---

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

              Wednesday, March 4, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 46

                            Headlines

3M CO: Bid to Transfer Firefighter's Class Suit Denied
3M CO: Consolidated Class Action Suit Ongoing in Michigan
3M CO: Discovery Ongoing in Parchment Resident's Class Suit
3M CO: King Class Action Remains Pending in Alabama
ALC & CO. LLC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Hedges Claims

ALLAKOS INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigating Securities Claims
ALTICE USA: Federman & Sherwood Files Action Over Data Breach
AMERICAN FREIGHT: Eldridge Sues Over Unsolicited Text Message Ads
ANIXTER INT'L: WESCO Merger Deal Lacks Info, Kent Claims
AT&T MOBILITY: Pomales Suit Removed to District of Massachusetts

AT&T SERVICES: Misclassifies Security Staff, Boteler Claims
AUTOMILE PARENT: Coraccio Seeks OT Pay for Service Advisors
B.C. LOTTERY: Class Action Suit Filed Over "Dangerous" Video Slots
BALTIMORE LIFE: Griffin Sues over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
BECTON DICKINSON: Kabak Sues Over 12% Drop in Share Price

BENELUX CORP: Wilder Sues over Overtime Pay, Illegal Kickbacks
BEYOND MEAT: Robbins Geller Reminds of March 30 Plaintiff Deadline
BJ SERVICES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Shetter Claims
BOTTLED BLONDE CHICAGO: Mitchell Balks at Collection of Biometrics
CALYX ENERGY: Strong Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

CAPITAL ACCOUNTS: Hawkins Sues over Unlawful Debt Collection
CARDINAL AUTISM: Fields Seeks OT Pay for Behavioral Therapists
CARDINAL LOGISTICS: Underpays Truck Drivers, Pavloff Claims
CARE MATTERS: Fails to Pay Overtime Compensation, Campbell Claims
CARLAY GAS HEAT: Lim-Tom Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

CASCADE COLLECTIONS: Rodriguez Calls Debt Collection "Unlawful"
CHICAGO, IL: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Perez Suit
CHILLED PROPERTIES: Chavez Files Suit in New York
CHIPOTLE: Settles Non-GMO Class Action for $6.5 Million
CINCINNATI BELL: Brookfield Merger Docs Lack Info, Katz Claims

CLEARVIEW AI: Burke and Pomerene Sue over Illegal Web Scraping
CLEARVIEW AI: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Similar to Facebook
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Sobel Calls TV Insurance Plan "Deceptive"
CPI AEROSTRUCTURES: Rodriguez Sues Over Share Price Drop
CROWN CASTLE: Faces La Suit Over 8.8% Decline in Share Price

CUATRO T CONSTRUCTION: Diaz Seeks Overtime Pay for Drivers
DEBT CRUSADERS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Fabricant Suit Says
DEBT RECOVERY: Hill Alleges Violation under FDCPA
DEVA CONCEPTS: DevaCurl Customers Allege Hair Loss and Damage
DOGTASTIC LLC: Withheld Employees' Tips, Jones and Rivera Allege

DOMINION ENERGY: Barker Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION: Withholds Gratuity, Ikahn El Claims
ECO COMMUNITY CLEANERS: Catahan Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ENERGY TRANSFER: Altenhofen Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES: James Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

EQUIFAX INC: Settlement Objector Attys. Fight to Clear Their Name
EVENFLO CO: Alston Sues Over Defective Booster Seats
EVENFLO CO: Car Seat for Kids Unsafe, Ramasamy Claims
EVENFLO CO: Schnitzer Sues Over Defective Booster Seats
EVENFLO CO: Woodson et al. Allege Defective Kid Booster Seats

EVENFLO COMPANY: Faces Class Suit Over "Big Kid" Car Seats
FASHION NOVA: Alcazar Files ADA Suit in California
FLAGSHIP CREDIT: Judge Rules Class Action Settlement Unfair
FLOOR AND DECOR OUTLETS: Ekstrom Balks at Biometric ID Collection
FLORIDA REGIONAL: Faces Class Action Filed by Immigrant Investors

FLYING FOOD GROUP: Removes Ortiz Suit to C.D. California
FORD MOTOR: Sunroof Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed
FOWLER PACKING: Court Orders Six Depositions in Aldapa Labor Suit
GARDNER DENVER: Kent & Rubin Plaintiffs Drop Class Suits
GERON CORP: Pomerantz Announces Filing of Class Action

GERON CORP: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of March 23 Deadline
GODDESS DETOX: Deceptively Sells Goddess Detox Pearls, Weiss Says
GRAND CANYON: Berger Montague Investigating Class Action Claims
GREEN POGO: Faces Consumer RICO Class Action
HARMONY NURSING: Chatman Sues over Collection of Biometric Data

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Caccavale et al Claim
HR METRICS: Howell Sues over Unauthorized Biometrics Collection
ICF CONSULTING: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Fishman Alleges
INCEPT CORP: Rankin Seeks Overtime Pay for Telemarketers
INTERMEX WIRE: Underpays Sales Representatives, Herrera Claims

JEFFRY KNIGHT: Faces Yan Suit Over Overtime Pay Violations
JOHN HANCOCK: Baker Sues over Employee Pension Plan Losses
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Narrows Claims in Hall Securities Suit
JP MANAGEMENT GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Irvin Claims
K & W CAFETERIAS: Hayth Seeks OT Pay for Restaurant Staff

KALINA BAR: De la Cruz Seeks OT Pay for Delivery Staff
KASS MANAGEMENT: Faces O'Malley Suit over EFTA Violations
KILGORE ISD: Plaintiffs Seek to Expand Scope of Lawsuit
L'OREAL USA: Liquid Cosmetics Have Defective Pumps, Young Claims
LA VILLE DELIVERY: Ponce et al. Sue over OT Pay, Retaliation

LANDMARK BANK: Flowers Calls Overdraft Fees "Improper"
LD RODRIGUEZ TRANSPORT: Rabeiro Seeks Minimum Wage for Drivers
LEAFGUARD CHICAGO: Densmore Sues over Collection of Biometrics
LEOPOLD & ASSOCIATES: Faces McDonough FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
LOUIS VUITTON: Website not Accessible to Blind Users, Cruz Claims

LUCKIN COFFEE: Accused of Misleading Shareholders in Suit
LUCKIN COFFEE: Howard G. Smith Announces Class Action Filing
LUCKIN COFFEE: Rosen Law Invites Investors to Class Action
MARIN J CORP: Underpays Migrant Farmworkers, Romero et al Allege
MARQUIS HOME: Charles et al. Seek OT Pay for Home Attendants

MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL: Faces Smallman Suit Over Data Breach
MI PUEBLO: Underpays Servers, Gonzalez Suit Alleges
MICHAEL KORS USA: Faces Ramirez Suit Over Labor Law Violations
MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Stays Class Certification Proceedings
MITCHELL INT'L: Misclassifies Case Managers, Josephson Says

MOISHE'S MOVING SYSTEMS: Assisi Sues over Improper Wage Practice
MONROVIA NURSERY: Morgan Files Suit in New York
NCAA: Fails to Protect Student-Athletes' Welfare, Hestera Claims
NETWORK RECOVERY: Denciger Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York
NYC HOUSING: McGriff et al. Allege Housing Lease Violations

OCEAN SPRAY: $5.4MM False Ad Suit Settlement Gets Preliminary Okay
OPERA LIMITED: Berger Montague Reminds of March 24 Deadline
PAPA JOHN'S USA: Flores Sues over Excessive Text Messages
PATIENTMATTERS LLC: Watson Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA and AMWA
PIP: EU's Top Court Limits Breast Implant Claims to France

PLATEAU DATA: Faces Winters TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
QFLORIST INC: Hedges Files Suit Under ADA in New York
RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Partial Summary Judgment Bid in Drennen Denied
SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Reed Claims
SAFESPEED: Faces Red-Light Camera RICO Class Action

SASOL LIMITED: Berger Montague Announces Class Action Suit Filing
SCHOOL SPECIALTY: Morgan Alleges Violation under ADA
SIEMENS MOBILITY: Removes Nunery Suit to E.D. California
SIX FLAGS: Schall Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit
SKANSKA KOCH: Cortese Seeks Unpaid Wages for Crane Operators

SKYLINE RESTORATION: Fails to Pay Workers OT, Hernandez et al Claim
SONIC CORP: Hernandez Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of April 10 Deadline
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Rosen Reminds Investors of April 10 Deadline
SPORTRADAR US: Lucas Sues Over Fantasy Baseball Betting

STATE FARM: Rasmussen Insurance Suit Removed to W.D. Kentucky
STETSON COURIER: Holmes et al. Seek OT Pay for Courier Drivers
STONE BREWING: Dominguez FCRA Suit Removed to S.D. California
TAP ROCK RESOURCES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Martin Claims
TELARIA, INC: Financial Report Lacks Info, Carter Claims

TESLA INC: Trial in 2018 Performance Award Suit Set for June 2021
TREMONT CAR WASH: Underpays Staff, Morales et al. Claim
TRIWEST HEALTHCARE: Schwarz Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Bertrim Sues Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
UNITED AMERICAN SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jones Claims

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Fails to Properly Pay OT, Harris et al Claim
UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Says Legal Case Meritless Amid Lost Recordings
VALVOLINE LLC: Horne Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
VIVINT INC: Sells Defective Home Security Systems, Petrozzino Says
VRELO ELECTRIC: Faces Ramirez Suit Over Unlawful Overtime Wages

WARDLAW CONSULTING: Gipson Seeks OT Pay for Hourly-Paid Adjusters
WESTPAC BANKING: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of March 30 Deadline
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Wins Summary Judgment in Dzielak Suit
WHOLE FOODS: Hiland Alleges Deceptive Labeling of Vanilla Product
YOUNGSOL CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Perez Claims

ZOOM TAN: Blind Can't Access Website, Gardenhire Claims

                            *********

3M CO: Bid to Transfer Firefighter's Class Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------
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 court has denied 3M's
motion to transfer the class action suit initiated by a firefighter
to the Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability
Litigation.

In October 2018, 3M and other defendants, including DuPont and
Chemours, were named in a putative class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio brought by the
named plaintiff, a firefighter allegedly exposed to PFAS chemicals
through his use of firefighting foam, purporting to represent a
putative class of all U.S. individuals with detectable levels of
PFAS in their blood.

The plaintiff brings claims for negligence, battery, and conspiracy
and seeks injunctive relief, including an order "establishing an
independent panel of scientists" to evaluate PFAS. 3M and other
entities jointly filed a motion to dismiss in February 2019. In
September 2019, the court denied the defendants’ motion to
dismiss. In February 2020, the court denied 3M's motion to transfer
the case to the AFFF MDL.

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.


3M CO: Consolidated Class Action Suit Ongoing in Michigan
----------------------------------------------------------
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 in Michigan.

In Michigan, one consolidated putative class action is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan
against 3M and Wolverine World Wide (Wolverine) and other
defendants.

The action arises from Wolverine's allegedly improper disposal of
materials and wastes, including 3M Scotchgard, related to
Wolverine's shoe manufacturing operations. Plaintiffs allege
Wolverine used 3M Scotchgard in its manufacturing process and that
chemicals from 3M's product contaminated the environment and
drinking water sources after disposal.

In addition to the consolidated federal court putative class
action, as of December 31, 2019, 3M has been named as a defendant
in approximately 257 private individual actions in Michigan state
court based on similar allegations. These cases are coordinated for
pre-trial purposes. Four of these cases were selected for
bellwether trials in 2020, with the first trial scheduled in March
2020.

In January 2020, the court issued the first round of dispositive
motion rulings related to the first two bellwether cases, including
dismissing the second bellwether case entirely and dismissing
certain plaintiffs' medical monitoring, risk of future disease, and
granting summary judgment to the defendants on one plaintiff's
cholesterol injury claims.

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.


3M CO: Discovery Ongoing in Parchment Resident's Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
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 discovery is ongoing in
the class action suit brought by a resident of Parchment against
the company and Georgia-Pacific.

3M is also a defendant, together with Georgia-Pacific as
co-defendant, in a putative class action in federal court in
Michigan brought by residents of Parchment, who allege that the
municipal drinking water is contaminated from waste generated by a
paper mill owned by Georgia-Pacific’s corporate predecessor.
Defendants have moved to dismiss certain claims in the complaint,
and the parties have begun discovery on the remaining claims.

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.


3M CO: King Class Action Remains Pending in Alabama
----------------------------------------------------
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 the "King" class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama.

In November 2017, a putative class action (the "King" case) was
filed against 3M, its subsidiary Dyneon, Daikin America, and the
West Morgan-East Lawrence Water and Sewer Authority (Water
Authority) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama.

The plaintiffs are residents of Lawrence and Morgan County, Alabama
who receive their water from the Water Authority and seek
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, compensatory and punitive
damages for their alleged personal injuries. The plaintiffs contend
that the defendants own and operate manufacturing and disposal
facilities in Decatur that have released and continue to release
PFOA, PFOS and related chemicals into the groundwater and surface
water of their sites, resulting in discharges into the Tennessee
River.

The plaintiffs contend that, as a result of the alleged discharges,
the water supplied by the Water Authority to the plaintiffs was,
and is, contaminated with PFOA, PFOS, and related chemicals at a
level dangerous to humans.

In November 2019, the King plaintiffs amended their complaint to
withdraw all class allegations, dismiss the Water Authority as a
defendant, and add 24 new individual plaintiffs (for a total of 59
plaintiffs).

In March 2018, an individual plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama raising
allegations and claims substantially similar to those asserted by
the plaintiffs in the King case. This case was dismissed without
prejudice when the plaintiffs joined a previously pending case.

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.


ALC & CO. LLC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Hedges Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
DONNA HEDGES, for herself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALC & CO. LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-01756 (S.D.N.Y., February 27, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.

According to the complaint, Defendant failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

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

ALC & CO. LLC owns and operates the website https://alcltd.com
which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and
services of its clothes store including location and hours,
clothes, inquiring about pricing and other products available
online and in the clothes store for purchase. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
          John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007-2036
          Tel: (212)229-2249
          Fax: (212)982-6284
          Emails: jazeller@zellerlegal.com
                  jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com

                - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003-2461
          Tel: (212)228-9795
          Fax: (212)982-6284
          Emails: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


ALLAKOS INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigating Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to
investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders
of Allakos Inc. (NASDAQ: ALLK) resulting from allegations that
Allakos may have issued materially misleading business information
to the investing public.

On December 18, 2019, Seligman Investments ("Seligman") published a
report describing Allakos as "A Suspect Biotech with a Phase 2
Farce, Incredulous Trial Investigators, and Warning Signs of
Potential Fraud." The Seligman report included 22 warning signs and
issues, including Allakos: having "buried the results for the two
AK001 studies it conducted, but our research indicates a
debacle[;]" having "a checkered history of conducting small,
low-credibility trials, marked by . . . discrepancies, omissions,
cherry-picking, and other red flags[;]" and engaging in "[f]lagrant
nepotism in key clinical roles[.]"

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $13.25, or nearly 10%,
to close at $119.28 per share on December 18, 2019, injuring
investors.

Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered by Allakos investors. If you purchased shares of
Allakos please visit the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1753.htmlto join the
class action. You may also contact Phillip Kim of Rosen Law Firm
toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors.

View source version on businesswire.com:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200215005016/en/

Contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                cases@rosenlegal.com
[GN]

ALTICE USA: Federman & Sherwood Files Action Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that it has filed the first class
action lawsuit against Altice USA, Inc. over its recently announced
data breach affecting thousands of current and former employees,
and Optimum cable television customers. Federman & Sherwood is a
boutique litigation law firm that has been appointed counsel in a
number of data breach cases and was the first law firm to initiate
an investigation into the data breach at Altice USA, Inc.
("Altice"). In November 2019, multiple Altice employees fell victim
to a phishing email campaign, resulting in criminal actors gaining
access to employee email accounts. An unencrypted report stored on
one of the compromised accounts contained the sensitive personal
information of all current Altice employees and of potentially all
former employees. Some customers' personal information was
compromised as well. Personal information that may have been
accessed included names, employment information, dates of birth,
Social Security numbers, and some drivers' license numbers. Altice
began notifying affected individuals in February 2020. The personal
information compromised in this data breach has already exposed
many employees, former employees and consumers to identity theft
and other forms of fraud.

If you have information about this data breach, want to discuss
this data breach, obtain further information or participate in the
litigation, or have any questions or concerns regarding this
notice, please contact Tiffany Peintner at trp@federmanlaw.com or
visit our firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com.

Contact:

         Tiffany Peintner, Esq.
         FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
         10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         Tel: (405) 235-1560
         Tiffany Peintner, Esq.
[GN]

AMERICAN FREIGHT: Eldridge Sues Over Unsolicited Text Message Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANNETTE ELDRIDGE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN FREIGHT INC., Defendant,
Case No. 6:20-cv-00313-RBD-EJK (M.D. Fla., February 24, 2020), hits
Defendant for its alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by sending automated text message advertisements to
her cellular telephone and the cellular telephones of numerous
other individuals across the country.

According to the complaint, aiming to either promote or sell the
commercial availability of its products and services, Defendant
transmitted text messages advertisement to Plaintiff's 5609 Number
without Plaintiff's prior "written consent" express or otherwise,
and without having an "established business relationship" during
the past four years and including during a 12-month period of time
and more than 30 days after her 5609 Number was registered with the
National Do-Not-Call Registry.

Plaintiff affirms that each unsolicited text message transmitted by
or on behalf of Defendant to Plaintiff's 5609 Number invaded her
privacy and intruded upon her seclusion upon receipt because her
cellular phone alerts her whenever she receives a text message.

American Freight, Inc. is the owner and operator of a chain of
furniture and mattress stores. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 1140
          Miami, FL 33131
          Tel: (305)357-2107
          Fax: (305)200-8801
          Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com

                - and -

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          2665 S. Bayshore Dr., Suite 220
          Miami. FL 33133
          Tel: (305)330-5512
          Email: scott@bursor.com


ANIXTER INT'L: WESCO Merger Deal Lacks Info, Kent Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
The case, MICHAEL KENT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ANIXTER INTERNATIONAL INC.,
SAMUEL ZELL, LORD JAMES BLYTH, FREDERIC F. BRACE, LINDA WALKER
BYNOE, ROBERT J. ECK, WILLIAM A. GALVIN, F. PHILIP HANDY, MELVYN N.
KLEIN, JAMIE MOFFITT, GEORGE MUÑOZ, SCOTT R. PEPPET, VALARIE L.
SHEPPARD, WILLIAM S. SIMON, CHARLES M. SWOBODA, WESCO
INTERNATIONAL, INC., and WARRIOR MERGER SUB, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00279-UNA (D. Del., February 25, 2020) arises from a
proposed transaction announced on January 13, 2020, pursuant to
which Anixter International Inc. will be acquired by WESCO
International Inc. and Warrior Merger Sub, Inc.

On February 7, 2020, the Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
in connection with the Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with
the Registration Statement as it omits material information with
respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration
Statement false and misleading. The omitted information was
regarding Anixter's and WESCO's financial projections.

Anixter International Inc. supplies communications and security
products and electrical and electronic wire and cable. Anixter is a
Fortune 500 company and operates with three major divisions:
Network & Security Solutions, Electrical and Electronic Solutions,
and Utility Power Solutions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Brian D. Long, Esq.
            Gina M. Serra, Esq.
            RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
            300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
            Wilmington, DE 19801
            Telephone: (302) 295-5310
            Facsimile: (302) 654-7530

                    – and -

            Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
            RM LAW, P.C.
            1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
            Berwyn, PA 19312
            Telephone: (484) 324-6800
            Facsimile: (484) 631-1305


AT&T MOBILITY: Pomales Suit Removed to District of Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------
AT&T Mobility Services LLC removed the case captioned RENE POMALES,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AT&T
MOBILITY SERVICES LLC, Case No. 1979-CV-00939 (Filed Dec. 10,
2019), from the Massachusetts Superior Court, Hampden County, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Feb.
10, 2020.

The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-10258 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts he was denied overtime wages in violation of
the Massachusetts Wage Act and Sunday and holiday premiums in
violation of Massachusetts's "Blue Laws." He purports to bring and
maintain this action as a class action under Mass. R. Civ. P. 23
and Mass. Gen. L. c. 149 section 150.

Mr. Pomales worked for AT&T as a Retail Sales Consultant at an AT&T
retail store from October 12, 2018, until his resignation on July
1, 2019.

AT&T provides wireless voice and data communications services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas J. Gallitano, Esq.
          Kathleen R. O'Toole, Esq.
          CONN KAVANAUGH ROSENTHAL PEISCH & FORD, LLP
          One Federal Street, 15th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 482-8200
          E-mail: tgallitano@connkavanaugh.com
                  kotoole@connkavanaugh.com

               - and -

          Shauna Johnson Clark, Esq.
          Joseph Dole, Esq.
          Heather L. Sherrod, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
          1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
          Houston, TX 77010-3095
          Telephone: (713) 651-5151
          Facsimile: (713) 651-5246
          E-mail: shauna.clark@nortonrosefulbright.com
                  joseph.dole@nortonrosefulbright.com
                  heather.sherrod@nortonrosefulbright.com


AT&T SERVICES: Misclassifies Security Staff, Boteler Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, BLAKE BOTELER, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AT&T SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-00512-G (N.D. Tex., February 27, 2020) arises from
Defendant's alleged failure to pay overtime to its Security
employees in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately May 2016 to
the present under the job title "Lead Analyst-Asset Protection" to
provide physical security protection for Defendant and its
personnel at Defendant's headquarter located in downtown Dallas.

According to the Complaint, Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and
other similarly situated Security Employees as non-exempt
employees, thereby failing to pay them their all earned overtime
pay for time they worked in excess of 40 hours in one or more
individual workweeks.

Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in filing
and prosecuting the lawsuit, and other relief as the Court deems
appropriate.

AT&T Services, Inc. provides telecommunication services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and -

          Jack Siegel, Esq.
          SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
          4925 Greenville Ave., Suite 600
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Tel: (214)790-4454
          Email: jack@siegellawgroup.biz


AUTOMILE PARENT: Coraccio Seeks OT Pay for Service Advisors
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, PATRICIA CORACCIO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AUTOMILE PARENT HOLDINGS, LLC; KEVIN
WESTFALL; JOVAN SIGAN; NICO GUTIERREZ; and MICHAEL FROST,
Defendants, C.A. 20-0207 (Mass. Super., Norfolk Cty., February 24,
2020), arises from the Defendants' violations of the Massachusetts
General Laws, including the Massachusetts Overtime Law and the
Massachusetts Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to compensate the
Plaintiff and other similarly-situated service advisors at a rate
of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay (or one and
one-half times the statutory minimum wage) for all hours worked in
excess of 40 in a workweek.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a service advisor
in or about March 2017.

Automile Parent Holdings, LLC is a company that sells vehicles and
related products and services through its car dealerships across
Massachusetts. It is headquartered at 375 Providence Highway in
Westwood, Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
          Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ P.C.
          99 High Street, Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110        
          Telephone: (617) 338-9400
          E-mail: rm@mass-legal.com

B.C. LOTTERY: Class Action Suit Filed Over "Dangerous" Video Slots
------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fraser, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that a proposed
class-action lawsuit has been filed against the B.C. Lottery Corp.
and the provincial government over the operation of allegedly
"deceptive, addictive and dangerous" video slots.

The lawsuit, filed by proposed representative plaintiff Corina
Riesebos of Kelowna, defines video slots as electronic slot
machines used throughout the province at casinos and community
gaming centres and otherwise known as "video lottery terminals" and
"electronic gambling devices".

During the games, a user can bet on the outcome of a line game
displayed using symbols on a screen.

"Video slots are inherently deceptive, inherently addictive and
inherently dangerous when used as intended," claims the lawsuit.
"They are a form of continuous gaming which differs from
traditional mechanical slot machines, lotteries and other games of
chance in that they are electronically programmed to create
cognitive distortions of the perception of winning, which cognitive
distortions are intended to keep the consumer engaged and losing
money."

The notice of civil claim filed in B.C. Supreme Court says that
unlike other regulated gambling games, video slots have hidden odds
of winning and users are left guessing or inaccurately presuming
their chances of winning any and all prizes.

"The difficulty of figuring out the odds is augmented by variable
prize structures and the resulting volatility of the games that
makes it impossible for the user to determine, with any accuracy,
the true odds of winning during any given play session."

The lawsuit says that Riesebos began playing video slots line games
20 years ago and has played them in B.C. since 2015.

The proposed members of the class-action are anyone who paid to
play line games on video slots in B.C. from Feb. 7, 2018 onwards.

The BCLC is responsible for the operation, distribution, deployment
and supervision of slots that are run through operational service
contracts with private-sector service providers, including 15
casinos, two racecourse casinos and 18 community gaming centres,
says the lawsuit.

"Use of the video slots as intended resulted in the plaintiff and
the class suffering economic losses, emotional distress and mental
anguish, and other expected harms flowing from these losses and
injuries, such as addiction, dependency, self-harm and/or suicide,"
it says.

An unusual feature of the lawsuit is that it alleges that the
authorization of the video slots is in contravention of the
Criminal Code.

"The video slots described herein are so programmed, fixed and
manipulative that they do not fit any reasonable definition of
'slot machine' or 'fair game of chance' and do not form part of a
valid 'lottery scheme,' as defined in section 207 of the Criminal
Code," says the lawsuit.

The suit adds, however, that the plaintiff is not seeking a
conviction of the defendants on a criminal standard of proof, only
a finding that their conduct is in contravention of the lottery
schemes authorized under the Criminal Code.

The lawsuit seeks a number of things, including an accounting of
the profits of the video slots and a "disgorgement" of some of
those of profits, as well as $1 million in punitive damages.

"BCLC cannot comment on this matter as it is currently before the
Supreme Court of British Columbia," says a statement from lottery
officials. "BCLC will be filing a response to the notice of civil
claim." [GN]

BALTIMORE LIFE: Griffin Sues over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, YVETTE GRIFFIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE BALTIMORE LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00476-ELH (D. Md., February
24, 2020), arises from Defendant's alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumers Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff received prerecorded calls to
her number ending in 8026 from telephone numbers 770-768-6820,
770-877-3866, and 229-860-6013 on July 17, 18 and 19, 2020
soliciting Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's insurance products.

Plaintiff claims that these calls have caused her actual harm and
cognizable injury such as aggravation, nuisance and invasions of
privacy that result from the placement and receipt of such unwanted
calls, a loss of value realized for monies paid to her wireless
carrier for the receipt of such calls, and the interruption and
loss of the use and enjoyment of her telephone.

Plaintiff seeks to stop Defendant's practice of engaging agents to
place unsolicited autodialed and pre-recorded telemarketing calls
to the cellular phones of consumers nationwide and to obtain
redress for all persons injured by Defendant's illegal practice.

The Baltimore Life Insurance Company sells consumers various types
of life insurance products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Martin E. Wolf, Esq.
          GORDON, WOLF, & CARNEY, CHTD.
          100 W. Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 100
          Townson, MD 21204
          Tel: 410-825-2300
          Fax: 410-825-0066
          Email: mwolf@GWCfirm.com


BECTON DICKINSON: Kabak Sues Over 12% Drop in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN KABAK, AS TRUSTEE OF THE STEPHEN KABAK & JOY SCHARY LIVING
TRUST, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY, VINCENT A. FORLENZA,
THOMAS E. POLEN, and CHRISTOPHER R. REIDY, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-02155 (D.N.J., February 27, 2020) is a class action on
behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired Becton securities between November 5, 2019 and February 5,
2020, inclusive, seeking to pursue claims against the Defendants
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, Becton lowered its fiscal 2020 guidance
on February 6, 2020, announcing that it expected revenue to
increase by only 1.5% to 2.5% to reflect the impact of a
remediation effort and anticipated loss of sales of the Alaris
infusion system. The Company notes that the software remediation
plan for the Alaris system will require additional regulatory
filings and existing customers would have access to the Alaris
System under medical necessity. Becton also revealed that it had
recorded a $59 million charge in connection with a voluntary recall
of certain Alaris pumps.

On this news, Becton's share price fell $33.74, or nearly 12%, to
close at $252.25 per share on February 6, 2020, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

The Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that certain of
Becton's Alaris infusion pumps experienced software errors and
alarm prioritization issues; (2) that, as a result, the Company was
investing in remediation efforts to address these product issues,
rather than a software upgrade to make enhancements; (3) that the
Company was reasonably likely to face regulatory delays in
connection with the software remediation; (4) that, as a result of
the foregoing, Becton was reasonably likely to recall certain of
its Alaris infusion pumps; and (5) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Becton, Dickinson and Company serves as a medical technology
company that develops, manufactures, and sells a broad range of
medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment and diagnostic
products. The Company has three business segments: BD Medical; BD
Life Sciences, and BD Interventional. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Lisa J. Rodriguez, Esq.
            SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP
            Woodland Falls Corporate Park
            220 Lake Drive East, Suite 200
            Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
            Telephone: (845) 482-5741
            Facsimile: (856) 482-6980
            Email: ljrodriguez@schnader.com

                     – and –

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

BENELUX CORP: Wilder Sues over Overtime Pay, Illegal Kickbacks
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRENNA WILDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BENELUX CORPORATION A/K/A THE PALAZIO F/K/A
THE SHOW PALACE; ANTHANASES STAMATOPOULOS; AND LAMPROS MOUMOURIS,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00216 (W.D. Tex., February 26, 2020)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to compensate the
Plaintiff and others similarly-situated dancers at The Palazio the
required minimum wages and overtime pay as mandated under the FLSA
provisions. The Defendants are also engaged in illegal kickbacks by
requiring them to pay monetary fees to the club management and
other employees and also refused to pay them the proper amount of
tips to which they were entitled.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a dancer at The
Palazio, formerly known as The Show Palace.

