---

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

              Tuesday, March 3, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 45

                            Headlines

3M CO: Still Defends Consolidated Class Action in New Jersey
48FORTY SOLUTIONS: Norwood Sues Over Illegal Use of Biometrics
ADVANTAGE CHRYSLER-DODGE-JEEP: Toney Sues Over Violation of TCPA
AIRCASTLE LIMITED: Faces Hotop Class Action in Connecticut
AIRCASTLE LIMITED: Proxy Statement Lacks Info, 5 Suits Claim

ALASKA AIR: Appeal in Flight Attendants Class Suit Still Pending
ALASKA: Giessel Cosponsor of Bill Lowering Retirement Home Rates
ALLERGAN: Faces Class Action Over Recalled Breast Implants
ALNYLAM PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss CCERF's Class Suit Pending
ALNYLAM PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Leavitt Class Suit Still Pending

AMCARE SENIOR LIFE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sierra & Bowes Say
AMERICAN TRAVEL: Cruz Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
AMGEN INC: Bid to Dismiss Humira(R) Biosimilar Suit Pending
AMGEN INC: Bid to Dismiss Sensipar(R)-Related Suit Underway
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Field Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages

APPLE INC: Nigeria App. Ct. Clarifies Class Actions vs Rep. Actions
APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Court Dismisses Naglich Securities Suit
ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Appeal in Artex Clients' Suit Still Pending
AUSTRALIA: Class Action Mulled Over Robodebt Scheme
AUSTRALIA: Faces Increased Pressure Over Robodebt Scheme

BA SPORTS: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Advertising
BAHA BURGER: Fails to Pay Overtime to Cooks, Smith Claims
BANK OF AMERICA: Douglas Class Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
BARDES PLASTICS: Watkins Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
BARNES & NOBLE: Seeks Jury Trial in Tavres Age Discrimination Suit

BELLRING BRANDS: Suit Against Premier Nutrition Ongoing
BHP BILLITON: Arkansas Residents Sue Over Royalty Payments
BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Trial in Mishal & Berger Suit in Early 2021
BULBS.COM INC: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
C AND T HOMECARE: Etchebehere Seeks OT Pay for Home Health Aides

CABI LLC: Cruz Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act
CANADA: Federal Court Certifies $1.1-Bil. RCMP Class Action
CENTURY-NATIONAL: Solomon Sues over Motor Vehicle Insurance
CHATEAU NURSING: Villeneuve Sues Over Illegal Use of Biometrics
CHRISTOS BUILDING: Villalta Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA

COMMUNITY BUILDERS: Vanhorn Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
CONCORD HEALTHCARE: Did Not Pay for All Time Worked, Timmons Says
CRAFTS GROUP: Cruz Asserts Breach of Americans w/  Disabilities Act
CRATE & BARREL: Lucius Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Mobile App
CREDIT CONTROL: Ward Files FDCPA Suit in California

CRESTVIEW PARTNERS: Faces Searles Suit Alleging Breaches of Duty
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: $14M Rapuano Suit Settlement Has Prelim Approval
DAVIES MOLDING: Faces Blair BIPA Suit Over Use of Biometric Data
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit in Virginia Pending
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Securities Suits v. D&O Ongoing in California

DXC TECHNOLOGY: Settlement Reached with 142 Opt-In Plaintiffs
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: George Files FDCPA Suit in Ohio
EARTH FARE: Employees Files Class Action Over WARN Violation
ECOLAB INC: Hospital Employees Says Cleaning Products Toxic
ELIXINOL LLC: Olsen Alleges Violation under ADA

EMERGENT BUSINESS: Gilmore Files FDCPA Suit in California
ESSA BANCORP: Unit Continues to Defend 2016 Suit Over Kickbacks
EXELON CORP: Faces Class Action over SEC Probe
EXXON MOBIL: Fischer Suit Over Contract Removed to W.D. Oklahoma
FACEBOOK INC: Content Moderator Files Class Action

FACEBOOK INC: Pledges to Improve Security After Data Breach
FERRY-MORSE SEED: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
GEICO CHOICE: Johnson Sues Over High Fees for Copies of Records
GENERAL MOTORS: Vita Files Product Liability Suit in New York
GLASS MOUNTAIN: Fletcher Alleges Violation under FDCPA

GOOGLE INC: Bid to Strike Class-Action Claims From 2017 Case Denied
HAIN CELESTIAL: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Still Pending
HAIN CELESTIAL: Stockholders' Consolidated Class Suit Still Stayed
HECLA MINING: Continues to Defend S.D.N.Y. Class Action
HECLA MINING: Lawson Class Action Ongoing in Nevada

HOBBS LONDON: Cruz Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
HOUSLANGER & ASSOCIATES: $5.3K Attys' Fees Awarded in Rudler Suit
I.C. SYSTEM: Kim Files FDCPA Suit in New York
INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Bid to Dismiss Tchatchou Class Suit Pending
INSPERITY INC: Bench Trial Begins in Suit over 401(k) Plan

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Janecyk Sues over Biometric Data Collection
IROBOT CORP: Miramar and Campbell Class Suits Consolidated
JAM'NBEAN COFFEE: Sends Spam Text Messages, Kimble Claims
JAMES E. ALBERTELLI: Lloyd Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
JETSET MAGAZINE: Faces Curran Suit over Spam Text Messages

LOEWS CORP: Trial Early 2021 in Suit v. Boardwalk Pipelines
MARRIOT HOTEL: Faces Ramos Labor Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MAVERICK NATURAL: Moore Seeks Overtime Pay for Welding Inspectors
MEDLEY CAPITAL: Contingent Fee Award in Merger Suit Under Appeal
MEDLEY CAPITAL: Plaintiff Counsel Seek Fee Award

MEDLEY CAPITAL: RICO Suits Ongoing in Virginia & Pennsylvania
MEREDITH CORP: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in Iowa Class Action Suit
MERIDIAN BIOSCIENCE: Forman Case Settlement Up for March 16 Hearing
MESA LABORATORIES: Orrington Settlement Paid in Full
METROPOLITAN CHILDREN: Wallace Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

MIDLAND CREDIT: Giuliano Files FDCPA Suit in Illinois
MIDWEST ARBOR: Faces Zarate FLSA Suit Over Improperly Paid Wages
MOLSON COORS: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Pending in Colorado
MONDELEZ INT'L: Appeal Filed in Wheat Trading Related Suit
MUNCHKIN INC: Cruz Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act

MYRIAD GENETICS: Securities Class Action Ongoing in Utah
NATIONAL METERING: Hall et al. Seek OT Pay for Technicians
NATURE REPUBLIC: Faces Cooks ADA Suit in C.D. California
NATURES BOUNTY: Morgan Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
NET 1 UEPS: Faces Putative Securities Class Suit in New York

NEWELL BRANDS: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Cruz Alleges
NFL: Class Action Mulled Over SuperBowl Halftime Show
NORTH COAST: Faces Newell TCPA Suit Over Pre-Recorded Messages
NORTH MISSISSIPPI MEDICAL: Faces Wood Suit Over FDCPA Violation
NORTONLIFELOCK INC: Continues to Defend Avila Class Action

NORTONLIFELOCK INC: Still Faces Securities Suit in N.D. Calif.
OHIO: Refugee Class Certified in IJPC Suit v. Motor Vehicle Agency
OHIO: Refugees Class Certified in Suit v. Motor Vehicles Bureau
OLD DOMINION: Herek Sues over Unpaid Overtime, Illegal Kickbacks
OLIVE & COCOA: Cruz Files ADA Suit in New York

ONE BOCA WEST: Underpays Cooks, Modica Suit Alleges
ORGANOVO HOLDINGS: Rianhard Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
PACIFIC CHOICE: Faces Coe Labor Suit in Sacramento
PERSPECTA INC: 142 of 145 Opt-In Plaintiffs Reach Settlement
PLANTRONICS INC: Settlement in Shin Suit Wins Final Court Approval

PLS CHECK CASHERS: Francisco Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under NYLL
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Green Sues over Debt Collection Practices
PREMIERE CREDIT: Fletcher Files Suit Under FCDPA
PREMIUM RETAIL SERVICES: Employees Allege Inaccurate Overtime Pay
PROLOGIS INC: Faces Liberty Property Trust Merger-Related Suits

QUAIL PARK: Barela Files Suit in California
RADIANT LOGISTICS: No Trial Date Yet for Appeal in Barahona Suit
RED BARN: Greca Sues over Tip Pooling
REDFIN CORP: Third-Party Licensed Sales Associate's Suit Ongoing
RHODE ISLAND: Student Group Files Class Suit on Civics Education

ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Jensen Claims
SAEXPLORATION HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Bodin Class Action
SALESFORCE.COM: Troutman Sanders Attorneys Discuss CCPA Case
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Anderson & Sweeney Sue Over Military Leave
SEARS HOMETOWN: Morgan Sues in New York Alleging ADA Violation

SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Settlement Reached in Baker Class Suit
SITO MOBILE: Final Approval Hearing of Roper Settlement in April
SOUTHEAST RESTAURANT: Underpays Servers and Bartenders, Holt Says
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Linenweber Hits False Info, Stock Price Drop
SPOTIFY USA: Elias Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California

SPRINGHOUSE VILLAGE: King-Casey Seeks OT Pay for Nurse Assistants
SUPER MICRO: Bid to Dismiss NY Trades Council & Hotel Suit Pending
T ROWE PRICE: Continues to Defend 401(k) Plan-Related Suit
TAFT CLOTHING: Fischler Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
TALLGRASS ENERGY: Faces Suits Over Merger with Blackstone Unit

TEAM VELOCITY: Faces Fabricant TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
TESLA INC: Appeal in Investor Suit Over Model 3 Production Pending
TESLA INC: Hearing This Friday on Bid to Dismiss Twitter Post Suit
THORLEY INDUSTRIES: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
TIVITY HEALTH: Court Certifies Class in Weiner Securities Suit

TOWBIN DODGE: Neff Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts & Calls
TRANSGLOBAL SERVICES: Johnson Seeks Overtime Pay for Surveyors
TREEHOUSE FOODS: Deadline for Discovery Motions Due March 16
TREEHOUSE FOODS: Negrete Class Suit v. Ralcorp Holdings Ongoing
UBIQUITI INC: Final Settlement Hearing Set for March 27

UNION PACIFIC: Appeal in ADA-Related Class Suit Pending
UPTOWN COMMUNICATIONS: Jairam et al. Seek OT Pay for Technicians
VIDACANN LLC: Garcia Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
VIRGINIA MASON: Keller Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Washington
WESTSIDE VENTURES: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Nguyen Says

WORLD WRESTLING: Continues to Defend Wrestlers' Class Suits
XPO LOGISTICS: Awaits Final OK of Settlements in Last Mile Suits
XPO LOGISTICS: Carriers Suits vs. Intermodal Drayage Units Ongoing
XPO LOGISTICS: Continues to Defend Labul Class Action
YAHOO! INC: July 20 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set

YAHOO! INC: Settlement in Data Breach Suit Awaits Final Court Okay
ZAP LUBE: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Sawadogo Alleges
ZENDESK INC: Class Suits Consolidated Under "Reidinger"
[*] Fedusa Considering Class Action Against Municipalities

                            *********

3M CO: Still Defends Consolidated Class Action in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit pending before the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

In July 2019, Heavy & General Laborers' Locals 472 & 172 Welfare
Fund filed a putative securities class action against 3M Company,
its former Chairman and CEO, current Chairman and CEO, and current
CFO in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

In August 2019, an individual plaintiff filed a similar putative
securities class action in the same district.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding 3M's exposure to liability associated with
per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and bring claims for
damages under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and SEC Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, and under Section 20(a)
of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 against the individual
defendants.

In October 2019, the court consolidated the securities class
actions and appointed a group of lead plaintiffs. The suit is in
the early stages of litigation.

3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.


48FORTY SOLUTIONS: Norwood Sues Over Illegal Use of Biometrics
--------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY NORWOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. 48FORTY SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 2020CH01434 (Ill.
Cir., Cook Cty., Feb. 4, 2020), seeks to stop the Defendant's
capture, collection, use and storage of individuals' biometric
identifiers and/or biometric information, which violate the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff contends that she was required to "clock-in" and
"clock-out" using a timeclock that operated, at least in part, by
scanning her fingerprint. As an employee, she was required to scan
at least one finger, multiple times, so the Defendant could create,
collect, capture, construct, store, use, and/ or obtain a biometric
template for her.

The Defendant then used the Plaintiff's biometrics as an
identification and authentication method to track her time,
potentially with the help of a third-party vendor. The Defendant
subsequently stored her biometric data in its database(s). Each
time she began and ended her workday, in addition to clocking in
and out for lunches, she was required to scan her fingerprint using
the biometric timeclock device.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant in Illinois. The Plaintiff
alleges that she has never been informed of the specific limited
purposes or length of time for which the Defendant collected,
stored, or used her biometrics. She further alleges that she has
never been informed of any biometric data retention policy
developed by the Defendant, nor has she ever been informed of
whether Defendant will ever permanently delete her biometrics. The
Plaintiff brings the action for damages and other legal and
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendant.

48Forty Solutions provides pallet management solutions. The Company
offers end-to-end pallet, from supply to retrieval, on-site,
reverse logistics, and retail services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
          Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC
          818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
          St. Louis, MO 63104
          Telephone: 314 833-4825
          E-mail: bwise@pwcklegal.com
                  plesko@pwcklegal.com


ADVANTAGE CHRYSLER-DODGE-JEEP: Toney Sues Over Violation of TCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIE TONEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ADVANTAGE CHRYSLER-DODGE-JEEP, INC., a Florida
corporation, Case No. 6:20-cv-00182 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 4, 2020),
seeks to secure redress for the Defendant's violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's transmission of prerecorded
messages to the cellular telephones of the Plaintiff and others,
promoting the Defendant's services and goods. According to the
complaint, to gain an advantage over its competitors and increase
its revenue, the Defendant engages in unsolicited telemarketing,
with no regard for consumers' privacy rights.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's
illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy,
harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of
thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages on behalf of himself and members of the class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies.

The Defendant is an automotive dealership that sells vehicles for
individuals and businesses. To promote its services, the Defendant
engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in
the process.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: 305-975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

               - and -

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954 400 4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: 305-479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                  gberg@shamisgentile.com

              - and -

          Ignacio Hiraldo, Esq.
          IJH LAW
          1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: 786-496-4469
          E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com

              - and -

          Michael Eisenband, Esq.
          EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
          515 E Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 120
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954-533-4092
          E-mail: meisenband@eisenbandlaw.com


AIRCASTLE LIMITED: Faces Hotop Class Action in Connecticut
----------------------------------------------------------
Aircastle Limited said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company is facing a
class action suit entitled, Daniel Hotop v. Aircastle Limited, et
al., Case No. FST-CV20-6045115.

On January 2, 2020, a purported shareholder of Aircastle filed a
putative class action lawsuit against Aircastle and its directors
in the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of
Stamford-Norwalk, captioned Daniel Hotop v. Aircastle Limited, et
al., Case No. FST-CV20-6045115.  

The Hotop Complaint alleges that the directors breached their
fiduciary duties by: (i) entering into the proposed transaction
through a flawed process; (ii) accepting an unfair price; and (iii)
filing a materially deficient proxy statement.  

The Hotop Complaint seeks, among other things: (a) injunctive
relief preventing the consummation of the proposed transaction; (b)
rescissory damages or rescission in the event the proposed
transaction is consummated; (c) declaratory relief that the Merger
Agreement is unenforceable; (d) a judgment directing Aircastle to
commence a new sale process; (e) damages; and (f) plaintiff's
attorneys' and experts' fees.  

The defendants believe the claims asserted in the Hotop Complaint
are without merit.

Aircastle Limited provides aircraft finance and leasing services.
The Company is acquires, leases, and sells high-utility commercial
jet aircraft to airlines. Aircastle serves customers worldwide. The
company is based in Stamford Connecticut.


AIRCASTLE LIMITED: Proxy Statement Lacks Info, 5 Suits Claim
------------------------------------------------------------
Aircastle Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in five class action suits related to its
proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

On December 18, 2019, a purported shareholder of Aircastle filed a
lawsuit against Aircastle and its directors and certain of its
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned David Younge v. Aircastle Limited,
et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-11574.

Also on December 18, 2019, a purported shareholder of Aircastle
filed a putative class action lawsuit against Aircastle and its
directors in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware, captioned Jordan Rosenblatt v. Aircastle Limited, et al.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02295.

On January 3, 2020, a purported shareholder of Aircastle filed a
lawsuit against Aircastle and its directors in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut, captioned Ruda
Anderson v. Aircastle Limited, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00017.

On January 21, 2020, a purported shareholder of Aircastle filed a
lawsuit against Aircastle and its directors in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, captioned
Sherie Johnson v. Aircastle Limited, et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-00334.

On January 28, 2020, a purported shareholder of Aircastle filed a
lawsuit against Aircastle and its directors in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned
Howard Shoemaker v. Aircastle Limited, et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-00746.

These five complaints allege that, among other things, the
defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and SEC Rule 14d 9 by omitting or misrepresenting certain allegedly
material information in the proxy statement.

These complaints seek, among other things: (i) injunctive relief
preventing the consummation of the proposed transaction; (ii)
rescissory damages or rescission in the event the proposed
transaction is consummated; and (iii) plaintiffs' attorneys' and
experts' fees.

The defendants believe the claims asserted in these complaints are
without merit.

Aircastle Limited provides aircraft finance and leasing services.
The Company is acquires, leases, and sells high-utility commercial
jet aircraft to airlines. Aircastle serves customers worldwide. The
company is based in Stamford Connecticut.


ALASKA AIR: Appeal in Flight Attendants Class Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Air Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the appeal from a
ruling in the Flight Attendants class action suit remains pending.

In 2015, three flight attendants filed a class action lawsuit
seeking to represent all Virgin America flight attendants for
damages based on alleged violations of California and City of San
Francisco wage and hour laws. The court certified a class of
approximately 1,800 flight attendants in November 2016. The Company
believes the claims in this case are without factual and legal
merit.

In July 2018, the Court granted in part Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment, finding Virgin America, and Alaska Airlines, as a
successor-in-interest to Virgin America, responsible for various
damages and penalties sought by the class members. On February 4,
2019, the Court entered final judgment against Virgin America and
Alaska Airlines in the amount of approximately $78 million. It did
not award injunctive relief against Alaska Airlines.

The Company is seeking an appellate court ruling that the
California laws on which the judgment is based are invalid as
applied to national airlines pursuant to the U.S. Constitution and
federal law and for other employment law and improper class
certification reasons.

The Company remains confident that a higher court will respect the
federal preemption principles that were enacted to shield
inter-state common carriers from a patchwork of state and local
wage and hour regulations such as those at issue in this case and
agree with the Company's other bases for appeal. For these reasons,
no loss has been accrued.

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

Alaska Air Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
passenger and cargo air transportation services. The company
operates through three segments: Mainline, Regional, and Horizon.
The company was founded in 1932 and is based in Seattle,
Washington.


ALASKA: Giessel Cosponsor of Bill Lowering Retirement Home Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Downing, writing for Must Read Alaska, reports that Senate
President Cathy Giessel of Anchorage is the lone Republican senator
to sign as a cosponsor of a bill lowering the rates at the Alaska
Pioneer Homes.

House Bill 96 would put the retirement home rates in statute,
rather than allowing the State to establish rates via regulation.

The Alaska Pioneers Homes, with about 500 residents in all, are
unique to Alaska. They began in 1913 with the original site in
Sitka established for indigent elderly miners and loggers. The home
was a converted U.S. Marine Corps barrack.

In the mid-1950s, women and Alaska Natives became eligible for
admission. During Alaska's oil boom, another five homes were built
around the state. Meanwhile, Natives generally seek elder care at
Native-owned facilities, and costs of caring for the elderly rose.

Alaska's Pioneer Homes are some of the least expensive elder-care
facilities in the nation, heavily subsidized by the State of Alaska
for a small clientele of often-well-to-do Alaskans whose offspring
object to the rate increase; they don't want to lose their
anticipated inheritance to the care facilities to pay for the care
of their elderly parents. The Anchorage home is where former Gov.
Wally Hickel breathed his final breath, cared for in the memory
care unit.

The average age of residents at the Pioneer Homes is 87 and more
than 58 percent of them require higher levels of care. More and
more are asking to be admitted to the memory care "neighborhoods"
for Alzheimer's and dementia.

Sen. Giessel's mother is a resident of one of the Pioneer Homes, an
apparent conflict of interest, although not illegal.

In Fiscal Year 2019, Alaska subsidized Pioneer Home residents with
$34,592,000 in state funds.

Sponsored by Anchorage Democrat Rep. Zack Fields, House Bill 96
passed the House, 35-4 in May 2019 and was to be heard next in the
Senate Health and Social Services Committee on Feb. 12.

The new law would prohibit the state from charging for the actual
cost of caring for the homes' residents and instead would
establish, in statute, the following rates:

   -- $2,976 a month for housing, meals, emergency assistance, and
recreation

   -- $5,396 a month for housing, meals, emergency assistance,
medication administration, health-related services, recreation, and
intermittent assistance with activities of daily living.

   -- $7,814 a month for the provision of housing, meals, emergency
29 assistance, medication administration, health-related services,
recreation, and extensive assistance with activities of daily
living;

   -- $8,500 a month for the provision of housing, meals, emergency
01 assistance, medication administration, medication management,
health-related services, recreation, assistance with activities of
daily living and nursing services for 24 hours a day, and
intermittent behavior management.

HB 96 not only rolls back the rate structure, it provides for what
is called "reasonable and regular rate increases" based on Social
Security cost-of-living schedules. The cost-of-living rate set by
Social Security was one third of one percent in 2017.

The state Pioneer Home Assistance Program has $25 million in it to
assist those who cannot afford the new rates. In the past, the
residents have covered about 44 percent of the cost of their care,
with state funds picking up the rest.

Giessel joined Senators Scott Kawasaki, Bill Wielechowski, Donny
Olson, Tom Begich, Elvi Gray-Jackson, and Jessie Kiehl as cross
sponsors.

In November, a pair of attorneys filed a lawsuit against the
Dunleavy Administration over the rate increases. Vance Sanders and
Libby Bakalar have asked the courts to stop the rate increases, and
they are asking that the State pay their legal fees associated with
the case, which they are requesting to be accepted by the court as
a class-action lawsuit. [GN]


ALLERGAN: Faces Class Action Over Recalled Breast Implants
----------------------------------------------------------
Mariel Carbone, writing for WCPO, reports that a rash and joint
pain may have saved Lily McBreen's life by getting her to the
doctor in time for a breast cancer diagnosis. Although many other
survivors choose implants after their mastectomies, she's adamant
that she won't. Having almost lost her life once, she's worried the
side effects of receiving breast implants could endanger it again.

"After breast cancer your biggest motivation is to survive and you
know that to survive you have to become healthy and whole again,"
she said. "So the idea of putting something in your body that's
potentially going to make you sick again is something you're not
going to be willing, or want to do."

McBreen was diagnosed with fibromyalgia a few years ago. When she
noticed rash and joint swelling in her wrists, she went to her
doctor, who sent her to a rheumatologist to perform a full body
scan. That's when she saw it: a lump inside her breast. She was
diagnosed with stage two breast cancer.

"I just started spinning mentally," said McBreen, a registered
nurse. "I really honestly can't verbalize. I just started
bawling."

She started chemo within a week of the diagnosis and had her last
round on her birthday in November.

"That's either a gift or not a gift," she said.

That was followed by a bilateral mastectomy a month later. Then
came another big decision: Should she get breast implants?

"By now, I heard people tell plenty of just anecdotal accounts of
implant syndrome," she said.

It's why she elected to instead have a flap surgery, which uses the
patient's own tissue to reconstruct the breast.

"I wanted to avoid the rheumatological symptoms that have been out
in the news for so many decades," she said. "There has been so many
accounts of women complaining of problems with them."

Those symptoms, which women are calling "breast implant illness,"
are among the many reasons the United States Food and Drug
Administration could soon take extreme measures when it comes to
educating the public about implants.

FDA investigates breast implants

In March 2019, at an FDA conference about breast implants, women,
doctors and surgeons shared harrowing stories of complications
connected to receiving implants after a mastectomy.

"I experienced extreme exhaustion, rapid weight gain, paralyzing
brain fog," Julie Elliot testified.

"I was completely bedridden, waiting to die," said Terry Diaz, who
described herself as a breast implant survivor. "I couldn't even
walk up a flight of stairs."

The women said their implants caused these issues. Others
experienced an even more serious complication: A rare form of
cancer called breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell
lymphoma, or BIA-ALCL, in which lymphoma develops in the tissue
around the implant.

"Life as I knew it ceased to exist," Terry McGregor, a BIA-ALCL
survivor, told the FDA panel. "Four years ago, I was diagnosed with
ALCL from breast implants that were six years old. My diagnosis was
stage four. The joy of life was cut short by a profit-driven,
man-made cancer."

The FDA released more findings about BIA-ALCL in July, months after
the conference. According to U.S. and global medical device
reports, there have been 573 reports of BIA-ALCL. Thirty-three
patients died.

Of those cases, the FDA said a majority are linked to a single
pharmaceutical manufacturer, Allergan, and its textured BIOCELL
implants. The company recalled the implants on July 24.

"Patient safety is a priority for Allergan," the company said in a
news release announcing the recall. "Patients are advised to speak
with their plastic surgeon about the risks and benefits of their
implant type should they have any concerns."

In October, the FDA proposed adding a black box warning to all
breast implants warning patients about the potential side effects
of breast implant illness and BIA-ALCL.

Women file class-action lawsuit against Allergan

By January 2020, women from 37 different states had signed onto a
class-action lawsuit against Allergan, including one woman from
Ohio and another from Kentucky.

The lawsuit, which was filed by Berger Montague PC, Sauder
Schelkopf LLC and Mazie Slater Katz and Freeman LLC, accuses the
company of negligence and claims it knowingly withheld information
that the recalled implants were linked to cancer.

The lawsuit seeks to cover the cost associated with removing and
replacing the patients' implants.

As part of the recall, Allergan said in a press release that the
company would "provide Allergan smooth device replacements for free
. . . As part of this program, Allergan will not provide surgical
fee assistance to revision patients."

"Our clients and the many women who have contacted us should not
have to deal with the anxiety of living with a recalled breast
implant," said plaintiffs' attorneys Joe Sauder and Matt Schelkopf.
"We look forward to fighting on their behalf in seeking a
resolution that provides them with peace of mind."

In a statement to WCPO, the company said it has followed FDA
regulations and acted transparently: "Allergan has a demonstrated
history of dedication to the health and safety of patients and a
strong record of compliance with U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) regulations and requirements. Allergan has followed FDA
regulatory reporting procedures and acted transparently with
patients about textured breast implants.

"We paid close attention to reports of a link between textured
breast implants and BIA-ALCL, shared reports of patient complaints
with regulators, and worked with the FDA to determine that a
BIOCELL textured implant product recall was an appropriate step.
We've worked hard to keep patients and surgeons informed about the
recall and continue to encourage a full dialogue between patients
and their doctors about the benefits and risks of breast
implants."

Doctors say implants are safe, for the most part

Several doctors in our region told WCPO that breast implants are
safe -- for the most part.

"Breast implants are one of the most-studied medical tools because
we've had so many of them for so long," said Dr. Neil Kundu, chief
of plastic surgery at Mercy Health. "The real key is to make sure
that there's a good dialogue and expectations and understanding are
made."

Kundu said that when discussing BIA-ALCL, the numbers need to be
put into context.

"We've had hundreds and thousands of breast implants," he said.
"And these implants have been in for decades, and of the hundreds
of thousands of implants, the FDA has only seen 530 some unique
cases of this ALCL."

Kundu also noted that he rarely uses textured implants, which are
most commonly linked to ALCL. Still, a handful of his patients have
come in to have their implants removed because of the recent news.

"I've had three patients that I've removed implants on for concern
of this," he said. Kundu explained that the numbers aren't higher
"because not every patient needs to have them removed."

He believes the black box warning is key for education, which is
necessary for anyone choosing to undergo a surgery.

"Breast implants are safe," he said. "The most important thing is
education, and before having any procedure, or any implanted device
go into your body, you should have a thorough understanding of what
the device does and the risk and benefits of every device that you
have."

University of Cincinnati assistant professor of plastic surgery
Ryan Gobble echoed that sentiment.

"I think the idea is more transparency is better," he said. "And
that making sure patients know that there are real risks associated
with using implants."

As for women specifically choosing implants after surviving breast
cancer, Mercy Health breast surgical oncologist Amy Moldem said the
decision -- and discussion -- should be no different.

"I think we would offer the same implants, whether or not it's an
augmentation versus a reconstruction," she said. "I think the
important thing is that we educate them. We can educate them that
there is a black box warning when we do their consent but also
relay that fact that this disease has never been associated with
the implants that we're going to use."

Draft warning includes a patient check list

Currently,the black box warning exists only as a draft while the
FDA continues to consider its implementation.

The draft warning outlines three main concerns.

First, "breast implants are not considered life time devices" and
women may require more surgery if complications occur.

It also states that implants have been associated with BIA-ALCL.

"This cancer occurs more commonly in patients with textured breast
implants than smooth implants, although rates are not well
defined," the warning reads. "Some patients have died from
BIA-ALCL."

Finally, it describes how some patients have reported a variety of
symptoms, including "joint paint, muscle aches, confusion, chronic
fatigue, autoimmune disease and others."

The FDA is also proposing a patient decision checklist, which would
include situations in which the device should not be used,
considerations for a successful breast implant candidate, risks of
surgery, the importance of using an appropriate physician, the risk
of BIA-ALCL and other symptoms and discussion of other options.

Still, some have said these proposals don't go far enough,
including Diana Zuckerman who is President of the National Center
for Health Research. The center initiated the Breast Implant
Working Group, which is made up of six experts including patient
advocates and plastic surgeons.

"The FDA's draft Black Box warning is too vaguely worded on
BIA-ALCL and breast implant illness, and includes jargon that will
not be understood by all patients," the working group said in a
statement. "The FDA draft Black Box states that 'breast implants
have been associated with the development of a cancer of the immune
system called breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell
lymphoma (BIA-ALCL).' Association implies correlation rather than
causation. In fact, the evidence is clear that breast implants can
cause BIA-ALCL."

What's next?

It's unclear when or if the FDA will decide on implementing the
black box warning. The agency declined an interview with WCPO.

However, McBreen, who is now breast-cancer-free, has a warning of
her own she is standing by.

"That black box warning means, ‘Hey, this could be really deadly.
Take it seriously,'" she said.

And to women considering implants?

"Her health is so much more important," McBreen said. "And lymphoma
is no joke. There isn't one (cancer) that is a walk in the park."
[GN]


ALNYLAM PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss CCERF's Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the
defendants' motion to dismiss the class action suit initiated by
Chester County Employees Retirement Fund remains pending.

On September 12, 2019, the Chester County Employees Retirement
Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
filed a purported securities class action complaint for violation
of federal securities laws against the company, certain of its
current and former directors and officers, and the underwriters of
the Company's November 14, 2017 public stock offering in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County.

On November 7, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint.  "The
New York Complaint is brought on behalf of an alleged class of
those who purchased our securities pursuant and/or traceable to our
November 14, 2017 public stock offering. The New York Complaint
purports to allege claims arising under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and generally alleges
that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by, among
other things, making material misstatements or omissions concerning
the results of our APOLLO Phase 3 clinical trial of patisiran," the
Company said.

The plaintiff seeks, among other things, the designation of the
action as a class action, an award of unspecified compensatory
damages, rescissory damages, interest, costs and expenses,
including counsel fees and expert fees, and other relief as the
court deems appropriate.

All defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the New York
Complaint in its entirety on December 20, 2019. Plaintiff's
response to that motion was filed on February 3, 2020.

Alnylam said, "We believe that the allegations contained in these
complaints are without merit and intend to defend the cases
vigorously. We cannot predict at this point the length of time that
these actions will be ongoing or the liabilities, if any, which may
arise therefrom."

Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on discovering, developing, and commercializing RNA interference
(RNAi) therapeutics. The company was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


ALNYLAM PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Leavitt Class Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion
to dismiss the class action suit initiated by Caryl Hull Leavitt
remains pending.

On September 26, 2018, Caryl Hull Leavitt, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action
complaint for violation of federal securities laws against the
company, its Chief Executive Officer and our former Chief Financial
Officer in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

By stipulation of the parties and Order of the Court dated November
20, 2018, the action was transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.

On May 8, 2019, the Court entered an order appointing a lead
plaintiff, and on July 3, 2019, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
class action complaint, or the Complaint.

In addition to the originally named defendants, the Complaint also
names as defendants certain of the company's other executive
officers, and purports to be brought on behalf of a class of
persons who acquired the company's securities between September 20,
2017 and September 12, 2018 and seeks to recover damages caused by
defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements related to the efficacy
and safety of the company's product, ONPATTRO.

The plaintiff seeks, among other things, the designation of this
action as a class action, an award of unspecified compensatory
damages, interest, costs and expenses, including counsel fees and
expert fees, and other relief as the court deems appropriate.

All defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in its
entirety on July 31, 2019. The motion to dismiss was fully briefed
on September 30, 2019.

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

Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on discovering, developing, and commercializing RNA interference
(RNAi) therapeutics. The company was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


AMCARE SENIOR LIFE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sierra & Bowes Say
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA SIERRA and LINDSAY BOWES, Each Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated vs. AMCARE SENIOR LIFE PARTNERS, INC.
DEFENDANT, Case No. 4:20-cv-00170-JM (E.D. Ark., February 20, 2020)
contends that the Defendant fails to pay a proper minimum wage to
Plaintiffs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act.

Both Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as a Home Health
Aide until February of 2020.

AmCare Senior Life Partners, Inc. is a domestic, for-profit
corporation whose primary business involves in-home personal care
for seniors, individuals recuperating from surgery, or individuals
with disabilities. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

            Lydia H. Hamlet, Esq.
            Josh Sanford, Esq.
            SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
            One Financial Center
            650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
            Little Rock, AR 72211
            Telephone: (501) 221-0088
            Facsimile: (888) 787-2040


AMERICAN TRAVEL: Cruz Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
American Travel Solutions, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. American Travel Solutions, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01663 (S.D. N.Y., Feb. 25, 2020).

American Travel Solutions (AmTrav) is an American privately held
travel management company owned by Craig Fichtelberg, Eric
Fichtelberg, and Jeff Klee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


AMGEN INC: Bid to Dismiss Humira(R) Biosimilar Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action suit related to Humira(R) Biosimilar
Antitrust suit remains pending.

From March 18, 2019, to May 10, 2019, twelve purported class
actions against Amgen, along with AbbVie Inc. and AbbVie
Biotechnology Ltd. (collectively, AbbVie), were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the Illinois
Northern District Court).

The cases are captioned: UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund v. AbbVie
Inc., et al. (March 18, 2019) (Local 1500); Fraternal Order of
Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund v. AbbVie Inc., et al.
(March 20, 2019); Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. AbbVie
Inc., et al. (March 22, 2019); Pipe Trades Services MN Welfare Fund
v. AbbVie Inc., et al. (March 29, 2019); St. Paul Electrical
Workers’ Health Plan v. AbbVie Inc., et al. (March 29, 2019);
Welfare Plan of the International Union of Operating Engineers
Locals 137, 137A, 137B, 137C and 137R v. AbbVie Inc., et al. (April
1, 2019); Law Enforcement Health Benefits, Inc. v. AbbVie, Inc., et
al. (April 9, 2019) (Law Enforcement); Kentucky Laborers District
Council Health and Welfare Fund v. AbbVie, Inc., et al. (April 16,
2019); Sheet Metal Workers' Local Union No. 28 Welfare Fund v.
AbbVie, Inc., et al. (April 19, 2019) (Sheet Metal Workers');
Locals 302 & 612 of The International Union of Operating
Engineers-Employers Construction Industry Health And Security Trust
Fund v. AbbVie Inc., et al. (April 25, 2019) (Construction
Industry); Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Co., d/b/a Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana and HMO Louisiana, Inc. v.
AbbVie Inc., et al. (April 30, 2019) (Louisiana Health); and
Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Health and Welfare Fund v. AbbVie
Inc., et al. (May 10, 2019) (Cleveland Bakers) collectively,
Humira(R) Antitrust Class Actions).

