019, which also names Lumentum as
a defendant.

A motion to dismiss the amended complaint has been fully briefed
and is currently pending, and defendants intend to defend the Karri
Lawsuit vigorously.

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

Lumentum Holdings Inc. manufactures and sells optical and photonic
products in the Americas, the Asia-Pacific, Europe, the Middle
East, and Africa. The company operates through two segments,
Optical Communications and Commercial Lasers. Lumentum Holdings
Inc. was incorporated in 2015 and is headquartered in Milpitas,
California.


LVNV FUNDING:  Appellate Court Upholds Arbitration Order in Maisano
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, issued an
Opinion affirming a trial court judgment granting Defendant's
Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned VINCENT C.
MAISANO, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LVNV FUNDING, LLC, Defendant-Respondent,
Case No. A-3732-18T1, (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.).

Plaintiff entered into a credit card agreement with Credit One. The
Agreement has an arbitration provision. Plaintiff used the credit
card to make purchases, but eventually defaulted by failing to
tender the required credit card payment.

Defendant LVNV Funding, LLC acquires unpaid credit card accounts
and pursues collection of those accounts. In January 2013, after
plaintiff's debt was deemed uncollectible, Credit One assigned
"[a]ll rights, title and interest" in the account to Sherman
Originator III, LLC. The account was assigned from Sherman
Originator III, LLC to Sherman Originator, LLC, and then to
defendant. Defendant filed an action in the Special Civil Part to
recover the unpaid credit card debt from plaintiff. The documents
evidencing assignment of plaintiff's account to defendant were
annexed to the Special Civil Part complaint. As a result of that
lawsuit, plaintiff made payments to satisfy the outstanding debt.

In June 2018, plaintiff filed a putative class action for
declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and damages against
defendant. In lieu of filing an answer, defendant filed a motion to
dismiss and compel arbitration pursuant to the Agreement.

Having determined the Arbitration Agreement was valid, the trial
judge granted defendant's motion to compel arbitration and
dismissed the matter with prejudice.

Plaintiff now appeals from the November 9, 2019 order compelling
arbitration and dismissing his complaint with prejudice.

On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial judge erred by (1)
deeming it was for the arbitrator to decide whether the assignment
of plaintiff's credit card debt to defendant was void, (2)
concluding the Arbitration Agreement did not violate the plain
language requirements, and (3) relying on inadmissible hearsay in
defendant's affidavits.

On review, the Appellate Court opines that the Arbitration
Agreement clearly and expressly stated claims relating to the
application, enforceability or interpretation of this Agreement,
including this arbitration provision are subject to arbitration.
Therefore, the threshold issue of arbitrability is to be determined
by the arbitrator.

The Superior Court next considers whether the Arbitration Agreement
violated the New Jersey Plain Language Act (NJPLA) and rendered the
Agreement void. The NJPLA requires contractual clauses to be
written in a simple, clear, understandable and easily readable way
as a whole.  Waiver of rights language must clearly and
unambiguously inform the parties of the distinction between
resolving a dispute in arbitration and in a judicial forum.

Here, the Appellate Court opines that the Agreement provides the
cardholder with notice of the types of claims subject to
arbitration, and plainly outlines the difference between
arbitration and judicial proceedings. The Arbitration Agreement
clearly explains arbitration replaces the right to go to court,
including the right to a jury and the right to participate in a
class action and expressly states, in arbitration, a dispute is
resolved by a neutral arbitrator instead of a judge or jury.
Arbitration procedures are simpler and more limited than rules
applicable in court. In arbitration, you may choose to have a
hearing and be represented by counsel.

Having reviewed the record, particularly the language of the
Arbitration Agreement, the Appellate Court is satisfied the
document clearly and explicitly articulated the waiver of the right
to proceed to court and unambiguously required the parties to
submit all disputes relating to the Agreement to arbitration.

The Appellate Court is satisfied the trial judge did not abuse her
discretion in considering the affidavits in support of defendant's
motion.

Accordingly, the Appellate Court upholds the order compelling
arbitration of plaintiff's claims.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's November 14, 2019 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/v6xzru6 from Leagle.com

Scott C. Borison, Legg Law Firm, LLP, 5235 Westview Dr. Ste. 100,
Frederick, Maryland, of the District of Columbia, Maryland, and
California bars, admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause for
appellant (Kim Law Firm LLC, and Scott C. Borison , attorneys;
Yongmoon Kim , Scott C. Borison, 5235 Westview Dr. Ste. 100,
Frederick, Maryland and Catherine Rhy , of counsel and on the
briefs).

Michael A. Iannucci - iannucci@blankrome.com - argued the cause for
respondent (Blank Rome LLP, attorneys; Michael A. Iannucci, on the
brief).


MAC PIZZA MANAGEMENT: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Hernandez Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIK HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAC PIZZA MANAGEMENT D/B/A DOMINO'S; and
MIKE CUNNINGHAM, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00100-LY (W.D. Tex.,
Jan. 31, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages
and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees and costs.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as delivery driver.

Mac Pizza Management, Inc. was founded in 1985. The Company's line
of business includes the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks
for on-premise consumption. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Forester, Esq.
          D. Matthew Haynie, Esq.
          Meredith Black Mathews, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          400 N. St. Paul St. 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 210-2100
          Facsimile: (214) 346-5909


MATTRESS WAREHOUSE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Johnson Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Johnson, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
employees v. MATTRESS WAREHOUSE, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00891-GJP
(E.D. Pa., Feb. 18, 2020), seeks all available relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act for
alleged unpaid overtime wages.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked over 40
hours per week but did not receive any overtime pay for hours
worked over 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff was credited with
working 106.18 hours during the two-week period between February
10, 2019, and February 23, 2019.

The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant as a salesperson
since the summer of 2017.

The Defendant operates over 250 retail mattress stores located in
the Court's judicial district and beyond.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Phone: (215) 884-2491


MCKESSON CORP: Faces Reliable Pharmacy Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
McKesson Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the company is
facing a class action suit entitled, Reliable Pharmacy v. Actavis
Holdco US, Inc., et al., No. 2:19-cv-6044.

In December 2019, a group of independent pharmacies and a hospital
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that various
wholesalers, including McKesson Corporation, violated the Sherman
Act by colluding with manufacturers to restrain trade in the sale
of generic drugs.

The complaint seeks relief including treble damages, disgorgement,
attorney fees, and costs in unspecified amounts.

McKesson Corporation provides pharmaceuticals and medical supplies
in the United States and internationally. It operates in three
segments: U.S. Pharmaceutical and Specialty Solutions, European
Pharmaceutical Solutions, and Medical-Surgical Solutions. McKesson
Corporation was founded in 1833 and is headquartered in Irving,
California.


MCKESSON CORP: Suits Against RelayHealth Unit Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
McKesson Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the class action
suits filed against RelayHealth Corporation, a company subsidiary,
has been consolidated.

In October 2019, the Company's subsidiary RelayHealth Corporation
was served with three purported class action complaints filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

The complaints allege that RelayHealth violated the Sherman Act by
entering into an agreement with co-defendant Surescripts, LLC not
to compete in the electronic prescription routing market, and by
conspiring with Surescripts, LLC to monopolize that market, Powell
Prescription Center, et al. v. Surescripts, LLC, et al., No.
1:19-cv-06627; Intergrated Pharmaceutical Solutions LLC v.
Surescripts, LLC, et al., 1:19-cv-06778; Falconer Pharmacy, Inc. v.
Surescripts LLC, et al., No. 1:19-cv-07035.

In November 2019, three similar complaints were filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Kennebunk Village Pharmacy, Inc. v. SureScripts, LLC, et al.,
1:19-cv-7445; Whitman v. SureScripts, LLC et al., No. 1:19-cv-7448;
BBK Global Corp. v. SureScripts, LLC et al., 1:19-cv-7640.

In December 2019, the six actions were consolidated in the Northern
District of Illinois.

The complaints seek relief including treble damages, attorney fees,
and costs.

McKesson Corporation provides pharmaceuticals and medical supplies
in the United States and internationally. It operates in three
segments: U.S. Pharmaceutical and Specialty Solutions, European
Pharmaceutical Solutions, and Medical-Surgical Solutions. McKesson
Corporation was founded in 1833 and is headquartered in Irving,
California.


MEADE & ASSOCIATES: Washington Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Meade & Associates,
Inc. The case is styled as Adia A. Washington, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Meade & Associates, Inc., Case
No. 3:20-cv-00348 (N.D. Ohio, Feb. 17, 2020).

The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Meade & Associates, Inc is a debt collection company located in
Lewis Center, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathan C. Volheim, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP
          2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 575-8151
          Fax: (630) 575-8188
          Email: nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com


MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Underpays Warehouse Operators, Russell Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
CASTINE RUSSELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MEDLINE INDUSTRIES, INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH
50, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 2020-1489 (Cal. Super., San
Joaquin Cty., Jan. 29, 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 Russell was employed by the Defendants as warehouse
operator.

Medline Industries Inc. manufactures and distributes health care
supplies. The Company markets wound and skin care products, gloves,
face masks, isolation gowns, monitors, reusable textiles, durable
medical equipment, incontinence products, sterile products,
electrosurgical products, and housekeeping supplies. Medline serves
customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Mai Tulyathan, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554

               - and -

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP, LLP
          501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Telephone: (831) 531-4214
          Facsimile: (831) 634-0333
          E-mail: bill@polarislawgroup.com


MERRITT HOSPITALITY: Underpays Housekeepers, Godinez Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
KARLA GODINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MERRITT HOSPITALITY, LLC; and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2020-01127848-CU-OE-CXC (Cal.
Super., Orange Cty., Jan. 29, 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 Godinez was employed by the Defendants as
housekeeper.

Merritt Hospitality, LLC provides real estate investment services.
The Company offers investments in hotels, resorts, and hospitality
sectors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Armond M. Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON LAW, APC
          2 Venture Plaza, Ste. 240
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 281-6857
          Facsimile: (949) 777-6218


MICROCHIP TECH: Bid to Dismiss Jackson Class Action Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Microchip Technology Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the company's motion
to dismiss the class action suit entitled, Jackson v. Microchip
Technology Inc., et al., is still pending.

On May 29, 2018, the Company completed its acquisition of Microsemi
Corporation, a publicly traded company headquartered in Aliso
Viejo, California. The Company paid an aggregate of approximately
$8.19 billion in cash to the stockholders of Microsemi.

Beginning on September 14, 2018, the Company and certain of its
officers were named in two putative shareholder class action
lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Arizona, captioned Jackson v. Microchip Technology Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:18-cv-02914-JJT and Maknissian v. Microchip Technology
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02924-JJT.

On November 13, 2018, the Maknissian complaint was voluntarily
dismissed.  

The Jackson complaint is allegedly brought on behalf of a putative
class of purchasers of Microchip common stock between March 2, 2018
and August 9, 2018.  

The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws and generally alleges that the defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects during the putative class period.  

The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and
attorneys’ fees and costs on behalf of the putative class.  

On December 11, 2018, the Court issued an order appointing the lead
plaintiff.  An amended complaint was filed on February 22, 2019.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April
1, 2019.

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

Microchip Technology Inc. develops and manufactures semiconductor
products for various embedded control applications worldwide. The
company, which was incorporated in 1989, is based in Chandler,
Arizona.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Frank Cruz Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Mohawk Industries, Inc. securities
between April 28, 2017 and July 25, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

On July 25, 2018, after the market closed, the Company announced
disappointing financial results for second quarter 2018, disclosing
that Mohawk "reduced [its] production volumes more than [the
Company] had thought" and that it "came into the year with higher
inventories than [it] wanted to have."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $38.06, or over 17%,
to close at $179.31 per share on July 26, 2018, thereby injuring
investors.

Then, on October 25, 2018, after the market closed, Mohawk reported
third quarter 2018 financial results that fell below the Company's
guidance, stating that "[t]o improve [its] inventory turns, [Mohawk
was] presently manufacturing fewer units than [it was] selling,
which is negatively impacting [its] costs."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $36.04, or nearly 24%,
to close at $115.03 per share on October 26, 2018, thereby injuring
investors further.