Benelux Corp. is a strip club operator, also known as The Palazio,
with its principal place of business at 501 E. Ben White Blvd,
Austin, Texas. It is also formerly known as The Show Palace. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
   
          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
          Leigh Montgomery, Esq.
          HUGHES ELLZEY LLP
          1105 Milford Street
          Houston, TX 77066          
          Telephone: (713) 554-2377
          Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
          E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com
                  craft@hughesellzey.com
                  leigh@hughesellzey.com
                  
               - and -
           
          John P. Kristensen, 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

BEYOND MEAT: Robbins Geller Reminds of March 30 Plaintiff Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that a securities class
action lawsuit has been filed in the Central District of California
on behalf of purchasers of Beyond Meat, Inc. (NASDAQ:BYND)
securities between May 2, 2019 and January 27, 2020 (the "Class
Period").  The case is captioned Tran v. Beyond Meat, Inc., No.
20-cv-00963, and is assigned to Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. The
Beyond Meat securities class action lawsuit charges Beyond Meat and
certain of its officers with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Beyond Meat securities during the Class
Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Beyond Meat
securities class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the Beyond Meat securities
class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of
its choice to litigate the Beyond Meat securities class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the Beyond Meat securities class action lawsuit is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as
lead plaintiff of the Beyond Meat securities class action lawsuit
or have questions concerning your rights regarding the Beyond Meat
securities class action lawsuit, please visit our website by
clicking here or contact Brian Cochran at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at bcochran@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff
motions for the Beyond Meat securities class action lawsuit must be
filed with the court no later than March 30, 2020.

Beyond Meat is a food company that provides plant-based protein
products that are sold as substitutes for beef, pork, and poultry.
Beyond Meat sells its products to various customers in the retail
and foodservice channels through brokers and distributors in the
United States and internationally.

Don Lee Farms is a maker of plant-based and meat proteins. In 2014,
Beyond Meat entered into an exclusive supply agreement with Don Lee
to produce all of Beyond Meat's products, including the development
and launch of Beyond Meat's popular Beyond Burger. In early 2017,
following the launch of the Beyond Burger, Beyond Meat terminated
the supply agreement and transferred its production from Don Lee to
other food manufacturers. On May 25, 2017, Don Lee filed a
complaint against Beyond Meat in the Los Angeles County Superior
Court asserting claims for breach of contract, misappropriation of
trade secrets, and unfair competition, seeking monetary damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief.

As the litigation progressed, Don Lee alleged that Beyond Meat had
employed lax food safety practices during the two companies'
partnership, specifically alleging that Don Lee found plastics,
cardboard, and a metal nozzle in ingredients that Beyond Meat
supplied. Don Lee also alleged that Beyond Meat had provided an
altered copy of a food-safety audit of its manufacturing
facilities, and on that basis added fraud claims to its suit
against Beyond Meat in March 2019.

The Beyond Meat securities class action lawsuit alleges that
throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose that
Beyond Meat's termination of its supply agreement with Don Lee
constituted a breach of that agreement, thus exposing Beyond Meat
to foreseeable legal liability and reputational harm, and Beyond
Meat and certain of its employees had doctored and/or omitted
material information from a food safety consultant's report, which
Beyond Meat had represented as accurate to Don Lee. As a result of
this information being withheld from the market, Beyond Meat
securities traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class
Period, with its stock price reaching a high of more than $230 per
share.

On January 27, 2020, after the market closed, Don Lee announced
that it was likely to obtain a judgment against Beyond Meat in its
lawsuit. According to Don Lee, "[a] judge has ruled Don Lee . . .
proved the probable validity of its claim that Beyond Meat breached
its manufacturing agreement with Don Lee" and that in "a separate
motion . . . the Court granted Don Lee['s] request to name Beyond
Meat['s] [CFO and other senior officers] in its fraud claims which
allege they intentionally doctored and omitted material information
from a food safety consultant's report . . . and affirmatively
represented that it was the complete opinion of the consultant." On
this news, the price of Beyond Meat stock fell nearly 4%, or $4.63
per share, to close at $120.12 per share on January 28, 2020,
causing substantial harm to investors.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities litigation. With 200
lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the
largest securities class action recoveries in history. For six
consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked
the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law
firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and
total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys
have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of
billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing
financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also
specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping
to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins
Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts,
professional organizations, and the media as leading lawyers in the
industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more
information.

View source version on businesswire.com:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200214005029/en/

Contact:

         Brian Cochran, Esq.
         Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         Tel: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058
         E-mail: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
[GN]

BJ SERVICES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Shetter Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
DAVID SHETTER, on behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated,
v. BJ SERVICES, LLC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00630 (S.D. Tex., February
21, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime to the hourly, blue-collar workers it jointly
employed, along with an undercapitalized staffing agency.

Shetter was employed and/or jointly employed by BJ Services as an
hourly electronic technician and as a mechanic.

BJ Services is a provider of hydraulic fracturing and cementing
services on a unique journey to becoming a High Reliability
Organization. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
            David I. Moulton, Esq.
            BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
            8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
            Houston, TX 77046
            Telephone: (713) 877-8788
            Telecopier: (713) 877-8065

BOTTLED BLONDE CHICAGO: Mitchell Balks at Collection of Biometrics
------------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM MITCHELL individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BOTTLED BLONDE CHICAGO, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2020CH02454 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., February 27, 2020) is a
class action by Plaintiff and on behalf of all others similarly
situated to redress and curtail Defendant's unlawful collection,
use, storage, and disclosure of sensitive and proprietary biometric
data.

Defendant allegedly violates the Biometric Information Privacy Act
for its failure to take note of the shift in Illinois law governing
the collection, use, storage, and dissemination of biometric data.
Bottled Blonde instead uses an employee time tracking system that
requires employees to use their fingerprint as a means of
authentication.

According to the complaint, Defendant fails to inform its employees
that it discloses or disclosed their fingerprint data to at least
one third-party vendor and likely others; fails to inform its
employees that it discloses their fingerprint data to other,
currently unknown, third parties, which host the biometric data in
their data centers; fails to inform its employees of the purposes
and duration for which it collects their sensitive biometric data;
and, fails to obtain written releases from employees before
collecting their fingerprints.

Mitchell has worked for Bottled Blonde as a Security Guard since
approximately October 2018.

Bottled Blonde Chicago, LLC, is a restaurant, bar and nightclub
located in Chicago, lllinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

CALYX ENERGY: Strong Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case LARRY STRONG, Individually and For Others Similarly
Situated v. CALYX ENERGY, LLC and CALYX ENERGY III, LLC, Case No.
5:20-cv-00154-G (W.D. Okla., February 21, 2020) is an action
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Strong worked for Calyx as a Completions Consultant but was
improperly classified by the Defendant as an independent contractor
paid a daily rate with no overtime compensation.

Calyx Energy, LLC leases and develops oil and gas acreage
throughout the Mid-Continent that uses cutting edge technology from
both conventional and unconventional applications in their
operations. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
            Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
            Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
            JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
            11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
            Houston, TX 77046
            Telephone: 713-352-1100
            Facsimile: 713-352-3300

                   – 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

CAPITAL ACCOUNTS: Hawkins Sues over Unlawful Debt Collection
------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE HAWKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL ACCOUNTS OF JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
TENNESSEE, LLC, d/b/a CAPITAL ACCOUNTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
8:20-cv-00458-WFJ-AAS (M.D. Fla., February 27, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of 15 U.S.C. Section
1692 et seq., the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Florida
Statute Section 559.55 et seq., and the Florida Consumer Collection
Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent a collection letter
to the Plaintiff on or about March 1, 2019 with a payment coupon in
an attempt to induce him into making a payment on a time-barred
debt. Another collection letter was sent to him on or about April
4, 2019, which threatens that his unpaid collection account will be
reported to one or more national credit bureaus.

The Defendant's conduct is designed to mislead and deceive since it
had no right to file a lawsuit to collect the debt because the
applicable statute of limitations period on the debt had expired,
the complaint asserts.

Capital Accounts of Tennessee, LLC is a debt collector. It is also
doing business as Capital Accounts, LLC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian L. Shrader, Esq.
          SHRADER LAW PLLC
          612 W. Bay Street
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: (813) 360-1529
          Facsimile: (813) 336-0832
          E-mail: bshrader@shraderlawfirm.com
                  
               - and -
           
          Katherine Earle Yanes, Esq.
          Gus M. Centrone, Esq.
          KYNES, MARKMAN & FELMAN P.A.
          100 S. Ashley Dr., Ste. 1400
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 229-1118
          Facsimile: (813) 221-6750
          E-mail: kyanes@kmf-law.com
                  gcentrone@kmf-law.com

CARDINAL AUTISM: Fields Seeks OT Pay for Behavioral Therapists
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CHRISTOPHER FIELDS, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARDINAL AUTISM SERVICES LLC and
CORNERSTONES AUTISM SERVICES LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-01277 (N.D. Ill., February 21, 2020), arises from
Defendants' alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act, and the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in Southern Illinois as a
Behavioral Therapist from July 2019 to November 2019 and as a
Registered Behavior Technician from November 2019 to December 2019
to provide home-based Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) therapy
services to Defendants' clients.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay BTs and RBTs for
all hours worked, including time spent recruiting colleagues and
acquaintances to work as BTs and RBTs; time spent training; time
spent in sessions with clients that was not paid due to technical
glitches with Rethink; time spent travelling between client' homes
and/or other locations at which sessions took place; time spent
waiting for clients to appear at sessions that were cancelled; and
time spent performing work outside of their scheduled client
sessions.

Moreover, Plaintiff made a series of complaints to Defendants'
management, regarding Defendants' failure to pay him for all hours
worked and failure to reimburse him for work-related expenses,
which were a substantial factor in Defendants' decision to
terminate his employment.

Cardinal Autism Services LLC and Cornerstones Autism Services LLC
provide home-based Applied Behavior Analysis therapy services to
children and teens with autism. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          BROWN LLC
          500 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 600
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Tel: (877)561-0000
          Emails: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                  nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com


CARDINAL LOGISTICS: Underpays Truck Drivers, Pavloff Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY PAVLOFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CARDINAL LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-00363 (C.D. Cal.,
February 24, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor
Code.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
truck drivers, alleges that the Defendants violated FLSA and labor
code requirements by failing to pay proper wages due to the
practice of deducting 10 hours of sleep time from its truck
drivers' pay for period in which they spent 24 hours or more on the
road and failing to provide itemized wage statements.

Mr. Pavloff was employed by the Defendants as a long-haul truck
driver from about September 2016 to the present.

Cardinal Logistics Management Corporation is a privately held
third-party logistics provider, which focused on transportation
services to multiple industries across the nation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
   
          Aashish Y. Desai, Esq.
          Adrianne De Castro, Esq.
          DESAI LAW FIRM P.C.
          3200 Bristol St., Suite 650
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626          
          Telephone: (949) 614-5830
          Facsimile: (949) 271-4190
          E-mail: aashish@desai-law.com
                  adrianne@desai-law.com

CARE MATTERS: Fails to Pay Overtime Compensation, Campbell Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHAWANA CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARE MATTERS, LLC and JE'TUNNE
TILLIS, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-285 (E.D. Wis., February 20,
2020) brings this complaint to obtain relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Wisconsin Wage Law for unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid agreed-upon wages, liquidated damages, civil
penalties, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and injunctive
relief.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a Personal Caretaker since
on or around September 2018.

Plaintiff claims that Defendant required her to remain on the
worksite during lunch breaks, but without pay for this time.
Instead, Defendant paid only her regular wages for hours worked
over forty in a workweek. Defendant's common policy and practice of
denying Plaintiff of overtime premium compensation at one and
one-half times her respective regular rates for all hours worked in
excess of 40 in workweeks violated the FLSA of 1938 and the
Wisconsin Wage Law.

Je-Tunne Tillis owns and operates Care Matters, LLC and has control
over all human resources and compensation aspects of operation.

Care Matters provides 24-hour in home care from a central office in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
          Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
          Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
          222 East Erie St., Suite 210
          Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
          Tel: 414-271-8650
          Fax: 414-271-8442
          Emails: ljohnson@hq-law.com
                  smurshid@hq-law.com
                  tmaynard@hq-law.com


CARLAY GAS HEAT: Lim-Tom Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Lim-Tom, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, -v- Carlay Gas Heat Corp., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-01682 (S.D.N.Y., February 26, 2020) is a class action where
Plaintiff and the class members are entitled to unpaid non-overtime
wages from Defendant for working and not being paid for each and
all hours worked in a week, under Article 6 of the New York Labor
Law, and attorneys' fees pursuant to Section 198 of the New York
Labor Law.

Plaintiff was an hourly employee of Defendant's plumbing and repair
business and his last regular hourly rate of pay was about $16 an
hour and was employed from on or about October 22, 2018 to on or
about November 7, 2019.

Calray Gas Heat Corp. is a gas heat company providing complete
boiler and gas heat related services to commercial and residential
customers, in Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn, and the Bronx. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
            Abdul Hassan Law Group, PLLC
            215-28 Hillside Avenue
            Queens Village, NY 11427
            Telephone: 718-740-1000
            Facsimile: 718-355-9668
            Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com


CASCADE COLLECTIONS: Rodriguez Calls Debt Collection "Unlawful"
---------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CASCADE COLLECTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:20-cv-00120-JNP (D. Utah, February 21, 2020) brings this
action against Defendant for its alleged unlawful practice of
collecting debts in violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

According to the complaint, Defendant sent Plaintiff a letter with
a written notice on or about April 26, 2019, as an initial
communication in an attempt to collect a debt incurred by
Plaintiff. However, the language on the written notice is false,
deceptive, and misleading because it has overshadowed Plaintiff's
rights and failed to comply with the notice required by 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 1692g by not providing Plaintiff with a proper notice within
five days of the initial communication.

Under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692g, a debt collector must send a written
notice that informs the debtor of the amount of the debt, to whom
the debt owed, and include a "statement that unless the consumer,
within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the
validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be
assumed to be valid by the debt collector."

Cascade Collections, LLC is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          2633 E. Indian School Road, Ste. 460
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Tel: (800)400-6808
          Fax: (800)520-5523
          Email: ryan@kazlg.com

                - and -

          Theron D. Morrison, Esq.
          MORRISON LAW GROUP
          290 25th Street, Suite 102
          Ogden, UT 84401
          Tel: (801)392-9324
          Fax: (801)337-2087
          Email: theron@morlg.com


CHICAGO, IL: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Perez Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANGEL PEREZ, et al., Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-4531 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Robert M.
Dow, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

The longstanding case concerns the Chicago Police Department's
("CPD") use of its Homan Square facility.  Plaintiffs Curtis Coffey
and Juanita Berry were arrested on Feb. 6, 2015.  At the time,
Coffey and Berry had been living together at Berry's mother's
house.  The CPD had been investigating Coffey for weeks, and had
observed him selling drugs within 1,000 feet of a school several
times before he was arrested.

On Feb. 6, Coffey sold heroin to an undercover CPD officer.  Berry
was with him when he sold the heroin, and both were arrested and
transported to Homan Square.  Following arrest, Coffey was taken
first to Homan Square, and then was transferred to the 11th
district's stationhouse for formal processing.  His fingerprints
and mugshot were taken between 11:42 p.m. and 12:06 a.m.  Berry was
also taken to Homan Square, where she was interrogated. After she
assisted in the officers' investigation of Coffey, they released
[her] pending further investigation.

Coffey claims that after being taken to Homan Square he was placed
into an interrogation room, handcuffed, and immediately
interrogated.  When Coffey requested to speak to an attorney, the
officers responded that attorneys were not allowed into Homan
Square.

Berry maintains that she was initially held in a bare interrogation
room for two to three hours, during which time the officers stood
outside laughing at her.  While Berry waited, she was not offered
food, water, or the bathroom, but she also did not ask anyone for
those facilities or services.  Berry also concedes that she did not
ask to call an attorney, her friends, or family.  The officers did,
however, allow Berry to make four external phone calls during which
she explained she was in custody, but these calls were in service
of the investigation—the interrogators wanted her help in
tracking down firearms.

The present motion is for class certification.  In the Plaintiff's
third amended complaint, they bring several claims, including one
set of proposed classes regarding those subject to "secret arrest"
and one set of proposed classes regarding those subject to
unconstitutional conditions of confinement at Homan Square.  The
Individual plaintiffs have also brought claims against the City and
individual officers regarding their individual experiences.  

The present motion for class certification only concerns the
"secret arrest" classes, and not the conditions of confinement
classes.  Specifically, the Plaintiffs ask to certify two related
classes.:

     a. Class I (Detainee and Arrestee Class): All natural persons
        detained or arrested by a Chicago Police Officer where no
        public record of the detainment or arrest was created
        within a reasonable amount of time from the initial
        detainment (the Plaintiffs suggest one hour from the
        initial detainment) and where no court order existed at
        the time of arrest or detainment sealing or otherwise
        making the detainment or arrest confidential, beginning
        on a date two years prior to the filing of the Complaint
        to the present.

     b. Class II (Future Detainees and Arrestees Class):
        All persons who may in the future be subject to the
        secret arrests Described in Class One.

In their reply, Plaintiffs propose narrowing the backward-looking
class as follows: Amended Class I (Detainee and Arrestee Class):
All natural persons detained or transported for initial arrest
processing by a Chicago Police Officer to the non-district
facility, identified in General Order 06-01-01, Effective Date
11/12/15, as Homan Square, where no public record of the detainment
or arrest was created within a reasonable amount of time from the
initial arrest (the Plaintiffs suggest one hour from initial
detainment) and where no court order existed at the time of arrest
or detainment sealing or otherwise making the detainment or arrest
confidential, beginning March 31, 2013 to the present.

The Plaintiffs bring the secret arrest claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983, but do not describe which specific constitutional
right was violated.  To be clear, the only issue before the Court
is whether the celerity with which Homan Square arrests were
publicized can be adjudicated on a class-wide basis.  The
Plaintiffs have not moved to certify, and the Court will therefore
not consider, its proposed class regarding conditions of
confinement at Homan Square.  The Court also is not being asked to
adjudicate Coffey's or Berry's individual allegations that their
arrests were publicized too late, or any of the appalling
individual allegations of mistreatment included in the complaint.

Judge Dow denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The Judge finds that (i) the Plaintiffs have not met their burden
of showing that there is an issue common to the class; (ii) the
Plaintiffs fail the typicality prong for the same reason that they
fail the commonality prong: They have not defined what constitutes
an unreasonable delay in publicizing arrest, and therefore have
given the Court little to go on by way of what constitutes a
"typical" unreasonable delay; (iii) the class representatives have
not demonstrated that they are adequate; in fact, they may have
interests that conflict with those of the class; (iv) Class II
lacks cohesive interests, it cannot be certified under Rule
23(b)(2); and (v) the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the
class action is superior to individual lawsuits.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 27, 2019 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/LiVNwi from Leagle.com.

Angel Perez, individually, Plaintiff, represented by Jason R.
Epstein -- krime@kriminaldefense.com -- Law Offices of Jason
Epstein & Phillip Aaron Brigham -- pbrigham@phillipbrighamlaw.com
-- Law Office Of Phillip Brigham, Llc.

Jose Martinez, Plaintiff, pro se.

Juanita Berry & Calvin Coffey, on behalf of themselves and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Cassandra P. Miller, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC.

Estephanie Martinez, on behalf of themselves and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, pro se.

City of Chicago, Defendant, represented by Iris Chavira, City Of
Chicago Department Of Law & Bret Anthony Kabacinski, City of
Chicago Department of Law.

Edmund Zablocki, Chicago Police Officer, Matthew Cline, Chicago
Police Officer, Scott Kravitz & Carlos Iglesias, III, Defendants,
represented by Gregory M. Beck, City Of Chicago, Department of Law,
Jason Michael Marx, City of Chicago, Department of Law & Jordan F.
Yurchich, City Of Chicago, Department Of Law.

Jorge L Lopez, Chicago Police Officer, Defendant, represented by
Gregory M. Beck, City Of Chicago, Department of Law, Jordan F.
Yurchich, City Of Chicago, Department Of Law & Matthew P. Dixon,
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani.

Mr. Atheris Mann, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by G. Flint
Taylor, Jr. -- plo@peopleslawoffice.com -- People's Law Offices.


CHILLED PROPERTIES: Chavez Files Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------
Chilled Properties LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Kenneth T. Chavez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Chilled Properties LLC doing business as:
Boro Hotel, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01042 (E.D. N.Y., Feb. 26,
2020).

Chilled Properties LLC is in the Nonresidential Building Operators
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mitchell Segal, Esq.
   Law Offices of Mitchell Segal P.C.
   1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 208
   Great Neck, NY 11021
   Tel: (516) 415-0100
   Fax: (516) 706-6631
   Email: msegal@segallegal.com


CHIPOTLE: Settles Non-GMO Class Action for $6.5 Million
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal court in California
approved a $6.5 million settlement with Chipotle in a class action
relating to the company's claims that its food products were
"non-GMO" and "GMO free." The class alleges these claims were
misleading because the restaurant's dairy and meat products were
from animals fed with a GMO derived feed and its soft drinks
contain corn syrup.

A copy of the Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Settlement is
available at:

         https://is.gd/eRXWFD


CINCINNATI BELL: Brookfield Merger Docs Lack Info, Katz Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN KATZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CINCINNATI BELL INC., LYNN A. WENTWORTH,
LEIGH R. FOX, MEREDITH J. CHING, WALTER A. DODS JR., CRAIG F.
MAIER, MARTIN J. YUDKOVITZ, JOHN W. ECK, RUSSELL P. MAYER, JAKKI
LYNN HAUSSLER, and THEODORE H. TORBECK, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-01607 (S.D.N.Y, February 24, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged violation of
Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the proposed merger between Cincinnati Bell and
Brookfield Infrastructure and its institutional partners.

The Company's shareholders, including the Plaintiff, stand to
receive $10.50 in cash for each share of Cincinnati Bell stock they
own pursuant to the merger agreement announced by the Board on
December 21, 2019.

According to the complaint, the Board authorized the filing of a
materially incomplete and misleading Form PREM14A Preliminary Proxy
Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February
4, 2020 in order to convince the Company's shareholders to vote in
favor of the Proposed Transaction.

Plaintiff asserts that there were omitted material information from
the Proxy, that are imperative for the shareholders to make an
informed decision regarding the Proposed Transaction, such as the
financial projections of the Company and the summary of certain
valuation analyses conducted by the Company's financial advisors,
Morgan Stanley & co. LLC and Moelis & Company LLC.

Cincinnati Bell provides integrated communications and IT solutions
to consumers and business customers through two business segments.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Tel: (212)983-9330
          Fax: (212)983-9331
          Emails: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                  jwilson@faruqilaw.com


CLEARVIEW AI: Burke and Pomerene Sue over Illegal Web Scraping
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEAN BURKE and JAMES POMERENE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CLEARVIEW AI, INC., a
Delaware Corporation; HOA TON-THAT, an individual; RICHARD
SCHWARTZ, and individual; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00370-BAS-MSB (S.D. Cal., February 27,
2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendants for
their alleged violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act of
2018 and the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, Clearview illicitly "scraped" hundreds
websites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google for over three
billion images of consumers' faces, including Plaintiffs Burke and
Pomerene, without their notice, consent or permission. Clearview
stored those billions of scraped images of faces in its database,
used its facial recognition software to generate biometric
information to match the face to identifiable information, and then
sold access to the database to third-party entities and agencies,
such as law enforcement agencies and privates companies across the
country, for a profit.

The case claims that Plaintiffs were deprived of their control over
their valuable and sensitive information and have further suffered
damages in the diminution in value of their sensitive biometric
information and identifiers because of Clearview's unauthorized
collecting, capturing, purchasing, receiving through trade,
obtaining, selling, leasing, trading, disclosing, redisclosing,
disseminating, or otherwise profiting from or using Plaintiffs'
photographs and biometric information and identifiers.

Hoan Ton-That is founder and Chief Executive Officer of Clearview
and has participated in, consented to, approved, authorized, and
directed the wrongful acts alleged.

Richard Schwartz is founder and officer, director, and/or principal
of Clearview and has conspired to carry out the illegal scheme
alleged.

Clearview AI, Inc. is an American technology company that provides
facial recognition software, which they claim is marketed primarily
for law enforcement agencies. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Amber L. Eck, Esq.
          Alreen Haeggquist, Esq.
          Aaron M. Olsen, Esq.
          Ian Pike, Esq.
          HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP
          225 Broadway, Suite 2050
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Tel: 619-342-8000
          Fax: 619-342-7878
          Email: ambere@zhlaw.com
                 alreenh@haelaw.com
                 aarono@haelaw.com


CLEARVIEW AI: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Similar to Facebook
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Orr, writing for The Mac Observer, reports that Facebook
recently settled a lawsuit alleging that it violated Illinois
privacy laws. Now, Clearview AI is also facing a class action
lawsuit in the state.

The lawsuit, filed Feb. 13, 2020, on behalf of several Illinois
citizens and first reported by Buzzfeed News, alleges that
Clearview "actively collected, stored and used Plaintiffs'
biometrics -- and the biometrics of most of the residents of
Illinois -- without providing notice, obtaining informed written
consent or publishing data retention policies."

Not only that, but this biometric data has been licensed to many
law enforcement agencies, including within Illinois itself.

All this is allegedly in violation of the Biometric Information
Privacy Act, a 2008 law that has proven to be remarkably
long-sighted and resistant to attempts by industry (including,
apparently, by Facebook while it fought its own court battle) to
water it down. [GN]

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Sobel Calls TV Insurance Plan "Deceptive"
-----------------------------------------------------------
BRUCE SOBEL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, THE ALLSTATE
CORPORATION, SQUARETRADE INC., and CE CAREPLAN CORP., Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01515-NRB (S.D.N.Y., February 20, 2020) alleges
unfair, deceptive and unlawful business practices of Defendants
with respect to the advertising, marketing and sales of Protection
Plans through Costco in connection with certain consumer
electronics and appliances.

According to the complaint, Costco is essentially preying on
consumers including the Plaintiff to purchase a Protection Plan
well before the customer has the opportunity to determine if the
plan offers any benefit.

Like the instance of Plaintiff's purchase, a Costco salesperson
asked Plaintiff to consider purchasing a five-year Protection Plan
in connection with the purchase of a television, and provided him
with a brochure. The salesperson did not inform Plaintiff that the
Protection Plan would virtually be worthless because the television
already came with a 5-year manufacturer's warranty -- for the full
five-years of the Protection Plan.  Plaintiff was led to believe
the Protection Plan would provide him with a minimum of eight years
of warranty coverage where in reality, Costco omitted material
facts and misrepresented the plan's terms, thereby inducing
Plaintiff to purchase a Protection Plan that offered little
additional coverage beyond that of the manufacturer's warranty.

Costco Wholesale Corporation is the second largest retailer in the
United States. The Company operates a chain of member-only
warehouse clubs that sells goods and services, offering wholesale
prices of various products such as food and perishables, home
goods, electronics, computers and related products, home furniture
and appliances, jewelry, tires, and more.

Allstate Corporation is one of largest publicly traded property
casualty insurance company in the United States headquartered in
Northbrook, Illinois.

SquareTrade serves as a consumer product protection plan provider
headquartered in San Francisco, California. SquareTrade provides
protection plans for consumer appliances and electronics, such as
TVs, smartphones and computers, and distributes protection plans
through many major retailers in the United States.

CE Care Plan Corp. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Allstate
(previously SquareTrade), and is a registered service contract
provider. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            James S. Notis, Esq.
            Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq.
            Meagan A. Farmer, Esq.
            GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
            126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor
            New York, NY 10022
            Telephone: 212-905-0509
            Facsimile: 212-905-0508

                   – and –

            Lee Squitieri, Esq.
            SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
            32 East 57th Street 12th Floor
            New York, NY 10022
            Telephone: 212-421-6492
            Facsimile: 212-421-6553

CPI AEROSTRUCTURES: Rodriguez Sues Over Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------
MARK A. RODRIGUEZ, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CPI AEROSTRUCTURES, INC., DOUGLAS
MCCROSSON, and VINCENT PALAZZOLO, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-00982 (E.D.N.Y., February 24, 2020) is a class action on
behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or acquired CPI
Aerostructures publicly traded securities from May 15, 2018 through
February 14, 2020, both dates inclusive, seeking to pursue claims
against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

CPI Aerostructures has disclosed that, during the three and nine
months ended September 30, 2018, revenue was overstated by $900,000
to $950,000, net income was overstated by $725,000 to $775,000,
and, as a result, earnings per share were overstated by $0.09 per
share, for each such period.