In each of the Humira(R) Antitrust Class Actions, the plaintiffs
bring federal antitrust claims along with various state law claims
under common law and antitrust, consumer protection and unfair
competition statutes. In each case, the plaintiffs specifically
allege that AbbVie has unlawfully monopolized the alleged market
for Humira(R) and biosimilars of Humira(R), including by creating
an allegedly unlawful so-called patent thicket around Humira(R).

In the Local 1500, Sheet Metal Workers' and Construction Industry
cases, the plaintiffs further allege that AbbVie entered into
allegedly unlawful market division agreements with Amgen and other
companies that had developed Humira(R) biosimilars, including
Bioepis, Mylan, Sandoz, Inc., Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, Pfizer Inc.
and Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., in connection with the
settlement of patent litigation relating to Humira(R), whereby
Amgen and the other defendants that have developed Humira(R)
biosimilars were permitted to market those products in Europe as
early as October 2018, while remaining off the market in the United
States until 2023.

In each of the Humira(R) Antitrust Class Actions other than the
Local 1500 and Construction Industry cases, the plaintiffs allege
that AbbVie and Amgen entered into an allegedly unlawful settlement
agreement under which Amgen allegedly agreed to delay its entry
into the U.S. market with AMGEVITATM, its Humira(R) biosimilar, in
exchange for an alleged promise of exclusivity as the sole
Humira(R) biosimilar in that market for five months, beginning in
January 2023.

In each of the Humira(R) Antitrust Class Actions, plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief, treble damages and attorney's fees on behalf of
a putative class of third-party payers and/or consumers that have
indirectly purchased, paid for or provided reimbursement for
Humira(R) in the United States.

Defendants' responses to the first six complaints were stayed by
the court.

On June 4, 2019, the Illinois Northern District Court entered an
order consolidating the twelve purported class action cases for
pre-trial purposes and on June 13, 2019, entered an order requiring
the plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint by August 12, 2019.


On August 9, 2019, the plaintiffs filed their consolidated
complaint in the Illinois Northern District Court. The consolidated
class action complaint names as defendants Amgen, along with
AbbVie, Bioepis, Sandoz, Inc. and Fresenius Kabi USA LLC.

On October 11, 2019, the defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint (as well as brief individual motions),
challenging the legal sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ allegations
to state any claim for relief under the law.

On November 19, 2019, plaintiffs filed their opposition to the
motion to dismiss. On December 20, 2019, defendants filed their
reply in support of the motion to dismiss.

No argument date has been set.

Amgen Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and delivers human
therapeutics worldwide. It offers products for the treatment of
oncology/hematology, cardiovascular, inflammation, bone health, and
neuroscience. Amgen Inc. was founded in 1980 and is headquartered
in Thousand Oaks, California.


AMGEN INC: Bid to Dismiss Sensipar(R)-Related Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated class action suit related to Sensipar(R)
remains pending.

From February 21, 2019, to April 10, 2019, four plaintiffs filed
putative class action lawsuits against Amgen and various entities
affiliated with  Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva) alleging
anticompetitive conduct in connection with settlements between
Amgen and manufacturers of generic cinacalcet product.

Two of those actions were brought in the Delaware District Court,
captioned UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund v. Amgen Inc., et al.
(February 21, 2019) (Local 1500) and Cesar Castillo, Inc. v. Amgen
Inc., et al. (February 26, 2019) (Castillo).

The third action was brought in the New Jersey District Court,
captioned Teamsters Local 237 Welfare Fund, et al. v. Amgen Inc.,
et al. (March 14, 2019) (Local 237) and the fourth action was
brought in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (the Eastern Pennsylvania District Court), captioned
KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. a/k/a Kinney Drugs, Inc. v. Amgen
Inc., et al (April 10, 2019) (KPH).

Each of the lawsuits is brought on behalf of a putative class of
direct or indirect purchasers of Sensipar(R) and alleges that the
plaintiffs have overpaid for Sensipar(R) as a result of Amgen's
conduct that allegedly improperly delayed market entry by
manufacturers of generic cinacalcet products.

The lawsuits focus predominantly on the settlement among Amgen,
Watson and Teva of the parties' patent infringement litigation.
Each of the lawsuits seeks, among other things, treble damages,
equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

On April 10, 2019, the plaintiff in the KPH lawsuit filed a motion
seeking to have the four lawsuits consolidated and designated as a
multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Eastern Pennsylvania District
Court, and the plaintiff in the Local 1500 lawsuit filed a motion
seeking to have the four lawsuits, along with Cipla Ltd. v. Amgen
Inc., consolidated and designated as a MDL in the Delaware District
Court.

On July 31, 2019, the MDL panel entered an order consolidating in
the Delaware District Court the four class action lawsuits. On
September 13, 2019, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints, and on
October 15, 2019, Amgen filed its motion to dismiss both the direct
purchaser plaintiffs' consolidated class action complaint and the
indirect purchaser end payor plaintiffs’ complaint.

On December 6, 2019, the plaintiffs responded to Amgen's motion to
dismiss and, on January 10, 2020, Amgen filed its response.

On February 6, 2020, an additional class action lawsuit was filed
by MSP Recovery Claims against Amgen, Teva, Watson and Actavis also
alleging anticompetitive conduct in connection with settlements
between Amgen and manufacturers of generic cinacalcet product.

This action was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, captioned MSP Recovery Claims v. Amgen Inc.,
et al.

Amgen Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and delivers human
therapeutics worldwide. It offers products for the treatment of
oncology/hematology, cardiovascular, inflammation, bone health, and
neuroscience. Amgen Inc. was founded in 1980 and is headquartered
in Thousand Oaks, California.


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Field Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
JOEL FIELD, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
4:20-cv-00575 (S.D. Tex., February 19, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked for Anadarko as Completions Consultant from
approximately June 2017 through May 2018.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and the other similarly
situated workers who worked for the Defendant in the last three
years never received overtime for the hours they worked in excess
of 40 hours in a single workweek.

Plaintiff and the other similarly situated workers seek to recover
unpaid overtime and other damages from Defendant.

Anadarko was one of the largest independent oil and natural gas
exploration and production companies in the world, operating
throughout the U.S. before it was acquired by Occidental Petroleum
in 2019. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: 713-352-1100
          Fax: 713-352-3300
          Emails: mjoseph@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  litkin@mybackwages.com

                - and -

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


APPLE INC: Nigeria App. Ct. Clarifies Class Actions vs Rep. Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Olumide Babalola, Esq., of Olumide Babalola LP, in an article for
Mondaq, related that "Christmas came quite early for me as the
Court of Appeal delivered a landmark judgment in my appeal against
Apple Inc. clarifying the difference between class actions and
representative actions. It was a journey of three years which began
on the 5th day of September 2016 when I filed a class action
against the makers of iPhone (Apple Inc.) over their defective
iPhone 6 which was universally plagued with the touch-screen
disease."

The suit was certified as a class action by Hon. Justice D. T.
Okuwobi after which the certification order was advertised in
national dailies and the originating processes subsequently served
on the American company at their office in California, USA.

The Defendant was represented by the first female maritime lawyer
to take silk, Mrs. Funke Agbor, SAN of the Firm of Adepetun Caxton
Martins, Agbor & Segun who filed an objection to the competence of
my suit on the ground of non-fulfilment of condition precedent
under the now repealed Consumer Protection Council Act, LFN 2004.

My Lord, Okuwobi, J. agreed with the learned silk, upheld her
objection and consequently struck out the suit. The court
specifically held that:

"It is a fact that every iPhone user has a separate contract of
sale when the purchase was made. The Claimant did not at any time
negotiate as an agent of all iPhone users in Nigeria when the
phones were purchased. A contractual relationship is founded on the
basis of privity. There is no evidence of assignment of the
contractual rights of other members of the class or that an
enforceable trust has been created in his favour. There are also no
statutory exception, it is therefore my considered view that the
breach of warranty sought in this action is not proper in a class
action." (Emphasis mine)

The emphasized part of the above holding formed the plint of Ground
1 of my notice of appeal, Mr. Babalola noted. The appeal was heard
in October and judgement delivered on the 6th day of December, 2019
as follows:

On the meaning of class action, My Lord, J.Y. Tukur, JCA who read
the leading judgement held at page 15 thus:

   "As a first port of call, it is very expedient to draw a
distinction between class actions and representative actions.
According to Black's Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition, page 267,
defines a class of actions as:

   "A lawsuit in which the court authorizes a single person or a
small group of people to represent the interests of a larger group,
specifically a lawsuit in which the convenience either of the
public or of the interested parties requires that the case be
settled through litigation by or against only a part of the group
of similarly situated persons and in which a person whose interests
are or may be affected does not have an opportunity to protect his
or her interests by appearing personally or through a personally
selected representative, or through a person specially appointed to
act as a trustee or guardian."

On the peculiarity of class action, the court held at page 16
that:

   "In a class action, the class must be so large that individual
suits would be impracticable. There must be legal or factual
questions common to the class. The claims or defences of the
representative parties must adequately protect the interests of the
class."

On the distinction between class action and representative action,
the court held at page 17 that:

    "(1) In my view, class action is restricted to interpretation
of written instruments, statutes, administration of estates,
property subject to trust, customary, family or communal property,
whereas a representative action on the other hand, may be brought
on any cause of action.

   (2) A class action requires appointment by the judge whereas a
representative action does not require leave of court.

   (3) In a class action, notice of appointment is required,
whereas notice of representation is not required in a
representative action.

   (4) Class members may not be identifiable and ascertainable in a
class of action, but interested persons are ascertainable in a
representative action.

   (5) No doubt, I am aware that in class actions, members are only
to have interest whereas in representative actions, members must
have same interest. See: Order 13, Rule 12 and Order 13, Rule 13 of
the High Court of Lagos State Civil Procedure Rules, 2012."

Conclusively on the issue, the court summed it up as follows:

   "There is no gainsaying the fact that a judge is empowered to
appoint one or more persons to represent a person or class or
members of the class in instances where a judge is satisfied that a
person, the class or some members of the class interested cannot be
ascertained, the person, the class or some members of the class
interested, cannot be found, the person, class and the members
thereof cannot be ascertained and be found...Thus, the lower court,
in my view, went on a frolic of its own in its position that there
must be assignments of contracts of members represented or that, an
enforcement trust must be created in a class action. Accordingly,
issue 1 is resolved in favour of the Appellant and against the
Respondent."

Mr. Babalola noted, "Although, I lost the appeal on the ground
relating to non-fulfilment of condition precedent (which ought to
be tested at the Supreme Court) the silver-lining in this decision
for me, is the comprehensive consideration given to class action
procedure which has been repeatedly, in different fora, been
confused with the representative actions."

"On the whole, I am grateful to the learned Justices of the Court
of Appeal for pronouncing extensively on this procedural phenomenon
which remains underutilized in our courts even till this day." [GN]



APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Court Dismisses Naglich Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARK NAGLICH, Lead Plaintiff, Plaintiffs, v. APPLIED
OPTOELECTRONICS, THOMPSON LIN, and STEFAN J. MURRAY, Defendants,
Civil Action No. H-18-3544 (S.D. Tex.), Judge Sim Lake of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division, granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Amended Class Action Complaint.

The action is brought against Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.,
("AOI"), AOI's CEO and President, Thompson Lin, and AOI's CFO,
Stefan J. Murry, for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, during a proposed class
period beginning on Aug. 7, 2018, and ending on Septe. 27, 2018.

On Jan. 4, 2019, the Court signed an Order Granting the Motion of
Putative Class Member Mark Naglich for Consolidation, Appointment
as Lead Plaintiff, and Approval of His Selection of Counsel and
Denying the Competing Motions.  Pursuant to the Jan. 4, 2019 Order,
Mark Naglich was appointed the Lead Plaintiff for the consolidated
class action, and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP was appointed
as the Lead Counsel for the class.  On March 5, 2019, the Lead
Plaintiff and additional Plaintiff Rick Fasnacht filed the ACAC.

The Plaintiffs allege that AOI designs and manufactures a range of
communications products, used primarily by large, internet-based
data center operators such as Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft.  AOI
is incorporated under the laws of Delaware, its principal office is
located in Sugar Land, Texas, and its securities trade on the
NASDAQ exchange.  They that throughout the class period, Defendant
Lin served as AOI's President and CEO, and Defendant Murry served
as AOI's CFO and Chief Strategy Officer.

Pending before the court is the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, the
Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action complaint which
includes a request for leave to amend, andthe  Reply in Support of
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action
Complaint.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' ACAC should be dismissed
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to
state a claim for which relief may be granted because the ACAC
fails to plead an actionable misstatement or omission, scienter, or
loss causation.  They also argue that the Plaintiffs' secondary
liability claim for violation of Section 20(a) fails, and that they
should not be permitted an opportunity to amend.

Judge Lake concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to state
claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, against the Defendants arising from their
failure to timely update sales predictions and earnings guidance
made on Aug. 7, 2018, when AOI temporarily suspended shipments of
product to Facebook.  Accordingly, he granted the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint.  The
claims asserted against the Defendants are dismissed with
prejudice.

The Judge also concludes that the Plaintiffs should not be allowed
an additional opportunity to amend.  Accordingly, Judge Feuerstein
denied the Plaintiff's request to amend stated at the end of their
Memorandum in Opposition.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2020 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/vSqFxA from Leagle.com.

Gaurav Taneja & Ronaldo Borgogni, Plaintiffs, represented by Willie
C. Briscoe -- wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com -- The Briscoe Law
Firm, PLLC.

Robert Bernstein & Stanley Nugit, Plaintiffs, represented by Marc
M. Seltzer, Susman Godfrey LLP & William R.H. Merrill, Susman
Godfrey.

Mark Naglich, LEAD PLAINTIFF, Plaintiff, represented by Johnston De
Forest Whitman, Jr., Kessler Topaz et al, Joshua A. Materese,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Samuel C. Feldman, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & Thomas Robert Ajamie, Ajamie LLP.

Xiaoming Liang, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Michael Schreiber,
Schreiber Knockaert PLLC.

Rigo Caudill, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas E. Bilek, The Bilek
Law Firm LLP.

Rick Fasnacht, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua A. Materese,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Samuel C. Feldman, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & Thomas Robert Ajamie, Ajamie LLP.

Davin Pokoik, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Michael
Schreiber, Schreiber Knockaert PLLC.

Stephen McGrath, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Melissa Ann
Fortunato, Bragar Eagel Squire P C & Thomas E. Bilek, The Bilek Law
Firm LLP.

Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., Thompson Lin & Stefan J. Murry,
Defendants, represented by Michael C. Holmes -- mholmes@velaw.com
-- Vinson & Elkins, Allison Lee Fuller -- afuller@velaw.com --
Vinson & Elkins & Richard Kent Piacenti -- kpiacenti@velaw.com --
Vinson and Elkins LLP.

Chih-Hsiang Lin, Consol Defendant, represented by Allison Lee
Fuller, Vinson & Elkins.

ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Appeal in Artex Clients' Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the appeal in the
class action suit by the micro-captive clients of Artex Risk
Solutions, Inc. or Tribeca Strategic Advisors, is still pending

On December 7, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company, its subsidiary Artex Risk Solutions, Inc. and other
defendants including Tribeca Strategic Advisors (Tribeca), in the
Unites States District Court for the District of Arizona. The named
plaintiffs are micro-captive clients of Artex or Tribeca and their
related entities and owners who had IRC Section 831(b) tax benefits
disallowed by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

The complaint attempts to state various causes of action and
alleges that the defendants defrauded the plaintiffs by marketing
and managing micro-captives with the knowledge that the captives
did not constitute bona fide insurance and thus would not qualify
for tax benefits.

The named plaintiffs are seeking to certify a class of all persons
who were assessed back taxes, penalties or interest by the IRS as a
result of their ownership of or involvement in an IRS Section
831(b) micro-captive formed or managed by Artex or Tribeca during
the time period January 1, 2005 to the present.

The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought by the
named plaintiffs or the putative class.

On August 5, 2019, the trial court granted the defendants' motion
to compel arbitration and dismissed the class action lawsuit.
Plaintiffs are appealing this ruling to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Arthur J. Gallagher said, "We will continue to defend against the
lawsuit vigorously. Litigation is inherently uncertain, however,
and it is not possible for us to predict the ultimate outcome of
this matter and the financial impact to us, nor are we able to
reasonably estimate the amount of any potential loss in connection
with this lawsuit."

Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., together with its subsidiaries, provides
insurance brokerage, consulting, and third party claims settlement
and administration services to entities in the United States and
internationally. The company offers its services through a network
of correspondent insurance brokers and consultants. Arthur J.
Gallagher & Co. was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Rolling
Meadows, Illinois.


AUSTRALIA: Class Action Mulled Over Robodebt Scheme
---------------------------------------------------
Denham Sadler, writing for InnovationAus, reports that the
Australian government's robodebt scheme has hit a "new low" with
revelations that vulnerable Australians were increasingly targeted
last year, despite warnings the scheme was illegal, the federal
Opposition says.

According to documents released in answer to a Senate Estimates
question on notice, the number of tax returns of Sickness Allowance
and Disability Support Pension recipients garnishered due to a
robodebt increased by 2000 per cent last financial year.

The figures showed that more than 11,000 disability support
pensioners had paid back a robodebt in full since 2016, with the
number increased by 230 per cent year-on-year in 2018-19.

Nearly $8 million was paid back by disability support pensioners
through robodebt in 2018-19, up from $2.3 million in the year
before.

Individuals on Sickness Allowance paid back $2.8 million in
2018-19, up from $1.6 million in 2017-18.

This targeting of vulnerable individuals took place while the
legality of robodebt was being called into question. It was also
recently revealed that the government itself had received advice
that robodebts raised based on income averaging were "not lawful
debts".

Shadow government services minister Bill Shorten labelled the
revelations a "new low" for the government and its handling of
robodebt, saying the system had "gone into overdrive against
vulnerable recipients".

"This is not a helping hand for people in need. This is a new low
for this government and its handling of social security," Mr
Shorten said.

"Robodebt is illegal. And what's worse is the government has known
it is while deploying it against the vulnerable," he said

"It is time for Minister Stuart Robert to come clean with the
public about what he knew and when, as well as revealing details of
his scheme to repay innocent Australians."

Recently released emails between high-level ATO officials revealed
that the government had previously received legal advice that its
robodebt scheme may be illegal.

The emails showed that the ATO was told by the Department of Social
Services that debts raised through income averaging were "not
lawful debts".

The emails were sent in November, on the same day that the
government announced a major overhaul of the scheme in the face of
growing criticism and a class action lawsuit.

"In further discussion with DSS, it appears that what you need to
raise is: they have advised you that they have received legal
advice that debts based solely upon DSS own income averaging of ATO
annual tax data are not lawful debts," ATO general counsel Jonathan
Todd wrote to ATO commissioner Chris Jordan in November.

"In view of that legal advice . . . it appears that robodebts are
not debts due to the Commonwealth."

The government has refused to release this legal advice or even
confirm when it received it.

The government's use of the potentially illegal robodebt scheme to
target vulnerable Australians is "absolutely reprehensible", senior
lecturer at Deakin University Dr Monique Mann said.

"The system aims to recoup welfare spending in a way that is
irrefutably unfair. It identified debts that don't exist and debts
that they're not lawfully able to claim. That's what the class
action will be arguing," Dr Mann told InnovationAus.

"The majority of welfare recipients live below the poverty line,
and the program explicitly targeted vulnerable and marginalised
members and the government continually proposed an expansion of the
program to continually target them in various ways.

"The government here has not done its due diligence, and that's
consistent with its refusal to release the advice or information,
and its approach and strategies in defending robodebt. This is
intentional deception by the government and the department in
relation to this very inhumane, unfair, unjust and punitive
program."

Late last year, the federal government confirmed it would no longer
be issuing robodebts based solely on the flaw income averaging
method, with a review to be conducted into debts already raised
this way.

A class action lawsuit is set to be launched against the scheme,
with the Federal Court also recently ruling that it was illegal.

The Coalition revealed further changes to its welfare spending
crackdown earlier this year, with recipients to report their income
after actually being paid, instead of while they were earning it.

The new system would involve an online platform where welfare
recipients report their earnings, with data automatically uploaded
from the ATO.

While robodebt appears to have been scaled back, scrutiny should
still be applied to the government's efforts to claw cash back from
welfare recipients, Dr Mann said.

"There are going to be massive consequences in terms of the
government reassessing debts, but I think we have to be a bit
cautious about what's coming next. We have to be mindful of the
consequences in terms of enhanced data collecting and matching,"
she said.

"I don't think the government will let this one slide, and they
will improve their systems. I don't think robodebt being illegal is
the end of this, as the government is attempting to regulate and
punish welfare recipients." [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Faces Increased Pressure Over Robodebt Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------
Luke Henriques-Gomes, writing for The Guardian, reports that
disability support pension recipients were increasingly forced to
pay back alleged welfare overpayments as the government's botched
robodebt scheme progressed, despite repeated claims that the
program did not target the vulnerable.

As the government faces increased pressure over emails showing it
received legal advice the scheme was unlawful, it can be revealed
that at least 11,000 disability support pensioners have paid back
robodebts in full since 2016, and the value of debts settled in
full by these recipients increased by 230% between 2017-18 and
2018-19.

The legality of the scheme was already under scrutiny -- with the
government facing a federal court challenge -- as more money was
extracted from disability support pensioners, who were on track to
give up a record amount in the six months to December. The
government settled the case in November.

Now, many of the 600,000 debts issued are under a legal cloud, as
the government faces the prospect of being forced to refund
thousands of welfare recipients issued debts solely based on the
flawed "income averaging" methodology.

Bill Shorten, Labor's government services spokesman, told Guardian
Australia: "Assurances by the government that they have not been
using robodebt on vulnerable people have been revealed to be
plainly false."

Individual robodebt cases against the vulnerable -- including a
$14,500 debt against a disability support pensioner -- have
previously been reported, but the government has always played down
the number of vulnerable people captured by the scheme.

When the Guardian in August revealed a secret proposal to
significantly expand the program to target people aged over 65 and
other "sensitive groups", which would include people with
disabilities, the government said it was not "considering any
proposal to commence online compliance for vulnerable
Australians".

The new figures, provided to the Senate in response to questions
from Labor, add to the evidence that people who the public would
consider vulnerable have increasingly been drawn into the scheme.

They show disability support pensioners paid back $7.7m in
robodebts throughout 2018-19, up from $2.3m in 2017-18. In the six
months to 31 December 2019, they had already paid back $7.2m.

Among those receiving Sickness Allowance -- paid at the Newstart
rate for people unable to work due to a medical condition --
Centrelink raked in $2.8m in 2018-19, an increase from $1.6m over
the previous 12 months. Again, 2019-20 was set to be the most
lucrative year for Centrelink among this group, with $2.2m already
paid back in just six months.

However, the data only covers debts paid back in full, meaning it
is likely that the total number of debts issued and the value of
those alleged overpayments would be much larger.

The government has previously said it issued about 600,000 debts
worth about $1.9bn as part of the scheme, though most of that money
has not yet been paid back. In general, the scheme has focused on
alleged overpayments from Newstart, Youth Allowance and parenting
payment.

A spokesman for Services Australia, Hank Jongen, told the Canberra
Times in November that an "early change to the program" made by the
agency was that it would not conduct income compliance reviews for
people with vulnerability indicators.

But under Centrelink's processes, disability support pension
recipients are not automatically given a vulnerability indicator on
their file.

Shorten said: "Services Australia touted improvements to the system
to spare the vulnerable, but these figures obtained by Labor in the
Senate show the opposite."

The Greens senator Rachel Siewert said she was also deeply
concerned the data appeared to show the government had been
"significantly targeting people on disability support pension".

"If you're on disability support pension, you already have a whole
range of issues you are dealing with, and I would suggest that they
are more vulnerable to the pressure of getting a notice," she
said.

The government said in November it had raised more than $15 million
through the robodebt program from 9,149 people with a vulnerability
indicator.

The Department of Human Services, now Services Australia, has also
previously said only a "small number" of pensioners were targeted
in online compliance reviews.

Within its submission to the Senate inquiry into the robodebt
program, it said 4% of all income reviews were targeted at
disability pensioners. This would equate to 34,000 robodebt reviews
of disability pensioners, according to a total of 850,000 reviews
recorded by the agency between 2016-2019.

The data published in the Senate showed that in 2018-19, Centrelink
seized $182,292 from tax returns over disability support pension
debts, an increase of 1,897% from the previous year.

Jongen said the data "does not represent an increase in review
activity".

He said there had been no increased focus on disability pensioners
but would not say why the value of debts paid back in full among
disability support pensioners had dramatically increased.

Addressing increase in tax refund garnishees, he added: "The
statistics reflect an overall trend in the number of former
customers meeting the criteria for tax refund garnisheeing which
occurred across all payment types during the 2018-19 financial
year.

"Tax refund garnisheeing for 2018-19 mostly reflects the
finalisation of older reviews initiated up to three years
earlier."

The government is under pressure to reveal when it received legal
advice that the robodebt scheme was unlawful. It has so far
refused, citing an ongoing class action launched by Gordon Legal
late last year. [GN]


BA SPORTS: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Advertising
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert N. Ward, writing for Ad Law Access, reports that the
plaintiffs' class action bar continues to target "healthy"
advertising claims made by food and beverage companies by bringing
expensive class action lawsuits against the companies.

The latest company forced to defend its advertising is BA Sports
Nutrition, LLC, the maker of BodyArmor SuperDrink, which was
recently hit with a putative class action in the Northern District
of California.  The lawsuit, Silver v. BA Sports Nutrition, LLC,
No. 20-cv-00633 (N.D. Cal.), alleges that, despite BodyArmor's
labels and advertisements representing SuperDrink as providing
"superior hydration," "better hydration," and a "more natural" way
to hydrate, the drink is actually a "dressed-up soda masquerading
as a health drink."

The named plaintiffs allege that BA Sports misleadingly advertises
BodyArmor -- through labels, TV and billboard advertisements, and
paid social media influencers -- as healthy despite each 16-ounce
bottle containing the full daily recommended limit of sugar for
adult men, and more than the recommended daily limit for children
and adult women.  Although BA Sports fortifies BodyArmor with
vitamins, the complaint alleges that this fortification is unlawful
because the FDA prohibits fortifying junk foods just to market them
as healthy—the so-called "jelly bean rule."

But BodyArmor is not alone. Seemingly the entire food and beverage
industry remains within class action plaintiffs' crosshairs.   For
example, advertisements for coconut-based products have been the
target of several actions in recent years.

In 2017, Costco settled an action challenging the labels on its
coconut oil product, which advertised the product's "health
benefits" and encouraged consumers to use the oil as a substitute
for butter when, in fact, the product allegedly contained a high
amount of saturated fat.

Danone US Inc. has faced a pair of similar class actions in
California challenging the advertising of its coconut milk
products.  Last year, in Andrade-Heymsfield v. Danone US, Inc., No.
19-cv-589, 2019 WL 3817948 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2019), the Southern
District of California dismissed claims alleging that Danone
deceptively advertised its So Delicious Coconut Milk.  There, the
court concluded that the label's claims that the milk contains
"good fats" and can help maintain "healthy" bones through calcium
and vitamin D were "structure and function" claims about the milk's
nutrients and their effects, which are allowed by the FDA.  The
court also held that a reasonable consumer would be able to tell
that the label's reference to "healthy" refers to promoting bone
health rather than representing that the product as a whole is
healthy.

The next month, however, in Marshall v. Danone US, Inc., 402 F.
Supp. 3d 831 (N.D. Cal. 2019), the Northern District of California
denied Danone's motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging
that the "cholesterol-free" representation on its Silk Coconutmilk
label misleads consumers into believing the milk has health
benefits, which allegedly are belied by its saturated fat content
of three or more grams per serving.

BA Sports -- which was filed by some of the same plaintiffs'
counsel that pursued similar allegations against Coca-Cola's
vitamin-water product in Ackerman v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 11-02215
(E.D.N.Y.) and Ford v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 09-00395 (E.D.N.Y.) -- is
another reminder that, as consumers continue to express a desire
for healthy foods and products, the plaintiffs' bar will continue
to bring these type of lawsuits. [GN]


BAHA BURGER: Fails to Pay Overtime to Cooks, Smith Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
MONTRAY SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BAHA BURGER, LLC, and ERIC FINNEY,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00222-RDP (N.D. Ala., February 19,
2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendants
for their alleged failure to pay overtime compensation in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked as a cook for Defendant.

According to the complaint, Defendant classified Plaintiff as
non-exempt from the requirements of the FLSA and failed to pay
Plaintiff an overtime rate of one and one-half times his regular
rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff seeks for declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs and a reasonable
attorney's fee pursuant to the FLSA.

Eric Finney is the owner, principal, officer and/or director of
Baha Burger, and manages and controls the day-to-day operations of
Baha Burger, including but not limited to the decision to not pay
Plaintiff a sufficient premium for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week.

Baha Burger operates at least two restaurants in Alabama. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jon C. Goldfarb, Esq.
          WIGGINS CHILDS PATAZIS FISHER &
             GOLDFARB, LLC
          301 19th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Tel: (205)314-0188
          Fax: (205)254-1500
          Email: jcg@wigginschilds.com

                - and -

          Courtney Lowery, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Tel: (501)221-0088
          Fax: (888)787-2040
          Email: Courtney@sanfordlawfirm.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Douglas Class Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Claire Douglas, Mary Joan
Isabell, Heather Carlon, and Gina Pawolski, individually, on behalf
of similarly situated individuals v. Bank of America NA, a national
banking association; US Bank National Association, a national
banking association; and KeyCorp., national banking association,
Case No. 19-00002-31028-6-SEA, was removed from the Washington
Superior Court for King County to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington (Seattle) on Feb. 7, 2020.

The Western District of Washington Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-cv-00193 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit involves breach of contract allegations.

Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational investment
bank and financial services company headquartered in Charlotte,
North Carolina. US Bank is a financial services company. KeyCorp
operates as a holding company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Chris Robert Youtz, Esq.
          SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER
          3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350
          Seattle, WA 98121
          Telephone: (206) 223-0303
          Facsimile: (206) 223-0246
          E-mail: chris@sylaw.com

               - and -

          Eric Harrison, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF J. ERIC HARRISON
          5400 California Avenue SW, Suite E
          Seattle, WA 98136
          Telephone: (206) 388-8092
          E-mail: ericjohnharrison@gmail.com

               - and -

          Richard E Spoonemore, Esq.
          SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER
          3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350
          Seattle, WA 98121
          Telephone: (206) 223-0303
          Facsimile: (206) 223-0246
          E-mail: rspoonemore@sylaw.com

Bank of America is represented by:

          Kelly Drew Folger, Esq.
          ANDREWS LAGASSE BRANCH & BELL LLP
          601 West 1st Ave., Suite 1400
          Spokane, WA 99201
          Telephone: (509) 828-4408
          Facsimile: (509) 828-4407
          E-mail: kfolger@albblaw.com

US Bank is represented by:

          Alexandra P. Johnston, Esq.
          Shawn J. Larsen-Bright, Esq.
          DORSEY & WHITNEY (WA)
          701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6100
          Seattle, WA 98104-7043
          Telephone: (425) 736-5773
          E-mail: johnston.alex@dorsey.com
                  larsen.bright.shawn@dorsey.com

KeyCorp is represented by:

          Shannon L. McDougald, Esq.
          Trent M. Latta, Esq.
          MCDOUGALD LAW GROUP P.S.
          400 108th Avenue NE, Suite 510
          Bellevue, WA 98004
          Telephone: (206) 448-4800
          Facsimile: (206) 448-4801
          E-mail: smcdougald@mcdougaldlaw.com
                  tlatta@mcdougaldlaw.com


BARDES PLASTICS: Watkins Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Watkins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BARDES PLASTICS, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00316-PP (E.D.
Wisc., Feb. 26, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws to
obtain relief for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon
wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and declaratory
and/or injunctive relief.

The Defendant operated (and continues to operate) an unlawful
compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate the
Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt
Production employees for all hours worked and work performed each
workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay, says the complaint.
Specifically, the Defendant shaved time from the Plaintiff's and
all other hourly-paid, non-exempt Production employees' weekly
timesheets for pre-shift, post-shift, and in-shift hours worked
and/or work performed.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a Production employee
on July 9, 2019.

Bardes Plastics, Inc., is a plastics packaging company
headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BARNES & NOBLE: Seeks Jury Trial in Tavres Age Discrimination Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
LOCUS reports that Barnes & Noble has requested a jury trial in the
age discrimination lawsuit filed by Barbara Tavres in the US
Dis­trict Court in Northern California. Tavres was fired on
September 6, 2019 after a career that be­gan in 2006, and claimed
Barnes & Noble fired her because of her age, and also used
policies, practices, and procedures which disproportion­ately
affected employees age 40 and older. She seeks class action status.
In their response, B&N says she was fired for cause: "Plaintiff's
perfor­mance reviews speak for themselves." They say there is no
basis for a class action, and that "all employment actions taken
with respect to plain­tiff and the putative class were not based
on any discriminatory motive or in retaliation for any activity
engaged in by plaintiff or proposed class members, or based on any
other improper or il­legal consideration," but were based on "one
or more legitimate, sufficient, nondiscriminatory and
non-retaliatory reasons." They further said her allegations were
"argumentative and specu­lative" and that "to the extent alleged
as fact, Defendant denies each and every allegation" in the suit.

Barnes & Noble has been working to clear out inventory, with big
post-holiday sales of titles still available in quantity. Overall,
CEO James Daunt hopes to "reduce our inventory by 25%, but increase
our title range by about 25%." Going forward, they plan to carry
fewer copies of many titles, but have a bigger variety of titles on
the shelves, with quicker turnover to avoid holding onto titles
that don't sell, and faster replenishment when they do. Publishers
have expressed some concerns, expecting more returns, fewer big
orders, and a need to have extra inventory to help B&N restock when
needed -- but it's still seen as a good move, if the new management
can pull it off, since B&N has had trouble with replenishment in
the past. [GN]


BELLRING BRANDS: Suit Against Premier Nutrition Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Bellring Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that Premier Nutrition
continues to defend the so-called Joint Juice Litigation.

In March 2013, a complaint was filed on behalf of a putative,
nationwide class of consumers against Premier Nutrition in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California seeking
monetary damages and injunctive relief. The case asserted that some
of Premier Nutrition's advertising claims regarding its Joint
Juice(R) line of glucosamine and chondroitin dietary supplements
were false and misleading. In April 2016, the district court
certified a California-only class of consumers in this lawsuit.

In 2016 and 2017, the lead plaintiff's counsel in the California
Federal Class Lawsuit filed ten additional class action complaints
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on behalf of putative classes of consumers under the laws of
Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan and Pennsylvania. These
additional complaints contain factual allegations similar to the
California Federal Class Lawsuit, also seeking monetary damages and
injunctive relief.

In April 2018, the district court dismissed the California Federal
Class Lawsuit with prejudice. This dismissal was appealed and is
pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The
other ten complaints remain pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, and the court has certified
individual state classes in each of those cases.

In January 2019, the same lead counsel filed another class action
complaint against Premier Nutrition in Alameda County California
Superior Court, alleging claims similar to the above actions and
seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on behalf of a
putative class of California consumers.

The Company continues to vigorously defend these cases. The Company
does not believe that the resolution of these cases will have a
material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.

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

Bellring Brands, Inc. manufactures food supplements. The Company
produces nutritional items such as protein shakes, powders, and
bars. Bellring Brands serves customers in the State of Missouri.
The company is based in St. Louis, Missouri.


BHP BILLITON: Arkansas Residents Sue Over Royalty Payments
----------------------------------------------------------
DAN LARRY PENNINGTON, NORMA J. BRYANT, AARON PARISH BLACK, AS
TRUSTEE OF THE RALPH J. AND REBA J. FAMILY TRUST, AND AARON PARISH
BLACK, AS TRUSTEE OF THE REBA J. PARISH TRUST, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, PLAINTIFFS,
vs. BHP BILLITON PETROLEUM (FAYETTEVILLE) LLC, BHP BILLITON
LIMITED, BHP BILLITON PLC, MMGJ ARKANSAS UPSTREAM, LLC, AND MERIT
ENERGY INC., DEFENDANTS, Case No. 4:20-cv-00178-LPR (E.D. Ark.,
February 21, 2020) alleges that the Defendants consistently breach
the royalty payment obligations to Plaintiffs and the Class members
under the Class Royalty Agreements, based upon the sales proceeds
received on the sale of natural gas, without deduction of
post-production costs.