Then, on July 25, 2019, after the market closed, Mohawk reported
that sales in its Flooring NA segment declined 7% year-over-year
and that there was "big buildup in inventory in ceramic."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $27.52, or nearly 18%,
to close at $128.84 per share on July 26, 2019, thereby injuring
investors further.

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: (1) that the Company engaged in deceptive and
unsustainable sales practices to mask declining customer demand for
its Conventional Flooring products; (2) that Mohawk's increasing
inventories was not the result of increasing inflation or the
Company's backward integration, but instead the result of the
Company deliberately stuffing the channels with Conventional
Flooring Products to boost sales; and (3) that as a result,
defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased Mohawk securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than March 3, 2020 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you purchased Mohawk securities, have information or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank
R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles,
California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

Contact:

         The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
         Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
         Tel: (310) 914-5007
         Email: fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com [GN]


MUELLER WATER: Bid to Dismiss Chapman Class Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mueller Water Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the motion
to dismiss the class action suit entitled, Chapman v. Mueller Water
Products, et al., is still pending.

In 2017, the company's warranty analyses identified that certain
Technologies radio products produced prior to 2017 and installed in
particularly harsh environments had been failing at higher than
expected rates. During the quarter ended March 31, 2017, the
company conducted additional testing of these products and revised
its estimates of warranty expenses. As a result, the company
recorded additional warranty expense of $9.8 million in the second
quarter of 2017.

During the quarter ended June 30, 2018, the company completed a
similar analysis and determined, based on this new information,
that certain other Technologies products had been failing at
higher-than-expected rates as well and that the average cost to
repair or replace certain products under warranty was higher than
previously estimated. As a result, in the third quarter of 2018,
the company recorded additional warranty expense of $14.1 million
associated with such products.

Related to the above warranty expenses, on April 11, 2019, an
alleged stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit against
Mueller Water Products, Inc. and certain of the company's former
and current officers (collectively, the "Defendants") in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The proposed
class consists of all persons and entities that acquired the
company's securities between May 9, 2016 and August 6, 2018 (the
"Class Period").

The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws,
including, among other things, that we made materially false and/or
misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the company's business, operations, and prospects during the
proposed Class Period.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs but does not specify the amount.

Accordingly, the company cannot reasonably estimate the amount of
any cost or liabilities related to this matter and therefore no
amounts have been accrued related to this matter as of December 31,
2019.

Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on November 1, 2019 and
second motion to dismiss (in response to the second amended
complaint filed on December 24, 2019) on January 31, 2020.

Mueller said, "We believe the allegations are without merit and
intend to vigorously defend against the claims. However, the
outcome of this legal proceeding cannot be predicted with
certainty."

Mueller Water Products, Inc. manufactures and markets products and
services for use in the transmission, distribution, and measurement
of water in the United States, Canada, and internationally. It
operates in two segments, Infrastructure and Technologies. The
company is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


NYGARD INC: Faces Class Suit over Sexual Assault Allegations
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JANE DOES NOS. 1-10, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PETER J. NYGARD; NYGARD INC.; NYGARD
INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIP; and NYGARD HOLDINGS LIMITED, Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01288 (S.D.N.Y., February 13, 2020), arises from
the Defendants' participation in a sex trafficking scheme in
violation of the Trafficking Victim Protection Act.

The complaint alleges that Defendant Peter Nygard used his
influence in the fashion industry to entice and recruit underage
girls and women in the U.S., the Bahamas, and elsewhere around the
world with cash payments and false promises of modeling
opportunities in order to engage them in commercial sex acts. He
owned and controlled the companies Nygard Inc., Nygard
International Partnership, and Nygard Holdings Limited, which were
instrumental in knowingly aiding, abetting, facilitating, and
participating in the sex trafficking activities.

Nygard Inc. is a women's apparel distributor with its global
headquarters in New York City.

Nygard International Partnership is a Canadian women's manufacturer
and supplier that has its administrative offices in Winnipeg,
Canada and its global headquarters in New York City.

Nygard Holdings Limited is a Bahamian shell corporation registered
in the Bahamas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Greg G. Gutzler, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          444 Madison Avenue, Fourth Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (646) 933-1000
          E-mail: ggutzler@dicellolevitt.com

               - and –

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

          Mark A. DiCello, Esq.
          Robert F. DiCello, Esq.
          Justin J. Hawal, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          7556 Mentor Avenue
          Mentor, OH 44060          
          Telephone: (440) 953-8888
          E-mail: mad@dicellolevitt.com
                  rfdicello@dicellolevitt.com
                  jhawal@dicellolevitt.com
   
               - and –

          Lisa D. Haba, Esq.
          THE HABA LAW FIRM PA
          1220 Commerce Park Drive, Suite 207
          Longwood, FL 32779
          Telephone: (844) 422-2529
          E-mail: lisahaba@habalaw.com

OLIPHANT FINANCIAL: Faces Lovecchio Suit Over Collection Letter
---------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCESCA REGINA ROMANA LOVECCHIO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. OLIPHANT FINANCIAL, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case
No. 200V362216 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara, Jan. 23, 2020), seeks to
enjoin the Defendants from continuing their practice of sending, or
causing to be sent, initial collection letter, which seeks to
collect charged-off consumer debt and which violates the California
Fair Debt Buying Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is alleged to have incurred a financial obligation in
the form of a consumer credit account issued by Barclays Bank
Delaware.

On April 27, 2017, Barclays removed the debt from its books as an
asset and treated the alleged debt as a loss or expense. As a
result, the debt was thereafter a "charged-off consumer debt." On
June 5, 2018, the debt was sold by Barclays to Oliphant for
collection purposes. Oliphant hired, contracted, or otherwise
engaged Alpha Recovery to collect the debt.

On Sept. 25, 2019, Alpha Recovery sent, or caused to be sent,
collection letter to the Plaintiff at Oliphant's request and on
Oliphant's behalf.

Oliphant is a debt collection agency located in Sarasota,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Fred W. Schwinn, Esq.
          Raeon R. Roulston, Esq.
          Matthew C. Salmonsen, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC.
          1435 Koll Circle, Suite 104
          San Jose, CA 95112-4610
          Telephone: (408) 294-6100
          Facsimile: (408) 294-6190
          E-mail: fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com


OPERA LTD: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, a national investors rights law firm,
announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of
investors that acquired Opera Limited: (a) American Depositary
Shares ("ADSs") pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial
public offering commenced on or about July 27, 2018 (the "IPO" or
"Offering"); and/or (b) securities between July 27, 2018 and
January 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Opera investors
have until March 24, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan,
Esquire, at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com.

On January 16, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report
alleging, among other things, that "Opera's apps are now in black
and white violation of numerous Google [Play Store] rules" on
predatory, short-term lending, and misleading apps and that Opera
had spent $9.5 million to purchase a business already funded and
operated by Opera.

On this news, Opera's share price fell $1.69, or over 18%, to close
at $7.33 per share on January 16, 2020, thereby injuring
investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) Opera's sustainable growth and
market opportunity for its browser applications was significantly
overstated; (2) Defendants' funded, owned, or otherwise controlled
loan services applications and/or businesses relied on predatory
lending practices; (3) all the foregoing, once revealed, were
reasonably likely to have a material negative impact on Opera's
financial prospects, especially with respect to its lending
applications' continued availability on the Google Play Store; and
(4), that as a result, Defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/GPM_LLP.

If you purchased Opera ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO
and/or securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court
no later than March 24, 2020 to ask the Court to appoint you as
lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to
learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire,
of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California
90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.

Contact:

          Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Los Angeles
          Charles Linehan, Esq.
          Tel: (310) 201-9150  
               (888) 773-9224
          E-mail: clinehan@glancylaw.com [GN]


OPERA LTD: Kahn Swick Reminds of March 24 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC and KSF partner, former Attorney General of
Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of pending
deadlines in the following securities class action lawsuits:

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. (FCAU)
Class Period: 2/26/2016 - 11/20/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: January 31, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-fcau/

Baozun Inc. (BZUN)
Class Period: 3/6/2019 - 11/20/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: February 10, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-bzun/

Mylan N.V. (MYL)
Class Period: 5/9/2018 - 5/6/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: February 14, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-myl/

Opera Limited (OPRA)
Class Period: 7/27/2018 - 1/15/2020, or American Depository Shares
issued either in or after the July 2018 Initial Public Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: March 24, 2020

SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-opra/

If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

                         About Kahn Swick

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients
– including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors – in seeking recoveries for
investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California
and Louisiana.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

Contact:

         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163
         Tel: 1-877-515-1850
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]


OPERA LTD: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP  announces that a federal
securities class action has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
who purchased or otherwise acquired Opera Limited:

American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") pursuant and/or traceable to
the Company's initial public offering commenced on or about
July 27, 2018 (the "IPO" or "Offering"); and/or

Securities between July 27, 2018 and January 15, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

All investors who purchased  American  Depositary  Shares  of Opera
Limited and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm
immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212)
545-4774. You may obtain additional information and join the action
on our website, www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the ADS's of Opera Limited, you may,
no later than March 24, 2020, request that the Court appoint you
lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf
Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in the
shares of Opera Limited.

The market learned the truth on January 16, 2020, when Hindenburg
Research published a scathing report about the Company, accusing
Opera of engaging in predatory short-term loans in Africa and
India, deploying deceptive "bait and switch" tactics to lure
borrowers, and charging egregious interest rates ranging from about
365% - 876%.  According to the report, Opera's apps are now "in
black and white violation of numerous Google rules," and therefore
"this entire line of business is at risk of disappearing or being
severely curtailed."

In addition, the Report accused Opera's chairman and CEO, Yahui
Zhou of diverting $40 million of Company proceeds to entities owned
or influenced by Zhou through a slew of questionable related-party
transactions that were not adequately disclosed to investors.

On this news, Opera's share price fell $1.69, or over 18%, to close
at $7.33 per share on January 16, 2020.

The filed complaint alleges that 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:

Opera's sustainable growth and market opportunity for its browser
applications was significantly overstated;

Defendants' funded, owned, or otherwise controlled loan services
applications and/or businesses relied on predatory lending
practices;

all the foregoing, once revealed, were reasonably likely to have a
material negative impact on Opera's financial prospects, especially
with respect to its lending applications' continued availability on
the Google Play Store; and

that as a result, Defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country.  The firm
has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego.  The reputation and expertise of this firm
in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com to
join this action.

Contact:

          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          Kevin Cooper, Esq.
          Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
          Tel: (800) 575-0735
               (212) 545-4774
          Email: gstone@whafh.com
                 kcooper@whafh.com
                 classmember@whafh.com [GN]


PIONEER NATURAL: Tekell Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charlton Tekell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES COMPANY, Case No.
7:20-cv-00041 (W.D. Tex., Feb. 17, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that he and the other workers like him
regularly worked for the Defendant in excess of 40 hours each week
but they never received overtime pay for hours worked in excess of
40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of paying overtime as
required by the FLSA, the Defendant paid these workers a daily rate
with no overtime pay, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has been performing work for the Defendant as a Data
Technician from January 2018 through January 2019.

Pioneer is a Texas-based independent oil, gas exploration, and
production company which operates in the Permian Basin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 cfitz@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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


POWER HOME: Hruska Sues in N.D. Illinois Alleging TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Power Home Remodeling
Group, LLC. The case is styled as Nora Hruska, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Power Home Remodeling
Group, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01143 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 17, 2020).

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Power Home Remodeling is an American corporation headquartered in
Chester, Pennsylvania. The Company provides services predominantly
related to energy and cost-saving exterior remodeling products,
such as replacement windows, roofing and vinyl siding.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Majdi Y. Hijazin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MAJDI Y. HIJAZIN LTD.
          2500 S Highland Ave., Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 537-1770
          Fax: (630) 575-8188
          Email: mhijazin@sulaimanlaw.com


PREMIERE CREDIT: Kent Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
TALON KENT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PREMIERE CREDIT OF NORTH AMERICA LLC; and
JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00210-ESW (D. Ariz.,
Jan. 29, 2020) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to
Judge Eileen S Willett.