On this news, shares in CPI Aerostructures' stock fell $0.59 per
share or over 8.5% to close at $6.34 per share on February 8, 2019,
damaging investors.

According to the complaint, the Defendants released statements that
were materially false and/or misleading as they misrepresented and
failed to disclose the adverse facts pertaining to the Company's
business, operational and financial results.

CPI Aerostructures engages in the contract production of structural
aircraft parts for fixed wing aircraft and helicopters in the
commercial and defense markets.  The Company is incorporated in New
York with its principal executive offices located at 91 Heartland
Boulevard, Edgewood, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Phillip Kim, Esq.
            Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
            THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
            275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor
            New York, NY 10016
            Telephone: (212) 686-1060
            Facsimile: (212) 202-3827


CROWN CASTLE: Faces La Suit Over 8.8% Decline in Share Price
------------------------------------------------------------
ANABELLE LA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CROWN CASTLE INTERNATIONAL CORP., JAY A.
BROWN, and DANIEL K. SCHLANGER, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02156
(D.N.J., February 27, 2020) is a class action on behalf of persons
or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
Crown Castle securities between February 26, 2018 and February 26,
2020, inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On February 26, 2020, the Defendant issued a press release
restating the financial statements for the years ended December 31,
2018 and 2017, and unaudited financial information for the
quarterly and year-to-date periods in the year ended December 31,
2018 and for the first three quarters in the year ended December
31, 2019. Crown Castle has determined that the restatement of its
previously issued financial statements indicates the existence of
one or more material weaknesses in its internal control over
financial reporting and that its internal control over financial
reporting and disclosure controls and procedures were ineffective
as of December 31, 2019.

On this news, shares of Crown Castle fell $14.38 per share, or over
8.8%, to close at $148.31 per share on February 27, 2020, damaging
investors.

Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Crown Castle's internal control over financial
reporting and disclosures controls and procedures were ineffective
and materially weak; (2) Crown Castle's financial accounting and
reporting was not in accordance with GAAP; (3) Crown Castle's net
income, adjusted EBITDA, and AFFO were inflated; (4) Crown Castle
would need to restate its financial statements for the years ended
December 31, 2018 and 2017, and unaudited financial information for
the quarterly and year Case to-date periods in the year ended
December 31, 2018 and for the first three quarters in the year
ended December 31, 2019; and (5) as a result, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

Crown Castle International Corp. owns, operates and leases more
than 40,000 cell towers and more than 75,000 route miles of fiber
supporting small cells and fiber solutions across every major U.S.
market. Crown Castle is incorporated in Delaware and its head
office is located at 1220 Augusta Drive, Suite 600, Houston, Texas.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
            THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
            One Gateway Center, Suite 2600
            Newark, NJ 07102
            Telephone: (973) 313-1887
            Facsimile: (973) 833-0399
            Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

CUATRO T CONSTRUCTION: Diaz Seeks Overtime Pay for Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, GILBERT DIAZ, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CUATRO T CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-231 (W.D. Tex., February 26, 2020),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, statutory liquidated
damages, and attorneys' fees against Defendant for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant from approximately October 2018 to
January 2020 as a driver transporting construction materials
between worksites in the San Antonio and wider Texas area.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other drivers who worked
for Defendant are not paid an overtime premium for hours they work
over 40 per week and are only paid 25% of each load they deliver.
Also, Defendant artificially deflated the regular rate and
therefore the overtime rate that Plaintiff and other drivers should
have received each week.

Moreover, Defendant also failed to make, keep, and preserve
accurate records with respect to Plaintiff and other drivers,
including hours worked each workday and total hours worked each
workweek, as required by the FLSA.

Cuatro T. Construction, Inc. is a construction company that
provides trucking services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence Morales II, Esq.
          Allison S. Hartry, Esq.
          THE MORALES FIRM, P.C.
          6243 IH-10 West, Suite 132
          San Antonio, TX 78201
          Tel: (210)225-0811
          Fax: (210)225-0821
          Emails: lawrence@themoralesfirm.com
                  ahartry@themoralesfirm.com


DEBT CRUSADERS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Fabricant Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DEBT CRUSADERS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-01462 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 13, 2020) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

Debt Crusaders, Inc. is a debt collection agency, offering debt
consolidation and debt settlement. [BN]

The Plaintiff is 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: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com


DEBT RECOVERY: Hill Alleges Violation under FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Debt Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Heather Hill
aka Heather Nichols, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Debt Recovery Solutions, LLC,
Pendrick Capital Partners II, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants,
Case No. 3:20-cv-03677-TKW-HTC (N.D., Fla., 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.

Debt Recovery Solutions, LLC is a collection agency located in New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin Zeig
   Zeig Law Firm LLC - Hollywood FL
   3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
   Hollywood, FL 33021
   Tel: (754) 217-3084
   Email: zlf@zeiglawfirm.com


DEVA CONCEPTS: DevaCurl Customers Allege Hair Loss and Damage
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yola Robert, writing for Forbes, reports that over the last few
weeks DevaCurl customers have been coming out and addressing their
concerns with DevaCurl's product.  Claims of hair loss, damage to
the curl type/texture, scalp damage and even triggering of
psoriasis have been made.  DevaCurl started in New York City in
1994 as a salon specializing in curly hair.  The salon became so
popular that they launched a product line that claims to be free of
harsh ingredients and specifically designed for curly hair. Curly
girls all over the world have sworn by their products, but
unfortunately many of these curly girls woke up in what many of
them claim to be a "nightmare."

Ayesha Malik is a curly hair influencer who has been longtime
DevaCurl user and even partnered with the brand on multiple
occasions. Her YouTube and Instagram were filled with DevaCurl
tips, tricks and how to's. Women of all ethnicities with curly hair
flocked to Malik for her expertise on keeping up with curly hair.
That quickly changed for Malik and about two weeks ago Malik took
to her YouTube channel to share why she stopped using Deva Curl.
That video went viral over night garnering 1.7 million views.

When I reached out to Malik for an exclusive statement on how she
explained how she discovered the products and how she began a
relationship with DevaCurl. "One day in 2017, I posted a selfie and
it went viral. Thousands of women were accusing me of wearing a wig
or that I used a curling iron. I hated having my integrity
questioned like that so I made a YouTube video to prove my
innocence. I show my hair from wet to dry, styling it with DevaCurl
products," said Malik. "Their PR team fell in love with me. They
added me to their list of influencers - even though I didn't have
any followers at the time. A few months later, they flew me out to
NYC for an influencer event. I was a fish out of water. I never
felt so out of place in my life."

Malik had always promoted the products, but only got paid to do it
twice along with one meet and greet. "But even if they didn't pay
me or had any association at me, I still would have been talking
about the products because it was all I used from my college days.
I assumed I was going to use them for the rest of my life," shared
Malik. In July 2018 Malik saw the fist signs of damage and by
January 2019 she didn't even recognize her hair whens he photos of
herself from behind. Thinking that the problem was not attributed
to DevaCurl- she added more DevaCurl to her routine. Malik
officially stopped using the products in August 2019.

Most influencers who have worked with a brand and no longer care to
use their products or services stay quite and move on. However,
Malik took to her platforms to share her story regardless of what
the consequences may be. She explains why she did so, "The majority
of my audience is international. I saw that DevaCurl was expanding
into the European markets. That terrified me. At the time, our
Facebook group had 4K+ members. That number was going to
exponentially grow if I didn't say anything. I couldn't let that
happen."  

Malik only heard from Deva Curl after the video went viral. "I've
only had negative feedback from DevaCurl employees and
DevaStylists. Which is a very small number compared to the love and
support that I have received nationwide," said Malik. "Deva Curl
asked if I wanted to get on a phone call with them. The damage has
been done. There is nothing they can do to fix this. Unless they
have some magic potion that will magically heal my scalp, instantly
regrow ten years worth of length, stopped my headaches, get the
ringing out of my ears, and give me back my original hair color -
then I'm not talking to them." Malik advises other influencers to
be transparent with their following on why they stopped using
DevaCurl and to immediately

That video sparked thousands of other women to come forward with
their "DevaDamage" story. There are now several Facebook support
groups that have been formed to support those women who are trying
to recover their curls back after using DevaCurl. One of the groups
titled "Hair Damage & Hair Loss from DevaCurl-You're Not Crazy or
Alone" has over 45,000 members. Then there's the class-action
lawsuit filed against DevaCurl. The lawsuit was filed by a former
DevaCurl user and now many former users are joining the lawsuit in
hopes to recoup the damage they have endured.

But what is DevaCurl doing about all of this? On February 11th they
released a blog post on their website stating the following:

"Nothing is more important to us than you. As a curl community, we
know the curl journey is a unique and personal one as your curls
are an expression of who you are. We always want your curls to be a
source of pride, never anxiety. This is at the center of what our
brand stands for and what our professional stylist community has
helped to encourage over the last 20 years.

When some of you first raised concerns about our products, we were
laser-focused on our testing as the best way to confirm their
safety and quality. You can feel confident using DevaCurl because
all our products have gone through rigorous testing that has
confirmed they are safe and adhere to both quality assurance and
regulatory standards.

We've heard you and recognize that any changes to your hair – for
whatever reason -- demand a special type of attention that safety
tests alone can't address. That's why we're partnering with medical
professionals, dermatologists, industry experts, professional
stylists, and members of our curl community to better address your
needs and concerns.

We are committed to: Creating a Professional Curl Care Council of
trusted medical professionals, dermatologists, independent industry
experts, professional stylists and members of our curl community to
help us all better understand healthy curls and scalp. We will
develop Curl Care Resources for you and our stylist professionals,
including information about curl and scalp health and using
DevaCurl products. Sharing answers to some of the top questions we
have received from you around safety and ingredients, as well as
links to independent professional organizations.

Because many factors determine curl and scalp health, the situation
is complex, and we ask for your patience as we work together to
provide more answers and address your concerns. We will continue to
share updates."

When I reached out to Deva Curl directly for a statement they
offered to jump on a call with me to discuss the situation. Their
communications manager firstly apologized for any inconvenience I
had endured as I, too, suffered from hair and scalp damage and went
on to seem shocked at the allegations. On their site, it states
that they test products on actual people, not mannequins or hair
swatches at their thinktank and product playground Devachan Salon.
At the salon each new product is perfected and only introduced to
the market after receiving your stamp of approval and undergoing
their strict safety testing protocols.

When I asked how long they had performed testing and were aware of
any harmful ingredients to curly hair DevaCurl responded with, "We
cannot answer this question at this time." They did, however,
provide this statement when asked about potential reformulation.
"At DevaCurl, we have been laser-focused on our testing as the best
way to confirm the safety and quality of our products. All of our
products have gone through rigorous testing that has confirmed they
are safe and adhere to both quality assurance and regulatory
standards. We also recognize that any changes to curly hair – for
whatever reason – demand a special type of attention that safety
tests alone can't address. That's why DevaCurl is committed to
creating a Professional Curl Care Council of trusted medical
professionals, dermatologists, independent industry experts,
professional stylists, and members of our curl community to help us
all better understand healthy curls and scalp. We will continue to
share updates on our website www.devacurlcare.com."

Many of the upset customers I had talked to, including Malik,
expressed how difficult it was to return their products if they
purchased it directly from the DevaCurl site. When I informed
DevaCurl about this they stated that they are happy to accept
returns and give full refunds if any of their customers have had
adverse reactions or are unhappy with the product. They claimed to
be unaware with customer service having any issues doing so.

As far as the lawsuit goes, DevaCurl informed that they are aware
that a lawsuit has been filed, but they do not discuss active
litigation as they stand behind the quality and safe use of their
DevaCurl products. [GN]

DOGTASTIC LLC: Withheld Employees' Tips, Jones and Rivera Allege
----------------------------------------------------------------
HUNTER JONES and ALEXIA RIVERA, each individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DOGTASTIC, LLC,
KIMBERLY SMITH and MICHAEL MITCHELL, Defendants, Case No.
5:20-cv-00230-OLG (W.D. Tex., February 26, 2020) is a collective
action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as dog care specialists and
were being paid an hourly rate that is at or above the applicable
minimum wage.

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs and those similarly situated
received tips from customers for services provided. However,
Defendants did not allow Plaintiffs to keep the tips they receive,
took tips given to Plaintiffs, and instead redistributed them among
the three department heads employed by Defendants.

Kimberly Smith and Michael Mitchell are both owner, principal,
officer and/or director of Dogtastic, LLC and Pawderosa Ranch. Both
Defendants manages and controls the day-to-day operations of
Pawderosa Ranch, including but not limited to the decision to
deprive Plaintiffs of the tips they earned and redistribute those
tips among non-tipped employees.

Dogtastic, LLC provides dog day care services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          650 S. Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Tel: (501)221-0088
          Fax: (888)787-2040
          Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


DOMINION ENERGY: Barker Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
The case, ROBERT BARKER, individually and for others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DOMINION ENERGY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-00117 (E.D. Va., February 20, 2020), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages from Defendant under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was staffed to Dominion by Hunt, Guillot & Associates,
Inc. as a Utility Inspector from April 2017 until June 2017.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff regularly worked for
Defendant in excess of 40 hours each week and never received
overtime for hours worked in excess of forty hours in a single
week. Despite working overtime, Plaintiff only received a flat
amount of his daily rate per day.

Dominion Energy, Inc. is one of the nation's largest producers and
transporters of energy and uses companies to hire employees to
perform work. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harris D. Butler, Esq.
          Zev H. Antell, Esq.
          BUTLER ROYALS, PLC
          140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Tel: 804-648-4848
          Fax: 804-237-0413
          Emails: harris.butler@butlerroyals.com
                  zev.antell@butlerroyals.com

                - and -

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

                - and -

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


DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION: Withholds Gratuity, Ikahn El Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, IKAHN EL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION, INC.; MARK ALTHERR; and
any other related entities, Defendants, Index No. 151823/2020 (N.Y.
Sup., New York Cty., February 19, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' violations of Labor Law Article 6 Section 196-d.

According to the complaint, the Defendants engaged in a policy and
practice of unlawfully retaining employees' gratuities at all
catering venues in New York starting in approximately February 2014
up to the present. The Plaintiff, on behalf of all others
similarly-situated service employees, claims that documents in
connection with the administration of a banquet and/or catered
event including bills, menus, contracts, invoices and other
catering related items contained a Mandatory Charge which is a
gratuity for the staff but retained by the Defendants for
themselves.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a food service
worker.

Down Town Association, Inc. is a hospitality services provider with
principal place of business located at 60 Pine Street, New York,
New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW PC
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, N.Y. 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550

ECO COMMUNITY CLEANERS: Catahan Sues over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
NOEL G. CATAHAN, individually and in behalf of all other
individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ECO COMMUNITY CLEANERS
INC.; JYA CLEANERS, INC., MERCER CLEANER CORP.; and SUNG LEE;
jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01749
(S.D.N.Y., February 27, 2020) alleges that Defendants violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law's Minimum Wage
Act and Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a counter person
approximately from Spring 2013 until Summer 2019 and worked
approximately seventy and then sixty hours per week.

Plaintiff asserts that Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff
and party Plaintiffs the applicable minimum wage, overtime
compensation of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay
for working more than 40 hours each workweek, and spread-of-hours
compensation. Also, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with a
notice and acknowledgment at the time of hiring and with a
statement with each payment of wages.

Defendants are associated and are joint employers, act in the
interest of each other with respect to the employees of the
Defendants, have common policies and practices as to wages and
hours, and share control over the Defendants' employees.

Defendants provide laundry services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ENERGY TRANSFER: Altenhofen Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
JASON ALTENHOFEN, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated v.
ENERGY TRANSFER PARTNERS, L.P., Case No. 2:20-cv-00200-DSC (W.D.
Pa., Feb. 7, 2020), seeks to recover from Energy Transfer unpaid
overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay
Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other Day Rate
Inspectors regularly worked for Energy Transfer in excess of 40
hours each week but it did not pay them overtime. Instead of paying
overtime as required by the FLSA, PMWA, and the Ohio Acts, Energy
Transfer improperly paid them a daily rate with no overtime
compensation, the Plaintiff asserts.

The Plaintiff worked for Energy Transfer from May 2017 until
October 2017 as an Environmental Inspector.

Energy Transfer is a company engaged in natural gas and propane
pipeline transport.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
          GOODRICH & GEIST PC
          3634 California Ave.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: 412-766-1455
          Facsimile: 412-766-0300
          E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com


ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES: James Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ELBERT JAMES, Individually and For Others Similarly
Situated, v. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT SOUTHWEST, INC.
Case No. 4:20-cv-00669 (S.D. Tex., February 25, 2020), alleges that
the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff or the Putative Class Members
overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Right of Way (ROW)
Agent from approximately November 2015 until January 2018.

Environmental Resources Management Southwest, Inc. provides
environmental, health, safety, risk, social consulting services and
sustainability related services with headquarters in Houston,
Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
            Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
            Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
            JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
            11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
            Houston, TX 77046
            Telephone: 713-352-1100
            Facsimile: 713-352-3300

                    – 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


EQUIFAX INC: Settlement Objector Attys. Fight to Clear Their Name
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that lawyers scorned
by a judge who approved the $1.4 billion Equifax settlement last
month fired back, defending themselves and their profession
representing objectors to class actions.

In his Jan. 13 order approving the Equifax deal, U.S. District
Judge Thomas Thrash Jr. of the Northern District of Georgia took
the opportunity to chastise many of the objector lawyers,
specifically mentioning previous instances in which other judges
had criticized the same lawyers. He rejected all the objections.

At least two of the objector lawyers have sought to amend the
judgment to exclude the personal attacks against them, and four
others, including prominent class action critic Ted Frank, have
filed notices to appeal Thrash's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit.

"Court rulings that wrongly impugn a lawyer's professional
reputation can have serious adverse professional consequences,"
wrote John Davis in a Feb. 10 motion to amend the judgment.

Many of the lawyers are frequent objectors in class action
settlements—the target of 2018 amendments to the Federal Rule 23
of Civil Procedure. The amendments were designed to halt the
practice of "professional objectors" extorting money from class
counsel in exchange for dropping their appeals of class action
settlements.

Two of the objectors in Equifax, Christopher Andrews and Davis, who
both filed pro se, implied in court filings that Thrash's attacks
on their profession were the work of class counsel, who got $77.5
million in fees and costs for the deal.

Thrash's findings about objectors and their lawyers had "nothing to
do with the issues in this case," Davis wrote, "but rather, with a
bid by class counsel to obtain an order that impugns the
reputations of lawyers singularly effective in limiting attorneys'
fees in class action cases, which class counsel can then cite to
limit or prevent their working in subsequent cases."
"The dignity and authority of this court should not be enlisted in
service of those base ends," he wrote.

Andrews, who previously filed motions to remove class counsel and
others from the Equifax case, blamed Thrash's "long winded rant"
against objector lawyers on a "false smear campaign" lead by the
lead lawyers.

"The court got bamboozled, fell for the old bait and switch-a-roo,
it's the oldest of blunders, a typical maneuver by the lawyers who
are losing," he wrote. "The court took class counsel's email bait
trick, hook, line and sinker."

Both lawyers, and a third, Robert Clore, Esq., also insisted that
the judge had his facts wrong. As to Andrews, a resident of
Livonia, Michigan, who is not an attorney, Thrash noted that a
federal judge in a case against Blue Cross found his court filings
were not made in "good faith" and designed "to harass class
counsel." He also cited a Nov. 27 email from Andrews that class
counsel submitted in the Equifax case in which he appeared to
extort $400,000 to drop his appeal and resolve the Blue Cross
case.

"My offer in that email to class counsel in that case was made the
day after mediation failed two months ago," Andrews wrote in a Feb.
10 notice of appeal.

Thrash also rejected what he called the "frivolous" arguments of
Davis, who is from Tampa, Florida, then cited two other cases in
which judges had criticized him.

Davis, in this week's motion, disputed the importance of those
cases. In a class action against Godiva Chocolatier, he wrote,
Thrash relied on the remarks of a federal magistrate judge about
"professional objectors who threaten to delay resolution of class
action cases unless they receive extra compensation," but a
district judge ignored those findings, Davis wrote.

"Putting aside whether these cases could be cited in the first
place, this court could not in any event rely on either of the
cited documents as evidence to establish that Mr. Davis is a
‘professional objector,' even if there were court orders that
actually said that," he wrote.

Objector lawyer Clore sought to distance himself from the founding
partner of his firm, Bandas Law Firm. In 2019, a federal judge
Illinois issued a judgment against Christopher Bandas, founder of
the Corpus Christi, Texas-based firm, that limited his ability to
act as a "professional objector."

"Mr. Clore does not have any history of inappropriate conduct," he
wrote in a Jan. 23 motion to amend the judgment. "Mr. Clore has
never been sanctioned for anything, including filing a frivolous
objection."

Class counsel responded by mentioning an April 5 order by a federal
magistrate judge denying Clore's pro hac vice motion in a New
Jersey class action over plumbing products.

Regarding Frank, who is the director of the Center for Class Action
Fairness at the Hamilton Law Institute, Thrash found that he
"disseminated false and misleading information" about the Equifax
settlement, using a "chat-bot" created by claims aggregator Class
Action Inc. to drum up objections.

Another lawyer at his Washington, D.C., nonprofit, Melissa Holyoak,
Esq., represented Frank and another objector, David Watkins, in the
Equifax case.

Frank previously told the Daily Report he has "no idea what the
judge thinks I said that was false and misleading." He also said he
has "no affiliation" with Class Action Inc. and called the judge's
attacks on objector lawyers "regrettable and highly irregular."

In an email Friday, February 14, Frank noted that his organization
had obtained hundreds of millions of dollars for class members in
the past decade, and that other judges have praised his work. But,
he wrote, he declined to make Thrash's personal attacks part of his
appeal to the Eleventh Circuit.

"Our focus is on the legal issues rather than collateral litigation
over the court's name-calling," he wrote. "Other district court
judges have said worse things about us, and it didn't stop us from
winning reversals." [GN]

EVENFLO CO: Alston Sues Over Defective Booster Seats
----------------------------------------------------
TARNISHA ALSTON, individually and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EVENFLO COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 9:20-cv-00801-RMG (D.S.C., February 20, 2020)
is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its
alleged deceptive and misleading marketing, packaging, and labeling
of its Booster Seat in violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade
Practices Act.

According to the complaint, Defendant breached its express
warranties by selling its Booster Seats, which are in actuality not
free of defects, are unsafe for use, and cannot be used for their
ordinary purpose of protecting children in the event of a
side-impact collision.

Moreover, Defendant failed to disclose the truth regarding its
Booster Seat's side-impact safety which has direct impact on the
health of the children, failed to provide any relief to Plaintiff,
failed to provide a safe replacement Booster Seat to Plaintiff, and
failed to offer any appropriate compensation.

Evenflo Company, Inc. manufactures, markets, and sells car seats
and other baby and child-related products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harper Todd Segui, Esq.
          WHITEFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          PO Box 1483
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
          Tel: (843)494-5576
          Emails: hsegui@seguilaw.com
                  harper@wbmllp.com

                - and -

          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          Martha Geer, Esq.
          WHITEFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Tel: 919-600-5000
          Fax: 919-600-5035
          Emails: dan@wbmllp.com
                  martha@wbmllp.com

                - and -

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Tel: 865-247-0080
          Fax: 865-522-0049
          Emails: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  jonathan@gregcolemanlaw.com


EVENFLO CO: Car Seat for Kids Unsafe, Ramasamy Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
SUDHAKAR RAMASAMY, individually and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EVENFLO COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-00068-BO (E.D.N.C., February 25, 2020)
is a class action against the Defendant for the omission of
material facts regarding the safety of the Booster Seat, a car seat
model, by failing to disclose the results of its internal side
impact testing, or that the Seat will not adequately protect
children in the event of a side-impact collision.

The Defendant marketed and labeled the Booster Seat as side impact
tested and misrepresented that the Seat meets or exceeds all
applicable federal safety standards and Evenflo's side impact
standards rather than disclosing the true information to its
consumers including the Plaintiff.

Evenflo Company, Inc. principally engages in the design, research
and development, manufacturing, marketing and sale of Evenflo Baby
and ExerSaucer branded juvenile products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
            Martha Geer, Esq.
            WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
            900 W. Morgan Street
            Raleigh, NC 27603
            Telephone: 919-600-5000
            Facsimile: 919-600-5035

EVENFLO CO: Schnitzer Sues Over Defective Booster Seats
--------------------------------------------------------
DAVID SCHNITZER, individually and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EVENFLO COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01000 (E.D.N.Y., February 24, 2020) is
a class action against the Defendant for failure to disclose to
Plaintiff, Class Members and the public at-large the serious risks
posed to children by using the Booster Seat car seat model.

According to the complaint, the Defendant omitted material facts
regarding the safety (or lack thereof) of the Booster Seat by
failing to disclose the results of its internal side impact
testing, or that the Seat will not adequately protect children in
the event of a side-impact collision.

Evenflo Company, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Goodbaby International Holdings Limited
with principal place of business in Miamisburg, Ohio and
manufactures, markets, and sells car seats and other baby and
child-related products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Alex R. Straus, Esq.
            GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
            16748 McCormick Street
            Los Angeles, CA 91436
            Telephone: 310-450-9689
            Facsimile: 310-496-3176

                  – and -

            Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
            Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
            GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
            First Tennessee Plaza
            800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
            Knoxville, TN 37929
            Telephone: 865-247-0080
            Facsimile: 865-522-0049

                  – and –

             Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
             Harper T. Segui, Esq.
             Martha Geer, Esq.
             WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
             900 W. Morgan Street
             Raleigh, NC 27603
             Telephone: 919-600-5000


EVENFLO CO: Woodson et al. Allege Defective Kid Booster Seats
-------------------------------------------------------------
JANELLE WOODSON, DANA BERKLEY, JESSICA BLOSWICK, and BECKY BROWN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. EVENFLO COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-01069-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio, February 26, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendant for alleged violations of consumer
protection laws including the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act,
the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales statute, and the New York
General Business Law.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of all other similarly-situated
consumers, allege that the Defendant engaged in deceptive and
misleading advertising campaign due to its marketing of the Big Kid
booster seats as a side-impact tested product and safe for children
as small as 30 pounds. However, videos from Evenflo's side impact
collision testing and released documents from personal injury
lawsuits showed that the Big Kid booster seats provide dubious
benefit to children involved in side-impact collisions, especially
those under 40 pounds, thereby putting children's safety at risk.

Evenflo Company, Inc. is a designer and manufacturer of
child-related products, including booster-style car seats, with
principal place of business at 225 Byers Road, Miamisburg, Ohio. It
is a wholly owned subsidiary of Goodbaby International Holdings,
Ltd. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shawn K. Judge, Esq.
          Mark H. Troutman, Esq.
          ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, LLC
          Two Miranova Place, Suite 700
          Columbus, OH 43215        
          Telephone: (614) 221-2121
          Facsimile: (614) 365-9516          
          E-mail: sjudge@isaacwiles.com
                  mtroutman@isaacwiles.com
                  
               - and -
           
          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          David Stein, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 1110
          Oakland, CA         
          Telephone: (510) 350-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
          E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
                  ds@classlawgroup.com

EVENFLO COMPANY: Faces Class Suit Over "Big Kid" Car Seats
----------------------------------------------------------
Evenflo, the maker of the popular "Big Kid" booster car seat, has
been named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit for allegedly
selling the child seat with misleading advertising and safety
claims, placing children weighing less than 40 pounds in grave
danger during a side impact crash.  Barrack, Rodos is continuing
its investigation into the matter.

Evenflo is among the country's largest sellers of children's car
seats, and millions of "Big Kid" seats have been purchased from
Amazon, Walmart and other major retailers.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio on February 12, 2020, alleges that Evenflo
advertised the popular "Big Kid" booster seat as "side-impact
tested" and safe for children weighing less than 40 pounds, without
telling consumers that its own tests showed that such a child in a
side-impact collision could suffer serious injury.

On February 6, 2020, ProPublica issued a report based on previously
confidential material that showed how Evenflo "repeatedly made
decisions that resulted in putting children at risk." According to
ProPublica: "The company's tests show that when child-sized crash
dummies seated in "Big Kid" boosters were subjected to the forces
of a T-bone collision, they were thrown far out of their shoulder
belts. Evenflo's top booster seat engineer would later admit in a
deposition if real children moved that way, they could suffer
catastrophic head, neck and spinal injuries — or die."
ProPublica has since reported that a congressional subcommittee is
now investigating the company over its product marketing and
testing practices.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of consumers who purchased Evenflo
"Big Kid" booster seats from 2008 to the present, and seeks to
compensate consumers for the alleged misleading safety statements
Evenflo made about the booster seats.