The Plaintiffs, who are all residents and citizens of the State of
Arkansas, have been paid royalties by SEECO, Inc. on behalf of one
or more of the Defendants under a lease agreement which contains a
gross proceeds royalty provision. SEECO has consistently deducted
various post-production costs in the calculation of royalties paid
to the members of the defined Class in contrary to claims that
SEECO did not pay royalties, on behalf of the Defendants.

BHP Billiton Petroleum (Fayetteville) LLC is a Delaware limited
liability company, which has its principal place of business at
13727 Noel Road, Ste. 1200, Dallas, Texas 75240. BHP Billiton
Petroleum (Fayetteville) LLC is registered to do business in the
State of Arkansas and can be served through its registered agent,
Corporation Service Company, 300 S. Spring St. 300, Spring Bldg,
Ste., 900 Little Rock, AR 72201.

BHP Billiton Limited and BHP Billiton PLC are the alter ego parent
companies of BHP Billiton Petroleum (Fayetteville) LLC, and control
all of BHP Billiton Petroleum (Fayetteville) LLC's activities.

MMGJ Arkansas Upstream, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company, which has its principal place of business at 13727 Noel
Road, Ste. 1200, Dallas, Texas 75240. MMGJ is authorized to do and
does business in the State of Arkansas and can be served with
process by serving the Corporation Service Company at 300 Spring
Building Ste. 900, Little Rock, AR 72201.

Merit is a Delaware Corporation, which has its principal place of
business at 13727 Noel Road, Ste. 1200, Dallas, Texas 75240.
Although not registered to do business on Arkansas, Merit's
subsidiaries, through whom Merit acts, are. Merit can be served
with process through its registered agent, The Corporation Trust
Company at Corporation Trust Center 1209 Orange St., Wilmington, DE
19801. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

            George A. Barton, Esq.
            Stacy A. Burrows, Esq.
            Sharp Barton, LLP
            7227 Metcalf, Suite 301
            Overland Park, KS 66204
            Telephone: (913) 563-6250
            Facsimile: (913) 563-6259


BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Trial in Mishal & Berger Suit in Early 2021
---------------------------------------------------------------
Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the class
action suit initiated by Tsemach Mishal and Paul Berger is set for
trial in early 2021.

On May 25, 2018, plaintiffs Tsemach Mishal and Paul Berger (on
behalf of themselves and the purported class, Plaintiffs) initiated
a purported class action in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware (the Court) against the following defendants: the Company,
Boardwalk GP, LP (Boardwalk GP), Boardwalk GP, LLC and Boardwalk
Pipelines Holding Corp. or BPHC (together, Defendants), regarding
the potential exercise by Boardwalk GP of its right to purchase the
issued and outstanding common units of the Company not already
owned by Boardwalk GP or its affiliates (Purchase Right).

On June 25, 2018, Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement, subject to
the approval of the Court (the Proposed Settlement). Under the
terms of the Proposed Settlement, the lawsuit would be dismissed,
and related claims against the Defendants would be released by the
Plaintiffs, if BPHC, the sole member of the general partner of
Boardwalk GP, elected to cause Boardwalk GP to exercise its
Purchase Right for a cash purchase price, as determined by the
Company's Third Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited
Partnership, as amended (the Limited Partnership Agreement), and
gave notice of such election as provided in the Limited Partnership
Agreement within a period specified by the Proposed Settlement.

On June 29, 2018, Boardwalk GP elected to exercise the Purchase
Right and gave notice within the period specified by the Proposed
Settlement. On July 18, 2018, Boardwalk GP completed the purchase
of the Company's common units pursuant to the Purchase Right.

On September 28, 2018, the Court denied approval of the Proposed
Settlement. On February 11, 2019, a substitute verified class
action complaint was filed in this proceeding. The Defendants filed
a motion to dismiss, which was heard by the Court in July 2019. In
October 2019, the Court ruled on the motion and granted a partial
dismissal, with certain aspects of the case proceeding to trial.

The case will be set for trial in early 2021.

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

Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP, through its subsidiaries, owns and
operates integrated natural gas and natural gas liquids and other
hydrocarbons (NGLs) pipeline and storage systems in the United
States. The company operates natural gas pipeline systems in the
Gulf Coast region, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, as well as the
Midwestern states of Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, and
Ohio; and NGLs pipelines and storage facilities in Louisiana and
Texas. Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP was founded in 2005 and is
headquartered in Houston, Texas. Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP is
a subsidiary of Boardwalk Pipelines Holding Corp.


BULBS.COM INC: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
-----------------------------------------------
Bulbs.com Incorporated is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Bulbs.com Incorporated, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-01661 (S.D. N.Y., Feb. 25, 2020).

Bulbs.com operates as an online distributor of replacement lighting
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal



C AND T HOMECARE: Etchebehere Seeks OT Pay for Home Health Aides
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MARCELLA ETCHEBEHERE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. C AND T HOMECARE SERVICES LLC and
JAHID HOSSAIN, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00976 (E.D.N.Y.,
February 21, 2020), arises from the Defendants' violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants violated FLSA and NYLL
requirements by failing to pay wages in accordance with the agreed
terms of her employment including overtime pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek, failing to furnish
accurate wage statements for each pay period, and failing to
provide a wage notice upon her hire.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a home health aide
from August 2018 to April 2019.

C and T Homecare Services LLC is a company that provides home
health care services, among others, to elderly and disabled
clients, with a location at 175-61 Hillside Avenue, Suite 206,
Jamaica, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David D. Barnhorn, Esq.
          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          825 Veterans Highway, Suite B
          Hauppauge, NY 11788          
          Telephone: (631) 257-5588

CABI LLC: Cruz Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cabi, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael Cruz,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Cabi, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01662 (S.D. N.Y., Feb.
25, 2020).

Cabi, LLC was founded in 2004. The company's line of business
includes the wholesale distribution of women's, children's, and
infants' clothing and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


CANADA: Federal Court Certifies $1.1-Bil. RCMP Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jane Gerster, writing for Global News, reports that the Federal
Court has certified a $1.1-billion class action alleging RCMP
leadership fostered and condoned an environment of systemic
bullying, intimidation and harassment.

The federal government attempted to shut down the class action last
summer, arguing that its own internal processes -- updated in 2014
following numerous reports of sexual harassment -- were adequate to
deal with the claims.

But as Justice Ann Marie McDonald wrote in her January decision: "I
am not satisfied that the claims could be fully adjudicated through
the available internal mechanisms."

That decision comes as a relief for Staff Sgt. Geoffrey Greenwood,
one of the lead plaintiffs, who still works as a plainclothes
Mountie in Red Deer, Alta.

"I have zero faith in the internal processes within the RCMP," he
said in an interview.

"There is a systemic culture of intimidation and bullying that
nobody to date has ever gotten a handle on or even, in my opinion,
tried to rectify."

Spokespeople for the RCMP have told Global News repeatedly in the
last few months that it remains "focused on taking all possible
steps to ensure a safe and respectful work environment for our
employees."

The class action was proposed in June 2018, calling out the RCMP
for what it alleges is a toxic work environment. The statement of
claim was filed one year after two workplace harassment reports
commissioned by the federal government laid bare a "culture of
dysfunction" within Canada's national police force.

One of those reports, by the force's own Civilian Review and
Complaints Commission (CRCC), noted pervasive problems within the
force's paramilitary structure.

"There has been no shortage of solutions proposed," the report
said.

"In the past decade alone, over 15 reviews have been conducted of
the RCMP and its organizational culture, identifying a dizzying
array of more than 200 recommendations for reform. Unfortunately,
few have been implemented."

That's the crux of the issue, says Megan McPhee, the lawyer
handling the class action.

"The RCMP has tried to characterize this as simple workplace
disputes and that really doesn't capture what the issues are or how
serious and pervasive the issues are," McPhee said. "This case is
about systemic problems within the force."

McDonald acknowledged the many reviews and the many recommendations
they generated in her decision to certify the class action.

"Against this backdrop, I do not see the proposed claims as
‘ordinary' employment disputes," she wrote in her decision.

"The internal processes and how they are, or are not administered,
forms a core component of the claims advanced by the plaintiffs,"
McDonald wrote, although she noted that certification does not mean
all the claims have merit.

However, she wrote, she is "not convinced that it is ‘plain and
obvious' the claim will fail."

Greenwood told Global News he decided to become involved in the
class action because of his own experience being bullied in the
force.

Greenwood joined the Mounties in 1990. In an affidavit filed in
support of the class action's certification, he says he was told he
had a "bright future" in the force until he began investigating
financial inconsistencies and suspected leaks within a street-level
drug unit that he initiated in 2005 in Yellowknife.

One person arrested by his unit alleged he'd seen a Mountie paid
$60,000 for providing information identifying undercover Mounties
and upcoming drug raids, but Greenwood said in his affidavit that
he kept investigating -- bolstered by reassurances he wouldn't face
any repercussions. [GN]


CENTURY-NATIONAL: Solomon Sues over Motor Vehicle Insurance
-----------------------------------------------------------
KAYLA SOLOMON, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CENTURY-NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 102676794 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., Feb.
3, 2020) is an action against the Defendant for violating the terms
of a motor vehicle insurance policy and the Florida Statute.

Century insures Solomon and all its Florida individual automobile
insurance policyholders using the identical Form FL APP-Value 04/17
or another policy form with identical language in all relevant
provisions.  The Collision and Comprehensive coverages of the
Policy, on their faces, allow Century to adjust and settle a
first-party motor vehicle total loss via a cash settlement by
paying the "actual cash value" of the total loss vehicle.

Century purported to adjust and settle Solomon's total loss in this
manner, but it does not do so in reality. Specifically, Century
used the CCC ONE Market Value system, a proprietary electronic
database product licensed from CCC Information Services Inc., to
adjust and settle Century's total loss claims in Florida.

The lawsuit contends that the Defendant's action violates the
Florida Statutes and breaches the Collision and Comprehensive
coverages of the Policy because:

     1. the CCC system is not based upon the "actual cost to
purchase a comparable motor vehicle" or its "retail cost" because
it uses advertised prices of comparable vehicles and not sales data
for comparable vehicles.

     2. even if advertised prices of comparable vehicles could be
used to calculate the "actual cost to purchase a comparable motor
vehicle" or its "retail cost," advertised prices minus arbitrary
and capricious "Uniform Condition Adjustments" cannot possibly do
so.

     3. the CCC system is not a "generally recognized used vehicle
industry source" as required by the Policy.

Century additionally violates the Florida Statute and thus breaches
the Collision and Comprehensive coverages of the Policy by failing
to include in its cash payments the minimum $79.35 in fees charged
by the State of Florida in connection with the transfer of title
and license to a new vehicle and the fees charged by dealers for
the costs and profit to the dealers for items such as inspecting,
cleaning and adjusting vehicles and preparing documents related to
the sale (often referred to as dealer fees, document fees and/or
administrative fees), which fees are added to the purchase price of
vehicles for sale by cash, finance or for lease and are of the type
that are required to be disclosed by Florida Statute.

Century-National Insurance Company provides insurance services. The
Company offers flood, renters, mobile home, business, and personal
auto insurance. Century-National Insurance serves customers in the
the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott R. Jeeves, Esq.
          THE JEEVES LAW GROUP, P.A.
          954 First Avenue North
          St. Petersburg, FL 33705
          Telephone: (727) 894-2929
          E-mail: sjeeves@jeeveslawgroup.com

               - and –

          Craig E. Rothburd, Esq.
          CRAIG E. ROTHBURD, P.A.
          320 W. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 700
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: (813) 251-8800
          E-mail: crothburd@e-rlaw.com

               - and –

          Casim Adam Neff, Esq.
          NEFF INSURANCE LAW, PLLC
          P.O. Box 15063
          St. Petersburg, FL 33733-5063
          Telephone: (727) 342-0617
          E-mail: cneff@neffinsurancelaw.com

               - and –

          Edward H. Zebersky, Esq.
          Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
          ZEBERSKY PAYNE, LLP
          110 S.E. 6 th Street, Suite 210
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 989-6333
          E-mails: ezebersky@zpllp.com;
                   mfistos@zpllp.com; ndiaz@zpllp.com

               - and –

          Alec H. Schultz, Esq.
          Carly A. Kligler, Esq.
          LEON COSGROVE, LLP
          255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 800
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-1975
          E-mail: ashultz@leoncosgrove.com;

               - and -

          John Randall Whaley, Esq.
          WHALEY LAW FIRM
          3112 Valley Creek Drive, Suite D 650
          Baton Rouge, LA 70808
          Telephone: (225) 302-8810
          Facsimile: (225) 302-8814
          E-mail: jrwhaley@whaleylaw.com


CHATEAU NURSING: Villeneuve Sues Over Illegal Use of Biometrics
---------------------------------------------------------------
SYLVIA VILLENEUVE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CHATEAU NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER,
LLC, Case No. 2020L000147 (Ill. Cir., Feb. 4, 2020), accuses the
Defendant of illegally collecting, storing and using the
Plaintiff's and other individuals' biometric identifiers and
biometric information without obtaining informed written consent or
providing the requisite data retention and destruction policies, in
direct violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's practice of requiring
employees to "clock in" using their fingerprints was in place at
least since September 2016. She left the Defendant's employ in
December 2016 and was "clocking in" using her fingerprints during
her tenure of employment with the Defendant. She asserts that if
the Defendant's database of digitized fingerprints were to fall
into the wrong hands, by data breach or otherwise, the employees to
whom these sensitive and immutable biometric identifiers belong
could have their identities stolen, among other serious issues.

The Defendant is a 150-bed skilled nursing facility.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD.
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312 283 3814
          Facsimile: 773.496.8617
          E-mail: gklinger@kozonislaw.com

               - and -

          Peter S. Lubin, Esq.
          Patrick D. Austermuehle, Esq.
          LUBIN AUSTERMUEHLE, P.C. (26624)
          360 West Butterfield Road, Suite 325
          Elmhurst, IL 60126
          Telephone: (630) 333-0333
          E-mail: peter@l-a.law
                  patrick@l-a.law


CHRISTOS BUILDING: Villalta Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO ERNESTO VILLALTA, Individually and On Behalf Of Others
Similarly Situated v. CHRISTOS BUILDING SERVICES, LLC (CBS) and
CHRISTOS SARANTIS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00351 (D. Colo., Feb. 7, 2020),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, back-pay, restitution, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and damages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the D.C. Wage Payment and Wage
Collection Act, and the D.C. Minimum Wage Act Revision Act.

The Plaintiff has been harmed by the Defendants' willful,
intentional payroll scheme to deny him and other similarly situated
individuals overtime wages at the time-and-one-half rate required
by federal and state laws, says the complaint.

From 2001 through Jan. 2020, the Defendants employed the Plaintiff
to perform cleaning, janitorial, and paining services at apartment
buildings, condominium buildings, and office buildings in the
District of Columbia and also in Virginia and Maryland.

The Defendants provide office cleaning, janitorial, and painting
work to clients, customers, and property owners.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587-9373
          E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com


COMMUNITY BUILDERS: Vanhorn Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
NIKKI VANHORN and STORME HASKINS, Each Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. COMMUNITY BUILDERS,
INCORPORATED, CBI HOME IMPROVEMENTS and GREG WOLTER, Case No.
4:20-cv-00118-DPM (E.D. Ark., Feb. 4, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of the Defendants' failure
to pay the Plaintiffs and other hourly-paid workers lawful overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week
pursuant to FLSA and AMWA.

The Defendants are doing business in real estate industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          Tess Bradford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  tess@sanfordlawfirm.com


CONCORD HEALTHCARE: Did Not Pay for All Time Worked, Timmons Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Timmons and Amanda Rollins, and other similarly situated v.
CONCORD HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC, GARDENDALE REHABILITATION AND
NURSING CENTER, JOSEF NEUMAN, OSCAR ROSENBERG, AND SHERYL SMITH,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00056-JRG (E.D. Tex., Feb. 26, 2020), accuses the
Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to
pay for all time that the Plaintiffs worked.

The Defendants have failed to pay the Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated employees for continuous workday activities,
which are integral and indispensable to their principal activities,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employees of the Defendants. The Plaintiffs
seek to recover their unpaid wages, overtime, liquidated damages,
all available equitable relief, attorney fees, and litigation
expenses/costs, including expert witness fees and expenses.

Concord Healthcare Group, LLC own or did own numerous
rehabilitation and nursing facilities in the State of Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bob Whitehurst, Esq.
          5380 Old Bullard Road
          Suite 600, #363
          Tyler, TX 75703
          Phone: (903)593-5588


CRAFTS GROUP: Cruz Asserts Breach of Americans w/  Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Crafts Group, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael
Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Crafts Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01668
(S.D. N.Y., Feb. 25, 2020).

Crafts Group, LLC is a family owned business offering crafters
quality supplies at affordable prices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


CRATE & BARREL: Lucius Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Mobile App
--------------------------------------------------------------
Windy Lucius, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
CRATE & BARREL HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-20833-FAM (S.D.
Fla., Feb. 26, 2020), alleges that the Defendant violated the
Americans with Disabilities Act by offering and maintaining a
mobile application that is not fully accessible and independently
usable by visually impaired consumers.

A mobile application is software that is intended to run on mobile
devices, such as phones or tablet computers.

The Defendant's App does not properly interact with Apple's
assistive technology in a manner that will allow the blind and
visually impaired to enjoy the app, nor does it provide other means
to accommodate the blind and visually impaired, the Plaintiff
asserts. She says that she has downloaded and attempted to
patronize the Defendant's App in the past and intends to continue
to make further attempts to patronize the App.

However, the Plaintiff contends, unless the Defendant is required
to eliminate the access barriers at issue and required to change
its policies so that access barriers do not reoccur on the
Defendant's App, she will continue to be denied full and equal
access to the App and will be deterred from fully using the
Defendant's App or shopping at the physical locations.

The Plaintiff is blind and has been blind for the past nine years.
The Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, frustration
and humiliation as the result of the discriminatory conditions
present at the Defendant's App, says the complaint.

The Defendant offers its App to the general public from which it
sells a variety of products ranging from furniture to
houseware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.
          J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC
          8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201
          Miami, FL 33156
          Phone: 305-351-2014
          Email: cc@cunninghampllc.com


CREDIT CONTROL: Ward Files FDCPA Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Maghen Ward, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Credit
Control Services, Inc., doing business as: Credit Collection
Services ("CCS"), Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00430-KJM-DB (E.D.,
Cal., Feb. 25, 2020).

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

Credit Control is a St. Louis credit collection service that offers
debt collections and accounts receivables management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CRESTVIEW PARTNERS: Faces Searles Suit Alleging Breaches of Duty
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Searles, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CRESTVIEW PARTNERS, L.P., RICHARD M. DEMARTINI,
CHRISTOPHER G. MARSHALL, R. EUGENE TAYLOR, CRESTVIEW NAFH, LLC and
CRESTVIEW ADVISORS, L.L.C., Case No. 2020-0136 (Del. Ch., Feb. 26,
2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other former
stockholders of Capital Bank Financial Corp. alleging that the
Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties as directors
and/or officers of Capital Bank and the Crestview entities.

The action arises out of the sale of Capital Bank to First Horizon
National Corporation pursuant to which Capital Bank stockholders
received (i) $7.90 cash and (ii) 1.75 shares of First Horizon
common stock for every share of Capital Bank common stock.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Merger was the product of a fraud on
the board by (i) the Crestview entities and constituency director
Rich DeMartini; and (ii) Capital Bank co-founders R. Eugene Taylor
(CEO at the time of the Merger) and Chris Marshall (CFO at the time
of the Merger). The Plaintiff contends that Mr. DeMartini defrauded
Capital Bank's Board and otherwise breached his fiduciary duties at
Crestview's behest and for Crestview's benefit, rendering Crestview
liable for aiding and abetting Mr. DeMartini's breaches of
fiduciary duty.

According to the complaint, the facts surrounding the Crestview
designee director and the two senior members of management are only
more troubling. In 2009 and 2010, Crestview purchased approximately
10% of Capital Bank's Class A common stock and 35% of Capital
Bank's Class B non-voting common stock for approximately $224.7
million. By late 2016, Crestview's stake was worth nearly $500
million, and Crestview decided to exit its successful investment.

Starting in the fall of 2016, Barclays worked closely with (i)
Crestview to "liquidate their successful investment into Capital
Bank" and (ii) Capital Bank CFO Chris Marshall and Crestview
constituency director Rich DeMartini, who together ran the "whole
'sell side' process," to find a buyer at or around $40.

On May 3, 2017, Capital Bank and First Horizon announced the
Merger. The Merger consideration of $7.90 per share in cash and
1.75 First Horizon shares for every Capital Bank share implied a
value of $40.38 per share, a 1.3% discount to Capital Bank's
unaffected market price and a 3.2% discount to Capital Bank's stock
price on the day the Merger was announced. Evidencing the market's
unhappiness with the Merger, Capital Bank's stock price fell more
than 5% upon the Merger's announcement, from $42.05 per share at
close on May 3, 2017 to $39.75 at close on May 4, 2017.

On July 31, 2017, Capital Bank issued its Definitive Proxy
Statement. The Plaintiff avers that the Proxy was materially
misleading in several respects. Most notably, the Proxy failed to
disclose that (i) Crestview was seeking to liquidate its holdings
and (ii) Barclays had any involvement in the sell-side before
switching to the buy side. As a result of these material omissions,
Capital Bank's stockholders' approval was not fully informed and is
not entitled to deference, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff alleges that Capital Bank's Board never learned that
(i) Crestview was looking to liquidate its substantial stake; (ii)
that Mr. DeMartini was involved in, much less running, the sale
process; (iii) that Barclays was helping Crestview liquidate its
stake; or (iv) that Capital Bank management had authorized Barclays
to explore strategic alternatives on the Company's behalf.

Plaintiff Sandra Searles owned Capital Bank stock.

Crestview Partners, L.P. is a private equity firm focused on
leveraged buyouts, growth capital, and distressed-for-control
investments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
          Andrew E. Blumberg, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
          New York, NY 10020
          Phone: (212) 554-1400

               - and -

          Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          500 Delaware Avenue
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 364-3601

               - and -

          Francis A. Bottini, Esq.
          BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
          7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Phone: (858) 914-2001
          Fax: (858) 914-2002


DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: $14M Rapuano Suit Settlement Has Prelim Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Kristina Rapuano et al., v. Trustees of Dartmouth
College, Civil No. 18-cv-1070-LM (D. N.H.), Judge Landya McCafferty
of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire
granted the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the
class action settlement.

Plaintiffs Rapuano, Vassiki Chauhan, Sasha Brietzke, Annemarie
Brown, Andrea Courtney, Marissa Evans, Jane Doe, Jane Doe 2, and
Jane Doe 3 bring the suit on their own behalf and on behalf of a
putative class against the Trustees of Dartmouth College.  The
Plaintiffs bring claims under Title IX, and New Hampshire common
law, alleging that Dartmouth was aware that three professors in the
sychological and Brain Sciences Department created a sexually
hostile education environment for female students and that
Dartmouth did not take adequate steps to protect its students or
stop the professors' misconduct.

The named Plaintiffs are current or former Dartmouth students
affiliated in some way with the Psychological and Brain Sciences
Department where they worked with former tenured professors Todd
Heatherton, William Kelley, and/or Paul Whalen.  The Plaintiffs
allege that Dartmouth knowingly allowed the professors to create
and normalize a culture of sexual harassment of female students in
the Department.  The professors' alleged misconduct ranged in
severity from comments about female students' appearance to sexual
assault.  The Plaintiffs allege that the professors also routinely
conditioned their mentorship and advising services to female
students on the students' acquiescence to sexual advances or
participation in binge-drinking or party culture.  They claim that
Dartmouth received multiple reports of the professors' sexual
harassment but took no meaningful action to reprimand the
professors or to protect the students.

In April 2017, a group of female students informed Dartmouth's
Title IX office of the professors' rampant sexual harassment.
Following the April 2017 report, Dartmouth initiated a formal
investigation into the allegations against the professors.  All
three professors either resigned or retired in July 2018.  

The Plaintiffs commenced the suit as a putative class action in
November 2018.  Their amended complaint asserts the following
claims on behalf of the putative class: violations of Title IX
(counts one and two); breach of fiduciary duty (count three); and
negligent supervision and retention (count four).

The Plaintiffs move for preliminary approval of a comprehensive
class action settlement in the matter under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(e).  Dartmouth does not oppose the motion.  On Oct.
17, 2019, the court held a hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion.  The
Plaintiffs subsequently filed supplemental briefing as allowed by
the Court.

The Plaintiffs propose preliminary certification of the following
class:

     (A) All current and former women graduate students at
Dartmouth who meet any of the following criteria:

          (i) Between April 1, 2012 and Aug. 31, 2017 were graduate
advisees of one or more of Todd Heatherton, William Kelley, and/or
Paul Whalen (i.e., the Three Former Professors);

          (ii) Between April 1, 2012 and Aug. 31, 2017 were
teaching or research assistants for one or more of the Three Former
Professors;

          (iii) Were graduate students in the Department who,
between April 1, 2012 and Aug. 31, 2017, (a) coauthored at least
one paper with one or more of the Three Former Professors based on
research physically conducted in the lab during that time period,
or (b) co-authored at least three papers with one or more of the
Three Former Professors; or

          (iv) Were graduate students in the Department between
March 31, 2015 and Aug. 31, 2017 who do not fit within categories
(i)-(iii), but who will attest that they experienced dignitary,
emotional, educational and/or professional harm during the period
as a result of the misconduct of one or more of the Three Former
Professors.

     (B) All current and former women undergraduate students at
Dartmouth who, between April 1, 2012 and Aug. 31, 2017, worked as
research assistants for one or more of the Three Former Professors.
As used therein research assistants includes individuals working
on an honors thesis or independent research study in one or more of
the Three Former Professors' labs.

The settlement offers both monetary and programmatic relief to the
proposed class.  Dartmouth will pay the class settlement amount of
$14 million, from which both awards to the class members and
attorney's fees and costs will be paid.  In exchange, all class
members who do not opt out of the settlement will release Dartmouth
from any and all claims against it arising out of the same factual
circumstances that were or could have been asserted in the lawsuit.
The class members are not, however, barred from pursuing
litigation against the professors individually.

All the class members who do not opt out, except those in class
(A)(iv) as described, will receive a base payment of $1,000.  The
class members who fall in the category described by (A)(iv) of the
class definition must submit a claim form attesting that they
suffered dignitary, emotional, educational and/or professional harm
during the class period as a result of the misconduct of one or
more of the professors before they can receive the base payment.
All the class members are also eligible to receive a supplemental
payment in addition to the base payment.  To receive a supplemental
payment, the class members must timely submit a claim form
describing the impact the professors' misconduct had on their
lives.  These claim forms will be kept confidential and reviewed by
an independent claims expert who will determine each class member's
pro rata share of the remaining settlement funds.  These claims
process ensure that all the class members receive some recompense
and establishes a reasonable and confidential mechanism for
apportioning additional compensation according to relative harm
suffered.

Dartmouth has also agreed to provide the following programmatic
relief: (1) pay an additional $1 million over the next 10 years to
the Provost's Diversity Recruitment Fund to assist in hiring
diverse faculty with expertise in gender and racial discrimination
and violence; (2) add two new positions to Dartmouth's External
Advisory Committee to foster independent oversight of the climate
and culture at the college; and (3) reevaluate Dartmouth's
partnership with WISE (an organization aimed at combating
gender-based violence) and either add an additional WISE staff
member on campus or provide $500,000 to financially support WISE
over a five-year period.

Given the terms of the proposed settlement, the parties' discovery
efforts, their arms-length negotiations, and the participation of
experienced counsel, McCafferty finds finds that she will likely be
able to find the settlement proposal fair, reasonable, and
adequate.

In addition to preliminarily approving the proposed class action
settlement, Judge McCafferty appoints as the Class Counsel David W.
Sanford, Deborah K. Marcuse, Steven J. Kelley, Nicole E. Wiitala,
and Austin L. Webbert of Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP to represent
the class for the purposes of settlement.  She also appoints the
following individuals as the class representatives: Kristina
Rapuano, Vassiki Chauhan, Sasha Brietzke, Annmarie Brown, Andrea
Courtney, Marissa Evans, Jane Doe, and Jane Doe 2.  Judge
McCafferty further appoints Maria C. Walsh to serve as the
Independent Claims Expert as defined by the proposed settlement
agreement.

Because she has concluded that she will likely be able to certify
the proposed class for the purposes of settlement and approve the
proposed settlement, Judge McCafferty orders the Class Counsel to
direct notice to all the class members.  She also approves the form
and substance of the proposed Claim Form.  She appoints Rust
Consulting, as suggested by the Plaintiffs, as the Settlement
Administrator, which will provide notice to the class and
administer the settlement.

The Judge directs the Class Counsel to send notice by firstclass
U.S. mail in substantially the same form as presented in document
numbers 47-4 & 47-5 to the class on Feb. 12, 2020.  The Settlement
Administrator may distribute a duplicate notice by email to the
extent possible.  Notice will also be posted on the Settlement
Administrator's website.  Dartmouth will cooperate with the Class
Counsel and the Settlement Administrator in identifying class
members and providing reasonably available contact information.  At
or before the fairness hearing, the Class Counsel will file proof
of dissemination of notice to the class.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge McCafferty granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action
settlement.  She also granted the motions to proceed under a
pseudonym filed by Jane Doe 2 and Jane Doe 3, and the related
motion to seal.  The Judge has also appointed the Class Counsel and
the Class Representatives.

The Judge directed the Class Counsel to distribute notice to the
class as outlined.  The Court will hold a fairness hearing on June
25, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. to assist the court in determining whether
to grant final approval of the proposed class action settlement.
The Plaintiffs will file any pleadings in support of final
approval, including an application for attorney's fees and costs,
no later than May 26, 2020, (30 days prior to fairness hearing) and
any supplemental pleadings no later than June 18, 2020 (seven days
prior to the fairness hearing).

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/ypE4TE from Leagle.com.

Kristina Rapuano, Vassiki Chauhan, Sasha Brietzke, Annemarie Brown,
Andrea Courtney, Marissa Evans & Jane Doe, Plaintiffs, represented
by Austin Webbert, Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP, pro hac vice, David
Sanford, Sanford Heisler Sharp LLP, pro hac vice, Deborah K.
Marcuse, Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP, pro hac vice, Nicole Wiitala
-- nwiitala@sanfordheisler.com -- Sanford Heisler Sharp LLP, pro
hac vice, Steven J. Kelly -- skelly@sanfordheisler.com -- Sanford
Heisler Sharp, LLP, pro hac vice & Charles G. Douglas, III, Douglas
Leonard & Garvey PC.

Jane Doe 2 & Jane Doe 3, Plaintiffs, represented by Nicole Wiitala,
Sanford Heisler Sharp LLP & Deborah K. Marcuse, Sanford Heisler
Sharp, LLP, pro hac vice.

Trustees of Dartmouth College, Defendant, represented by Joan A.
Lukey -- joan.lukey@choate.com -- Choate Hall & Stewart LLP, Justin
J. Wolosz -- jwolosz@choate.com -- Choate Hall & Stewart LLP, pro
hac vice & Lyndsey M. Kruzer -- lkruzer@choate.com -- Choate Hall &
Stewart LLP, pro hac vice.

DAVIES MOLDING: Faces Blair BIPA Suit Over Use of Biometric Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROMAN BLAIR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DAVIES MOLDING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Case No. 2020L000149 (Ill. Cir., Feb. 4, 2020), accuses
the Defendant of illegally collecting, storing and using the
Plaintiff's and other individuals' biometric identifiers and
biometric information without obtaining informed written consent or
providing the requisite data retention and destruction policies, in
direct violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's practice of requiring
employees to "clock in" using their fingerprints was in place at
least since February 2019. He left the Defendant's employ in May
2019 and was "clocking in" using his fingerprints during his tenure
of employment with the Defendant. He asserts that if the
Defendant's database of digitized fingerprints were to fall into
the wrong hands, by data breach or otherwise, the employees to whom
these sensitive and immutable biometric identifiers belong could
have their identities stolen, among other serious issues.

Davies Molding manufactures custom plastic components. The Company
produces plastic knobs, handles, cases, and other plastic
components.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD.
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312 283 3814
          Facsimile: 773.496.8617
          E-mail: gklinger@kozonislaw.com

               - and -

          Peter S. Lubin, Esq.
          Patrick D. Austermuehle, Esq.
          LUBIN AUSTERMUEHLE, P.C. (26624)
          360 West Butterfield Road, Suite 325
          Elmhurst, IL 60126
          Telephone: (630) 333-0333
          E-mail: peter@l-a.law
                  patrick@l-a.law


DXC TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit in Virginia Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
DXC Technology Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the motion to
dismiss the class action suit entitled, In re DXC Technology
Company Securities Litigation, is still pending.

On December 27, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia against the Company and two of its current officers.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is premised on
allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and alleged
non-disclosure of material facts, regarding the Company's business,
operations, prospects and performance during the proposed class
period of February 8, 2018 to November 6, 2018.

The Company has moved to dismiss the claims in their entirety. On
July 26, 2019, the court heard oral argument on the Company's
motion to dismiss, and a decision is now pending.

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

DXC Technology Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
information technology services and solutions primarily in North
America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. It operates through three
segments: Global Business Services (GBS), Global Infrastructure
Services (GIS), and United States Public Sector (USPS). DXC
Technology Company was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in
Tysons, Virginia.


DXC TECHNOLOGY: Securities Suits v. D&O Ongoing in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
DXC Technology Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend class action suits in California related to the
alleged false and/or misleading statements, and alleged
non-disclosure of material facts, regarding the Company's prospects
and expected performance.

On August 20, 2019, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa
Clara, against the Company and officers and directors of the
Company, among other defendants.

On September 16, 2019, a substantially similar purported class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California against the Company and
officers and directors of the Company, among other defendants.

On November 8, 2019, a third purported class action lawsuit was
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
San Mateo, against the Company and officers and directors of the
Company, among other defendants. The third lawsuit was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff and re-filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Santa Clara on November 26,
2019, and thereafter was consolidated with the earlier-filed action
in the same court on December 10, 2019.

The California lawsuits assert claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and are premised on
allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and alleged
non-disclosure of material facts, regarding the Company's prospects
and expected performance. Plaintiff in the federal action filed an
amended complaint on January 8, 2020.

The putative class of plaintiffs in these cases includes all
persons who acquired shares of the Company's common stock pursuant
to the offering documents filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the April 2017 transaction that
formed DXC.

The Company intends to file motions to stay the consolidated state
court case in favor of the federal action and, ultimately, to
dismiss all claims asserted in these actions.

DXC Technology Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
information technology services and solutions primarily in North
America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. It operates through three
segments: Global Business Services (GBS), Global Infrastructure
Services (GIS), and United States Public Sector (USPS). DXC
Technology Company was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in
Tysons, Virginia.


DXC TECHNOLOGY: Settlement Reached with 142 Opt-In Plaintiffs
-------------------------------------------------------------
DXC Technology Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that a settlement was
reached in Forsyth, et al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard
Enterprise, with 142 of the opt-in plaintiffs, 35 of whom were
employed by former business units of HPE that are now owned by the
Company, and for which the Company is liable.  

On August 18, 2016, this purported class and collective action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, against HP and HPE alleging violations of the Federal
Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act, California public policy and the
California Business and Professions Code. Former business units of
HPE now owned by the Company may be proportionately liable for any
recovery by plaintiffs in this matter.

Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class action under the ADEA
comprised of all U.S. residents employed by defendants who had
their employment terminated pursuant to a work force reduction
("WFR") plan and who were 40 years of age or older at the time of
termination. The class seeks to cover those impacted by WFRs on or
after December 2014. Plaintiffs also seek to represent a Rule 23
class under California law comprised of all persons 40 years of age
or older employed by defendants in the state of California and
terminated pursuant to a WFR plan on or after August 18, 2012.

In January 2017, defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss and a
motion to compel arbitration of claims by certain named and opt-in
plaintiffs who had signed release agreements as part of their WFR
packages. In September 2017, the Court denied the partial motion to
dismiss without prejudice, but granted defendants' motions to
compel arbitration for those named and opt-in plaintiffs. The Court
has stayed the entire action pending arbitration for these
individuals, and administratively closed the case.

A mediation was held in October 2018 with the 16 named and opt-in
plaintiffs who were involved in the case at that time. A settlement
was reached, which included seven plaintiffs who were employed by
former business units of HPE that are now owned by the Company.

In June 2019, a second mediation was held with 145 additional
opt-in plaintiffs who were compelled to arbitration pursuant to
their release agreements.