Premiere Credit of North America, LLC offers financial services.
The Company provides accounts receivable management services.
Premiere Credit of North America serves federal and state
government, universities, guaranty agencies, private lenders,
healthcare providers, and other asset class creditors in the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS PLLC
          285 Passaic St.
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (203) 282-6501
          E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


PRIDE INDUSTRIES: Faces Oyero over Background Check
---------------------------------------------------
DESIRE OYERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRIDE INDUSTRIES; and DOES 1 THROUGH 50,
INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 20CV362399 (Cal. Super., Santa
Clara Cty., Jan. 29, 2020) alleges violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Pride Industries, Inc. manufactures sheet metalwork products. The
Company offers seam panels, flush walls, ridge caps, gutter,
valley, vent pipes, and vented ridges. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          Thomas Segal, Esq.
          Farrah Grant, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  thomas@setarehlaw.com
                  farrah@setarehlaw.com


QUALCOMM INC: Appeal in Consolidated Calif. Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 29, 2019, that the appeal from a
ruling in the consolidated class action suit is pending.

Since January 18, 2017, a number of consumer class action
complaints have been filed against the company in the United States
District Courts for the Southern and Northern Districts of
California, each on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of
cellular phones and other cellular devices. At December 29, 2019,
twenty-two such cases remained outstanding.

In April 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred the cases that had been filed in the Southern District
of California to the Northern District of California. On May 15,
2017, the court entered an order appointing the plaintiffs' co-lead
counsel.

On July 11, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint alleging that the company violated California and federal
antitrust and unfair competition laws by, among other things,
refusing to license standard-essential patents to the company's
competitors, conditioning the supply of certain of its baseband
chipsets on the purchaser first agreeing to license its entire
patent portfolio, entering into exclusive deals with companies,
including Apple Inc., and charging unreasonably high royalties that
do not comply with its commitments to standard setting
organizations.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and disgorgement and/or
restitution, as well as an order that the company be enjoined from
further unlawful conduct.

On August 11, 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. On November 10, 2017, the court
denied its motion, except to the extent that certain claims seek
damages under the Sherman Antitrust Act. On July 5, 2018, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and the court
granted that motion on September 27, 2018.

On January 23, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) granted the company's permission to
appeal the court's class certification order. On January 24, 2019,
the court stayed the case pending the company's appeal.

On December 2, 2019, a hearing on the company's appeal of the class
certification order was held before the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth
Circuit has not yet ruled on the company's appeal.

QUALCOMM said, "We believe the plaintiffs' claims are without
merit."

QUALCOMM Incorporated designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
digital communication products worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology
Licensing (QTL); and Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI). QUALCOMM
Incorporated was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.


QUALCOMM INC: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 29, 2019, that the company's motion
for judgment on the pleadings in the consolidated class action suit
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
remains pending.

On January 23, 2017 and January 26, 2017, securities class action
complaints were filed by purported stockholders of the company in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California against the company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors.

The complaints alleged, among other things, that the company
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making false and
misleading statements and omissions of material fact in connection
with certain allegations that the company is or was engaged in
anticompetitive conduct.

The complaints sought unspecified damages, interest, fees and
costs.

On May 4, 2017, the court consolidated the two actions and
appointed lead plaintiffs. On July 3, 2017, the lead plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint asserting the same basic
theories of liability and requesting the same basic relief. On
September 1, 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.

On March 18, 2019, the court denied the company's motion to dismiss
the complaint. On January 15, 2020, the company filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings. The court has not yet ruled on the
company's motion.

QUALCOMM said, "We believe the plaintiffs' claims are without
merit."

QUALCOMM Incorporated designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
digital communication products worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology
Licensing (QTL); and Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI). QUALCOMM
Incorporated was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.


QUALCOMM INC: Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Broadcom Merger Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 29, 2019, that the motion to
dismiss the class action suit entitled, In re Qualcomm/Broadcom
Merger Securities Litigation (formerly Camp v. Qualcomm
Incorporated et al), is pending.

On June 8, 2018 and June 26, 2018, securities class action
complaints were filed by purported stockholders of the company in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California against it and two of its current officers.

The complaints alleged, among other things, that the company
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by failing to disclose
that the company had submitted a notice to the Committee on Foreign
Investment in the United States (CFIUS) in January 2018.

The complaints sought unspecified damages, interest, fees and
costs.

On January 22, 2019, the court appointed the lead plaintiff in the
action. On March 18, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint asserting the same basic theories of liability and
requesting the same basic relief.

On May 10, 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint. The court has not yet ruled on our motion.


QUALCOMM said, "We believe the plaintiffs' claims are without
merit."

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

QUALCOMM Incorporated designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
digital communication products worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology
Licensing (QTL); and Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI). QUALCOMM
Incorporated was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.


QUALCOMM INC: Canadian Class Suits Ongoing
------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 29, 2019, that the company
continues to defend class action suits in Canada.

Since November 9, 2017, eight consumer class action complaints have
been filed against the company in Canada (in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice, the Supreme Court of British Columbia and the
Quebec Superior Court), each on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of cellular phones and other cellular devices, alleging
various violations of Canadian competition and consumer protection
laws.

The claims are similar to those in the U.S. consumer class action
complaint.

The complaints seek unspecified damages. One of the complaints in
the Supreme Court of British Columbia has since been discontinued
by the plaintiffs.

The company has not yet answered the complaints. The company
expects the Ontario and British Columbia complaints will be
consolidated into one proceeding in British Columbia with a class
certification hearing no earlier than late 2020.

Once the certification hearing is scheduled, the company expect the
court to set a timetable for the exchange of evidence and briefing.


As to the complaint filed in Quebec, on April 15, 2019, the Quebec
Superior Court held a class certification hearing, and on April 30,
2019, the court issued an order certifying a class.

QUALCOMM said, "We are awaiting the court to set a timetable for
pre-trial steps, including discovery, as well as the exchange of
expert evidence. We do not expect the trial to occur before 2022.
We believe the plaintiffs' claims are without merit."

QUALCOMM Incorporated designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
digital communication products worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology
Licensing (QTL); and Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI). QUALCOMM
Incorporated was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.


QUALCOMM INC: Dismissal in 3226701 Canada Class Suit Now Final
--------------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 29, 2019, that the dismissal of the
class action suit entitled, 3226701 Canada, Inc. v. QUALCOMM
Incorporated et al., is final.

On November 30, 2015, a securities class action complaint was filed
by purported stockholders of the company in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California against the
company and certain of its current and former officers.

On April 29, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On
January 27, 2017, the court dismissed the amended complaint in its
entirety, granting leave to amend. On March 17, 2017, the
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, alleging that the
company and certain of its current and former officers violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, by making false and misleading statements regarding the
company's business outlook and product development between November
19, 2014 and July 22, 2015.

The second amended complaint sought unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and other costs.

On May 8, 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint. On October 20, 2017, the court entered an order
granting in part the company's motion to dismiss, and on November
29, 2017, the court entered an order granting the remaining
portions of the company's motion to dismiss.

On December 28, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit). A
hearing was held on July 11, 2019, and on July 23, 2019, the Ninth
Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the second
amended complaint in its entirety.

On August 29, 2019, the Ninth Circuit denied the plaintiffs'
request for en banc review. The plaintiffs did not file a petition
for certiorari to request that the United States Supreme Court hear
the matter prior to the November 27, 2019 deadline. Accordingly,
the dismissal is final.

QUALCOMM Incorporated designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
digital communication products worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology
Licensing (QTL); and Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI). QUALCOMM
Incorporated was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.


REHABILITATION CENTERS: Lamar Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------
RAVYN LAMAR, individually, and on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiffs v.
REHABILITATION CENTERS, LLC, d/b/a Millcreek Magee, Millcreek of
Magee Treatment Center, and Millcreek Behavioral Health and ACADIA
HEALTHCARE COMPANY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00129 (M.D.
Tenn., February 12, 2020) is a collective action lawsuit brought
against Defendants to recover unpaid overtime compensation and
other damages owed to Plaintiff and other similarly situated
hourly-paid Behavioral Health Associates/Direct Care Workers
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The plaintiff alleges that the Defendants fail to pay Plaintiff and
those similarly situated for all hours worked over 40 hours per
week within weekly pay period at one and one-half their regular
hourly rate of pay as required by the FLSA.

Rehabilitation Centers, LLC, does business as Millcreek of Magee,
Millcreek of Magee Treatment Center, Millcreek Behavioral Health
and otherwise known as "Millcreek", provides behavioral health
services, including but not limited to, residential treatment,
group programs and home-based services for emotionally disturbed
and developmentally delayed children and adolescents.

Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. owns and operates behavioral health
treatment facilities and programs, including Millcreek, throughout
the U.S. that specialize in treating children, adolescents, adults
and seniors suffering from mental health disorders and/or alcohol
and drug addiction. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, Esq.
          Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Tel: (901)754-8001
          Fax: (901)754-8524
          Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
                 rbryant@jsyc.com
                 rturner@jsyc.com
                 nbishop@jsyc.com


RHODES TECHNOLOGIES: Rhodes Suit Moved From Tennessee to Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action styled as Roger Rhodes, Anthony Silvers and Lea
Anne Spradlen, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. RHODES TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RICHARD S. SACKLER, M.D.,
KATHE A. SACKLER, JONATHAN D. SACKLER, MORTIMER D.A. SACKLER, ILENE
SACKLER LEFCOURT, BEVERLY SACKLER, THERESA SACKLER, DAVID A.
SACKLER, ALLERGAN PLC F/K/A ACTAVIS PLC F/K/A ALLERGAN INC.,
ALLERGAN FINANCE LLC F/K/A ACTAVIS INC. F/K/A WATSON
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ALLERGAN SALES, LLC, ALLERGAN USA, INC.,
WATSON LABORATORIES, INC., WARNER CHILCOTT COMPANY, LLC, ACTAVIS
PHARMA, INC. F/K/A WATSON PHARMA, INC., ACTAVIS SOUTH ATLANTIC LLC,
ACTAVIS ELIZABETH LLC, ACTAVIS MID ATLANTIC) LLC, ACTAVIS TOTOWA
LLC, ACTAVIS LLC, ACTAVIS KADIAN LLC, ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT,
INC., ACTAVIS LABORATORIES FL, INC., JOHNSON & JOHNSON, JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., NORAMCO, INC., ORTHO-MCNEIL
JANSSENPHARMACEUTICALS, INC. N/K/A JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA, INC. N/K/A JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC., ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., PAR
PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC. F/K/A PAR
PHARMACEUTICAL HOLDINGS, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., CEPHALON, INC., MALLINCKRODT PLC,
MALLINCKRODT LLC, SPECGX LLC, KVK-TECH, INC., AMNEAL
PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., AMNEAL
PHARMACEUTICALS OF NEW YORK LLC, IMPAX LABORATORIES, LLC, Case No.
3:19-cv-00885, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee to U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio on Feb. 13, 2020.

The Ohio District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-op-45076-DAP
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of
antitrust laws.