Barrack, Rodos has extensive experience litigating class actions
across the United States.  The firm has recovered well over ten
billion dollars on behalf of its clients.  The firm has not yet
filed an action concerning this matter.  Purchasers of the booster
car seat should contact the firm to discuss their potential claims.
   

Contact:

         Mark Rosen, Esq.
         BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
         3300 Two Commerce Square
         2001 Market Street
         Philadelphia, PA  19103
         Tel:  215-963-0600
         E-mail: mrosen@barrrack.com
         Web: www.barrack.com

               - and –

         Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
         BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
         600 West Broadway   
         Suite 900
         San Diego, CA  92101
         Tel: 619-230-0800
         E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com
         Web: www.barrack.com
[GN]

FASHION NOVA: Alcazar Files ADA Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------
Fashion Nova, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Juan
Alcazar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Fashion Nova, Inc., a California
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-01434-TSH (N.D. Cal., Feb.
26, 2020).

Fashion Nova is an online fashion store for women.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
   Wilshire Law Firm
   3055 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
   Los Angeles, CA 90010
   Tel: (213) 381-9988
   Fax: (213) 381-9989
   Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com

      - and -

   Bobby Saadian, Esq.
   Wilshire Law Firm, PLC
   3055 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
   Los Angeles, CA 90010
   Tel: (213) 381-9988
   Fax: (213) 381-9989
   Email: bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com


FLAGSHIP CREDIT: Judge Rules Class Action Settlement Unfair
-----------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligence, reports that a
federal judge has decided not to approve a proposed settlement that
would resolve a class action lawsuit against an auto finance
company, holding that the deal was unfair to consumers.

U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denied a request for approval filed by attorneys
representing 327,924 people claiming to have received illegal
automated phone calls from Flagship Credit Acceptance.

Baylson wrote in his opinion that he took issue with three aspects
of the $4 million settlement, proposed on behalf of lead plaintiff
Robert Ward.

"First, the lack of information available to counsel to inform
their view and advise the class of the strengths and weaknesses of
the case given the early posture in which the parties reached
agreement; second, the emphasis on Flagship's inability to pay more
than $4 million when no underlying financial information was
provided to the class members, compounded by the court's belief,
after in camera review of the financials, that this statement is
inaccurate; and third, the court's skepticism that $4 million is a
fair settlement in this case, given that it will result in a de
minimis per claimant recovery of $35.30," Baylson said.

The class members alleged the subprime lender placed automated and
prerecorded phone calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act. According to Baylson, settlement negotiations
commenced immediately in federal magistrate court in New Jersey,
and an agreement was reached in February 2018.

When the case came to Pennsylvania, Baylson granted preliminary
approval, but asked the parties for more information. One question
was whether Flagship would be able to withstand the $4 million
judgment—or could afford more.

"Flagship's most recent press release reported that its portfolio
of managed receivables has grown to $2.9 billion, so class members
may reasonably be left wondering why a company with almost $3
billion in assets can only afford a $4 million settlement," Baylson
said.

"Flagship explained that disclosing financial information to the
class members may put it at a competitive disadvantage and/or
negatively affect its prospects in a future equity event, but these
concerns cannot excuse total silence on the topic of Flagship's
ability to pay," Baylson continued. "The only information class
members had was class counsel's representation that Flagship 'was
not willing or able to pay more to settle the case, would have paid
nothing if it prevailed, and if plaintiff prevailed [Flagship]
would go bankrupt.' The court cannot agree to the accuracy of the
last part of that communication."

Class counsel also claimed that Flagship didn't have insurance
coverage, but made no inquiries about it, Baylson said.

He continued, "The court is not prepared to accept at face value
class counsel's claim that there was no insurance, which weighs
against finding Flagship is not able to withstand a greater
judgment."

The class members are represented by Sergei Lemberg, Esq. of
Lemberg Law in Wilton, Connecticut. Flagship is represented by
Gerald Arth of Fox Rothschild. Neither responded to requests for
comment. [GN]

FLOOR AND DECOR OUTLETS: Ekstrom Balks at Biometric ID Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KATHERINE EKSTROM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLOOR AND DÉCOR OUTLETS OF
AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2020CH02315 (Ill. Cir., Cook
Cty., February 25, 2020) is a class action complaint brought
against Defendant for its alleged violations of Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff began working for Defendant
in or around October 2017 and she was required by Defendant to
place her fingers on a fingerprint scanner during the course of her
employment.

Plaintiff alleges Defendant of illegally collecting, storing and
using her and other similarly situated individuals' biometric
identifiers and biometric information without obtaining informed
written consent or providing the requisite data retention and
destruction policies, thereby invading Plaintiff's statutorily
protected right to privacy in her biometrics.

Floor and Decor Outlets of America, Inc. offers vinyl coverings,
ceramic tiles, floor molding, decorative glass, counter tops,
finishing accessories, and wood flooring products to customers in
the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD.
          227 W. Monroe St., Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Tel: 312-283-3814
          Fax: 773-496-8617
          Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com


FLORIDA REGIONAL: Faces Class Action Filed by Immigrant Investors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Suayan, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that two Chinese
immigrants claim in a class action complaint they fell victim to a
bogus investment.

Ting Peng and Lin Fu's 90-page lawsuit, which was filed on Jan. 27
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
alleges Nicholas Mastroianni and Richard Yellen "created a group of
companies to perpetrate a fraudulent scheme by which they obtained
$99,500,000 from a group of immigrant investors for the purpose of
funding a construction loan that was to have been repaid when it
matured more than two years ago, but had no intention of keeping
their promise to repay."

According to the plaintiffs, when the loan matured over two years
ago, the defendants "used the money they obtained for the loan to
buy an equity interest in one of their companies in which the
immigrant investors, including Peng and Fu, have no rights and no
ability to recover the money that was stolen from them." [GN]

The case is TING PENG and LIN FU, on behalf of themselves
individually andall others similarly situated, and derivatively on
behalf of HARBOURSIDE FUNDING,LP, a Florida limited partnership,
Plaintiffs, vs. NICHOLAS A. MASTROIANNI II; RICHARD L. YELLEN;
FLORIDA REGIONAL CENTER, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
HARBOURSIDE FUNDING GP, LLC, a Florida limited liability company;
and HARBOURSIDE PLACE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendants, and HARBOURSIDE FUNDING, LP, a Florida limited
partnership, Nominal Defendant (S.D. Fla. Case No.
9:20-cv-80102-RAR).

A copy of the complaint is available at
https://tinyurl.com/vnc3f8z
[GN]

FLYING FOOD GROUP: Removes Ortiz Suit to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of HECTOR ORTIZ, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FLYING FOOD GROUP LLC; and
DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendant, filed a notice to remove the
lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles (Case No. 19STCV44539, filed December 12,
2019) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on February 19, 2020. The clerk of court for the Central
District of California assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-01630.

The case alleges wage and hour violations.

Chicago, Illinois-based Flying Food Group LLC provides large-scale
catering to airlines and retail partners. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

            John A. Conkle, Esq.
            Amanda R. Washton, Esq.
            Keith Rossman, Esq.
            CONKLE, KREMER & ENGEL
            Professional Law Corporation
            3130 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
            Santa Monica, CA 90403-2351
            Telephone: (310) 998-9100
            Facsimile: (310) 998-9109

FORD MOTOR: Sunroof Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Ford
sunroof class action lawsuit has been dismissed after the judge
ruled the plaintiff couldn't show that Ford panoramic sunroofs are
defective or shatter on a regular basis.

The class action lawsuit says plaintiff Jessica Beaty purchased a
2013 Ford Escape with a panoramic sunroof in September 2012, but
she says her sunroof spontaneously shattered while she was driving
on the freeway in February 2017.

The plaintiff claims the panoramic sunroof tempered glass is too
thin to cover the large area needed for the roof and they shatter
due to manufacturing defects in Escapes and these Ford models.

   * 2007-present Ford Edge
   * 2009-present Ford Focus
   * 2010-present Ford Fusion
   * 2011-present Ford Explorer
   * 2009-present Ford Flex
   * 2011-present Ford F-150
   * 2009-2014 Ford Mustang
   * 2008-present Ford Escape
   * 2014-present Ford Transit Connect
   * 2013-present Ford C-Max
   * 2007-present Lincoln MKX
   * 2009-2015 Lincoln MKS
   * 2013-present Lincoln MKZ
   * 2010-present Lincoln MKT
   * 2010-2011 Mercury Milan
   * 2010-2011 Mercury Montego

Ford didn't cover the replacement under warranty, so she went to an
auto glass business and paid a $500 insurance deductible to replace
the glass. She also says she lost more than $100 to pay for a
rental car for the time it took to replace the sunroof.

Earlier the judge dismissed express and implied warranty claims but
said the plaintiff could amend those claims, which she chose not to
do.

Ford told the judge there is no defect with the panoramic sunroofs
because the glass breaks in the exact way federal law mandates the
glass to break, specifically into small round pieces.

Ford also references the rate its sunroofs shatter, estimated at
0.05%, a failure rate of less than 1% which is not material as a
matter of law. According to the automaker, one sunroof out of every
2,000 vehicles is a rate equal or lower to shattered sunroofs in
vehicles from other manufacturers.

The automaker also argues it couldn't have known about alleged
sunroof defects because the 2013 Ford Escape was the first model
year to include a panoramic sunroof. Ford says the plaintiff bought
hers at the very beginning of production, meaning Ford could not
have "known," much less concealed, the alleged defect.

The plaintiff argues Ford has a duty to disclose "any systemic
failure of a specific automotive part of which it was aware and
concealed from the public."

But the judge had serious issues with the plaintiff's claim that
Ford was deceptive by not informing potential customers about parts
of a vehicle that could have problems or may one day fail,
including the sunroof.

The judge let the plaintiff know her argument wasn't logical.

"It defies common sense to claim that a manufacturer must disclose
every single failure of any component or part to every potential
purchaser, even if the failure is minor and not dangerous, or even
if it has only happened a handful of times." - Judge Ronald B.
Leighton

As for the warranty, Ford responded by pointing out the warranty
had already expired on the vehicle when the plaintiff complained
about the sunroof. In addition, the warranty clearly says, "glass
may chip, scratch, crack or break, and that any such damage is not
covered by the warranty."

The plaintiff argues exploding glass shouldn't be excluded by the
warranty terms, but the judge agreed with Ford by saying sunroof
glass is tempered and supposed to shatter when it breaks. So the
glass isn't defective when it does exactly what it is supposed to
do if it breaks.

Ford further showed data that indicated no serious injuries or
crashes have occurred because of shattered sunroofs.

Ford emphasizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) has never requested a recall of the sunroofs and documents
filed with the government show vehicles from other automakers have
higher rates of shattered sunroofs.

The judge also agreed with Ford concerning the plaintiff's claim
that hundreds of sunroof complaints have been filed, but that
doesn't change the fact that about one in every 2,000 Ford sunroofs
break, a rate too low to consider the problem a material defect.

The judge also found the plaintiff's own expert claimed a Ford
sunroof replacement rate of only 0.41%, a low rate that also
includes incidents other than shattering, such as leaking or
sticking sunroofs.

"A truly dangerous failure (like an exploding gas tank) is material
even if it is rare, and in a different case a duty to disclose a
material defect may arise even if the defect occurs only
infrequently. But viewed in the NHTSA's 'severity, frequency and
consequences' context, the actual failure rates, and the evidence
in the record, the Court cannot conclude that the defect at issue
here was material, if it was a defect at all." - Judge Leighton

By finding entirely in favor of Ford, the judge ruled the plaintiff
cannot support her fraudulent concealment claims against Ford as a
matter of law and cannot show that Ford knew of and failed to
disclose a material defect. Additionally, she can't "establish that
any such failure caused her benefit-of-the-bargain damage."

The Ford sunroof lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington - Beaty et. al., v. Ford Motor
Company.

The plaintiff is represented by Terrell Marshall Law Group, Simmons
Hanly Conroy LLC, and Greg Coleman Law PC.

CarComplaints.com has complaints about the vehicles named in the
sunroof class action lawsuit.

   * Ford Focus
   * Ford Fusion
   * Ford Explorer
   * Ford Flex
   * Ford F-150
   * Ford Mustang
   * Ford C-Max
   * Ford Edge
   * Ford Escape
   * Ford Transit Connect
   * Lincoln MKX
   * Lincoln MKZ
   * Lincoln MKT
   * Lincoln MKS
   * Mercury Milan
   * Mercury Montego
[GN]

FOWLER PACKING: Court Orders Six Depositions in Aldapa Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BEATRIZ ALDAPA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FOWLER PACKING
COMPANY INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00420-DAD-SAB
(E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California has ordered six
depositions to occur as submitted by the parties.

On March 5, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued an order granting in
part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for a protective
order.  The order granted the Defendants leave to conduct a total
of 15 depositions of the absent class members who submitted
declarations in support of the motion for class certification.  The
Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the order, which
was granted in part and denied in part by District Judge Dale A.
Drozd on June 27, 2019.  The order on reconsideration limited the
depositions to four hours for each deposition of the absent class
members.

The parties proceeded to attempt to complete the depositions but
were only able to complete eleven of the 15 depositions.  In July
2019, the Defendants emailed a list of 15 proposed deponents,
requesting completion by the end of August.  On July 30, 2019, the
Plaintiffs requested 10 additional proposed deponents because of
several unavailable deponents.  The Defendants provided an
additional 20 names in July and August 2019.  The Plaintiffs were
ultimately able to schedule 10 depositions for the week of Aug. 12,
2019, but only nine appeared.  Thereafter, the Defendants asked to
schedule the remaining six depositions before the Sept. 26, 2019
discovery cutoff.  On Aug. 29, 2019, the Plaintiffs informed the
Defendants they were having difficulty scheduling the depositions
and suggested stipulating to extend the discovery deadline, and the
Defendants agreed.  On Sept. 13, 2019, the Court amended the
scheduling order to accommodate the depositions and extended the
non-expert discovery deadline until Dec. 26, 2019.

The Plaintiffs were only able to schedule two depositions in
October 2019, and on Oct. 23, 2019, the Defendants provided contact
information for five declarants who were current employees and
requested to schedule their depositions.  In meeting and conferring
on Nov. 15, 2019, the Plaintiffs explained they did not have four
of the individuals available because a number of former employees
had left to work in other states for harvests.  The Plaintiffs also
stated they had leads for people that the Defendants may be able to
depose in February or March 2020, when they were expected to return
to California.  The Defendants offered to travel outside of
California to depose these individuals.

The parties reached an impasse and requested an informal discovery
dispute conference before the undersigned which was held on Nov.
22, 2019.  Following the conference, on Nov. 25, 2019, the
Magistrate Judge issued an order finding that the Defendants were
entitled to complete the remaining four depositions of the absent
class members who had already submitted declarations in support of
the motion for class certification.   He found that if the
Plaintiffs were unable to find the class members who were willing
to sit for depositions, Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure provides that a party may use a subpoena to command the
attendance for a deposition, and therefore, the Defendants may
command the presence of the absent class member by use of a
subpoena for any remaining depositions for a total of 15.  The
Judge again extended the deadline for completion of non-expert
discovery until March 26, 2020.

Following the previous informal discovery conference and the
Court's order entered on Nov. 25, 2019, no more depositions have
been completed.  Thus, the number of completed depositions remains
at 11, and the Defendants are still seeking four more depositions.
The parties have again requested an informal discovery dispute
conference, which the Court set to be held on Feb. 11, 2020.  On
Feb. 10, 2020, the parties submitted a joint informal discovery
dispute letter brief setting out their respective positions
concerning the current discovery dispute.  A telephonic conference
was held on Feb. 11, 2020, regarding the discovery dispute.
Counsel Mario Martinez appeared for the Plaintiffs, and counsel Ian
Weiland, Charles Hamamjian, Bradley Hamburger, and Tiffany Phan
appeared for the Defendants.

Currently before the Court is a discovery dispute between the
parties that was the subject of an informal hearing held on Feb.
11, 2020.   The Defendants request the Court to strike the 33
declarations for the individuals that did not appear for
deposition, or at a minimum strike the declarations of those who
were served with a subpoena and failed to appear for a deposition.
Additionally, they request that the Court grants them permission to
develop a method for deposing non-declarant class members from a
variety of crews, given the Court's previous finding that the
claims, allegations, and defenses are diverse and dependent on the
experiences of a spectrum of employees.

The Plaintiffs first argue the requested relief is improper due to
a failure to meet and confer regarding the specific relief
requested.   Second, they argue that even if Defense counsel had
conferred regarding these remedies, the request for random class
members depositions is improper because it would go beyond the
previous orders of the Court which only allowed depositions of 15
class members who had "injected" themselves into the litigation by
submitting declarations.  Third, the Plaintiffs argue that the
Defendants' request to strike declarations conflicts with their
representations throughout these proceedings that they would not
seek sanctions against any class member that failed to appear for
depositions.  The Plaintiffs state they are willing to cooperate
with the Defendants, but the requested relief is far beyond the
Court's orders and any meet and confer efforts.

While Magistrate Judge Boone considered the Defendants' proffer
that they would not seek sanctions against the class members who
failed to appear for depositions or seek to exclude the individuals
from the class in determining whether the discovery was sought for
an improper purpose, he expressly declined to grant the Plaintiffs'
request to preemptively foreclose such relief until the precise
situation was ripe and presented to the Court.  Further, as the
Defendants argued at the teleconference, it is not clear that the
striking of declarations is the type of sanction, if it is to be
considered a sanction, that the Court and the Defendants were
envisioning as unfairly targeting the absent class members.

Rather, the Magistrate Judge was concerned with potential monetary
sanctions that may have been sought against the individual class
members such as to cover the costs of the deposition, or the
seeking of removing the absent class members altogether from the
class resulting in the member being excluded from the a potential
settlement or judgment, rather than simply striking the
declarations and preventing the declarations from being used for
other purposes where the declarant fails to appear for a
deposition.  He was concerned about any incentive for anyone to
appear for a deposition and frankly the rule of law.  Again, the
Court will reserve decision until the matter is raised and ripe for
the Court's consideration.

Now turning to the crux of the order, the Magistrate Judge will
order the six proposed depositions to occur as submitted by the
parties.  The Defendants are only entitled to a total of four more
depositions, and thus once four are completed, any remaining
depositions will be cancelled.

Based on the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Boone ordered that the
following individuals appear for depositions at the time and place
described:

     a. Mariano Carranza on March 4, 2020 at 8:00 a.m. at U.S.
        Legal Support, 5200 Palm Ave., Suite 110, Fresno, CA
        93704;

     b. Claudia Villafuerte on March 4, 2020 at 8:00 a.m. at U.S.
        Legal Support, 5200 N Palm Ave., Suite 110, Fresno, CA
        93704;

     c. Guadalupe Saldana on March 4, 2020 at 1:00 p.m. at U.S.
        Legal Support, 5200 N Palm Ave., Suite 110, Fresno, CA
        93704;

     d. Maria Isabel Esquivel on March 4, 2020 at 1:00 p.m. at
        U.S. Legal Support, 5200 N Palm Ave., Suite 110, Fresno,
        CA 93704;

     e. Miguel Angel Orosco on March 5, 2020 at 8:00 a.m. at
        Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland, 5260 N. Palm Ave. Ste.
        400 Fresno, CA 93704; and

     f. Silva Machuca on March 5, 2020 at 8:00 a.m. at
        Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland, 5260 N. Palm Ave. Ste.
        400 Fresno, CA 93704.

Once four of these depositions are completed, any remaining
depositions are ordered cancelled.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 14, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/tx1ugs from Leagle.com.

Beatriz Aldapa & Elmer Avalos, Plaintiffs, represented by Dexter
Flood Rappleye -- drappleye@bushgottlieb.com -- Bush Gottlieb,
ALC,
Erica Deutsch -- edeutsch@bushgottlieb.com -- Bush Gottlieb, Mario
Martinez -- mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com -- Martinez Aguilasocho &
Lynch, APLC & Ira L. Gottlieb -- igottlieb@bushgottlieb.com --
Bush
Gottlieb, A Law Corporation.

Fowler Packing Company Inc., a California Corporation, AG Force
LLC, a California Limited Liability Company & Fowler Marketing
International LLC, a California Limited Liability Company,
Defendants, represented by Howard A. Sagaser -- has@sw2law.com --
Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland, PC, Tiffany X. Phan --
tphan@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Bradley
Joseph Hamburger -- bhamburger@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn
&Crutcher LLP, Ian Blade Wieland -- ian@sw2law.com -- Sagaser,
Watkins & Wieland, PC & Theane Diana Evangelis Kapur --
tevangelis@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher.


GARDNER DENVER: Kent & Rubin Plaintiffs Drop Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Gardner Denver Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated February 13, 2020,
that the plaintiffs in the case, Kent v. Gardner Denver Holdings,
Inc., et al. and Rubin v. Gardner Denver Holdings, Inc., et al.,
have agreed to dismiss their complaints.

On April 30, 2019, Gardner Denver Holdings, Inc.'s Board of
Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of
merger with Ingersoll-Rand plc, Ingersoll-Rand U.S. HoldCo, Inc.,
and Charm Merger Sub Inc.

Following the filing of Gardner Denver's Proxy
Statement/Prospectus-Information Statement, a purported class
action lawsuit was filed on January 30, 2020 in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Kent v.
Gardner Denver Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-00145, and a
second lawsuit was filed on February 6, 2020 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned
Rubin v. Gardner Denver Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-01044.


The Actions generally allege material omissions in the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus-Information Statement regarding the financial
projections, the fairness opinion analyses, and potential conflicts
of interest of certain financial advisors. The Actions both name
Gardner Denver and the individual members of the Gardner Denver
board of directors as defendants. The Kent Action also names as
defendants Ingersoll-Rand plc, Ingersoll Rand Industrial and Charm
Merger Sub Inc.

Gardner Denver believes that the allegations in the Actions are
without merit and that no further disclosure is required to
supplement the Proxy Statement/Prospectus-Information Statement
under applicable law; however, to eliminate the burden, expense and
uncertainties inherent in such litigation, and without admitting
liability or wrongdoing, Gardner Denver is providing certain
supplemental disclosures to the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus-Information Statement. Nothing in the
supplemental disclosures shall be deemed an admission of the legal
necessity or materiality under applicable law of any of the
disclosures. The defendants have vigorously denied, and continue
vigorously to deny, that they have committed any violation of law
or engaged in any of the wrongful acts that were alleged in the
Actions. Plaintiffs have agreed to voluntarily dismiss the
Actions.

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://bit.ly/2vomPHA.

Gardner Denver Holdings, Inc. is a global provider of
mission-critical flow control and compression equipments and
associated aftermarket parts, consumables and services. The Company
operates through three business segments: Industry, Energy and
Medical. The company is based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

GERON CORP: Pomerantz Announces Filing of Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Geron Corporation (GERN) and certain of its officers.   The
class action, filed in United States District Court for the
Northern District of New York, and docketed under 20-cv-01163, is
on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Geron securities between March 19, 2018 and
September 26, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), who were
damaged thereby (the "Class').  The claims asserted herein are
alleged against Geron and the Company's President and Chief
Executive Officer ("CEO") John A. Scarlett ("Scarlett"), and arise
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. §
240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Geron securities during the
class period, you have until March 23, 2020 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this
action, contact

      Robert S. Willoughby
      POMERANTZ LLP
      E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
      Tel: 888.476.6529
      Toll-free: 888.4-POMLAW, Ext. 9980.

Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing
address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

Geron is a biopharmaceutical company which specializes in
developing and commercializing therapeutic products for cancer that
inhibit telomerase.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants misled investors regarding
a drug called imetelstat, which was intended to treat certain
cancers that occur in bone marrow.  Specifically, Defendants misled
investors about the results of a clinical drug study of imetelstat
called IMbark.  That study was designed to ascertain whether
imetelstat helped patients with a cancer called myelofibrosis.

Geron was developing imetelstat in partnership with Janssen Biotech
Inc. ("Janssen"), a division of Johnson & Johnson.  During the
Class Period, Janssen would decide whether to continue to partner
with Geron on imetelstat.  If Janssen decided to continue with the
collaboration, it would owe Geron an upfront payment of $65
million, with hundreds of millions of dollars in additional
milestone payments possible.

Janssen would make its decision based in part on the results of the
IMbark trial.  Janssen was conducting that trial under the
supervision of the Joint Steering Committee ("JSC") consisting of
both Geron and Janssen employees.  The JSC conducted an internal,
nonpublic review of the IMbark results in March 2018.  That review
showed that IMbark was a failure.

The two primary endpoints for the study, the results which would
determine whether the study was successful or not, were: (i) the
spleen response rate, which measured the reduction in spleen
swelling, and (ii) a composite of various symptoms called the Total
Symptom Score ("TSS").  For IMbark to succeed, patients in the
study needed to show at least a 35% reduction in spleen volume and
a minimum 50% reduction in TSS.

The actual results of the IMbark study were a disappointing 10% for
the spleen response rate and 32% reduction in TSS—not even close
to the results required for success.  These poor results boded ill
for both the future of imetelstat and for Geron's partnership with
Janssen.

When Geron held a conference call with investors on March 19, 2018,
however, Defendant Scarlett chose to tout the median overall
survival of patients in IMbark, one of the study's fourteen
secondary endpoints.  Generally, a median value is that which
separates the lower half and upper half of a data set.  In this
context, it referred to the amount of time that elapsed before half
of the patients in the study had passed away.  Scarlett announced
that the median overall survival had not been reached after
nineteen months, meaning that the final median would almost
certainly be greater than nineteen months.  He further claimed
that, in comparison, an analysis of "real world" data showed that
patients with myelofibrosis who discontinued or no longer responded
to their medication showed median overall survival of just seven
months.

Not surprisingly, Scarlett's encouraging statements about the
IMbark study caused Geron's stock price to increase more than 28%
in one trading day.

While Defendant Scarlett is free to tout "positive" information
about IMbark, under the federal securities laws he is bound to do
so in a manner that will not mislead investors.  This
responsibility includes disclosing any additional adverse
information that cuts against the voluntarily revealed, positive
information.  In this case, there was no adverse information more
significant than the actual results of the IMbark study, which were
known to Defendants at the time, namely that the study was a
failure.  Moreover, Defendants knew, but failed to disclose, that
the "real world" survival data that Scarlett was touting was itself
misleading because of the disease characteristics of the patients
in that study when compared to those in IMbark.

A week later, on March 27, 2018, a biotech journalist published an
article which called out Scarlett and Geron for misleading the
market with their statements on March 19, 2018, and for failing to
disclose IMbark's primary endpoint data or the baseline disease
characteristics of patients in the study, all of which would help
investors evaluate Defendants' encouraging claims.

On this news, Geron shares, which had closed at $5.98 per share on
March 26, 2018, dropped 29% over the next two days to close at
$4.23 per share on March 28, 2018.

This partial disclosure of Defendants' deception, however, did not
fully reveal the extent of the fraud with respect to IMbark.
Indeed, Defendants were undeterred and continued to push the
misleading increased survival rate narrative at a March 27, 2018
healthcare conference and in the Company's first quarter and second
quarter Form 10-Qs filed with the SEC on May 10, 2018 and July 31,
2018.  At the same time, they continued to hold back the results of
the IMbark study and other information which would have allowed
investors to evaluate Defendants' positive spin on the study's
secondary results.

As a result, the price of Geron common stock continued to trade at
artificially inflated levels.  Geron took advantage of the
inflation that it created by selling more than $83 million of its
common stock to unsuspecting investors during the second quarter of
2018.

On September 27, 2018, Defendants issued a press release finally
admitting that IMbark was a failure.  Geron disclosed that patients
in the IMbark study had shown only 10% spleen volume reduction and
32% TSS reduction.  Not coincidentally, Defendants further
announced that Janssen had decided to terminate its partnership
with Geron.

In response to these belated disclosures, the price of Geron's
stock plummeted a price of $6.23 per share, on September 26, 2018,
to $2.31 per share on September 27, 2018, a decrease of over 62%.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com. [GN]

GERON CORP: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of March 23 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announces that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the following
company. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Geron Corporation (GERN)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/geron-corporation-et-al-loss-submission-form?prid=5470&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 23, 2020
Class Period: March 19, 2018 to September 26, 2018

The filed complaint alleges that defendants misled investors
regarding a drug called imetelstat, which was intended to treat
certain cancers that occur in bone marrow. Specifically, defendants
misled investors about the results of a clinical drug study of
imetelstat called IMbark. That study was designed to ascertain
whether imetelstat helped patients with a cancer called
myelofibrosis.

To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights.

Contact:

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Tel: 212-425-1140
         Fax: 866-699-3880
         Email: vw@wongesq.com
[GN]

GODDESS DETOX: Deceptively Sells Goddess Detox Pearls, Weiss Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WENDY WEISS v. GODDESS DETOX, INC., Case No. CACE-20-002330 (Fla.
Cir., Broward Cty., Feb. 7, 2020), is a class action complaint
filed by the Plaintiff on behalf of all others similarly situated,
enjoining the Defendant from continuing to engage, use, or employ
unfair and deceptive business acts or practices, which violate the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, related to the
design, testing, manufacture, assembly, development, marketing,
advertising, or sale of Goddess Vaginal Detox Pearls infertility
treating product.