In December 2019, a settlement was reached with 142 of the opt-in
plaintiffs, 35 of whom were employed by former business units of
HPE that are now owned by the Company, and for which the Company is
liable.

Former business units of the Company now owned by Perspecta may be
proportionately liable for any recovery by plaintiffs in this
matter.

DXC Technology Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
information technology services and solutions primarily in North
America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. It operates through three
segments: Global Business Services (GBS), Global Infrastructure
Services (GIS), and United States Public Sector (USPS). DXC
Technology Company was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in
Tysons, Virginia.


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: George Files FDCPA Suit in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery
Solutions LLC. The case is styled as Derek George, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dynamic
Recovery Solutions LLC, Pendrick Capital Partners LLC and John Does
1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00439 (N.D., Ohio, Feb. 26,
2020).

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

Dynamic Recovery Solutions LLC is a collections agency based in
Greenville, South Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Amichai E. Zukowsky, Esq.
   23811 Chagrin Blvd.,  Ste. 160
   Beachwood, OH 44122
   Tel: (216) 800-5529
   Fax: (216) 514-4987
   Email: ami@zukowskylaw.com



EARTH FARE: Employees Files Class Action Over WARN Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
WTVD reports that two Earth Fare employees are taking legal action
against the closing grocery store on behalf of their more than
3,000 coworkers.

According to ABC-affiliate WLOS, the class-action lawsuit, filed by
two women in Tennessee and Florida, claims the grocery store chain
violated the Worker Adjustment Retraining Notification Act, a
federal law intended to protect workers when large-scale employers
close up shop.

"Two in 3,500. I wouldn't be able to do it, I wouldn't have the
backbone, I wouldn't know where to start," Jeff Swart, an Earth
Fare employee in Asheville, told WLOS.

The WARN Act requires employers with at least 100 workers to give
written notice 60 days before any layoffs happen.

WLOS reported the lawsuit seeks two months of unpaid wages, back
holiday and vacation time and 401(k) contributions, among other
damages.

However, when Earth Fare announced it filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy, the company claimed it notified all employees in
accordance with the same WARN Act cited in the lawsuit.

Earth Fare did not respond to WLOS's request for comment. [GN]


ECOLAB INC: Hospital Employees Says Cleaning Products Toxic
-----------------------------------------------------------
BETTY REICH, MARY PARHAM, and ALTHEA COOPER, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. ECOLAB, INC.
and DOES 1-50 inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 0:20-cv-00570 (D.
Minn., February 20, 2020) is a class action against Defendant for
personal injuries sustained by Plaintiffs due to its defective and
unreasonably dangerous products, namely OxyCide Daily Disinfectant
Cleaner and OxyCide Dilution Management System.

According to the complaint, the Defendant fails to take affirmative
action  to analyze, test, study, and/or recall their products after
tests revealed the presence of dangerous chemicals and compounds
from its OxyCide Cleaning Products. The Defendant even continues to
distribute OxyCide to hospitals nationwide despite advance notice
of adverse health issues.

Plaintiff Reich works as an environmental services employee at
Mercy One Hospital in Mason City, Iowa while Plaintiffs Parham and
Cooper both work as environmental services employees at WellStar
Kennestone Hospital in Marietta, Georgia.

Ecolab, Inc. researches, designs, tests, inspects, manufactures,
develops, produces, assembles, services, installs, distributes,
markets, advertises, and/or sells a variety of water, hygiene,
cleaning, and energy products globally, with its headquarters and
principle place of business located at 370 Wabasha Street N Saint
Paul, Minnesota. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

            Timothy Becker, Esq.
            Jacob Rusch, Esq.
            JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
            444 Cedar St., Ste. 1800
            St. Paul, MN  55101
            Telephone: (612) 436-1800
            Facsimile: (612) 436-1801

                   – and –

            Richard D. McCune, Esq.
            Michele M. Vercoski, Esq.
            Tuan Q. Nguyen, Esq.
            MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
            18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 550
            Irvine, CA 92612
            Telephone: (909) 557-1250
            Facsimile: (909) 557-1275

ELIXINOL LLC: Olsen Alleges Violation under ADA
-----------------------------------------------
Elixinol, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Thomas
J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Elixinol, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-01034 (E.D. N.Y., Feb. 25, 2020).

Elixinol, LLC is a manufacturer and global distributor of
industrial hemp-based dietary supplement, skincare, and pet care
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


EMERGENT BUSINESS: Gilmore Files FDCPA Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Emergent Business
Group, Inc. The case is styled as Chris Gilmore, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Emergent
Business Group, Inc., doing business as: EMERGENT SERVICING,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01786 (C.D., Cal., Feb. 25, 2020).

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

Emergent Business Group, Inc. is a Collection Agency in Horsham,
PA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
   Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
   2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
   Lombard, IL 60148
   Tel: (630) 575-8181
   Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com




ESSA BANCORP: Unit Continues to Defend 2016 Suit Over Kickbacks
---------------------------------------------------------------
ESSA Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that ESSA Bank & Trust
continues to defend a class action suit.

ESSA Bank & Trust (the Bank) was named as a defendant in an action
commenced on December 8, 2016 by one plaintiff who will also seek
to pursue this action as a class action on behalf of the entire
class of people similarly situated.

The plaintiff alleges that a bank previously acquired by ESSA
Bancorp received unearned fees and kickbacks in the process of
making loans, in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act.

In an order dated January 29, 2018, the district court granted the
Bank’s motion to dismiss the case. The plaintiff appealed the
court's ruling.

In an opinion and order dated April 26, 2019, the appellate court
reversed the district court's order dismissing the plaintiff's case
against the Bank, and remanded the case back to the district court
in order to continue the litigation. The litigation is now
proceeding before the district court.  

ESSA Bancorp said, "The Bank will continue to vigorously defend
against such allegations. To the extent that pending or threatened
litigation could result in exposure to the Bank, the amount of such
exposure is not currently estimable."

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

ESSA Bancorp, Inc. operates as the holding company for ESSA Bank &
Trust that provides a range of financial services to individuals,
families, and businesses in Pennsylvania. ESSA Bancorp, Inc. was
founded in 1916 and is based in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.


EXELON CORP: Faces Class Action over SEC Probe
----------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Commonwealth Edison
Company (ComEd) is facing a putative class action suit related to
its receipt of subpoenas by the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC).

Exelon Corporation and Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) received
a grand jury subpoena in the second quarter of 2019 from the U.S.
Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois requiring
production of information concerning their lobbying activities in
the State of Illinois.

On October 4, 2019, Exelon and ComEd received a second grand jury
subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District
of Illinois requiring production of records of any communications
with certain individuals and entities.

On October 22, 2019, the SEC notified Exelon and ComEd that it has
also opened an investigation into their lobbying activities. Exelon
and ComEd have cooperated fully and intend to continue to cooperate
fully and expeditiously with the U.S. Attorney's Office and the
SEC.

Exelon and ComEd cannot predict the outcome of the U.S. Attorney's
Office or the SEC investigations. No loss contingency has been
reflected in Exelon's and ComEd's consolidated financial statements
as this contingency is neither probable nor reasonably estimable at
this time. Management is currently unable to estimate a range of
reasonably possible loss as these matters are subject to change.

Subsequent to Exelon announcing the receipt of the subpoenas, a
putative class action lawsuit has been filed against Exelon and
certain officers of Exelon and ComEd alleging misrepresentations or
omissions by Exelon purporting to relate to matters that are the
subject of the subpoenas and the SEC investigation.

Exelon believes that these claims lack merit and intends to defend
against them, and though the costs or any loss associated with the
lawsuit cannot be reasonably estimated at this time, Exelon does
not believe that the lawsuit will have a material adverse impact on
Exelon's or ComEd's consolidated financial statements.

Exelon Corporation is a utility services holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, distributes electricity to
customers in Illinois and Pennsylvania. Exelon also distributes gas
to customers in the Philadelphia area as well as operates nuclear
power plants in states that include Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
The company is based in Chicago, Illinois.


EXXON MOBIL: Fischer Suit Over Contract Removed to W.D. Oklahoma
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Exxon Mobil
Corporation. The case is captioned as Fred A. Fischer, as General
Partner of Fischer Family Farms Family Limited Partnership, for
themselves and for all others similarly situated; Roger A. Fischer,
as agent for the Allan and Carolyn Fischer Family Limited
Partnership, for themselves and for all others similarly situated;
and Theodore M Schneider, Intervenor Plaintiff, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation; and Postle Upper Morrow Unit and Hovey Morrow Unit,
individually and as representative of all other Exxon
Mobil-operated units created pursuant to 52 O.S. 287.1-287.15, Case
No. CJ-02-00125, was removed from the Oklahoma District Court,
Texas County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Oklahoma (Oklahoma City) on Feb. 7, 2020.

The Western District of Oklahoma Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:20-cv-00105-C to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Robin J. Cauthron.

The lawsuit involves contract-related issues.

Exxon Mobil Corporation, doing business as ExxonMobil, is an
American multinational oil and gas corporation headquartered in
Irving, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Douglas E. Burns, Esq.
          BURNS & STOWER PC
          1300 W Lindsey St.
          Norman, OK 73069
          Telephone: (405) 360-6191
          Facsimile: (405) 928-2019
          E-mail: dburns@burns-stowers.com

               - and -

          Joseph C. Woltz, Esq.
          Robert N. Lawrence, Esq.
          Terry J Barker, Esq.
          Terry L Stowers, Esq.
          PEZOLD BARKER & WOLTZ
          2431 East 61st St., Suite 200
          Tulsa, OK 74136-1242
          Telephone: (918) 584-0506
          Facsimile: (918) 584-0720
          E-mail: jwoltz@pbwtulsa.com
                  rlawrence@pbwtulsa.com
                  tbarker@pbwtulsa.com
                  tstowers@burns-stowers.com

The Intervenor Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barbara C. Frankland, Esq.
          Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
          SHARP BARTON LLP
          5301 W 75th St
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 901-0505
          Facsimile: (913) 901-9099
          E-mail: barbara@sharpbarton.com
                  rex@sharpbarton.com

               - and -

          Margaret E. Robertson, Esq.
          Reagan E Bradford, Esq.
          Ryan K. Wilson, Esq.
          LANIER LAW FIRM
          431 W Main St.,
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 429-8834
          E-mail: maggie.robertson@lanierlawfirm.com
                  Reagan.Bradford@lanierlawfirm.com
                  ryan.wilson@lanierlawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John J. Griffin, Jr., Esq.
          Mark L. Walker, Esq.
          CROWE & DUNLEVY-OKC
          Braniff Building
          324 N Robinson Ave., Suite 100
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 235-7718
          Facsimile: (405) 272-5225
          E-mail: griffinj@crowedunlevy.com
                  walkerm@crowedunlevy.com

               - and -

          Shannon H. Ratliff, Esq.
          DAVIS GERALD & CREMER PC
          300 W 6th St., Suite 1830
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 493-9601
          Facsimile: (512) 493-9625
          E-mail: shratliff@dgclaw.com


FACEBOOK INC: Content Moderator Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Danielle Cinone, writing for The Sun, reports that a Facebook
content moderator is suing the firm, claiming watching rapes,
mutilations, and murders at work gave him PTSD.

Clifford Jeudy, 47, has filed a class action lawsuit against both
his employer and Facebook, as mental health support programs were
never offered.

He is employed by Cognizant -- a Facebook content moderation site
in Tampa, Florida -- and claims to have been subjected to watching
graphic content from live videos.

Clifford told FOX 13 Tampa Bay: "We watch that for a living, all
day: people getting murdered, killed, raped, child pornography,
snuff films.

"You're policing the internet, but the platform has drugs, guns,
terrorist recruitment, human trafficking, prostitution."

One of the horrifying videos Clifford saw was the New Zealand
terrorist attack last year.

Fifty-one victims died in the shootings at two Christchurch mosques
after a lone attacker opened fire during Friday prayers on March
15, 2019.

The gunman live-streamed the attack for 17 minutes before posting
it on Facebook, along with a 74-page manifesto of hate.

Clifford said: "It's just horrific to see it over and over and over
again.

"As the video goes viral, it's not like they delete it one time and
it's gone. People are sharing it.

"It's tough to watch that many people get killed."

In the lawsuit, Clifford claims to have suffered psychological
trauma and was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder prior
to taking a leave of absence from his job in July 2019.

He also claimed he needed anxiety medication and suffered a stroke
and partial seizures, according to the suit.

According to the Tampa Bay Times, the class-action lawsuit accuses
Facebook of negligence, Cognizant with deliberate concealment of
known danger and both companies with unfair or deceptive trade
practices under Florida law.

It comes as Cognizant's Tampa facility prepares to shutdown and lay
off more than 500 employees.

Jay Lechner, the attorney of the employees taking action, told the
Tampa Bay Times: "Workers in Tampa will basically be left with no
recourse and will be suffering mental impairments for a long time.

"The company will leave town without having to be responsible for
it."

The lawsuit comes as fellow Facebook workers said that the hours of
child pornography, murder, hate speech, sexual attacks and suicide
videos were disturbing their mental health - with deadly effects.

In 2019, a Facebook moderator Keith Utley died from a heart attack
as he sifted through gruesome videos on the social media platform.

Keith died at his desk at 42-years-old, according to an
investigation by The Verge.

He had spoken out about how the grotesque videos were affecting his
mental health, but he was also desperate to keep his job to support
his family.

The stress of the job was crippling Keith, who openly expressed
that he was struggling with the content he had seen.

According to The Verge, regular exposure to such distressing scenes
resulted in workers being diagnosed with post-traumatic stress
disorder and other related conditions.

One of Keith's managers told The Verge: "The stress they put on him
-- it's unworldly.

"I did a lot of coaching. I spent some time talking with him about
things he was having issues seeing. And he was always worried about
getting fired."

In 2016, Facebook came under heavy criticism for failing to prevent
various abuses of its platform. Since then it has expanded its
workforce of people working on safety and security around the world
to 30,000.

In a scathing 2018 report, it was revealed that staff at Facebook
were resorting to burner phones.

Paranoia among employees meant they were using the secondary phones
to gossip about colleagues and their bosses. [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Pledges to Improve Security After Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg reports that Facebook pledged to improve security
protocols to resolve a lawsuit blaming the company for a 2018 data
breach that exposed personal data of 29 million users.

The company will check more frequently for suspicious patterns of
user activity involving access tokens, the key cards that allow
users to access their accounts, among other measures outlined in a
proposal to settle a class-action suit filed late on Friday (Feb.
7) in San Francisco federal court.

The social network giant was accused in the case of negligently
allowing hackers to exploit software bugs to obtain login access to
accounts in what was tagged at the time as Facebook's worst
security breach.

Facebook denied wrongdoing, maintaining that the attack resulted
from "unknown and unforeseeable vulnerabilities" and the company
responded quickly.

The accord requires approval from US District Judge William Alsup,
who previously said that "Facebook's repetitive losses of users'
privacy supplies a long-term need for supervision."

Alsup ruled in November that the users cannot seek monetary damages
because the lead plaintiff did not show that he had incurred any
out-of-pocket expenses. [GN]


FERRY-MORSE SEED: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA
--------------------------------------------------
Ferry-Morse Seed Company is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Ferry-Morse Seed Company, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01665 (S.D. N.Y., Feb. 25, 2020).

The Ferry-Morse Seed Company is a supplier of seeds, and was at one
time the largest such company in the world. It is currently part of
Jiffy International.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal



GEICO CHOICE: Johnson Sues Over High Fees for Copies of Records
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tanyel Johnson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. GEICO CHOICE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. S20C-02-020
CAK (Del. Super., Feb. 26, 2020), arises from the Defendant's
imposition of unreasonable and exorbitant fees, charged to the
Company's Delaware policyholders and insureds, for copies of
medical bills and medical records contained in Geico's auto
insurance claim files.

According to the complaint, Delaware residents, who have the
misfortune of suffering injuries in automobile accidents often have
occasion to request from their auto insurers, directly or through
legal counsel, copies of their accident-related medical bills
and/or medical records that are contained in the insurer's file for
the accident in question. Typically, the injured party requests
such documents from their auto insurer for forwarding to the
at-fault driver's liability insurer as part of an effort to
negotiate a settlement of the injured party's personal injury
claim.

Most or all Delaware auto insurers honor such requests at minimal
charge, or even no charge. Geico, by contrast, imposes significant
and exorbitant charges for such requests--as much as $0.73 per
page, says the complaint. Commercial copy costs, meanwhile, are
closer to a $0.06 to $0.10 range on a per-page basis. By imposing
the exorbitant charges, Geico is gouging its policyholders and
named insureds, the Plaintiff contends.

Plaintiff Tanyel Johnson is a natural person and a
policyholder/named insured under a Delaware automobile insurance
policy issued by the Defendant.

Geico Choice Insurance Company is a Nebraska corporation. Geico is
licensed to conduct the business of insurance in Delaware, and
currently serves as the automobile insurance provider for a
significant number of Delaware residents.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John S. Spadaro, Esq.
          JOHN SHEEHAN SPADARO, LLC
          54 Liborio Lane
          Smyrna, DE 19977
          Phone: (302) 235-7745


GENERAL MOTORS: Vita Files Product Liability Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against General Motors LLC.
The case is styled as Dennis Vita, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. General Motors LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01032 (E.D., N.Y., Feb. 25, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Motor Vehicle
Product Liability.

General Motors Company, commonly referred to as General Motors, is
an American multinational corporation headquartered in Detroit that
designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and
vehicle parts, and sells financial services, with global
headquarters in Detroit's Renaissance Center.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Peter B. Katzman, Esq.
   Mazzeo Song & Bradham LLP
   444 Madison Avenue
   4th Floor
   New York, NY 10022
   Tel: (212) 599-0700
   Fax: (212) 599-8400
   Email: pkatzman@mazzeosong.com


GLASS MOUNTAIN: Fletcher Alleges Violation under FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Glass Mountain
Capital, LLC. The case is styled as Sherri Fletcher, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Glass
Mountain Capital, LLC, Cavalry SPV I, LLC and John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02036 (D., N.J., Feb. 25, 2020).

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

Glass Mountain Capital LLC is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Raphael Y. Deutsch
   Stein Saks PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500
   Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com



GOOGLE INC: Bid to Strike Class-Action Claims From 2017 Case Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wiessner, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge
in California has rejected a bid by Alphabet Inc's Google to toss
out class-action claims in a lawsuit accusing the tech giant of
various wage-and-hour violations, including denying workers meal
and rest breaks and failing to pay overtime.

U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman in San Jose on Wednesday,
February 13, said proposed subclasses in the 2017 lawsuit defined
by workers' job duties instead of their formal titles were
"sufficiently definite," rejecting Google's claim that the classes
were amorphous and imprecise. [GN]


HAIN CELESTIAL: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hain Celestial Group, 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 31, 2019, that the motion
to dismiss the consolidated class action suit entitled, In re The
Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, is pending.

On August 17, 2016, three securities class action complaints were
filed in the Eastern District of New York against the Company
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The three complaints are: (1) Flora v. The
Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al.; (2) Lynn v. The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc., et al.; and (3) Spadola v. The Hain Celestial Group,
Inc., et al.

On June 5, 2017, the court issued an order for consolidation,
appointment of Co-Lead Plaintiffs and approval of selection of
co-lead counsel. Pursuant to this order, the Securities Complaints
were consolidated under the caption In re The Hain Celestial Group,
Inc. Securities Litigation, and Rosewood Funeral Home and Salamon
Gimpel were appointed as Co-Lead Plaintiffs.

On June 21, 2017, the Company received notice that plaintiff
Spadola voluntarily dismissed his claims without prejudice to his
ability to participate in the Consolidated Securities Action as an
absent class member. The Co-Lead Plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Securities Action filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on August
4, 2017 and a Corrected Consolidated Amended Complaint on September
7, 2017 on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired Hain Celestial securities
between November 5, 2013 and February 10, 2017.

The Amended Complaint named as defendants the Company and certain
of its former officers and asserted violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly
materially false or misleading statements and omissions in public
statements, press releases and SEC filings regarding the Company's
business, prospects, financial results and internal controls.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
October 3, 2017 which the Court granted on March 29, 2019,
dismissing the case in its entirety, without prejudice to replead.
Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint on May 6, 2019.

The Second Amended Complaint again names as defendants the Company
and certain of its current and former officers and asserts
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 based on allegations similar to those in the Amended
Complaint, including materially false or misleading statements and
omissions in public statements, press releases and SEC filings
regarding the Company's business, prospects, financial results and
internal controls.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
on June 20, 2019. Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an opposition on August
5, 2019, and Defendants submitted a reply on September 3, 2019.

This motion is fully briefed, and the parties await a decision.

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

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. manufactures, markets, distributes,
and sells organic and natural products. The company operates in
seven segments: the United States, United Kingdom, Tilda, Ella's
Kitchen UK, Canada, Europe, and Cultivate. The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Lake
Success, New York.


HAIN CELESTIAL: Stockholders' Consolidated Class Suit Still Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hain Celestial Group, 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 31, 2019, that the
stockholders' consolidated class action suit in New York federal
district court remains stayed.

On April 19, 2017 and April 26, 2017, two class action and
stockholder derivative complaints were filed in the Eastern
District of New York against the former Board of Directors and
certain former officers of the Company under the captions Silva v.
Simon, et al. and Barnes v. Simon, et al., respectively. Both the
Silva Complaint and the Barnes Complaint allege violation of
securities law, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets
and unjust enrichment.

On May 23, 2017, an additional stockholder filed a complaint under
seal in the Eastern District of New York against the former Board
of Directors and certain former officers of the Company.

The complaint alleged that the Company's former directors and
certain former officers made materially false and misleading
statements in press releases and SEC filings regarding the
Company's business, prospects and financial results. The complaint
also alleged that the Company violated its by-laws and Delaware law
by failing to hold its 2016 Annual Stockholders Meeting and
includes claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and
corporate waste. On August 9, 2017, the Court granted an order to
unseal this case and reveal Gary Merenstein as the plaintiff (the
"Merenstein Complaint").

On August 10, 2017, the court granted the parties stipulation to
consolidate the Barnes Complaint, the Silva Complaint and the
Merenstein Complaint under the caption In re The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc. Stockholder Class and Derivative Litigation (the
"Consolidated Stockholder Class and Derivative Action") and to
appoint Robbins Arroyo LLP and Scott+Scott as Co-Lead Counsel, with
the Law Offices of Thomas G. Amon as Liaison Counsel for
Plaintiffs.

On September 14, 2017, a related complaint was filed under the
caption Oliver v. Berke, et al., and on October 6, 2017, the Oliver
Complaint was consolidated with the Consolidated Stockholder Class
and Derivative Action. The Plaintiffs filed their consolidated
amended complaint under seal on October 26, 2017.

On December 20, 2017, the parties agreed to stay Defendants' time
to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the consolidated amended
complaint through and including 30 days after a decision was
rendered on the motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the
Consolidated Securities Action.

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

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. manufactures, markets, distributes,
and sells organic and natural products. The company operates in
seven segments: the United States, United Kingdom, Tilda, Ella's
Kitchen UK, Canada, Europe, and Cultivate. The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Lake
Success, New York.


HECLA MINING: Continues to Defend S.D.N.Y. Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Hecla Mining Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit pending before the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

On May 24, 2019, a purported Hecla stockholder filed a putative
class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Hecla and certain of the company's
executive officers, one of whom is also a director.

The complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of
Hecla common stock from March 19, 2018 through and including May 8,
2019, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and seeks, among other things, damages and costs and
expenses.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Hecla, under the authority
and control of the individual defendants, made certain material
false and misleading statements and omitted certain material
information regarding Hecla's Nevada Operations unit.

The complaint alleges that these misstatements and omissions
artificially inflated the market price of Hecla common stock during
the class period, thus purportedly harming investors.

A second suit was filed on June 19, 2019, alleging virtually
identical claims.

Hecla Mining said, "We cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits
or estimate damages if plaintiffs were to prevail. We believe that
these claims are without merit and intend to defend them
vigorously."

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

Hecla Mining Company, together with its subsidiaries, discovers,
acquires, develops, and produces precious and base metal properties
worldwide. The company offers lead, zinc, and bulk flotation
concentrates to custom smelters and brokers; and unrefined gold and
silver bullion bars to precious metals traders. Hecla Mining
Company was founded in 1891 and is headquartered in Coeur d'Alene,
Idaho.


HECLA MINING: Lawson Class Action Ongoing in Nevada
---------------------------------------------------
Hecla Mining Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, Lawson v.
Klondex Mines Ltd., et al., No. 3:18-cv-00284.

On July 20, 2018, the company acquired all of the issued and
outstanding common shares of Klondex Mines Ltd. ("Klondex") for
consideration valued at $2.27 per Klondex share (the
"Arrangement"). The acquisition resulted in the company's 100%
ownership of three land packages in northern Nevada totaling
approximately 110 square miles and containing operating or
previously-operating mines with a history of high-grade gold
production, along with various other gold properties.

Following the announcement of the company's proposed acquisition of
Klondex, Klondex and members of the Klondex board of directors were
named as defendants in several putative stockholder class actions
brought by purported stockholders of Klondex challenging the
proposed merger.

The lawsuits were all filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Nevada. On December 18, 2018, the remaining three
cases were consolidated into a single case, Lawson v. Klondex Mines
Ltd., et al., No. 3:18-cv-00284 (D. Nev. June 15, 2018).

The plaintiffs generally claim that Klondex issued a proxy
statement that included misstatements or omissions, in violation of
sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, to obtain
rescissory damages and recover attorneys' fees and costs.

Although it is not possible to predict the outcome of litigation
matters with certainty, each of Klondex and its directors believe
that each of the lawsuits are without merit, and the parties intend
to vigorously defend against all claims asserted.

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

Hecla Mining Company, together with its subsidiaries, discovers,
acquires, develops, and produces precious and base metal properties
worldwide. The company offers lead, zinc, and bulk flotation
concentrates to custom smelters and brokers; and unrefined gold and
silver bullion bars to precious metals traders. Hecla Mining
Company was founded in 1891 and is headquartered in Coeur d'Alene,
Idaho.


HOBBS LONDON: Cruz Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------
Hobbs London Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael
Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Hobbs London Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01667
(S.D. N.Y., Feb. 25, 2020).

Hobbs is a women's clothing, footwear and accessories retailer
based in London, UK. It was founded in Hampstead in 1981 and began
as a shoe retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


HOUSLANGER & ASSOCIATES: $5.3K Attys' Fees Awarded in Rudler Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRITNEY RUDLER, Plaintiff, v. HOUSLANGER & ASSOCIATES,
PLLC, TODD HOUSLANGER, ESQ., and BRYAN BRYKS, ESQ., Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv-7068 (SFJ) (AYS), Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in
part Rudler's fee application, filed after she accepted a Rule 68
offer of judgment.

In 2009, in New York State court, the Firm commenced a collection
action on behalf of its client, and against Rudler ("State
Action").  In April 2010, the Client was awarded a default judgment
against Rudler ("NYS Judgment").  After learning of the NYS
Judgment in July 2018, Rudler moved, pro se, to vacate it.  In
opposing Rudler's motion, Bryks submitted an "Affidavit in
Opposition," stating, inter alia, that Rudler's "Affidavit in
Support" may have been ghostwritten and claiming: "Without
disclosing said ghostwriting to the court and opposing counsel, the
practice of ghostwriting has been deemed unethical by both the New
York State Bar Association and the Association of the Bar of the
City of New York."

After hearing oral arguments on Rudler's motion to vacate, the
state court judge directed the parties to discuss settling their
dispute.  In the course of those Settlement Discussions, Attorney
J. Remy Green appeared on Rudler's behalf in the State Action.  On
October 2018, Green wrote the state court judge a status letter
stating, inter alia, that settlement discussions are at an impasse.


In response, however, the Firm reported to the state court judge
that its Client and Rudler had reached a settlement in principle in
the State Action.  The Court is unaware of the current status of
said Settlement Discussions or the State Action.

On Dec. 12, 2018, the Plaintiff, through Green, commenced the
putative class action, alleging violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practice Act and New York State General Business Law
Section 349 based on alleged false, deceptive, and misleading
representations and unfair conduct.  Said class purportedly
consisted of state court judgment pro se debtors who challenged
underlying judgments and whose judgment creditors were represented
by the Firm.  However, she further alleged that such
representations were inaccurate since New York State's ethics rules
in fact explicitly approve of both ghostwriting and undisclosed,
limited purpose engagements related to active litigation matters.
It was Rudler's contention that such a misrepresentation could
improperly influence the least sophisticated consumer in deciding
whether to challenge a debt or settle it.

On Dec. 24, 2018, less than two weeks after this action was
commenced, in lieu of answering or otherwise responding to the
Plaintiff's Complaint, the Defendants filed a Notice of a Rule 68
Offer of Judgment, offering the Plaintiff $1.2 million as well as
any accrued costs together with a reasonable attorneys' fee as
determined by the court to be incurred up through the date of the
Offer.

On Jan. 7, 2019, the Plaintiff filed her Notice of Acceptance of
Offer of Judgment.  Said judgment was entered on Feb. 7, 2019,
which stated that pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, final judgment is entered in favor of Rudler against all
the Defendants in the action for the total sum of $1.2 million,
plus any accrued costs and reasonable attorneys' fees as determined
by the Court to be incurred before, up through, and including the
date of the Offer (Dec. 24, 2018).

On March 26, 2019, Rudler filed her Fee Application seeking
$33,557.19 in attorneys' fees and $2,702.50 in costs.  

The Plaintiff's requested attorneys' fees are comprised of the
following: (i) Green re: prefiling research & filing Complaint -
57.6 hrs., $375/hr., $21,600; (ii) Green re: Fee Application - 25.5
hrs., $375/hr., $9,557.19; (iii) Cohen re: prefiling research &
filing Complaint - 4 hrs., $600/hr., $ 1,500; and (iv) Cohen re:
Fee Application - 2.4 hrs., $600/hr., $900.  Total is $33,557.19.

Her counsel claimed $2,702.50 in costs consisting of: $400 for the
filing fee; $150 for a pro hac vice application fee; and $2,152.50
for 12.3 hours of paralegal work billed at $175 per hour.

Upon consideration of the record presented, in particular the
vagueness regarding Green's and Cohen's bar admissions and their
relevant legal experience, or lack thereof; the relevant Johnson
factors; the prevailing rates in the District in comparable FDCPA
cases awarded to attorneys with similar skill levels and expertise
as Green and Cohen, as compared with hourly rates awarded to
attorneys with greater skill levels and expertise; the relatively
straightforward nature of the FDCPA case which resolved
expeditiously upon acceptance of an offer of judgment; and, the
length of Green's and Cohen's legal careers overall, Judge
Feuerstein finds reasonable in the case an hourly rate of $200 for
Green and an hourly rate of $215 for Cohen.

Judge Feuerstein does not believe a reasonable, paying client,
which it assumes Rudler to be, would wish to spend approximately
$35,000 to litigate the case.  With that in mind, she turns to
examining the hours billed by C&G.  By awarding the Plaintiff fees
beyond what the parties agreed to would, effectively, be rewriting
the parties' contract, which the Court cannot do.  Hence, neither
the 25.5 hours sought by Green nor the 2.4 hours sought by Cohen
for working on the Fee Application will be awarded.

As for the reimbursement of three categories of costs totaling
$2,702.50, Judge Feuerstein will award the following amounts in
costs: (i) Diling Fee - $400, (ii) Pro Hac Vice Application - $0,
(iii) Paralegal Costs - $315.  The total is $715.

Hence, the final summary of fees and costs awarded is as follows:
(i) Green's fees - 24 hrs., $200/hr., $4,800; (ii) re: prefiling
research & filing Complaint Green's fees: 0 hrs. $200/hr. $0; (iii)
re: Fee Application Cohen's fees - 2.5 hrs., $215/hr., $537.50;
(iv) re: prefiling research & filing Complaint Cohen's fees: 0
hrs., $215/hr., $0; (v) re: Fee Application Costs (including
Paralegal's fees) $715.  The total is $6,052.50.

Accordingly, Judge Feuerstein granted in part the Plaintiff's Fee
Application, such that she is awarded $6,052.50, which consists of
$5,337.50 in attorneys' fees and $715 in costs.  

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2020 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://is.gd/S24tT6 from Leagle.com.

Britney Rudler, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by J. Remy Green --
remy@femmelaw.com -- Cohen&Green P.L.L.C., pro hac vice & Remy
Green -- remy@femmelaw.com -- Cohen & Green.

Houslanger & Associates, PLLC & Bryan Bryks, Esq., Defendants,
represented by Todd E. Houslanger, Houslanger & Associates, PLLC.

Todd Houslanger, Esq., Defendant, pro se.

I.C. SYSTEM: Kim Files FDCPA Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against I.C. System, Inc. The
case is styled as Young Ae Kim, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. I.C. System, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01015 (E.D., N.Y., Feb. 25, 2020).

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

IC System is an Accounts Receivable Management provider and one of
the largest collection companies in North America. Founded in 1938,
the company provides collections for consumer and commercial
accounts in all stages of the revenue management cycle.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

      - and -

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




INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Bid to Dismiss Tchatchou Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
India Globalization Capital, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10,
2020, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the
motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit entitled,
Tchatchou v. India Globalization Capital, Inc., is still pending.

On November 2, 2018, IGC shareholder Alde-Binet Tchatchou
instituted a shareholder class action complaint on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland. IGC, Ram Mukunda,
Richard Prins, and Sudhakar Shenoy were named as defendants.

On May 13, 2019, the plaintiff in the Tchatchou litigation filed an
amended complaint against IGC, Mukunda, and Claudia Grimaldi,
thereby removing Prins and Shenoy as defendants. The plaintiff in
Tchatchou alleges that the Class Action Defendants violated Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act, SEC Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and made false and misleading statements to the public
by issuing a September 25, 2018, press release entitled "IGC to
Enter the Hemp/CBD-Infused Energy Drink Space" and related
disclosures, in which IGC announced it had "executed a distribution
and partnership agreement" for the sugar-free energy drink named
Nitro G, as well as through related public statements. The
plaintiff in Tchatchou has not publicly disclosed the amount of
damages they seek.

On February 28, 2019, all pending shareholder class actions were
consolidated, and the Tchatchou litigation was designated as the
lead case.

On October 11, 2019, the Class Action Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated shareholder class action litigation on a
number of grounds, including that the Class Action Defendants did
not make any false or misleading statements or any materially false
or misleading statements to the public; the Class Action Defendants
did not act with any intent to deceive the public, nor did they
recklessly do so; and that the Class Action Defendants' alleged
conduct did not cause any loss allegedly suffered by the class
action plaintiffs.

The motion to dismiss remains pending before the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland, and the Company
anticipates that a decision is likely to be issued during calendar
2020.

India Globalization Capital, Inc. engages in the development and
commercialization of cannabis-based therapies to treat Alzheimer's,
pain, nausea, eating disorders, several end points of Parkinson's,
and epilepsy in humans, dogs, and cats. The company operates
through two segments, Legacy Infrastructure and Medical Cannabis
Based Alternative Therapies. The company was founded in 2005 and is
based in Bethesda, Maryland.


INSPERITY INC: Bench Trial Begins in Suit over 401(k) Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
Insperity, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the court in the class
action suit related to the company's 401(k) Plan has denied
plaintiffs' request for a jury trial and has set a bench trial for
March 2, 2020.

In December 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company and a third-party who served as the discretionary trustee
of the Insperity 401(k) retirement plan that is available to
eligible worksite employees in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, on behalf of
Plan participants. The suit generally alleges the third-party
discretionary trustee of the Plan and Insperity breached their
fiduciary duties to plan participants by selecting an Insperity
subsidiary to serve as the recordkeeper for the Plan, by causing
participants in the Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping fees to the
Insperity subsidiary, by failing to monitor other fiduciaries, and
by making imprudent investment choices. The court certified a class
defined as "all participants and beneficiaries of the Insperity
401(k) Plan from December 22, 2009 through September 30, 2017." The
court dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty claims relating to the
selection of an Insperity subsidiary to serve as the recordkeeper
of the Plan. On March 28, 2019, the court partially granted
Insperity's motion for summary judgment, resulting in the dismissal
of the claims concerning allegations of excessive recordkeeping
fees. The court has denied plaintiffs' request for a jury trial and
has set a bench trial for March 2, 2020. With respect to
plaintiffs' remaining claims, plaintiffs allege damages up to
$146.0 million against all defendants.

"We believe we have meritorious defenses, and we intend to
vigorously defend this litigation. As a result of uncertainty
regarding the outcome of this matter, no provision has been made in
the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements," the Company
said.