Rhodes Technologies Inc. produces, markets, and sales active
pharmaceutical ingredients, chemicals, and finished dosage forms of
pharmaceuticals.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gordon Ball, Esq.
          BALL & SCOTT
          550 Main Street, Ste. 750
          Knoxville, TN 37919
          Phone: 865-525-7028
          Fax: (865) 525-4679

               - and –

          Thomas C. Jessee, Esq.
          JESSEE & JESSEE
          P.O. Box 997
          Johnson City, TN 37605
          Phone: 423-928-7175

The Defendants are represented by:

          Chris L. Vlahos, Esq.
          RITHOLZ LEVY FIELDS, LLP
          1221 6th Avenue North
          Nashville, TN 37208
          Phone: (615) 250-3939
          Email: cvlahos@rlfllp.com

               - and –

          Stuart A. Burkhalter, Esq.
          RILEY, WARNOCK & JACOBSON
          1906 West End Avenue
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Phone: (615) 320-3700
          Fax: (615) 320-3737
          Email: sburkhalter@rwjplc.com

               - and –

          Wendy W. Feinstein, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
          One Oxford Centre
          301 Grant St., 32nd Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219-6401
          Phone: (412) 560-7455
          Fax: (412) 560-7001
          Email: wendy.feinstein@morganlewis.com

               - and –

          Andrew J. O'Connor, Esq.
          ROPES & GRAY-BOSTON
          800 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02199
          Phone: (617) 951-7000
          Fax: (617) 951-7050
          Email: Andrew.O'Connor@ropesgray.com

               - and –

          Jessalyn H. Zeigler, Esq.
          BASS BERRY & SIMS
          150 Third Avenue South, Ste. 2800
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Phone: (615) 742-6289
          Fax: (615) 742-2789


RICHARD D. SOKOLOFF: Bookson Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Richard D. Sokoloff,
Attorney at Law, PLLC, et al. The case is styled as Ahron Bookson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Richard D. Sokoloff, Attorney at Law, PLLC, John Does 1-25, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00839 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2020).

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Richard Sokoloff is a debt collection agency that has been in
business for over 25 years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS PLLC
          285 Passaic St.
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (347) 668-9326
          Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


S-L DISTRIBUTION: Class Certification Bid in Macedonia Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Macedonia Distributing, Inc.
v. S-L Distribution Co., LLC, Case No. 8:17-cv-01692-JVS-KES (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge James V. Selna entered an order on Feb. 7,
2020, denying Plaintiff's motion to certify a class consisting of:

   "all individuals or entities in the state of California who
   were a party to a Distributor Agreement with S-L Distribution
   Company, LLC and who were either: (1) terminated as part of
   S-L's 2017 system-wide termination of distributors or (2)
   received notification from S-L that their Distribution
   Agreement would be terminated as part of S-L's 2017 system-
   wide termination of distributors."

The Court said, "Macedonia fails to meet the typicality requirement
for the same reason it fails to meet the adequacy of representation
requirement. Given that Macedonia is one of only 10 putative class
members (out of 182) who did not sign a release, class action, or
arbitration provision, it is atypical of the class members.
Macedonia does not have standing to argue that such provisions are
invalid, and prevailing on such a question would be required for
the vast majority of the class. Indeed Macedonia has raised claims
that the vast majority of the purported class may be barred from
bringing."

S-L is a distributor and subsidiary of Snyder's Lance, Inc., a
snack food manufacturer. S-L is authorized to sell and distribute
certain brands of products manufactured by subsidiaries of
Snyder's-Lance, Inc.[CC]


S.COM INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Velasquez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Velasquez and Derek Lamb, on Behalf of Themselves and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. S.COM, INC., Case No.
4:20-cv-00535 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 17, 2020), alleges that the
Defendant required the Plaintiffs to work more than 40 hours in a
workweek without overtime compensation, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant misclassified the
Plaintiffs as independent contractors instead of as employees. By
misclassifying them as independent contractors, the Defendant
illegally denied the Plaintiffs and the proposed Class Members
compensation at time and one half their regular rates of pay for
all hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as field
technicians.

The Defendant is a company that provides staffing services to the
IT and telecommunications industries.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          Email: Dfoty@hftrialfirm.com


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Wilson Insurance Suit Moved to E.D. Arkansas
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Frenzetta Wilson, Betina Ingram, Ronne
Dickerson, Devon Byrd, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., Case No.
35CV-20-00043, was removed from the Arkansas Circuit Court,
Jefferson County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas on Feb. 14, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-00152-KGB to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from insurance-related issues.

Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. is a public, full-service,
consumer finance company focused on vehicle finance and third-party
servicing.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Cassandra J. DeCoursey, Esq.
          Randall Keith Pulliam, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          519 West Seventh Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Phone: (501) 312-8500
          Email: cdecoursey@cbplaw.com
                 rpulliam@cbplaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Blaec C. Croft, Esq.
          McGUIREWOODS LLP
          260 Forbes Avenue Suite 1800
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 667-6057
          Email: bcroft@mcguirewoods.com


SAUCEY INC: Levine Sues in N.D. California Over Violation of TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Saucey, Inc. The case
is captioned as Deitria Levine, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Saucey, Inc., Case. No.
4:20-cv-00548-DMR (N.D. Cal., Jan. 23, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Donna M. Ryu.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Saucey, Inc. operates an electronic platform for the purpose of
connecting consumers to chosen partners to engage in the sale,
service, delivery, and/or transportation delivery of beers, wines,
and spirits. Saucey delivers alcohol in Los Angeles, San Francisco,
San Diego, and Chicago.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SHANGHAI HEPING: Faces Yang Labor Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Shanghai Heping Restaurant Inc. The case is captioned as TIAN XI
YANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SHANGHAI HEPING RESTAURANT INC. D/B/A HE PING
RESTAURANT; SAI CHING CHAN; and SOU QIN CHEN, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-00815-JGK (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 30, 2020). The case is assigned
to Judge John G. Koeltl.

Shanghai Heping Restaurant Inc. d/b/a He Ping Restaurant is engaged
in the restaurant business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen K. Seung, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN K. SEUNG
          2 Mott Street, Ste. 601
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 732-0030
          Facsimile: (212) 227-5097
          E-mail: skseungesq@yahoo.com


SHARP MEXICAN: Pineda Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Pineda, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated
employees and former employees v. SHARP MEXICAN INC., SHARP MEXICAN
PARTNERS LP d/b/a MANNY'S UPTOWN TEX-MEX RESTAURANTE, ROBERT SHARP
and EVAN L. SHAW, Case No. 3:20-cv-00396-G (N.D. Tex., Feb. 18,
2020), seeks to recover liquidated damages in an amount equal to
the amount of alleged unpaid wages owed to the Plaintiff under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' tip pool did not meet
the requirements of a valid tip pool under the FLSA because they
failed to inform the Plaintiff of their intention to take a "tip
credit" against their minimum wage obligations and failed to inform
the Plaintiff of the provisions of the FLSA prior to taking the tip
credit. Further, the Defendants deleted hundreds of hours worked by
the Plaintiff, which resulted in the Plaintiff not getting paid for
all of the hours he worked. In doing so, the Defendants violated
the minimum and overtime wage provisions of the FLSA, the Plaintiff
contends.

The Plaintiff worked as a waiter at the Manny's restaurant located
in Dallas, Texas.

Sharp Mexican Partners LP does business as Manny's Uptown Tex-Mex
Restaurante with its principal place of business in Dallas County,
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rhoda B. Appiah-Boateng, Esq.
          Caroline A. Ibironke, Esq.
          AI LEGAL GROUP, PLLC
          6060 North Central Expressway, Suite 560
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Phone: (866) 496-5015
          Facsimile: (866) 496-5041
          Email: rhoda@ailegalgroup.com
                 caroline@ailegalgroup.com


SHELTER MUTUAL: Ali Insurance Suit Removed to W.D. Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Sayed Ali, and All Others Similarly Situated
v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 04-CV-19-02802, was
removed from the Arkansas Circuit Court for Benton County to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas on Feb.
14, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-05032-PKH to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from insurance-related issues.

Shelter Insurance Company is a mutual insurance company, which
focuses on auto, property, business, and life Insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Gene Horton, Esq.
          NOLAN, CADDELL & REYNOLDS, PA
          5434 Walsh Lane
          Rogers, AR 72758
          P.O. Box 184
          Fort Smith, AR 72902
          Telephone: (479) 464-8269
          Fax: (479) 782-5184
          Email: bhorton@justicetoday.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Katherine Church Campbell, Esq.
          FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK
          3350 S. Pinnacle Hills Pkwy.
          Rogers, AR 72758, Suite 301
          Phone: (479) 695-6040
          Email: kcampbell@fridayfirm.com


SIRIUS XM: Continues to Defend Flo & Eddie Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Sirius XM Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit initiated by Flo & Eddie Inc.

On October 2, 2014, Flo & Eddie Inc. filed a class action suit
against Pandora Media, LLC in the federal district court for the
Central District of California.

The complaint alleges a violation of California Civil Code Section
980, unfair competition, misappropriation and conversion in
connection with the public performance of sound recordings recorded
prior to February 15, 1972 (referred to as, "pre-1972 recordings").


On December 19, 2014, Pandora filed a motion to strike the
complaint pursuant to California's Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against
Public Participation ("Anti-SLAPP") statute, which following denial
of Pandora's motion was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.

In March 2017, the Ninth Circuit requested certification to the
California Supreme Court on the substantive legal questions. The
California Supreme Court accepted certification.

In May 2019, the California Supreme Court issued an order
dismissing consideration of the certified questions on the basis
that, following the enactment of the Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte
Music Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 115-264, 132 Stat. 3676 (2018)
(the "MMA"), resolution of the questions posed by the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals was no longer "necessary to . . . settle an
important question of law."

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

Sirius XM Holdings Inc. provides satellite radio services in the
United States. The company broadcasts music, sports, entertainment,
comedy, talk, news, traffic, and weather channels, including
various music genres ranging from rock, pop and hip-hop, country,
dance, jazz, Latin, and classical; live play-by-play sports from
principal leagues and colleges; multitude of talk and entertainment
channels for various audiences; national, international, and
financial news; and limited run channels. The company was founded
in 1990 and is headquartered in New York, New York. Sirius XM
Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Liberty Media Corporation.


SIRIUS XM: Settlement in Buchanan Class Suit Wins Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sirius XM Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Court has issued
an order and final judgment approving the settlement in the class
action suit initiated by Thomas Buchanan.

On March 13, 2017, Thomas Buchanan, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint
against Sirius XM in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The plaintiff alleges
that Sirius XM violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991 (the "TCPA") by, among other things, making telephone
solicitations to persons on the National Do-Not-Call registry, a
database established to allow consumers to exclude themselves from
telemarketing calls unless they consent to receive the calls in a
signed, written agreement, and making calls to consumers in
violation of the company's internal Do-Not-Call registry.

The plaintiff is seeking various forms of relief, including
statutory damages of $500 for each violation of the TCPA or, in the
alternative, treble damages of up to $1,500 for each knowing and
willful violation of the TCPA and a permanent injunction
prohibiting the company from making, or having made, any calls to
land lines that are listed on the National Do-Not-Call registry or
our internal Do-Not-Call registry.

Following a mediation, in April 2019, Sirius XM entered into an
agreement to settle this purported class action suit. The
settlement resolves the claims of consumers for the period October
2013 through January 2019.

As part of the settlement, Sirius XM paid $25 million into a
non-reversionary settlement fund from which cash to class members,
notice, administrative costs, and attorney's fees and costs will be
paid. The settlement also contemplates that Sirius XM will provide
three months of service to its All Access subscription package for
those members of the class that elect to receive it, in lieu of
cash, at no cost to those class members and who are not active
subscribers at the time of the distribution. The availability of
this three-month service option will not diminish the $25 million
common fund.

As part of the settlement, Sirius XM will also implement change
relating to its "Do-Not-Call" practices and telemarketing programs.


On January 28, 2020, the Court issued an order and final judgment
approving the settlement.

Sirius XM Holdings Inc. provides satellite radio services in the
United States. The company broadcasts music, sports, entertainment,
comedy, talk, news, traffic, and weather channels, including
various music genres ranging from rock, pop and hip-hop, country,
dance, jazz, Latin, and classical; live play-by-play sports from
principal leagues and colleges; multitude of talk and entertainment
channels for various audiences; national, international, and
financial news; and limited run channels. The company was founded
in 1990 and is headquartered in New York, New York. Sirius XM
Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Liberty Media Corporation.