According to the complaint, the Product's labeling, marketing, and
advertising contained on the packaging and on the Defendant's Web
site are false, deceptive and misleading because the Product is not
safe and because the Product cannot provide the claimed benefits.
The Defendant falsely and deceptively advertises and markets its
Product as treating infertility.

The Plaintiff contends that products marketed to treat infertility
are considered drugs under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and may
only be legally marketed if approved by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration. The Plaintiff alleges that the Product is not safe
and contains at least one (1) ingredient that has been recognized
as toxic. One of the ingredients in the Product is borneal. In
2002, Health Canada issued a warning over a Chinese medicine
containing borneolum syntheticum, a synthetic version of borneol,
both of which are toxic, says the complaint.

On Oct. 22, 2019, the Plaintiff purchased Goddess Vaginal Detox
Pearls from the Defendant's Web site, http://GoddessDetox.org/.The
Product is sold to consumers, like the Plaintiff, from the
Defendant's Web site.

Goddess Detox provides woman with self-love inspired products to
physically, spiritually and emotionally detox.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Howard W. Rubinstein, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN
          1281 N. Ocean Dr., Apt. 198
          Singer Island, FL 33404
          Telephone: 832-715-2788
          Facsimile: 561-688-0630
          E-mail: howardr@pdq.net


GRAND CANYON: Berger Montague Investigating Class Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Berger Montague is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Grand Canyon Education, Inc.  The investigation is focused on
whether Grand Canyon and its senior management have violated the
federal securities laws or otherwise committed wrongful acts that
harmed the Company's investors.

On January 28, 2020, financial analyst Citron Research issued a
report on Grand Canyon Education entitled, "GCE, The Educational
Enron." The report alleges that Grand Canyon Education was
violating the federal securities laws by using Grand Canyon
University as a "captive non-reporting subsidiary to hide
liabilities" and to "artificially inflate the [company's] stock
price."

On this news, the price of Grand Canyon shares declined by $7.43,
or 8.12%, to close at $84.07 per share on January 28, 2020.

If you purchased Grand Canyon shares, have information, or would
like to discuss this investigation, or have any questions
concerning your rights or interests, please contact our attorneys
Andrew Abramowitz, Esq. at (215) 875-3015 or Michael Dell'Angelo,
Esq. at (215) 875-3080, or visit
www.bergermontague.com/grand-canyon/.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Grand
Canyon should consider their options to help Berger Montague's
investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.
Under this program, whistleblowers who provide original information
may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of successful
recoveries obtained by the SEC. For more information, please
contact us.

Berger Montague, with offices in Philadelphia, Minneapolis,
Washington, D.C., and San Diego, has been a pioneer in securities
class action litigation since its founding in 1970. Berger Montague
has represented individual and institutional investors for five
decades and serves as lead counsel in courts throughout the United
States.

Contact:

         Andrew Abramowitz, Esq.
         Senior Counsel
         Berger Montague
         Tel:(215) 875-3015
         Website: www.bergermontague.com
         E-mail: aabramowitz@bm.net

                 - and –

         Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
         Managing Shareholder
         Berger Montague
         Tel:(215) 875-3080
         Website: www.bergermontague.com
         E-mail: mdellangelo@bm.net
[GN]

GREEN POGO: Faces Consumer RICO Class Action
--------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal RICO class action
claims that Green Pogo, Natural Beauty Line, Vegan Beauty and
others conspired in a scam to use fake celebrity endorsements to
trick consumers into signing up for "free trials" for cosmetics,
then billing them for services and subscriptions they never signed
up for.

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

         https://is.gd/fzqJIM


HARMONY NURSING: Chatman Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
JASMINE CHATMAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HARMONY NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2020CH02234 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty.,
February 24, 2020) is a class action brought against Defendants for
its alleged violation of the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an information technology
staff beginning in May 2017 and as a new employee, she was required
to scan her fingerprint into Defendant's fingerprint-scanner time
clock at its facility on West Foster Avenue in Chicago.

Plaintiff claims that Defendant did not inform her of any biometric
data retention policy or whether Defendant will ever permanently
delete her fingerprints in its computer system and she was never
provided with nor ever signed a written release allowing Defendant
to collect or store her fingerprint.

The BIPA requires companies to obtain informed written consent from
employees before acquiring their biometric data and makes it
unlawful for any private entity to "collect, capture, purchase,
receive through trade, or otherwise obtain a person's biometric
identifier or biometric information.

Harmony Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, Inc. operates as a
health care center and offers physical, occupational, speech,
respiratory, and restorative therapies, as well as wound, long
term, and nursing care services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael William Drew, Esq.
          NEIGHBORHOOD LEGAL, LLC
          20 N. Clark Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Tel: (312)967-7220
          Email: mwd@neighborhood-legal.com


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Caccavale et al Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TONY CACCAVALE and ANTHONY MANGELLI, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HEWLETT-PACKARD
COMPANY, HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE, CO. and UNISYS CORPORATION,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00974 (E.D.N.Y., February 21, 2020) is a
class action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged
violation of New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, both Plaintiffs were employed by
Defendants as Field Service Engineers, spent most of their time
engaging in physical labor, paid on a bi-weekly basis during the
entirety of their employment with Defendants, and did not receive
the notices required by NYLL and/or were never provided copies of
said notices for their records.

The complaint alleges that Defendant willfully failed to pay
Plaintiffs and the Class as frequently as required by NYLL and to
pay wages within seven days after the end of each workweek in which
wages were earned as required by NYLL.  

Hewlett-Packard Company sold printers, laptops and desktop personal
computers.

Hewlett-Packard Enterprise, Co. focuses on enterprise hardware
products such as servers and networking equipment.

Unisys Corporation offers outsourcing and managed services, systems
integration and consulting services, high end server technology,
cyber security and cloud management software, and maintenance and
support services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul A. Pagano, Esq.
          CERTILMAN BALIN ADLER & HYMAN, LLP
          90 Merrick Avenue, 9th Floor
          East Meadow, NY 11554
          Tel: (516)296-7000
          Email: ppagano@certilmanbalin.com


HR METRICS: Howell Sues over Unauthorized Biometrics Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JENITA HOWELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HR METRICS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2020CH02420 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., February 26, 2020), arises from
the Defendant's violations of the Biometric Information Privacy Act
of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure.

According to the complaint, the Defendant exposes the Plaintiff and
other similarly-situated employees to serious and irreversible
privacy risks by requiring them to have their facial geometry
scanned by a biometric timekeeping device without getting prior
written consent from them.

The Plaintiff was staffed by the Defendant at a Trader Joe's
distribution center, located at 1510 Cargo Ct, Minooka, Illinois,
as a kitchen sanitary worker from July 2015 to December 2015 and
from February 2019 through December 2019.

HR Metrics, Inc. is a provider of staffing services and temporary
employment opportunities for employers and employees alike and
conducts business in the State of Illinois, including Cook County.
It is also formerly known as DHR Staffing Solutions, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ICF CONSULTING: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Fishman Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH FISHMAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ICF CONSULTING GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00219 (E.D. Va., February 27, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that she received an autodialed text message
to her cellular phone from the Defendant regarding a health survey,
with incentives to sign-up for additional surveys in the future.
The class action is filed on behalf of all others
similarly-situated consumers who received text messages from the
Defendant using an automatic telephone dialing system without prior
express written consent.

ICF Consulting Group, Inc. is a company that conducts surveys with
consumers on behalf of clients in various industries, including the
healthcare industry. It is a Delaware corporation with its head
office located in Fairfax, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Robinson, Esq.
          1934 Old Gallows Road, Suite 350K
          Vienna, VA 22181         
          Telephone: (703) 789-4800
          E-mail: william@robinsonlaw.com
                  
               - and -
           
          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN P.A.
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.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

INCEPT CORP: Rankin Seeks Overtime Pay for Telemarketers
--------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN RANKIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INCEPT CORPORATION and SAM FALLETTA,
Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-00436 (N.D. Ohio, February 25, 2020)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the statutes of the State of Ohio.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to compensate the
Plaintiff and all others similarly-situated telemarketers for all
hours worked, including pre-shift work and work prior to the end of
each unpaid meal break, imposed an unlawful rounding policy that
resulted to less pay of workers, and failed to keep accurate
records as required.

Mr. Rankin was employed by Defendants as an hourly-paid
telemarketer from approximately June 2018 to October 2019.

Incept Corporation is a telemarketing company that provides
marketing services through outbound and inbound conversations with
its principal place of business in Stark County, Ohio. [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

INTERMEX WIRE: Underpays Sales Representatives, Herrera Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALBA HERRERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INTERMEX WIRE TRANSFER, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-20658-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 13, 2020) seeks to recover
from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Herrera was employed by the Defendant as sales
representative.

Intermex Wire Transfer, LLC provides electronic money remittance
services. The Company offers money transfers, telewires, cash
direct, and money orders. Intermex Wire Transfer serves customers
worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith M. Stern, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
          80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 2000
          Miami, FL 33130
          E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com


JEFFRY KNIGHT: Faces Yan Suit Over Overtime Pay Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
WEIMANG YAN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly  
situated, Plaintiff, v. JEFFRY KNIGHT, INC. d/b/a KNIGHT
ENTERPRISES INC. Defendant, Case No. 8:20-cv-00410 (M.D. Fla.,
February 21, 2020) contends that the Defendant misclassifies
Plaintiff and the putative class as independent contractors rather
than employees who serve as cable installers or technicians in
order to avoid paying overtime wages and other tax obligations
under the Internal Revenue Service.

According to the complaint, the misclassification has resulted in a
loss of substantial wages payable to Plaintiff and all other
similarly situated pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Jerry Knight, Inc is d/b/a as Knight Enterprises, a Florida-based
telecommunications company that contracts with other companies to
install, repair, or construct the facilities for high-speed
Internet, cable television, and telephone service for cable
television companies and consumers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
            FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
            6940 W. Linebaugh Ave., Suite #101
            Tampa, FL 33625
            Telephone: 813-639-9366
            Facsimile: 813-639-9376

JOHN HANCOCK: Baker Sues over Employee Pension Plan Losses
----------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER BAKER, as a representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, and on behalf of the Incentive-Investment Plan
for John Hancock Employees, Plaintiff v. JOHN HANCOCK LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY (U.S.A.), Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-10397 (D.
Mass., February 27, 2020) is a class action complaint brought
against Defendant for its alleged breach of fiduciary duties with
respect to an "employee pension benefit plan", in violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

According to the complaint, Defendant applied an imprudent and
inappropriate preference for John Hancock products within the Plan
despite their poor performance, high costs, and lack of traction
among fiduciaries of similarly-sized plans, thereby breached its
fiduciary duties to the detriment of the Plan and its participants
and beneficiaries.

Moreover, Defendant failed to monitor or control the Plan's
administrative expenses, costing the Plan millions of dollars in
excessive administrative fees over the course of the class period.

Plaintiff was a participant in the Plan from 2014 until 2019, has
invested in multiple investment options managed by Defendant's
subsidiaries, and has been financially injured by Defendant's
unlawful conduct.

Plaintiff seeks remedy of Defendant's unlawful conduct, to recover
losses to the Plan, and to obtain other appropriate relief as
provided by ERISA, which imposes strict fiduciary duties of loyalty
and prudence upon fiduciaries of retirement plans.

John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A.) is a financial
services company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          260 Franklin Street, Ste. 1860
          Boston, MA 02110
          Tel: (617)398-5600
          Email: jason@blockesq.com

                - and -

          Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
          Kai H. Richter, Esq.
          Brock J. Specht, Esq.
          Jacob T. Schutz, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 S 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Tel: (612)256-3200
          Fax: (612)338-4878
          Emails: lukas@nka.com
                  krichter@nka.com
                  bspecht@nka.com
                  jschutz@nka.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Narrows Claims in Hall Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FRANK HALL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 18-1833 (FLW) (D. N.J.), Judge Freda
L. Wolfson of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss.

In the putative class action securities litigation, the Plaintiff
alleges that he and other similarly situated investors purchased
J&J stock between February 2013 and October 2018, and that the
Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Furthermore, the
Plaintiff avers that Defendants Gorsky, Caruso, Peterson, Goodrich,
Sneed, Glasgow, and Casalvieri ("Individual Defendants") violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

J&J is a multinational company engaged in research and development,
manufacturing, and sale of a broad range of healthcare products.
Each of the Individual Defendants is, or was, a senior J&J
executive and, along with other personnel, allegedly helped
perpetuate the Company's fraudulent scheme over its investors.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants fraudulently inflated the
value of J&J's stock by issuing false and misleading statements as
part of a long-running scheme to conceal the truth from investors
that the Company's talc products were contaminated with asbestos,
and that the Plaintiff and other investors relied on these material
misrepresentations and omissions to their detriment.

On Feb. 8, 2019, Hall filed a putative class action complaint, on
behalf of all investors that purchased J&J securities between Feb.
22, 2013 and Feb. 7, 2018, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5) (Count 1) by all the
Defendants, and violations of Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act by
defendants J&J, Gorsky, and Caruso (Count 2).  On Feb. 28, 2019,
the Court appointed San Diego County Employees Retirement
Association as the Lead Plaintiff.  An Amended Complaint was filed
on Feb. 28, 2019.  The new pleadings added Sandra Peterson, Carol
Goodrich, Joan Casalvieri, Michael Sneed, and Tara Glasgow as
Defendants, and also extended the Class Period through December
2018.

In the instant matter, the Defendants move to dismiss the Amended
Complaint on the basis that the alleged misstatements and omissions
were not material, that the Plaintiff has failed to plead with
particularity that Defendants acted with scienter, and that the
Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged loss causation.

Judge Wolfson denied in part and granted in part the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss.  The Plaintiff's Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
claim is limited to the Defendants' statements regarding the safety
of its Talc Products, the "asbestos-free" nature of its talc, and
the Company's commitment to product safety, quality assurance, and
research.  The Plaintiff's claims based upon the Defendants'
alleged misstatements about the viability of the Product Liability
lawsuits are dismissed.  Furthermore, because the Plaintiff has not
adequately alleged facts suggesting a strong inference of scienter
as to defendants Caruso, Peterson, and Sneed, those Defendants are
dismissed from the lawsuit.

Although the Judge finds that the Plaintiff has adequately alleged,
for purposes of the motion to dismiss and assuming the facts pled
to be true, that the Defendants made materially misleading or false
statements regarding the safety of J&J's Talc Products, such a
ruling should not be construed as the Court's acknowledgment of the
underlying merits of the substance of the Plaintiff's claims,
including whether the scientific evidence supports the Plaintiff's
allegations.  Any such a determination must be based upon a full
record and not upon the pleadings alone.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 27, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/wY5QJW from Leagle.com.

Oleg Fishman, Movant, represented by EDUARD KORSINSKY -- ek@zlk.com
-- LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, Lead Plaintiff,
represented by DONALD A. ECKLUND -- DEcklund@carellabyrne.com --
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. & JAMES E.
CECCHI -- JCecchi@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN
BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.

FRANK HALL, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by LAURENCE M. ROSEN --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ALEX GORSKY, DOMINIC J. CARUSO, JOAN CASALVIERI,
TARA GLASGOW, CAROL GOODRICH, SANDRA PETERSON & MICHAEL SNEED,
Defendants, represented by JACK N. FROST, Jr. -- jack.frost@dbr.com
-- DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP.


JP MANAGEMENT GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Irvin Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SAM IRVIN, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, v. JP MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. and JOY PATRICK,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00064-TMR (S.D. Ohio, February 18,
2020) alleges that the Defendants fail to pay Plaintiff for any
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.

Irvin was employed by the Defendants as a maintenance employee from
June 2015 until August 30, 2019, and was paid on an hourly basis
and worked approximately 50 hours per workweek.

According to the complaint, the Defendants fail to provide
Plaintiff a notice concerning the continuation of health benefits
after his resignation leading to a loss of health insurance
coverage as well as a delayed treatment caused by a lack of
insurance.

JP Management Group Inc. is a staffing agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Angela J. Gibson, Esq.
           Bradley L. Gibson, Esq.
           Brian G. Greivenkamp, Esq.
           GIBSON LAW, LLC
           9200 Montgomery Road, Suite 11A
           Cincinnati, OH  45242
           Telephone: 513-834-8254
           Facsimile: 513-834-8253


K & W CAFETERIAS: Hayth Seeks OT Pay for Restaurant Staff
---------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Hayth, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated former and current employees, Plaintiff v. K & W
CAFETERIAS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-00132-GEC (W.D. Va.,
February 27, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to compensate the
Plaintiff and all others similarly-situated former and current
tipped employees minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours
worked as mandated by FLSA. Moreover, the Defendant required them
to pay federal and other state income taxes on income they never
received to avoid FLSA minimum wage obligations.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
tipped employee at its restaurant located within Roanoke,
Virginia.

K & W Cafeterias, Inc. is a restaurant operator with principal
office located at PO Box 25048, Winston Salem, North Carolina.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
   
          Johneal Moore White, Esq.
          GLENN ROBINSON CATHEY MEMMER & SKAFF PLC
          400 Salem Avenue, S.W., Suite 100
          Roanoke, VA 24016          
          Telephone: (540) 767-2200
          Facsimile: (540) 767-2220
          E-mail: jwhite@glennrob.com
                  
               - and -
           
          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rmorelli@jsyc.com

KALINA BAR: De la Cruz Seeks OT Pay for Delivery Staff
------------------------------------------------------
The case, FRANKLIN MANUEL GONZALEZ DE LA CRUZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. KALI CORP., d/b/a KALINA
BAR & GRILL; MARIEN GROCERY CORP., d/b/a CEMALYN GROCERY
CORPORATION; and CESAR RODRIGUEZ, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-01018 (E.D.N.Y., February 25, 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
Plaintiff, on behalf of all others similarly-situated non-exempt
employees, minimum wage and overtime premium at the rate of one and
one half times the regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours per
workweek and also failed to provide proper wage statements with
every payment of wages.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a delivery person
for Kalina Bar & Grill on or about December 12, 2018.

Kali Corp. does business as Kalina Bar & Grill, a restaurant at
1476 Broadway in Brooklyn, New York.

Marien Grocery Corp. is a grocery store operator with principal
place of business at 99 Jamaica Avenue in Brooklyn, New York. It is
doing business as Cemalyn Grocery Corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

KASS MANAGEMENT: Faces O'Malley Suit over EFTA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL O'MALLEY, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KASS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01331 (N.D. Ill., February 24, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the Electronic
Funds Transfer Act.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of all others similarly-situated, alleges
that the Defendant automatically withdrew a $233 legal fee from
Plaintiff's bank account monthly during the period of June 2018
through July 2019 for a total of $3,029.00 without prior express
written authorization from the Plaintiff. The monthly legal fee is
pursuant to a settlement agreement between the Plaintiff and the
Condominium Association in April 2018 to dismiss the Association's
lawsuit against the Plaintiff for bylaws violations.

Kass Management Services, Inc. is a property management corporation
that provides management services to condominium, residential and
commercial properties throughout the Chicago Metropolitan Area in
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Glen J. Dunn, Jr., Esq.
          GLEN J. DUNN & ASSOCIATES LTD.
          221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414
          Chicago, IL 60601          
          Telephone: (312) 546-5056

KILGORE ISD: Plaintiffs Seek to Expand Scope of Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Lucas Strough, writing for Kilgore News Herald, reports that a new
development in the long-running Axberg vs. Kilgore ISD lawsuit
recently came to light as plaintiffs filed a class-action lawsuit
against the district, seeking monetary damages to cover the cost of
taxes they allege were collected improperly, as well as the cost of
attorney fees.

According to Gregg County court records, on Tuesday, Feb. 11,
plaintiffs filed an amended motion which sought to expand the scope
of the original lawsuit in Cause No. 2016-1850-CCL2.

Originally, the lawsuit was filed by Gregg County residents Darlene
Axberg, John Axberg and Sheila Anderson. The new motion includes
plaintiffs Sheila Anderson, John Mills, Brenda Mills, James Nicks,
Judy Nicks, Philip Eugene Patterson, Dale Hedrick, Laura Hedrick,
Karen Wilson, and Patrick R. Gatons.

Their lawsuit is filed against the Kilgore ISD school district as
well as school board members. Notably, the new lawsuit includes two
board members, Lloyd Vanderwater and Dana Sneed, who were not on
the board when the lawsuit was first filed in 2016.

The defendants are now as follows, according to the text of the
lawsuit: Kilgore Independent School District, Reggie Henson, Dereck
Borders, Trey Hattaway, Alan Clark, Lloyd Vanderwater, Joe Parker,
and Dana Sneed, in their official capacities as members of the
Board of Trustees of Kilgore Independent School District.

The lawsuit claims the district's 2015 repeal of their
long-standing Local Option Homestead Exemption was done in
violation of new state laws and KISD acted "ultra vires", or beyond
their legal capacity, in carrying out the repeal.

"In violation of Section 1-b(e), Article VIII, of the Texas
Constitution and Section 11.13(n-1) of the Texas Tax Code,
Defendants in 2015 repealed the local option homestead exemption
that they had adopted under Section 11.13(n) of the Texas Tax Code
for the 2014 tax year," the lawsuit read.

"They have also illegally assessed and collected taxes that are
subject to this exemption. Plaintiffs, whose residence homesteads
lie within the boundaries of the school district, are entitled to
the same exemption for the 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 tax
years. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief that Defendants' actions
were ultra vires and violate their due process and due course of
law rights under the Texas Constitution. Plaintiffs further request
a permanent injunction mandating that Defendants reinstate the
exemption for application in the 2015 through 2019 tax years.
Plaintiffs also seek a refund of illegally collected taxes which
Plaintiffs paid to the school district as a result of duress."

Parties in the case met in Gregg County Judge Vincent Dulweber's
County Court at Law No. 2 Monday, Jan. 27, in an attempt to reach a
motion for summary judgment.

At the January hearing, KISD attorney Dennis Eichelbaum argued
KISD's LOHE, which was established in the 1980s, should have been
exempt from Senate Bill 1 and Senate Joint Resolution 1, the laws
forbidding LOHE repeal, because the bills as written only addressed
LOHEs established in Fiscal Year 2014.

Representing the plaintiffs, attorney Jonathan Mitchell, Esq. of
Austin countered there was no information in the case which
contradicted the rulings of higher state courts and there was no
confusion over whether or not KISD fell under the terms used in
SB-1 and SJR-1.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Dulweber allowed final arguments
before announcing he would personally review the attorney's
arguments and the case information before returning his decision in
seven to 10 days.

Also on Feb. 11, the court rejected KISD's argument for summary
judgment, stating "the Court cannot find, as a matter of law, that
SB-1 did not apply to Defendant (KISD) for the reason that
Defendant did not take any action to adopt a local optional
homestead exemption for the 2014 tax year, and therefore,
Defendant's Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment under Texas
Rules of Civil Procedure 166a© is hereby denied."

The ruling also denied KISD's argument claiming there was no
evidence showing the district illegally rescinded their LOHE.

With this judgment, KISD may have to repay more than $4 million in
taxes gathered following the LOHE's repeal. The district has been
keeping those funds in an untouched bank account awaiting the
decision of the court.

In the new motion filed by the plaintiffs, financial restitution to
the original plaintiffs, as well as others, was sought.

"Plaintiffs request that Defendants be cited to appear and answer
and that, upon final trial, the Court render judgment awarding
Plaintiffs and the class the declaratory relief and injunctive and
mandamus relief requested herein along with the requested
class-wide refund, Plaintiffs' reasonable and necessary attorney's
fees, and all other relief to which Plaintiffs and the class may be
entitled," the document read. [GN]

L'OREAL USA: Liquid Cosmetics Have Defective Pumps, Young Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
RENEE YOUNG and ROXANE TIERNEY, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. L'OREAL USA, INC., Case No.
3:20-cv-00944-JSC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 7, 2020), is a consumer class
action seeking redress for L'Oreal's deceptive practices in
marketing and selling liquid cosmetic products in defective manual
pumping bottles that fail to dispense significant, material amounts
of the products, in violation of California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and California's
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

The Plaintiffs contend that Liquid Cosmetic Products utilize
substantially similar pumps for substantially similar liquid
cosmetics to dispense product. All of L'Oreal's defective pumps
suffer from the same defect of failing to dispense a significant
and material amount of product, and L'Oreal's misleading acts or
omissions that give rise to the Plaintiffs' consumer fraud and
warranty claims are substantially similar with respect to all of
the products at issue--particularly because the Plaintiffs' claims
focus on the functionality of the Liquid Cosmetic Products'
defective packaging as opposed to the efficacy of the contents.

L'Oreal's Liquid Cosmetic Products are generally sold in containers
containing one fluid ounce or less of product. The Defendant
packages and sells these products in containers made of glass that
are sealed or otherwise designed to prevent consumers from opening
them. L'Oreal further designed the products to be dispensed through
manual pumps inserted into the sealed containers.

L'Oreal is a manufacturer and seller of cosmetic products including
the Liquid Cosmetic Products at issue in this action. The
Defendant's Liquid Cosmetic Products are offered for sale to
consumers throughout the United States through various large
retailers and pharmacies including but not limited to Sephora,
Walgreens, Wal-Mart, Target, Ulta, Rite-Aid, and CVS. They are also
offered by these retailers on their e-commerce Web site and by
other online retailers such as Amazon.com, Drugstore.com, and
Beauty.com.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Laurence D. King, Esq.
          Matthew B. George, Esq.
          Mario M. Choi, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: 415-772-4700
          Facsimile: 415-772-4707
          E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com
                  mgeorge@kaplanfox.com
                  mchoi@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Karen E. Snyder, Esq.
          Paul D. Snyder, Esq.
          SNYDER LAW FIRM LLC
          10955 Lowell Ave., Suite 710
          Overland Park, KS 66210
          Telephone: (913) 685-3900
          Facsimile: (913) 440-0724
          E-mail: ksnyder@snyderlawfirmllc.com
                  psnyder@snyderlawfirmllc.com

               - and -

          Matt Dameron, Esq.
          Amy R. Jackson, Esq.
          WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 945-7110
          Facsimile: (816) 945-7118
          E-mail: matt@williamsdirks.com


LA VILLE DELIVERY: Ponce et al. Sue over OT Pay, Retaliation
------------------------------------------------------------
ALEJANDRO PONCE, JAMES RUSSELL, LUIS AGUIRRE, ROBERTO ENRIQUE GOMEZ
MARROQUIN, and JUAN CARLOS QUINTANILLA, Plaintiffs, - against - LA
VILLE DELIVERY, INC.; LA VILLE IMPORTS, INC.; IVAN MARKOVIC
(individually and in his official capacity); NADEZDA N. MARKOVIC
(individually and in her official capacity), and any other related
persons or entities, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00905 (E.D.N.Y.,
February 19, 2020) alleges that the Defendants violate retaliation
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act by terminating the
Plaintiffs' employment a few weeks after paying them pursuant to a
settlement agreement that resolved an initial dispute.

In or around May 2019, when initial negotiations between counsel
were unsuccessful, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in this District,
Ponce et. al. v. La Ville Delivery, Inc. et. al., Index No.
19-cv-3234 (BMC), alleging violations of the FLSA and New York
Labor Law, including failure to pay overtime, failure to pay wages,
and statutory violations of the NYLL notice provisions.

The termination of the Plaintiffs' employment was only the last of
a series of retaliatory actions that Defendants took against
Plaintiffs in response to and even after settling the Initial
Lawsuit.

All five plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as
drivers/warehouse workers.

La Ville Delivery, Inc. is a wine importer and distributor with a
principal place of business at 263 Park Ave., Garden City Park, NY
11040.

La Ville Imports, Inc. is a New York corporation with a principal
place of business at 115 Herricks Road, New Hyde Park, NY 11040.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

            Laura R. Reznick, Esq.
            BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC
            100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard Suite 208
            Garden City, NY 11530
            Telephone: (516) 280-3008
            Facsimile: (212) 656-1845


LANDMARK BANK: Flowers Calls Overdraft Fees "Improper"
------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK FLOWERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LANDMARK BANK, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-04025-NKL (W.D. Mo., Feb. 13, 2020) is an action arising
from the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable assessment and
collection of "overdraft fees" on accounts that were never actually
overdrawn.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, at the moment debit
card transactions are authorized on an account with positive funds
to cover the transaction, Landmark immediately reduces
account-holders' checking accounts for the amount of the purchase,
sets aside funds in a checking account to cover that transaction,
and as a result, the accountholder's displayed "available balance"
reflects that subtracted amount. As a result, customers' accounts
will always have sufficient available funds to cover these
transactions because Landmark has already sequestered these funds
for payment.

However, Landmark still assesses crippling OD Fees on many of these
transactions, and misrepresents its practices in its account
documents. Despite putting aside sufficient available funds for
debit card transactions at the time those transactions are
authorized, Landmark later assesses OD Fees on those same
transactions when they purportedly settle days later into a
negative balance.