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

Insperity, Inc. provides human resources (HR) and business
solutions to enhance business performance for small and
medium-sized businesses in the United States. The company was
formerly known as Administaff, Inc. and changed its name to
Insperity, Inc. in March 2011. Insperity, Inc. was founded in 1986
and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Janecyk Sues over Biometric Data Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TIM JANECYK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00783 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Feb. 3,
2020) is an action against the Defendant for collecting and storing
individual biometric identifiers and biometric information without
notice and consent.

Plaintiffs bring the class action to prevent IBM from further
violating the privacy rights of those individuals appearing in
IBM's DiF Dataset, and to recover statutory damages for IBM's
unauthorized collection, storage, and use of these individuals'
biometrics in violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act.

International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) provides computer
solutions. The Company offers application, technology consulting
and support, process design and operations, cloud, digital
workplace, and network services, as well as business resiliency,
strategy, and design solutions. IBM serves clients worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
          Nicholas R. Lange, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          111 West Washington Street, Suite 1240
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          E-mail: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com
                  kshamberg@carlsonlynch.com
                  nlange@carlsonlynch.com


IROBOT CORP: Miramar and Campbell Class Suits Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
iRobot Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 28, 2019, that the Court consolidated
the Miramar Firefighters' Pension Fund v. iRobot Corporation, et
al. and Campbell v. iRobot Corporation, et al. cases, and appointed
a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's Counsel.

On October 24, 2019, purported Company shareholder Miramar
Firefighters' Pension Fund filed a putative class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the Company and certain of its directors and officers, captioned
Miramar Firefighters' Pension Fund v. iRobot Corporation, et al.,
No. 1:19-cv-09837.  

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5
thereunder based on allegedly false and misleading statements and
omissions concerning the Company's acquisitions of Sales on Demand
Corporation and Robopolis SAS and the Company's subsequent
financial performance.  

The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages, including interest, in connection with the Company's
allegedly inflated stock price, attorneys' fees and costs, and
unspecified equitable/injunctive relief. This case has been
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

A similar case captioned Campbell v. iRobot Corporation, et al.,
No. 1:19-cv-12483 was also filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York and subsequently transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

On January 24, 2020, the Court consolidated the Miramar and
Campbell cases and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's
Counsel.

iRobot Corporation manufactures robots that vacuum and wash floors
and perform battlefield reconnaissance and bomb disposal. The
Company markets its products to consumers through retailers, the
United States military, and other government agencies worldwide.
The company is based in Bedford, Massachusetts.


JAM'NBEAN COFFEE: Sends Spam Text Messages, Kimble Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW KIMBLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JAMNBEAN LLC d/b/a JAM'NBEAN COFFEE COMPANY
and SLICK INNOVATIONS, LLC d/b/a SLICKTEXT, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-00154 (W.D. Mich., February 20, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act under 47 U.S.C. Section 227 et seq.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other similarly-situated
consumers, alleges that Defendant Jam'nBean sent text messages to
his cellular phone through Defendant SlickText's automatic
telephone dialing system in order to advertise its products without
prior express written consent, thereby violating TCPA
requirements.

JamnBean LLC is an operator of coffee shops in the Grand Rapids,
Michigan area. It is also doing business as Jam'nBean Coffee
Company.

Slick Innovations, LLC is a provider of text message marketing
services with principal place of business in Jamestown, New York.
It is also doing business as SlickText.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Hilton, Esq.
          HILTON PARKER LLC
          10400 Blacklick-Eastern Rd NW, Suite 110
          Pickerington, OH 43147
          Telephone: (614) 992-2277
          Facsimile: (614) 427-5557
          E-mail: jhilton@hiltonparker.com

JAMES E. ALBERTELLI: Lloyd Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
------------------------------------------------------------
PAMELA LLOYD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JAMES E. ALBERTELLI, P.A. d/b/a ALBERTELLI
LAW, Defendant, Case 0:20-cv-60300-RS (S.D. Fla., Feb. 12, 2020)
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.

James E. Albertelli, P.A., doing business as ALAW, is a law firm.
The Firm's practice areas include creditors' rights, bankruptcy,
real estate, title, escrow and closing, complex litigation,
appellate, regulatory compliance, and commercial law. ALAW serves
clients in the State of Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
          Boca Raton, FL 33487
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
                  jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Matisyahu H. Abarbanel, Esq.
          LOAN LAWYERS
          3201 Griffin Road, Suite 100
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312
          Telephone: (954) 523-4357
          E-mail: matis@fight13.com


JETSET MAGAZINE: Faces Curran Suit over Spam Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------
SUE CURRAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JETSET MAGAZINE, LLC and TDX INVESTMENTS,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00391-MTL (D. Ariz., February 23,
2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of all others similarly-situated
individuals, alleges that the Defendants sent text messages to her
cellular phone through an automatic telephone dialing system to
promote and advertise their products and services, including the
lifestyle magazine called Jetset Magazine and the Miss Jetset
modeling competition, without prior express written consent,
thereby violating TCPA requirements.

Jetset Magazine, LLC is a magazine publishing company that owned
the lifestyle magazine "Jetset Magazine." It is headquartered in
Scottsdale, Arizona.

TDX Investments, LLC is a co-owner and co-publisher of the
lifestyle magazine "Jetset Magazine" with principal place of
business in Scottsdale, Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140
          Miami, FL 33131          
          Telephone: (305) 357-2107
          Facsimile: (305) 200-8801          
          E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com
                  
               - and -
           
          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com

LOEWS CORP: Trial Early 2021 in Suit v. Boardwalk Pipelines
------------------------------------------------------------
Loews Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that trial in the substituted
verified class action complaint against Boardwalk Pipelines has
been set for early 2021.

On May 25, 2018, plaintiffs Tsemach Mishal and Paul Berger (on
behalf of themselves and the purported class, "Plaintiffs")
initiated a purported class action in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware against the following defendants: Boardwalk
Pipelines, Boardwalk GP, LP ("General Partner"), Boardwalk GP, LLC
and Boardwalk Pipelines Holding Corp. ("BPHC") (together,
"Defendants"), regarding the potential exercise by the General
Partner of its right to purchase all of the issued and outstanding
common units representing limited partnership interests in
Boardwalk Pipelines not already owned by the General Partner or its
affiliates.

On June 25, 2018, Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement, subject to
the approval of the Court (the "Proposed Settlement"). Under the
terms of the Proposed Settlement, the lawsuit would be dismissed,
and related claims against the Defendants would be released by the
Plaintiffs, if BPHC, the sole member of the General Partner,
elected to cause the General Partner to exercise its right to
purchase the issued and outstanding common units of Boardwalk
Pipelines pursuant to Boardwalk Pipelines' Third Amended and
Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership, as amended ("Limited
Partnership Agreement"), within a period specified by the Proposed
Settlement.

The General Partner elected to exercise its right to purchase all
of the issued and outstanding common units representing limited
partnership interests in Boardwalk Pipelines not already owned by
the General Partner or its affiliates pursuant to the Limited
Partnership Agreement within the period specified by the Proposed
Settlement. The transaction was completed on July 18, 2018.

On September 28, 2018, the Court denied approval of the Proposed
Settlement. On February 11, 2019, a substitute verified class
action complaint was filed in this proceeding. The Defendants filed
a motion to dismiss, which was heard by the Court in July of 2019.
In October of 2019, the Court ruled on the motion and granted a
partial dismissal, with certain aspects of the case proceeding to
trial. The case will be set for trial in early 2021.

Loews Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides commercial
property and casualty insurance in the United States, Canada, the
United Kingdom, Continental Europe, and Singapore. The Company was
founded in 1954 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


MARRIOT HOTEL: Faces Ramos Labor Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT RAMOS, JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MARRIOT HOTEL SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation,
doing business as San Jose Marriot; SJMEC, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20CV362706
(Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Feb. 4, 2020), seeks to recover
unpaid wages, including overtime wages, penalties for inaccurate
wage statements, interest, related penalties, injunctive and other
equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation
costs pursuant to the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class members worked,
on many occasions, in excess of 8 hours in a workday and/or 40
hours in a workweek during the Class Period. However, the
Defendants denied them overtime compensation, which they were
owed.

The Plaintiff and class members are or have been employed by the
Defendants as non-exempt food or beverage servers within the City
of San Jose.

Marriott is an American multinational diversified hospitality
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Allen, Esq.
          ALLEN ATTORNEY GROUP
          2121 North California Boulevard, Suite 290
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 695-4913
          Facsimile: (408) 228—1930
          E-mail: kevin@allenattomeygroup.com

               - and -

          Daniel A. Menendez, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL A. MENENDEZ
          1261 Lincoln Avenue, Suite 208
          San Jose, CA 95 125
          Telephone: (408) 479-4969
          Facsimile: (408) 273-6912
          E-mail: daniel@siliconvalleylegal.com


MAVERICK NATURAL: Moore Seeks Overtime Pay for Welding Inspectors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHAD MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAVERICK NATURAL RESOURCES, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 4:20-cv-00591 (S.D. Tex., February 20, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of all other similarly-situated workers,
alleges that the Defendant paid them a flat sum for each day
worked, regardless of the number of hours that they worked that day
or in that workweek; and failed to provide them with overtime pay
for hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Mr. Moore was employed by the Defendant as a welding inspector from
approximately June 2019 through November 2019.

Maverick Natural Resources, LLC is a private oil and gas company
headquartered in Houston, Texas. It owns and operates diverse
producing assets across the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046          
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  
               - and -
           
          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046          
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

MEDLEY CAPITAL: Contingent Fee Award in Merger Suit Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Medley Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the Company and
Sierra Income Corporation have taken an appeal with the Delaware
Supreme Court from a trial court's Order and Final Judgment with
respect to the Contingent Fee Award.

On August 9, 2018, the Company entered into a definitive agreement
to merge with Sierra.  Pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated as of August 9, 2018, by and between the Company and
Sierra (the "MCC Merger Agreement"), the Company would, on the
terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the MCC Merger
Agreement, merge with and into Sierra, with Sierra as the surviving
entity (the "Combined Company") in the merger (the "MCC Merger").

On February 11, 2019, a purported stockholder class action was
commenced in the Delaware Court of Chancery by FrontFour Capital
Group LLC and FrontFour Master Fund, Ltd. (together, "FrontFour"),
captioned as FrontFour Capital Group LLC, et al. v. Brook Taube et
al., Case No. 2019-0100 (the "Delaware Action") against defendants
Brook Taube, Seth Taube, Jeff Tonkel, Mark Lerdal, Karin
Hirtler-Garvey, John E. Mack, Arthur S. Ainsberg, MDLY, Sierra, the
Company, MCC Advisors, Medley Group LLC, and Medley LLC.

The complaint, as amended on February 12, 2019, alleged that the
individuals named as defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
the Company’s stockholders in connection with the MCC Merger, and
that MDLY, Sierra, MCC Advisors, Medley Group LLC, and Medley LLC
aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The
complaint sought to enjoin the vote of MCC stockholders on the
proposed merger and enjoin enforcement of certain provisions of the
MCC Merger Agreement.

The Delaware Court of Chancery held a trial on the plaintiffs'
motion for a preliminary injunction and issued a Memorandum Opinion
(the "Decision") on March 11, 2019. The Delaware Court of Chancery
denied the plaintiffs' requests to (i) permanently enjoin the
proposed merger and (ii) require the Company to conduct a "shopping
process" for the Company on terms proposed by the plaintiffs in
their complaint.

The Delaware Court of Chancery held that the Company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in entering into the proposed
merger, but rejected the plaintiffs' claim that Sierra aided and
abetted those breaches of fiduciary duties.

The Delaware Court of Chancery ordered the defendants to issue
corrective disclosures consistent with the Decision, and enjoined a
vote of the Company's stockholders on the proposed merger until
such disclosures had been made and stockholders had the opportunity
to assimilate that information.

On March 20, 2019, another purported stockholder class action was
commenced by Stephen Altman against Brook Taube, Seth Taube, Jeff
Tonkel, Arthur S. Ainsberg, Karin Hirtler-Garvey, Mark Lerdal, and
John E. Mack in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Altman v.
Taube, Case No. 2019-0219 (the "Altman Action").

The complaint alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to stockholders of the Company in connection with the vote
of the Company's stockholders on the proposed mergers. On April 8,
2019, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted a stipulation
consolidating the Delaware Action and the Altman Action,
designating the amended complaint in the Delaware Action as the
operative complaint, and designating the plaintiffs in the Delaware
Action and their counsel the lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs’
counsel, respectively.

On December 20, 2019, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered an
Order and Final Judgment approving the settlement of the Delaware
Action (the "Settlement"). Pursuant to the Settlement, the Company
agreed to certain amendments to (i) the MCC Merger Agreement and
(ii) the MDLY Merger Agreement, which amendments are reflected in
the Amended MCC Merger Agreement and the Amended MDLY Merger
Agreement.

The Settlement also provides for, if the MCC Merger is consummated,
the creation of a settlement fund, consisting of $17 million in
cash and $30 million of Sierra's common stock, with the number of
shares of Sierra's common stock to be calculated using the pro
forma net asset value of $6.37 per share as of June 30, 2019, which
will be distributed to eligible members of the Settlement Class (as
defined in the Settlement).

In addition, in connection with the Settlement, on July 29, 2019,
the Company entered into a Governance Agreement with FrontFour
Capital Group LLC, FrontFour Master Fund, Ltd., FrontFour Capital
Corp., FrontFour Opportunity Fund, David A. Lorber, Stephen E.
Loukas and Zachary R. George, pursuant to which, among other
matters, FrontFour is subject to customary standstill restrictions
and required to vote in favor of the revised MCC Merger at a
meeting of stockholders to approve the revised MCC Merger
Agreement.

The Settlement also provides for mutual releases between and among
FrontFour and the Settlement Class, on the one hand, and the Medley
Parties, on the other hand, of all claims that were or could have
been asserted in the Delaware Action through September 26, 2019.

The Delaware Court of Chancery also awarded attorney's fees as
follows: (i) an award of $3,000,000 to lead plaintiffs' counsel and
$75,000 to counsel to plaintiff Stephen Altman (the "Therapeutics
Fee Award") and $420,334.97 of plaintiff counsel expenses payable
to the lead plaintiff's counsel, which were paid on December 23,
2019, and (ii) an award that is contingent upon the closing of the
proposed merger transactions (the "Contingent Fee Award"),
consisting of:

a. $100,000 for the agreement to appoint an independent director on
the board of directors of the post-merger company; and

b. the amount calculated by solving for A in the following
formula:

Award[A]=(Monetary Fund[M]+Award[A]-Look Through[L]) Percentage[P]

Where:

A    shall be the amount of the Additional Fee (excluding the
$100,000 award for the agreement to appoint an independent director
on the board of directors of the post-merger company);

M    shall be the sum of (i) the $17 million cash component of the
Settlement Fund and (ii) the value of the post-merger company stock
component of the Settlement Fund, which shall be calculated as the
product of the VPS (as defined below) and 4,709,576.14 (the number
of shares of post-merger company's stock comprising the stock
component of the net settlement amount);

L    shall be the amount representing the estimated value of the
decrease in shares to be received by eligible class members arising
by operation of the change in the "Exchange Ratio" under the
Amended MCC Merger Agreement, calculated as follows:

L = ((ES * 68%) - (ES * 66%)) * VPS

Where:

ES   shall be the number of eligible shares;

VPS  shall be the pro forma net asset value per share of the
post-merger company's common stock as of the closing as reported in
the public disclosure filed nearest in time and after the closing
(the "Closing NAV Disclosure"); and

P    shall equal 0.26

The Contingent Fee Award is contingent upon the closing of the MCC
Merger. Payment of the Contingent Fee Award will be made in two
stages. First, within five (5) business days of the establishment
of the Settlement Fund, the Company or its successor shall (i) pay
the plaintiffs' counsel an estimate of the Contingent Fee Award
(the "Additional Fee Estimate"), less twenty (20) percent (the
"Additional Fee Estimate Payment"), and (ii) deposit the remaining
twenty (20) percent of the Additional Fee Estimate into escrow (the
"Escrowed Fee").

For purposes of calculating such estimate, the Company or its
successor shall use the formula set above, except that VPS shall
equal the pro forma net asset value of the post-merger company's
common stock as reported in the public disclosure filed nearest in
time and prior to the closing (the "Closing NAV Estimate").

Second, within five (5) business days of the Closing NAV Disclosure
(as defined in the Order and Final Judgment), (i) if the Additional
Fee is greater than the Additional Fee Estimate Payment, an amount
of the Escrowed Fee shall be released to plaintiffs' counsel such
that the total payments made to plaintiffs' counsel equal the
Additional Fee and the remainder of the Escrowed Fee, if any, shall
be released to the Company or its successor, (ii) if the Additional
Fee is less than the Additional Fee Estimate Payment, plaintiffs’
counsel shall return to the Company or its successor the difference
between the Additional Fee Estimate and the Additional Fee and the
Escrowed Fee shall be released to the Company or its successor, or
(iii) if the Additional Fee is equal to the Additional Fee Estimate
Payment, the Escrowed Fee shall be released to the Company or its
successor.

The Company paid the Therapeutics Fee Award and plaintiffs'
counsel's expenses on December 23, 2019. On January 17, 2020, the
Company and Sierra filed a notice of appeal with the Delaware
Supreme Court from those provisions of the Order and Final Judgment
with respect to the Contingent Fee Award.

Prior to reporting its financial results for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2019, the Company had determined that a material loss
in the amount of $3.5 million related to the Therapeutics Fee Award
was probable, and as such recorded an accrual for this loss
contingency on its consolidated statement of operations.

With respect to the Company's contingent obligations under the
Order and Final Judgment to (i) fund the Settlement Fund with $17
million in cash and $30 million of Sierra stock, and (ii) pay the
Contingent Fee Award using the formula set forth above, we note
that all of these obligations are contingent upon closing of the
Mergers.

The Company has determined the likelihood of a material loss from
the Settlement Fund and the Contingent Fee Award to be reasonably
possible (as opposed to probable and reasonably estimable) under
ASC 450 and thus has not made an accrual in its consolidated
statement of operations.

Medley Capital Corporation is a business development company. The
fund seeks to invest in privately negotiated debt and equity
securities of small and middle market companies. The company is
based in New York, New York.


MEDLEY CAPITAL: Plaintiff Counsel Seek Fee Award
------------------------------------------------
Medley Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that attorneys for
the plaintiff in the New York class actions are seeking an order
awarding them attorneys' fees on account of their purported
contributions to the settlement of the Delaware Action.

On January 25, 2019, two purported class actions were commenced in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, by
alleged stockholders of Medley Capital Corporation, captioned,
respectively, Helene Lax v. Brook Taube, et al., Index No.
650503/2019, and Richard Dicristino, et al. v. Brook Taube, et al.,
Index No. 650510/2019.

Named as defendants in each complaint are Brook Taube, Seth Taube,
Jeffrey Tonkel, Arthur S. Ainsberg, Karin Hirtler-Garvey, John E.
Mack, Mark Lerdal, Richard T. Allorto, Jr., Medley Capital
Corporation, Medley Management Inc., Sierra Income Corporation, and
Sierra Management, Inc. The complaints in each of the New York
Actions allege that the individuals named as defendants breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed merger of
MCC with and into Sierra, and that the other defendants aided and
abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Compensatory
damages in unspecified amounts were sought.

On December 20, 2019, the Delaware court entered an Order and Final
Judgment approving the settlement of the Delaware Action. The
release in the Delaware Action also operate to release the claims
asserted in the New York Class Actions.

The attorneys for the plaintiff in the New York Class Actions are
seeking an order awarding them attorneys' fees on account of their
purported contributions to the settlement of the Delaware Action.

Medley Capital Corporation is a business development company. The
fund seeks to invest in privately negotiated debt and equity
securities of small and middle market companies. The company is
based in New York, New York.


MEDLEY CAPITAL: RICO Suits Ongoing in Virginia & Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
Medley Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend class action lawsuits in Virginia and
Pennsylvania alleging claims under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, and various other claims arising out of
the alleged payday lending activities of American Web Loan.

Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Opportunity Fund II
LP, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and
Seth Taube were named as defendants, along with other various
parties, in a putative class action lawsuit captioned as Royce
Solomon, Jodi Belleci, Michael Littlejohn, and Giulianna Lomaglio
v. American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Mark Curry, MacFarlane
Group, Inc., Sol Partners, Medley Opportunity Fund, II, LP, Medley
LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley
Group, LLC, Brook Taube, Seth Taube, DHI Computing Service, Inc.,
Middlemarch Partners, and John Does 1-100, filed on December 15,
2017, amended on March 9, 2018, and amended a second time on
February 15, 2019, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division, as Case No.
4:17-cv-145 ("Class Action 1").

Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation were
also named as defendants, along with various other parties, in a
putative class action lawsuit captioned George Hengle and Lula
Williams v. Mark Curry, American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Red
Stone, Inc., Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, and Medley Capital
Corporation, filed February 13, 2018, in the United States District
Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, as Case No.
3:18-cv-100 ("Class Action 2").

Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation were
also named as defendants, along with various other parties, in a
putative class action lawsuit captioned John Glatt, Sonji Grandy,
Heather Ball, Dashawn Hunter, and Michael Corona v. Mark Curry,
American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Red Stone, Inc., Medley
Opportunity Fund II LP, and Medley Capital Corporation, filed
August 9, 2018 in the United States District Court, Eastern
District of Virginia, Newport News Division, as Case No.
4:18-cv-101 ("Class Action 3") (together with Class Action 1 and
Class Action 2, the "Virginia Class Actions").

Medley Opportunity Fund II LP was also named as a defendant, along
with various other parties, in a putative class action lawsuit
captioned Christina Williams and Michael Stermel v. Red Stone, Inc.
(as successor in interest to MacFarlane Group, Inc.), Medley
Opportunity Fund II LP, Mark Curry, Brian McGowan, Vincent Ney, and
John Doe entities and individuals, filed June 29, 2018 and amended
July 26, 2018, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, as Case No. 2:18-cv-2747 (the
"Pennsylvania Class Action") (together with the Virginia Class
Actions, the "Class Action Complaints").

The plaintiffs in the Class Action Complaints filed their putative
class actions alleging claims under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, and various other claims arising out of
the alleged payday lending activities of American Web Loan.

The claims against Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC,
Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group,
LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube (in Class Action 1, as amended);
Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation (in
Class Action 2 and Class Action 3); and Medley Opportunity Fund II
LP (in the Pennsylvania Class Action), allege that those defendants
in each respective action exercised control over, or improperly
derived income from, and/or obtained an improper interest in,
American Web Loan's payday lending activities as a result of a loan
to American Web Loan. The loan was made by Medley Opportunity Fund
II LP in 2011.

American Web Loan repaid the loan from Medley Opportunity Fund II
LP in full in February of 2015, more than 1 year and 10 months
prior to any of the loans allegedly made by American Web Loan to
the alleged class plaintiff representatives in Class Action 1.

In Class Action 2, the alleged class plaintiff representatives have
not alleged when they received any loans from American Web Loan.

In Class Action 3, the alleged class plaintiff representatives
claim to have received loans from American Web Loan at various
times from February 2015 through April 2018. In the Pennsylvania
Class Action, the alleged class plaintiff representatives claim to
have received loans from American Web Loan in 2017.

By orders dated August 7, 2018 and September 17, 2018, the Court
presiding over the Virginia Class Actions consolidated those cases
for all purposes. On October 12, 2018, Plaintiffs in Class Action 3
filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of all claims, and on October
29, 2018, Plaintiffs in Class Action 2 filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of all claims. Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation,
Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth
Taube never made any loans or provided financing to, or had any
other relationship with, American Web Loan.

Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital
Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook
Taube, Seth Taube are seeking indemnification from American Web
Loan, various affiliates, and other parties with respect to the
claims in the Class Action Complaints. Medley Opportunity Fund II
LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management,
Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube believe the
alleged claims in the Class Action Complaints are without merit and
they intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously.

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

Medley Capital Corporation is a business development company. The
fund seeks to invest in privately negotiated debt and equity
securities of small and middle market companies. The company is
based in New York, New York.


MEREDITH CORP: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in Iowa Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Meredith Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the City of
Plantation Police Officers Pension Fund has been appointed to serve
as lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit in Iowa.

On September 6, 2019, a shareholder filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its
Chief Financial Officer, seeking to represent a class of
shareholders who acquired securities of the Company between May 10,
2018 and September 4, 2019 (the New York Action).

On September 12, 2019, a shareholder filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Iowa against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, its Chief
Financial Officer, and its Chairman of the Board seeking to
represent a class of shareholders who acquired securities of the
Company between January 31, 2018 and September 5, 2019 (the Iowa
Action).

Both complaints allege that the defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material
adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

Both complaints assert claims under the federal securities laws and
seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On November 12,
2019, the plaintiff shareholder withdrew the New York Action, and
the action has been dismissed.

On November 25, 2019, the City of Plantation Police Officers
Pension Fund was appointed to serve as lead plaintiff in the Iowa
Action.

The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in the Iowa
Action but intend to vigorously oppose it. The Company expresses no
opinion as to the ultimate outcome of this matter.

Meredith Corporation is a diversified media company primarily
focuses on publishing and broadcasting. The Company's publishing
segment includes magazine and book publishing, marketing,
interactive media, licensing, and other related operations.
Meredith operates network-affiliated television stations and
develops syndicated television programs. The company is based in
Des Moines, Iowa.


MERIDIAN BIOSCIENCE: Forman Case Settlement Up for March 16 Hearing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing is scheduled for March 16, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. in
the case, Forman v. Meridian Bioscience, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:17-cv-00774 (S.D. Ohio), before Judge Susan J. Dlott.

Meridian Bioscience Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that on November 15,
2017, Barbara Forman filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (the Court)
naming Meridian, its former Chief Executive Officer and former
Chief Financial Officer (in their capacities as such) as
defendants.

An amended complaint was filed on April 16, 2018 and the Company
believes the essential elements of the amended complaint are the
same.

On July 9, 2019, a settlement was reached with the plaintiff that
provides for a $2,100 payment by the Company. On October 9, 2019,
the Court granted a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement, and on November 7, 2019, the settlement amount was paid
from the Company's directors and officers insurance policy into a
plaintiff escrow account.

Meridian said, "Because the settlement was a covered claim under
our directors and officers insurance policy, no provision for
litigation losses has been included within either of the
accompanying Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations for
the three months ended December 31, 2019 or December 31, 2018."

Meridian Bioscience Inc., an integrated life science company,
manufactures, develops, sells, and distributes diagnostic test
kits. Meridian, founded in 1976, is based in Cincinnati Ohio.


MESA LABORATORIES: Orrington Settlement Paid in Full
----------------------------------------------------
Mesa Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the settlement
amount in the Orrington class action suit has been paid in full
during the nine months ended December 31, 2019.

In February 2018, Dr. James L. Orrington II filed a putative civil
class action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, alleging that the company
sent unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines.

The complaint included counts alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act,
Conversion, Nuisance, and Trespass to Chattels.  

The plaintiff sought monetary damages, injunctive relief, and
attorneys' fees.

In January 2019, the company received preliminary court approval of
a class action settlement with Dr. James L. Orrington II and the
class in the amount of $3,300, and the company received final
approval on May 28, 2019.

Mesa Laboratories said, "We recorded the final settlement amount on
our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations during the year
ended March 31, 2019 and a corresponding liability was included as
legal liability on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The
settlement was paid in full during the nine months ended December
31, 2019."

Mesa Laboratories, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets quality
control instruments and disposable products. Mesa Laboratories,
Inc. was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Lakewood,
Colorado.


METROPOLITAN CHILDREN: Wallace Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Wallace and Melissa Givens, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. METROPOLITAN CHILDREN AND YOUTH,
INC. RENAISSANCE HEAD START, a Michigan Non-Profit Corporation,
TINA EDWARDS, an individual, and PAULA BANKS, an individual, Case
No. 2:20-cv-10488-LJM-MJH (E.D. Mich., Feb. 26, 2020), arises from
the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages, in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked more than 40
hours during numerous separate workweeks. The Defendants were aware
of their obligation to compensate the Plaintiffs for work performed
beyond 40 hours in a workweek during the relevant time period at
one and one-half times the Plaintiffs' regular hourly rate. The
Defendants, nevertheless, failed and refused to pay the Plaintiffs
for work performed beyond 40 hours in each workweek at the
FLSA-mandated overtime premium hourly rate.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as an hourly
Assistant Teacher and an hourly Center Director.

Renaissance is a Michigan domestic nonprofit corporation with its
headquarters in Detroit, Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Amy Marino, Esq.
          Jacqueline Snyder-Powdhar, Esq.
          MARINO LAW PLLC
          18977 W. Ten Mile Rd., Suite 100E
          Southfield, MI 48075
          Phone: 248-797-9944
          Fax: 313-281-2600
          Email: amy@marinopllc.com
                 jackie@marinopllc.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Giuliano Files FDCPA Suit in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Jennifer M. Giuliano,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-01354 (N.D., Ill., Feb. 25, 2020).

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

Midland Credit Management is an online collection agency that helps
consumers resolve debts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
   Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
   2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
   Lombard, IL 60148
   Tel: (630) 575-8181
   Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com


MIDWEST ARBOR: Faces Zarate FLSA Suit Over Improperly Paid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
EDGAR ZARATE, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PLAINTIFFS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, KNOWN AND UNKNOWN v. MIDWEST ARBOR CORPORATION,
AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-00809 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 4,
2020), alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Portal-to-Portal Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and
the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act over unpaid and
improperly paid wages.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff performed work before and
after shifts that was not recorded or accounted for by the
Defendant's time keeping system (work off the clock). In some
instances, the work off the clock should have been compensated at
time and one-half the Plaintiff's regular hourly rate because if
the unpaid time was properly treated as compensable, the Plaintiff
would have worked over 40 hours in particular workweeks. In other
instances, the work off the clock should have been compensated at
the Plaintiff's regular hourly rate pursuant to the requirements of
the federal and state statues.

The Plaintiff also alleges that he experienced unauthorized
deductions from his paychecks for uniforms. He contends that these
unauthorized deductions were unlawful, done without his written
authorization and failed to include other notifications, such as
the right to voluntary withdrawal as required by Illinois law.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendant who, between
Feb. 2015 and Dec. 2019, was employed seasonally (April to December
each year) by the Defendant as a landscaper.

The Defendant owns and operates a landscaping business located at
1700 Holian Drive, in Spring Grove, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John William Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 401
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 853-1450


MOLSON COORS: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Pending in Colorado
-----------------------------------------------------------
Molson Coors Beverage Company said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the
company's motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit
pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
is pending.

On February 15, 2019, two purported stockholders filed
substantially similar putative class action complaints against the
Company, Mark R. Hunter, and Tracey I. Joubert in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado, and in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

On February 21, 2019, another purported stockholder filed a
substantially similar complaint in the Colorado District Court.

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of the Company's
stockholders and assert that the Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by allegedly making false and
misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company's
restatement of consolidated financial statements for the years
ended December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2017, and that the Company
purportedly lacked adequate internal controls over financial
reporting.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an unspecified amount of
damages and reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other
costs.

On April 16, 2019, motions to consolidate and appoint a lead
plaintiff were filed in each case. On May 24, 2019, the securities
class action suit filed with the Illinois District Court was
transferred to the Colorado District Court, but was voluntarily
dismissed on July 25, 2019.

On October 2, 2019, the class action lawsuits originally filed in
Colorado District Court were consolidated, and, on October 3, 2019,
the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the
consolidated case.

On December 9, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed its amended complaint
alleging that the Defendants made false statements and material
omissions to the market beginning in February 2017 and ending in
February 2019, which, it alleges, misled the market as to the
strength of our financial condition and internal control processes
related to financial accounting.

The amended complaint further alleges that the Company and the
Defendants caused the Company to falsely report its financial
results by overstating retained earnings, net income, and tax
benefits and understating deferred tax liabilities in an effort to
inflate the price of the company's common stock.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
January 23, 2020.

Molson Coors said, "We intend to defend the claims vigorously. A
range of potential loss is not estimable at this time."

The Molson Coors Beverage Company is a multinational brewing
company, formed in 2005 by the merger of Molson of Canada, and
Coors of the United States. It is the world's seventh largest
brewer by volume. The company is based in Denver, Colorado.


MONDELEZ INT'L: Appeal Filed in Wheat Trading Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Mondelez International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7,
2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
is taking an interlocutory appeal from an Illinois district court's
class certification decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit.

On April 1, 2015, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
("CFTC") filed a complaint against Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez
Global LLC ("Mondelez Global") in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (the "District Court"), Eastern
Division (the "CFTC action") following its investigation of
activities related to the trading of December 2011 wheat futures
contracts that occurred prior to the spin-off of Kraft Foods Group.


The complaint alleges that Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global
(1) manipulated or attempted to manipulate the wheat markets during
the fall of 2011; (2) violated position limit levels for wheat
futures and (3) engaged in non-competitive trades by trading both
sides of exchange-for-physical Chicago Board of Trade wheat
contracts.

The CFTC seeks civil monetary penalties of either triple the
monetary gain for each violation of the Commodity Exchange Act (the
"Act") or $1 million for each violation of Section 6(c)(1), 6(c)(3)
or 9(a)(2) of the Act and $140,000 for each additional violation of
the Act, plus post-judgment interest; an order of permanent
injunction prohibiting Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global from
violating specified provisions of the Act; disgorgement of profits;
and costs and fees.

On August 15, 2019, the District Court approved a settlement
agreement between the CFTC and Mondelez Global. The terms of the
settlement, which are available in the District Court's docket, had
an immaterial impact on our financial position, results of
operations and cash flows.

On October 23, 2019, following a ruling by the Seventh Circuit
regarding Mondelez Global's allegations that the CFTC and its
Commissioners violated certain terms of the settlement agreement
and the CFTC's argument that the Commissioners were not bound by
the terms of the settlement agreement, the District Court vacated
the settlement agreement and reinstated all pending motions that
the District Court had previously mooted as a result of the
settlement.

Additionally, several class action complaints were filed against
Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global in the District Court by
investors in wheat futures and options on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated.

The complaints make similar allegations as those made in the CFTC
action, and the plaintiffs are seeking class action certification;
monetary damages, interest and unjust enrichment; costs and fees;
and injunctive, declaratory and other unspecified relief.

In June 2015, these suits were consolidated in the District Court.
On January 3, 2020, the District Court granted plaintiffs' request
to certify a class. On January 17, 2020, the company filed a
petition for an interlocutory appeal of the District Court's class
certification decision to the Seventh Circuit.

Mondelez said, "It is not possible to predict the outcome of these
matters; however, based on our Separation and Distribution
Agreement with Kraft Foods Group dated as of September 27, 2012, we
expect to bear any monetary penalties or other payments in
connection with the CFTC action. Although the CFTC action and the
class action complaints involve the same alleged conduct, a
resolution or decision with respect to one of the matters may not
be dispositive as to the outcome of the other matter."

Mondelez International, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and markets snack food and beverage products
worldwide. It offers biscuits, including cookies, crackers, and
salted snacks; chocolates; gums and candies; coffee and powdered
beverages; and cheese and grocery products. Mondelez International,
Inc. was founded in 2000 and is based in Deerfield, Illinois.


MUNCHKIN INC: Cruz Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
-----------------------------------------------------
Munchkin, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael
Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Munchkin, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01670
(S.D. N.Y., Feb. 25, 2020).

Munchkin, Inc. is an American infant and toddler company
headquartered in Van Nuys, California. It was founded in 1991 by
Steven B. Dunn and is known for designing, developing,
manufacturing and distributing infant and toddler products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal




MYRIAD GENETICS: Securities Class Action Ongoing in Utah
---------------------------------------------------------
Myriad Genetics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, In re Myriad
Genetics, Inc. Securities Litigation (No. 2:19-cv-00707-DBB).

On September 27, 2019, a purported class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Utah, against the
Company, its President and Chief Executive Officer, Mark C. Capone,
and its Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, R.
Bryan Riggsbee.  

This action, captioned In re Myriad Genetics, Inc. Securities
Litigation (No. 2:19-cv-00707-DBB), is premised upon allegations
that the Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding
the company's business, operations, and acquisitions.  

The lead plaintiff seeks the payment of damages allegedly sustained
by it and the purported class by reason of the allegations set
forth in the complaint, plus interest, and legal and other costs
and fees.  