SKYWORX CONTRACTING: Faces Ortega et al. Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
Skyworx Contracting Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit captioned
as, JUAN ORTEGA; IVAN NOBOA; JOHN JACHERO; and JAHSAKIE BESWICK,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SKYWORX CONTRACTING INC; HARJIT SINGH; P&K CONTRACTING
INC.; RASHEL CONSTRUCTION CORP.; NEELAM CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION;
FIDELIS CONTRACTING; INC.; and JOHN DOE BONDING COMPANY 1 THROUGH
30, Defendants, Case No. 650826/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty.,
Jan. 30, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Lucy Billings.

Skyworx Contracting Inc. is in the General Contractor, Highway and
Street Construction business. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          GILBERT FIRM, LLC
          325 E 57th St.
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 286-8503


SNAP INC: Settlement Reached in IPO Suit
----------------------------------------
Snap Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company has reached a
preliminary agreement to settle the securities class action suits
related to its initial public offering (IPO).

Beginning in May 2017, the company, certain of its officers and
directors, and the underwriters for its initial public offering
(IPO) were named as defendants in securities class actions
purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of its Class A common
stock, alleging violation of securities laws, that arose following
the company's IPO.

On January 17, 2020, the company reached a preliminary agreement to
settle the securities class actions. The preliminary settlement
agreement was signed in January 2020 and provided for a resolution
of all of the pending claims in the securities class actions for
$187.5 million.

Snap said, "In the fourth quarter of 2019, we recorded legal
expense, net of amounts directly covered by insurance, of $100.0
million for the expected settlement of the stockholder actions
since we concluded the loss was probable and estimable. The amount
was recorded in general and administrative expense in our
consolidated statements of operations."

Snap Inc. operates as a camera company in the United States and
internationally. The company offers Snapchat, a camera application
that helps people to communicate through short videos and images.
The company was formerly known as Snapchat, Inc. and changed its
name to Snap Inc. in September 2016. Snap Inc. was founded in 2010
and is headquartered in Santa Monica, California.


SONY CORP: Court Certifies Godfrey ODD Lawsuit as Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
A notice has been issued about a price-fixing lawsuit involving a
type of memory storage device called ODD.  The lawsuit is called
Godfrey v. Sony Corporation et al, Action No. S-106462. The Court
has certified this lawsuit as a class action against the following
groups of companies that manufacture ODD: TEAC, NEC, Sony, HLDS,
PLDS, TSST, Panasonic, BenQ, Pioneer and Quanta.

1. WHY DO I NEED TO READ THIS NOTICE?

You might be a member of a class action.  A class action is a
lawsuit filed by one person1 on behalf of a large group of people.


You are a member of this class action if you are a resident of
Canada and fall into one of the below categories:

Non-Umbrella Purchasers:

All persons resident in Canada who purchased optical disc drives
("ODD") manufactured or supplied by the defendants in this action,
or products that contain ODD ("ODD Products") in which the ODD was
manufactured or supplied by the defendants in this action, in the
period from January 1, 2004 through January 1, 2010 .

Umbrella Purchasers:

All persons resident in Canada who purchased optical disc drives
("ODD") that were not manufactured or supplied by the defendants in
this action, or products that contain ODD ("ODD Products") in which
the ODD was not manufactured or supplied by the defendants in this
action, in the period from January 1, 2004 through January 1, 2010
.

ODDs means a device that reads and/or writes to CD-ROM, CD-R/RW,
DVD-ROM, DVD-R/RW, Blu-Ray, Blu-Ray R/RW, and HD DVD.

ODD Products means computers, video game consoles and ODDs that are
designed to be attached externally to devices such as computers.

If you bought an ODD of an ODD Product between January 1, 2004 and
January 1, 2010 , you are a member of this class action and you
might be able to collect some money in the future.

2.  WHY IS THIS CLASS ACTION HAPPENING?

This class action claims that the companies that sell ODD, and the
executives that work at those companies, were involved in a
conspiracy to make ODD prices too high.  The class action asks that
the Court require these companies to return any extra money that
they may have received due to this alleged conspiracy.

The Courts have already approved settlements with the TEAC, NEC,
HLDS, Sony and PLDS defendants.

3. WHAT IF I DON'T WANT TO BE IN THIS CLASS ACTION (OPTING OUT)?

The deadline to opt out or exclude oneself as a settlement class
member in the ODD Proceedings has passed.

4.  WHAT DO I NEED TO DO?

Right now you do not need to do anything.  However, this class
action is not over.  The next step is a trial where the Court will
decide whether the groups of companies listed above fixed ODD
prices and if the members of this class action should get any money
from those companies.

The Court will decide if and how you can claim your share of any
money that results from the class action.  The Court will appoint
someone (the Claims Administrator) who can help you claim your
share of this money.  Watch for another notice explaining how to
claim money from this class action.

You should keep records of any purchases of ODD or the ODD Products
listed above.

Register online at www.cfmlawyers.ca/active-litigation/odd/ to
ensure that you are sent this notice by email or direct mail.

5.  DO I HAVE TO PAY THE LAWYERS WHO ARE WORKING ON THIS CLASS
ACTION?

As an individual, you do not have to pay the lawyers working on
this Class Action any money.  There is an agreement between the
person who started this Class Action and the lawyers involved.
This agreement says that the lawyers will get paid from the money
collected in the Class Action.  The Court will decide how much
money the lawyers are paid.

6.  WHERE CAN I ASK MORE QUESTIONS?

1. The class action websites:
www.cfmlawyers.ca/active-litigation/odd or www.siskinds.com/odd/.

2. Sharon Wong -- swong@cfmlawyers.ca -- at Camp Fiorante Matthews
Mogerman LLP:  Tel: 604.689.7555; Fax: 604.689.7554.


SOUTH CAROLINA: Sinha Sues Governor Over Civil Rights Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Henry McMaster, et
al. The case is styled as Viresh M. Sinha, Individually, and on
behalf of similarly situated v. Henry McMaster, SC Governor,
Christy Hall, Sec. of Transportation SCDOT, Robert G. Woods IV,
Act. Dir SCDPS, James H. Lucas, Speaker SC House, Harvey S. Peeler,
President SC Senate, Case No. 3:20-cv-00719-JMC-PJG (D.S.C., Feb.
13, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of civil rights.

Henry Dargan McMaster is an American politician, attorney and
member of the Republican Party, who is the 117th Governor of South
Carolina, in office since January 24, 2017.

Plaintiff Viresh M. Sinha, of Columbia, South Carolina, appears pro
se.[BN]


SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Hundreds More Earthquake Claims Not Resolved
---------------------------------------------------------------
1 NEWS reports that in an announcement, state insurer Southern
Response said there were only around 200 Canterbury earthquake
claims left to settle, but that number is now being disputed.

Claimant advocate Ali Jones told TVNZ1's Breakfast she believes
there are potentially hundreds more claims that are not resolved.

Ms. Jones' claim follows the recent apology from Southern
Response's new boss to the many Christchurch claimants left out of
pocket following the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes.

"To hear now that there are only 200 claims left is really a little
bit of a joke,"said Ms Jones.

"I think there are potentially hundreds more that could still go
over cap to Southern Response."

Ms Jones said there are people that may not even have been assessed
yet.

"Some may have stuck their head in the sand because who actually
wants to get into all of this after eight-nine years,"said Ms
Jones.

"Some of the damage hasn't even been discovered yet."

Ms. Jones is in calling for an investigation in the wake of what
she calls a '"backhanded" apology.

"Some are saying there needs to be a royal commission of inquiry
into Southern Response and how it's performed," she said.

"Some of these things that Southern Response apologised for in a
very backhanded way are still happening.

"I think there needs to be a full investigation."

There is currently a Class Action lawsuit which thousands of
Canterbury homeowners will be automatically included in against
Southern Response.

It includes around 3000 homeowners who claim they were underpaid
before 2015 by being given the lesser of two "quotes", known as
detailed repair assessments (DRA's).

Unless claimants choose to opt out, they'll all be included in the
class action. [GN]


SOUTHERN TRUST: Faces Hummel Insurance Suit in M.D. Tennessee
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southern Trust
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Jeffery Hummel,
Individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v.
Southern Trust Insurance Company, Case No. 3:20-cv-00137 (M.D.
Tenn., Feb. 17, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as insurance for breach of contract.

Southern Trust Insurance Company provides personal and business
insurance products to policy holders and agencies through the
independent agency system in Georgia, South Carolina, and
Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Emily Alcorn, Esq.
          J. Brandon McWherter, Esq.
          GILBERT MCWHERTER SCOTT & BOBBITT, PLC
          341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
          Franklin, TN 37067
          Phone: (615) 354-1144
          Fax: (731) 664-1540
          Email: ealcorn@gilbertfirm.com
                 bmcwherter@gilbertfirm.com

               - and -

          T. Joseph Snodgrass, Esq.
          LARSON KING, LLP
          30 East Seventh Street, Suite 2800
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Phone: (651) 312-5510
          Fax: (651) 312-6618
          Email: jsnodgrass@larsonking.com


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Awaits Court's Ruling on Bid to Dismiss
-----------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company and
Boeing are awaiting the court's decision on their motion to dismiss
the class action suit related to their concealment of defects with
the MAX aircraft.

On July 11, 2019, a complaint alleging violations of federal and
state laws and seeking certification as a class action was filed
against Boeing and the Company in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas in Sherman.

The complaint alleges that Boeing and the Company colluded to
conceal defects with the MAX aircraft in violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act and also asserts related
state law claims based upon the same alleged facts.

The initial complaint seeks damages on behalf of putative classes
of customers who purchased tickets for air travel from either the
Company or American Airlines between August 29, 2017, and March 13,
2019.

The complaint generally seeks money damages, equitable monetary
relief, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees
and other costs.

On September 13, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint and to strike certain class allegations. The plaintiffs
filed a response to the Company's motion, and thereafter the
parties filed respective reply briefs.

On December 9, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the Company and
Boeing's motions to dismiss, and the parties are currently awaiting
the Court's ruling.

Southwest Airlines said, "The Company denies all allegations of
wrongdoing, including those in the complaint. The Company believes
the plaintiffs' positions are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself."

Southwest Airlines Co. operates a passenger airline that provides
scheduled air transportation services in the United States and
near-international markets. Southwest Airlines Co. was founded in
1967 and is based in Dallas, Texas.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Continues to Defend Airfare-Related Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that objectors have asked
the court of appeals to dismiss their appeal in the airline
fees-related class suit and the case is continuing as to the
remaining defendants.

On July 1, 2015, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
putative classes of consumers alleging collusion among the Company,
American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United Airlines to limit
capacity and maintain higher fares in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.

Since then, a number of similar class action complaints were filed
in the United States District Courts for the Central District of
California, the Northern District of California, the District of
Columbia, the Middle District of Florida, the Southern District of
Florida, the Northern District of Georgia, the Northern District of
Illinois, the Southern District of Indiana, the Eastern District of
Louisiana, the District of Minnesota, the District of New Jersey,
the Eastern District of New York, the Southern District of New
York, the Middle District of North Carolina, the District of
Oklahoma, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Northern
District of Texas, the District of Vermont, and the Eastern
District of Wisconsin.

On October 13, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation centralized the cases to the United States District
Court in the District of Columbia. On March 25, 2016, the
plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint in the
consolidated cases alleging that the defendants conspired to
restrict capacity from 2009 to present.

The plaintiffs seek to bring their claims on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased tickets for domestic airline travel on the
defendants' airlines from July 1, 2011 to present.  They seek
treble damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and
expenses.

On May 11, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Amended Complaint, and on October 28, 2016, the Court denied this
motion.

On December 20, 2017, the Company reached an agreement to settle
these cases with a proposed class of all persons who purchased
domestic airline transportation services from July 1, 2011, to the
date of the settlement. The Company agreed to pay $15 million and
to provide certain cooperation with the plaintiffs as set forth in
the settlement agreement. The Court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement on January 3, 2018, and the plaintiffs provided
notice to the proposed settlement class. The Court held a fairness
hearing on March 22, 2019, and it issued an order granting final
approval of the settlement on May 9, 2019.