Landmark Bank operates as a bank. The Bank offers personal,
business, online, and mobile banking services, mortgage loans, and
investments. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ashlea Schwarz, Esq.
          PAUL LLP
          601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 984-8100
          E-mail: Ashlea@PaulLLP.com

               - and -

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


LD RODRIGUEZ TRANSPORT: Rabeiro Seeks Minimum Wage for Drivers
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, BRIAN RABEIRO and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(B) Plaintiff, v. LD RODRIGUEZ TRANSPORT LLC Defendant,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00462-K (N.D. Tex., February 24, 2020) arises from
the failure of the Defendant to pay minimum wages to Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees for work performed in a given
work week.

Mr. Rabeiro was employed by the Defendant as a truck driver from on
or about August 2019 to on or about November 7, 2019.

LD Rodriguez Transport LLC is a Texas trucking company and entity,
incorporated under the laws of the State of Texas, and regularly
transacts business within Dallas County. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Thomas J. Urquidez, Esq.
            URQUIDEZ LAW FIRM, LLC
            5440 Harvest Hill, Suite 234
            Dallas, TX 75230
            Telephone: 214-420-3366
            Facsimile: 214-206-9802


LEAFGUARD CHICAGO: Densmore Sues over Collection of Biometrics
--------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN DENSMORE and ABEL BRAMBILA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEAFGUARD CHICAGO, LLC, and
ADP, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2020CH02287 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty.,
February 25, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against
Defendants pursuant to the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure.

Both Plaintiffs worked for Leafguard as a Lead Installer, Densmore
from on or approximately March 2013 until April 29, 2019 and
Brambila from approximately 2010 until April 16, 2019.

According to the complaint, Leafguard's employees were required to
have their fingerprints scanned by a biometric timekeeping device,
a biometric punch clock manufactured, operated and supplied by ADP,
LLC. By using ADP's device, the privacy of biometric information of
Leafguard's employees will be exposed to risk such as identity
theft and unauthorized tracking which is a clear violation of the
Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to inform Leafguard's
employees that it discloses employees' fingerprint data to third
parties; and failed to provide employees with a written, publicly
available policy identifying their retention schedule and
guidelines for permanently destroying employees' fingerprints when
the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining their fingerprints
is no longer relevant.

Leafguard Chicago, LLC is a gutter protection installer that
installs its own patented one-piece seamless gutter protection
system for homeowners across the U.S., including within the State
of Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey Friedman, Esq.
          Arijana Keserovic, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          225 W. Washington Street, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Tel: (312)357-1431


LEOPOLD & ASSOCIATES: Faces McDonough FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Leopold & Associates,
PLLC. The case is captioned as Michael P. McDonough, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Leopold &
Associates, PLLC and Trinity Financial Services, LLC, Case No.
7:20-cv-01141 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2020).

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

Leopold & Associates is a multi-law firm for mortgage servicers,
banks,and investors. Trinity Financial is a private equity firm
based in Newport Beach, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Michael Barshay, Esq.
          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 5th Floor
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7600
          Facsimile: (516) 706-5055
          E-mail: dbarshay@bakersanders.com
                  csanders@barshaysanders.com


LOUIS VUITTON: Website not Accessible to Blind Users, Cruz Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHAEL CRUZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. LVMH MOET HENNESSY LOUIS VUITTON INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01659-PGG-GWG (S.D.N.Y., February 25, 2020) is a
civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website,
www.24s.com, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered
thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

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

LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc. operates an online design
clothing retail store. The Company offers handbags, shoes,
jewellery, timepieces, perfumes, books, apparel products, and other
accessories. LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton serves customers
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

LUCKIN COFFEE: Accused of Misleading Shareholders in Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP announces that a purchaser
of Luckin Coffee Inc. (NASDAQ: LK) filed a class action complaint
against the Company for alleged violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 between November 13, 2019 and January 31,
2020. Luckin Coffee engages in the retail sale of freshly brewed
drinks, and pre-made food and beverage items in the People's
Republic of China.

According to the complaint, on November 13, 2019, Luckin issued a
press release announcing its financial and operating results for
3Q19, which highlighted positive increases in average monthly total
items, total net revenues, and store level operating profit.
However, on January 31, 2020, Muddy Waters reported that Luckin had
fabricated several financial figures based on a review of thousands
of store videos and receipts. Then, on February 12, 2020, J
Capital, a China-focused investment research firm, published a
detailed report supporting the findings in the Muddy Waters Report.
On this news, the stock price fell to $32.49 per share,
representing a 35%­­ decline from its class period high of ­­­
$50.02 per share.

Luckin Coffee Inc. (LK) Shareholders Have Legal Options

Contact us to learn more:
Leo Kandinov
(800) 350-6003
lkandinov@robbinsllp.com
Shareholder Information Form

Robbins LLP is a nationally recognized leader in shareholder rights
law. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in
shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits, and
has helped its clients realize more than $1 billion of value for
themselves and the companies in which they have invested. Click
here to receive free alerts from Stock Watch when companies engage
in wrongdoing.

View source version on businesswire.com:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200214005509/en/

Contact:

         Leo Kandinov. Esq.
         Robbins LLP
         5040 Shoreham Place
         San Diego, CA 92122
         Tel: (619) 525-3990 or Toll Free (800) 350-6003
         Website: www.robbinsllp.com
         E-mail: lkandinov@robbinsllp.com
[GN]

LUCKIN COFFEE: Howard G. Smith Announces Class Action Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Luckin
Coffee Inc. ("Luckin Coffee" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LK)
securities between November 13, 2019 and January 31, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Luckin investors have until April
13, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their Luckin investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

On Jan. 31, 2020, Muddy Waters Research published an anonymous
report alleging that Luckin "had evolved into a fraud by
fabricating financial and operating numbers starting in [the] 3rd
quarter 2019." Among other allegations, Muddy Waters claims that
the "[n]umber of items per store per day was inflated by at least
69% in 2019 3Q and 88% in 2019 4Q" and that "Luckin inflated its
net selling price per item by at least RMB 1.23 or 12.3%."

On this news, Luckin's share price fell $3.91, or nearly 11%, to
close at $32.49 per share on January 31, 2020, thereby injuring
investors.

The complaint alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) that certain of Luckin's financial performance metrics,
including per-store per-day sales, net selling price per item,
advertising expenses, and revenue contribution from "other
products" were inflated; (2) that Luckin's financial results thus
overstated the Company's financial health and were consequently
unreliable; and (3) that, as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

If you purchased Luckin securities, have information or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact:

       Howard G. Smith, Esquire
       Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
       3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
       Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
       Tel: (215) 638-4847
       Toll-free: (888) 638-4847
       E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
       Web site: www.howardsmithlaw.com

View source version on businesswire.com:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200214005544/en/
[GN]

LUCKIN COFFEE: Rosen Law Invites Investors to Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Luckin Coffee Inc. (NASDAQ: LK) between November 13,
2019 and January 31, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Luckin investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Luckin class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1768.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) certain of Luckin's financial performance metrics,
including per-store per-day sales, net selling price per item,
advertising expenses, and revenue contribution from "other
products" were inflated; (2) Luckin's financial results thus
overstated the Company's financial health and were consequently
unreliable; and (3) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When
the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 13,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1768.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors.

View source version on businesswire.com:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200214005322/en/

Contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 cases@rosenlegal.com
[GN]

MARIN J CORP: Underpays Migrant Farmworkers, Romero et al Allege
----------------------------------------------------------------
GUSTAVO CORTEZ-ROMERO, LUIS GERARDO ALVAREZ-ALONSO, SABINO
CAMPUZANO-DOMINGA, MIGUEL ANGEL CERECEDO-RODRIGUEZ, FIDENCIO
MARTINEZ-GREGORIO, CASIMIRO RODRIGUEZ-ESCOBAR, EDUARDO
RODRIGUEZ-CRUZ, BERNARDO SANTIAGO-ZARAGOZA, and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. MARIN J CORP and JORGE J. MARIN,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-14058 (S.D. Fla., February 22, 2020)
is a collective action brought against Defendants for their alleged
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs are citizens of Mexico who were admitted to the U.S. on
a temporary basis pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act
to perform agricultural labor.

According to the complaint, Defendants failed to pay and reimburse
the Farmworkers, including:

     -- at least $7.25 for every compensable hour of labor
performed in each workweek during which they were employed;

     -- for expenses incurred primarily for the benefit of
Defendants during their first workweek of employment;

     -- Plaintiffs Dominga, Gregorio and Zaragoza's complete
expenses in returning to their homes in Mexico;

     -- for all hours the employer suffered or permitted the
Farmworkers to work; and

     -- at a rate not less than one and one-half times their
regular rate for workweeks in excess of 40 hours during the 2018
southeastern Missouri watermelon harvest.

The plaintiffs seek to recover the amount of their unpaid overtime
wages, an equal amount in liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees.

Marin J Corp., an H-2A labor contractor, hired the Farmworkers,
directed and supervised their daily work activities, assigned them
their tasks on a daily basis, and paid them their wages for their
labor.

Jorge J. Marin is the owner, president and sole officer of Marin J
Corp. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory S. Schell, Esq.
          SOUTHERN MIGRANT LEGAL SERVICES
          311 Plus Park Boulevard, Suite 135
          Nashville, TN 37217
          Tel: (615)538-0725
          Fax: (615)366-3349
          Email: gschell@trla.org


MARQUIS HOME: Charles et al. Seek OT Pay for Home Attendants
------------------------------------------------------------
MARIE JEAN CHARLES, MARIE H. JEAN FERRARI, and ANN MARIE JULES,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. MARQUIS HOME CARE, LLC, D/B/A MARQUIS HOME CARE, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01715 (S.D.N.Y., February 26, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for failure to compensate them and all others
similarly-situated home attendants the required minimum wages and
overtime pay at a rate of one-and-one-half times their regular rate
of pay for hours worked over 40 in one workweek, thereby violating
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law
requirements.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as home attendants at
Marquis Home Care approximately between 2016 and 2018.

Marquis Home Care, LLC is an operator of a home care agency located
at 230 N Main Street in Spring Valley, New York under the name
Marquis Home Care. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL: Faces Smallman Suit Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN SMALLMAN, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00376 (D. Nev., February 21, 2020),
Plaintiff sues Defendant for negligence, breach of implied
contract, unjust enrichment, breach of confidence and violation of
the Nevada Consumer Fraud Act.

Mr. Smallman seeks to compel Defendant to adopt reasonably
sufficient security practices to safeguard customer personally
identifiable information that remains in its custody after an
incident in the summer of 2019 where an unauthorized individual
accessed MGM's computer network system, downloaded customer data
and then posted part of the data on a closed Internet forum
exposing customer names, addresses, driver's license numbers,
passport numbers, military identification numbers, phone numbers,
emails and dates of birth.

MGM Resorts International is a global hospitality and entertainment
company operating destination resorts throughout the world and
headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Richard Tanasi, Esq.
            TANASI LAW OFFICES
            8716 W. Spanish Ridge Ave. Suite 105
            Las Vegas, NV 89148
            Telephone: (702) 906-2411
            Facsimile: (866) 299-4274

                   – and –

            John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
            Jean S. Martin, Esq.
            Marcio Valladares, Esq.
            MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITGATION GROUP
            201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
            Tampa, FL 33602
            Telephone: (813) 223-5505
            Facsimile: (813) 223-5402

                   – and –

            Paul C. Whalen, Esq.
            LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. WHALEN, P.C.
            768 Plandome Road
            Manhasset, NY 11030
            Telephone: (516) 426-6870

                   – and –

            Brian P. Murray, Esq.
            GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
            230 Park Avenue, Suite 530
            New York, NY 10169
            Telephone: (212) 682-5340
            Facsimile: (212) 884-0988


MI PUEBLO: Underpays Servers, Gonzalez Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------
ALEJANDRO GARCIA GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. MI PUEBLO OF NEW ALBANY,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00051-MPM-RP (W.D. Miss., Feb. 13,
2020) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the
Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Gonzalez was employed by the Defendant as server.

Mi Pueblo of New Albany, LLC is a limited liability company formed
and organized under Mississippi state law and currently conducting
business as a restaurant at 213 Bankhead Street, New Albany,
Mississippi 38652. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William B. Ryan, Esq.
          Bryce W. Ashby, Esq.
          DONATI LAW, PLLC
          1545 Union Avenue
          Memphis, TN 38104
          Telephone: 901-278-1004
          Facsimile: 901-278-3111
          E-mail: billy@donatilaw.com
                  bryce@donatilaw.com


MICHAEL KORS USA: Faces Ramirez Suit Over Labor Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOANNA RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL KORS USA, INC.; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20NWCV00144 (Calif.
Super., Los Angeles City, February 26, 2020) is an action brought
on behalf of Plaintiff and all similarly-situated employees against
the Defendant for refusing to permit off-duty meal periods or
providing compensation in lieu thereof and for refusing to
reimburse Plaintiff for necessary business expenditures.

Ms. Ramirez began her employment with Defendant on or about
December 15, 2015, as an hourly nonexempt general laborer and was
transitioned into a new non-exempt hourly role of clerk position on
or around December 6, 2016.

Michael Kors USA, Inc. is a luxury designer of products that
include accessories, footwear, watches, jewelry, clothing, eye wear
as well as a full line of fragrance products for both men and
woman. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

             Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
             Berkeh Alemzadeh, Esq.
             MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
             249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
             Long Beach, CA 90802
             Telephone: 562-590-5550
             Facsimile: 562-590-8400
             Email: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                    balem@mahoney-law.net

MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Stays Class Certification Proceedings
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CAROL HOWARD v. MIDLAND
CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00263-WED (E.D. Wisc.),
the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered an order on Feb. 18, 2020,
granting Plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings on the
motion for class certification.

The parties are relieved from the automatic briefing schedule set
forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c). Moreover, for
administrative purposes, Judge Duffin directed the Clerk of Court
to terminate the plaintiff's motion for class certification.
However, the motion will be regarded as pending to serve its
protective purpose under Damasco.

In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class‐action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint." "The
pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to
buy off the named plaintiffs." However, because parties are
generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for class
certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court
suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its
ruling to provide time for additional discovery or investigation."

On February 18, 2020, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint.
At the same time, the plaintiff filed what the court commonly
refers to as a "protective" motion for class certification. In this
motion the plaintiff moved to certify the class but also moved the
court to stay further proceedings on that motion.

Midland Credit was founded in 1953. The company's line of business
includes extending credit to business enterprises for relatively
short periods.[CC]




MITCHELL INT'L: Misclassifies Case Managers, Josephson Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
CLAIRE JOSEPHSON, an individual on behalf of herself and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MITCHELL
INTERNATIONAL, INC. d/b/a DELAWARE MITCHELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. STK-CV-UOE-2020-0002781 (Cal. Sup. Ct., February 25, 2020) is a
class action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged
violations of California Business & Professional Code, California
Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order, and the
Private Attorneys General Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in California as a Case
Manager from October 2014 to December 2018 and was engaged in the
core, day-to-day business activities of Defendant.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have unlawfully, unfairly, and/or
deceptively misclassified Plaintiff and other Case Managers as
exempt from overtime wages and other labor laws; failed to pay them
the correct overtime pay; failed to provide them with all legally
required off-duty, uninterrupted 30-minute meal breaks and the
legally required rest breaks; failed to pay wages when due; and
failed to provide them with an accurate itemized statement in
writing showing the gross wages earned, the net wages earned, all
applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the
corresponding amount of time worked at each hourly rate by the
employee.

Mitchell International, Inc. is a computer software company which
provides information and workflow solutions to the Property &
Casualty Claims Industry and their supply chain partners. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shani O. Zakay, Esq.
          ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APC
          5850 Oberlin Drive, Suite 230A
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Tel: (619)255-9047
          Fax: (858)404-9203
          Email: shany@zakaylaw.com

                - and -

          Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq.
          JCL LAW FIRMS, APC
          3990 Old Town Ave., Suite C204
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Tel: (619)599-8292
          Fax: (619)599-8291
          Email: jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com


MOISHE'S MOVING SYSTEMS: Assisi Sues over Improper Wage Practice
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN ASSISI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MOISHE'S MOVING SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 151966 (New York Supreme Court, February 24, 2020) is a
class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged
illegal and improper wage practices in violation of the New York
Labor Law.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Mover from in or around
January 2017 until in or around December 2017, and from in or
around June 2018 until on or about January 16, 2020.  He was
typically scheduled to work between 40 and 50 hours a week.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to:

     -- pay him on work performed outside of his scheduled shift,

     -- pay Movers for all time spent traveling between jobs,

     -- pay Movers for all money designated for them by customers
as gratuities or tips,

     -- pay Movers overtime of time and one-half their regular rate
of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a week, and

     -- provide accurate wages statements.

Moishe's Moving Systems, LLC is a moving company that offers local
and long distance moving services, self-storage, and mobile
storage. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
          THE LAW FIRM OF
          LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
          1613 Northern Boulevard
          Roslyn, NY 11576
          Tel: (516)625-0105 X.18


MONROVIA NURSERY: Morgan Files Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------
Monrovia Nursery Company is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Jon R. Morgan, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Monrovia Nursery Company, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01694 (S.D. N.Y., Feb. 26, 2020).

The Company offers shrubs, camellias, lemons, oranges, foliage,
tangerines, grapefruits, ferns and bamboo, grasses, conifers, and
maples.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
   Shalom Law, PLLC
   105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
   Forest Hills, NY 11375
   Tel: (718) 971-9474
   Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com


NCAA: Fails to Protect Student-Athletes' Welfare, Hestera Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID HESTERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated college football players, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00645-JRS-MJD (D.
Ind., February 27, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant
for its failure to perform its duties to protect the welfare of
student-athletes at the University of Wyoming and the University of
Colorado by ignoring the dangers of concussions and failing to
implement adequate concussion management protocols to protect
Plaintiff and other college football players from the long-term
dangers of concussions, concussion-related injuries, and
sub-concussive injuries referred to as traumatic brain injuries.
The Defendant is alleged to have disregarded off-field consequences
to protect the profitable business of amateur college football.

National Collegiate Athletic Association is an unincorporated
association with its principal place of business located at 700
West Washington Street in Indianapolis, Indiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Dassow, Esq.
          William F. Eckhart, Esq.
          Tyler Zipes, Esq.
          HOVDE DASSOW & DEETS LLC
          10201 North Illinois Street, Suite 500
          Indianapolis, IN 46290
          Telephone: (317) 818-3100
          Facsimile: (317) 818-3111
          E-mail: rdassow@hovdelaw.com
                  beckhart@hovdelaw.com
                  tzipes@shovdelaw.com

               - and -
           
          Eugene R. Egdorf, Esq.
          Alex Barlow, Esq.
          James B. Hartle, Esq.
          SHRADER & ASSOCIATES LLP
          9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2300
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 782-0000
          Facsimile: (713) 571-9605
          E-mail: gene@shraderlaw.com
                  Barlow@shraderlaw.com
                  Jim@shraderlaw.com

NETWORK RECOVERY: Denciger Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Network Recovery
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Chaya R. Denciger,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Network Recovery Services, Inc. and John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01048 (E.D., N.Y., 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.

Network Recovery Services Inc. is in the Adjustment and Collection
Services industry in Roslyn Heights, NY.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
   Stein Saks PLLC
   285 Passaic st
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (347) 668-9326
   Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


NYC HOUSING: McGriff et al. Allege Housing Lease Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
LATISHA MCGRIFF, RICARDO REED, and CLARESA WARD, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NEW YORK
CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant, Index No. 504776/2020 (N.Y.
Sup., Kings Cty., February 26, 2020) is a class action against the
Defendant for violations of its housing contracts and laws,
including NYCHA's lease agreements with its residents, and the New
York Public Housing Law.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of all others similarly-situated
residents of NYCHA Developments, allege that the Defendant breached
its obligations to them by not fulfilling their lease agreements
and the warranty of habitability, including but not limited to
failure to repair and maintain plumbing systems, failure to inspect
for and remediate lead-based paint, and failure to repair and
maintain electrical systems.

New York City Housing Authority is a public housing agency that
owns and operates the NYCHA Developments in New York and has its
principal place of business at 250 Broadway in New York City. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David H. Berg, Esq.
          Joel M. Androphy, Esq.
          Michael M. Fay, Esq.
          Jenny H. Kim, Esq.
          Bronwyn M. James, Esq.
          Emily Burgess, Esq.
          BERG & ANDROPHY
          120 West 45th Street, 38th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (646) 766-0073
          Facsimile: (646) 219-1977
          E-mail: dberg@bafirm.com
                  jandrophy@bafirm.com
                  mfay@bafirm.com
                  jkim@bafirm.com
                  bjames@bafim.com
                  eburgess@bafirm.com

OCEAN SPRAY: $5.4MM False Ad Suit Settlement Gets Preliminary Okay
------------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal court in California
preliminarily approved a $5.4 million settlement of a class action
claiming Ocean Spray falsely advertised its juice products as
having "no artificial flavors."

A copy of the Order Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement is available at:

         https://is.gd/Fw5atE


OPERA LIMITED: Berger Montague Reminds of March 24 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Berger Montague announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Opera Limited on behalf of all purchasers of Opera
American Depositary Shares ("ADS") between July 27, 2018 and
January 15, 2020 ("Class Period").

If you wish to discuss the claims against Opera or have any
questions concerning your rights or interests, please contact our
attorneys Andrew Abramowitz, Esq. at (215) 875-3015 or Michael
Dell'Angelo, Esq. at (215) 875-3080, or visit
www.bergermontague.com/opera-limited.

The suit alleges that Opera and members of its senior management
misrepresented the Company's financial health, specifically by
failing to disclose that:

  The market opportunity for Opera's browser apps was significantly
overstated;
  Its loan apps relied on predatory lending practices; and
  Once investors learned of the foregoing, there was likely to be a
material negative impact on Opera's financial prospects.

The market learned the truth on January 16, 2020, when a report by
Hindenburg Research accused Opera of engaging in predatory lending
practices in Africa and India, including charging egregious
interest rates. According to the report, Opera's apps were "in
black and white violation of numerous Google rules," and therefore
"this entire line of business is at risk of disappearing or being
severely curtailed." In addition, the report accused Opera's
chairman and CEO of diverting $40 million of Company proceeds to
entities owned or influenced by him through a range of questionable
and inadequately disclosed transactions.

In response to this news, the price of Opera's ADS fell sharply on
January 16, 2020. Opera's ADS now trade well below Opera's IPO and
secondary offering prices.

If you purchased Opera ADS during the Class Period and suffered
damages, no later than March 24, 2020, you may request that the
Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed Class. You do not
need to be a lead plaintiff to share in any possible recovery to
the Class.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Opera
should consider their options to help Berger Montague's
investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.
Under this program, whistleblowers who provide original information
may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of successful
recoveries obtained by the SEC. For more information, please
contact us.

Berger Montague, with offices in Philadelphia, Minneapolis,
Washington, D.C., and San Diego, has been a pioneer in securities
class action litigation since its founding in 1970. Berger Montague
has represented individual and institutional investors for five
decades and serves as lead counsel in courts throughout the United
States.

Contact:

         Andrew Abramowitz, Senior Counsel
         Berger Montague
         Tel: (215) 875-3015
         Website: www.bergermontague.com
         E-mail: aabramowitz@bm.net

         Michael Dell'Angelo, Managing Shareholder
         Berger Montague
         Tel: (215) 875-3080
         Website: www.bergermontague.com
         E-mail: mdellangelo@bm.net
[GN]

PAPA JOHN'S USA: Flores Sues over Excessive Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN FLORES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. PAPA JOHN'S USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-01672 (C.D. Cal., February 20, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged unlawful
practice of sending text messages to the cellular telephones of
consumers in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff has agreed to receive a
maximum of six text messages each month of Defendant's promotional
campaigns, which invite thousands of consumers nationwide to
receive offers and advertisements on their cellular telephone.
However, Plaintiff has received seven text messages at his 0266
number in March 2019, without providing prior express consent.
Defendant took advantage of the goodwill from consumers by sending
them more than six messages using an automated telephone dialing
system which is a violation of the TCPA.

Papa John's USA, Inc. is the corporate entity behind the popular
Papa John's pizza restaurant chain. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
          107 W. Van Buren, Suite 209
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Tel: (773)831-8000
          Fax: (504)272-2956
          Email: whb@beaumontcostales.com

                - and -

          Peter Hiller Borenstein, Esq.
          P.O. Box 885
          Culver City, CA 90403
          Tel: (213)362-8740
          Email: peter@brnstn.org


PATIENTMATTERS LLC: Watson Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA and AMWA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
QUEEN WATSON and JACQUELINE WEST, Each Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. PATIENTMATTERS, LLC, Case No.
3:20-cv-00050-JM (E.D. Ark., Feb. 7, 2020), alleges that the
Defendant violated the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

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

Ms. Watson and Ms. West were employed by the Defendant as salaried
employees from June 2018 to Oct. 2019 and Nov. 2017 to Sept. 2018,
respectively.

PatientMatters unifies disparate registration, bill estimation and
financial services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          April Rheaume, 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
                  rhea@sanfordlawfirm.com


PIP: EU's Top Court Limits Breast Implant Claims to France
----------------------------------------------------------
Molly Quell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
only the victims of defective breast implants made by French
manufacturer PIP who had their surgeries in France are eligible for
compensation, an adviser to the EU's highest court said Thursday.

The advisory opinion of European Court of Justice Advocate General
Michal Bobek is a blow to some 300,000 women across 65 countries
who received implants filled with an industrial silicone intended
for mattresses, rather than medical-grade silicone, manufactured by
French company Poly Implant Prothese, or PIP.

"The civil liability insurance of breast implant producer PIP could
validly be limited to women who underwent surgery in France," Bobek
said in his opinion for the Court of Justice.

Though opinions from advocate generals are nonbinding, rulings from
the Luxembourg-based court usually follow the same legal
reasoning.

The Higher Regional Court Frankfurt am Main referred the case to
the Court of Justice, after a woman who received a defective PIP
implant in 2006 sued PIP's insurer Allianz in German court.
According to a clause in the agreement between Allianz and PIP, the
insurance company was only liable for products used in France and
the woman had her surgery in Germany, so Allianz claimed it wasn't
responsible.

According to the advocate general, under current EU law, it is up
to member states "to regulate insurance policies applicable to
medical devices used on their territory." Bobek found there is no
harmonization of the regulation of such devices under the Treaty on
the Functioning of the European Union, one of two treaties forming
the constitutional basis of the EU.

French health care watchdog AFSSAPS withdrew PIP implants from the
market in 2010 following complaints from surgeons, and the company
went into bankruptcy the same day. The company's founder and
president, Jean-Claude Mas, was jailed for four years and fined
75,000 euros ($82,500) for his role in the scandal.

The Court of Justice is expected to issue its ruling later this
year.

A copy of the Advisory Opinion is available at:

         https://is.gd/vnd96a


PLATEAU DATA: Faces Winters TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Winters, Jr., Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Plateau Data Services, INC. and Plateau Data
Services, LLC d/b/a RateMarketplace, Case No. 2:20-cv-00303-ESW (D.
Ariz., Feb. 8, 2020), alleges that the Defendants promote and
market their merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited telephone
calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

In November 2019, the Defendants contacted the Plaintiff's cellular
telephone number ending in -6678, in an attempt to solicit him to
purchase their services. The Plaintiff contends that at no time did
he ever enter into a business relationship with the Defendants. He
adds that he did not provide his current cellular telephone numbers
to the Defendants through any medium.

Plateau Data is a digital marketing consultancy based in San Mateo.
The Company provides web development, data management services, and
internet marketing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. McGlothlin, Esq.
          Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          2633 E. Indian School Road, Suite 460
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: 800-400-6808
          Facsimile: 800-520-5523
          E-mail: david@kazlg.com
                  ryan@kazlg.com


QFLORIST INC: Hedges Files Suit Under ADA in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
QFlorist Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Donna
Hedges for herself and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. QFlorist Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-01687 (S.D. N.Y., Feb. 26, 2020).

Q Florist is an Upper West Side florist serving the UWS, UES,
Midtown & Manhattan.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.



RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Partial Summary Judgment Bid in Drennen Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL, et al., Chapter 11,
Debtors. ROWENA DRENNEN, FLORA GASKIN, ROGER TURNER, CHRISTIE
TURNER, JOHN PICARD and REBECCA PICARD, individually and as the
representatives of the KESSLER SETTLEMENT CLASS, STEVEN and RUTH
MITCHELL, individually and as the representatives of the MITCHELL
SETTLEMENT CLASS, and Adv. No. 15-01025 (SHL) RESCAP LIQUIDATING
TRUST, Plaintiffs, v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S OF LONDON, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 12-12020 (MG) Jointly Administered (S.D.
N.Y.), Judge Sean H. Lane of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York (i) granted the Plaintiffs' partial
motions for summary judgment, and (ii) denied the Defendants'
cross-motions for partial summary judgment solely as to two Fee
Exclusions.