Myriad said, "The Company intends to vigorously defend against this
action. Due to the nature of this matter and inherent
uncertainties, it is not possible to provide an evaluation of the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or an estimate of the amount
or range of potential loss, if any."

Myriad Genetics, Inc., a molecular diagnostic company, focuses on
developing and marketing novel predictive medicine, personalized
medicine, and prognostic medicine tests worldwide. Myriad Genetics,
Inc. was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City,
Utah.


NATIONAL METERING: Hall et al. Seek OT Pay for Technicians
----------------------------------------------------------
WELLINGTON HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL METERING SERVICES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01921 (D.N.J., February 21, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and persons presently and
formerly employed by the Defendant as technicians and/or in similar
positions with similar non-exempt duties, alleges that the
Defendant paid them less than one and one-half times their regular
rate for hours worked more than 40 hours in a workweek and did not
apply weighted average on their regular rates, including piece-rate
payments.

Mr. Hall was employed by the Defendant as a technician.

National Metering Services, Inc. is a provider of metering services
located at 163 Schuyler Avenue in Kearny, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
          Daniel A. Horowitz, Esq.
          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER LLC
          1101 Kings Highway N., Ste. 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685-7417

NATURE REPUBLIC: Faces Cooks ADA Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD COOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATURE REPUBLIC INTERNATIONAL, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01110-FMO-PVC (C.D. Cal., Feb. 3, 2020)
alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case
is assigned to Judge Fernando M. Olguin.

Nature Republic International, LLC sells beauty products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amanda F Benedict, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF AMANDA BENEDICT
          7710 Hazard Center Drive Suite E104
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (760) 822-1911
          Facsimile: (760) 452-7562
          E-mail: amanda@amandabenedict.com


NATURES BOUNTY: Morgan Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
------------------------------------------------------------
Jon R. Morgan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. THE NATURES BOUNTY CO. d/b/a MET-RX., Case No.
1:20-cv-01699 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 26, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Web site,
http://www.Metrx.com/,and therefore denial of its products and
services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the Plaintiff contends. Because
the Defendant's Web site is not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired individuals, it violates the ADA, the Plaintiff
asserts.

The Defendant's Web site contains various and multiple access
barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and
visually-impaired consumers to attempt to complete a transaction,
the Plaintiff avers. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to
cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices,
and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and
remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using his
computer.

The Defendant is a global leader in health and wellness market. The
Defendant is a manufacturer and online retailer of vitamins,
dietary supplements, minerals, herbs, protein bars and powders and
beauty products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
          SHALOM LAW, PLLC
          124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Phone: (718) 971-9474
          Facsimile: (718) 865-0943
          Email: Jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com


NET 1 UEPS: Faces Putative Securities Class Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Net 1 UEPS Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the company
is defending against a putative securities class action suit filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On December 5, 2019, a putative securities class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the company, Herman G. Kotze and Alex
M.R. Smith.

The complaint seeks damages based on alleged material
misrepresentations and omissions concerning our internal controls
over financial reporting, classification of an investment in Cell C
Proprietary Limited, and the company's consolidated financial
statements for fiscal 2018.

The complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.

The proposed class period is September 12, 2018, through November
8, 2018, inclusive.

None of the defendants have been served.

Net 1 UEPS Technologies, Inc. holds a non-exclusive worldwide
license to the Universal Electronic Payment System (UEPS). The
Company commercializes the smart card based service through
alliances with banks, card services, and retail organizations. The
company is based in Johannesburg, South Africa.


NEWELL BRANDS: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Cruz Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
SHAEL CRUZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEWELL BRANDS INC., Defendant, Case
1:20-cv-01261-PAE-BCM (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 20, 2020) alleges violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's website --
www.exofficio.com -- is not fully or equally accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to
cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices,
and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and
remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

Newell Brands, Inc. retails consumer products. The Company offers
housewares, home furnishings, office supplies, tools and hardware,
and hair accessories. Newell Brands markets its products worldwide.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NFL: Class Action Mulled Over SuperBowl Halftime Show
-----------------------------------------------------
Jay Maxson, writing for MRCNewsBusters, reports that a former prep
football coach in Ohio, now the host of a Christian ministry
podcast, is under fire for threatening to sue the NFL over the
raunchy Super Bowl halftime show. Dave Daubenmire says the
performance by Jennifer Lopez and Shakira was pornographic and
children watching at home should not be subjected to such. The
Complex Sports blog and Right Wing Watch ripped Daubenmire for
watching the program and then saying his eternal salvation had been
put at risk.

Daubenmire said on the podcast he wants to sue the NFL "for $867
trillion," but later told Newsweek that figure was "a hyperbole."
"I said it right off the top of my head, I just threw some big
number out there. In my opinion, there's not a big enough number to
sue them for.

"If the NFL wants to have crotch shots at halftime, put up a
warning 'May not be suitable for young children,'" Daubenmire says
in the Newsweek story. "The NFL should have warned their viewers
beforehand that the halftime show would be filled with unsolicited
"crotch shot." Daubenmire said.:

"I think we ought to sue. Would that halftime show, would that have
been rated PG? Were there any warnings that your 12-year-old son -
whose hormones are just starting to operate - was there any warning
that what he was going to see might cause him to get sexually
excited? Could I go into a courtroom and say, 'viewing what you put
on that screen put me in danger of hellfire?"

The Super Bowl program is pornography, in Daubenmire's view, and he
does not think it should be coming into our homes, "but I'm not
worried about my personal salvation because of pornography. I'm
worried about innocent children who are viewing it without the
approval of their parents."

"My position is not about my own salvation; my salvation is secure.
I'm not gonna lose my salvation for watching a clip at the Super
Bowl," Daubenmire added. "Parents have the right to know
pornography is coming into their home."

Complex had a field day with the Christian activist. Joe Price
writes, "Clutching his pearls, he said he's looking for a lawyer to
help him with a class action lawsuit against the show, which he
described as a 'strip club performance.' He continued, 'I think we
ought to go sit down in a courtroom and present this as evidence of
how whoever is keeping me from getting into the kingdom of Heaven.'
He claimed that the show 'penetrated the sanctity of my home.' "

Price further writes that Daubenmire, "an avid Donald Trump
supporter," is reaping a major backlash and is receiving obscene
images from critics.

Complex posted several critical tweets, including from the far Left
hate group Right Wing Watch, telling Daubenmire he could have
turned off the halftime show. He said he did just that, but later
watched videos to gain a full understanding of how bad the program
was.

The New York Post described the controversy as a former Ohio
football coach "on an all-out blitz against the NFL over its Super
Bowl halftime show with Jennifer Lopez and Shakira . . . ."

Yaron Steinbuch writes, "The Super Bowl LIV halftime extravaganza
showcased the two women gyrating to Shakira's 'Hips Don't Lie' and
Lopez's 'On the Floor,'' which Daubenmire slammed as a "porn show"
unfit for young viewers.

Daubenmire said, "I turned on the TV to watch football, not to
watch a pole dance. They penetrated the sanctity of my home. I'm
not here to tell the NFL what they can put on. I'm not here to tell
anyone what they can watch. But they don't have the right in the
middle of a game to broadcast soft porn."

Daubenmire isn't the only Christian using his platform to speak out
against the NFL's trash. The host of Family Talk with Dr. James
Dobson said in an email blast the Super Bowl program was "a sexual
smorgasboard.":

"Let me be clear: pole dancing, sex stimulation, and crotch shots
are not a celebration of Latin culture; they are a celebration of
our hypersexualized culture. I regret the need to be so graphic,
but have we collectively lost our minds? Objectifying women --
whether they willingly participate or not -- is wrong. Failing to
oppose such an affront to women is equally blameworthy."

Dr. Dobson said we should demand better of the NFL, networks,
sponsors and entertainers. [GN]


NORTH COAST: Faces Newell TCPA Suit Over Pre-Recorded Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOUREY NEWELL, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. NORTH COAST MEDIA, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00245-DAP (N.D. Ohio,
Feb. 4, 2020), arises from North Coast's sending of unsolicited,
pre-recorded messages in plain violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, North Coast used a software program to
transmit thousands of unsolicited pre-recorded messages to the
Plaintiff and proposed Class Members. By doing so without first
obtaining the prior express consent of recipients, North Coast
violated the TCPA.

The recipients of North Coast's illegal messages, which include the
Plaintiff and the proposed classes, are entitled to damages under
the TCPA, the Plaintiff contends.

North Coast was founded in 2011. The Company's line of business
includes publishing and printing books and pamphlets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq.
          Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
          MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
          1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 224-6000
          Facsimile: (614) 224-6066
          E-mail: mboyle@meyerwilson.com
                  mwilson@meyerwilson.com

               - and -

          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (617) 485-0018
          Facsimile: (508) 318-8100
          E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com


NORTH MISSISSIPPI MEDICAL: Faces Wood Suit Over FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stanley Wood and Chastity Wood, Individually, and on Behalf of a
Class of Similarly Situated Persons v. NORTH MISSISSIPPI MEDICAL
CENTER, INC., TUPELO SERVICE FINANCE, INC., ALLIANCE COLLECTION
SERVICE, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 3:20-cv-00065-MPM-RP
(N.D. Miss., Feb. 26, 2020), is brought to recover damages pursuant
to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, NMMC is engaged in an illegal practice
known as "balance billing." Balance billing occurs when a medical
provider bills a patient for the difference between the amount
charged by the medical provider for its services and the amount
paid by the patient's insurer after insurance benefits are
assigned.

The Plaintiffs allege that the unfair debt collection practices
used by the Defendants include telephone calls and mailings, which
contain fraudulent misrepresentations, omit material information,
and are designed to mislead consumers regarding their obligation to
pay balance bills and the consequences of a failure to pay such
bills. Such practices give these the Defendants a competitive
advantage over debt collectors, who refrain from collecting or
attempting to collect illegal balance bills, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs Stanley Wood and Chastity Wood are married adults. The
Woods are residents of Lee County and citizens of Mississippi.

NMMC operates a hospital in Lee County, Mississippi.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          H. Scot Spragins, Esq.
          Lawrence J. Tucker, Jr., Esq.
          HICKMAN, GOZA & SPRAGINS, PLLC
          P.O. Drawer 668
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Phone: (662) 234-4000
          Facsimile: (662) 234-2000


NORTONLIFELOCK INC: Continues to Defend Avila Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
NortonLifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended January 3, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Avila v. LifeLock et al.

On August 29, 2019 the Ninth Circuit issued a mandate remanding a
securities class action lawsuit, originally filed on July 22, 2015,
against the company's subsidiary, LifeLock, as well as certain of
LifeLock's former officers for further proceedings in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona.

The Ninth Circuit had affirmed in part and reversed in part the
August 21, 2017 decision of the District Court, which had dismissed
the case with prejudice.

The complaint in the remanded action alleges that, during a
purported class period of July 30, 2014 to July 21, 2015, a period
that predates LifeLock's acquisition by the company, the LifeLock
Defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The case
is now back in the U.S. District Court for further proceedings.

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

NortonLifeLock, Inc. engages in the provision of security, storage,
and systems management solutions. It operates through Enterprise
Security and Consumer Digital Safety segments. The Consumer Digital
Safety segment provides solutions to protect information, devices,
networks and the identities of consumers. The company is based in
Tempe, Arizona.


NORTONLIFELOCK INC: Still Faces Securities Suit in N.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
NortonLifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended January 3, 2020, that the company and
certain of its former officers remain  defendants in a securities
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.

"Securities class action lawsuits, which have since been
consolidated, were filed in May 2018 against us and certain of our
former officers, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California," the Company said.

The lead plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint alleged that,
during a purported class period of May 11, 2017 to August 2, 2018,
defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a), and that certain individuals violated
Section 20A, of the Securities Exchange Act.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the Court granted in an
order dated June 14, 2019. Pursuant to that order, plaintiff filed
a motion seeking leave to amend and a proposed first amended
complaint on July 11, 2019.

The Court granted the motion in part on October 2, 2019 and the
first amended complaint was filed on October 11, 2019. The Court's
order dismissed certain claims and certain of our former officers.
Defendants filed answers on November 7, 2019. No trial date has
been set.

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

NortonLifeLock, Inc. engages in the provision of security, storage,
and systems management solutions. It operates through Enterprise
Security and Consumer Digital Safety segments. The Consumer Digital
Safety segment provides solutions to protect information, devices,
networks and the identities of consumers. The company is based in
Tempe, Arizona.


OHIO: Refugee Class Certified in IJPC Suit v. Motor Vehicle Agency
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as INTERCOMMUNITY JUSTICE AND
PEACE CENTER, et al., v. REGISTRAR, OHIO BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES,
Case No. 2:18-cv-01247-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Edmund
E. Sargus, Jr. entered an order.

   1. granting Plaintiffs' Supplemental Motion for Class
      Certification on behalf of;

      "all refugees residing in Ohio who possess a valid refugee
      I-94 document that is more than two years old and have not
      yet adjusted their status to that of a lawful permanent
      resident";

   2. designating Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc. and
      Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP as class counsel;

   3. granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment; and

   4. directing the Clerk to enter judgment and to close the case.

The Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles is an agency of the Ohio
Department of Public Safety that registers motor vehicles and
issues license plates and driver's licenses in the U.S. state of
Ohio.[CC]



OHIO: Refugees Class Certified in Suit v. Motor Vehicles Bureau
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as COMMUNITY REFUGEE AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al., v. REGISTRAR, OHIO BUREAU OF MOTOR
VEHICLES, Case No. 2:18-cv-01189-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge Edmund E. Sargus, Jr. entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' Supplemental Motion for Class
      Certification on behalf of;

      "all refugees residing in Ohio who possess a valid refugee
      I-94 document that is more than two years old and have not
      yet adjusted their status to that of a lawful permanent
      resident";

   2. designating Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc. and
      Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP as class counsel;

   3. granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment; and

   4. directing the Clerk to enter judgment and to close the case.

The Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles is an agency of the Ohio
Department of Public Safety that registers motor vehicles and
issues license plates and driver's licenses in the U.S. state of
Ohio.[CC]

OLD DOMINION: Herek Sues over Unpaid Overtime, Illegal Kickbacks
----------------------------------------------------------------
TEAL HEREK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE OLD DOMINION CLUB OF RICHMOND; MIKE
PITTAS; CHARLES HAYES; MICHAEL DICKINSON; CHRIS KOURDOGLOV; WILLIAM
PYLIARIS; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00119
(E.D. Va., February 23, 2020) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly-situated dancers and entertainers, alleges that the
Defendants violated FLSA provisions by failing to pay them minimum
wages and overtime wages for all hours worked, misclassifying them
as independent contractors, and requiring them to pay monetary fees
to Defendants and other ODC employees, involving but not limited to
house fees and tip sharing.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a dancer from
approximately November 2018 until April 2019.

The Old Dominion Club of Richmond is a members-only afterhours
strip club located at 7 E. Broad Street in Richmond, Virginia.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Suzanne S. Long, Esq.
          David A.C. Long, Esq.
          MEYER BALDWIN LONG & MOORE LLP
          5600 Grove Avenue
          Richmond, VA 23226
          Telephone: (804) 285-3888
          Facsimile: (804) 285-7779
          E-mail: slong@meyerbaldwin.com
                  dlong@meyerbaldwin.com
                 
               - and -
           
          Jacob J. Ventura, Esq.
          KRISTENSEN LLP
          12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
          Los Angeles, CA 90066
          Telephone: (310) 507-7924
          Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
          E-mail: jacob@kristensenlaw.com
                 
               - and -
           
          W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
          HUGHES ELLZEY LLP
          1105 Milford Street
          Houston, TX 77066          
          Telephone: (713) 554-2377
          Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
          E-mail: craft@hughesellzey.com

OLIVE & COCOA: Cruz Files ADA Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------
Olive & Cocoa, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Shael
Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Olive & Cocoa, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01671
(S.D. N.Y., Feb. 25, 2020).

Olive & Cocoa, LLC is a catalog and web-based direct marketing
company located in Salt Lake City, Utah.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


ONE BOCA WEST: Underpays Cooks, Modica Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY MODICA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ONE BOCA WEST GROUP LLC; and COSTAS MALTEZOS
d/b/a CANNOLI KITCHEN, Defendants, Case 9:20-cv-80212-XXXX (S.D.
Cal., Feb. 12, 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 Modica was employed by the Defendants as cook.

One Boca West Group LLC operates a restaurant in Boca Raton,
Florida, known as the Cannoli Kitchen. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nolan K. Klein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
          5550 Glades Rd., Ste 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (954) 745-0588
          E-mail: klein@nklegal.com


ORGANOVO HOLDINGS: Rianhard Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Organovo Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the class action
suit entitled, Rianhard v. Crouch., et al., Case No. 19-cv-1922,
has been voluntarily dismissed.

On October 10, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against the
Company and its board of directors in connection with the annual
proxy statement filed by the Company on July 26, 2019.  The case is
captioned Rianhard v. Crouch., et al., Case No. 19-cv-1922 (D. Del.
Oct. 10, 2019).

The complaint alleged that the Schedule 14A proxy statement
contained material misrepresentations in connection with the
reverse stock split proposal recommended therein and asserted
claims for violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, as well as
claims for breach of fiduciary duty.

On November 25, 2019, the Action was voluntarily dismissed.

Organovo Holdings, Inc., a biotechnology company that has been
focused on pioneering the development of bioprinted human tissues
that emulate human biology and disease. The company is based in San
Diego, California.

PACIFIC CHOICE: Faces Coe Labor Suit in Sacramento
--------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Pacific Choice Seafood Company. The case is captioned as ANTHONY
COE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. PACIFIC CHOICE SEAFOOD COMPANY; PACIFIC SEAFOOD
RESOURCE STAFFING GROUP, INC., and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No.
34-2020-00274708-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 3,
2020).

Pacific Choice Seafood Co processes and distributes seafood
products. The Company offers fresh seafood, frozen seafood, meat
and poultry products, and recipes. Pacific Choice Seafood serves
customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Natalie Haritoonian, Esq.


PERSPECTA INC: 142 of 145 Opt-In Plaintiffs Reach Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Perspecta Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that a settlement was
reached with 142 of the 145 opt-in plaintiffs in the class action
suit entitled, Forsyth, et al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard
Enterprise.

This purported class and collective action was filed on August 18,
2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, against HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company
("HPE") alleging violations of the Federal Age Discrimination in
Employment Act ("ADEA"), the California Fair Employment and Housing
Act, California public policy and the California Business and
Professions Code. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December
19, 2016.

Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class action under the ADEA
comprised of all U.S. residents employed by defendants who had
their employment terminated pursuant to a work force reduction
("WFR") plan on or after December 9, 2014 (deferral states) and
April 8, 2015 (non-deferral states), and who were 40 years of age
or older at the time of termination.

Plaintiffs also seek to represent a Rule 23 class under California
law comprised of all persons 40 years or older employed by
defendants in the state of California and terminated pursuant to a
WFR plan on or after August 18, 2012.

The case has remained stayed while the parties have engaged in
mediation with opt-in plaintiffs who are subject to mandatory,
individual arbitration agreements.

Two mediation sessions have taken place. In October 2018, a
settlement was reached with 16 named and opt-in plaintiffs; that
settlement has been completed.

On June 26-27, 2019, a second mediation was held, involving 145
opt-in plaintiffs.

On December 23, 2019, a settlement was reached with 142 of the 145
opt-in plaintiffs.

Former business units of HPE now owned by the Company will be
liable in this matter for any recovery by plaintiffs previously
associated with the USPS business of HPE.

Perspecta Inc. provides enterprise information technology (IT)
services to government customers in the United States federal,
state, and local markets. Perspecta Inc. is headquartered in
Chantilly, Virginia.


PLANTRONICS INC: Settlement in Shin Suit Wins Final Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plantronics, 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 settlement in the
class action suit initiated by Phil Shin has received final
approval from the court.

On September 13, 2018, Phil Shin filed on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, a purported Class Action Complaint in
the United States District Court of the Northern District of
California alleging violations of various federal and state
consumer protection laws in addition to unfair competition and
fraud claims in connection with the Company's BackBeat FIT
headphones.  

The Company disputes the allegations and filed a motion to dismiss
the Complaint in November 2018.  Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint on December 14, 2018. The matter has now been resolved
and the settlement is pending court approval.

On May 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed an unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. On June 17, 2019,
the Court denied preliminary approval on the basis that the scope
of the release was overly broad.  

On August 12, 2019, the settlement has received preliminary
approval from the court. An amended unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval has been agreed on by Parties and was filed on
July 31, 2019. The Court granted Preliminary Approval on August 13,
2019.  

The Final Fairness Hearing occurred on December 20, 2019. Final
approval from the Court is was obtained on January 31, 2020.

Plantronics, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets various
integrated communications and collaborations solutions for
corporate customers, small businesses, and individuals worldwide.
Plantronics, Inc. was founded in 1961 and is headquartered in Santa
Cruz, California.


PLS CHECK CASHERS: Francisco Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under NYLL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yulda Francisco, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PLS Check Cashers of New York, Inc., Case No.
152084/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Feb. 26, 2020), is brought
to recover unpaid wages and unlawful wage deductions under the New
York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked about 25-35 hours
a week for the Defendant 4-5 days a week. The Plaintiff also
alleges that the Defendant failed to display federal and state
minimum wage/overtime posters, as required by NYLL. The Defendant
also failed to notify the Plaintiff of her federal and state
minimum wage and overtime rights and failed to inform the Plaintiff
that she could seek enforcement of such rights through government
enforcement agencies, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a manual worker
(cashier).

The Defendant was in the business of providing cash checking and
money handling services to customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
          ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
          215-28 Hillside Avenue
          Queens Village, NY 11427
          Phone: 718-740-1000
          Fax: 718-740-2000
          Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Green Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANITRA GREEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01187-RMB-KMW (D.N.J., Feb. 3, 2020)
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Renee Marie Bumb and
referred to Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC provides debt recovery and
collection services. The Company specializes in contingency
collections for national credit card issuers, consumer lenders,
telecommunications providers, retail credit stores, healthcare,
utilities, and commercial accounts receivables. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
          17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
          Rutherford, NJ 07070
          Telephone: (201) 507-6300
          E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com


PREMIERE CREDIT: Fletcher Files Suit Under FCDPA
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Premiere Credit of
North America LLC. The case is styled as Sherri Fletcher,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Premiere Credit of North America LLC, Velocity
Investments LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-01984 (D., N.J., Feb. 25, 2020).

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

Premiere Credit of North America LLC is a debt collection agency in
Indianapolis, Indiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
   Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
   2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
   Lombard, IL 60148
   Tel: (630) 575-8181
   Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com


PREMIUM RETAIL SERVICES: Employees Allege Inaccurate Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case DEMARRIO ROBINSON and MICKINA WIMBLEY, Each Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated vs. PREMIUM RETAIL
SERVICES, INC. Case No. 5:20-cv-00025-RWS (E.D. Tex., February 20,
2020) alleges the Defendant failed to include the commissions that
were paid to Plaintiffs and similarly situated hourly-paid workers
in their regular rates when calculating their overtime pay for each
hour they worked over 40 in a workweek.

Plaintiffs Robinson and Wimbley were employed by the Defendant as
sales associates until January of 2020.

Premium Retail Services, Inc. is a retail support company and
for-profit corporation that has locations throughout Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

PROLOGIS INC: Faces Liberty Property Trust Merger-Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Prologis, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company and Liberty
Property Trust are facing six putative class action suits related
to the merger.

On February 4, 2020, Liberty Property Trust and Liberty Property
Limited Partnership (Liberty), Liberty OP and New Liberty Holdco
merged with and into Prologis, Inc., Prologis L.P., Prologis Merger
Sub and Prologis OP Merger Sub, pursuant to which, (i) an indirect
wholly owned subsidiary of Liberty merged with and into Liberty,
with Liberty continuing as the surviving entity and an indirect
wholly owned subsidiary of New Liberty Holdco (the "Company
Merger"), (ii) thereafter, New Liberty Holdco merged with and into
Prologis Merger Sub, with Prologis Merger Sub continuing as the
surviving entity and remaining a wholly owned subsidiary of
Prologis, Inc. (the "Topco Merger"), (iii) thereafter, Prologis,
Inc. and its applicable subsidiaries and Prologis Merger Sub caused
all of the outstanding equity interests of Liberty to be
contributed to Prologis L.P. in exchange for the issuance by
Prologis L.P. of Prologis L.P. common units to other subsidiaries
of Prologis, Inc. and (iv) thereafter, Prologis L.P. Merger Sub
merged with and into Liberty OP, with Liberty OP continuing as the
surviving entity and a wholly owned subsidiary of Prologis L.P.
(the "Partnership Merger" and, collectively with the Company Merger
and the Topco Merger, the "Mergers"). The total acquisition price
was approximately $13 billion through the issuance of equity based
on the value of the Prologis common stock issued using the closing
price on February 3, 2020 and the assumption of debt.

In connection with the transaction, at the effective time of the
Topco Merger, each issued and outstanding Liberty common share as
of immediately prior to the Company Merger was converted
automatically into the right to receive 0.675 shares of Prologis,
Inc. common stock.

At the effective time of the Partnership Merger, each issued and
outstanding common unit of Liberty OP as of immediately prior to
the Partnership Merger was converted into 0.675 common units of
Prologis L.P. After consideration of all applicable factors
pursuant to the business combination accounting rules, we expect to
treat the Mergers as an asset acquisition and as a result the
transaction costs will likely be capitalized to the basis of the
acquired properties.

In connection with the Mergers, on November 27, 2019, Liberty and
Liberty's board of directors (the "Liberty Board") were sued in a
putative class action lawsuit, the Stein Action, filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland, in
connection with Liberty's proposed merger with Prologis and the
related Form S-4.

On December 5, 2019, Liberty, Liberty OP, the Liberty board,
Prologis, Inc., Prologis L.P., Prologis Merger Sub, Prologis OP
Merger Sub and New Liberty Holdco were sued in another putative
class action lawsuit, the Thompson Action, also filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware, and also in
connection with Liberty’s proposed merger with Prologis and the
related Form S-4.

On December 16, 2019, Liberty and the Liberty Board were sued in a
third putative class action lawsuit, the Berlinger Action, filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, also
in connection with Liberty's proposed merger with Prologis and the
related Form S-4.

On December 16, 2019, Prologis, Liberty and the Liberty Board were
sued in a fourth putative class action lawsuit, the Garfield
Action, filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County,
Pennsylvania, also in connection with Liberty's proposed merger
with Prologis and the related Form S-4.

Subsequently, in January 2020, the plaintiff in the Garfield Action
agreed to dismiss his action with prejudice as to himself and
without prejudice as to the remainder of the purported class.

On December 19, 2019, Liberty and the Liberty Board were sued in a
fifth putative class action lawsuit, the McDonough Action, filed in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
also in connection with Liberty's proposed merger with Prologis and
the related Form S-4.

On December 20, 2019, Liberty and the Liberty Board were sued in a
sixth putative class action lawsuit, the Hagerty Action, filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, also in connection with Liberty's proposed merger with
Prologis and the related Form S-4. On January 7, 2020, Liberty and
the Liberty Board were sued in a seventh putative class action
lawsuit, the Yonchuk Action, filed in in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland, in connection with Liberty's
proposed merger with Prologis and the related Form S-4.

The complaints in the Stein Action, Berlinger Action, McDonough
Action, Hagerty Action and Yonchuk Action allege that Liberty and
the Liberty Board violated federal securities laws by omitting
material information from the Form S-4, rendering the Form S-4
materially deficient.

The complaint in the Thompson Action alleges the Liberty, Liberty
OP and the Liberty Board violated federal securities laws by
omitting from the Form S-4, and misrepresenting in the Form S-4,
material information, rendering the Form S-4 materially deficient.

In all six outstanding actions, the plaintiffs seek, among other
things, (i) rescission of the transaction and/or (ii) damages, and
(iii) attorneys' fees and costs in connection with these lawsuits.


Although the ultimate outcome of litigation cannot be predicted
with certainty, we believe that these lawsuits are without merit
and intend to defend against these actions vigorously.

Prologis, Inc. is the global leader in logistics real estate with
afocus on high-barrier, high-growth markets. The company is based
in San Francisco, California.


QUAIL PARK: Barela Files Suit in California
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quail Park Retirement
Vill. The case is styled as Nereida Barela, on Behalf Of Other
members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Quail Park Retirement Vill, Living Care and Morrison Community
Living, Defendants, Case No. VCU282224 (Cal. Super., Feb. 25,
2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Civil:
Unlimited-Visalia filed over Employment: Other.

Quail Park Retirement Vill is a Retirement community in Visalia,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
   LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
   410 Arden Ave Ste 203
   Glendale, CA 91203
   Tel: (818) 265-1020
   Fax: (818) 265-1021
   Email: edwin@lfjpc.com


RADIANT LOGISTICS: No Trial Date Yet for Appeal in Barahona Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Radiant Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the Second District
Court of Appeal for the State of California has not issued an
appellate briefing schedule related to a notice of appeal filed
from a court decision in the class action suit entitled, Ingrid
Barahona v. Accountabilities, Inc. d/b/a/ Accountabilities
Staffing, Inc., Radiant Global Logistics, Inc. and DBA Distribution
Services, Inc.

On October 25, 2013, plaintiff Ingrid Barahona filed a purported
class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of
California against Radiant Global Logistics, Inc. ("RGL") and DBA
Distribution Services, Inc. ("DBA", a wholly-owned subsidiary)
(collectively referred to as the "Company"), and two third-party
staffing companies (collectively with the Company, the "Staffing
Defendants") with whom RGL and DBA contracted for temporary
employees.

In the lawsuit, Ms. Barahona, on behalf of herself and the putative
class, sought damages and penalties under California law, plus
interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, along with equitable
remedies, alleging that she and the putative class were the subject
of unfair and unlawful business practices, including certain wage
and hour violations relating to, among others, failure to provide
meal and rest periods, failure to pay minimum wages and overtime,
and failure to reimburse employees for work-related expenses. Ms.
Barahona alleged that she was jointly employed by the staffing
companies and RGL and DBA.

RGL and DBA denied Ms. Barahona's allegations in their entirety,
denied that they were liable to Ms. Barahona or the putative class
members in any way, and vigorously defended against these
allegations based upon a preliminary evaluation of applicable
records and legal standards.

If Ms. Barahona were to prevail on her allegations on substantially
all claims against the Company, the Company could be liable for
uninsured damages in an amount that, while not significant when
evaluated against either the Company's assets or current and
expected level of annual earnings, could be material when judged
against the Company's earnings in the particular quarter in which
any such damages arose, if at all.

On February 19, 2019, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the
class action case, which the court granted on March 14, 2019, and
subsequently entered judgment in favor of the Company on April 30,
2019. On May 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal, seeking
appellate review. The trial judge's decision to dismiss the case
and enter judgment in favor of the Company will be reviewed by the
Second District Court of Appeal for the State of California. To
date, however, the Court of Appeal has not issued an appellate
briefing schedule.

Radiant said, "At this time, the Company is unable to express an
opinion as to the likely outcome of the matter."

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

Radiant Logistics, Inc. operates as a third-party logistics and
multi-modal transportation services company primarily in the United
States and Canada. Radiant Logistics, Inc. was founded in 2001 and
is headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.


RED BARN: Greca Sues over Tip Pooling
-------------------------------------
COURTNEY GRECA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RED BARN INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a Spicy Tuna
Bar and Grill c/o Statutory Agent Richard Smith, Defendant, Case
No. 3:20-cv-00400 (N.D. Ohio, February 21, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Ohio minimum wage statutes.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's violations include
paying the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated non-exempt
workers less than the statutory minimum wage without following the
requirements of the tip-credit provisions, engaging in unlawful tip
sharing and pooling practices which resulted to less pay to
Plaintiff, and failing to provide tip-credit notice.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a tipped employee
from about 2017 to about January 2020.

Red Barn Investments, LLC is an Ohio for-profit limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Lucas County, Ohio.
It is also doing business as Spicy Tuna Bar and Grill. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
          Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
          Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
          SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM LLC
          The Caxton Building
          812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Telephone: (216) 912-2221
          Facsimile: (216) 350-6313
          E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
                  rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
                  kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com

REDFIN CORP: Third-Party Licensed Sales Associate's Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Redfin Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit initiated by its former third-party
licensed sales associate.

On August 28, 2019, one of the company's former independent
contractor licensed sales associates, which the company call
associate agents, filed a complaint against the company in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco.

The plaintiff initially pled the complaint as a class action and
alleged that the company misclassified her as an independent
contractor instead of an employee. The plaintiff also sought
representative claims under California's Private Attorney General
Act ("PAGA").

On December 6, 2019, the company filed a motion to compel
arbitration and asserted that the plaintiff had agreed to arbitrate
her claims and had waived all class claims.

Following that filing, the company and the plaintiff stipulated to
allow the plaintiff to amend her complaint to dismiss the class
action claim and assert only claims under PAGA.

On January 14, 2020, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the
court granted the plaintiff leave to file a first amended
complaint, and she filed her first amended complaint on January 30,
2020.

Following this stipulation, only the plaintiff's claims under PAGA
will proceed. The plaintiff continues to seek unspecified penalties
for alleged violations of PAGA.

Redfin Corporation is a technology-powered, residential real estate
brokerage. The company represents people buying and selling homes
in over 80 markets throughout the United States. The company is
based in Seattle, Washington.


RHODE ISLAND: Student Group Files Class Suit on Civics Education
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Wang, writing for The Brown Daily Herald, reports that a
group of Rhode Island students won an award for using their civic
understanding to fight for civics education.

The student activists, who are fighting for civic education in
public schools, received the New England First Amendment
Coalition's 2020 Antonia Orfield Citizenship Award at NEFAC's 10th
annual awards luncheon in Boston on Feb. 7.

Brian Aun, Symone Burrell, Melly Sok, Nancy Xiong and lead
plaintiff Aleita Cook, who all accepted the award in Boston, are
among 14 student plaintiffs involved in the class-action lawsuit
Cook v. Raimondo, which they hope will make it to the Supreme Court
and result in constitutional change.

Filed in November 2018, the lawsuit claims that the state of Rhode
Island has violated students' constitutional rights by failing to
provide the necessary civic education to prepare students to
effectively engage in a democracy.

Cook said the plaintiffs are currently waiting to hear District
Judge William E. Smith's decision.

"If we don't win, that's kind of what we're hoping for," Cook said.
If the case does move its way up to the Supreme Court, it would
have the potential to reverse a precedent that equal access to
quality education is not a constitutionally guaranteed right. Cook
says that it is her personal goal to have the case capture the
attention of students nationwide and motivate them to advocate for
educational changes in their local communities.

"Everyone deserves the right to civic education, and everyone
deserves to know how to use (it) toward civic engagement in this
country, especially during this time," Burrell said in her
acceptance speech.

Cook told The Herald she believes that civic education should not
be restricted to exclusive classes such as Advanced Placement
United States History. Instead, it should be provided to everyone
and treated as having the same importance as English or math, she
added.

"How can you be a citizen in America and not even know the basic
human rights you have or your branches of government? It just
doesn't make any sense," Cook said.

In a speech introducing the student activists, Edward Fitzpatrick,
a reporter who covers Rhode Island for the Boston Globe, spoke on
how the lawsuit raised the question of educational inequality.

"Rhode Island allows school districts to decide for themselves
whether and how to teach civics, and the lawsuit says that leads to
big discrepancies," Fitzpatrick said. "Students in affluent towns
often have access to rich curriculum and a range of extracurricular
activities like debate team and field trips to the state
legislature that are beyond the reach of poor schools."

According to Justin Silverman, executive director of NEFAC, the
Antonia Orfield Citizenship Award was created to honor regular
citizens -- who are neither journalists nor attorneys -- for
advocating for the First Amendment and for fighting for open,
transparent government.

Silverman said that NEFAC was "incredibly inspired" by the student
activists' initiative to not only demand a better civics education
but also to sue the state in order to force the implementation of a
civics curriculum.

While the activists differ from past recipients who have fought for
information through public record battles, Silverman said that all
recipients share the same goal: "to access information so that they
can be better-informed citizens and have an easier time holding
government accountable and being part of the democratic process."

Cook told The Herald that as a student interested in pursuing
activism as a career, she felt excited by the award and that it
gave her "more exposure and opportunity in the future to continue
to do social justice work within the community."

"This is a precedent of what youth are capable of," said Aun at the
awards ceremony. "Youth are not just the future leaders of this
world because they are the present leaders of this world." [GN]


ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Jensen Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
TAMIE JENSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES COMPANY, Defendant,
Case 2:20-cv-00223 (W.D. Wash., Feb. 12, 2020) seeks to stop the
Defendant' practice of making unsolicited calls.