On June 10, 2019, three objectors filed notices of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit. Two of the objectors dismissed their appeals, and the
Company and the other settling parties moved to dismiss the
remaining appeal because the district court did not certify the
approval order as appealable. The district court denied the
remaining objectors' request to certify the approval order as a
final appealable order, and on November 6, 2019, the objectors
asked the court of appeals to dismiss their appeal. The case is
continuing as to the remaining defendants.

The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing.

Southwest Airlines Co. operates a passenger airline that provides
scheduled air transportation services in the United States and
near-international markets. Southwest Airlines Co. was founded in
1967 and is based in Dallas, Texas.


SP PLUS CORP: Pena Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oniel Pena, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. SP PLUS CORPORATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-01370 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 18,
2020), seeks to recover unpaid wages, overtime wages, liquidated
damages, interest, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week for the
Defendant, but was not compensated properly for all of the hours he
worked, or for his overtime hours, says the complaint. As a result
of the Defendant's timekeeping and payroll policies, the Plaintiff
was routinely not paid for a significant amount of worked time per
week.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a parking attendant.

The Defendant owns or operates parking facilities throughout the
New York City area and nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Phone: 212-465-1188
          Fax: 212-465-1181


SPORTS MANIA: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Gardenhire Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
LANCE GARDENHIRE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. SPORTS MANIA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-00142 (M.D. Fla., February 12, 2020) asserts that Defendant
deprived blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of
its online goods, content, and services by failing to make its
Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen
reader programs.

On behalf of himself and other similarly situated visually impaired
handicapped persons, Plaintiff brings this civil rights action
against Defendant to enforce Section 302(a) of Title III of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

Sports Mania, Inc. is a sports clothing and accessories retailer
and owns and operates the website www.sportsmaniausa.com offering
features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and
services offered. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Zeig, Esq.
          ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
          3475 Sheridan Street, Ste 310
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Tel: (754)217-3084
          Fax: (954)272-7807
          Email: Justin@zeiglawfirm.com


STANFORD GROUP: Most Victims Gives Up Hope of Recovering Money
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Riegel, writing for Business Report, reports that last
year at this time, attorney Phil Preis was feeling optimistic that
the 900 or so mostly Baton Rouge-based victims of the 2009 Stanford
Group Ponzi scheme he represents might finally get some of their
money back.

A federal judge in Texas had transferred to the U.S Middle District
of Louisiana a class-action suit filed by Preis on behalf of the
local victims against SEI, the company that had administered
Stanford's investments. Having the discovery process and pre-trial
hearings take place in Baton Rouge would help expedite the
long-running case, Preis thought at the time.

But last July, U.S. District Judge Bryan Jackson delivered a major
blow to the claimants, essentially throwing the case out of court.
In November, Preis appealed to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals. SEI's lawyers filed a reply. Now, Preis is completing his
response to that reply and expects to file it this month.

"After that, it will typically be 60 days before we know if the
Fifth Circuit is going to hear oral arguments, and, if they do, it
will be another 60 days before there's a ruling," he says. "So
we're looking at June at the earliest before we'll know where
things stand."

For Preis and his clients in the suit— a group that invested
their retirement savings as rollover IRAs into certain fraudulent
CDs sold in Baton Rouge by Stanford Trust Co.—the setback has
been the most disappointing to date. Most of his clients, he says,
have given up on ever recovering a portion of the $250 million they
collectively lost.

"Most of these people now are over 75," he says. "Some don't have
the capability to keep fighting. Others don't have any hope of
recovery. It's just a matter of a 10-year beat down."

The class-action lawsuit is one of more than a dozen still wending
its way through the courts more than a decade after federal
investigators raided the offices of the Stanford Group, ultimately
exposing an estimated $5 billion Ponzi scheme that sent the firm's
founder, R. Allen Stanford, to prison for life.

Other actions have proved equally difficult to resolve in favor of
Stanford victims. Last summer, for instance, the Swiss government
ordered Societe Generale Private Banking in Switzerland to return
more than $100 million in stolen Stanford funds that have been
squirreled away in the Swiss bank for more than a decade.

At the time, Louisiana's U.S. senators, Bill Cassidy and John
Kennedy, trumpeted the ruling, which they had pushed for on behalf
of their constituents. But an attorney for the receiver in the case
says the Swiss bank continues to push back with no money
forthcoming anytime soon.

"The money is still stuck in Swiss proceedings with no clear end
date in sight," attorney Kevin Sadler of BakerBotts says. "SocGen
is appealing every ruling adverse to them." [GN]


STARBUCKS CORP: Bellows Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Jeffrey Bellows, Katherine Butler, Cheyenne
Chitry, Christina Denton, Jorge Gonzalez, James Hancock, Donnie
Hyso, Erik Lorack, Cassandra Sweeney and Michael Whiter,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v.
Starbucks Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, Case No.
RG19024868, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Alameda to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on Feb. 14, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-01178 to the
proceeding.

The complaint alleges two causes of action: (1) Violation of
California Labor Code for Unreimbursed Business Expenses; and (2)
Violation of California Labor Code for Unlawful and Unfair Business
Practices.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Douglas J, Farmer, Esq.
          Carolyn B. Hall, Esq.
          Brian D. Berry, Esq.
          Justin C. White, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          Steuart Tower, Suite 1300
          One Market Plaza
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415.442.4810
          Facsimile: 415.442.4870
          Email: douglas.farmer@ogletree.com
                 carolyn.hall@ogletree.com
                 brian.berry@ogletreedeakins.com
                 justin.white@ogletree.com


STATE FARM: Faces Williams Suit Alleging Race Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
Alton Williams, Brandon Herndon, and Markus Tolson, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE CO., STATE FARM
FIRE AND CASUALTY CO., STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE CO., and STATE
FARM BANK, F.S.B., Case No. 1:20-cv-01121 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 14,
2020), is brought against the Defendants for alleged race
discrimination and retaliation.

According to the complaint, the Defendants maintains strict,
centralized control over its Agents from its company headquarters
in Bloomington, Illinois, where an almost exclusively white team of
senior executives issues mandatory company policies and practices
that apply to all Agents in the Defendants' workforce.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants are engaged in a
firm-wide pattern and practice of discrimination against African
American Agents in their terms and conditions of employment. The
Plaintiff contend that the Defendants design and maintain uniform,
company-wide policies and practices that discriminate against
African American Agents and advantage non-African American Agents
at the expense of African American Agents.

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants' discriminatory policies
and practices steer African Americans to less lucrative agencies
and territories; deny them valuable business opportunities and
resources; subject them to heightened scrutiny and differential
discipline; and result in lower pay than Agents, who are not
African Americans.  The Plaintiffs add that the Defendants
disproportionately assigns non-African American Agents to
territories and agency locations in areas with more affluent
populations, while relegating African American Agents to areas with
considerably less wealth.

As a result of the Defendants' unlawful conduct and discriminatory
policies and practices, the Plaintiffs have suffered substantial
harm, and they have lost wages and other benefits, suffered
emotional distress, and their career and reputation have been
irreparably damaged, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are African American and worked for the Defendants
as Agents until they were unlawfully terminated.

State Farm offers insurance and financial products to customers
through the workforce of Agents that it employs across the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Linda D. Friedman, Esq.
          Suzanne E. Bish, Esq.
          George S. Robot, Esq.
          STOWELL & FRIEDMAN, LTD
          303 W. Madison St., Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 431-0888
          Email: Lfriedman@sfltd.com
                 Sbish@sfltd.com
                 Grobot@sfltd.com

               - and -

          Justin L. Leinenweber, Esq.
          LEINENWEBER BARONI & DAFFADA, LLC
          120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 380-6635
          Email: justin@ilesq.com


SWH MIMI'S: Garcia Sues over Labor Code Violations
--------------------------------------------------
TRACIE GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SWH MIMI'S CAFE, LLC and DOES 1 through 50,
Defendants, Case No. RG20054324 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty.,
February 13, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for
alleged violations of the Labor Code and Business and Professions
Code, including failure to pay premium wages for missed meal and/or
rest periods, failure to pay at least minimum wage for all hours
worked, and failure to pay overtime wages at the correct rate to
the Plaintiff and all non-exempt, hourly employees who worked for
the Defendant from approximately October 24, 2018 through on or
about December 12, 2018.

SWH Mimi's Cafe, LLC is a Texas-based restaurant chain company
doing business in the State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          Thomas Segal, Esq.
          Farrah Grant, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212          
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  thomas@setarehlaw.com
                  farrah@setarehiaw.com

TALBOTS INC: Faces Piper Suit in District Court of Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Talbots Inc. The
case is styled as Lois Piper, Brenda Ruark, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Talbots Inc., Case
No. 1:20-cv-10297-NMG (D. Mass., Feb. 14, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as other contract.

Talbots is an American specialty retailer and direct marketer of
women's clothing, shoes and fashion accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David S. Godkin, Esq.
          BIRNBAUM & GODKIN, LLP
          280 Summer Street
          Boston, MA 02210
          Phone: (617) 307-6100
          Fax: (617) 307-6101
          Email: godkin@birnbaumgodkin.com


TECH DATA: Shareholders to Dismiss Merger Suits
-----------------------------------------------
Tech Data Corp. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on February 4, 2020, that
investors have agreed to drop their lawsuits, including a class
action, over the company's merger deal.

Tech Data Corporation previously announced its entry into that
certain Agreement and Plan of Merger with Tiger Midco, LLC
("Parent") and Tiger Merger Sub Co. ("Merger Sub"), dated as of
November 12, 2019, as amended on November 27, 2019 by Amendment No.
1 to the Agreement and Plan of Merger.

The Merger Agreement provides, among other things and subject to
the terms and conditions set forth therein, that Merger Sub will be
merged with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company
continuing as the surviving corporation and as a wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent.

In connection with the Merger, the Company filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission a definitive proxy statement on
January 10, 2020.

As disclosed in the Proxy Statement, between December 19, 2019 and
January 10, 2020, the date of the Proxy Statement, three lawsuits
relating to the Merger were filed—one purported class action
complaint brought on behalf of a putative class of the Company's
shareholders and two individual shareholder complaints.

The purported class action complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware: Post v. Tech Data
Corporation et al, Case No. 1:19-cv-02352-UNA, filed on December
24, 2019.

One individual shareholder complaint was filed in the Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit Court of Florida: Drulias v. Hume, et al., Case
No. 19-CA-012837, filed on December 19, 2019.

The other individual shareholder complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York: Franks
v. Tech Data Corporation et al, Case No. 1:20-cv-00174, filed on
January 8, 2020.

Following the filing of the Proxy Statement and prior to the filing
of this Current Report on Form 8-K, two additional individual
shareholder complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging substantially
similar claims: Laufer v. Tech Data Corporation et al, Case No.
1:20-cv-00311, filed on January 13, 2020, and St. Germain v. Tech
Data Corporation et al, Case No. 1:20-cv-00722, filed on January
27, 2020 (the foregoing two matters, together with the three
lawsuits described in the foregoing paragraph, are collectively
referred to as the "Litigation"). In addition, on January 16, 2020,
the Company received a letter on behalf of an alleged shareholder,
Steven Makowsky, in connection with the Merger, also alleging
material omissions or misstatements in the Proxy Statement.

The Company believes that the claims referenced above are without
merit and no supplemental disclosure is required under applicable
law. However, in order to moot the plaintiffs' unmeritorious
disclosure claims in the Litigation, to avoid the risk of the
Litigation delaying or adversely affecting the Merger and to
minimize the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation,
without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, the Company has
determined to voluntarily supplement the Proxy Statement.

In light of the supplemental disclosures, plaintiffs in the
Drulias, Post, Franks, Laufer, and St. Germain actions have agreed
to dismiss their individual claims with prejudice.

These supplemental disclosures will not affect the consideration to
be paid in connection with the Merger or the timing of the special
meeting of Company shareholders to be held at 10:00 a.m., Eastern
Time, on February 12, 2020, at the Raymund Center, 5350 Tech Data
Drive, Clearwater, Florida 33760.