The Plaintiffs' claims against Residential Funding Company, LLC
(RFC) are based on origination and closing fees that were paid by
the Class Plaintiffs in connection with second mortgages or
subordinate loans they obtained from several lenders.  These fees
were paid to the Originating Banks and certain other third parties
at either the time of closing or during the disbursement of the
Loans.  The fees were financed with the proceeds of the Loans and
were included in and disbursed from the principal of the Loans.
The Class Plaintiffs assert that certain of these fees were
unlawful.

Formerly known as GMAC-Residential Funding Corporation or
Residential Capital Corp., RFC operated during the period as a
financial services company that bought and packaged mortgage loans,
which it then securitized or sold directly to investors.  In this
capacity, RFC entered into contracts with the Originating Banks
pursuant to which RFC agreed to purchase and take assignment of
certain high loan-to-value loans.  Under these contracts, the Class
Plaintiffs' Loans were acquired by RFC after the closing and
funding of the Loans by the Originating Banks.  RRFC then packaged
the Loans, which were subsequently securitized or sold.

None of the Fees were paid to RFC or its subsidiaries or affiliates
during the closing and funding of the Loans.  RFC did not originate
or close any of the Loans itself, and it did not have any contact
or relationship with the Class Plaintiffs prior to its purchase of
the Loans.  Rather, the Class Plaintiffs sought to hold RFC
derivatively liable for the acts of the Originating Banks pursuant
to 15 U.S.C. Section 1641(d), and directly liable for acts that RFC
itself performed after the loans originated, closed and the Fees
were paid.

Representatives of both the Mitchell Class and the Kessler Class
filed actions against RFC, among others, relating to the Fees.  The
Kessler Action, which was filed in October 2011, was still pending
at the time that RFC filed for bankruptcy in 2012.  

The Mitchell Action, filed in July 2003, proceeded to trial and the
trial court entered a partial directed verdict against RFC and
certain of the other defendants.  The jury awarded compensatory
damages in the amount of $4,329,048 and punitive damages in the
amount of $92 million.  RFC appealed the trial court's ruling and
the judgment was subsequently affirmed as to the compensatory
damages, but reversed and remanded for retrial as to the punitive
damages claim.  Ultimately, RFC paid $15,648,868.12 to satisfy the
compensatory damages judgment, along with related attorneys' fees.
By the time of RFC's bankruptcy filing in 2012, RFC and the
Mitchell Class had reached an agreement to settle the remanded
claim for punitive damages for the amount of $14.5 million, but no
money had been paid under that settlement.

In May 2012, RFC filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code.  In December 2013, the Court approved a Chapter 11
plan, establishing the Liquidating Trust for the purpose of
liquidating and distributing RFC's remaining assets to its
unsecured creditors.

During the bankruptcy proceedings, RFC reached a resolution with
both the Kessler Class and the Mitchell Class regarding their
respective remaining claims against RFC.  In November 2013, the
Court entered an order approving a settlement agreement between RFC
and the Kessler Class, which provided the Kessler Class with a $300
million allowed claim against RFC's bankruptcy estate.  As part of
the Kessler Settlement, RFC's rights under the applicable insurance
policies issued to RFC by the Defendants were assigned to the
Kessler Class and the Liquidating Trust.

Similarly, the Plan approved the terms of the Mitchell Settlement
that RFC and the Mitchell Class had reached prepetition with
respect to punitive damages, resulting in an allowed claim against
RFC's bankruptcy estate in the amount of $14.5 million.  The Plan
also assigned the Mitchell Class the right to pursue the Defendants
for any insurance proceeds under the applicable policies to satisfy
the Mitchell Claim.  Additionally, the Plan assigned to the
Liquidating Trust any rights of RFC to recover $6.1 million from
the Defendants in costs incurred by RFC in defense of the Mitchell
Action, as well as RFC's rights to payment from the Defendants for
the $15.6 million in compensatory damages paid by RFC to the
Mitchell Class prior to the bankruptcy filing.   

As assignees of RFC's rights under these insurance policies, the
Kessler Class and the Mitchell Class now seek coverage of their
respective allowed claims under the Kessler Settlement and the
Mitchell Settlement as losses under the insurance policies, while
the Liquidating Trust seeks coverage for RFC's payment of the
compensatory damages judgment in the Mitchell Action.

Before the Court are cross-motions for partial summary judgment
filed by the Plaintiffs -- including the Liquidating Trust in the
underlying bankruptcy case and certain class action Plaintiffs with
claims against one of the debtors, and eight of the Defendants,
including various tiers of insurers in the adversary proceeding.
The Plaintiffs assert that their claims against RFC, one of the
debtors, are covered by insurance policies that were originally
issued by the Defendants to General Motors Corp.  The question at
issue in the present cross-motions is whether two exclusions in the
policies preclude coverage of the Plaintiffs' claims.

Judge Lane concludes that the Return of Fees Exclusion and the
Mortgage Fee Claim Exclusion do not bar the Plaintiffs' Claims.
The Judge finds that the Defendants' interpretation of the Mortgage
Fee Claim Exclusion is unsupported given the plain language of the
Policy, the relevant definitions and common sense.

The Judge also finds that it appears that the Defendants' argument
regarding Exclusions III.C.5 and III.C.34 were first raised in a
footnote in the Defendants' Reply and thus is not properly before
the Court.  In any event, the Judge disagrees with the Defendants'
reading.  The first part of the exclusion is written broadly, with
the terms "an" or "any" to exclude a number of Assureds.  The
second half of this exclusion contains an exception to the
exclusion, which uses the word "the" to narrowly except only the
one Assured that was involved in the specific excluded conduct.

Accordingly, Judge Lane granted the Plaintiffs' motions for partial
summary judgment and denied the Defendants cross-motions for
partial summary judgment solely as to the two Fee Exclusions.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 27, 2019 Memorandum of
Decision is available at https://is.gd/PLbouG from Leagle.com.

Residential Capital, LLC, Debtor, represented by Jessica G. Berman
-- jberman@teamtogut.com -- Togut, Segal & Segal LLP, Donald H.
Cram -- dhc@severson.com -- Severson & Werson, PC, Stefan W.
Engelhardt, Morrison & Foerster LLP, George M. Geeslin, Bonnie R.
Golub -- bgolub@weirpartners.com -- Weir & Partners, LLP, Todd M.
Goren -- tgoren@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Joel C. Haims
-- jhaims@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Gary S. Lee --
glee@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Lorenzo Marinuzzi --
lmarinuzzi@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Larren M.
Nashelsky
-- lnashelsky@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Anthony Princi,
Morrison & Foerster, Steven J. Reisman -- sreisman@curtis.com --
Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP, Norman Scott Rosenbaum
--
nrosenbaum@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Kayvan B. Sadeghi
-- ksadeghi@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP & John W. Smith T.
-- jsmitht@bradley.com -- Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLp.

Official Committee Of Unsecured Creditors, Creditor Committee,
represented by Kenneth H. Eckstein -- keckstein@kramerlevin.com --
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, Robert J. Feinstein --
rfeinstein@pszjlaw.com -- Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP,
Ronald
J. Friedman -- rfriedman@silvermanacampora.com --
SilvermanAcampora LLP, Douglas Mannal -- dmannal@kramerlevin.com
--
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, Robert D. Nosek & Steven S.
Sparling -- ssparling@kramerlevin.com -- Kramer Levin Naftalis &
Frankel, LLP.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Residential Capital,
LLC, et al., Creditor Committee, represented by Stephen Zide --
szide@kramerlevin.com -- Kramer Levin Naftalis and Frankel, LLP.


SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Reed Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB REED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT, LLC
Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-00029-JHM-HBB (W.D. Ky., February 24,
2020) is a class action against the Defendant for improperly
classifying employees as independent contractors and paying them a
set monthly amount for each property they inspected with no
overtime pay.

The Defendant employed Mr. Reed as a Mortgage Field Inspector from
approximately January 2015 through August 2018.

Safeguard Properties Management, LLC serves as the leader in the
mortgage field services industry dedicated to building and sharing
industry best practices to protect the integrity and value of the
nation's housing stock, to deliver the most efficient and
cost-effective services in the industry, and to work on behalf of
our clients to comply with all regulatory requirements. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Charles E. Moore, Esq.
            Moore & Moorman
            401 Frederic St. Suite A202
            Owensboro, Ky 42302

                  – and –

            Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
            Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
            Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
            JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
            11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
            Houston, TX 77046
            Telephone: 713-352-1100
            Facsimile: 713-352-3300

                  – and –

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

SAFESPEED: Faces Red-Light Camera RICO Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal RICO class action
claims that Safespeed and its agents, the city of Oakbrook Terrace,
and public officials in Northern Illinois conspired to "corruptly
use[] red-light cameras" to "generate millions of dollars in
revenue . . . and thereafter used bribes to protect the money
machine from calls for legislation" to ban red-light cameras.

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

         https://is.gd/k8enqH


SASOL LIMITED: Berger Montague Announces Class Action Suit Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Berger Montague announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Sasol Limited ("Sasol" or the "Company") on behalf of
all purchasers of Sasol securities between March 10, 2015 and
January 13, 2020 ("Class Period"). Sasol's American Depositary
Receipts ("ADRs") trade on the NYSE.

If you wish to discuss the claims against Sasol or have any
questions concerning your rights or interests, please contact our
attorneys Andrew Abramowitz, Esq. at (215) 875-3015 or Michael
Dell'Angelo, Esq. at (215) 875-3080, or visit
www.bergermontague.com/sasol.

According to the Complaint, Defendants misled investors by
misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose that:

Sasol conducted insufficient due diligence into and inadequately
accounted for multiple issues with its Lake Charles chemical plant
("LCCP"), and misrepresented the LCCP's true cost;

Construction and operation of the LCCP was plagued by delays,
rising costs, and technical issues; and

Sasol's senior management exacerbated these issues by engaging in
improper behavior concerning financial reporting and oversight with
respect to the LCCP.
Investors began to learn the true state of the LCCP through a
series of disclosures. First, on May 22, 2019, Sasol abruptly
raised the project's cost estimate by $1 billion and disclosed an
internal review into the project's costs and construction schedule.
The Company admitted to weaknesses in the project's integrated
controls, as well as significant additional concerns related to the
project's forecasting process.

Then, on October 27, 2019, Sasol terminated its co-CEOs following
an internal probe showing that the LCCP management team had acted
inappropriately, lacked experience, and was overly focused on
maintaining cost and schedule estimates instead of providing
accurate information.

Finally, on January 13, 2020, Sasol disclosed that an explosion and
fire had occurred at the LCCP's low-density polyethylene unit,
which necessitated a shutdown of the unit.

Each of these disclosures caused the price of Sasol's ADRs to
decline sharply.

If you purchased Sasol securities during the Class Period, no later
than April 6, 2020, you may request that the Court appoint you lead
plaintiff of the proposed Class. You do not need to be a lead
plaintiff to share in any possible recovery to the Class.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Sasol
should consider their options to help Berger Montague's
investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.
Under this program, whistleblowers who provide original information
may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of successful
recoveries obtained by the SEC. For more information, please
contact us.

Berger Montague, with offices in Philadelphia, Minneapolis,
Washington, D.C., and San Diego, has been a pioneer in securities
class action litigation since its founding in 1970. Berger Montague
has represented individual and institutional investors for five
decades and serves as lead counsel in courts throughout the United
States.

Contact:

         Andrew D. Abramowitz, Senior Counsel
         Berger Montague
         Tel: (215) 875-3015
         Website: www.bergermontague.com
         E-mail: aabramowitz@bm.net

                   - and –

         Michael Dell'Angelo, Managing Shareholder
         Berger Montague
         Tel: (215) 875-3080
         Website: www.bergermontague.com
         E-mail: mdellangelo@bm.net
[GN]


SCHOOL SPECIALTY: Morgan Alleges Violation under ADA
----------------------------------------------------
School Specialty, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Jon R. Morgan, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. School Specialty, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-01697 (S.D. N.Y., Feb. 26, 2020).

School Specialty offers essential educational supplies, complete
learning environments, and curriculum solutions to help you
transform more than classrooms.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
   Shalom Law, PLLC
   105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
   Forest Hills, NY 11375
   Tel: (718) 971-9474
   Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com


SIEMENS MOBILITY: Removes Nunery Suit to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of DEWITT NUNERY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIEMENS
MOBILITY, INC; ACARA SOLUTIONS, INC.; ALERON GROUP, INC.; and DOES
1 to 100, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the
Superior Court of the State of California (Case No.
34-2019-00271992) to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California on February 10, 2020. The clerk of court for
the Eastern District of California assigned Case No.
2:20-at-00142.

The case alleges labor code violations including failure to provide
meal breaks, failure to pay minimum wages, and failure to
compensate overtime wages.

Siemens Mobility, Inc. is a Delaware-based company engaged in
providing transportation-related solutions and infrastructure.

Acara Solutions, Inc. is a New York-based staffing agency supplying
Siemens Mobility with staff for its warehouses in California.

Aleron Group, Inc. is the parent of subsidiary Acara Solutions,
Inc. It is a for-profit corporation incorporated in the State of
New York. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Sabrina L. Shadi, Esq.
          Nicholas D. Poper, Esq.
          Monique Matar, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509          
          Telephone: (310) 820-8800
          Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
          E-mail: sshadi@bakerlaw.com
                  npoper@bakerlaw.com
                  mmatar@bakerlaw.com

SIX FLAGS: Schall Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Six Flags
Entertainment Corporation (NYSE:SIX) for violations of 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between April 25,
2018 and January 9, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before April 13, 2020.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Six Flags suffered from park development
delays in China with partner Riverside. The delays were not
"short-term" by any reasonable definition, in fact, the delays were
both long-term and material in nature. Riverside was in a state of
severe financial distress and did not have the resources necessary
to complete its projects with the Company. Based on these facts,
the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the
truth about Six Flags, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

Contact:

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         The Schall Law Firm
         Office: 310-301-3335
         Cell: 424-303-1964
         Website: www.schallfirm.com
         E-mail: info@schallfirm.com
                 brian@schallfirm.com
[GN]

SKANSKA KOCH: Cortese Seeks Unpaid Wages for Crane Operators
------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY CORTESE, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SKANSKA KOCH, INC. and KIEWIT INFRASTRUCTURE
CO., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01632 (S.D.N.Y., February 25,
2020), is a collective and class action complaint against
Defendants to recover unpaid wages, benefits and other damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law,
and the New York Commissioner of Labor's Wage Orders.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff commenced his employment as a
W-2 employee of Defendant Skanska Koch on or about August 17, 2015
as one of at least New Jersey union crane operators on the Project
which is a public work project.

Defendants had a policy and/or practice of permitting and/or
directing New York and New Jersey union employees to work on both
sides of the Bayonne Bridge span and the amount paid for all the
work they performed depends on the prevailing wage rate of what
sides of the Bayonne Bridge they have worked.

Plaintiff claims that Defendants only paid him the statutory New
Jersey prevailing wage rate despite working in the New York City
jurisdiction of the Project on weekends for approximately five
months rather than the New York City prevailing wage for crane
operators as required by NYLL.

Skanska Koch, Inc. and Kiewit Infrastructure Co. are both
full-service construction contractors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Haralampo Kasolas, Esq.
          BRACH EICHLER LLC
          101 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Tel: (973) 403-3139
          Email: bkasolas@bracheichler.com


SKYLINE RESTORATION: Fails to Pay Workers OT, Hernandez et al Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ, ANDRES PINEDO, WILMER LOPEZ, JULIO
CORONA, and AQUILINO NUNEZ, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SKYLINE RESTORATION &
PRESERVATION LLC, SKYLINE RESTORATION WATERPROOFING INC., SKYLINE
RESTORATION GROUP, LLC, SKYLINE RESTORATION SERVICES, LLC, JOSE
LUIS PRADO, JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, and RICHARD ROES 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01062 (E.D.N.Y., February 26, 2020),
arises from Defendants' alleged failure to properly pay overtime to
their Construction workers in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiffs, the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class Members
were employed by Defendants to work as non-exempt hourly
construction workers on Defendants' various commercial and
residential construction jobs in and/or around New York City and
were paid day rates of between $140 and $180 per day, for an
eight-hour work-day.

Plaintiffs claim that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other
construction workers overtime premiums when they had to stay at
work late past the end of their scheduled shifts due to various
emergencies including cleaning up and removing of debris from the
job sites, inspections and/or deadlines. Also, Defendants failed to
keep accurate and sufficient time records as required by Federal
and New York State laws.

Jose Luis Prado is the owner, manager, and supervisor of the
Skyline Defendants and Defendants JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10 and
exercised the power to hire, fire, and control the wages and
working conditions of the Plaintiffs.

Skyline operates a construction company that purports to have 30
years of experience restoring "New York's most iconic buildings" in
the New York City area.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Harrison, Esq.
          HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES
          110 State Highhway 35, 2nd Floor
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Tel: (718)799-9111
          Fax: (718)799-9171
          Email: dharrison@nynjemploymentlaw.com


SONIC CORP: Hernandez Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, CECILIA HERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SONIC CORP. and SONIC RESTAURANTS,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-348 (C.D. Cal., February 20,
2020), arises from Defendants' alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by negligently and/or willfully sending
unsolicited text messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephone.

According to the complaint, in an attempt to solicit its business,
Defendants have been sending Plaintiff unsolicited promotional text
messages from Defendants' SMS code 876-642 to Plaintiff's wireless
phone ending in the number 4347. On or around December 2017 and up
to the present, Plaintiff received approximately three to nine
unsolicited text messages per month through an automated telephone
dialing system or prerecorded voice without prior express consent.

Plaintiff seeks an injunction to stop Sonic from sending
unsolicited text messages, award of statutory damages under the
TCPA, other costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.

Sonic is a fast food dive-in restaurant that sends promotional and
marketing text messages to consumers in an attempt to solicit
business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
          Kas L. Gallucci, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Tel: (619)696-9006
          Fax: (619)564-6665
          Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                 alexis@consumersadvocates.com
                 kas@consumersadvocates.com


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of April 10 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming April 10, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of Spirit AeroSystems Holdings,
Inc. ("Spirit" or the "Company") (NYSE: SPR) securities between
October 31, 2019 and January 29, 2020 inclusive (the "Class
Period").

If you suffered a loss on your Spirit investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information here or contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at
310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, via email
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

On January 30, 2020, Spirit issued a press release announcing
executive officer changes. Therein, Spirit stated that it "did not
comply with its established accounting processes related to certain
potential contingent liabilities that were received by Spirit after
the end of third quarter 2019." Moreover, the Company stated that,
"[i]n light of these findings," Spirit's Chief Financial Officer,
Jose Garcia, and Principal Accounting Officer, John Gilson,
resigned from their positions.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.56, or nearly 4%,
to close at $65.08 per share on January 30, 2020, on usually heavy
trading volume.

The complaint alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company lacked effective internal controls over
financial reporting; (2) the Company did not comply with its
established accounting principles related to potential contingent
liabilities; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Spirit securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than April 10, 2020
to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class
action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not
take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice
or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action.
If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

View source version on businesswire.com:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200214005083/en/

Contact:

         Charles Linehan, Esq.
         Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
         Los Angeles
         Tel: 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
         Website: www.glancylaw.com
         E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com
[GN]

SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Rosen Reminds Investors of April 10 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc.
(NYSE: SPR) between Oct. 31, 2019 and Jan. 29, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period") of the important April 10, 2020 lead plaintiff
deadline in the securities class action commenced by the firm.  The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Spirit investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Spirit class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1765.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Spirit lacked effective internal controls over financial
reporting; (2) Spirit did not comply with its established
accounting principles related to potential contingent liabilities;
and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 10,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1765.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors.

Contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 cases@rosenlegal.com
[GN]

SPORTRADAR US: Lucas Sues Over Fantasy Baseball Betting
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CODY LUCAS, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. SPORTRADAR, US; MAJOR
LEAGUE BASEBALL; MLB ADVANCED MEDIA, LP; HOUSTON ASTROS, LLC; and
BOSTON RED SOX BASEBALL CLUB, LP, Defendants, Case No.
0:20-cv-00602-ECT-TNL (D. Minn., February 26, 2020), Plaintiff
seeks to recover damages for Defendants' unlawful manipulation of
baseball players' performance statistics and to redress for all
those who have been harmed by Defendants' misconduct.

According to the complaint, Major League Baseball member teams were
engaged in misconduct in violation of MLB's Official Rules and
Regulations while actively inducing their fans to enter into Daily
Fantasy Sports fantasy baseball wagering competitions based on
Official MLB Sportradar statistics. The MLB's lack of oversight and
its constituent member teams' cheating destroyed the fairness of
DFS wagering competitions.  

The fans who engaged in fantasy wagering, that were largely
encouraged by the MLB, were unaware that the MLB had been ignoring
the fraudulent conduct of its constituent teams. Further,
participants were unaware that the MLB had failed to uphold its
commitment to preserving the honesty and integrity of its baseball
games.

Plaintiff and other contestants placed wagers in DFS competitions
under the belief that players' statistics provided by Sportradar
were derived in accordance with MLB Official Rules and regulations.
Plaintiff and contestants were unaware that the outcomes of DFS
competitions were skewed by MLB and its constituent member teams'
cheating scandal, which MLB concealed and/or willfully ignored.

Major League Baseball is an unincorporated association whose
members are 30 clubs.  MLB's headquarters are located at 1271
Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York.

MLB Advanced Media, LP is a limited partnership comprised of owners
of MLB's membership teams. Its principal place of business is
located at 1271 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York.

Houston Astros, LLC is a Texas limited liability corporation that
owns and operates the Houston Astros MLB team.

Boston Red Sox Baseball Club LP is a Massachusetts limited
partnership that owns and operates the Boston Red Sox MLB team.

Sportradar, US is a Minnesota company that collects, reviews,
analyzes, and distributes statistics from MLB games, including
games played by the Red Sox and the Astros, to DFS entities such as
FanDuel, and the MLB itself. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
            Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
            LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
            100 Washington Ave., Ste. 220
            Minneapolis, MN 55401
            Telephone: (612) 339-6900
            Email: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
                   rapeterson@locklaw.com

                   – and –

            Myles McGuire, Esq.
            Paul T. Geske, Esq.
            Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
            Timothy P. Kingsbury, Esq.
            MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
            55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Fl.
            Chicago, IL 60601
            Telephone: (312) 893-7002
            Email: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
                   pgeske@mcgpc.com
                   eturin@mcgpc.com
                   tkingsbury@mcgpc.com

STATE FARM: Rasmussen Insurance Suit Removed to W.D. Kentucky
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Amber Rasmussen and Betty Irvin,
both individually, and on behalf of a class of all persons
similarly situated v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company, Sarah Weir, and Deborah Combs, Case No. 20-CI-000387, was
removed from the Kentucky Circuit Court, Jefferson County, to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
(Louisville) on Feb. 10, 2020.

The Western District of Kentucky Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-00107-CHB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Claria Horn Boom.

The lawsuit alleges violation of insurance-related laws.

State Farm is a large group of insurance companies throughout the
United States with corporate headquarters in Bloomington,
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Connor M. Breen, Esq.
          Gregory A. Redden, Esq.
          Richard M. Breen, Esq.
          RICHARD BREEN LAW OFFICES
          2950 Breckenridge Lane, Suite 3
          Louisville, KY 40220
          Telephone: (502) 473-0579
          Facsimile: (502) 451-9144
          E-mail: connor@breen.org
                  adam@breen.org
                  richard@breen.org

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is represented by:

          David T. Klapheke, Esq.
          BOEHL STOPHER & GRAVES, LLP
          400 W. Market Street, Suite 2300
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 589-5980
          Facsimile: (502) 561-9400
          E-mail: dklapheke@bsg-law.com

Deborah Combs is represented by:

          Curtis Lee Sitlinger, Esq.
          SITLINGER & THEILER
          320 Whittington Parkway, Suite 304
          Louisville, KY 40222
          Telephone: (502) 589-2627
          Facsimile: (502) 583-3415
          E-mail: csitlinger@sitlingerlaw.com


STETSON COURIER: Holmes et al. Seek OT Pay for Courier Drivers
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROY HOLMES; TINA ALEXANDER; PATRICK NORRIS; AND MELISSA GARNER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. STETSON COURIER SOUTHEAST, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:20-cv-00191-DPM (E.D. Ark., February 25, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs
and other medical courier drivers one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 each week and also
failed to reimburse them for gas, mileage and automobile expenses.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as medical courier
drivers to deliver pharmaceuticals since June 2019.

Stetson Courier Southeast, Inc. is a courier company that provides
delivery services with principal place of business at 18303 Bridle
Club Drive in Tampa, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Blake Hoyt, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 S. Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AK 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: blake@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

STONE BREWING: Dominguez FCRA Suit Removed to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Jesse Dominguez, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated v. Stone Brewing Co., LLC, a California limited liability
company and Does 1 Through 100, inclusive, Case No.
37-02019-00068119-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California (San Diego) on Feb. 10, 2020.

The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-00251-WQH-BLM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge William Q. Hayes.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Stone Brewing is a brewery headquartered in Escondido,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          751 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (818) 230-7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
          E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com

               - and -

Stone Brewing Co. is represented by:

          Brian David Martin, Esq.
          ANDREWS LAGASSE BRANCH & BELL LLP
          4365 Executive Drive, Suite 950
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (858) 345-5080
          Facsimile: (858) 345-5025
          E-mail: bmartin@albblaw.com


TAP ROCK RESOURCES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Martin Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
GARY MARTIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. TAP ROCK RESOURCES, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-170 (D.N.M.,
February 26, 2020) is a collective action seeking to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages owed by Defendant to Plaintiffs
and all others similarly situated.

The Defendant paid each of the workers a flat amount for each day
worked and failed to pay them overtime for all hours that they
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in accordance with the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Martin worked for Tap Rock as a Drilling Consultant from
approximately February 2018 until October 2018.

Tap Rock Resources, LLC is an oil and gas company focused on
Exploration & Production in the Delaware Basin and is doing
business throughout the United States. Tap Rock may be served by
serving its registered agent for service of process: Cogency
Global, Inc., 1012 Marquez Place, Suite 106B, Santa Fe, New Mexico
87505.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                   – and –

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


TELARIA, INC: Financial Report Lacks Info, Carter Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
The case, MICHAEL CARTER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TELARIA, INC., PAUL CAINE, MARK
ZAGORSKI, DOUG KNOPPER, RACHEL LAM, WARREN LEE, JAMES ROSSMAN,
ROBERT SCHECHTER and KEVIN THOMPSON, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-01576 (S.D.N.Y., February 21, 2020), challenges the
proposed merger between Telaria, Inc. and The Rubicon Project, Inc.
announced on December 19, 2019.

According to the complaint, pursuant to the merger, Telaria's
shareholders stand to receive 1.082 shares of Rubicon common stock
for each share of Telaria stock they own. Telaria shareholders will
own approximately 47.1% and Rubicon shareholders will own
approximately 52.9% of the common stock outstanding upon completion
of the merger.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by filing a materially
incomplete and misleading Form S-4 Registration Statement with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2020 in
connection with the Proposed Transaction. Also, Defendants did not
correct the materially incomplete and misleading nature of the S-4
when they filed Form S-4/A Registration Statement on February 7,
2020.

Moreover, Defendants have failed to disclose certain material
information that is necessary for shareholders to properly assess
the fairness of the Proposed Transaction such as the financial
projections for the Company, and the summary of certain valuation
analyses conducted by Telaria's financial advisor, RBC Capital
Markets, LLC.  

Telaria, Inc. provides a fully programmatic software platform for
premium publishers to manage and monetize their video advertising.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Tel: (212)983-9330
          Fax: (212)983-9331
          Emails: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                  jwilson@faruqilaw.com


TESLA INC: Trial in 2018 Performance Award Suit Set for June 2021
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 trial in the lawsuit
related to a 2018 CEO Performance Award is set for June 2021.

On June 4, 2018, a purported Tesla stockholder filed a putative
class and derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery
against Elon Musk and the members of Tesla's board of directors as
then constituted, alleging corporate waste, unjust enrichment and
that such board members breached their fiduciary duties by
approving the stock-based compensation plan.

The complaint seeks, among other things, monetary damages and
rescission or reformation of the stock-based compensation plan.

On August 31, 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint; plaintiff filed its opposition brief on November 1, 2018
and defendants filed a reply brief on December 13, 2018. The
hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on May 9, 2019.

On September 20, 2019, the Court granted the motion to dismiss as
to the corporate waste claim but denied the motion as to the breach
of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims. The company's
answer was filed on December 3, 2019, and trial is set for June
2021.

Tesla said, "We believe the claims asserted in this lawsuit are
without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously."

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.