Roto-Rooter Services Company provides plumbing repair and
maintenance services. The Company markets its services to private
and commercial customers throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric R. Draluck, Esq.
          PO Box 11647
          Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
          Telephone: (206) 605-1424
          E-mail: edraluck@gmail.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Bradley K. King*
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  bking@ahdootwolfson.com


SAEXPLORATION HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Bodin Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
SAExploration Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by John Bodin.

On August 18, 2019, a purported stockholder, John Bodin, filed a
putative class action lawsuit against us and certain former
executive officers named therein in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas captioned John Bodin v. SAExploration
Holdings, Inc., et al. Case No. 4:19–cv–03089. The Class Action
Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of stockholders who purchased
or otherwise acquired our publicly traded securities from March 15,
2016 through August 15, 2019. The complaint generally alleges that
the Class Action Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b–5 by making false and
misleading statements in our periodic reports filed with the SEC
during the Covered Period. The complaint requests damages,
including interest, and an award of reasonable costs and expenses,
including counsel and expert fees.

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

SAExploration Holdings, Inc., incorporated on February 2, 2011, is
an internationally focused oilfield services company. The Company
offers a range of seismic data acquisition and logistical support
services in Alaska, Canada, South America and Southeast Asia to
customers in the oil and natural gas industry. The company is based
in Houston, Texas.


SALESFORCE.COM: Troutman Sanders Attorneys Discuss CCPA Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Raether, Esq. -- ron.raether@troutman.com -- Sadia Mirza, Esq.
-- sadia.mirza@troutman.com -- and Oscar Figueroa, Esq. --
oscar.figueroa@troutman.com – of Troutman Sanders LLP, in an
article for Bloomberg Law, related that the first lawsuit to cite
to the California Consumer Privacy Protection Act is unlikely to
test the law's limits, but should serve as a call for businesses to
be ready. They offer five steps for preparing for more lawsuits.

The Troutman Sanders discussed the Barnes case:

On Feb. 3, plaintiff Bernadette Barnes filed a class action lawsuit
hoping to be the first case to rely on the new California Consumer
Privacy Act (CCPA). The complaint was filed over a data breach that
allegedly occurred before the CCPA's Jan. 1, 2020, effective date.

Given this timing, this case will not test the limits of the CCPA;
it is a false alarm.

However, the complaint foreshadows how plaintiffs are likely to
rely on the CCPA and what steps businesses should take to be
prepared.

The Allegations

Barnes alleges that hackers infected Hanna Andersson's e-commerce
platform, operated by Salesforce.com, with malware that compromised
customers' names and credit card information. The plaintiff claims
that both defendants lacked reasonable procedures to protect
customers' personal information, pursuing claims for negligence,
declaratory relief, and a violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law.

The lawsuit do not expressly bring a claim under the CCPA. Instead,
it claims unspecified CCPA rights and alleges that the issue of
whether the defendants violated the CCPA by failing to maintain
"reasonable security procedures" is a common class issue.

1. The CCPA Does Not Provide the Unspecified Rights Claimed

Barnes claims that she, and the putative class members, were
deprived of their rights under the CCPA. There are two notable
issues here.

First, the CCPA does not afford consumers rights in the data breach
context. Rather, consumers can recover statutory damages for a
breach, but only if certain steps are followed. Thus, what "rights"
the plaintiff has been deprived of remains unclear.

Second, the CCPA did not go into effect until Jan. 1, 2020. The
CCPA does not expressly permit retroactive application required by
California law.

2. The CCPA Does Not Create a Duty to Maintain Reasonable Security
Procedures

The CCPA imposes no obligation on businesses to maintain reasonable
security procedures. Rather, the CCPA provides that, under certain
circumstances, consumers may be entitled to statutory damages in
the event of a data breach.

Nonetheless, this case serves as an important reminder for
businesses to evaluate their security environments against the Top
20 Critical Security Controls (CIS Controls), which the California
attorney general recognizes as representing the "minimum level of
information security that all organizations that collect or
maintain personal information should meet."

The AG further stated that the "failure to implement all the
[c]ontrols that apply to an organization's environment constitutes
a lack of reasonable security."

3. The CCPA's Cure Provision May Give Businesses an Out

The CCPA allows consumers to bring an action for statutory damages
in the event of a data breach due to a business's failure to
implement reasonable security procedures. However, prior to
bringing an action, the consumer must provide the business a 30
days' written notice identifying the specific violation. If the
business cures the noticed violation and provides the consumer a
written statement indicating such, statutory damages are not
available.

What qualifies as a cure remains unclear, but businesses should
give careful thought to their breach notice as well as the written
response.

On one hand, if a business believes that reasonable security
procedures are intact, the business's breach notice, written
response, and actions should communicate this message consistently.
The value of an incident response plan tested through tabletop
exercises cannot be overstated. Indeed, if a business were to
handle the incident response function properly, curing the noticed
violation may prove easy. Statements concerning the health of the
business's security environment in a breach notice or any changes
to existing security procedures in the event of a breach will be a
doubled-edged sword, so businesses should take caution.

On the other hand, if a business believes that heightened data
security procedures are warranted, businesses may be able to cure
the alleged deficiency by implementing practices promoted by
guideline documents adopted to aid in the area of information
security (e.g., NIST Cybersecurity Framework or the CIS Controls),
or the data security practices promoted or sometimes mandated by
the FTC. Choosing this path, however, may destroy any argument that
the business maintained reasonable security procedures.

4. CCPA's Statutory Damages for Data Breaches Do Not Apply to
'Service Providers'

The CCPA draws a distinction between entities acting as
"business[es]" and entities acting as "service provider[s]." A
service provider is generally an entity that processes personal
information on behalf of a business pursuant to a written contract
that includes the required language.

Notably, only "businesses" that fail to implement reasonable
security procedures may be held liable for the statutory damages.
For this reason alone, all entities that process personal
information on behalf of a regulated business should assess whether
it meets the definition of "service provider" and, if so, update
its contracts accordingly.

The contract should clarify that there are no third-party
beneficiaries to the agreement, no special relationships and,
specifically, no duty to consumers. From the businesses'
perspective, the contract should require service providers to
coordinate in the event of an incident, which may help avoid the
many issues.

5. Obligation to Maintain Reasonable Security Procedures Only
Applies to Businesses that 'Own,' 'License,' or 'Maintain' Personal
Information
California law only requires entities to maintain reasonable
security procedures to the extent that they own, license, or
maintain personal information. If an entity does not engage in the
foregoing activities, it is arguably under no obligation to
maintain reasonable security procedures. Without such obligation,
the entity cannot be liable for the CCPA statutory damages.

For businesses that provide customers with software-as-a-service
solutions, which are generally not designed to maintain or store
data, clarifying this point in contracts and marketing materials
could help to avoid unnecessary litigation.

Indeed, if it were obvious to consumers that an entity does not
collect or store personal information, a vendor, like Salesforce,
may not have been pulled into the complaint in the first instance.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Bureau
of National Affairs, Inc. or its owners. [GN]


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Anderson & Sweeney Sue Over Military Leave
-------------------------------------------------------------
DEVON ANDERSON and BEVERLY L. SWEENEY on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY AND COUNTY
OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, and
SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY, Defendants, and SAN
FRANCISCO EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Nominal Defendant, Case
No. 3:20-cv-01149 (N.D. Cal., February 13, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violating its policy or practice on
behalf of Plaintiffs, a class, and two subclasses of current and
former employees of the City and County of San Francisco who have
taken military leave on or after October 10, 2004.

The violations affected Plaintiffs and other City employees who
have served in the Armed Forces during their employment with the
City who have not received proper sick time and vacation leave
accruals, were forced to overpay to buy back pension credit for the
time they spent on military leave, have not received the full
amount of paid leave to which they are entitled, and have had their
ability to take military leave and subsequently return to work
adversely impacted, among other harms.

Anderson has been employed as a Transportation Operations
Specialist for the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
while Sweeney is a retired captain of the United States Army and a
former employee of the City and County of San Francisco and the San
Francisco Department of Public Health.

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency is a department of
the City within its executive branch. The Agency is responsible for
the management of all ground transportation in the city, including
oversight of the Municipal Railway public transit, bicycling,
paratransit, parking, traffic, walking, and taxis.

San Francisco Department of Public Health is a department of the
City within its executive branch. The Department is responsible for
managing and controlling the City's hospitals and emergency medical
services.

San Francisco Employees' Retirement System is a retirement system
operated by the City and overseen by a seven-member Retirement
Board. It is responsible for administering employee benefit plans
mandated by the Charter and providing promised benefits to active
and retired employees of the City. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
           
           Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
           Rachel Williams Dempsey, Esq.
           OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
           One California Street, 12th Floor
           San Francisco, CA 94111
           Telephone: (415) 638-8800
           Facsimile: (415) 638-8810

                  – and -

           R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
           BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
           1735 20th St NW
           Washington DC 20009
           Telephone: (202) 734-7046
           Facsimile: (617) 507-6020

                  – and -       
           
           Vincent Cheng, Esq.
           BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
           100 Pine St., Suite 1250
           San Francisco, CA 94111
           Telephone: (415) 968-8999
           Facsimile: (617) 507-6020

SEARS HOMETOWN: Morgan Sues in New York Alleging ADA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sears Hometown and
Outlet Stores, Inc. The case is styled as Jon R. Morgan, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sears Hometown and
Outlet Stores, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01698 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 26,
2020).

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

Sears Hometown and Outlet Stores Inc. was an American retail
company that sold home appliances, lawn and garden equipment,
apparel, mattresses, sporting goods, and tools.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
          SHALOM LAW, PLLC
          105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (718) 971-9474
          Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Settlement Reached in Baker Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on February 11, 2020,
that a settlement has been entered in the class action suit
entitled, Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No.
14-CV-02129-MMA (AGS).

On February 11, 2020, SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. announced that
it had entered into a settlement agreement with respect to a
previously disclosed class action lawsuit commenced in 2014,
captioned Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No.
14-CV-02129-MMA (AGS).

The proposed settlement, which is subject to certain conditions,
including court approval, requires the Company to pay $65.0 million
for claims alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as the costs of
administration and legal fees and expenses.   

The proposed settlement does not include or constitute an
admission, concession, or finding of any fault, liability, or
wrongdoing by the Company or any defendant.  

SeaWorld said, "There can be no assurance that the proposed
settlement agreement will be approved by the court."

SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a theme park and entertainment company in the United
States. The company operates SeaWorld theme parks in Orlando,
Florida; San Antonio, Texas; and San Diego, California, as well as
Busch Gardens theme parks in Tampa, Florida, and Williamsburg,
Virginia. The company was formerly known as SW Holdco, Inc. and
changed its name to SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. in December 2012.
SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. was founded in 1959 and is
headquartered in Orlando, Florida.


SITO MOBILE: Final Approval Hearing of Roper Settlement in April
----------------------------------------------------------------
SITO Mobile, Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the hearing to
consider final approval of the settlement made in the class action
suit initiated by Sandi Roper is set for April 21, 2020.

On February 17, 2017, plaintiff Sandi Roper commenced a purported
securities class action against the Company and certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey captioned
Roper v. SITO Mobile, Ltd., Case No. 2 17-cv-01106-ES-MAH (D.N.J.).


On May 8, 2017, Red Oak Fund, LP, Red Oak Long Fund LP, Red Oak
Institutional Founders Long Fund, LP and Pinnacle Opportunities
Fund, LP (collectively, "Red Oak") were appointed lead plaintiffs
in this class action.

On June 22, 2017, Red Oak filed an amended complaint, purporting to
represent a class of stockholders who purchased SITO's common stock
between August 15, 2016 and January 2, 2017 (the "Class Period").

On January 30, 2019, the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey dismissed without prejudice all causes of
action with the exception of claims against a former officer, a
former officer/director, and the Company, arising out of statements
made from November 2016 to January 2017 regarding media placement
revenues.

The remaining claims were brought under section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and sought to hold the executives responsible as controlling
persons. The amended complaint sought unspecified damages. The
parties participated in mediation on April 30, 2019.

As a result of the mediation, discussions, and negotiations taking
place thereafter, plaintiffs and defendants agreed to settle the
matter for payment of one million two hundred fifty thousand
dollars ($1.25 million). By a document dated July 31, 2019, the
parties executed a stipulation that reflected the settlement.

On August 6, lead plaintiffs moved for approval of the proposed
settlement, which is covered by insurance in its entirety. The
settlement is subject to court approval, which motion is pending
and scheduled for a final approval hearing on April 21, 2020.

SITO Mobile, Ltd. provides advertisement delivery, measurement and
attribution, and consumer insights using its proprietary
location-based marketing intelligence platform in the United States
and Canada. The company was formerly known as Single Touch Systems,
Inc. and changed its name to SITO Mobile, Ltd. in September 2014.
SITO Mobile, Ltd. was incorporated in 2000 and is based in Jersey
City, New Jersey.


SOUTHEAST RESTAURANT: Underpays Servers and Bartenders, Holt Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MORGAN HOLT, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHEAST RESTAURANT GROUPMAIN, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00147 (M.D. Tenn., February 20, 2020)
is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of all others similarly-situated, alleges
that the Defendant failed to pay a minimum of $7.25 an hour to
restaurant servers and bartenders when earned tips were not
sufficient to meet that minimum wage, required them to spend more
than 20% of each shift performing non-tip-producing work tasks at
the lower tipped hourly rate, and deducted their pay as a result of
customers failing to pay their bills.

Mr. Holt was employed by the Defendant as a server and bartender at
its TGI Fridays restaurant in Madison, Tennessee from approximately
December 2015 to July 2019.

Southeast Restaurant Groupmain, LLC is an owner and operator of TGI
Fridays restaurants in the Nashville, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON LLC
          Philips Plaza
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
                  jfrank@barrettjohnston.com

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Linenweber Hits False Info, Stock Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ROBERT G. LINENWEBER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.,
GARY C. KELLY, and TAMMY ROMO, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00408-K
(N.D. Tex., February 19, 2020), seeks to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violation of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the
Company and certain of its top officials.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies. Despite all the reported non-compliance
and maintenance issues with its flight services for over a decade
which have caused Southwest's stock price drop many times,
Defendants have continually denied any wrongdoing and insisted that
the Company remained compliant with applicable government
maintenance and safety regulations.

Plaintiff says he has acquired Southwest securities at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the
revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures.

Gary C. Kelly has served as Southwest's Chairman of the Board,
President, and Chief Executive Officer at all relevant times.

Tammy Romo has served as Southwest's Chief Financial Officer at all
relevant times.

Southwest Airlines operates a passenger airline that provides
scheduled air transportation services in the U.S. and
near-international markets. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Tel: (212)661-1100
          Fax: (212)661-8665
          Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                 ahood@pomlaw.com


SPOTIFY USA: Elias Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Matthew Elias, an individual on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated and aggrieved v. SPOTIFY
USA INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive,
Case No. 20STCV02605, was removed from the Superior Court in the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 26,
2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-01854 to the
proceeding.

The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) Failure
to Provide Meal Periods; (2) Failure to Provide Rest Breaks; (3)
Failure to Pay Minimum Wage; (4) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; (5)
Failure to Furnish Timely and Accurate Itemized Wage Statements;
(6) Failure to Pay All Wages Owed Upon Separation; (7) Failure to
Reimburse All Necessary, Business-Related Expenses; (8) Violation
of California's Unfair Competition Law; and (9) Violation of
Private Attorneys' General Act of 2004.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joseph C. Liburt, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          1000 Marsh Road
          Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
          Phone: (650) 614-7400
          Facsimile: (650) 614-7401
          Email: lchermle@orrick.com

               - and -

          Julie A. Totten, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000
          Sacramento, CA 95814-4497
          Phone: (916) 447-9200
          Facsimile: (916) 329-4900
          Email: jatotten@orrick.com


SPRINGHOUSE VILLAGE: King-Casey Seeks OT Pay for Nurse Assistants
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, NEDRA KING-CASEY, individually and on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPRINGHOUSE VILLAGE OF
COLLIERVILLE, LLC, SPRINGHOUSE VILLAGE OF SPRINGFIELD, LLC,
SPRINGHOUSE VILLAGE OF FAYETTEVILLE, LLC, and SPRINGHOUSE VILLAGE
EAST, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02118 (W.D. Tenn., February
19, 2020), arises from Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff and class members were employed as hourly-paid Certified
Nurse Assistants by Defendants and they worked 40 hours or more
hours per week during the 3 years period preceding the filing of
the case.

Plaintiff claims that Defendants have had a common plan, policy and
practice of requiring Plaintiff and class members to "clock-out" of
its keeping system during each shift for a 30-minute unpaid meal
period despite not being fully relieved of their job duties and
responsibilities and/or period job duties and during which time
they were not compensated at the applicable FLSA overtime
compensation rate of pay.

Moreover, Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and costs,
and other damages owed by Defendants to him and other class
members.

Defendants own and operate active living communities that provide
care to Alzheimer and dementia residents. [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
          Emails: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com
                  nbishop@jsyc.com


SUPER MICRO: Bid to Dismiss NY Trades Council & Hotel Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
SuperMicro Computer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that the company's motion
to dismiss filed in the class action suit headed by the New York
Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc.
Pension Fund, is still pending.

Judge Jon S. Tigar on February 3, 2020, entered an order vacating
the hearing on:

     -- the Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint filed by
Howard Hideshima, and

     -- the Motion to Dismiss Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint or, in the Alternative,
Motion to Strike filed by Defendants Charles Liang, Super Micro
Computer, Inc., Wally Liaw, Perry G. Hayes.

On February 8, 2018, two putative class action complaints were
filed against the Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer,
and the Company's former Chief Financial Officer in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (Hessefort
v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-00838 and United
Union of Roofers v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et al., No.
18-cv-00850).

The complaints contain similar allegations, claiming that the
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
due to alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions in public
statements regarding recognition of revenue.

The court subsequently appointed New York Hotel Trades Council &
Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund as lead
plaintiff.

The lead plaintiff then filed an amended complaint naming the
Company's Senior Vice President of Investor Relations as an
additional defendant. On June 21, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a
further amended complaint naming the Company's former Senior Vice
President of International Sales, Corporate Secretary, and Director
as an additional defendant.

On July 26, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which motion remains pending with the court.

The Company believes the allegations filed are without merit, and
intends to vigorously defend against the lawsuit.

New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City,
Inc. Pension Fund filed a consolidated opposition to Defendants'
and Howard Hideshima's motions to dismiss the second amended
consolidated class action complaint.

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

SuperMicro Computer Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and sells
application-optimized server systems and components based on a
modular and open-standard architecture. Customers can order server
solutions with levels of processing power, input/output bandwidth,
and memory capacity tailored for their specific application needs.
Super Micro Computer was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in
San Jose, California.


T ROWE PRICE: Continues to Defend 401(k) Plan-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend itself from a class action suit pending before
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland over its
401(k) Plan.

On February 14, 2017, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., T. Rowe Price
Associates, Inc., T. Rowe Price Trust Company, current and former
members of the management committee, and trustees of the T. Rowe
Price U.S. Retirement Program were named as defendants in a lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland. The lawsuit alleges breaches of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act's (ERISA's) fiduciary duty and prohibited
transaction provisions on behalf of a class of all participants and
beneficiaries of the T. Rowe Price 401(k) Plan from February 14,
2011, to the time of judgment.

The matter has been certified as a class action. T. Rowe Price
believes the claims are without merit and is vigorously defending
the action.

T. Rowe Price said, "This matter is in the discovery phase of
litigation and we cannot predict the eventual outcome, or whether
it will have a material negative impact on our financial results,
or estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from
any negative outcome."

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

T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., incorporated on February 4, 2000, is a
financial services holding company. The Company provides global
investment management services through its subsidiaries to
investors across the world. The Company provides an array of
Company-sponsored mutual funds, other sponsored pooled investment
vehicles, sub advisory services, separate account management,
recordkeeping, and related services to individuals, advisors,
institutions, financial intermediaries and retirement plan
sponsors. The firm was previously known as T. Rowe Group, Inc. and
T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. was
founded in 1937 and is based in Baltimore, Maryland.


TAFT CLOTHING: Fischler Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------------
Taft Clothing, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Brian
Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Taft Clothing, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-01676 (S.D. N.Y., Feb. 25, 2020).

Taft Clothing, Inc. retails men's footwear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: doug@lipskylowe.com



TALLGRASS ENERGY: Faces Suits Over Merger with Blackstone Unit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tallgrass Energy, LP said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that as of February 7,
2020, Tallgrass Energy, LP (TGE) and the board of directors of its
general partner are named defendants in three purported class
action lawsuits brought by Class A shareholders and three lawsuits
brought by Class A shareholders only on behalf of the named
plaintiff.

Each of the lawsuits have been filed in U.S. federal district
court, challenging under the federal securities laws the
sufficiency of the disclosures made in the preliminary proxy
statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 21, 2020 regarding a Take-Private Merger.

On December 16, 2019, the company and its general partner entered
into a definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Take-Private
Merger Agreement") with Prairie Private Acquiror LP, a Delaware
limited partnership ("Buyer"), and Prairie Merger Sub LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company and wholly owned subsidiary of
Buyer ("Buyer Sub").

Buyer was established by affiliates of Blackstone Infrastructure
Partners together with affiliates of Enagas, GIC, NPS and USS, and
will acquire all of the publicly-held outstanding Class A Shares of
TGE for $22.45 in cash per Class A Share.  The transaction is
expected to close in the second quarter of 2020, subject to the
satisfaction of customary conditions.

Pursuant to the Take-Private Merger Agreement and subject to the
satisfaction or waiver of certain conditions therein, Buyer will
merge with and into TGE, with TGE surviving the merger and
continuing to exist as a Delaware limited partnership (the
"Take-Private Merger").

The plaintiffs in each lawsuit seek to enjoin the defendants from
proceeding with or consummating the Take-Private Merger and, to the
extent that the Merger is implemented before relief is granted, the
plaintiff in one of the lawsuits seeks to have the Take-Private
Merger rescinded.

The plaintiffs in each lawsuit also seek money damages and an award
of costs and attorneys' and experts' fees.

Tallgrass said, "Class action lawsuits are very common in
connection with acquisitions of public companies, regardless of any
merits related to the underlying transaction, and additional
similar lawsuits may be filed."

Tallgrass Energy, LP, through its interests in Tallgrass Equity,
LLC, provides crude oil transportation services to customers in
Wyoming, Colorado, and the surrounding regions of the United
States. Tallgrass Energy, LP was founded in 2013 and is based in
Leawood, Kansas.


TEAM VELOCITY: Faces Fabricant TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT and KEITH HOBBS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TEAM VELOCITY MARKETING, LLC and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:20-cv-01120
(C.D. Cal., Feb. 4, 2020), alleges that the Defendants promote and
market their merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited phone
calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Beginning in March 2018 and April 2018, the Defendants contacted
the Plaintiffs in an attempt to solicit them to purchase the
Defendants' services. The Defendants used an "automatic telephone
dialing system" to place their calls to the Plaintiffs seeking to
solicit their services. The Defendants' calls constituted calls
that were not for emergency purposes. The Defendants did also not
possess the Plaintiffs' "prior express consent" to receive calls
using an ATDS, says the complaint.

Team Velocity offers online campaign reporting, call monitoring,
search engine marketing, sales merchandising, online display
advertising, and vehicle exchange software services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: 323-306-4234
          Facsimile: 866-633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com


TESLA INC: Appeal in Investor Suit Over Model 3 Production Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tesla Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the appeal is pending in
the class action suit pending before the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California related to the company's Model
3 vehicle.

On October 10, 2017, a purported stockholder class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against Tesla, two of its current officers, and a former officer.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws and
seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf
of a purported class of purchasers of Tesla securities from May 4,
2016 to October 6, 2017. The lawsuit claims that Tesla supposedly
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's preparedness to produce Model 3 vehicles.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 23, 2018, and
defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 25, 2018. The court
granted defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend.  

Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on September 28, 2018, and
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
February 15, 2019. The hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on
March 22, 2019, and on March 25, 2019, the Court ruled in favor of
defendants and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.  

On April 8, 2019, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and on July
17, 2019 filed their opening brief.  The company filed its
opposition on September 16, 2019.

The company continues to believe that the claims are without merit
and intend to defend against this lawsuit vigorously. The company
is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any,
associated with this lawsuit.

On October 26, 2018, in a similar action, a purported stockholder
class action was filed in the Superior Court of California in Santa
Clara County against Tesla, Elon Musk and seven initial purchasers
in an offering of debt securities by Tesla in August 2017.

The complaint alleges misrepresentations made by Tesla regarding
the number of Model 3 vehicles Tesla expected to produce by the end
of 2017 in connection with such offering and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of Tesla securities in such offering. Tesla
thereafter removed the case to federal court.  

On January 22, 2019, plaintiff abandoned its effort to proceed in
state court, instead filing an amended complaint against Tesla,
Elon Musk and seven initial purchasers in the debt offering before
the same judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California who is hearing the above-referenced earlier filed
federal case.  

On February 5, 2019, the Court stayed this new case pending a
ruling on the motion to dismiss the complaint in such earlier filed
federal case.  

After such earlier filed federal case was dismissed, defendants
filed a motion on July 2, 2019 to dismiss this case as well. This
case is now stayed pending a ruling from the appellate court on
such earlier filed federal case with an agreement that if
defendants prevail on appeal in such case, this case will be
dismissed.

Tesla said, "We believe that the claims are without merit and
intend to defend against this lawsuit vigorously. We are unable to
estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated
with this lawsuit."

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

Tesla Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells high-performance
electric vehicles and electric vehicle powertrain components. The
Company owns its sales and service network and sells electric
powertrain components to other automobile manufacturers. Tesla
serves customers worldwide. The company is based in Palo Alto,
California.


TESLA INC: Hearing This Friday on Bid to Dismiss Twitter Post Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tesla Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the hearing on the motion
to dismiss the consolidated class action suit related to Elon
Musk's August 7, 2018 Twitter post is set for March 6, 2020.

Between August 10, 2018 and September 6, 2018, nine purported
stockholder class actions were filed against Tesla and Musk in
connection with Elon Musk's August 7, 2018 Twitter post that he was
considering taking Tesla private.

All of the suits are now pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. Although the complaints vary in
certain respects, they each purport to assert claims for violations
of federal securities laws related to Mr. Musk's statement and seek
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of Tesla’s securities.

Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint on January 16, 2019
and added as defendants the members of Tesla's board of directors.


The now-consolidated purported stockholder class action was stayed
while the issue of selection of lead counsel was briefed and argued
before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth
Circuit ruled regarding lead counsel.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 22,
2019. The hearing on the motion is set for March 6, 2020.

Tesla said, "We believe that the claims have no merit and intend to
defend against them vigorously. We are unable to estimate the
potential loss, or range of loss, associated with these claims."

Tesla Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells high-performance
electric vehicles and electric vehicle powertrain components. The
Company owns its sales and service network and sells electric
powertrain components to other automobile manufacturers. Tesla
serves customers worldwide. The company is based in Palo Alto,
California.


THORLEY INDUSTRIES: Cruz Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thorley Industries LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Thorley Industries LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-01658 (S.D. N.Y., Feb. 25, 2020).

Thorley Industries, LLC designs and builds products for parents and
babies. The Company produces and markets strollers, infant tubs,
power-folding strollers, and accessories. Thorley Industries offers
its products to through retail stores and online websites
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (929) 575-4175
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal



TIVITY HEALTH: Court Certifies Class in Weiner Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERIC WEINER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. TIVITY HEALTH, INC., DONATO
TRAMUTO, GLENN HARGREAVES and ADAM HOLLAND, Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-01469 (M.D. Tenn.), Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. of the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville
Division, granted the Lead Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class.

Having survived a motion to dismiss, designated Lead Plaintiff,
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, seeks
certification of a class consisting of all those who purchased or
otherwise acquired Tivity common stock between March 6, 2017, and
Nov. 6, 2017.  Tivity opposes the motion, which has been fully
briefed by the parties.

Tivity argues that the Lead Plaintiff has not met the requirements
of either Rule 23(a) or 23(b).  As to the former, it submits that
the typicality and adequacy requirements cannot be met because (1)
the Lead Plaintiff purchased stock (at an even higher rate) after
it was disclosed UHC through its Optum Fitness Advantage program
was becoming a competitor to Tivity's flagship SilverSneakers
program, and (2) the drop in Tivity's stock price was not merely
the result of this diclosure, but also other, non-fraud factors.
As to the latter, Tivity asserts the Lead Plaintiff has not shown
that common issues will predominate over individualized issues.
Further, Tivity argues that the Lead Plaintiff has not shown how
damages can be determined on a classwide basis.

Judge Crenshaw finds that the Lead Plaintiff's claims are typical
and that it can adequately represent the proposed class for
purposes of Rules 23(a)(3) and (4).  He also finds (and without any
arguments to the contrary by Tivity) that (1) the proposed class is
so numerous as to make joinder impractical within the meaning of
Rule 23(a)(1), considering that Tivity's common stock was traded on
the NASDAQ and owned by 331 institutions during the class period;
and (2) there are common question of law and fact for purposes of
Rule 23(a)(2), including whether Tivity misrepresented or omitted
to state material facts about its business, whether those alleged
misstatement or omissions artificially inflated Tivity's stock, and
whether Tivity acted with scienter.  Thus, the Lead Plaintiffs have
satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(a).

Next, Judge Crenshaw finds that analysis of the factors that are
generally employed lead unerringly to the conclusion that Tivity
common stock traded in an efficient market, and did so during the
proposed class period.

Based upon the record and for the reasons set forth, Judge Crenshaw
finds that the questions of law or fact common to the class members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,
and that a class action is superior to other available methods for
fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.  Therefore,
certification of a class is appropriate.

The Lead Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class is granted, and Judge
Crenshaw certified a class consisting of all those who purchased or
otherwise acquired Tivity common stock between March 6, 2017 and
Nov. 6, 2017, inclusive.  Further, and without objection from
Tivity, the Court appointed the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and
Retirement System as the class representative, and Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC as the class counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2020 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/dLOaGg from Leagle.com.

Eric Weiner, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Eduard Korsinsky -- ek@zlk.com
-- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP & James A. Holifield, Jr. --
aholifield@holifieldlaw.com -- Holifield Janich Rachal &
Associates, PLLC.

Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, Plaintiff,
represented by Alice Buttrick -- abuttrick@cohenmilstein.com --
Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll PLLC, Benjamin A. Gastel --
beng@bsjfirm.com -- Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings, PLLC,
Christina D. Saler -- csaler@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, Daniel S. Sommers --
dsommers@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll,
PLLC, James Gerard Stranch, IV -- gerards@bsjfirm.com --
Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings, PLLC, Ji Eun Kim --
jekim@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll PLLC &
Steven J. Toll -- stoll@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen, Milstein,
Sellers & Toll, PLLC.

Tivity Health, Inc., Donato Tramuto, Glenn Hargreaves & Adam
Holland, Defendants, represented by Brandon R. Keel --
bkeel@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP, Jessica Perry Corley --
jpcorley@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP, Joseph B. Crace, Jr. --
jcrace@bassberry.com -- Bass, Berry & Sims, Lisa R. Bugni --
lbugni@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP & Wallace Wordsworth Dietz
-- wdietz@bassberry.com -- Bass, Berry & Sims.

TOWBIN DODGE: Neff Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts & Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN NEFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TOWBIN DODGE LLC, a Nevada company, Case No.
2:20-cv-00261-JAM-DMC (E.D. Cal., Feb. 4, 2020), seeks to stop
Towbin Dodge from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
by sending unsolicited, autodialed text messages and making
autodialed calls to consumers, and to otherwise obtain injunctive
and monetary relief for all persons injured by Towbin Dodge's
conduct.

According to the complaint, part of Towbin Dodge's marketing plan
includes sending text messages en masse to consumers regarding
promotions and other incentives that are meant to bring consumers
into Towbin Dodge's dealership. Such text messages are sent using
an autodialer without the necessary express written consent.

The Plaintiff contends that he received an autodialed text message
to his cellular phone from the Defendant soliciting him to purchase
a car from Towbin Dodge. He also received a phone call from the
Defendant that is believed to be autodialed. He avers that he has
never consented to Towbin Dodge sending him automated text messages
to his cell phone or placing autodialed calls to his cell phone. He
was not looking to purchase a car and has never visited Towbin
Dodge. He adds that he has never consented to be contacted in any
manner by Towbin Dodge.

The unauthorized text message and call from Towbin Dodge harmed the
Plaintiff in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of
privacy, and disturbed Neff's use and enjoyment of his cellular
phone, in addition to the wear and tear on the phone's hardware
(including the phone's battery) and the consumption of memory on
the phone, says the complaint.

Towbin Dodge runs a Dodge vehicle dealership in Nevada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881
          E-mail: rachel@kaufmanpa.com

               - and -

          Amanda F. Benedict, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF AMANDA F. BENEDICT
          7710 Hazard Center Dr., Suite E-104
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (760) 822-1911
          Facsimile: (760) 452-7560
          E-mail: amanda@amandabenedict.com


TRANSGLOBAL SERVICES: Johnson Seeks Overtime Pay for Surveyors
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSGLOBAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 7:20-cv-00046 (W.D. Tex., February 20, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant did not compensate the
Plaintiff and all other similarly-situated workers overtime pay for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek.  They
only received straight time pay for overtime hours worked rather
than receiving time and half as required by the FLSA.

Mr. Johnson was employed by the Defendant as a surveyor from
approximately January 2017 to October 2019.

Transglobal Services, LLC is a field service provider in the energy
industry located in Fort Worth, Texas. The company provides
services to right-of way, seismic, mapping, pipeline, and land
projects.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046          
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                   adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  
               - and -
           
          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046          
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

TREEHOUSE FOODS: Deadline for Discovery Motions Due March 16
------------------------------------------------------------
TreeHouse Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the parties in the
class action suit captioned as, Public Employees' Retirement
Systems of Mississippi v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc., et al., have until
March 16, 2020, to file document discovery motions.

On November 16, 2016, a purported TreeHouse shareholder filed a
class action captioned Tarara v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-10632, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against TreeHouse and certain of its
officers.

The complaint, amended on March 24, 2017, is purportedly brought on
behalf of all purchasers of TreeHouse common stock from January 20,
2016 through and including November 2, 2016. It asserts claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks, among other
things, damages and costs and expenses.

On December 22, 2016, another purported TreeHouse shareholder filed
an action captioned Wells v. Reed, et al., Case No. 2016-CH-16359,
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, against TreeHouse
and certain of its officers. This complaint, purportedly brought
derivatively on behalf of TreeHouse, asserts state law claims
against certain officers for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment, and corporate waste.

On February 7, 2017, another purported TreeHouse shareholder filed
an action captioned Lavin v. Reed, et al., Case No. 17-cv-01014, in
the Northern District of Illinois, against TreeHouse and certain of
its officers.  This complaint is also purportedly brought
derivatively on behalf of TreeHouse, and it asserts state law
claims against certain officers for breach of fiduciary duty,
unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and
corporate waste.

On February 8, 2019, another purported TreeHouse shareholder filed
an action captioned Bartelt v. Reed, et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00835, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. This complaint is purportedly brought
derivatively on behalf of TreeHouse and asserts state law claims
against certain officers for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and corporate
waste, in addition to asserting violations of Section 14 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Finally, on June 3, 2019, another purported TreeHouse shareholder
filed an action captioned City of Ann Arbor Employees’ Retirement
System v. Reed, et al., Case No. 2019-CH-06753, in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, against TreeHouse and certain of
its officers.

Like Wells, Lavin, and Bartelt, this complaint is purportedly
brought derivatively on behalf of TreeHouse and asserts claims for
contribution and indemnification, breach of fiduciary duty, and
aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty.

All five complaints make substantially similar allegations (though
the amended complaint in Tarara now contains additional detail).
Essentially, the complaints allege that TreeHouse, under the
authority and control of the individual defendants: (i) made
certain false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and future prospects; and (ii) failed to
disclose that (a) the Company's private label business was
underperforming; (b) the Company's Flagstone business was
underperforming; (c) the Company's acquisition strategy was
underperforming; (d) the Company had overstated its full-year 2016
guidance; and (e) TreeHouse's statements lacked reasonable basis.