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://bit.ly/2ugf6uy.

Tech Data Corp. distributes information technology products, as
well as offers logistics management and other value-added services
worldwide. The Company is based in Clearwater, Florida.


TENNESSEE VALLEY: Class Suit over 2008 Kingston Ash Spill Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee Valley Authority said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that Tennessee Valley
Authority will have 60 days from the date service is perfected to
respond to the class action suit initiated by a resident of Roane
County related to the 2008 Kingston Ash Spill.

In response to the 2008 ash spill at Kingston, TVA hired Jacobs
Engineering Group, Inc. ("Jacobs") to oversee certain aspects of
the cleanup.

On November 7, 2019, a resident of Roane County, Tennessee, filed a
proposed class action lawsuit against Jacobs and TVA in the Eastern
District. The complaint alleges that the class representative and
all other members of the proposed class were damaged as a result of
the 2008 ash spill at Kingston and the resulting cleanup
activities.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that (1) TVA was
negligent in its construction and operation of the Kingston CCR
facility, (2) TVA and Jacobs failed to take proper measures to
mitigate environmental and health risks during the cleanup
response, and (3) TVA and Jacobs misled the community about health
and environmental risks associated with exposure to coal fly ash.

The complaint seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief in the
form of an order requiring the defendants to establish a blood
testing program and medical monitoring protocol and to remediate
damage to the properties of the proposed class.

The plaintiff did not attempt to serve TVA with the complaint until
January 2020, and TVA will have 60 days from the date service is
perfected to respond to the lawsuit.

Tennessee Valley Authority, a government-owned corporation,
produces electricity. The Company provides power to large
industries and 155 power distributors that serve approximately 9
million consumers in seven southeastern states. Tennessee Valley's
power system is self financed.


TENNESSEE VALLEY: Roane County et al. Suit Can't Proceed as Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee Valley Authority said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that a federal court has
ruled that Roane County and the Cities of Kingston and Harriman
(local governments) did not have standing to assert representative
claims on behalf of their citizens and rejected their motion to
proceed as a class action on behalf of their citizens.

In response to the 2008 ash spill at Kingston, TVA hired Jacobs
Engineering Group, Inc. ("Jacobs") to oversee certain aspects of
the cleanup.

On May 7, 2019, Roane County and the Cities of Kingston and
Harriman ("local governments") filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court
for Roane County, Tennessee, against TVA and Jacobs for monetary
damages and unspecified injunctive relief relating to TVA's cleanup
response to the 2008 ash spill at Kingston.

The local governments allege that TVA and Jacobs failed to take
proper measures to mitigate environmental and health risks during
the cleanup response and misled the local governments and their
citizens about health and environmental risks associated with
exposure to coal fly ash.

The local governments seek to recover monetary damages on behalf of
their citizens for personal injury and property loss claims,
damages for lost tax revenue, damages for increased emergency and
medical response costs claims, punitive damages, and unspecified
injunctive relief.

On June 6, 2019, TVA removed the lawsuit to the Eastern District,
and TVA and Jacobs filed separate motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs,
in response, filed a response opposing both motions and a separate
motion seeking leave to file a proposed amended class action
complaint in which Roane County would serve as class representative
for the municipalities and their citizens.

In December 2019, the federal court ruled that the local
governments did not have standing to assert representative claims
on behalf of their citizens and rejected their motion to proceed as
a class action on behalf of their citizens because of the
dissimilarity of the injuries allegedly suffered by the local
governments (lost tax revenue) and the personal injuries and
personal medical expenses allegedly suffered by the individuals.

The court indicated, however, that the local governments may have
legal standing to assert claims for their direct injuries (claims
relating to municipally owned property) and directed the local
governments to file an amended pleading in conformance with the
court's order by January 16, 2020. The plaintiffs filed their
amended complaint on January 15, 2020. Trial is set for April
2021.

Tennessee Valley Authority, a government-owned corporation,
produces electricity. The Company provides power to large
industries and 155 power distributors that serve approximately 9
million consumers in seven southeastern states. Tennessee Valley's
power system is self financed.


TIGER EYE: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Lewis Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Lewis, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. TIGER EYE PIZZA, LLC, and KENNETH SCHROEPFER, Case No.
4:20-cv-04017-SOH (W.D. Ark., Feb. 14, 2020), is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act arising
from the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff the legal minimum
hourly wage and overtime compensation for all hours that the
Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

The Defendants have willfully failed to pay minimum wage and
overtime wages to the Plaintiff and other and similarly situated
delivery drivers, who worked more than 40 hours in a week, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff worked as an hourly-paid delivery driver employee at
the Defendants' pizza store.

Tiger Eye Pizza, LLC d/b/a Domino's Pizza is a foreign limited
liability company, which operates various Domino's franchises in
Arkansas and Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TINDER INC: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Elansari Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an Opinion
affirming a district court judgment granting Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss in the case captioned AMRO A. ELANSARI, Appellant, v.
TINDER, INC., Case No. 19-2789, (3rd Cir.).

Amro Elansari filed a pro se complaint in the District Court
against Tinder, Inc. He indicated that the events underlying the
complaint arose over the course of nine months. He alleged, without
more, that Tinder's dating application sends you notifications
saying 7 people like you, subscribe $15 per month to see who they
are. Screen shots show that they're all fake 3000 miles away.
Elansari wrote class action at the bottom of one of the complaint's
pages and he sought compensatory and punitive damages.

The District Court screened the complaint and dismissed it without
leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The
District Court concluded that Elansari could not litigate the case
as a class action because he was a non-attorney proceeding pro se.
The District Court also concluded that, to the extent that he was
pursuing a fraud claim in his own right under Pennsylvania law, the
complaint was subject to dismissal for lack of diversity
jurisdiction because the amount in controversy did not exceed
$75,000.  

Elansari challenges the District Court's amount-in-controversy
determination. That amount is determined from the good faith
allegations appearing on the face of the complaint. Because
Elansari's alleged compensatory damages amounted to only $135 ($15
per month for the nine months that he allegedly paid Tinder's
subscription fee), the critical question is whether it is a legal
certainty that his punitive-damages claim was valued at or below
$74,865 ($75,000 minus $135). However, for reasons noted, the Third
Circuit concludes that Elansari's case presents an exception to
this general rule.

Here, for the amount in controversy to exceed $75,000, the ratio
would need to be more than 500 to 1. To be sure, the Supreme Court
has noted that low awards of compensatory damages may properly
support a higher ratio than higher compensatory awards, if, for
example, a particularly egregious act has resulted in only a small
amount of economic damages. A higher ratio also may be warranted
when the injury is hard to detect or the monetary value of
noneconomic harm might have been difficult to determine.

But those circumstances justifying a higher ratio are not present
here, and the Third Circuit sees nothing in Elansari's complaint
that could support a claim for punitive damages in an amount that
is more than 500 times greater than his alleged compensatory
damages.  

Accordingly, the Third Circuit will affirm the District Court's
dismissal of Elansari's complaint.

A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's November 14, 2019 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/vwlg89y from Leagle.com


TOSHIBA CORP: Investor Class Action Gets Green Light
----------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that a new trial court
ruling in a securities fraud class action by holders of Toshiba
American Depository Receipts doesn't just revive investors' claims.
It should also reanimate warnings that allies of the Japanese
electronics company presented last year to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Toshiba wanted the Supreme Court to review a ruling by the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals that gave its ADR holders in the U.S.
another shot at pleading their case. Specifically, Toshiba asked
the justices to decide if foreign companies can face securities
fraud liability in the U.S. for unsponsored American Depository
Receipts.

Toshiba's petition drew considerable amicus support. Its backers,
broadly speaking, urged the Supreme Court to consider the nature of
unsponsored ADRs, in which depository institutions (usually banks)
create U.S. traded securities that reference common shares traded
on foreign exchanges.

Foreign companies sometimes sponsor ADRs to attract U.S. investors,
but if ADRs are unsponsored, the company whose shares underlie the
securities has no formal role in their creation, nor any reporting
obligation to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
So according to Toshiba's amici - including the governments of
Japan and the U.K. and a host of international business groups -
allowing ADR investors to sue simply because they bought an ADR in
the U.S. would vastly and improperly expand the reach of U.S.
securities laws, defying the territorial limits established by the
Supreme Court in 2010's Morrison v. National Australia Bank. The
U.S. Chamber of Commerce warned in its amicus brief in the Toshiba
case that unless the justices stepped in to clarify that foreign
companies aren't liable for U.S.-traded securities they had no hand
in creating or issuing, the trillion-dollar derivatives market
could fall under siege.

The Supreme Court nevertheless declined to grant review of the
Toshiba case last June, perhaps heeding the advice of the U.S.
Solicitor General, who filed a brief opposing review. The Justice
Department told the Supreme Court not to rush into the ADR issue.
The 9th Circuit's ruling, the SG said, merely allowed ADR holders
to take another crack at drafting a complaint against Toshiba –
and even the 9th Circuit agreed that the investors' previous
complaint didn't pass muster. The Justice Department urged the
Supreme Court to wait and see what happened after the case was
remanded to the trial court.

We now know that outcome. And it's bad news for Toshiba and other
companies whose shares underlie unsponsored ADRs.

On Jan. 28, U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson of Los Angeles
denied Toshiba's motion to dismiss ADR investors' amended complaint
alleging accounting fraud. Applying the test mandated by the 9th
Circuit, the judge held that the key question was whether ADR
investors could show that the transactions in which they incurred
"irrevocable liability" to pay for the ADRs took place in the U.S.
The ADR holders' new complaint, Judge Pregerson said, alleged that
the named investors placed buy orders, paid for and received title
to their ADRs within U.S. territorial bounds. The transactions, he
held, were therefore domestic.

Toshiba had argued that because the ADRs reference Toshiba common
shares, ADR investors should be considered to have first purchased
the underlying foreign-traded shares. The subsequent "conversion"
of ownership of the Toshiba shares to ownership of unsponsored
ADRs, Toshiba said, does not qualify as a purchase and cannot
justify a securities class action in U.S. courts. Judge Pregerson
said the company's depiction of the ADR process would require him
to disregard the complaint's allegations of the nature of the
transaction. At this preliminary stage of the case, the judge said,
he can't do that, although he left open the possibility that
Toshiba can reassert its argument on summary judgment, if discovery
bears out the company's theory that the ADR investment originated
as a purchase of common stock in a foreign transaction.

Toshiba also argued that the company can't be liable because the
company had no involvement in the sale of unsponsored ADRs,
regardless of where the ADR transactions took place. The 9th
Circuit ruling that led to the remand to Judge Pregerson held that
in order to plead securities fraud, investors must allege that the
defendant acted to induce them to buy the security. Toshiba said in
its dismissal motion that ADR holders failed to allege that the
company even consented to the sale of ADRs referencing its common
stock. The company, argued Toshiba lawyers at White & Case, can't
be held responsible for trading in securities whose very creation
was beyond its control.

Judge Pregerson rejected that reasoning as well. The ADR investors'
lawyers at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, he said, plausibly alleged
that Toshiba did consent to the sale of the securities. In
particular, the judge noted that Bank of New York Mellon, which was
a depository bank for Toshiba stock underlying ADRs, held about 55
million shares and was one of Toshiba's ten biggest shareholders.
Judge Pregerson quoted investors' assertion that it seems unlikely
that BNYM could have acquired such a significant stake without
Toshiba's "consent, assistance or cooperation."

The judge even allowed ADR investors to revive their claims under
Japanese securities law, holding that because the plaintiffs are
U.S. nationals, the U.S. interest in enforcement outweighs comity
concerns.