TREMONT CAR WASH: Underpays Staff, Morales et al. Claim
-------------------------------------------------------
JORGE MORALES, TORIBIO DE LA CRUZ MEJIA, FREDDY GOMEZ CASTRO,
CHRISTIAN LUGO VIERA, MARCOS GONZALEZ MARTINEZ, JORGE ALBERTO
LINARES FIGUEROA, ROLANDO GARCIA, and RAMON ANTONIO CONSTANZA
ESTEVEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, -against- TREMONT CAR WASH AND LUBE LLC, K &
P CW INC., and JOHN LAGE, MICHAEL LAGE, ALBINO COELHO, EDDIE PARK,
and JI H. KIM, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01760
(S.D.N.Y., February 27, 2020) is a class action against the
Defendants for failure to properly compensate Plaintiffs and the
Collective Class, and for denial of overtime pay in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as car washers and
dryers as well as ticket men.

Tremont Car Wash and Lube LLC is a registered business operating as
a car wash with a principal executive office at 1095 East Tremont
Avenue, Bronx, New York.

K & P CW Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of New York
with a principal executive office at 1095 East Tremont Avenue,
Bronx, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

            Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
            Helen F. Dalton & Associates, P.C.
            80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
            Kew Gardens, NY 11415
            Telephone: (718) 263-9591
            Facsimile: (718) 263-9598

TRIWEST HEALTHCARE: Schwarz Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Triwest Healthcare Alliance Corp. removed the case captioned MARION
SCHWARZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. TRIWEST HEALTHCARE ALLIANCE
CORP., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. 34-2019-00272292 (Filed Dec. 31, 2019), from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
(Sacramento) on Feb, 10, 2020.

The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:20-at-00143 to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the California
Labor Code by failing to pay overtime, failing to pay meal period
premiums and rest period premiums, and failing to pay minimum
wages.

TriWest is a Phoenix, Arizona based corporation that manages health
benefits under the United States Department of Veterans Affairs
"Veterans Affairs Patient-Centered Community Care Program" in
Regions 3, 5, and 6. On October 1, 2018, TriWest's contract for
VAPCCC was expanded to cover Regions 1, 2, and 4.[BN]

Triwest Healthcare is represented by:

          Bryan L. Hawkins, Esq.
          Sunny S. Sarkis, Esq.
          STOEL RIVES LLP
          500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 447-0700
          Facsimile: (916) 447-4781
          E-mail: bryan.hawkins@stoel.com
                  sunny.sarkis@stoel.com


TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Bertrim Sues Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
JARED BERTRIM, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TUPPERWARE BRANDS CORPORATION, PATRICIA A.
STITZEL, CHRISTOPHER D. O'LEARY, CASSANDRA HARRIS, and MICHAEL
POTESHMAN, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01798 (C.D. Cal., February
25, 2020) is a class action on behalf of all persons and entities
that purchased or acquired publicly traded Tupperware securities
from January 30, 2019 through February 24, 2020, inclusive, seeking
to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of
the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

On February 24, 2020, Tupperware issued a press release announcing
that the Company will file a Form 12b-25 Notification of Late
Filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission to provide a
15-calendar day extension within which to file its Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended December 28, 2019. The Company is forecasting
a need for relief concerning its existing leverage ratio covenant
in its $650 million Credit Agreement dated March 29, 2019, to avoid
a potential acceleration of the debt, which could have a material
adverse impact on the Company.

On this news, shares in Tupperware's stock fell $2.61 per share, or
over 45%, to close at $3.11 per share on February 25, 2020,
damaging investors.

The complaint highlights Defendants' false and/or misleading
statements and/or failure to disclose that: (1) Tupperware lacked
effective internal controls; (2) as a result, Tupperware would need
to investigate Fuller Mexico's accounting and liabilities; (3)
consequently, Tupperware would be unable to timely file its annual
report on Form 10-K for its fiscal year 2019; (4) Tupperware did
not properly account for its accounts payable and accrued
liabilities at Fuller Mexico; (5) Tupperware provided overvalued
earnings per share guidance; (6) Tupperware would need relief from
its $650 million Credit Agreement; and (7) as a result, Defendants'
public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all
relevant times.

Tupperware Brands Corporation operates as a direct-to-consumer
marketer of various products across a range of brands and
categories in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, the Asia Pacific,
North America, and South America. The Company engages in the
manufacture and sale of an array of products for consumers under
the Tupperware brand name. The Company also manufactures and
distributes skin and hair care products, cosmetics, bath and body
care, toiletries, fragrances, jewelry, and nutritional products
under the Avroy Shlain, Fuller, NaturCare, Nutrimetics, and Nuvo
brands. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
            THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
            355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
            Los Angeles, CA 90071
            Telephone: (213) 785-2610
            Facsimile: (213) 226-4684

UNITED AMERICAN SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jones Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case ANTWAUN JONES, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AMERICAN SECURITY, LLC d/b/a
GARDAWORLD SECURITY SERVICES, Case No. 1:20-cv-00440 (N.D. Ohio,
February 26, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for not
paying Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for work
performed before clocking in each day as well as overtime
compensation at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate
of pay for all the hours they worked over 40 in a workweek.

Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were required to
arrive at work approximately 10-15 minutes before their scheduled
shift for pass down which involves several shift-change duties that
are essential for a security guard to perform his or her job.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated
workers were not paid any amount for the pre-shift pass down work
and such time was not counted as hours worked for purposes of
computing overtime.

United American Security, LLC is a security player with 24 branches
and 3,600 employees across 16 states spanning the Midwest,
Mid-Atlantic, Southwest, and Southeastern United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
            Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
            NILGES DRAHER LLC
            7266 Portage Street, N.W. Suite D
            Massillon, OH 44646
            Telephone: (330) 470-4428
            Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
            Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                   sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Fails to Properly Pay OT, Harris et al Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
ERICA HARRIS and MARILYN TALBOT, each individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP
INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 0:20-cv-00610-JRT-BRT (D. Minn.,
February 26, 2020), is a wage-and-hour complaint pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs were both employed by Defendant as "Quality Control
Specialists", Harris was from May 2018 until December 2019 and
Talbot was from December 2015 until July 2017.

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
"Quality Control Specialists" were improperly classified by
Defendant as salaried employees exempt from the overtime
requirements of the FLSA. Thereby, Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated were deprived of proper overtime compensation for all
applicable hours.

Plaintiffs seek class certification, declaratory judgment,
injunctive relief, compensatory damages, liquidated damages, pre-
and post- judgment interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and all other
relief available in law and equity.

UnitedHealth Group Incorporated provides health care coverage and
benefits services, as well as information and technology-enabled
health services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

                - and -

          Joshua A. Newville, Esq.
          MADIA LAW LLC
          323 Washington Ave., N.,#200
          Tel: 612-349-2743
          Fax: 612-235-3357
          Email: newville@madialaw.com


UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Says Legal Case Meritless Amid Lost Recordings
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Blistein, writing for Rolling Stone, reports that Universal
Music Group continued to blast an ongoing class action lawsuit over
alleged damages sustained in a 2008 vault fire as "meritless" amid
confirmation that original master tapes or other recordings
belonging to 19 artists were either damaged or destroyed in the
blaze.

The revelation appeared in a new legal filing pertaining to
discovery in the case, and marked the first public confirmation of
specific artists whose recordings were affected since The New York
Times Magazine detailed the potential damages in a report last
year. The artists included Elton John, Nirvana, Sheryl Crow,
Soundgarden, Beck, R.E.M., Sonic Youth, Peter Frampton and Michael
McDonald.

Following the Times report, Soundgarden, Tom Petty's ex-wife Jane,
Steave Earle and the estate of Tupac Shakur filed a class action
suit on behalf of all artists who may have been affected. UMG, in
turn, has maintained that the damages were not that significant and
filed a motion to dismiss the suit. The label has also embarked on
a massive archival project to ensure artists know whether or not
their recordings were affected.

In a statement responding to the latest legal filing, a
spokesperson for UMG focused on the artists and estates leading the
class action suit, saying, "The plaintiffs' lawyers have already
been informed that none of the masters for four of their five
clients were affected by the fire -- and the one other client was
alerted years earlier and UMG and the artist, working together,
were still able to locate a high-quality source for a reissue
project." (The previously informed artist was Soundgarden, which
was told in 2015 that it had lost some stereo masters related to
Badmotorfinger.)

The UMG spokesperson continued: "Recognizing the lack of merit of
their original claims, plaintiffs' attorneys are now willfully and
irresponsibly conflating lost assets (everything from safeties and
videos to artwork) with original album masters, in a desperate
attempt to inject substance into their meritless legal case. Over
the last eight months, UMG's archive team has diligently and
transparently responded to artist inquiries, and we will not be
distracted from completing our work, even as the plaintiffs'
attorneys pursue these baseless claims."

In response, Howard King, an attorney for the artists leading the
class action suit, said, "For almost 10 years, UMG concealed from
their artists that their most precious assets were lost in the fire
and that UMG had collected millions of dollars for those losses,
money that should have been shared with the creators of those
master recordings. Once UMG cashed in, they apparently discontinued
efforts to confirm the magnitude of lost assets . . . at least
until this lawsuit was filed."

The confirmation of the 19 artists who lost some recordings in the
fire appeared in a part of the filing that quotes an alleged UMG
response to a discovery query. The reply states, for instance, that
"certain original master recordings" belonging to John, Beck,
Nirvana, Bryan Adams and Y&T were "affected" by the fire, but that
UMG had replacements and/or safety copies for all affected
recordings (for John, the label said it was "still working with the
artist to determine the extent of such impact"). There were several
artists -- Michael McDonald, Sonic Youth, Peter Frampton, Slayer
and Les Paul -- whose recordings were either damaged or destroyed
with no mention of any back-ups or safety copies. [GN]

VALVOLINE LLC: Horne Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
-----------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN HORNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VALVOLINE LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2020CH02278 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., February 25, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
workers, alleges that the Defendant violated BIPA provisions by
requiring workers to scan their fingerprints into a time management
database as a means of authentication without prior express written
consent, hereby exposing them to substantial privacy risks.

Valvoline LLC is a provider of oil change and vehicle maintenance
services, with principal place of business located at 100 Valvoline
Way in Lexington, Kentucky. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
   
          Aaron M. Zigler, Esq.
          Alex J. Dravillas, Esq.
          KELLER LENKNER LLC
          150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 741-5220
          E-mail: amz@kellerlenkner.com
                  ajd@kellerlenkner.com

VIVINT INC: Sells Defective Home Security Systems, Petrozzino Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY PETROZZINO and CHRISTINE PETROZZINO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated consumers, Plaintiffs v.
VIVINT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01949-NLH-KMW (D.N.J.,
February 24, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant engages in deceptive
marketing practices by selling defective home security systems to
consumers through its door-to-door sales representatives. The
Plaintiffs purchased the Defendant's security system due to its
representation that the product was of good quality and functional.
However, the security system failed to perform as promised, and the
Defendant failed to fix the issues and also failed to reimburse the
Plaintiffs for the money spent to repair the system.

Vivint, Inc. is a provider of home security systems with principal
place of business in Provo, Utah.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon G. Johnson, Esq.
          GERSTEIN GRAYSON COHEN & MELLETZ LLP
          1288 Route 73 South, Suite 301
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (856) 795-6700
          E-mail: bjohnson@gersteingrayson.com

VRELO ELECTRIC: Faces Ramirez Suit Over Unlawful Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN RAMIREZ, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. VRELO
ELECTRIC, INC., AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION AND DAMIR DABEZIC,
INDIVIDUALLY Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01344 (N.D. Ill.,
February 24, 2020) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated an overtime premium at
a rate of one-and one-half their effective hourly rate of pay for
hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

The Plaintiff was former electrician and laborer employee of
Defendants who performed a variety of electrician services for
VRELO's customers at their locations in the Chicagoland area.

VRELO ELECTRIC, INC. is an Illinois corporation that owns and
operates a construction business that performs primarily
electrician services for residential and commercial customers in
Chicago and the surrounding suburbs. [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

WARDLAW CONSULTING: Gipson Seeks OT Pay for Hourly-Paid Adjusters
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILLY GIPSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WARDLAW CONSULTING SERVICES, INC.; WARDLAW
CLAIMS SERVICE, LLC; WILLIAM WARDLAW; MICHAEL WARDLAW; AND REBECCA
WARDLAW, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00482-S (N.D. Tex., February
25, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to
compensate him and all others similarly-situated adjusters overtime
pay at a rate of one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay
for hours worked over 40 in one workweek, thereby violating the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Gipson was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid, non
exempt adjuster within the three years prior to the date of filing
of the complaint through June 2018.

Wardlaw Consulting Services, Inc. is a consulting firm with
principal place of business in Texas.

Wardlaw Claims Service, LLC is a claims management and risk
solutions firm which is doing business in Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
          Travis Gasper, Esq.
          Elizabeth Beck, Esq.
          LEE & BRAZIEL LLP
          1910 Pacific Avenue, Suite 12000
          Dallas, TX 75201          
          Telephone: (312) 546-5056
          E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com
                  gasper@l-b-law.com
                  beck@l-b-law.com

WESTPAC BANKING: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of March 30 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action filed on behalf of investors
that purchased or acquired the securities of Westpac Banking
Corporation (WBK) between Nov. 11, 2015, and Nov. 19, 2019,
inclusive.  The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased Westpac securities and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options, please visit Westpac Shareholder
Class Action or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll-free at (877)
779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, it is alleged that
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements about:
(1) contrary to Australian law, the Company failed to report over
19.5 million international funds transfer instructions to AUSTRAC,
Australia's anti-money-laundering and terrorism financing
regulator; (2) the Company did not appropriately monitor and assess
the ongoing money laundering and terrorism financing risks
associated with movement of money into and out of Australia; (3)
the Company did not pass on requisite information about the source
of funds to other banks in the transfer chain; (4) despite being
aware of the heightened risks, the Company did not carry out
appropriate due diligence on transactions in South East Asia and
the Philippines that had known financial indicators relating to
child exploitation risks; (5) the Company's AML/CTF Program was
inadequate to identify, mitigate and manage money laundering and
terrorism financing risks; and (6) as a result, defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

On November 19, 2019, aftermarket hours, AUSTRAC, Australia's
anti-money-laundering, and terrorism financing regulator filed a
civil action in Australia alleging over 23 million breaches of the
Australian AML/CTF legislation, including a failure to report over
19.5 million international fund transfers, failing to perform
enhanced due diligence on correspondent banks in high-risk
jurisdictions, and potentially providing services used in the
exploitation of children in South East Asia and the Philippines. On
this news, Westpac's ADRs fell $1.25 per share over the next three
trading days or approximately 7.13% to close at $16.67 per ADR on
November 22, 2019.

If you purchased Westpac securities and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options, please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/westpackbankingcorporation-wbk-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-244/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll-free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 30, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

Contact:
         Matthew E. Guarnero, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         Tel.: (877) 779-1414
         Website: www.bernlieb.com
         Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
[GN]

WHIRLPOOL CORP: Wins Summary Judgment in Dzielak Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Kevin McNulty of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey issued an Opinion granting Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment in the case captioned CHARLENE DZIELAK, SHELLEY
BAKER, FRANCIS ANGELONE, BRIAN MAXWELL, JEFFREY McLENNA, JEFFREY
REID, KARI PARSONS, CHARLES BEYER, JONATHAN COHEN, JENNIFER
SCHRAMM, and ASPASIA CHRISTY, Plaintiffs, v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION,
LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC., SEARS HOLDING CORPORATION, THE HOME DEPOT,
INC., FRY'S ELECTRONICS, INC., APPLIANCE RECYCLING CENTERS OF
AMERICA, INC., LOWE'S HOME CENTER, AND LOWE'S HOME CENTER, LLC,
Defendants, Civ. No. 12-89 (KM) (JBC), (D.N.J.).

Defendant Whirlpool Corporation is the manufacturer of Maytag
washing machines.  The remaining defendants are the retailers from
whom the plaintiffs purchased the Maytag washers.

Plaintiffs commenced the action, alleging that they had purchased
washing machines that were supposed to be compliant with Energy
Star requirements, but in fact were not.  They alleged various
theories, including breach of express warranty, breach of the
implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, violation
of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA).

Plaintiffs moved to certify the class on two theories of harms: (1)
that the washers' price was inflated because consumers pay a
premium for Energy Star-qualified machines; and (2) that each
purchaser incurred greater water and energy costs than he or she
would have if the washer had been truly Energy Star-qualified.  

The Court certified Plaintiffs' class on the price-premium energy
theory only, against Whirlpool only (because it was Whirlpool that
was responsible for obtaining Energy Star certification and placing
the Energy Star labels on the washers).  The class now comprises
subclasses of purchasers in those seven states: California,
Florida, Indiana, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas, and Virginia.

The Court did not certify the class against the retailer
defendants, i.e., Lowe's, Sears, The Home Depot, Fry's, and ARCA.
Against them, only the individual claims of Dzielak, Angelone,
Baker, Maxwell, Reid, Parsons, Beyer, Cohen, Schramm, and Christy
are currently pending.

Before the Court now in the class action are two motions for
summary judgment: one filed by defendants Whirlpool Corporation,
Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Sears Holding Corporation, and Fry's
Electronics, Inc.; and one filed by defendant The Home Depot, Inc.
Also before the Court is defendant Whirlpool Corporation's motion
to decertify classes.

Upon review, Judge McNulty ruled that:

   1. Defendants' motions for summary judgment are GRANTED.

   2. Whirlpool's motion to decertify classes is DENIED as moot,
      in that (a) the causes of action have been dismissed, and
      (b) the named plaintiffs would not be appropriate
      representatives of any hypothetical persons who retained
      viable claims.

* Breach of Express Warranty  (California, Florida, Indiana, New
Jersey, Ohio, Texas, and Virginia)

The named plaintiffs assert Count II (breach of express warranty)
on a class basis against Whirlpool, but only individually against
the retailer defendants.  Under New Jersey (i.e., forum) law, a
claim for breach of express warranty requires a plaintiff to show
(1) that Defendant made an affirmation, promise or description
about the product (2) that this affirmation, promise or description
became part of the basis of the bargain for the product and (3)
that the product ultimately did not conform to the affirmation,
promise or description.

Defendants argue that the express-warranty claims must fail for two
reasons: (1) there is no evidence of an affirmation, promise, or
description that constitutes a warranty; and (2) the washers did
not actually breach any such affirmation, promise, or description.


Plaintiffs argue that Defendants frame the affirmation issue too
narrowly, insisting that the law requires only an affirmation,
promise, or description not a specific one.  Plaintiffs further
maintain that there exists sufficient evidence that the Energy Star
logo became the basis of the bargain and that Defendants breached
the affirmation, promise, or description upon which Plaintiffs
relied.

The Court do not believe that New Jersey warranty law would require
proof that these buyers had a particular efficiency percentage
figure in mind. Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the Energy Star
logo could be interpreted as a representation of an environmentally
friendlier product when compared to a traditional washer, and one
that met federal standards of efficiency. That is enough;
Plaintiffs have raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding
the existence of an affirmation, promise, or description.

The Court noted that evidence supports Plaintiffs' contention that
an Energy Star label constituted at least some part of their
motivation to purchase the washers at issue at the price offered.
Coupled with the principle that the law requires belief only in an
affirmation without requiring a particular level of precision,
Plaintiffs' evidence is sufficient to show that there was a
class-wide understanding of the Energy Star logo and that this
understanding informed Plaintiffs' purchasing decisions. There is,
then, at least an issue of fact as to the second element of
requirement for a claim of express warranty.

The third element, breach of the affirmation, promise, or
description, is the weak point in Plaintiffs' express-warranty
claim, the Court opined.  The evidence now in the record does not
demonstrate a breach under either warranty theory, i.e., (a) that
the washers were improperly branded as Energy Star-qualified or (b)
that they were generally more efficient than standard models. Here,
the Court looks to whether the product contemporaneously conformed
to any representation that was made at the time of sale.

First, the branding theory of liability fails because the washers
were all manufactured and purchased at a time when they were,
according to the DOE's guidance, Energy Star-qualified.  Neither
side now disputes that the Energy Star logo was authorized when the
washers were sold to the class members. Before producing the
washers, Whirlpool consulted the DOE for guidance, and the DOE
confirmed to Whirlpool that its proposed design met the current
standards. Whirlpool then affixed an Energy Star logo to its
washers.

Second, the plaintiffs might be pressing a more general energy
efficiency theory, independent of Energy Star specifics. Such an
alternative theory would fail because it is undisputed that the
washers were more efficient than a standard model would have been.
The washers provided class members a 46.1% water reduction and a
34.3% energy reduction as compared to a traditional model.  
True, Energy Star required a 50% water and 37% energy reduction
(however measured). Setting aside whether the washers met that
standard pursuant to one or another measuring protocol, they
represented a significant gain in efficiency.  There is no genuine
issue of fact that the washers were more energy- and
water-efficient than comparable standard models.  Accordingly,
Defendants did not breach an express warranty under the more
general efficiency theory.

The Court finds that in sum, Plaintiffs have raised a triable issue
of fact as to whether the Energy Star logo carried an affirmation,
promise, or description that formed the basis of their bargain
together, the first two elements of a cause of action for a breach
of an express warranty against Whirlpool. However, they have not
established the third element a corresponding breach of that
affirmation, promise, or description. Whirlpool's washers were
undisputedly Energy Star qualified at the time they were sold, and
they delivered efficiency benefits when compared to standard
machines. Summary judgment is granted and Plaintiffs' claim for
breach of an express warranty is DISMISSED, the Court rules.

* Breach of Implied Warranty (Indiana, New Jersey, Texas, and
Virginia)

Count III, brought on behalf of the plaintiffs in Indiana, New
Jersey, Texas, and Virginia, alleges a breach of implied warranty
because the washers were unfit for their intended purpose.
According to Plaintiffs, the washers did not function properly as
water and energy-efficient washing machines within the parameters
established by federal law and the ENERGY STAR(R) program.
Defendants argue that there is no breach because the evidence shows
that the washers whatever their Energy Star shortcomings washed
clothes and delivered substantial efficiency benefits. In other
words, Defendants maintain that the washers were fit for their
intended purpose and did not breach any implied promise that
clothes would be washed at some level of efficiency.

Plaintiffs can sustain their implied-warranty claims only if the
washers failed to wash clothes or failed to provide the level of
efficiency consumers had a right to expect in goods of that kind.

Plaintiffs have not alleged that the washers fail to get clothes
clean. There is no triable dispute that the goods function within
the parameters of any such implied warranty.  Nor is there a
genuine issue of fact as to whether the washers did so efficiently.
Moreover, it is not alleged that the washers suffer from
manufacturing or design defects, and there is no evidence that
Defendants failed to properly instruct the buyers on the use of the
washers.  

In the Court's view, the implied warranty standard is not so
specific as to incorporate the changing particulars of the Energy
Star program; it is a more general one, based on consumers'
reasonable expectations of quality for goods of that kind. New
Jersey courts have never required that products be perfect to
overcome implied-warranty claims.  

Because the washers cleaned clothes and did so efficiently, summary
judgment is granted and Plaintiffs' claims under the implied
warranty of merchantability are DISMISSED, the Court rules.

* Unjust Enrichment (California, Indiana, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas,
and Virginia)

Count IV alleges a claim of unjust enrichment.  Under New Jersey
law, to state a claim for unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must
allege that (1) at plaintiff's expense (2) defendant received a
benefit (3) under circumstances that would make it unjust for
defendant to retain the benefit without paying for it.

Defendants argue that summary judgment is now appropriate because
Plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law under both contractual
(warranty) and statutory (consumer protection) theories.

The retailer defendants were not unjustly enriched by selling these
washers. Equity recognizes certain basic principles of fairness,
classically, a party who made a payment for items never received,
even if not entitled to contract damages, may recover that payment.
No such general principle of justice is in play here. Consumers
paid for washers and got them. If there was any incremental
injustice, it must be because there was, e.g., a fraud or a breach
of express or implied warranty. The Court had already found,
however, that there was not. Plaintiffs received washers that were
certified Energy Star-compliant according to the testing protocols
current at the time of purchase.  

Summary judgment is granted, and the unjust enrichment claim is
DISMISSED, the Court rules.

A full-text copy of the District Court December 5, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/wmufz8p  from Leagle.com

CHARLENE DZIELAK & SHELLEY BAKER, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by INNESSA
MELAMED HUOT - ihuot@faruqilaw.com - FAUUQI & FARUQI LLP, JAMES R.
BANKO - jbanko@faruqilaw.com - Faruqi and Farqui, LLP, ANTONIO
VOZZOLO , VOZZOLO LLC, 345 Route 17 South Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey 074578, AUDRA ELIZABETH PETROLLE  -
apetrolle@carellabyrne.com - CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY &
AGNELLO, CAROLINE F. BARTLETT , CARELLA BYRNE, 5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, New Jersey 07068, JAMES E. CECCHI , CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI
OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C., 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, New
Jersey 07068, LINDSEY H. TAYLOR , CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN,
BRODY & AGNELLO, 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, New Jersey 07068 &
YITZCHAK KOPEL - ykopel@bursor.com - BURSOR & FISHER PA.

FRANCIS ANGELONE, BRIAN MAXWELL, JEFFERY REID, KARI PARSONS,
CHARLES BEYER, JONATHAN COHEN & JENNIFER SCHRAMM, Plaintiffs,
represented by JAMES E. CECCHI , CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY
& AGNELLO, P.C., AUDRA ELIZABETH PETROLLE , CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI
OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, CAROLINE F. BARTLETT , CARELLA BYRNE,
LINDSEY H. TAYLOR , CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY &
AGNELLO & YITZCHAK KOPEL , BURSOR & FISHER PA.

ASPASIA CHRISTY, Plaintiff, represented by YITZCHAK KOPEL , BURSOR
& FISHER PA & JAMES E. CECCHI , CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY
& AGNELLO, P.C..


WHOLE FOODS: Hiland Alleges Deceptive Labeling of Vanilla Product
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, GORDON HILAND, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-01680 (S.D.N.Y., February 26, 2020),
arises from the alleged deceptive, misleading, and fraudulent
branding and packaging of the Defendant's "Vanilla Rice Milk"
Product in violation of the Consumer Protection from Deceptive Acts
and the Express Warranty, Implied Warranty of Merchantability and
Magnuson Moss Warranty Act.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to disclose to consumers as
required and expected that the unqualified, prominent and
conspicuous representation of the Product as "Vanilla" is false,
deceptive and misleading because the Product contains non-vanilla
flavors which imitate, reinforce an extend vanilla but are not
derived from the vanilla bean.

Moreover, Defendant breached Express Warranty, Implied Warranty of
Mechantability and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act because Defendant
manufactured, labeled and sold the Products to Plaintiff and class
members that they possessed substantive, functional, nutritional,
qualitative, compositional, organoleptic, sensory, physical and
other attributes which they did not.

Plaintiff seeks to enter preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief by directing Defendant to correct the challenged practices
to comply with the law; and monetary damages and interest, costs
and expenses, including attorneys and experts' fees, and other
relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets,
labels and sells rice drink beverages purporting to be flavored
only with vanilla under their Organic 365 brand. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          505 Northern Blvd., Ste. 311
          Great Neck, NY 11021-5101
          Tel: (516)303-0552
          Fax: (516)234-7800
          Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com

                - and -

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 W 93rd St, F1 16
          New York, NY 10025-7524
          Tel: (212)643-0500
          Fax: (212)253-4272
          Email: mreese@reesellp.com


YOUNGSOL CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Perez Claims
------------------------------------------------------
MARGARITA MILIAN PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against- YOUNGSOL CORP. d/b/a
LAUNDRY PALACE, and INSANG JI, as an individual, Defendants, Case
No. 2:20-cv-01086 (E.D.N.Y., February 27, 2020) alleges that the
Defendants fail to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime
wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their
employment and fail to keep payroll records as required by both the
New York Labor Law and Fair Labor Standards Act.

Perez seeks compensatory damages and liquidated damages in an
amount exceeding $100,000 as a result of the Defendants' violations
of Federal and New York State labor laws.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a counter person,
washer and folder, and cleaner while performing other miscellaneous
duties from in or around June 2015 until in or around January
2017.

Youngsol Corp. is a laundromat and self-service laundry company
located at 280 Burnside Avenue, Lawrence, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
            Helen F. Dalton & Associates, P.C.
            80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
            Kew Gardens, NY 11415
            Telephone: (718) 263-9591
            Facsimile: (718) 263-9598


ZOOM TAN: Blind Can't Access Website, Gardenhire Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
The case, LANCE GARDENHIRE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly-situated v. ZOOM TAN, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-00190-HES-MCR (M.D. Fla., February 27, 2020), arises from
the Defendant's violations of the Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed and refused to
remove access barriers to its website, which deny the Plaintiff and
all other similarly-situated visually-impaired consumers access to
the goods and services that are offered and integrated with
Defendant's physical locations.

The goods and services offered by Defendant through its website
include but are not limited to the following: the ability to
ascertain salon locations and hours, contact and promotion
information; the ability to make a product purchase, access
shipping and return policies, and apply for credit

Zoom Tan, Inc. is a tanning salon that owns and operates at least
18 locations throughout Florida. It is the owner and operator of
the website www.zoomtan.com. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


                            *********

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 ***