The complaints allege that these actions artificially inflated the
market price of TreeHouse common stock during the class period,
thus purportedly harming investors. The Bartelt action also
includes substantially similar allegations concerning events in
2017, and the Ann Arbor complaint also seeks contribution from the
individual defendants for losses incurred by the company in these
litigations. The company believes that these claims are without
merit and intend to defend against them vigorously.

Since its initial docketing, the Tarara matter has been
re-captioned as Public Employees' Retirement Systems of Mississippi
v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc., et al., in accordance with the Court's
order appointing Public Employees' Retirement Systems of
Mississippi as the lead plaintiff. On May 26, 2017, the Public
Employees' defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the court
denied on February 12, 2018. On April 12, 2018, the Public
Employees' defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint.


On April 23, 2018, the parties filed a joint status report with the
Court, which set forth a proposed discovery and briefing schedule
for the Court's consideration. On July 13, 2018, lead plaintiff
filed a motion to certify the class, and defendants filed their
response in opposition to the motion to certify the class on
October 8, 2018.

On November 12, 2018, the parties filed an agreed motion to stay
proceedings to allow them to explore mediation. The motion was
granted on November 19. The parties thereafter engaged in mediation
but failed to resolve the dispute.

On March 29, 2019, the parties resumed litigation by filing an
agreed motion for extension of time, which was granted on April 9.
Under that schedule, lead plaintiff filed its reply class
certification brief on May 17, 2019. No hearing on class
certification has been set and the motion for class certification
remains pending.

The Public Employees' defendants thereafter completed their
production of documents, and on December 16, 2019, the parties
agreed to extend the schedule 90 days. This agreed motion was
granted on December 25, 2019.

Under this schedule, the deadline to file document discovery
motions is now March 16, 2020; the deadline to complete fact
discovery (including depositions) is June 8, 2020; and opening
expert reports must be served by July 27, 2020, followed by
rebuttal reports and expert discovery. Summary judgment briefing
will occur February 17, 2021 through May 12, 2021.

Due to the similarity of the complaints, the parties in Wells and
Lavin entered stipulations deferring the litigation until the
earlier of (i) the court in Public Employees' entering an order
resolving defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss therein or (ii)
plaintiffs' counsel receiving notification of a settlement of
Public Employees' or until otherwise agreed to by the parties.  

On September 27, 2018, the parties in Wells and Lavin filed joint
motions for entry of agreed orders further deferring the matters in
light of the Public Employees' Court's denial of the motion to
dismiss in February 2018. The Wells and Lavin Courts entered the
agreed orders further deferring the matters on September 27, 2018
and October 10, 2018, respectively.

On June 25, 2019, the parties jointly moved to consolidate the
Bartelt matter with Lavin, so that it would be subject to the Lavin
deferral order. This motion was granted on June 27, 2019, and
Bartelt is now consolidated with Lavin and deferred. There is no
set status date in Lavin at this time. Similarly, Ann Arbor was
consolidated with Wells on August 13, 2019, and is now deferred. In
Wells, the next status conference is set for March 6, 2020.

TreeHouse Foods, Inc. operates as a food and beverage manufacturer
in the United States, Canada, and Italy. The company operates
through Baked Goods, Beverages, Condiments, Meals, and Snacks
segments. TreeHouse Foods, Inc. was founded in 1862 and is based in
Oak Brook, Illinois.



TREEHOUSE FOODS: Negrete Class Suit v. Ralcorp Holdings Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
TreeHouse Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit against TreeHouse Private Brands,
Inc. (formerly Ralcorp Holdings, Inc.), a subsidiary of the
company, entitled, Negrete v. Ralcorp Holdings, Inc., et al.

The Company is also party to matters challenging its wage and hour
practices.

These matters include a number of class actions consolidated under
the caption Negrete v. Ralcorp Holdings, Inc., et al., pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, in
which the plaintiffs allege a pattern of violations of California
and/or federal law at several current and former Company
manufacturing facilities across the State of California.

TreeHouse said, "While the Company cannot predict with certainty
the results of this or any other legal proceeding, it does not
expect this matter to have a material adverse effect on its
financial condition, results of operations, or business."

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

TreeHouse Foods, Inc. operates as a food and beverage manufacturer
in the United States, Canada, and Italy. The company operates
through Baked Goods, Beverages, Condiments, Meals, and Snacks
segments. TreeHouse Foods, Inc. was founded in 1862 and is based in
Oak Brook, Illinois.


UBIQUITI INC: Final Settlement Hearing Set for March 27
-------------------------------------------------------
Ubiquiti Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2019, that a final settlement
hearing is scheduled for March 27, 2020, in the consolidated class
action suit before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

On February 21, 2018, a purported class action, captioned Paul
Vanderheiden v. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. et al., No. 18-cv-01620,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and certain of its current
and former officers.

The Vanderheiden Action complaint alleges that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and/or
misleading statements, including purported overstatements of the
Company's online community user engagement metrics and accounts
receivable.

On February 28, 2018 and March 13, 2018, substantially similar
purported class actions, captioned Xiya Qian v. Ubiquiti Networks,
Inc. et al., No. 18-cv-01841 and John Kho v. Ubiquiti Networks,
Inc. et al., No. 18-cv-02242, respectively, were filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.


On October 24, 2018, the court consolidated the Class Actions and
appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Plaintiff filed its
Consolidated Amended Complaint on December 24, 2018.

On March 21, 2019, Defendants informed the Court that they were
prepared to move to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint but
that, consistent with the Court's individual practices, they would
refrain from filing that motion pending receipt of further guidance
from the Court.

On October 16, 2019, the parties in the Consolidated Class Action
reached an agreement in principle to settle the Consolidated Class
Action (the "Proposed Settlement"). Certain insurers of the Company
have agreed to fully fund the Proposed Settlement, including any
award of attorneys' fees to Plaintiff's counsel. The court
preliminarily approved the Proposed Settlement on December 11,
2019.

A final settlement hearing is currently scheduled for March 27,
2020, thus the Proposed Settlement remains subject to court
approval.

Ubiquiti Inc. develops technology platforms for high-capacity
distributed Internet access, unified information technology, and
consumer electronics for professional, home and personal use. The
company categorizes its solutions in to three main categories: high
performance networking technology for service providers,
enterprises and consumers. The company targets the services
providers and enterprise markets through its highly engaged
community of service providers, distributors, value added
resellers, systems integrators and corporate IT professionals,
which the company refers to as the Ubiquiti Community. The company
is based in New York, New York.


UNION PACIFIC: Appeal in ADA-Related Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2020,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the appeal in the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Genetic Information
Nondiscrimination Act related class action suit remains pending.

In 2016, a lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington alleging violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) and Genetic Information Nondiscrimination
Act relating to Fitness for Duty requirements for safety sensitive
positions.

On August 8, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington granted plaintiffs' motion to transfer their claim to
the U.S. District Court of Nebraska.

On February 5, 2019, the U.S. District Court of Nebraska granted
plaintiffs' motion to certify the ADA allegations as a class
action.

The company was granted the right to appeal this class
certification to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
on March 13, 2019. The matter was argued before the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in November 2019.

The District Court proceedings have been stayed pending the
decision by the Eighth Circuit.

Union Pacific said, "We continue to deny these allegations, believe
this lawsuit is without merit and will defend our actions. We
believe this lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on any
of our results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity."

Union Pacific Corporation, through its subsidiary, Union Pacific
Railroad Company, engages in the railroad business in the United
States. Union Pacific Corporation was founded in 1862 and is
headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska.


UPTOWN COMMUNICATIONS: Jairam et al. Seek OT Pay for Technicians
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, PRAVESH JAIRAM; ROCKY RAMDIAL; ANDERSON BIRJU; NIGEL
ALLEYNE; REJESH RAMPAUL; and BRYAN JOSEPH, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. UPTOWN COMMUNICATIONS &
ELECTRIC, INC.; JONATHAN SMOKLER; CHRISTIAN CABEZAS; and DANIEL
GREENBERG, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00929 (E.D.N.Y., February
20, 2020), arises from the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to:

     -- compensate the Plaintiffs overtime pay for hours work in
excess of 40 in a workweek during their employment,

     -- post notices of minimum wage and overtime wage statements,
and

     -- keep accurate payroll records.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as installers and
technicians from 2006 to 2019.

Uptown Communications & Electric, Inc. is a company that provides
wholesale electric equipment and supplies with principal place of
business located in Maspeth, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES PC
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591
          Facsimile: (718) 263-9598

VIDACANN LLC: Garcia Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------
JEFFERY GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VIDACANN, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-01201 (N.D. Ill., February 19, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged unlawful
sending of automated text message advertisements to Plaintiff's
cellular telephone and the cellular telephones of numerous other
individuals across the country, a clear violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The TCPA provides that any text message constituting an
"advertisement" or "telemarketing" message within the meaning of
the TCPA requires the sender to acquire the recipient's "prior
express consent" before initiating such a message via an
autodialer.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff received multiple unsolicited
text messages to his 1852 Number from Defendant during the
preceding four years. The text messages contained "advertisements"
and "telemarketing messages" aiming to promote the commercial
availability of Defendant's products and services and ultimately
selling such products and services.

VidaCann, LLC is a medical marijuana company based in Jacksonville,
Florida that sells medical marijuana products to consumers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Tel: (312)893-7002
          Email: eturin@mcgpc.com

                - and -

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          1395 Brickell Avenue, Ste. 1140
          Miami, FL 33131
          Tel: (305)357-2107
          Fax: (305)200-8801
          Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com


VIRGINIA MASON: Keller Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Washington
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Sylvia Keller, Debbie Sills, and Sandy Gaytan,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
VIRGINIA MASON MEDICAL CENTER, a Washington non-profit corporation
doing business as Virginia Mason Memorial, Case No. 20-2-00170-39,
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington,
Yakima County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Washington at Yakima on Feb. 26, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-03025 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs allege in Count 1 that Memorial violated the
Washington Minimum Wage Act by failing to pay wages owed, including
overtime, for time spent donning and doffing surgical attire. The
Plaintiffs allege in Count 2 that Memorial's alleged improper
withholding of wages also violated the Wage Rebate Act.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kathryn Rosen, Esq.
          John Hodges-Howell, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98104-1610
          Phone: (206) 622-3150
          Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
          Email: katierosen@dwt.com
                 johnhodgeshowell@dwt.com

               - and -

          Paula Lehmann, Esq.
          Devin Smith, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          929 108th Avenue NE, Suite 1500
          Bellevue, WA 98004-4786
          Phone: (425) 646-6100
          Facsimile: (425) 646-6199
          Email: paulalehmann@dwt.com
                 devinsmith@dwt.com


WESTSIDE VENTURES: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Nguyen Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SANTINA NGUYEN, an individual v. WESTSIDE VENTURES, INC. DBA SKIN
GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, WOO SUK "STANLEY" YANG, an individual; DOE
MANAGERS 1-3; and DOES 4-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01142
(C.D. Cal., Feb. 4, 2020), asserts claims against Defendants for
damages due to their evading the mandatory minimum wage and
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and illegally
absconding tips from the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated
employees.

The Plaintiff contends that her claims arise from the Defendants'
willful actions while she was employed by the Defendants in the
three years prior to the filing of this Complaint. During her time
being employed by the Defendants, the Plaintiff was denied minimum
wage payments and denied overtime as part of the Defendants' scheme
to classify her and other dancers/entertainers as independent
contractors, says the complaint.

As a result of the Defendants' violations, the Plaintiff seeks to
recover all tips kept by the employer, liquidated damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the FLSA.

The Plaintiff and FLSA Class Members are all current and former
exotic dancers/entertainers, who worked at Skin located at 3388 S.
Robertson Boulevard, in Los Angeles, California.

Westside is doing business in adult entertainment industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WORLD WRESTLING: Continues to Defend Wrestlers' Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
7, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the
company remains a defendant in several class action suits initiated
by its wrestlers.

On October 23, 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District
Court for the District of Oregon, entitled William Albert Haynes
III, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.

This complaint was amended on January 30, 2015 and alleged that the
Company ignored, downplayed, and/or failed to disclose the risks
associated with traumatic brain injuries suffered by WWE's
performers and seeks class action status. On March 31, 2015, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the first amended class action
complaint in its entirety or, if not dismissed, to transfer the
lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.


Without addressing the merits of the Company's motion to dismiss,
the Court transferred the case to Connecticut on June 25, 2015. The
plaintiffs filed an objection to such transfer, which was denied on
July 27, 2015.

On January 16, 2015, a second lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, entitled
Evan Singleton and Vito LoGrasso, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.,
alleging many of the same allegations as Haynes.

On February 27, 2015, the Company moved to transfer venue to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut due to
forum-selection clauses in the contracts between WWE and the
plaintiffs and that motion was granted on March 23, 2015.  

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 22, 2015 and,
following a scheduling conference in which the court ordered the
plaintiffs to cure various pleading deficiencies, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint on June 15, 2015.  On June 29,
2015, WWE moved to dismiss the second amended complaint in its
entirety.

On April 9, 2015, a third lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District
Court for the Central District of California, entitled Russ
McCullough, a/k/a "Big Russ McCullough," Ryan Sakoda, and Matthew
R. Wiese a/k/a "Luther Reigns," individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.,
asserting similar allegations to Haynes.

The Company again moved to transfer the lawsuit to Connecticut due
to forum-selection clauses in the contracts between WWE and the
plaintiffs, which the California court granted on July 10, 2015.  

On September 21, 2015, the plaintiffs amended this complaint, and,
on November 16, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.  

Each of these suits sought unspecified actual, compensatory and
punitive damages and injunctive relief, including ordering medical
monitoring. The Haynes and McCullough cases purport to be class
actions.

On February 18, 2015, a lawsuit was filed in Tennessee state court
and subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee, entitled Cassandra Frazier, individually and
as next of kin to her deceased husband, Nelson Lee Frazier, Jr.,
and as personal representative of the Estate of Nelson Lee Frazier,
Jr. Deceased, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. A similar suit
was filed in the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas entitled Michelle James, as mother and next friend of Matthew
Osborne, minor child, and Teagan Osborne, a minor child v. World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.

These lawsuits contain many of the same allegations as the other
lawsuits alleging traumatic brain injuries and further allege that
the injuries contributed to these former talents' deaths.

WWE moved to transfer the Frazier and Osborne lawsuits to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut based on
forum-selection clauses in the decedents' contracts with WWE, which
motions were granted by the respective courts. On November 23,
2015, amended complaints were filed in Frazier and Osborne, which
the Company moved to dismiss on December 16, 2015 and December 21,
2015, respectively.

On November 10, 2016, the Court granted the Company's motions to
dismiss the Frazier and Osborne lawsuits in their entirety. On June
29, 2015, the Company filed a declaratory judgment action in the U.
S. District Court for the District of Connecticut entitled World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Robert Windham, Thomas Billington,
James Ware, Oreal Perras and various John and Jane Does seeking a
declaration against these former performers that their threatened
claims related to alleged traumatic brain injuries and/or other
tort claims are time-barred. On September 21, 2015, the defendants
filed a motion to dismiss this complaint, which the Company
opposed.

The Court previously ordered a stay of discovery in all cases
pending decisions on the motions to dismiss. On January 15, 2016,
the Court partially lifted the stay and permitted discovery only on
three issues in the case involving Singleton and LoGrasso. Such
discovery was completed by June 1, 2016.

On March 21, 2016, the Court issued a memorandum of decision
granting in part and denying in part the Company's motions to
dismiss the Haynes, Singleton/LoGrasso, and McCullough lawsuits.
The Court granted the Company's motions to dismiss the Haynes and
McCullough lawsuits in their entirety and granted the Company's
motion to dismiss all claims in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit
except for the claim of fraud by omission.

On March 22, 2016, the Court issued an order dismissing the Windham
lawsuit based on the Court's memorandum of decision on the motions
to dismiss. On April 4, 2016, the Company filed a motion for
reconsideration with respect to the Court's decision not to dismiss
the fraud by omission claim in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit and,
on April 5, 2016, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration
with respect to the Court dismissal of the Windham lawsuit.

On July 21, 2016, the Court denied the Company's motion in the
Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit and granted in part the Company’s
motion in the Windham lawsuit. On April 20, 2016, the plaintiffs
filed notices of appeal of the Haynes and McCullough lawsuits. On
April 27, 2016, the Company moved to dismiss the appeals for lack
of appellate jurisdiction, which motions were granted, and the
appeals were dismissed with leave to appeal upon the resolution of
all of the consolidated cases.

The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on the sole
remaining claim in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit, which was
granted on March 28, 2018. The Company also filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings against the Windham defendants.

Lastly, on July 18, 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut, entitled Joseph M.
Laurinaitis, et al. vs. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. and
Vincent K. McMahon, individually and as the trustee of certain
trusts. This lawsuit contains many of the same allegations as the
other lawsuits alleging traumatic brain injuries and further
alleges, among other things, that the plaintiffs were misclassified
as independent contractors rather than employees denying them,
among other things, rights and benefits under the Occupational
Safety and Health Act (OSHA), the National Labor Relations Act
(NLRA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), federal tax law,
and various state Worker’s Compensation laws.

This lawsuit also alleges that the booking contracts and other
agreements between the plaintiffs and the Company are
unconscionable and should be declared void, entitling the
plaintiffs to certain damages relating to the Company's use of
their intellectual property.

The lawsuit alleges claims for violation of RICO, unjust
enrichment, and an accounting against Mr. McMahon. The Company and
Mr. McMahon moved to dismiss this complaint on October 19, 2016.
On November 9, 2016, the Laurinaitis plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint. On December 23, 2016, the Company and Mr. McMahon moved
to dismiss the amended complaint.

On September 29, 2017, the Court issued an order on the motion to
dismiss pending in the Laurinaitis case and on the motion for
judgment on the pleadings pending in the Windham case. The Court
reserved judgment on the pending motions and ordered that within
thirty-five (35) days of the date of the order the Laurinaitis
plaintiffs and the Windham defendants file amended pleadings that
comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court further ordered that each of the Laurinaitis plaintiffs
and the Windham defendants submit to the Court for in camera review
affidavits signed and sworn under penalty of perjury setting forth
facts within each plaintiff’s or declaratory judgment-defendant's
personal knowledge that form the factual basis of their claim or
defense. On November 3, 2017, the Laurinaitis plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint.

The Company and Mr. McMahon believe that the second amended
complaint failed to comply with the Court's September 29, 2017
order and otherwise remained legally defective for all of the
reasons set forth in their motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
Also on November 3, 2017, the Windham defendants filed a second
answer.

On November 17, 2017, the Company and Mr. McMahon filed a response
that, among other things, urged the Court to grant the motion for
judgment on the pleadings against the Windham defendants and
dismiss the Laurinaitis plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice and
award sanctions against the Laurinaitis plaintiffs' counsel because
the amended pleadings failed to comply with the Court's September
29, 2017 order and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On
September 17, 2018, the Court granted the motion to dismiss filed
by the Company and Mr. McMahon in the Laurinaitis case in its
entirety, awarded sanctions against the Laurinaitis plaintiffs'
counsel, and granted the Company's motion for judgment on the
pleadings against the Windham defendants. The plaintiffs have
attempted to appeal these decisions.

On November 16, 2018, the Company moved to dismiss all of the
appeals, except for the appeal of the dismissal of the Laurinaitis
case, for being filed untimely. On April 4, 2019, the Second
Circuit issued an order referring the Company's motions to dismiss
to the panel that will determine the merits of the appeals. The
plaintiffs-appellants' opening brief was filed on July 8, 2019. The
Company and Mr. McMahon filed their appellees' brief on October 7,
2019. The plaintiffs-appellants filed a reply brief on October 28,
2019.

The Company believes all claims and threatened claims against the
Company in these various lawsuits were prompted by the same
plaintiffs' lawyer and that all are without merit. The Company
intends to continue to defend itself against the attempt to appeal
these decisions vigorously.

World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., an integrated media and
entertainment company, engages in the sports entertainment business
in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Asia
Pacific, and Latin America. It operates in three segments: Media,
Live Events, and Consumer Products. The company was founded in 1980
and is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.


XPO LOGISTICS: Awaits Final OK of Settlements in Last Mile Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the parties in the
Last Mile Logistics related class action suits are awaiting final
court approval of their settlements.

Some of the company's last mile logistics subsidiaries are party to
several putative class action litigations brought by independent
contract carriers who contracted with these subsidiaries.

In these litigations, the contract carriers, and in some cases the
contract carriers' employees, assert that they should be classified
as employees, rather than independent contractors. The particular
claims asserted vary from case to case, but the claims generally
allege unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, or failure to provide meal
and rest periods, and seek reimbursement of the contract carriers'
business expenses.

The cases include four related matters pending in the Federal
District Court, Northern District of California: Ron Carter, Juan
Estrada, Jerry Green, Burl Malmgren, Bill McDonald and Joel Morales
v. XPO Logistics, Inc., filed in March 2016; Ramon Garcia v. Macy's
and XPO Logistics Inc., filed in July 2016; Kevin Kramer v. XPO
Logistics Inc., filed in September 2016; and Hector Ibanez v. XPO
Last Mile, Inc., filed in May 2017.

The company reached agreements to settle the Carter, Garcia, Kramer
and Ibanez matters and have accrued the full amount of the
settlements. The Carter settlement received final court approval on
October 18, 2019, and the settlement has been paid.

The parties await final approval of the settlements in the other
matters.

XPO Logistics said, "As for the other pending lawsuits, we believe
that we have adequately accrued for the potential impact of loss
contingencies that are probable and reasonably estimable. We are
unable at this time to estimate the amount of the possible loss or
range of loss, if any, in excess of our accrued liability that we
may incur as a result of these claims given, among other reasons,
that the number and identities of plaintiffs in these lawsuits are
uncertain and the range of potential loss could be impacted
substantially by future rulings by the courts involved, including
on the merits of the claims."

XPO Logistics, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services
in the United States, North America, France, the United Kingdom,
Europe, and internationally. XPO Logistics, Inc. was founded in
1996 and is based in Greenwich, Connecticut.


XPO LOGISTICS: Carriers Suits vs. Intermodal Drayage Units Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company's
intermodal drayage subsidiaries remain parties to litigation
brought by independent contract carriers who contracted with these
subsidiaries.

Certain of the company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries received
notices from the California Labor Commissioner, Division of Labor
Standards Enforcement (the "DLSE"), that a total of approximately
150 owner-operators contracted with these subsidiaries filed claims
in 2012 with the DLSE.

These owner-operators asserted that they should be classified as
employees, rather than independent contractors.

These claims seek reimbursement for the owner-operators' business
expenses, including fuel, tractor maintenance and tractor lease
payments. Decisions were rendered in June 2015 by a DLSE hearing
officer with respect to claims of five plaintiffs, resulting in
awards in an aggregate amount of approximately $1 million,
following which the company appealed the decisions in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

On May 16, 2017, the Central District Court issued judgment finding
that the five claimants were employees rather than independent
contractors and awarded an aggregate of approximately $1 million
plus post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees to the claimants.

The company appealed this judgment, but on February 20, 2019, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declined to
consider the appeal on technical grounds.

In addition, separate decisions were rendered in April 2017 by a
DLSE hearing officer in claims involving four additional
plaintiffs, resulting in an award for the plaintiffs in an
aggregate amount of approximately $1 million. The company appealed
this decision to the California Superior Court, Long Beach, and the
court ultimately entered judgment in favor of the four plaintiffs
for approximately $812 thousand on September 27, 2019.

The remaining DLSE claims (the "Pending DLSE Claims") were
transferred to California Superior Court, Los Angeles in three
separate actions involving approximately 170 claimants, including
the claimants mentioned above who originally filed claims in 2012.


The company had reached an agreement to settle the majority of the
Pending DLSE Claims, the settlement payment has been made, and the
settled claims have been dismissed.

In addition, some of the company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries
are party to putative class action litigations, individual and
multi-plaintiff lawsuits, and administrative claims in California
brought by independent contract carriers who contracted with these
subsidiaries.

In these matters, the contract carriers assert that they should be
classified as employees, rather than independent contractors. The
company believes that it has adequately accrued for the potential
impact of loss contingencies that are probable and reasonably
estimable relating to the claims.

XPO Logistics said, "We are unable at this time to estimate the
amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, in excess of
our accrued liability that we may incur as a result of these claims
given, among other reasons, that the range of potential loss could
be impacted substantially by future rulings by the courts involved,
including on the merits of the claims."

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

XPO Logistics, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services
in the United States, North America, France, the United Kingdom,
Europe, and internationally. XPO Logistics, Inc. was founded in
1996 and is based in Greenwich, Connecticut.


XPO LOGISTICS: Continues to Defend Labul Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Labul v. XPO Logistics,
Inc. et al., No. 3:18-cv-02062.

On December 14, 2018, two putative class actions were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut and the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
company and some of its current and former executives, alleging
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, based on alleged
material misstatements and omissions in our public filings with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On January 7, 2019, the plaintiff in one of the class actions,
Leeman v. XPO Logistics, Inc. et al., No. 1:18-cv-11741 (S.D.N.Y.),
voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice.

In the other putative class action, Labul v. XPO Logistics, Inc. et
al., No. 3:18-cv-02062 (D. Conn.), which is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut, on April 2, 2019,
the court appointed Local 817 IBT Pension Fund, Local 272
Labor-Management Pension Fund, and Local 282 Pension Trust Fund and
Local 282 Welfare Trust Fund as lead plaintiffs.

On June 3, 2019, the Pension Funds, with additional plaintiff
Norfolk County Retirement System, filed a consolidated class action
complaint against the company and some of its current and former
executives, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, based on alleged
material misstatements and omissions in our public filings with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint
on August 2, 2019. On November 4, 2019, the court dismissed the
consolidated class action complaint without prejudice to the filing
of an amended complaint.

The Pension Funds, on January 3, 2020, filed a first amended
consolidated class action complaint against the company and a
current executive, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. Defendants' deadline to respond to or move against
the amended complaint is March 3, 2020.

XPO Logistics, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services
in the United States, North America, France, the United Kingdom,
Europe, and internationally. XPO Logistics, Inc. was founded in
1996 and is based in Greenwich, Connecticut.


YAHOO! INC: July 20 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Alyse Stanley, writing for Gizmodo, reports that the folks behind
the largest known hack of user data to date are finally paying up.
Yahoo, now owned by Verizon, recently agreed to pay $117.5 million
as part of a proposed class action settlement stemming from a
series of breaches in the 2010s that affected 3 billion people --
basically Yahoo's then-entire user base.

If you had a Yahoo account during that time, you might have already
received an email telling you all this, along with the fact that
you may be eligible for free credit monitoring or up to $100 as
recompense for that whole to-do. The deadline for claims is July
20. The question now, as you may be asking yourself, is how does
one cash in on Yahoo's apology?

Any U.S. resident who had an account between Jan. 1, 2012 and Dec.
31, 2016 is eligible to submit a claim here for either two years of
free credit monitoring through AllClear ID or "alternative
compensation": cold, hard cash of up to $100 if you show you
already have credit services. Individuals can also file claims
through the mail and online for any out-of-pocket costs tied to
these breaches. Users that can document specific losses suffered
because of these hacks are eligible to receive reimbursement up to
$25,000.

Though that $100 depends on how many eligible users actually enter
claims. It could go as high as $358.80 if most folks opt to do
nothing, or it could drop down to a few dollars if even just a
third of the 194 million potential class-action lawsuit members
file a claim.

Not that anyone could blame them, what with the sting of Equifax's
breach still fresh on a lot of our minds. Instead of the $125
windfall most victims originally expected, an absolute pittance for
exposing the data of nearly 150 million people, the Federal Trade
Commission issued a warning that each claimant in Equifax's case
would likely only get "a small amount of money" if more people
didn't opt for free credit monitoring instead. And who wouldn't
want free credit services -- compiled from three national credit
agencies that include, oh yeah that's right, the very company that
screwed up in the first place!

But even Equifax's breach pales in comparison to Yahoo's fuck-up
history. Hackers, likely state-sponsored, made off with credentials
for all 3 billion Yahoo accounts in 2013, though the company didn't
disclose the breach -- along with a separate incident in 2014 that
affected 400 million accounts -- until 2016. The Securities and
Exchange Commission ultimately hit Yahoo with a $35 million fine
for its failure to quickly inform users that their information
might have been stolen. Even still, it took another full year
before the full extent of that first breach became known; Yahoo's
original estimates had the number of victims at 1 million. A final
hearing on Yahoo's settlement's scheduled for April. [GN]


YAHOO! INC: Settlement in Data Breach Suit Awaits Final Court Okay
------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Rossow at Grit Daily reports that nearly eight-years later
following the Yahoo! data breach, where the world saw a large tech
giant (yet again) fall victim (hard) to a series of data breaches
originating back in the early 2010s.

Consequently, thanks to the class action lawsuit against Yahoo, the
company has finally reached a proposed settlement, which you may
have received an email about back in September.

Yet, our curiosity extends deeper into the disgusting $30 million
the legal team is about to net (earn) for their efforts in
resolving the matter . . . if you even call it that.

This settlement is perhaps one of the most insulting resolutions to
an asset that will forever outweigh the monetary value of cash: our
data.

However, if you haven't already filed a claim pursuant to the email
instructions, now is your time to act, because
time-is-of-the-essence.

Earlier, you may have received that email from Yahoo alerting you
to the settlement for the data breach, so listen up because now is
your time to act.

Yahoo! which is now part of Verizon, agreed under the terms of the
proposed class action settlement, to pay $117.5 million out of the
fund to settle any and all filed claims dating back to five
different data breaches that occurred from early 2012 through 2016,
affecting up to 3 billion users across the globe. So get to
filing.

Were You An Active Yahoo! User During 2012-2016?

Step one is to determine whether you had an active Yahoo account
between 2012 and 2016. If you fall into this category, you can file
a claim online or by mail, with the option to add two-years of free
credit monitoring.

Have Free Credit Monitoring Already? Then File For ‘Alternative
Compensation'

If you can show that you already have credit monitoring, for
example, from the Equifax data breach, you can adjust your filed
claim requesting "alternative compensation," which will award you a
whopping $100. Don't get your steak knives out yet.

While that number could go up to $358.80 or more, this award is
dependent upon the number of people who file claims. In other
words, your cut depends on how many other people read this article
and the countless other instructions out there.

Have You Incurred Out-of-Pocket Expenses?

Traditionally speaking on data breaches, there almost certainly
out-of-pocket expenses for us consumers. Albeit digital security
services, identity theft mitigation, or even post-breach fallout.

The Real Winner Isn't Holding $100 . . . They're Holding $30M

But whether consumers can recall, itemize, and document specific
losses suffered as a result of the breaches, adding up to $25,000
of reimbursement, there's something else at play here -- the legal
team which secured the settlement.

But what's wrong with the nature surrounding this settlement?

Everything.

You would think when it comes to data, justice and resolution would
be the only goals here. Unfortunately, the truth couldn't be
farther from the courtroom.

The settlement isn't about justice. It's about who can capitalize
off an incident that affects all of us. The settlement only allows
for up to 194 million Yahoo! users in the U.S. and Israel who were
affected by the breaches, to claim compensation.

If you think sortwise, riddle me this.

How can anyone claim this settlement is anything but an absolute
joke?

The settlement fund only allows for up to 194 million Yahoo users
in the US and Israeli who were affected by the breaches to claim
compensation.

Yet, the breaches impacted around 3 billion Yahoo! users.

3. Billion. People.

So where does the rest of compensation go? Into the pockets of the
legal team. And as a lawyer myself, I even find this disgusting.

Per recently filed court documents, legal counsel for the class who
secured this insulting breach settlement currently awaits for U.S.
District Judge Lucy Koh's final signature on the approval, which
will award them the fees.

Commenting on the settlement to CNBC, cybersecurity expert Joseph
Steinberg predicted that the actual amount of compensation Yahoo
users will receive is likely to be far lower.

"Everybody probably has free credit monitoring at this point," said
Steinberg. "If you're expecting to get $100, you're probably going
to be significantly disappointed."

But at the end of the day, if you want to reserve the right to sue
over these breaches in the future, you must send a letter to the
Settlement Administrator by March 6. [GN]


ZAP LUBE: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Sawadogo Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OUSMANE SAWADOGO, THEOPHILE OUBDA, OUSMANE DIARRA, ADBOUL ILBOUDO,
FRANCK T. VINCENT, and ABDOUL RAZAK SAMBARE on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. ZAP LUBE & CAR WASH, INC., ZAP
AUTOMOTIVE CORP., UNDERWEST MANAGEMENT CORP., BLOOMFIELD CAR WASH &
LUBE CORP., WASHINGTON STREET AUTO REPAIR CORP., 378-392 WASHINGTON
STREET CAR WASH, INC., BROAD & EMMET CAR WASH CORP., 1090 OPERATING
CORP., 1096 ATLANTIC OPERATING CORP., BARAK SPEEDY LUBE, INC., ONE
& NINE CARWASH & LUBE INC., UNION CITY CAR WASH INC., MOSHE WINER,
MARTIN TAUB, AVI GOLAN, LIOR RONNER, and ALON LEVY, Case No.
20-CV-1196 (D.N.J., Feb. 4, 2020), arises out of the Defendants'
failure to pay the Plaintiffs the minimum wage, overtime
compensation, and other monies, as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law and the New York
Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs are individuals residing in the State of New Jersey,
Essex County, who were or are non-exempt employees of the
Defendants, who have performed or will perform non-managerial work
at one of the Defendants' car washes, auto repair shops, and/or oil
change shops.

Winer and Taub are, or have been, the owners and operators of seven
Zap Car Wash and Lube locations, including two located in Newark,
New Jersey, at 1196 Broad Street and 390 Washington Street. The
Defendants also formerly owned a location at 312 Bloomfield Avenue
in Newark until 2018.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Avi Mermelstein, Esq.
          ARENSON, DITTMAR & KARBAN
          200 Park Avenue, Suite 1700
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 490-3600


ZENDESK INC: Class Suits Consolidated Under "Reidinger"
-------------------------------------------------------
Zendesk, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the class action suit
entitled, Charles Reidinger v. Zendesk, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:19-cv-06968-CRB and Ho v. Zendesk, Inc., et al., No.
3:19-cv-07361-WHA, have been consolidated under the matter styled
as, Reidinger v. Zendesk, Inc., et al.

On October 24, 2019 and November 7, 2019, purported stockholders of
the Company filed two putative class action complaints in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, entitled Charles Reidinger v. Zendesk, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:19-cv-06968-CRB and Ho v. Zendesk, Inc., et al., No.
3:19-cv-07361-WHA, respectively, against the Company and certain of
the Company's executive officers.

The complaints are nearly identical and allege violations of
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, purportedly on behalf of all persons who
purchased Zendesk, Inc. common stock between February 6, 2019 and
October 1, 2019, inclusive.

The claims are based upon allegations that the defendants
misrepresented and/or omitted material information in certain of
our prior public filings. To this point, no discovery has occurred
in these cases.

The court has appointed lead plaintiff and has consolidated the
various lawsuits into a single action (Case No. 3:19-cv-06968-CRB).


Zendesk said, "It is possible that additional similar complaints or
additional amended complaints may be filed. If this occurs, we do
not intend to announce the filing of each additional, similar
complaint or any amended complaint unless it contains allegations
that are substantially distinct from those made in the pending
action described above. These class actions are still in the
preliminary stages, and it is not possible for the Company to
quantify the extent of potential liability to the individual
defendants, if any. Management believes that these lawsuits lack
merit and intends to vigorously defend the actions. We cannot
predict the outcome of or estimate the possible loss or range of
loss from the above described matters."

Zendesk, Inc. provides web-based help desk software with customer
support platform. The Company offers applications that allow
clients to manage incoming support requests from end customers from
any Internet connected computer. Zendesk serves customers in the
United States. The company is based in San Francisco, California.


[*] Fedusa Considering Class Action Against Municipalities
----------------------------------------------------------
ALGOA FM reports that trade union federation, Fedusa, has rejected
any proposed debt write-off for Eskom and called for the power
utility to be placed under business rescue.

Acting general secretary, Riefda Ajam, said they were also
"strongly considering" a class action lawsuit against
municipalities that collect utilities from ratepayers but fail to
deliver services.

The leadership of Fedusa met on Feb. 10 to discuss the crises
"ravaging state-owned entities", with a focus on Eskom.

Ajam said the Federation rejected the proposal to "raid R254
billion of public servants pension money warehoused in the Public
Investment Corporation to bail-out the utility".

"Decisive action to address the root of the evil at all SOEs, the
destructive levels of corruption and corporate governance failures
must be prioritised," she said. [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 ***