Toshiba counsel Christopher Curran of White & Case declined to
comment. Robbins Geller's Willow Radcliffe said the firm is pleased
with the ruling. "This order allows Toshiba investors to now move
this case forward and obtain redress for Toshiba's fraudulent
manipulation of its financial results." [GN]


TREASURE ISLAND: Faces Sample Suit in California Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Treasure Island
Development Authority, et al. The case is captioned as DOE
PLAINTIFFS 1-2000, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES, AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED; and ANDRE PATTERSON and FELITA SAMPLE, TREASURE
ISLAND FORMER AND CURRENT RESIDENTS, INCLUDING ALL PARTIES LISTED
AND INCORPORATED v. DAN L. BATRACK, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; CLARK, DAVID, U.S. NAVY TREASURE ISLAND CLEAN UP LEAD
PROJECT MANAGER DAVID CLARK, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; DOES 1-100
INCLUSIVE; FIVE POINT HOLDINGS, LLC; KEITH FORMAN, U.S. NAVY
REPRESENTATIVE KEITH FORMAN, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; JOHN
STEWART COMPANY; LENNAR INC.; SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
HEALTH; SHAW ENVIRONMENTAL; STATE DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE
CONTROL; JIM SULLIVAN, U.S. NAVY TREASURE ISLAND CLEAN UP DIRECTOR
JIM SULLIVAN IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; TETRA TECH EC, INC.;
TREASURE ISLAND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY; and TREASURE ISLAND HOMELESS
DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE, Case No. CGC20582410 (Cal. Super., San
Francisco Cty., Jan. 23, 2020).

The lawsuit alleges violation of toxic environment-related laws. A
Case management conference is set for June 24, 2020.

Treasure Island is a non-profit, public benefit agency dedicated to
the economic development of former Naval Station Treasure
Island.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stanley Goff, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STANLEY GOFF
          15 Boardman Pl.
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Telephone: (415) 571-9570
          E-mail: scraiggoff@aol.com


TYSON FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Indirect Beef Buyers Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 28, 2019, that the motion to
dismiss in the class action suit entitled, Peterson v. JBS USA Food
Company Holdings, et al., is still pending.

On April 26, 2019, a group of plaintiffs, acting on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of a putative class of indirect purchasers
of beef for personal use filed a class action complaint against the
company, other beef packers, and Agri Stats, Inc., an information
services provider, in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota.

The plaintiffs allege that the packer defendants conspired to
reduce slaughter capacity by closing or idling plants, limiting
their purchases of cash cattle, coordinating their procurement of
cash cattle, and reducing their slaughter numbers so as to reduce
beef output, all in order to artificially raise prices of beef.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, damages under state
antitrust and consumer protection statutes and the common law of
approximately 30 states, as well as injunctive relief.

Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint in which the claims
against Agri Stats were dismissed and subsequently filed a second
amended complaint on November 22, 2019.

Tyson Foods said, "We have moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint. The indirect consumer purchaser litigation is styled as
Peterson v. JBS USA Food Company Holdings, et al."

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

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments:
Beef,Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was
founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.


TYSON FOODS: Class Action Discovery Stayed Until March 31
---------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 28, 2019, that the court in the
class action suit entitled, In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust
Litigation, shortened the stay of discovery until March 31, 2020.

On September 2, 2016, Maplevale Farms, Inc., acting on its own
behalf and a putative class of direct purchasers of poultry
products, filed a class action complaint against the company and
certain of its poultry subsidiaries, as well as several other
poultry processing companies, in the Northern District of Illinois.


Subsequent to the filing of this initial complaint, additional
lawsuits making similar claims on behalf of putative classes of
direct and indirect purchasers were filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The court consolidated the complaints, for pre-trial purposes, into
actions on behalf of three different putative classes: direct
purchasers, indirect purchasers/consumers and
commercial/institutional indirect purchasers.

The consolidated actions are styled In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust
Litigation.

Since the original filing, certain putative class members have
opted out of the matter and are proceeding with individual direct
actions making similar claims, and others may do so in the future.
All opt out complaints have been filed in, or transferred to, the
Northern District of Illinois and are proceeding on a coordinated
pre-trial basis with the consolidated actions.

The operative complaints, which have been amended throughout the
litigation, allege, among other things, that beginning in January
2008 the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain,
and stabilize the price of broiler chickens in violation of United
States antitrust laws.

The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect
purchasers also include causes of action under various state unfair
competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment
common laws.

The plaintiffs also allege that defendants "manipulated and
artificially inflated a widely used Broiler price index, the
Georgia Dock." The plaintiffs further allege that the defendants
concealed this conduct from the plaintiffs and the members of the
putative classes.

The plaintiffs seek treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and
post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the
putative classes.

Decisions on class certification and summary judgment motions
likely to be filed by defendants are currently expected in late
calendar year 2020 and 2021. If necessary, trial will occur after
rulings on class certification and any summary judgment motions in
calendar year 2022.

On April 26, 2019, the plaintiffs notified the company that the
U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division issued a grand jury
subpoena to them requesting discovery produced by all parties in
the civil case. On June 21, 2019, the DOJ filed a motion to
intervene and sought a limited stay of discovery in the civil
action, which the court granted in part.

Subsequently, the company received a grand jury subpoena from the
DOJ seeking additional documents and information related to the
chicken industry. The company is fully cooperating with the DOJ's
request.

On October 16, 2019, the court extended the limited stay of
discovery in the civil action through June 27, 2020, and on
December 18, 2019, the court shortened the stay until March 31,
2020.

The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, on behalf of its citizens, has
also initiated a civil lawsuit against the company, certain of its
subsidiaries, and several other poultry processing companies
alleging activities in violation of the Puerto Rican antitrust
laws. This lawsuit has been transferred to the Northern District of
Illinois for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.


TYSON FOODS: Direct Beef Purchaser Drops Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 28, 2019, that the class action
suit initiated by a direct purchaser of beef, has been voluntarily
dismissed.

On October 16, 2019, a direct purchaser of beef, on behalf of
itself and other direct purchasers of beef, filed a class action
complaint against the company and other beef packer defendants in
the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants conspired to reduce
slaughter capacity by closing and idling plants, limiting their
purchases of cash cattle, coordinating their procurement of cash
cattle, and reducing their slaughter numbers, so as to reduce beef
output, all in order to artificially raise prices of beef.

The plaintiff seeks, among other things, treble monetary damages,
punitive damages, restitution, and pre- and post-judgment interest,
as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.

This action was voluntarily dismissed on November 5, 2019.

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments:
Beef,Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was
founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.


TYSON FOODS: Dismissal of Amended Class Action Sought
-----------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 28, 2019, that the company moved to
dismiss the second amended complaint in the class action suit
entitled, In Re Cattle Antitrust Litigation.

On April 23, 2019, a group of plaintiffs, acting on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of a putative class of all persons and
entities who directly sold to the named defendants any fed cattle
for slaughter and all persons who transacted in live cattle futures
and/or options traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange or another
U.S. exchange, filed a class action complaint against the company
and its beef and pork subsidiary, Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., as well
as other beef packer defendants, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy
from January 2015 to the present to reduce fed cattle prices in
violation of federal antitrust laws, the Grain Inspection, Packers
and Stockyards Act of 1921, and the Commodities Exchange Act by
periodically reducing their slaughter volumes so as to reduce
demand for fed cattle, curtailing their purchases and slaughters of
cash-purchased cattle during those same periods, coordinating their
procurement practices for fed cattle settled on a cash basis,
importing foreign cattle at a loss so as to reduce domestic demand,
and closing and idling plants.

In addition, the plaintiffs also allege the defendants colluded to
manipulate live cattle futures and options traded on the Chicago
Mercantile Exchange.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, treble monetary damages,
punitive damages, restitution, and pre- and post-judgment interest,
as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.

This complaint was subsequently voluntarily dismissed and re-filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Other similar lawsuits were filed by ranchers in other district
courts.

All actions seeking relief by ranchers and futures traders have now
been transferred to the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota action and are consolidated for pre-trial
proceedings as In Re Cattle Antitrust Litigation.

Following the filing of defendants' motion to dismiss this matter,
the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on October 4, 2019.


Tyson Foods said,"We have moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint."

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.


TYSON FOODS: Pork Antitrust Class Action Ongoing
------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 28, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, In
re Pork Antitrust Litigation.

On June 18, 2018, a group of plaintiffs acting on their own behalf
and on behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities who
indirectly purchased pork, filed a class action complaint against
the company and certain of its pork subsidiaries, as well as
several other pork processing companies, in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Subsequent to the filing of the initial complaint, additional
lawsuits making similar claims on behalf of putative classes of
direct and indirect purchasers were also filed in the same court.

The court consolidated the complaints, for pre-trial purposes, into
actions on behalf of three different putative classes: direct
purchasers, indirect purchasers/consumers and
commercial/institutional indirect purchasers.

The consolidated actions are styled In re Pork Antitrust
Litigation.

Since the original filing, a putative class member is proceeding
with an individual direct action making similar claims, and others
may do so in the future. The individual complaint has been filed in
the District of Minnesota and is proceeding on a coordinated
pre-trial basis with the consolidated actions.

The complaints allege, among other things, that beginning in
January 2009 the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise,
maintain, and stabilize the price of pork and pork products in
violation of United States antitrust laws. The complaints on behalf
of the putative classes of indirect purchasers also include causes
of action under various state unfair competition laws, consumer
protection laws, and unjust enrichment common laws.

The plaintiffs seek treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and
post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the
putative classes. On August 8, 2019, this matter was dismissed
without prejudice.

The plaintiffs filed amended complaints on November 6, 2019, in
which the plaintiffs again have alleged that the defendants
conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the
price of pork and pork products in violation of state and federal
antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment common laws,
and the plaintiffs again are seeking treble damages, injunctive
relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees
on behalf of the putative classes.

The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, on behalf of its citizens, has
also initiated a civil lawsuit against the company, certain of its
subsidiaries, and several other pork processing companies alleging
activities in violation of the Puerto Rican antitrust laws.

This lawsuit was transferred to the District of Minnesota and an
amended complaint was filed on December 6, 2019. On January 15,
2020, the company moved to dismiss the amended complaints.

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.


XALER: Derval TCPA Class Action Wacked on Numerosity Grounds
------------------------------------------------------------
M. Brandon Howard -- brandon.howard@squirepb.com -- of Squire
Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that sometimes worlds collide. Indeed, these days, the
Controlled Substances Act is not the only federal law that may
hound cannabis pioneers. Rather, TCPAWorld continues to butt heads
with the growing world of legal cannabis, as demonstrated by the
case Derval v. Xaler, Case No 2:19-CV-01881-ODW (JEMx), 2020 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 13912 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2020).

Xaler, the defendant, is a cannabis delivery company in California
(what a time to be alive). The plaintiff's complaint contained
typical TCPA allegations, including that Xaler was texting its
customers pursuant to a "uniform policy" of doing so without its
customers' prior express consent. In asserting its class claims,
Plaintiff alleged that "the proposed class number[ed] in the
thousands." But, in moving to certify the class, what evidence did
Plaintiff point to in order to demonstrate that the numerosity
element was satisfied? Only that Xaler "has . . . reviews from
different [online] customers" and submitted "screenshots of
seventy-eight Xaler reviews" from a website devoted to hosting
reviews of cannabis companies. Plaintiff argued that these reviews
represent the fact that Xaler has many customers, and "at least
some of those customers must have received unwanted text messages."
Not so, said the court.

According to the court, even assuming Plaintiff's screenshots were
proper evidence for the court to consider at certification, the
"screenshots" only supported Plaintiff's allegation that Xaler had
seventy-eight customers. The allegation did not, however, "support
that any of those customers received unwanted text messages after
revocation," as Plaintiff contended. For this reason, the court
determined that Plaintiff failed to satisfy his obligation to
demonstrate numerosity because "[e]vidence of possible class
membership" is not enough. Rather, on certification, the Plaintiff
was required to present evidence on "actual numerosity."
Certification was denied.

Interesting stuff. As relatively new market participants, cannabis
companies face all kinds of regulatory and legal hurdles. It is
important that the TCPA does not get lost in that mix. [GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***